By popular demand, I'm placing my archived articles here so folks with .mil addresses will be able to read them.

Obama's Passport

July 2, 2009

I received an interesting email from a friend today. It revisits the question of Obama’s citizenship. Before you hit the delete key or the next button, I’ll assure you that this is more than a discussion about the series of lawsuits demanding proof of his citizenship be presented in court–at least something more than the photoshop image of what a 1961 Hawaiian birth certificate might look like–but doesn’t when compared to other birth certificates of that era. I even checked out Snopes.com before writing this article–they got nothing!

Some people such as Philip Berg are still ringing that bell, but did you know that each state has a sworn government official who’s job it is to verify a person is qualified to be on a ballet before they’re placed there.  If the Obama machine didn’t shown a valid birth certificate to those people, then we have at least 50 anti-constitution activists in positions of power.  I suspect a birth certificate that appeared to be authentic was presented where it was required.

But what if it was a fake?

And not just a cheap fake–like what was posted on the “elect Obama” web site–but one that was good enough to fool all of the officials in 50 different states–and you know that there is no way that all of them are controlled by Democratic Party activists.  Would there be anything other than hear-say evidence about who was where when he was born?  Well, it seems the answer to a single question might be more important than “seeing” a birth-certificate that has already fooled experts.

What passport did Barack Obama use when he was shuttling between New York, Jakarta, and Karachi?

The email gave a little background information using a question and answer format:

How did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later? And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York, Jakarta, and Karachi, what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration? The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers. It makes the debate over Obama’s citizenship a rather short and simple one.

Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?

A: Yes, by his own admission.

I found some discussion on this subject here and here and here.

Yes, he went there. He used the trip as an example of his international experience.

Q: What passport did he travel under?

A: There are only three possibilities. 1. He traveled with a U.S. passport, 2) He traveled with a British passport, or 3) He traveled with an Indonesian passport.

Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. passport in 1981?

A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department’s “no travel” list in 1981.

Conclusion: When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport.

If he was traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims.

And if he was traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.

Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how he managed to become a “natural born” American citizen between 1981 and 2008. Given the destructive nature of his plans for America, as illustrated by his speech before Congress and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress, the sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better.

I found an intriguing remark on “dailymusings” as it contends that Pakistan was “banned” from travel.

But I’ve been having some trouble finding “banned countries.”  The state department does have a list of travel warnings–but you can still go to them.  Even withCubathere are legal ways you can still go there.

So I’m not so sure if the statements about Pakistan being “banned” from travel in 1981 are correct.  You’d think Snopes.com would have posted this by now.

Back during the election of 2008, there was a big deal made about people “snooping” in passport records of the three front running candidates.

Obama called for an investigation into the matter.  Somebody even said the FBI was doing just that.  Interestingly enough, we haven’t heard much about that investigation since.  What were those unnamed folks looking for?  Why would they do that?  What happened to them?

Reportedly the two State Department employees peeked at passports file under the motivation of imprudent curiosity, were fired and third employee was disciplined.  And that was it.

It seems that if somebody had found evidence that Obama had traveled on foreign passports when he was young, that would have already been made available to the American public.

Maybe some Americans believe that if Obama could just be proven to be an illegal candidate for POTUS, he would be removed from office and we could go back to an America that doesn’t have $1.8 trillion deficit, and printing billions of dollars to buy up the auto manufacturers and banks, and moving towards government rationing of our medical care.

Maybe some Americans believe that if Obama could just be proven to be an illegal candidate for POTUS, he would be removed from office and we could go back to an America that doesn’t have $1.8 trillion deficit, and printing billions of dollars to buy up the auto manufacturers and banks, and moving towards government rationing of our medical care.

Hello?

This is bigger than who the President is.  The ideology of “more power to the government” is being driven home by a massive majority in the House of Representatives–led by Nancy Pelosi–and a super majority in the Senate, with yesterday’s addition of Minnesota’s Al Franken, led by Harry Reid.  Having a POTUS who supports and signs their bills is just an enabling factor.  Joe Biden would follow suit.

These people were voted into office.

If enough people aren’t happy with the spiral America has entered, then the solution is to win back the legislative branch in 2010.  We the people can constitutionally replace the entire House of Representatives every two-years if we want to, along with a third of the Senate.   In a couple of elections, a super majority for a new ideology could be in place to reverse the process that has put us where we are today.

As long as our Constitution remains the supreme law of our land, we can take back our government and our country.  We can do it peacefully, constitutionally, without fakery, and we can do it pretty quickly if we vote with our brains.

It just makes sense.

How's This Direction Working For You?

June 26, 2009

“Tonight is a great victory for the American people.  Today they voted for change and for the Democratic Party to the take the country in a new direction,” is what Nancy Pelosi said following the Congressional upset election in 2006.  Since that night, we’ve seen a lot of change but I’m not sure this was the direction we wanted to go.

Unemployment has more than doubled since the Democratic Party leadership has taken our country in a new direction--from 4.5% to 9.5%.

They managed to convince President Bush back in October 2008 that a “bail-out” package of $700 billion was needed to prevent the economy for collapsing.  Then eight days after the Obama administration took control, the Democratic Party leadership was able to pass a “stimulus package” of another $787 billion, mostly before anybody read it.  But even with that spending, unemployment still continues to increase at an alarming rate.

You probably remember how during the last few years of the Bush administration, many people complained about our deficit spending.  And deficit spending is bad, as each year’s deficit piles on to the collective national debt, which is now reported to exceed $11 trillion. That's a difficult number to grasp, though we Americans are getting more used to such numbers. Here's what that looks like:  $11,000,000,000,000.  That's still hard to understand. 

Okay, how about this, if you had $11 trillion in your mattress when Jesus was born in Bethlehem and then you spent $14 million every day until now, you'd still have over $730 billion left to spend.  That's a lot.

Of course, we should all know that the legislative branch controls the budget.  The President is limited by the Constitution to merely suggesting and then either approving or vetoing the budget which Congress votes to approve.  Thus, it directly affects the American tax-payers when Congress approves extreme spending.  Here’s what has happened to the deficit since Pelosi and Reid took control of Congress.

Economics can be confusing to most of us, but as a historian the way I understand it is that they have a theory, which is based on the idea that if they can create enough deficit spending it will make the economy recover. Before we completely denigrate that theory, we should understand that it is supported by the statistics from the depression, World War II, and the years that followed the war. 

America went into extreme debt in order to fight back fascism and the leftist oligarchies of Germany and Japan.  Following the war, under the weight of all that debt the economy dipped and then recovered.  However, the idea that the debt made the economy recover ignores the fact that just about anybody who could work, did work during that time.  American factories spit out tanks, airplanes, beans, and bullets as fast as possible during the war and then transitioned to cars, trucks and washing machines after the war.  While it wasn’t the smoothest process imaginable, I believe the recovery was sparked by productivity (along with the absence of war) and not by bail-outs, pay-offs, and unemployment.

This day, an outnumbered minority of our honorable representatives have been desperately trying to keep Pelosi’s majority from passing a huge national energy tax.  The result of which is believed by some to raise electricity prices, increase gasoline prices, and ship American jobs overseas to countries like China and India.  In the process it will create another cluster of agencies that will redistribute trillions of dollars that rightfully belong to working-class Americans. 

As I write this article, the battle to stop Pelosi’s energy tax may already be lost.  Either way you need to take notice as unemployment continues to rise, and deficit spending continues to dwarf anything done by previous administrations, and as your hard-earned dollars are increasingly taken from you to be given to those with their hands out so that you can remember how your Representatives in Congress have voted. 

If all this looks good to you, then smile and be happy. 

But if you think the government has over-stepped its constitutional limits--you’d better make sure you vote with your brain in 2010.  Regardless of party affiliation, we need representatives in government who do the right things because we may soon discover that we really can dig a hole so deep that we can’t get out of it.

As far I have read, no nation has ever taxed and spent itself into prosperity.

It just makes sense.

---

We trust 1&1 for our domains - Get yours today!

com net org info us name biz cc tv ws mobi

Achmadinejad or Mousavi?

June 21, 2009

Is this really the choice that is causing so much pain for the people of Iran?  What difference will it make for the rest of us?

Over 66 million people live there, according to the CIA’s world factbook, and the median age is 27, which means most of the people who are in this charter-member country of the “Axis of Evil” were born after the Islamic revolution of 1979.

For those people, it seems they’ve grown up knowing nothing else.  But in the 21st century, is it really possible for people to know nothing else? 

Well, that probably depends on which people we're talking about.  Nobody believes the North Koreans understand the world outside of their prison walls.  And there are still some backwards people living in jungles are deserts who know little to nothing about the world.  But Iran? Those people are pretty smart, I suspect they know more about the world than many of us have given them credit for knowing.

They’ve embraced technology as part of their lives.  It takes almost no effort to see the videos posted on YouTube.com about the on-going civil disorder there.  Even with the government crack-down on the internet and cell phone service, the people there manage to spread the word about their fight to world, while the rest of the people watch and wonder about this struggle.

Iran was once a great ally of the United States.  Less than half of the people in Iran can remember such a time. I don’t know how many in the United States remember that era.  But I’m one who does.

Prior to 1979 revolution, Iran had a monarch named Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.  Many of the their military trained in the United States.  I met a few of them and we became friends. 

When you make friends in the military, you know that your actual association with them will be short-lived--we all move around so much.  Even more so with foreign exchange personnel, as they are destined to return to their homelands after their precious training.   Still, we’d like to think that we will remember each other.

To make it easier, two of my old friends, Amir and Babak, gave me a few Iranian coins.  In return I gave them each a shiny new 1974 Eisenhower dollar.  At first they protested, saying that the silver dollars (actually cupronickel) were of greater value than their gifts.  I explained that the coins were tokens of friendship, not something that would be spent.

They accepted my explanation and then gave me some of their currency with handwritten notes of friendship.  There was a time when I could read them, but alas skills not practiced soon fade away.  The first one is a 50 rials bill from Babak, signed front and back.






The next two are a twenty rials and then a one hundred rials signed by Amir.







We crossed paths again later at a base in North Carolina.  One weekend in 1976, Amir traveled with me to my hometown in Virgina (about 150 miles from where we were stationed) and I introduced him to my family and friends.  At the time, I considered him to be one of my closest friends.  Eventually we went our different directions and lost contact with each other.  But thanks in part to these out-dated bills, I've never really forgotten him or Babak.

Watching the 1979 revolution from afar, I assumed he'd met his end in the violence that transformed the greatest regional ally of the United States of the time into our sworn enemy as they exported terrorism to the rest of the world.  Most recently it seems they are intent on obtaining nuclear weapons in order to destroy Israel.  Many Americans blame Achmadinejad, while others blame the left-wing, religious leaders, who hold the real power.

Some Americans have been confused over the left and right of things.  Simply put, left-wing political theorists believe the government is the state and people are just part of the state.  The more power the government has-- power it takes from the people--the more leftist the government.  Powerful leftist nations include North Korea, Cuba, Iran, and China.  Historical leftist nations which used to exist include Hitler's Nazi Germany and the USSR.  Leftist nations are sometimes called socialist nations.

Mousavi was Prime Minister of Iran from 1981 to 1989.  That was a pretty tough time for Iranian and US relationships.  In 1987, we even had a little war with them in the Gulf, called the “'87 Persian Excursion” by the Navy.  Iran was littering the Gulf with random mines and shooting at ships from oil platforms as they attempted to disrupt the free-flow of oil.  One by-product of that Persian Excursion was the rebuilding of the Air Force’s conventional bombing capability--as it was embarrassing to just watch the Navy fix a problem without Air Force play.  That conventional bombing capability came in handy during the 1991 Desert Storm--our first war against Saddam Hussein.

Thirty years ago, the outcome of a revolution pitted Iran against its former friends and most of the world.  Will this new revolution reverse all of that?  Will Mousavi be the leader that the Iranian people are dying to have?  Will the nations who Iran’s government terrorized since 1979 come to the aid of these people?

So once this unrest or revolution is sorted out, will Iran be any different--as far as the rest of the world is concerned?  Will the people fighting and dying in the streets, since the bogus election, be willing to accept merely exchanging one puppet-president of a cleric-led oligarchy for another.  Especially when that oligarchy appears to be dead-set on obtaining nuclear weapons in order to attack Israel.


Moments before death (warning graphic video)

Over the years, Israel has proven that it will act in concert with other nations to defend itself, but when other nations will not assist them--they are the masters of unilateral, preemptive action. Thinking out the consequences of such activity, it is possible for us to imagine the level of human-suffering that is about to happen.

This new revolution may be the only thing that can prevent the suffering of an impending nuclear war.

Thus it appears that whatever the outcome of this revolution is--the result can’t possibly be worse than it is now, or at least what it is about to become.  Therefore, the United States, Israel, Iraq, Afphganistan, and all other nations who have suffered from the terrorism exported from Iran over the last thirty years should provide whatever support the bold people need.  Who knows?  We might even find an old friend when this is all over.

It just makes sense.

 Responding to the North Korean Nuclear Threat

May 29, 2009

America’s deterrence-record with North Korea has recently elevated from embarrassing to down-right dangerous.  Even though some form of independent Korean state or collection of states have existed nearly continuously for several millennia, we persist in dealing with them as if they were either children or cavemen.  The reality is North Korea’s nepotistic state possesses nuclear weapons and an effective means of delivering them, which possesses a clear and present danger to all their neighbors, except China and maybe Russia.

The details of how the world arrived at this impending conflagration are obsfucated by historic neglect and revisionists efforts, but the major turning points are clearly visible.  The tenacious people of Koryo, Silla, Paeche, and Chosun built societies that equal all that is impressive in the study of the ancient Chinese and Japanese cultures. Many Koreans believe that those people descended from theirs or at least copied theirs to achieve greatness.  While the “what-ifs” of antiquity fascinate some people, it is obvious that during the last century, Korea was gobbled-up, spit out, and then transformed into a nearly “perfect” example of political Yin and Yang.

About a hundred years ago, all of Korea was formally annexed by Japan--a harsh experience that stirs “racial” strife in some people even today.  As bloody World War II (WWII) ended and Japan was pacified, America and most of the Allies rushed to disarm and revert to a consumer-based society--one that improves the standard of living for everyone.  On the other hand, the USSR sought to press onward with the momentum of their military might--seeking to control the entire world if they could--thereby blurring any differences between them and the totalitarian oligarchies the Allies had just fought so hard to eliminate.

In the conflict of political pressure and military maneuvering that followed WW II, the Korea peninsula was split into two nations, with the northern half coming under Soviet-sponsored communist control.

Communist North Korea was armed, trained, and then encouraged to invade South Korea.  Though initially unprepared, the United States led the UN effort to drive the brutal invaders back to the north.  But a new era had dawned.

Not understanding how important it was to stop before China was provoked into a military response, WW II tactical zeal carried the Allies all the way to the Chinese border.  Politically denied the option of interdicting the massive forces mustered just north of the Yalu River--General MacArthur could do nothing except wait for the inevitable.

Political contextual elements glowed heavily with American decision makers. The United States no longer had a nuclear monopoly, as the USSR has obtained vital secrets via spies and their own efforts--resulting in communist nuclear test/demonstrations.  The USSR had equipped Mao Zedung’s Chinese communists with captured Japanese military gear, as a 600,000-strong force in Manchuria surrendered to Russian forces following Japan’s capitulation after the nuclear bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  The exhausted forces of Chiang Kai-shek withered under the assault and barely escaped to Taiwan.  The Chinese decision makers were threatened by any thing that might threaten their reformation of their newly established communist state.  The Chinese viewed North Korea has a security buffer preventing a two-pronged attack on them sometime in the future--a southern thrust from Taiwan and a northern thrust from the Korean Peninsula--it didn’t matter if no one in America was thinking about doing that, the Chinese are notorious long-term planners.  Above all, President Truman feared that narcissistic Joseph Stalin would employ nuclear weapons if China were invaded--requiring another WWII-style effort from a war-weary world to vanquish communism.

So Chinese forces swarmed across the border.  The fighting that followed produced most of what Americans remember as bad about the Korean War.  After much fighting and loss of life, the peninsula was once again divided via a crease-fire agreement in 1953.  The lesser known background of that agreement is that it was reached only after some combined military and political maneuvering designed to convince China to pressure North Korea into acceptance.

In March of 1953, Stalin died--some believe he was poisoned by members of his cabinet who feared yet another purge was imminent.  Regardless of how he died, the internal chaos in the USSR allowed for a window of political and military factoring by the Allies to bring about a ceasefire agreement.  Since the US had no formal way of communicating with the Chinese government--as it was not recognized as a legitimate state then--the American’s leaked information through political connections in India.  the message was basically that the US would destroy sanctuary bases in Manchuria if the fighting continued.  Initially this was hard to believe, as much collateral damage to civilians would accompany such attacks--and they knew the Americans had grown squeamish about such things. 

To demonstrate the opposite, a series of previously unmolested dams were bomb, releasing flood waters, which prevented a year’s rice planting.  The suffering caused by the food shortage would far exceed the trauma of the initial flooding.  Only then were the Chinese convinced--those brutal Americans would probably attack, maybe use nuclear weapons, thus weakening China’s military so much it might result in their collapse--so they influenced North Korea to sign the armistice on July 27, 1953.     

Since then a precarious state of “stand-off” exists between the dark oligarchy and what has grown into a thriving republic to its south.  South Korea has a GDP nearly 1.3 trillion dollars--equal to Saudi Arabia’s and Taiwan’s combined--much of which is reinvested into their growing economy.  Many of their quality products are purchased by Americans.  North Korea has a GDP of maybe 40 billion dollars--a little more than Uganda’s--much of which is used to maintain a massive military while their population is mostly fed by international aid.  North Korea is a charter member of the “Axis of Evil” and is a real-life caricature of an evil nation.

On 27 May 2009, North Korea unilaterally withdrew from the armistice.  They’ve tested nuclear weapons and long-range missiles in a bravado attempt to intimidate the rest of the world.  The are heavily suspected of nuclear proliferation efforts with other nations in the Axis of Evil--mostly likely seeking additional sources of income for their dying economy.  In the wake of the nuclear tests and missile launch demonstrations, they have announced they will respond with military force if another of its ships are boarded by the US-led program to interdict illicit transport of weapons of mass destruction.

What kind of force do you think they are implying?  It’s obvious.

So what’s the solution?  While past performance is no guarantee of future results ...

China has to pressure North Korea to behave.  Thus the key to making North Korea behave it to convince China that they stand to lose more than they will gain if they allow North Korea to continue their shenanigans.

The most threatened nations are South Korea, Japan, and the United States.  The US already has ample military power to counter a nuclear attack when it comes to it.  However, Japan and South Korea are precariously empty--historically relying on the US nuclear umbrella to cover them as needed.

Here’s the solution:

In the light of shrinking US resolve and inventory--Japan and South Korea need indigenous nuclear forces.   They have all the necessary technologies and their GDP’s will comfortably support the programs--the only thing that prevents it from happening is their own national laws and leadership.  International law have recently been proven inept at preventing any nation from acquiring weapons of mass destruction.

Thus, the US should encourage Japan and South Korea to develop strong nuclear capabilities to stand against the nuclear threats from North Korea.  And even if the US fails to encourage them, those nations need to consider what they need to do for their own survival--and do it anyway.  Of course, once that happens, Taiwan and Australia would need to belly-up to the nuclear club also--unless they wanted to remain optionless in the face of nuclear threats. 

How would China like to be facing nuclear-equipped nations on all their borders?

Not at all, I’m sure.

The long-range planning Chinese leadership would be greatly concerned about this--they have a little history with the Japanese and the folks who live in Taiwan.  Properly motivated, China would persuade North Korea to behave before this gets completely out of hand.  And that’s the problem with nuclear proliferation:  Once it gets rolling--how do you stop it?

Stop it early. 

“Too late for that,” some might say. 

Well, my grandpa used to say, “You can’t start where you were, only you are.”  And where we are is trying to deal with a nuclear-equipped North Korea intimidating the world as they seek to spread nuclear weapons capabilities to other nations, who also seek to do harm to things we consider valuable.

When it comes to allowing rogue nations to develop or maintain nuclear arsenals--nothing is worse than doing nothing.

It just makes sense.

Mother's Day

May 10, 2009

Mother’s Day is the second Sunday in May, when we pause for a short while to  acknowledge the most important person in the world--your mother.  What follows is a short account about how it came to be.

Back on May 1, 1864 in the tiny town of Webster, West Virginia, Ann Maria Reeves Jarvis gave birth to a little girl she named Anna Jarvis. The family moved to the short distance to Grafton, West Virginia in her childhood.

On May 12, 1907, two years after Anna’s mother died, Anna Jarvis organized a memorial to her mother at St. Andrew’s Methodist Episcopal Church in Grafton--passing out 500 white carnations--and then made it her personal quest to establish “Mother’s Day” as a recognized holiday–which it became in 1914. The International Mother’s Day Shrine was established in Grafton to commemorate Anna Jarvis’ accomplishment.

But from there, an interesting plot twist takes over–in the 1920s Anna Jarvis incorporated herself as the Mother’s Day International Association, claimed copyright on the second Sunday of May, and was even arrested once for disturbing the peace. She invested her family inheritance campaigning against the holiday–until she died blind and penniless in 1948.

According to Anna Jarvis’ New York Times obituary, she became embittered because too many people sent their mothers a printed greeting card. As she said, “A printed card means nothing except that you are too lazy to write to the woman who has done more for you than anyone in the world. And candy! You take a box to Mother-and then eat most of it yourself. A pretty sentiment!”

Anna Jarvis never married and had no children. She died in West Chester, Pennsylvania, and is buried next to her mother in West Laurel Hill Cemetery, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania.

Today, Mother’s Day ranks only behind Christmas and Valentine’s Day in terms of spending--it is credited with nearly $15.8 billion in retail sales:  flowers, restaurant (it is the number one eating-out holiday of the year), jewelry, and heaven help us if we should ever forget--greeting cards.

And Mother’s Day is today–the second Sunday in May.   Thus, unless you’ve already done this, you need to go now and buy a printed card, so you don’t have to write one yourself, and take a box of your favorite candy to your Mom … maybe she’ll give you a glass of milk to wash it down with.

But don’t worry about embittering your twenty-first-century mother. Our Moms already know we’re brats--and love us in spite of it. However, they might be troubled should you let the day pass without at least acknowledging, no matter how superficially, some of the suffering we’ve put them through.

If your Mom’s no longer with you, then acknowledge somebody else’s mother–maybe the mother of your grandchildren, or the mother of your neighbor’s kids, or the mother of your niece or nephews. Just do it.

Happy Mother’s Day.

It Just Makes Sense.

Publishers Weekly Reviews The Dragoneers

April 24, 2009

This novel defies conventional classification: is it science fiction? biblical fiction? thriller? The story describes a world where flying two-headed dragons and ogres exist, characters with telepathic gifts communicate with both animals and people, a man named Noah builds an Ark in his backyard, and a six-fingered giant named Lilith wants to take over the world. While this collage may have been implausible in lesser hands, the author makes it work, artfully drawing readers into Sethopolis (the “center of the last human-dominated nation on Earth”) and constructing an adventure with attention-grabbing plot twists.

At the center of it all is 18-year old Susah, a feisty heroine with the ability to communicate telepathically. Sheltered by her father, Noah, from the evils of the world, Susah’s life takes an unexpected turn when her aunt and uncle are killed by a violent street gang. Mesmerized by the soldier who rescues her and the flying dragon under his control, she decides to join the Dragon Corps, defenders of the Eden zone, and become a dragoneer. Lilith, aware of Susah’s gifts, wants to have her killed. As Susah trains to become a skilled dragoneer, she embarks on a collision course with Lilith’s army of giants and ogres as they march toward the Eden zone for the ultimate battle between good and evil. The author has crafted a compelling story...

Wow.  That was beautiful.  You’ve just read 91.8% of the professional review of my full-manuscript submitted to the Amazon Breakthrough Novel Award (ABNA) contest.  I feel like a winner, but alas--The Dragoneers was eliminated from the competition as the field was narrowed to the top 1% of the submitted manuscripts.  The top competitor will win a publishing contract with Penguin Books, which includes a $25,000 advance.  The PW review constitutes second prize.

I’ll share the last 20 words of the review with you in a moment--they made all the difference.  If the review had ended as it did above, I’m certain my manuscript would still be in the competition, however, with little chance of actually winning.  To complicate matters, once I finally lost--I wouldn’t really know why.  As it is now--I’ve been given a prize of great value. 

Okay, here’s the last few words:

... yet the sudden disappearance of some characters and subplots leaves readers feeling frustrated with the disjointed gaps in the storyline.

Yep.  That doesn’t sound so great on the surface.  But I’m very impressed with that professional analysis.  To explain why I’m happy, I have to tell you about my journey towards getting this far.

After I retired from the Air Force, I dedicated myself to writing the novel that had been boiling inside of me.  Within three months, I completed a 300-page manuscript that covered the 80 years leading up to the great flood. 

My oldest daughter, a brilliant young lady who loves to read, became my alpha-reader.  After working her way through it, she carefully commented, “It’s good, but I don’t think I’ve ever read a novel that didn’t use commas.”

I was steeped in Air Force writing techniques.  While having written scores of performance reports, technical manuals, doctrine documents, lesson plans, and even war plans--I was too streamlined in my tactical-level skills to write an adequate novel.  Yes, the Air Force has always discouraged commas.  We use them when we talk, but not in our writing.  But it wasn’t just the comma--it was many other things.

I quickly came to the conclusion that while I was an experienced bomber pilot and a doctrine expert--I was still just a novice writer. So I went back to school, investing a lot of self-study time in The Chicago Manual of Style and the much thinner The Elements of Style, by William Strunk Jr. and E.B. White, wondering how I’d missed so much of the basics.  In addition, I went back to reading the books I’ve enjoyed in the past, but this time to examine their tactical skills and to learn from them.

And I rewrote--over and over. 

With each rewrite my precious daughter would mark up the document--so I could rewrite again.  And we had some great discussions.  She would ask me things about the story, “Why is that character doing those things?”

I would explain all the background logic associated with the conflict and action.  She would listen and nod her head, then finally say, “Oh that makes it perfectly clear now ... that has to be in the book.” 

Yes, the reader needs to understand the background and the behind the scenes activity--even the stuff that the protagonist’s doesn’t know--in order to enjoy and understand the story.

So I added it.  Then I rewrote the mark-ups, and explained more things about why certain things were happening, only to hear it over and over, “That has to be in the book.”  With time, the manuscript swelled to nearly 700 pages. 

At long last, it came time to call on more opinions. 

It’s difficult to explain to regular people what you’d like from a beta-reader.  Especially if you’re a novice writer--cause you don’t know.  Bless their hearts, most of them pushed through an epic story that was still rushed and so rough in several areas only to tell me that they liked it.

Then I began the initial submission phase only to collect multiple rejections from publishers and agents--something I’d been told was part of becoming a real author, so I didn’t worry about it.  Then while trying to refine the synopsis, I came to the conclusion that I had more than one novel in my manuscript.  And since everybody loves a trilogy--I figured that was what I had.  After dividing the manuscript into three logical books--I proceeded to focus only on the first one. 

Then I stumbled across the 2008 ABNA contest.  Eagerly I entered and made it to the top 17% only to be eliminated when they cut the field to 2%.  The PW review I collected that year said that the story was disorienting and hard to follow.  I needed more help.

Marian Poe, a wonderful lady in the Centenary Writers Group, told me about a night class being taught at a local college.  It was there that I found the novel-writing operational secrets I needed.  Well, they’re really techniques and not secrets--unless you don’t know them.  Connie Cox of Taking Flight, gave me the boost I was seeking but could not find by myself.  Then after extensive rewriting, the manuscript--you’ve just read the PW review of--was complete.
 
But you were eliminated--didn’t you lose?

No.  I didn’t lose anything--I’ve gained much.  Remember how I said that I’d divided my novel?  I cut the story too early.  All those subplots and characters the PW reviewer was talking about get wrapped up in the adventure that follows where I had ended the book.  I’m probably 150 pages away from repairing every negative mentioned in the review.  I made a mistake--there weren’t three books in there--only two.  But don't fret, I've plenty more plots to follow those two.

I’m stoked--fully inspired--and coming back stronger than ever.  Once I’ve made the changes, The Dragoneers will be stronger than ever.  Certainly if I do that, I’ll find the publisher that is willing to make it available on the shelves of a book store near you.

It just makes sense.

---

We trust 1&1 for our domains - Get yours for $5.99 today!

com net org info us name biz cc tv ws mobi

Tea Party

April 18, 2009

Tax day.  That’s what we’ve learned to call April 15, but we really know that taxes hit us every day.  It’s April 15 when those dreaded 1040 are due to the IRS, or it’ll cost us even more money.  Our income is taxed and everything we spend our post-tax income on is taxed again through a complex web of visible and hidden taxes.  This April 15 a lot of people assembled all over the country to express their concern about out of control taxes.

While the concept of maybe attending a Tea-Party had interested me for a while, it wasn’t until I saw the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report that identified a new type of terrorists--the right-wing terrorist--that I knew I needed to go. 

Recently the DHS had said they preferred to call terrorism “man-caused disasters” and I satirically suggested that terrorists would then be called “disaster-engineers” in keeping with the kinder words of referring to the most heinous members of the human race.  But now I see no restraint in using the T-word.
 
The report suggests that “right-wing extremists” are potential terrorists.  Those people are described as basically anyone who believe abortion kills babies, or that the 2nd Amendment affirms the right to bear arms, and a group of right-wingers that need particular watching are veterans.

Veterans?  What the freedom-snatching kind of conclusion is that?  Veterans?

Do they mean those men and woman who have offered up their lives to defend the rest of us--those veterans?  The same people, whom on November 11 of each year we have a national holiday to honor their service?  Those same honorable heros are supposed to be suspected terrorists?  All of them? 

Why would anyone suggest that?

Could it be because most Americans hold veterans and the military in high esteem?  Could it be that the military and it’s veterans need to be taken down a notch or two in the public eye before they begin whatever it is that follows out-of-control tax and spending?  I don’t know.  Your guess is as good as mine.

But how could anyone draw a connection between veterans and terrorists?

Well, according the DHS report, veterans have received training that would enable them to do something like Timothy James McVeigh did.  Remember him? 

McVeigh was the guy that was eventually executed for for the bombing that killed 168 people in the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City.  He was a veteran.  See the connection yet?  Me neither.

He did well as a gunner on a Bradley Fighting Vehicle during the 1991 Persian Gulf War,  but then washed out of Special Forces training in December of the same year.  After he left the service he failed at everything else.  No girlfriend, no job, and followed the gun show circuit selling white-supremacist literature until he completely slid off the deep end.  For some reason he thought it was his calling to violently overthrow the US government. 

Does that sound like the typical veteran to you?

All veterans reading this column will immediately feel a bit insulted to be compared with McVeigh.  For the folks who didn’t make the cut to become a veteran, that is because all veterans took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, which is the document that allows our government to legally exist.  And since veterans are not released from their oath to God when they are discharged--it means McVeigh violated his oath. 

And there were other veterans.  What about Oswald?  You know, Lee Harvey Oswald.  Yeah he was a veteran and he killed Kennedy.  You know, John F. Kennedy, who was a veteran.  Oh yeah.  Hmmm.  Maybe not all veterans are terrorists.

Some veterans might actually be productive Americans.  Americans like Alan Alda (Army Reserves), Tony Bennett (Army), Jim Blackwood (Air Force), Andy Bloom (Air Force), Johnny Carson (Navy), Ted Duncan (Air Force), Clint Eastwood (Army), Reed Estrada (Air Force), Malcolm Forbes (Army),  Rocky Marciano (Army), Vern Moore (Air Force), Montel Williams (Navy) Dave Thomas (Army), Chuck Norris (Air Force) Bill Cosby (Navy) Drew Carey (Marine), even Charles Sutherland (Air Force) ... and millions others.

No.  Being a veteran did not transform McVeigh into what he became. It must have been something else.

It seems some people can find similarities and proof where they want to find them.  For instance, I noticed on McVeigh’s mug-shot that he was a tall man--over six foot-two.  Did you know that his parents were divorced when he was young--only ten years old. 

To make the assumption “tall men whose parents were divorced when they were young might be terrorists” would be stupid.  Most readers might have heard of people who fit that description--some of those people hold high-level elected office. 

It is just as stupid--no, it is more stupid--to declare someone might be a terrorists because they are a veteran.

As a 32-year veteran, I can tell you with reasonable confidence that the soldiers, sailors, Marines, and Airmen who are protecting you while you sleep tonight are not being taught how to make bombs out of rented trucks, fertilizer and motor-fuel.  And as far as I know, there is no program anywhere to train tall men, whose parents were divorced at a young age, to do the same.

Military service to our nation does not produce terrorists. 

Of course the Tea-Parties across American were not about the DHS report, they were about a out-of-control tax and spend policy and practice.  But isn’t it interesting how seemingly unrelated events can produce similar motivations?  Anyway, let me tell about the Tea-Party I went to in Bossier City.

Since my taxes were already mailed off to Uncle Sam--after I got off my 10-hour work day on April 15--I headed down to the Bossier City Civic Center’s green.  Having never attended a demonstration of any sort, I really didn’t know what was going to happen.  It shouldn’t have surprised me that convenient parking was no where to be found as I joined about 5000 small-business owners, working tax-payers, families, and even college students from all around Bossier and Shreveport.  They were regular people--white, black, Hispanic, young, old, male, female, tall, and short--who like me, had just finished the working activities of their day and then came out for a couple of hours to show their concern.

In case you didn’t make it to a Tea-Party, I posted a few videos on You Tube for you.  The links are below.

After assembling, we sang the National Anthem.  If you view this 2 minute 18 second video, I think you’d agree that everyone there was just regular people.  Lots of flags.  Seemed more patriotic than anything else.

Following that those assembled recited the Pledge of Allegiance lead by a local 6th grader. 

Then State Representative Jane Smith gave the invocation.  We all prayed for our elected officials, for our country, along with thanking God for all our blessings. 

Many speakers were there to motivate the attendees to lawful pro-active action.  One of these speakers was Mr. Royal Alexander, who was defeated in the 2007 general election to District Attorney for the sixth Judicial District.  He commented about the illegalities of the government writing checks with no funds to cover them.

The keynote speaker was Congressman John Fleming of the 4th district of Louisiana.  He explained some of the reasons the radical tax and spend policies are being passed in Congress. 

Since the first round of Tea-Parties have ended, much of the national media has used crude humor and mockery to denigrate the respectable citizens who lawfully assembled that day.  How many people are we talking about here?

Nobody really knows, but guesses are everywhere.  Somewhere between 15,000 and 20,000 showed up in Atlanta, our group was considerably less, about 5000.  Some reports say there were less than 350 Tea-Parties, but that conflicts with data I had seen on one web site, which stated that as of early April 15, there were over 2000 Tea-Parties scheduled.  If only half of those actually took place, and if only half as many people as we had in little Bossier City attended each one of them, that would add up to 2.5 million concerned citizens assembled across America. 

That’s a lot of people to denigrate.

So is this a one-time fling or the beginning of a movement?  And if it is a movement, what is supposed to happen?

This is what I think.  We don’t need another political party.  Americans need to take back the two parties we already have--the Democrat Party and the Republican Party.  Those two parties can be used to balance our national policies between the two extremes of our Constitutional Republic’s existence.  We do not need to dissolve into anarchy anymore than we need to be oppressed by a self-serving oligarchy. 

Anarchy is the extreme right--no government.  It’s where everyone does according to what they believe is right.  In other words, it’s a riot with no police.  At its worse, it looks a lot like the corner of Florence and Normandy on April 29, 1992.

An oligarchy is the extreme left--a government with all the power invested into a dominant class or party.  It’s the most common form of government throughout history.  Sometimes words like “socialist” or “communists” are used to describe them--but at the heart of things--the interests of a small group take priority over everything else.  Even a monarchy quickly transforms into an oligarchy, because a king without his army is lost.

The only choices of government-types in the middle of those extremes are a democracy and a republic.  A democracy sounds good, but a majority can quickly become a mob if the majority wants something the minority possesses.  A republic is what Americans have lived in since the beginning.  It is based on law.  The Constitution is designed to protect the people by limiting the power of the people operating the government. 

That is the reason why some people get very upset when they perceive that some policies and practices may be violating the Constitution.  Once the Constitution becomes null and void, our nation will quickly slide into an oligarchy.  Which is either where we’re currently headed or arguably by a few where--we’ve arrived.  

In each of the great oligarchies of the past, the ruling party used the power of swords, bayonets, or guns to take-over the business pursuits of the majority of the people. By controlling the economy and then the physical activity of their subjects--the oligarchies’ ruling class maintained their power.  Today, we call that nationalization.  Under the guise of the government's sovereignty the ruling party takes what they want and does what they deem best with the fruits of the peoples’ labor.  Looking back, it was a bloody mess that simply highlights the evil of their leaders while their subjects suffered.  Anybody want to argue that the Communists of the former USSR were good for most people that lived there, or that the Nazis of the Third Reich were well-meaning, or that Khmer Rouge only wanted the best for the people?  I didn’t think so. 

Today, the power of the dollar is being wielded to take-over banks and manufacturers--the business pursuits of the majority of the people.  Out-of-control tax and spend policies threaten to undermine the rights of the people.  What would our founding fathers have said about this?

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, an anxious crowd assembled outside awaiting the results.  As Benjamin Franklin emerged from the adjourned convention, a woman was reported to have asked him: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"

"A republic, if you can keep it" responded Franklin.

Never before has that prophetic statement rang more true.  Some of us might argue that in light of the current national policies and plans that seem to be determined to tax the United States into oblivion--it’s already too late.  Maybe if Franklin were alive today, he would say, “You have a republic if you can salvage it.”

Yes, we can.  We can salvage our republic by taking back both of our political parties.  In 2010 we can replace every representative who has voted for this madness with people who promise to overturn it.  Then if they don’t do what they say, we can replace them with new people in 2012.  We still have the power of the ballot.  As long as our Constitution still stands as the law of land, we can do things in a civilized manner.  We're still citizens and not subjects--at least not yet.

We the People, can do this.

As one sign at the Tea-Party read, “You can’t fix stupid, but you can vote it out.”




It just makes sense.

The End of the GWOT

April 11, 2009

It’s over--well, almost.  The Global War on Terror is now called  “Overseas Contingency Operations,” which can be a little confusing  to some of us.  After all, we’ve been using initials to talk about things for a while.  Everyone probably already knows about WWI and WWII but what about the O-wars?

The first one was OAF, remember that? 

That was Operation Allied Force, where the US provided most of the muscle and all the backbone to stop the murder of Muslims by the Miloshevich-led Serbs. Remember how that ended?

After airpower defeated the Serbian military and was allowed to retreat, Miloshevich wound up being charged with crimes against humanity.  However, he died of heart problems before a verdict was delivered. 

What vowel comes after A?  Here’s a hint--E.  OEF was the next O-war.

Operation Enduring Freedom, is where America resisted the temptation to kill everyone after the bold terrorist attacks of 9-11.  At first, it was called Operation Infinite Justice but the Bush administration changed the name when they were told it was offensive to Muslims. 

Then OEF was subdivided into several sub-OEFs to deal with multi-geographical areas: Afghanistan, Philippines, Horn of Africa, Trans Sahara, Krygyzstan, and Pankisi Gorge (a.k.a. Georgia).  The last two ended in 2004, but you don’t hear much about them in the press.  Oh, did you think it was only in Afghanistan?  I guess the collective press might have been confusing, but it is a global war, remember?

What vowel comes after E?  I’m sure you know.  I.  The third O-war was OIF.

That was Operation Iraqi Freedom, sometimes called the War in Iraq--which just caused more confusion.  At the end of it all, Saddam Hussein was tried and hung by his own people.  Even with the tyrant dead and gone, a lot of fighting continued inside of Iraq--mostly terrorists killing Iraqis--but many Americans died also--albeit not in toe-to-toe fighting, but from a variety of suicide-terrorist attacks, called “homicide bombers” presumedly not to offend the people who wanted us dead.  Anyway, Iraq is doing fairly well after all the American and other folks that have helped them.  We’ll be leaving in less than 18 months--except for the 50,000 that will remain behind forever.

So now, Barack Obama has directed everyone to use the term “Overseas Contingency Operation” which I guess could be shortened to OCO.  I guess that sounds better than OOF--which would have fit nicely in the series of O-wars--but OCO is what it is.  But this is not all that has changed.

Janet Napolitano, our newly appointed Homeland Security Secretary, doesn’t like the word terrorism.  She prefers to use “man-caused” disasters.  Was the term “terrorism” offensive to the causers of disasters?  I don’t know.

So who are the people who cause man-caused disasters?  Disaster Engineers?

So we’ve got disaster engineers causing man-caused disasters in the OCO but we are trying our best not to offend anyone or to sound arrogant while we go about winning this war.  Someone told me that recently Barack Obama apologized for American arrogance and announced that “America was not a war with Islam.”  I must say, I’m a little confused.

Wasn’t OAF about Americans saving Muslims?  Hasn’t OEF liberated Muslims in many places?  Didn’t OIF result in the removal of a brutal tyrant in Iraq and then giving the country back to the Muslims who live there?  Why would Barack Obama’s speech writers think he needed to make such an announcement?  I don’t know.

On a completely unrelated note--within a few hours of the North Koreans launching an illegal missile, the US government announced that we’re going to defund our most promising anti-missile technologies.  And we’re going to release all the disaster engineers at Gitmo, maybe even inside the US, because their home countries might be mean to them.  Wouldn’t want that to happen.

With the advent of OCO, it might mean the GWOT is over.  If it is over, what happened?

It’s easy enough to figure out if you look at the facts.  We’re disarming, we’re releasing our prisoners--some to walk the streets of our home towns, we’re trying not to offend anyone, and we’re not taking action against other countries that violate international law.  Have you figured it out yet?

Yep, that’s it--we surrendered.

It just makes sense.

 Invasion of the Freedom Snatchers

March 21, 2009

Do you remember the movie The Invasion of the Body Snatchers?  Based on a novel by Jack Finney, it was a 1956 movie starring Kevin McCarthy and Dyna Winter, and then remade in 1978 starring Donald Sutherland and Brooke Adams.  The classic thriller showed people in a small town being replaced with alien clones that morphed out of plant-like pods while their victims slept.  The aliens were exact physical copies of the unfortunate humans whom they killed and then disposed of.  The three defensive techniques used by the humans included running away, trying not to sleep, and when they could find them--killing the aliens while they were still in the pods.  As the story progressed, due to sheer numbers the pods were increasingly successful.

After the aliens successfully entered society, they worked together in their apparent mission to spread additional pods around the world to supplant the entire human race.  The movie was dark and spooky, mostly because it seemed like the aliens were winning and the movie left us hanging as to the ultimate fate of mankind.

Stranger than fiction, there is another invasion going on right now. 

Former member and founder of the Black Panther Party, Rep Bobby Rush (D-IL) has introduced a bill to the House Judiciary Committee, which is chaired by Rep John Conyers (D-MI).  If his bill should morph into a law it will supplant enough of the Constitution to alter our way of life forever.

If HR 45 becomes law it will negate the second Amendment by transforming the right to keep and bear arms into a privilege controlled by the government; it will negate the fourth Amendment by permitting government gun hunters to raid any home in search of any unauthorized firearms; it will negate the fifth Amendment by depriving gun-owners of their property without due process of law and without just compensation; and finally, it will further negate the already shredded tenth amendment which at one time limited the powers of the Federal Government.

Can you imagine what will happen when the gun-collection police force goes out to collect everyone’s guns? What will you do?  What will your neighbors do?

Regardless of how you feel about gun-control, you need to understand the threat when Constitutionally subversive bills are introduced into our legislative system.  The Constitution is designed as the supreme law of our land.  Within the margins of that freedom-inspired document is Article V, which spells out the provisions by which amendments can be proposed and ratified. 

Yes, it requires serious effort.  Changing the Constitution is a serious business. 

To help us understand why we don’t want Congress to make laws that supplant our freedoms and rights affirmed by the Constitution, lets play the same scenario using another right that you might be more fond of, let’s say your right to free speech.

What if some congressman submitted a bill that required all citizens to have a federal license before they could legally own a computer? 

The bill could be justified by stating that too many young people are being hurt by hateful words posted on the internet or in emails--an undeniable truth.  Sponsors of the bill could claim that hate-speech kills--we need to protect our children.  To foster public support, they could say that anyone who opposed the bill must want to hurt children. 

Once the bill became law, anyone wanting a computer would be investigated by the Attorney General’s office to make sure they weren’t mentally ill or prone to say hateful things.  Their library records, TV viewings, and anything they might have ever posted,  emailed, or read would be reviewed to make sure they met the high standards of the Attorney General.  What would be wrong with that?

Well, to begin with it is prohibited by the Constitution.  You see, the Constitution was designed to limit the power of the government.  When government gets too powerful you get things like restrictions on owning typewriters as in Hitler’s Germany, the Gulags as in the former USSR and things like, well things like H.R. 45.

If “we the people” believe the Constitution needs to be amended, there is a legal process to do that.  That process is not via a bill. Elected officials are supposed to be stewards of our great nation.  We did not put them in their offices to wage war on our freedoms.  The Freedom Snatchers need to be stopped.  Start today by attacking the pod known as H.R. 45.

Let your congressional representatives know how you feel.  You don’t have to say much, just tell them in your own words that as your representative they need to oppose H.R. 45 (Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sales Act of 2009).  If your representative doesn’t listen to you, you owe it to yourself and your children’s future to vote them out of a job on the next election.

If you’re not sure how to contact your representatives, use this link to help you find them.

Don’t give into these dark and spooky attempts to snatch your freedoms. For the time being, our Constitution is merely shaken and not broken.  If we all do what we can to preserve, protect, and defend it--we won’t be left hanging as to the fate of mankind. 

Don’t be caught sleeping because after our Constitution is supplanted there will be no place left for any of us to run. 

H.R. 45 is anti-Constitutional and must be stopped.

It just makes sense.

---

We trust 1&1 for our domains - Get yours for $5.99 today!

com net org info us name biz cc tv ws mobi

Somebody Check the Gages

March 7, 2009

Most people will agree that pilots are amazing.  The flying public trusts them ever day to take them safely to where they want to go.  The rest of the people trust the pilots not to drop an airplane on them.  When that trust is violated, and a pilot fails to keep his passengers and the people below his aircraft safe, it is not only a tragedy--it is a surprise.

It is a surprise because we trust pilots to do their job.  They can do their jobs because pilots trust their gages.

Yes, the gages.  Those wonderful gages that tell a pilot what the airplane is doing--even inside a cloud--is the reason pilots appear to be almost super heroes to most people.  Early in their training, all pilots are taught to trust their gages over their feelings--often referred to as “the seat of the pants” feelings that everyone else trusts to help them live their lives. 

Two-dimensional thinking and “seat of the pants” feelings killed many of the pilots at the beginning of the twentieth century.  Over the ages, we learned from their mistakes.  And we developed certain technologies to help us over come those same traps that await us all, if we only trust our feelings over quantifiable indicators of safe progress.

Pilots who are fully qualified are often referred to as Instrument Pilots, those are the only pilot who can legally fly aircraft in all weather conditions.  Fair weather pilots may enthusiastically entertain non-pilots with great tales of aviation exploits, but it would be dangerous indeed to allow such a pilot to take you into a cloud.

We’re in cloud of a different sort today.  A cloud of fiscal confusion and great economic downturn.   The federal government, controlled by a Democrat Party Senate, House, and President are spending American taxpayers money faster than it can be produced.  The numbers are stultifying.

Before the November 2008 election, the Democratic Party controlled Senate and Congress voted in a $700 billion “bail out” for Wall Street.  President Bush, a Republican President finishing up his second term, did nothing to stop it.  His “uniter not a divider” doctrine of politics gave the liberal Legislatures free reign on American taxpayers. 

If you remember, John McCain suspended his campaign to go back to Washington to work the economic crisis.  It was there that he was politically assaulted by Democrat Party leadership (Obama, Reid, and Pelosi).  Their political tactics helped convince the voting public that America needed to vote Barrack Obama into to office.  After all, we’ve been taught that “It’s the economy, Stupid.”

If the economy is doing well, most Americans are usually satisfied with the government.  Oh, there might be little bumps and turbulence during the trip, but if we arrive safely and on time, we soon forget what it was we were complaining about. 

When the stocks markets closed on an up-swing on 4 November 2008, several news sources said it all about America’s confidence that Barrack Obama was going to win.  The Dow Jones closed at 9625, the NASDAQ closed at 1780, and the S&P closed at 1006.  Of course the markets had been higher back in November of 2006.

Back then the Dow Jones was 12,106, the NASDAQ was 2369, and the S&P was 1364.  What happened after that?  Well, the Democrat Party won the mid-term elections on a call for change to the so-called “failed Bush policies” and we were saddled with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid as our legislative leaders. 

For the record, the Constitution gives budgetary power to Congress--they are the money folks.  The President can either go along with them or oppose them, but they ultimately decide the status of all spending bills.

Now, we really can’t blame Barrack Obama for any failed economic polices from 2006.  Or can we?  Did you know he was a first-term Senator during that time?  While he supported the Pelosi/Reid economic bills, he wasn’t part of Congressional leadership.  So, we should probably give him the benefit of the doubt for that time.

But what about since the election?  There are so many spending bills getting cycled through congress--billions and trillions of dollars--it is hard for a regular guy to keep track of them.  But it is fairly easy to look at some economic indicators.

        Nov 6, 2006        Nov 4, 2008        Mar 5, 2009
DJIA        12,106            9,625                6,595
NASDAQ       2,369            1,780                1,299
S&P          1,364            1,006                  682

Since the Democratic Party took control of both houses of Congress, the Dow and the NASDAQ have dropped over 45% and the S&P is down 50%.  However, well-over half of that collapse has occurred since the 2008 Presidential election.  Is that change you can believe in?  Here's a "gages-presentation" of the national economic degradation since the 2008 election:

How about your personal economic degradation over the last two years? How’s your IRA or TSP or 401K doing?  If it is down less that 45% over the last two years, that means your account managers are beating the national averages.  How's the market value of your house holding up?  And the jobless rate was just released--8.1%--that is the highest rate since 1983.  If you're one of those 12.5 million people, it probably doesn't make you want to celebrate very much.

Certainly the market and economy will turn around, right?  After all, how low can it go?

Which reminds me of a story that the scotch-sipping, cigar-smoking comedian Ron White once shared.  According to the story, he was on an airplane that lost an engine. His pilot announced that while the aircraft could no longer maintain altitude, the plane’s remaining engine would extend their glide distance. 

The guy sitting next to Ron asked, “How far will one engine take us?”

Rod said, “All the way to the crash site.”

Insanity has been described as doing the same thing over and over again, while expecting different results.  Failed policies don’t turn into best practices just because you increase the amount you spend on them.
 
Something has to be done about the death-spiral our economy has entered into with run-away government spending and the unprecedented levels of nationalization of our once capitalistic system--before we reach the crash site.

It just makes sense.

---

We trust 1&1 for our domains - Get yours for $5.99 today!

com net org info us name biz cc tv ws mobi

February 28, 2009

Constitutional Quirk or Cheat?

Some members of our Congress are once again attempting to override the Constitution of the United States. The argument in their quest to cheat the Constitution is based on what they call a “quirk of constitutional law” which treats Washington, D.C. like it is not a state. Alarmingly, sixty-one of our Senators have agreed that our Constitution is wrong.

Article One of the Constitution allows states to send duly qualified and chosen members to the House of Representatives and the Senate. The District of Columbia was created by territory lawfully ceded from states in order to establish a district under the control of Congress.

As most folks already know, Washington D.C. has never been a state–thus the smart people reading this already know why D.C. does not have Congressmen and Senators voting to change the nation’s laws.

Nevertheless, I will continue before I make my point. I have discovered that it is far easier to write, than it is to speak, with one’s tongue in his cheek.

When James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers that every imaginable objection seems to be obviated, he thought he had explained it well enough. But in a world where everything seems to be subject to redefinition, maybe he was wrong.

What?

Maybe he was wrong. Maybe districts and territories should have the same rights as states. If so, where would that apply?

If Washington D.C. was given States’ rights we would get two new Senators and then Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton would become a full fledged voting Congresswoman.

Washington D.C. already has a Congresswoman? But the Constitution says …

We’re not talking about what the Constitution says or doesn’t say, at least not since the third paragraph above. This entire discussion is assuming the Constitution is wrong. Right?

Okay, here we go again.

If Washington D.C. gets States’ rights, then why not Puerto Rico? Puerto Rico is filled with American’s that fight our wars and do great things. Just because they’re not a state is no reason to deny them Constitutional States’ rights, is it? Once we do that, we’ll add two more senators (making it 104) to help make our nations laws better and more fair for everyone.

And if Puerto Rico gets states’ rights, then why not the Northern Mariana Islands, the United States Virgin Islands, and American Samoa? There would be no reason to deny them states’ right also–thus the number of senators would increase to 110. Seems fair and it’s not too much of a change–only 10%.

But wait, there are other territories: Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Baj Nuevo Bank, Serranilla Bank, Midway Islands, Navassa Island, Wake Atole, Palmyra Atoll ….

What? Most of those places don’t even have a population, why should they have States’ rights?

But they are territories, and if some territories get state’s rights all of them should have it, right?

Well, maybe not, I don’t know. We can’t get help from the Constitution because we already know it is wrong.

How about if we try using logic?

Because states’ rights is all about people, not necessarily the territory or land associated with it–though that counts for something. We shouldn’t give a lump of dirt States’ rights. Okay, but it seems discriminatory.

Maybe we can look at the Constitution for some help here.

Then let’s go back to Article 1 Section 8 and look at those authorities of Congress:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

So that sounds a lot like military bases. Using the same logic, all those Federal properties known as military bases need states’ rights too, right?

Some people might argue against that by saying, “The folks in the military are not allowed to hold public office. None of those military people have a right to states’ rights. The bases were bought and paid for with public money.”

Well, so was Washington D.C. and certainly the wives and families of those military people need their rights too. Using the same logic as we did in passing out States’ rights to all the other non states, each military bases should be given States’ rights. The spouses of the military that live there could be elected to hold offices in the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Let’s see that would bring the number of Senators up to … about 750–give or take a few. Most of the new Senators would be the wives and husbands of the brave, the few, the defenders of freedom. I wonder how that will affect the amount of taxes being levied on Americans. Even more, I wonder how that will affect military pay raises and the defense budget.

One thing is for sure, if we do this, we’re going to need a bigger capital.

Or better yet, maybe our elected officials, who have taken a oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, should reconsider any act that will not preserve the Constitution of the United States.

We have a multi-partisan assault on our Constitution. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Sen. Joe Liberman (I-Con) and Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev) are only three of the sixty-one Senators who are supporting giving States’ rights to a non-state. If they believe the Constitution is flawed, they should sponsor an amendment to the Constitution to change it. Then, at least, the states get some say in the process that will degrade their exclusive status given to them by the Constitution.

Constitution cheating can’t continue — unless we the people permit it–we’ve got to stop this.

It just makes sense.

---

January 17, 2009

Why Did Israel’s Deterrence Fail?

If deterrence is supposed to be about who’s the strongest, why did it fail in the Gaza strip?

The Gaza strip is a densely populated area about twice the size of Washington D.C. on the Mediterranean Sea bordering Egypt and Israel.  Under a series of agreements signed in the mid to late 1990s, Israel transferred its security and civilian responsibility to the Palestinian Authority (PA).  Not so surprisingly, autonomy was short-lived and Israel moved its military back in September 2000.  After much international effort, another “final settlement” was reached and Israel moved its forces and settlers out again, but then Hamas replaced the PA via local elections, and Gaza’s provocation towards its former master has been nearly nonstop.

The most provoking habit the folks running around the Gaza Strip have is their addiction to launching missiles into Israel.  Not that one missile isn’t enough to provoke a military response, but the missile launchings have numbered into the hundreds and even thousands.

After Israel had had enough, they initially inflicted punitive strikes on the police and Hamas headquarters throughout Gaza–assuming that even if a government wasn’t actually performing the indiscriminate attacks, they are responsible for policing the people within their border.

In the fighting that followed, it appeared Israel was trying to reduce Hamas’ leadership and their inventory of missiles.  The missiles are called Qassam rockets, which are basically three-foot to seven-foot long rolls of sheet metal (with fins) filled with 1 to 20 pounds of explosives made from fertilizer.  The largest missiles have a range up to ten miles.  Easy to make, easy to launch and run, hard to counter-fire against.

But the ability to launch rockets indiscriminately across the border pales in comparison to Israel’s Defense Force (IDF).

So why didn’t deterrence work?

The answer is fairly simple.  Hamas leadership decided it was worth more to fire the missiles than the price they would pay for firing them.

Sounds almost too simple, doesn’t it?

Hamas’ objective appears to be acceptance and belonging to the community of Islamic governments around the world.  Sometimes it seems the only thing they completely agree on is that Israel needs to be destroyed.  Of course Hamas doesn’t have the power to push Israel into the sea, so they launch crude terror weapons to terrorize the Jews and to inspire those who hate the Jews. They’ve got enough sheet metal and fertilizer to keep building rockets for a long while.  The folks who launch the missiles require little training and support, thus they’re well inventoried to continue.  They probably feel quite good about themselves when they launch the missiles.  In addition, it appears that no contextual elements (population, legalities, economic, environmental, or diplomatic factors) work towards dissuading them at all.

Israel has plenty of military means and will to punish the Hamas-led Gaza Strip for their missile attacks– nobody believes Hamas could out fight the IDF.  Hobby-shop missiles can kill regular people going about their normal lives but they can’t stop a column of tanks.   But the attacks did increase Israel’s population and government support enough to persuade the IDF to strike back.

Almost immediately, journalist began to feed Americans and others stories about how disproportionate the use of force was.  Someone even said it wasn’t a fair fight.  Imagine that.   Does anyone really believe pirates should be fought with fishing boats, or a thug with a knife should be fought with a knife, or thieves should have their stuff stolen as punishment for their crimes?

No.  The forces that seek to stop pirates, thugs, thieves, or missile launching neighbors will always go in better armed, seeking to use overwhelming force to stop the activity.  That tactic is actually better for everyone.  When the sides are close to being evenly matched, the historically proven results is a protracted war of attrition–shades of Rome and Carthage or the American Civil War or World War II–thus bloodshed is greater.

So, knowing that Israel was so much more powerful than Hamas, why didn’t deterrence work?

Deterrence is a value-based decision equation, where the perceptions of the antagonist decide if deterrence will work or not.  The protagonist has to adjust the factors of the equation enough to tilt the value towards their desired outcome.

The equation looks like this:  If PV(cA/xA) > OV(e∆/x∆) then Σ∆ = a∆ = D

I know. It seems kind of complicated.

If you want to know all the details, you can read my book on line–or even buy a copy if you want to impress the folks you work with.  But for the sake of this specific situation, let me simplify it even more.

Basically everything–except the two objectives (PV and OV)–were the same values.  The unacceptable behavior (e∆) wasn’t just expected–it was on-going.  Some Hamas leaders have said the behavior was about security, but it seems more likely the actions were meant to insult or provoke Israel to military action with the firing of missiles in the quest of Hamas’ objective (OV), which is to belong  to the exclusive club of Islamic nations that hate the Jews.

The advertised threat (PV) from Israel was a military response to punish Hamas.  Which was limited to showing the world that Hamas is weak–which would reduce their esteem.  Israel has never tried to maximize death or destruction when they wage war. Their enemies know that.

Since “loss of esteem” is less valuable than “belonging to the club” the deterrence equation tipped to the right and the antagonist (Hamas) was not motivated to alter their behavior.  Thus deterrence failed.

When Israel executed the predictable punishment, Hamas defiantly continued to launch missiles.  So Israel was forced to attack other factors in the deterrence equation–they went after the will and the means of the antagonist to fire missiles at them.  Even though Hamas has lost some of its leadership and its fielded forces, it still has enough means to generate some missile attacks.  So they continued to fire missiles even after Israel declared a cease fire.

So did Israel’s actions solve anything?

Yes–a little–it reduced the means of the attacks but did not eliminate it.  So it has not solved the problem, its just made it more tolerable.

In order for the Israeli deterrence strategy to have worked with Hamas, they needed to reduce Hamas’s ability to produce and launch the cheap rockets down to zero.  Not very easy.

The Gaza strip area would have to be reduced nearly back to the stone age to make that possible.  For now, not even Israel is ready to extract that price from the people who live there.

Does that mean Israel can’t deter the firing of missiles at them?

No.  Deterrence can work, but the factors of Israel’s deterrence strategy must change.  Before they can have successful deterrence, Israel has to up the ante.

When the certainty of success is congruent on both sides of the deterrence equation, the precious possession has to be more valuable than the value of the antagonists objective.   Possessions are myriad but can be placed in one of five main categories:

    Category of Values       Relative Values
        Survival                  Highest
        Security                  High
        Belonging                 Middle
        Esteem                    Low
        Actualization             Lowest

Israel’s deterrence planners need to select an objective that has a value at least equal to the category of “belonging” or of a higher value, and the value standard has to be according to the value-set of the antagonist decision-makers.  Then Israel needs the antagonist to be certain that they will follow through with divesting Hamas of that particular precious possession unless they alter their behavior.  Only then, will deterrence be successful.

Deterrence is a little like a dance.

It takes two to tango.  The protagonist must lead by providing the motivation.  The antagonist follows by deciding if the motivation is sufficient for deterrence.

It just makes sense.

---

December 11, 2008

Who’s Your Ruler?

Co-Chair of the Obama-Biden Transition Team, Valerie Jarrett said, “Obama is prepared to take power and rule on day one.”

Did you hear that?  It could have been a slip of the lip.  It could have been confusion on the part of the speaker.  It could have been, but probably wasn’t.  Let’s suppose it wasn’t.  What’s wrong with the statement?

Who is America’s ruler?

Is “President” just a another word Americas say to mean king, emperor or dictator?

No, of course not.  We know who the supreme law of the land is, don’t we?  Come on, who says “the President” has any power at all?  No!  It’s not the military.  It’s not the police.  It’s not the courts.  You know who’s supreme.

It’s the Constitution.  The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.  It defines the limited power of all offices of the United States.  For instance, Article II covers everything about the office of the President.  Did you know that before a person can be the President, he has to take an oath to the Constitution?

“Before he enters on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:–”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.“

While the Constitution explains the limits of the President’s powers, even a casual observer of the oath should be able to understand that the President is required to obey the Constitution.  The Constitution rules the President.

Article VI explains how powerful the Constitution is:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

So who’s your ruler?
If you said, “The Constitution,” you can give yourself full credit.  But if you quoted the first three words of the Constitution you get an extra 10 points.  It is there that you find the author and true sovereign of America.

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

A win is a win.  Elections have results, as they should.  But don’t let anyone tell you that you have a new ruler.

I will pray for the new President as I have for the previous ones, maybe more.  But the President has never been our ruler.  He’s not our king, emperor, or dictator.  He’s not above the law.  His limited authority is granted to him for a limited time by the Constitution.  He works for us.

It just makes sense.

---

November 15, 2008

General Georges Sada Shares Saddam’s Secrets

Did Saddam Hussein’s Iraq have weapons of mass destruction (WMD)? If so, what happened to them?

Was Saddam Hussein ever planning to attack his neighbors?

Was Saddam Hussein really a bad guy, or was he just misunderstood?

I know it’s difficult for most of us to believe, but since some time has passed, more than a few Americans have forgotten who Saddam Hussein was and what he did. They probably only vaguely remember the leftist mantra, “Bush lied, people died.” So a quick history lesson is in order.

Here’s an extract from the CIA country study on Iraq:

In August 1990, Iraq seized Kuwait but was expelled by US-led, UN coalition forces during the Gulf War of January-February 1991. Following Kuwait’s liberation, the UN Security Council (UNSC) required Iraq to scrap all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles and to allow UN verification inspections. Continued Iraqi noncompliance with UNSC resolutions over a period of 12 years led to the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003 and the ouster of the SADDAM Husayn regime.

Yes, I know.

They spelled Saddam’s last name wrong. I don’t know if the spelling was changed when the page was updated on 6 November 2008 or some time earlier. After a little research I discovered that there are multiple acceptable spellings since it is merely a transliteration of the Arabic language. I don’t think it was intended to disassociate the dead dictator’s last name from the middle name of our President-elect.

Did I say dead dictator?

Yes I did.

Iraq’s High Tribunal found Saddam Hussein/Husayn guilty of crimes against humanity and sentenced him to hang in 2006. The trial wasn’t about WMD or any intent to invade his neighbors, instead it was about some of his murders in 1982. To have tried him for all his crimes, would have taken many years–maybe decades. As it was, it only took one conviction and one hanging to put an end to him.

But we’re stuck with those lingering questions. Was it all a sham? How will we ever really know?

Come to think of it, how do you know anything? Think about it.

There’s only two ways to know anything. You either have to experience the event or believe somebody else’s account of what happened. Most of the stuff you know, you know because you’ve taken someone else’s word for it. The challenge is to decide who to believe.

In legal proceedings and in historic research, the closer the witness is to actually experiencing the event, the more reliable they are as a source. For instance, the personal testimony of an eye-witness is considered more reliable that the testimony of a person who read about the event in a newspaper or saw it on an edited television news cast. Even somebody who talked with an eye-witness of an event is more creditable than someone who formed an opinion based on a collection of news reports and documentaries. And when the testimony is supported by circumstantial evidence, greater credence can be given to the witness.

So what about the Iraqi WMD?

Many blogs and news reports declare that there weren’t any. But how could they know? And who has disagreed with them?

Bill Clinton did in 1998 and still did as late as 2003. Maybe he was wrong. Do you think? Several other people disagreed also, such people as Nancy Pelosi, Sandy Berger, and Madeline Albright. Maybe they were wrong too. Certainly they weren’t all liars. No, they had to believe what they were saying, which had to be based on some reliable source they had access to. So much of that high-level stuff remains unavailable to the average American due to classification levels.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could talk to an eye-witness about what was going in Iraq. Or at least be able to read a book written by a witness. Maybe then we could have some certainly about whether there were WMD in Iraq.

Well, now there is.

A retired Iraqi Air Force Vice Air-Marshall (a.k.a. General) Georges Sada has written his testimony called Saddam’s Secrets. It answers the questions I asked at the beginning of this column. If you’d prefer to read the book and find the answers yourself, you need to stop reading now. Otherwise, here goes:

Did Saddam Hussein’s Iraq have weapons of mass destruction (WMD)?

Yes (page 71).

Then what happened to them?

Some of them were found by occupying forces, but most of them were transported to Syria in the summer of 2002. Pretending to provide humanitarian support in response to a collapsed dam in Zeyzoun, fifty-six flights on modified commercial 747s and 727s transported hundreds of tons of WMD (pages 260-261). I found an article referencing an Agence France-Presse (AFP) story about 20 plane-loads of aid from Iraq to Syria on 9 June 2002. There are some people who say they know where the WMD in Syria are today.

Was Saddam Hussein planning to attack his neighbors?

Yes. As most people know he initiated an eight-year war with Iran and then in 1990 he invaded Kuwait. However, he also planned to attack Israel with a air-armada of 98 aircraft all using chemical WMD (pages 128-129, 135, 140). And he intended to attack Saudi Arabia with twelve combat divisions (pages 171, 172). The primary reason he canceled the attacks against Israel and Saudi Arabia is because of the US-led attack which neutered his military power (page 173).

Was Saddam Hussein really a bad guy, or was he just misunderstood?

He was about as bad as a human can be. See pages 299 and 300 for a summary, but multiple accounts are scattered throughout the 315-page book.

Who is this General Sada and why should we care about him?

He graduated from Iraq’s Air Academy in 1959, received training in Great Britain, Russia, and the United States, trained many Iraqi pilots, and was the second ranking officer in Saddam Hussein’s air force. He was forced into retirement in 1986 because he was a member of the Baathist party, but was recalled during the First Gulf War to interrogate coalition pilots. He placed his life on the line by refusing to execute the coalition pilots as Qusay (the son of Saddam) ordered him to do (pages 181-187).

Without General Sada’s actions, no coalition pilots POWs would have survived to tell their tales.

When was this book, Saddam’s Secrets, published?

2006. 2006! Why haven’t I heard about this book before now?

He was briefly interviewed on Fox News’ Hannity and Combs, and then again on the comedic Daily Show. He has talked to a few churches around the country. But otherwise, he’s mostly ignored. I suggest there are at least six reasons why Saddam’s Secrets hasn’t been given much press coverage.

First of all, it is filled with little stories about Georges Sada’s life. For the reader who is searching for information about WMD, these stories can be annoying. Initially, I found them to be so, but the more of them I read, the more I grew to like the author. His account of his first flight in the MiG-21 on pages 54 to 62 was the turning point for me. As an Air Force pilot I understood what he went through as a 28-year-old aviator trying to do a mission without being fully trained for it. From there on, he was a friend telling me about his life. A life which had a connection to an evil dictator.

Saddam’s Secrets in not complimentary of the United Nations (UN). From high-level leadership down to the lowly blue-helmeted UN peace-keeper, they are all portrayed as bride-seeking individuals supporting nothing that relates to peace or justice. Some people might think it could bolster the traditional anti-UN sentiment of many Americans, whose tax-dollars pay 22% of the UN operating costs.

Georges Sada also talks about a Chinese connection in a deal to supply nuclear weapons to Iraq. Saddam offered them $100 million, but the deal was squashed when coalition-efforts prevented the transfer of funds. This information might set back the progress of elected officials working to convince Americans to accept China as a strategic partner and friend.

Probably the second worst offense in the book is that he warns us about a cultural invasion by the followers of Islam. Ever since shortly after 9/11, President Bush has repeatedly insisted that Islam is a religion of peace. Sada’s discussion on pages 285 to 291 suggests America and Europe are under going an assimilation that if ignored will soon transform our customs, history, and languages. This type of talk is not popular in an age where tolerance is culturally demanded, even written into our laws.

He criticizes the American handling of Iraq after the defeat of Saddam’s military. Not only were their major mistakes made after the 1991 war it was worse after the 2003 war. Disbanding the military the way it was, depleted the resources that could have been used to expedite stability and even worse encourage thousands of former officers to join the violent opposition. Shortly after the war, General Sada offered to establish security for Baghdad if he could have 40,000 UNARMED former Iraqi air force personnel assigned as police to him. The plan was rejected by the Americans in charge.

But Georges Sada’s greatest offense to the popular media might be that he is an Assyrian Christian. As an Assyrian, his ancestral claims to live where he does predate those of Arabs. It’s like a 2000-year trump card on the “evil-Crusading-invaders” argument used by many non-Christians. Greater than being Assyrian, the “Christian” descriptor is an obvious offense to non-Christians in the 21st century.

General Sada does more than just say he’s a Christian, throughout his book, he often gives thanks to Jesus for things that went right in his life. He also suggests that others should seek the truth of Christianity in several places throughout his book. He even has a small lecture for young people concerning their dress and sexual behavior–how dare he.

Personal testimonies of Christians often make non-Christians feel uncomfortable. I discovered through other sources that while Georges Sada was raised in the “old-style Christianity” of the middle-east, he actually became a born-again Christian in 1989. That was after an American preacher from California visited his church and taught about the individual relationship a person can have with Jesus. That explains a lot to those who understand what it means.

So Georges Sada has at least six reasons for people not to promote his book. Nevertheless the book is published and you might want to read it. If you don’t have a friend to lend one to you, it might be in your local library, or you can order a copy on-line at Amazon.com for about $17, it retails for about $25.

Another subplot in the book dealt with Saddam’s leadership style. Specifically, he placed very incompetent people below him in positions of great authority. While this tactic resulted in national leaders who were terrible at their jobs, they were totally loyal to Saddam. Without the power of Saddam to support and protect them, they would never be followed by the people they supervised. Thus revolution was impossible.

Doesn’t that make you wonder?

If you ever worked for an incompetent boss, did you ever wonder how he got there? Was it just a fluke, or was it a parallel of the Saddam principle of leadership?

Kinda makes you think about what your boss’s boss is thinking.

It just makes sense.

---

November 8, 2008

Misery Index

The “misery index” was coined by the economist Arthur Okun. It is calculated by adding the unemployment rate to the inflation rate. Jimmy Carter often referenced it when he was campaigning for the Presidency in 1976. Carter declared that since America was stuck with a misery index of 13.5, President Ford had no right to ask for re-election.

Was he right?

After Jimmy Carter was elected, the misery index continued to rise until his administration was vanquished in a landslide victory for Ronald Reagan. The chart below shows the progress of the misery index using October of each year from 1968 to 2008 as a data point.

Be careful before you draw any conclusions.

Here’s a color-coded version of the same chart. It uses the modern media’s assignment of red to the Republicans and blue to the Democrats. Trying to make sense out of why the misery index goes up or down based solely on the party of the President in office comes up with some mixed results.

For instance, during Richard Nixon’s Republican administration the misery index continued to climb until Gerald Ford, also a Republican, took office. Ironically, President Ford’s misery index was trending lower the entire time he was in office and even as candidate Jimmy Carter made an issue of snap-shots of the index to oust Ford.

The misery index increased so much during Jimmy Carter’s administration that the American people embraced Republican Presidents for the next 12 years.

Misery is not easily forgotten.  But sometimes, like old soldiers, it just fades away. Listen to the old folks if you ever have the time.

As much as some people would like to tag all Democrat Presidents with the misery heaped on Americans during Carter’s administration, it doesn’t prove true when you look at the historic trend on the charts I’ve provided.

Bill Clinton presided over the lowest misery index since the early 1960’s and 1950’s. And we can’t blame the most recent after-burner climb of the misery index on a Democratic Party president since we’re nearing the end of eight years of a Republican administration.

So how can this be?

It is clear that which party the President belongs too is not the sole determiner of how miserable Americans will be. In addition, one of the most repeated lessons in history is to never put your faith in mortal kings. They’ll eventually let you down. The President alone does not control the misery index.

Is there another branch of government that has some control over the economy?

Yes, there is. It’s called the legislative branch, and it’s comprised of the House of Representatives and the Senate. They do the grunt work on budgets and taxes. The President has an influence, and sometimes he can force them to do his will–but not always.

What was going on in the legislative branch while that misery index was rising and diving?

Here’s the same chart of the 1968-2008 misery index showing which political party and which Speaker of the House was maybe culpable for American misery. It’s easy to see that Speakers of the House Albert and O’Neill and their fellow Democrats were in control during the most miserable times, but it doesn’t seem consistent.

Notice how in 1980 the misery index plummets even with O’Neill as the Speaker of the House. Using this data, it is clear to see that the Speaker of the House alone does not control the misery index.

So what was happening with the Senate from 1968-2008?

Take a look at the chart below.  The Senate is often called the “upper house” so I’ve placed Democratic Party and Republican icons at the top of the chart along with the names of the Senate Leaders at the time. Notice how the misery index drops rapidly with the beginning of Senate Leader Baker’s control. It levels off when power switches to Senator Byrd, climbs again when Senator Mitchell comes to power but then defies the logic of blame by decreasing in the middle of his term of leadership.

While the chart appears to show that when Democrats control the Senate the misery index goes up, it is not consistently true. Thus, it is clear to see that the Senate Leader alone does not control the misery index.

What happens when we combine all three of these charts?

When the misery index chart shows the President in office along with which party controls the House of Representatives and Senate, it becomes more clear that certain combinations result in more misery for Americans.

When the House and the Senate are controlled by the Democratic Party, regardless of which party the President belongs to, the misery index trends upwards. This is evident on the chart from 1968-1980, 1986-1993, and in our current time. But in contrast, when a Republican Senate is combined with either a Republican President or Republican House, the misery index trends downward.

The extraordinary drop in misery during President Reagan’s administration, according to the chart, appears to have been possible because of help from Baker’s and Dole’s Senate leadership. Notice how the misery index rose when the Democrats retook the Senate in 1986. The next big drop in the misery index occurred in 1995.  Interestingly, the Republicans control both the House the Senate while the Democrats control the Presidency.

So what does all of this mean?

By examining past results we can make some predictions about the future with some confidence of accuracy. We can deduce that the President can neither increase nor decease the misery of Americans by himself.

What a remarkable system we’ve inherited via the Constitution. As Veterans’ Day approaches, maybe we can understand a little better why America’s military pledges an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.  No American takes an oath to a Party, ruler, or place.

Based off of what we see in the trend chart below, the misery index of the Carter administration was not completely Jimmy Carter’s fault. He was enabled by a Democrat-controlled House and Senate. The result was the greatest misery index since statistics have been kept.

You probably couldn’t help but to notice the sudden upswing in the misery index over the last two years.  Did you also notice how it seems to parallel the late 1960’s and the early 1970’s? That can be attributed to the Party that controls both the House and the Senate. And I’m sure you’ve notice that America just elected a Democratic Party member to be the next President of the United States.

If the trends of the last 40-years of Party-induced misery stays true to past performance, America will experience another big rise in misery beginning shortly after power is transferred. Just like during the Jimmy Carter years, when the Executive branch and both houses of Congress are controlled by the Democrat Party, nothing can dissuade their economic policies from pushing misery upwards.

So misery seems certain to come.  Here’s the solution to prevent a new record in American misery.

If the misery index keeps rising over the next two years, America should realized that the only way to stop it is to balance the power through the 2010 election. We have already seen a Republican Senate and House combine to lower misery in 1996–some may argue it even made Clinton successful enough to be re-elected.  While that can neither be proved nor disproved, we do know that it worked to lower misery.  The chart above clearly shows that.  The chart suggest that it will probably work again in 2010.

Looking backwards, that would have been the solution in 197–but alas, it wasn’t tried. Some people said we got what we deserved for keeping one-party control back then. But saying that didn’t make life any better. Anybody old enough to remember 17% house loans, 22% car loans, and Staff-Sergeants standing in line for food stamps?

I am.  It was miserable.

When the misery index rises–and it will–and if the American people fail to balance the power by voting a Republican majority into both houses of Congress in 2010, some people might say we’ll get what we deserve.

Talk is cheap. Misery is expensive.

It just makes sense.

---

October 31, 2008

Marxist Is As Marxist Does

Barbara West, WFTV news anchor, interviewed Senator Joe Biden and caused quite a stir with her question, “You may recognize this famous quote, ‘From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.’ That’s from Karl Marx. How is Senator Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?”

What followed was an attempt to stir up national outrage. Biden denied Obama had any plans to spread the wealth around, the campaign put WFTV on a restricted list, and a small army of minions countered the suggestion on various news networks. Some people have suggested “Marxism” is just another code word for racists. The apparent goal is for anyone who makes the comparison to appear to be racist, ignorant, or an idiot.

A lot of energy was invested into attacking the questioner, as it was when Joe the Plumber asked Obama if he would pay more taxes under Obama’s plan.

But those on the left do nothing to explain how Obama’s ideals are not Marxist. To make the connection, we need to know something about Marxism and where it came from.

So what is Marxism? Who was Karl Marx? What came of Marxism? So what?

Karl Heinrich Marx was born in Prussia (modern day Germany) in 1818 to a family with a reputation for producing rabbis. Breaking with that tradition, his mother and father had embraced Christianity. Hirschel Marx, his father, was a wealthy businessman and provided for young Karl Marx’s needs. Hirschel was distrubed after Karl went to the University of Bonn and grew arrogant, contemptuous, and selfish.

Can you relate with that? Your kid goes to college and becomes someone you don’t know.

Karl Marx goes to college and rejects everything his parents have tried to teach him. His early writings (Han Events, Vol. XVI, No. 43, Article Section II) expressed a hatred for Jewish people with words unacceptable for repetition in 21st century America media. One of young Karl’s mentors was the atheist Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach, a professional academic who used his intellectual talents to craft convincing arguments to the spiritual weak that humanism was the secret to happiness. Karl Marx sucked it up with a straw.

Karl’s mind raced away with Feuerbach’s principles. After he left college, he married and failed at an attempt to make a living as a journalist in Paris and Brussels. They moved to London in 1849. Eventually forlorn Jenny von Westphalen-Marx longed for death as an escape her miserable existence with Karl. Marx cared nothing about the feelings of others, he was immersed into developing his economic and political theories.

Marx spoke of class struggles as a state of being. To solve the problem he was against everything behind classes to include all churches and all existing governments. Everything needed to be brushed away and replaced with something else–a new Order. Propagating class-hatred to achieve a vague concept of perfection, he denied the foundation for inherent rights. To eliminate class struggles all individual rights had to be cut away.

Ironically the governments that were established under Marxism ideology were nothing more than a dictatorship cloaked in the facade of a “people’s government.” Twenty-first century examples that remain are Cuba and North Korea. Are you ready to move to those utopias? Have a nice trip.

Communism, the brand of socialism espoused by Marx, had limited success in the second half of the twentieth century. The Union of the Soviet Socialist Republic aspired to conquer the entire world through a series of peoples revolutions and direct invasions, but were opposed by a policy of containment by the west. That struggle of containment was called the “Cold War” and ended on December 25, 1991. The USSR’s hammer-and-sickle adorned banner was lowered from over the Kremlin and never went back up. Even though a arsenal of Armageddon-potential had been readied, it was never used–because it was readied. But that’s another discussion.

So, what happens in Marxism?

Change. Marx called for lots of change, he wanted everything destroyed and replaced with something else. A lot of people believed him and modeled governments that resulted in misery for the people. Be careful when the only thing you want is change. Look through the annals of history and you’ll see that all populist leaders came to power on that mantra. Change is great word in theory, but the details of that change in practice can be disappointing.

Humans have no inherent rights. Not even the first amendment? Is the ban on WFTV just the tip of the iceberg of how an Obama-led government will deal with hard questions?

Central government controls everything. Is it really patriotic to pay more taxes as Joe Biden says?

Class warfare. Identified by Marx as a constant. Exploited by Marxists everywhere. Used by dictators to keep the people at odds with each other while they continue to build their own power. All the while, the Marxist goal is to strip all rights from all people.

Is it any wonder that any politician would deny any suggestion of a resemblance with Marxism. But is denial enough?

We face a lot of problems in America today. We need solutions. But more government is not always the best solution.

Marxist is as Marxist does.

It just makes sense.

---

---