A Finger in the Dyke

In thinking about the amazing victory of Scott Brown in the Massachusetts special election to fill Ted Kennedy's Senate seat, it makes me think about the little Dutch boy with his finger in the Dyke...but which side is the boy on?

For the Republicans, Brown's election in one of the bluest of blue states was a near miracle.  The last Republican Senator from Massachusetts was over 30 years ago. While this was a great victory, it is only one battle.  In this case, the Republicans have a chance to plug the big-government health care hole...but it is just a plug.  The Democrats still have a commanding majority in both houses of the Congress and hold the White House.  So while this was a victory, it was only one small battle in the political war for control and the future of the country.  So Republicans can celebrate...but not for too long, there is much yet to be done.

For the Democrats, the Brown win is quite problematic.  In an election that was supposed to be a walk-away sleeper, they were confronted with an electorate who were energized against their candidate and their policies.  They are left with a hole in their dyke that began with the Republican wins in the governor races of Virginia and New Jersey and have continued to grow with the Brown win.  Now the Democrats are desperately trying to plug the hole by downplaying the significance of the wins.  They are trying to say that the anger is unfocused and that it really stems from dissatisfaction with incumbents and the way things have been done for the last eight years.

But will it be enough to keep the dyke from bursting in the mid-term elections in November?  Current polling shows that incumbent Democrats are in trouble all across the country.  President Obama's approval numbers are hovering under 50% after only a year in office and the Democrat controlled Congress is showing approval numbers of only 26%.

So which side will be the most effective in stemming the tide, of holding back the waters?  That remains to be seen.  The Republicans need to begin showing some real leadership.  Their job is not complete.  The Democrats only hope may be to moderate their stances, like President Clinton did after his first mid-term election cycle.  Either way, the real story is that the American people have woken from their long slumber.  They are seeing that how The People's business is conducted really does matter.  That may be the biggest  lesson...The will of The People cannot be dammed up indefinitely.

Obama's Hatian Relief Efforts

Apparently there is disagreement and frustration about how the U. S. is handling the relief efforts in Haiti.  There is a lot of complaining that the aid is not quick enough.  Six days after the magnitude 7 earthquake that devastated the impoverished island nation, most are still without adequate food, water and other basic essentials.   French minister Alain Joyandet has even accused America of moving in an occupation force that is actually hampering the delivery of aid.

How can this be?  I thought the Democrats were in charge now.  This isn't the "stupid" Bush administration any more, this is Obama's America, we're talking about.  Can the President really be that inept that he can't even handle a little crisis like an earthquake?  Is it President Obama's fault that there are still thousands in need...and even dying?   The answer is NO!  And it wasn't President Bush's fault that aid wasn't immediate after hurricane Katrina either.

A relief effort like this is a massive undertaking.  Just getting the supplies and personnel mobilized can take days.  Getting all of that into an area where the infrastructure has been destroyed compounds the problems.  Then factor in the politics involved.  In Haiti, The United States has had to defer to the United Nations.  Pajamas Media reported that "the U.S. distributed all the supplies they’d brought and the UN refused to release more, apparently not wanting the U.S. to get the credit. The U.S. deferred to the UN rather than become an occupying force, the UN deferred to the Haitian government, and the Haitian government was largely nowhere to be found."  What is a well meaning President to do?

These problems are no different, really, than those encountered during the aftermath of hurricane Katrina.  Even the politics.  The laws of the United States say that State governments have to take lead in these types of circumstances and ask the federal government to come in.  This is in an effort to keep the federal powers from usurping a State's powers.  Louisiana's governor completely dropped the ball.   Infrastructure was also damaged which made relief efforts all the more difficult.  But, none of this mattered to the Democrats and their sycophants in the media who politicized the disaster and demonized President Bush as an inept bigot, or worse.  President Bush was even accused of blowing up the levees in order to kill blacks in New Orleans.

In times of disaster, we all need to come together, eliminate the politics, and set about the task of saving lives.  Will mistakes be made?  Yes, most certainly.  We are all humans and imperfect.  We must adjust quickly during the event, review what went right and wrong after the event, and learn from our mistakes.  We should also understand that we will be criticized by other countries.  That's why we need to stick together as Americans.

My heart goes out to the people of Haiti.  And I applaud President Obama's efforts to provide quick relief.  Let's all keep in mind that natural disaster knows no political parties, no race, and no boundaries.  Let's all back the efforts being made and keep the politics out of it.

Gambling on Pennsylvania's Future

On Thursday, Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania signed a bill into law that legalizes poker, black jack and other "table games" in Pennsylvania's licensed casinos.  Rendell said that he had misgivings about the bill because it was "laden with WAMs and pork," but he signed it because the commonwealth's budget was in jeopardy without the additional tax revenue.  The Governor said, "That's not a good way to run a railroad."  I don't know about a railroad, but it's certainly no way to run a state.

For years now we have been hearing how if we just had riverboat gambling in Pittsburgh, it would save the local economy.  If we just get slots it will save the state economy.  And all the while, business and industry have been fleeing the state and population growth has stagnated to the point where Pennsylvania is among eight states expected to lose one congressional district after the 2010 census.  Gambling revenues are a band-aid, at best.

What Pennsylvanians really need is leadership that understands that long-term prosperity is not tied to gambling, but to industry and manufacturing.  These are where the good jobs are...not in casinos and slot parlors.  What will be next, legalized houses of prostitution, like in Nevada?

Let's face it, the way Pennsylvania has been run for the past several decades has gotten us where we are now...budget shortfalls, deteriorating infrastructure and declining labor market.  What Pennsylvania really needs is lower taxes and reduced government interference to draw business back.  We need to provide incentives for manufacturing and high-tech firms that are not just temporary, but permanent.  We have seen that the temporary incentives bring temporary business.  When the incentives run out, so does the business...right out of the state.  With an improved business environment everyone wins; the citizens have a robust labor market, and the state has a growing tax base with increased revenue to the budget. If you don't think it works, take a look at Texas.

So, gambling or no gambling...table games or not...this is not the solution.  This is why it is more important than ever to pay attention to your state and local elections.  All that money going to Harrisburg, and this is the best idea they've got.  Pretty pathetic, if you ask me.

The Utility of Federalism

"Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.  In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a Federal, and not a National constitution." - James Madison, "Federalist 39"

The United States of America was conceived and founded as a federation of sovereign States...not as a single, indivisible nation.  A Federal government was established, through the consent of the States, essentially to provide for the common defense, establish a common currency, represent the federation in international affairs, and to moderate disagreements and regulate trade between States.  It also established a minimum number of rights to be enjoyed by all citizens of the federation.  The Federal government was limited to very few, carefully enumerated powers.  It was never meant to be the supreme power of the federation, nor was it meant to be the great provider.  I wrote of the Balance of Power designed into our government in a previous post.

There are some very important practical utilities to a federal form of government.  The first and most important is decentralization of power.  It is a well known adage that "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."  The founders knew this all too well as they struggled for freedom from the corrupt and tyrannical rule of King George of England. They knew, as James Madison said, "The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse."  Therefore, they designed the government with checks and balances between branches of the Federal government and between the Federal government and the States. All of this in an attempt to avoid the kind of tyranny they had just rebelled against.  If supreme power rests in the Federal government and the States are subordinate, then  the checks and balances fail...it is then only the Federal government left to regulate itself.

The founders believed that decisions made which most directly effect our lives should be made in local governments that were closest to us.  Thomas Jefferson said, " The way to have a safe government is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the function he is competent to [perform best].  Let the national government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with civil rights, laws, police and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with local concerns of the counties, and each ward [township] direct the interests within itself.  It is by dividing and subdividing these republics, from the great national one down through all of its subordinates, until it ends in the administration of every man's farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best."  He further notes, "What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government that has ever existed under the sun?  The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body, no matter whether of the autocrats of Russia or France, or of the aristocrats of a Venetian senate."

Another utility of federalism is mobility.  That is the ability of citizens to move from one state where they may not be happy with how things are done, to another state that more suits their lifestyle or beliefs.  Federalism allows States, which are diverse in geography, resources and populations, to adopt policies that best meet the needs and desires of their citizens.  As Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis once wrote, "A single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."  If a State's citizens are inclined toward socialism, that state can adopt socialist policies like universal health care, welfare and wage controls.  A State who wants capitalism can adopt lower taxes, right to work and limited government.  And, citizens from other States, in the federation, are free to move to either of these states.  Other States can see the successes and failure of these states and adopt or reject their policies as they see fit.  If a policy works in one State, it is likely, but not certain, to work in other states...the same goes with failures.

This mobility is in effect today to a certain extent.  Citizens of New York state, for example, who are tired of excessive personal income and other taxes, are moving to states like Florida and Nevada where there are no personal income taxes.  States with high corporate taxes and excessive regulation are losing industry to other states which provide a more advantageous business environment.  This is how it is suppose to work.  It is also the same with social issues. If you are against the death penalty...move to New Jersey.  If you're for it, move to Texas.

The problem today is that States with failed policies, who are not willing to accept their failures, appeal to the Federal government for relief.  They demand that taxes and resources from other states be used to prop up their policies.  Or, to avoid a mass exodus, they want the Federal government to enact regulations that would "level the playing field."  Failing states are not allowed to fail.  As the Federal government amasses more and more power unto itself, there is less and less distinction between the states.  And, in reinforcing failure and discouraging success, all citizens of the United States are denied the benefits of federalism.

For decades the Federal government has been incrementally overstepping its constitutional bounds and usurping the powers of the States.  In recent years factions of our own government has begun an attempt to cede national sovereignty to international bodies like the U. N.  This will take control even further from The People.  This trend must be stopped and reversed.  State sovereignty must be restored to regain the proper balance of power in the United States.  States must be allowed to fail or succeed, with no intervention from the Federal government.  If this is the case, then our State representatives and governors will be much more careful in their administration of State affairs.  The 17th Amendment to the Constitution should be repealed, making U. S. Senators the true representatives of the States again.  The Federal government is far too large, bloated and corrupt to enact any of these changes.  They will not willingly give up power.  This must come from the grass roots and be done through the States.  Some States have already begun to look at nullification legislation for federal laws or policies where the Federal government oversteps their constitutional bounds, but much more must be done.  We must begin to elect local and State representatives who will uphold and restore the principles on which this country was founded. 


"If the day should ever arrive (which God forbid!) when the people of different parts of our country shall allow their local affairs to be administered by prefects sent from Washington, and when self government of the states shall have been so far lost as that of the departments of France, or even so closely limited as that of counties of England -- on that day the political career of the American people will have been robbed of its most interesting and valuable features, and the usefulness of this nation will be lamentably impaired." - Historian John Fiske,from "The Historical Writings of John Fiske" vol. 12.  1916.

U.S. Sovereignty and Barack Obama

It looks as if he's at it again...Barack Obama has signed an executive order to allow the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) unprecedented freedom of operation within the United States.

Former assistant United States attorney Andy McCarthy says in his article at National Review Online that, "This international police force (whose U.S. headquarters is in the Justice Department in Washington) will be unrestrained by the U.S. Constitution and American law while it operates in the United States and affects both Americans and American interests outside the United States."

No president should be able to sign away our Constitutional protections or U.S sovereignty through executive order.  This order should be rescinded immediately and a Congressional investigation should be undertaken to get to the bottom of the motives behind this move.

Mr. McCarthy asks some very important questions: "Why would we elevate an international police force above American law? Why would we immunize an international police force from the limitations that constrain the FBI and other American law-enforcement agencies? Why is it suddenly necessary to have, within the Justice Department, a repository for stashing government files which, therefore, will be beyond the ability of Congress, American law-enforcement, the media, and the American people to scrutinize?"

Additional  detail is available at http://threatswatch.org/analysis/2009/12/print/wither_sovereignty/.

Un-American?

Barack Obama and the current Democratic leadership, in my opinion, represent the most radical, UN-AMERICAN group to ever gain control in U.S. political history.  That's right, I said it...UN-AMERICAN!  This country was founded on the principles of a "government of  The People, by The People and for The People," as Abraham Lincoln described it.  This group of usurpers do not even pretend to care for the rule of law under the Constitution or the will of the people any longer.  They force their agenda through with bribes, lies and political maneuverings in the dead of the night that would make the most corrupt communist regimes proud.

The current health care issue is just one example of the problem.  They have attempted to rush this legislation through from the beginning.  They tried to conduct votes when the bills were not even made available for review.  They have hidden behind closed doors and voted in the middle of the night.  They have lied about the financial figures and exaggerated the problem to an absurd extent.  They have pressured, threatened and bribed members of congress to get their way.  They have even stated that they don't care if they lose seats, they are going to push it through.  They are determined to thwart the will of the people to gain the centralized power they crave.  Health care is just one area where they are currently attempting to overturn Americanism...there is also "climate change," the banking takeover, the "stimulus" fraud and more. Is this the United States of America or some third-world, despotic banana republic?

How can I call the current government un-American?  Well, if a person did not believe in God...had no regard for the Pope or traditions of the Catholic church, you would not call him a Catholic because he visits a cathedral.  Likewise you would not call a person a Jew because they live on the same block as a synagogue. Why then should we call someone an American who has no regard for the founding principles of this great land just because they live here? What makes an American is not just geography, but belief in the principles of America.  This group of radicals who are in power now do not believe in these principles...indeed, they believe that these principles are outdated, inconvenient or just wrong. They wish to erase the basis of our society (republican federalism, individual liberty and responsibility) and replace it with centralized power, a command economy and redistribution of wealth...SOCIALISM.  These are not just different ideas...they are diametrically opposed world views...they cannot coexist.

Unless we, as citizens, demand a return to the principles that made this country great, we will see the end of America as we know it.  We must not just be content with reversing the course of the last few years, but to return to the basics that have made this republic one of the greatest nations on earth.  We must de-emphasize the centralized Federal government and bring the power back to the States and the People.  We should demand that the 17th Amendment be repealed.  And, in an effort to combat the out-of-control corruption in government, we should demand term limits.  But mostly, we must stop seeing the Federal government as the answer to all of our needs...we cannot allow it to become the source of all power and provision. We must act and vote on the uniquely American principles of our founders, and not from self interest or misguided utopian motives.

The time to act is short.  The People's power is almost gone...and when it is gone, I fear, it will not return without great blood shed.

Godless Socialists

During this season, as I have heard again the stories of companies who will not say “Christmas,” and discussions of whether manger scenes should be allowed in public places, I began to think about the rapid decline of religion in our public lives and the role of socialism in this trend.

Throughout the last more than half century, communists, fascists and socialists of all stripes have persecuted Christians, Jews and other people of faith. From Stalin to Mao to Pol Pot and others, an estimated 100 million or more “religious” people have been murdered in atheist purges, and many millions more placed in prison, work camps or chased out of their homes as refugees.

In the United States of America, faith has been under attack for as many decades through subtler and certainly less lethal measures. Incremental attacks through the legal system have lead to much of the “political correctness” we now endure in our land of supposed religious freedom. Our founding principals have been twisted; our history revised in an effort to diminish the role of faith in our founding and also in our daily life. Everywhere, the forces of socialism have attempted to purge religion from the public stage. We must have “tolerance” for those who believe differently, they tell us…we can’t display crosses, menorahs, The Ten Commandments, or any other symbols of our Judeo-Christian culture because some may take offense and that wouldn’t be fair.

Through popular culture they have sought to ridicule faith and portray people who believe in God as empty-headed dolts. They make science their religion and say that they are the only enlightened ones, even if they have to tweak their “science” a bit to fit their world view and agendas.

Why is it such a goal of socialists to eliminate God from our lives? Do you believe it is because they are really so concerned about people feeling offended or uncomfortable? Well, they certainly don’t care whether Christians are offended. They tell us that we should not be so touchy about a crucifix in urine, its just art, after all…free expression. They say that we do not have a right to think that homosexuality is immoral, though the Bible clearly defines it as sin. And while many feel perfectly free to heap scorn and contempt on those of faith…the faithful must always show tolerance for others.

Some people may be concerned about offense…some may truly think that belief in God is unenlightened. But these are the masses, the useful idiots of the socialists. I believe, at the highest levels it has nothing to do with these stated reasons. A leader or regime who seeks to wield ultimate power over a people cannot have those people believing in a power higher than their government. Pharaohs, emperors, kings, and dictators through-out the centuries have thought themselves the ultimate power, some even claimed to be gods. They also did not tolerate worship of other “gods.”

The United States of America was founded on a belief in “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” We based our laws and liberties around the notion that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among them are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Americans see their rights coming from a power higher than the government. This creates an obstacle to those who wish to dictate your rights by fiat from the top. How can a government override a right that comes from God…unless they destroy the idea of God on the first place?

Socialists not only seek to destroy the idea of God, but further wish to replace God with the State. No longer do you need to look to God for your needs…no longer should you expect your church to help you in desperate times…No, the State is there to meet your needs – as they define them, of course. The State will tell you what is moral; it will tell you how you should live. All you need to do is give up those silly, outdated ideas of God and personal liberties. Those ideas are selfish and detrimental to the world community. You must be willing to sacrifice these childish notions for the good of the whole. And, of course, trust the State. It only has your best interest at heart.

Whether you are a person of faith or not, religious freedom and the “unalienable rights” which emanate from a higher power than government are vital ingredients to all of our liberties. We must keep government in its rightful place, as servants…not rulers. Our rights do not flow from government’s favor; this is arbitrary and disingenuous. It comes from a place that is above law and government. A place that is constant and true. Call it the Laws of Nature, if you will…I say it is God. But remember, when you cede the power to man, it will become corrupt and self-serving to those who rule. And your freedom, which is most dear in this life, will be lost.

Guard your rights jealously. Do not give them up lightly; they have been won at a great price. Always question government’s motives and always remember in The United States of America, the power of the government lies in We The People.

And, Merry Christmas.

The Climate Cover-up

Okay...I've waited to see how this Climategate stuff was going to play out before commenting.  Now, it seems that enough is known to make some observations.

The University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has been one of the most influential organizations in the world in the man-made global warming movement.  The e-mails and data that were obtained (whether they were hacked as originally reported or available on a public server all along as was later reported is not important) shows a pattern of obfuscation and deceit by many of the scientists involved.  As Christopher Booker of the Telegraph reports, Several members of the CRU "have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws."

If the science truly supported the man made global warming claims, you would expect that the CRU would be not only willing, but insistent to share their data.  This is the way science is done...peer review.  Real scientists want to have their findings validated by the wider scientific community.  Peer review can validate theories or invalidate them...but in this way, we move closer and closer to discovering the truth.  Unless, the truth is not the goal.

The apologists have been out in strength.  Some have tried to make the method of the data release the issue...was it legal...was it fair.  Some are making all sort of excuses for the cover-up.  They say that since this is such an important issue, the CRU did not want to delay necessary immediate action because they didn't quite have all of the proof they needed.  And some I've seen just claim that it doesn't matter what the data shows because the ice caps are melting and polar bears are dieing.  I have not seen anyone, though, denying the data's authenticity.

The CRU's data has been used as a key factor in the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recommendations to spend trillions of dollars to avert  what they predict to be catastrophic effects of climate change.  The UN and other agencies have made recommendations for international taxes, and other global governance.  Now, however, the IPCC says that it was only one of many inputs.

The CRU defends themselves by saying that their data matches up with the data of other organizations such as NASA and NOAA.  Since we know CRUs data was fudged, this does not really provide defense of their data, but does call to question the data of the other organizations.  There is much to be gained by those who would administer the climate laws...they certainly may have corrupted more than one organization.

So you may be a believer or an unbeliever.  I do not believe that human activity has significant impact on the natural climate change cycles.  But regardless of which side you fall on, are you willing to give up national sovereignty, trillions of dollars and personal freedoms on uncertain science and fudged data?  I'm not.  This needs to be stopped now and a full investigation should be done by outside organizations.

Peter Principle or Puppet President?

I have to admit that my opinion of Barack Obama has changed slightly from his candidacy to when he first took office to now.  At the beginning of his campaign, I viewed him as an inexperienced, but articulate and charismatic man who had no resume that would recommend him to the highest office in the land.  I was of the same opinion as his primary adversary, Joe Biden when he said, "the presidency is no place for on-the-job training."  The man had no applicable experience.

As the campaign wore on and Obama seemed to unexplainably gain the momentum, I began to learn about his mentors and associations: Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, Reverend Wright to name a few.  Any one of these guys could have sunk another candidacy...but Obama seemed untouchable.  His campaign was also a cash machine.  He was raising money at a record pace.  It turned out that much of the money came from left-wing organizations with ties to billionaire George Soros, a man known for making his money by manipulating markets and devaluating currency.  Now I began to wonder if Obama was a "Manchurian Candidate."

Then, when he was unbelievably elected and took office, he came on strong, moving at a record pace to try to bring about sweeping change. Bail-outs, payoffs, czars and health care...hurry, hurry, hurry, he want's it done right away.  No time to waste.  Wow, I thought, maybe he is really a dangerous ideologue.  He does have a lot of radical learning in his background.  He has made statements about the Constitution being flawed because it is "a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf.."  He bemoans the fact that the Supreme Court "never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society."  Maybe he really was the ring leader, the one with the plan.

In recent months Obama seems to lost his momentum and direction.  He seems to keep himself busy in constant campaign mode while Pelosi, Reid, his cabinet and czars seem to do all the heavy lifting.  Even the decision to bring the Guantanamo terrorists to New York City for trial doesn't seem to have been his.  His Attorney General, Eric Holder, claims that he made the decision and just informed the president of it.  Obama has spent his time on TV, jetting around the world and bringing lavish parties back to the White House. He has played more golf in 10 months than Bush played in eight years. But he is not leading the nation.  He has not offered any solid plans of his own, and seems to be lost when he goes off the teleprompter.  One of his most important duties, that of Commander-in-Chief, seems only to get limited attention.  While our troops are in harm's way and the generals are asking for more troops, the president takes months to "deliberate"and has hardly any time to meet with Gen. Stanley McChrystal, U.S. Commander in Afghanistan.

In the prologue of his book he writes "I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views." He also says "my treatment of the issues is often partial and incomplete."  He never ran a state, a company or even a committee.  He has no experience in leadership...in making hard decisions. So I have to wonder, is this the ultimate example of the Peter Principle, where this charismatic guy gets promoted well beyond his competency level?  Or, is he simply the right puppet for the job?  In the primaries, Joe Biden  said Obama was "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.  I mean, that's a storybook, man."  Was he just the right sort of "blank screen" that certain political factions believed could get elected?  Was he the young, good looking family man that would make a good figurehead for their leftist agendas?  Either way, I think, the results are the same.

It’s the Economy, Stupid.

With all the talk of socialized medicine and corporate bailouts as of late, it may have slipped your attention that the United States of America itself is on the verge of needing a bailout. Even with the Federal deficit at historical highs and continuing to grow, our political leaders are continuing to spend money like there’s no tomorrow. It’s like an addiction; they just can’t seem to stop themselves.

In a November 22, 2009 article, the New York Times reports “With the national debt now topping $12 trillion, the White House estimates that the government’s tab for servicing the debt will exceed $700 billion a year in 2019, up from $202 billion this year, even if annual budget deficits shrink drastically. Other forecasters say the figure could be much higher.” Let me say that again…$700 Billion just to service the debt, not to pay it down, just paying the service on the debt.

The national treasure is not just gone…squandered away by greedy, unscrupulous politicians…it’s been replaced by a mountain of IOUs that we now have to pay back to banks and other countries like China. This is no mere inconvenience, but a matter of utmost national security. If we fail to pay back our debts, we will lose the good faith and credit of the world community that took so many years to build. This will hurt our ability to trade, to assert influence and project power around the world. We will be greatly weakened.

And what is government’s solution to this crisis? Let’s spend more money. This has gotten to a point where it’s even too much for the very left-wing Saturday Night Live writers (remember, Al Franken was an SNL writer). In their recent skit depicting a press conference between President Obama and Chinese president Hu Jintao, President Jintao says, through his interpreter, “You know, as I listen to you, I am noticing that each of your plans to save money involves spending even more money. This does not inspire confidence.”

But, Mr. Obama asks us to have patience over the economy. "Even though it will take time, I can promise you this: we are moving in the right direction; that the steps we are taking are helping," he said in his weekly address. Patience? Patience while they continue to move down paths that got us into this mess in the first place? Well, I guess if out-of-control spending is what got us here, we should keep it up to fix the problem, right? What is the definition of insanity again?

The health care issue may elicit strong emotions on both sides, but the plain fact is that we cannot afford the entitlements we’re providing now, let alone taking on more. Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid are already nearly bankrupt. None of the niceties are possible if we have no economy left. Our ship of state has a sizable leak. We must turn it around and head back for safer shores before it’s too late…before we reach the point of no return. This will not be easy. We will have to make cuts…just like any of our families or employers would have to in a similar situation. But the survival of our way of life is at stake. 

Government should be taking firm, decisive steps to shore up the economy.  Make cuts across the board in all departments.  Reduce spending and stimulate the economy the only way that has ever worked...tax cuts.  Instead they think of new was to spend OUR money.  Enough is enough!

One more line from the SNL Skit: "How exactly is extending health-care coverage to 30 million people going to save you money?" Hu asked.

"I don't know," answers Obama.