Uncle Sam's Tavern

2012-08-17T15:57:00.001-05:00

Thoughts

There are things I dislike seeing in print, on TV or wherever. The current top contender is the six words seen on ads by law firms: "You may be entitled to compensation". If that isn't urging viewers/readers to grab someone else's property, I don't know what is.

Obama has a high likeability rating? Likeable? He invites the Supreme Court to his State of the Union address, then scolds them in front of the world. He invites Paul Ryan to a budget speech and criticizes him in front of the audience. Just two examples of behavior I do not consider likeable.

Many pundits are now saying that, in the long run, a presidential candidate's choice for his VP does not matter. Maybe they forgot Thomas Eagleton. But then, that all happened in 1972 - forty years ago. Unless you are nearing age 60, you could hardly know. George McGovern was the Dem's nominee for President. He chose Missouri Senator Thomas Eagleton as his VP pick. It was revealed that Eagleton had undergone some medical procedure that was perceived to be treatment for mental illness. It sank McGovern's candidacy. Could Joe Biden's endless stream of gaffes do the same for President Obama?

Speaking of George McGovern. After the liberal Senator's political career, he sank his savings into a restaurant/Inn. After struggles against going broke, he now offers the Conservative line that in today's regulatory climate it is almost impossible to succeed in a small business.

During the 2008 election cycle, I read Obama's book Dreams From My Father. I was struck by his consistent unfairness. In Hawaii, his white grandmother was frightened by an aggressive black panhandler. Obama took the side of the unknown panhandler, saying his grandmother's complaint hit him like a kick in the gut. As a community organizer in Chicago, when he was unable to persuade the City government to satisfy the complaints of his constituents, he demonized the City... even black mayor Harold Washington. Where was the City's side of the story? Now he touts fairness?

I was completing a political survey. The question was Do you favor a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution? I thought, You Bet, and checked the YES box. Then I thought again. What happens when the politicians near the end of a fiscal year and realize they have spent more than their tax revenue? The obvious answer is they will raise taxes, saying they must... The Constitution requires a balanced budget! I did not submit the survey.

Some are complaining that rich investors are paying a lower tax rate than some of us working slobs. But, do those investors set the tax rates? Hardly!. It was recognized that there was a need for wealthy people to invest in businesses, rather than tax shelters like tax-fee municipal bonds. So, the government set tax rates from business investment income lower to encourage that kind of investment. No one is complaining about the tax-free bonds. So, where's the beef?

Ask the next ten people you meet if the U.S. Constitution provides for a separation of church and state. Many, if not most... if not all... will say "Yes". Then hand them a copy of The Constitution and ask them to show you where. (Don't have a copy of The Constitution? Get one here. or there.)

Sometimes thinking gives me a headache!

2012-08-09T17:36:00.000-05:00

O'Reilly

I agree with FNCs superstar Bill O'Reilly often. Some times I strongly disagree.

Recently, Bill asserted that you must notify the FBI when taking flying lessons, but not if you buy a machine gun or a bazooka. That was such a foolish misstatement it has been thoroughly refuted by Doug Giles and others.

More recently, Bill said "Marriage is not a right protected by the Constitution." Well, Mr. O'Reilly, marriage is not an enumerated right in the Constitution. But, have you read the Ninth amendment? It states that "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

(Thank the Founders for the precious 9th amendment! Without it there surely would be books - no, libraries full of books - telling us all the things we could NOT do because those things were not enumerated in the Constitution!)

Then, Bill, take a look at the Tenth Amendment which says that powers "...not prohibited by it (The Constitution) to the states are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Since marriage is not prohibited by the Constitution, it automatically becomes a protected right. Further, if any states wish to prohibit same-sex marriage, that right is reserved to that state and is protected by the Constitution.

Or, if I personally believe only in traditional marriage, I as a "people" enjoy Constitutional protection for that right.

The Founders did not write the Constitution to be a complex legal document. They wanted it to be a document that could be read and understood by every citizen of the United States. And with great genius, they succeeded!

Sadly, they did not provide a way to make us read it!

We've moved!

2012-03-29T20:26:00.003-05:00

Though the occasional odd post may yet appear here, most of the newly revived action has made the jump to the new Uncle Sam's Tavern. Please click here to join us, and tell your friends.

2012-03-26T15:30:00.002-05:00

Remembering Bataan

The vast majority of Americans reading that headline will ask, "Remembering what?"

If you are interested, search "Bataan Death March" and learn what "Bataan" is all about. Americans charged with defending the Philippines just before World War II erupted, were ill-equipped and poorly armed. Still, they resisted bravely, proclaiming, "We're the Battlin' Bastards of Bataan; no mama, no papa, no Uncle Sam!"
With the pacific fleet destroyed at Pearl Harbor, America could not defend the defenders of the Philippines. They were indeed bastards, written off by their government.

In April, 1942, after delaying for four months the Japanese conquest of the Western Pacific, American and Filipino forces, 76,000 unarmed, starving troops, surrendered. We did not learn their fate until 1944, when Lt. Col W. E. Dyers, who had escaped the Japanese, reported to General MacArthur. Col. Dyers said,

"You might call it the Death March from Bataan, for that is what it was. The Japs marched us from Bataan to the first of our prison camps. At the start of that march, they beheaded an American Captain for having a few Japanese yen in his pocket.

"I saw Japs bayonet malaria-stricken American soldiers struggling to keep marching down the dusty roads that led to hell. I saw them flog an American Colonel until his face was unrecognizable.

"I saw laughing and yelling Jap soldiers lean from speeding trucks to smash their rifle butts against the heads of the struggling prisoners.

"I saw Jap soldiers roll unconscious American and Filipino prisoners of war into the path of Japanese Army trucks which ran over them."

How could anyone survive? In the late 1930s, when employment of any kind, for any wage was impossible to find, many poor boys joined the National Guard. Their patriotic choice (over the WPA and other welfare programs) to earn a few dollars for their families. Many were under age but officers neglected age verification because the boys were big, strong, and urgently needed to earn the few dollars the Guard offered. These boys were accustomed to deprivation. They had experienced long days working in the hot sun and going to bed hungry. They were tough. As clouds of war darkened, National guard units were activated. New Mexico alone had 1,800 such boys on Bataan when the Japanese attacked.

More hell followed Col. Dyers' escape, and when the Japanese Government surrendered and the surviving American prisoners were released, we learned the details. So, how could we forget Bataan? Many have. Then, 23 years ago, a group of patriots began what has become a tradition: a Bataan Memorial March at the White Sands Missile Range, in New Mexico. Yesterday, March 25, was the date of the 2012 event. This year, 6,700 marchers participated. Teams came from military units all over the world. There were many college ROTC students. Some families marched, one with two boys, 9 and 10 years old.

Joanna and I helped at one of twelve watering stations set up along the route.

Joanna, in yellow T-shirt, filled thousands of cups with either Gatorade or water, which was quickly downed by dehydrated marchers finishing the 26-mile route.

New Mexico weather offered a day of clear skies... a blessing and a curse. It was a beautiful day, but under our desert sun, temps soared into the 90s! Estimates place the still living survivors of the 1942 Bataan march at 61, and several were on hand to greet marchers at the finish line.

The Memorial march is well organized, with ample plans for any emergency. There were, indeed, some marchers who suffered severe leg cramps as they crossed the finish line. A few were carried off on stretchers!

At a lunch break, we visited with two U.S. soldiers who had driven 1,800 miles to participate in the march. After lunch, one remarked that they were going to try to leave. Joanna asked if they were concerned with traffic leaving the base. The soldier, a veteran of two tours in Iraq replied, "No, we're concerned about walking to the parking lot!"
We didn't march, buy we, too, were exhausted.

It was an exhilarating experience. To see so many young people having traveled so far, willing to endure blisters, leg cramps and total fatigue to honor and remember Americans who suffered so greatly seventy years ago.

The American Spring is Upon Us

2012-03-19T18:42:00.000-05:00

The Secret Truth About Newt Gingrich

2012-03-19T11:53:00.003-05:00

It's a Crying Shame

2012-03-17T21:30:00.002-05:00

Seriously, people...we are trying to hire the best person to lead the free world. It's a pretty important job...one which we should undertake with more rigor, and vigor, than any other job we do. What is really more important, in a big picture sense? What else do you do in your day to day life that literally impacts every single person in the whole world? Unfortunately, most voters don't think of it that way - like they are hiring someone for a critically important job. If they did, perhaps they would look beyond popularity contests and opponents' smears and do their homework. Ask yourself:

What are the qualifications for this job?

I have heard many people say they are supporting Rick Santorum because he shares their faith. Fine. Good. That's important. And what else, I ask? The answers are broad and very shallow. They don't know what else. They like his religious values. The fact is, Rick Santorum cannot win against Obama (unless this becomes a Carteresque election, in which case *I* could beat Obama). He doesn't EXCITE anyone...doesn't inspire passion. He is right on many issues, and is a good, decent and honorable man. But he is not compelling in any way. His range of experience is very narrow and his voting record abysmal. That very faith that his supporters embrace is going to be his downfall - rather than leading by example, he is already showing troubling signs of wanting to force the nation to support his world view. His faith seems to trump free speech when he vows to crack down on internet porn, and cloud his judgment on women's issues. He has a very bad habit of falling into liberal media traps...responding just as they hope he will, giving them ever more fuel for their frenzy. He will be destroyed by the media. It will be like the attacks on Sarah Palin, on steroids. They will eat him alive, and he has shown repeatedly that he does not do well under pressure. He will stammer and stutter and look like a petulant little boy, stomping his foot impotently. I shudder at the image.

Mitt also has a bad tendency of opening mouth and inserting foot, but Romney is at least more credible than Santorum, with a broad record of success in many diverse areas. He has the far superior organization, with extensive networks in very important places. He is the best equipped for the job, on paper. However, there is something missing in Governor Romney. I've not seen it quite put into words, and I can't either, exactly, but he is just not normal. A touch robotic, a little nerdy, he seems detached, there is no sense of urgency. One feels that he really doesn't comprehend the gravity of our situation. If he doesn't understand the problem, how can he possibly know the solution? Since he is the undeniable favorite, I keep trying to tell myself that he would be a much better President than he is a candidate, and I think this is actually quite possibly true. If guided by a strong, Constitution loving Congress, there is a reasonable possibility that he could be a very good President. Certainly our country would benefit from the morals and values that he and his family represent (the same is equally true for Santorum). There are some very good things about Mitt. Sure wish it felt like enough. Sadly, he has spent millions, not telling us how capable he is, but rather by attacking his opponents, nearly always dishonestly - words taken out of context, non-existent links between events invented - Romney has been the penultimate negative campaigner this cycle, and it has destroyed any sense of respect I had for the man. If you can't win on your own merits, why the hell are you in the race?

Then there's Newt Gingrich. Newt is a little too human, a bit too imperfect for many of us to accept. His verbal oops are legendary. It seems to me that he thinks out loud too much...is a little too willing to say what's on his mind - to speak the truth, even when it hurts him. When caught off guard, he has a bad habit of evaluating possible answers out loud, and says all sorts of politically incorrect things. He comes across as being somewhat impulsive, which scares the timid among us. But he has a PhD in history, an obsession with governing and politics, and an in-depth understanding of the making of our nation. Like a certain young candidate for U.S House for whom I once worked, Newt Gingrich would approach leading this nation with a firm grasp of the original intent of the founders. It is my contention that this is critically important, even essential. How can we expect our president to uphold the Constitution if he doesn't know where it came from, the context in which it was framed?

Gingrich has the capacity to generate excitement. Remember the standing ovations during the debates? I have personally cheered for his responses on many occasions, and have had tears in my eyes on at least as many more. They say he's unelectable, but in the general election, on the same stage with President Hopenchange, he would pit his considerable substance against Obama's vacuous, empty rhetoric, and the result would be astonishing. He has the ability to light a fire under this nation not seen in many years, to wake up a people who have grown very weary with politics as usual.

He is brilliant, has spent years learning about the many issues that we face. He thinks outside the box, and is not overly devoted to party. He made enemies on both sides of the aisle when he was Speaker, all of whom have crawled out of the woodwork to attack him now for revenge, but he was the single most effective Speaker of the House we have had in my lifetime - balancing the budget, reforming welfare and getting people back in the workforce. They were excellent years, by nearly any measure. Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich found ways to be bi-partisan in the best possible way, and they had an enormous positive impact on our nation. And guess what? Both of them were screwing around on their wives at the time. Didn't really seem to hurt the outcome a bit.

Why, my fellow Americans, would we not want to give that kind of thinking another shot? We have the opportunity to elect one of the two men who made that happen, and instead, we are listening to his many, many enemies, most of whom are the crusty, corrupt old former politicians and cronies that we profess to despise. Have we lost our minds? We have a guy who's been there, done that, had a decade to review his successes and failures, and to observe the continuing decline of his country. It is near certain that he has spent every day since he left office thinking about how to get the job done, planning his strategies, formulating solutions. Certainly he is able to intelligently discuss virtually any subject that is addressed, and has his own unique brand of solution for each crisis. He not only knows the ropes, he knows the potholes and how to avoid them.

Are we turning away from this exceptionally well qualified man because he's had three wives? Take it from me...some very, very good men have had three wives - I know from personal experience...it's utterly irrelevant. Or is it because of the phony ethics scandal? The one the Democrats started because he was so enormously successful they couldn't stop him any other way? The one where he was later found, after an exhaustive investigation by the IRS, to have done absolutely nothing wrong?

I don't know what kind of President Newt Gingrich would be...no one can ever know these things in advance. But he is boldly different, passionate and inspiring. His record is strong, positive and favors liberty. He has clear solutions on sooo many fronts...just watch a few hundred of his best YouTube videos. Yet, in this time of critical need, America is turning away from him. It's a crying shame.

2012-03-11T12:26:00.001-05:00

Higher ~~Education~~ Indoctrination

In recent years, we have been bombarded with admonitions that success in America is nearly impossible without a college education. The Federal Government has taken many steps to facilitate that education with student loan programs, tuition grants, monetary support of institutions, etc.

Now, however, we are learning that graduates from a four-year college are without jobs, (or working at multiple menial jobs which do not require a degree) while saddled, on the average, with a $20,000 student loan debt. All the while, North Dakota reports that scores of high-paying jobs, requiring training in mechanical skills - not a college degree - are going begging.

Some now say a college education, excluding a post graduate degree in the sciences, is a waste of time and money. I wish that were the end of the story.

The truth is, many graduates from a four year liberal arts college not only have no skills, they have acquired a mindset destructive to the American way of life.

In my local newspaper (the Las Cruces, New Mexico Sun-News, March 11, 2012), there appeared the following Letter To the Editor:

"New Mexico State University's College of Education is aggressively teaching future secondary teachers a liberal agenda. I am a graduate student working toward a secondary teaching license through the Department of Curriculum and Education at NMSU, where it is mandatory to take a course called Exploration of Education. The course description states this class is an overview of secondary schooling, but instead, it is a platform to promote the Democratic Party and to nullify the white American male, American culture and Christianity.
"The front cover of one of the required textbooks depicts President George W. Bush next to a picture of a monkey with a similar facial expression while President Barack Obama is pictured giving a speech in front of the American flag.
"Through the class, I have been taught the white male is the opposition, and everyone who is not a white male needs to band together in order to succeed against them. One textbook further defines the opposition as white, male, Christian, heterosexuals. In some of the readings, the American citizenship of white American males is negated by calling them White Europeans rather than European Americans. All other male groups are called Americans, such as African Americans rather than Black Africans.
The United states of America is never exalted; rather, I have been taught our American culture is deplorable because we are a capitalistic nation who loves football and owns guns.
It was conveyed that in order to embrace freedom of religion, I must first put down Christianity. This is what future secondary teachers are being taught at NMSU, under the guise of critical pedagogy, and all secondary education teachers must pass this class in order to be eligible to be a secondary teacher. I contend that if these ideologies are not adopted, then failure is imminent. -Brenda Bullard, Las Cruces

As a one-time news reporter, I understand this is thus far unverified. But surely Miss Bullard would not lie, since her assertions are easily proved or disproved with a trip to the NMSU bookstore to peruse the referenced textbooks.

Bear in mind, meanwhile, that this instruction is being offered at a high cost to each student, made higher by the interest they will surely pay on a student loan, and a high cost to taxpayers. Collectively, we are financing the destruction of our America by creating a generation of anti-American thinkers.

2012-02-11T15:07:00.001-06:00

Can we cut Rick a little slack???

In a moment of discussing a variety of weighty matters, someone popped Rick Santorum a question about women serving in military combat units. He responded with a lame answer - something involving emotion - and has caught a bit of heat. Dumb move for a political candidate. But let's think about this for a moment.

As a small boy, one of first social rules laid down for me was 'Don't hit girls'. Okay... most of the girls my age were a little smaller than me, and that seemed a reasonable restriction. After all these many decades, I have never hit a girl.

Small boys like to use coarse language and discuss gross subjects. The more disgusting, the better. Next rule: 'Don't use coarse language or discuss gross subjects in front of girls'. Small boys think farts are very funny... but, guess what, I grew up thinking girls never do anything so disgusting as to fart!

I was taught that if you walk along the sidewalk with a girl, you walk on the outside, shielding her from the traffic. If you come to a door, you open it and hold it open for her. If you are on a crowded bus where all seats are occupied, and a woman boards, you stand and offer her your seat. (I did that in Mexico once and a lot of people stared at me like I was crazy. But, this is America.) I was never given a reason for special treatment for girls, none was needed, it was just the way it was supposed to be.

I had four sisters, so I certainly knew that girls could be tough, smart and fully capable, but they are still girls.
The rule was 'Be a gentleman - treat her like a lady'.

Now someone wants to give her a rifle and send her off to the bloody battle, denied the amenities of a civilized existence, forced to crawl through the mud while being shot at, keeping her rifle clean in case she has to shoot someone. Having to use a slit trench for a bathroom. Eat crappy G.I. food with no way to brush her teeth afterward. Being barked at by a non-com for the slightest transgression. Not the way it is supposed to be.

When I entered the Army, well over a half century ago, there were guys who were rejected, considered unsuited for military service. Today, there will be women also deemed unsuited for the role. But gender is not a factor in either case.

So, out-of-the-blue some dummy asks you if you think women should fill the boots of a combat soldier. You can't say they aren't smart enough, because you know damn well they are. You cannot say they are not physically fit for the tough stuff, because you know many of them are. You can't say they lack the mental toughness, because you know that, also, is untrue. And, certainly, you can't say 'because it just ain't supposed to be'! That is, if you hope to win your election. You can gibber like an idiot and say something about emotion... but that, too, could derail your political ambitions.

You could say it depends on the woman and those persons setting standards for combat soldiers, but that may require some thought, time for which politicians are not often allowed - and that may also be wrong.

And even if your brain knows its okay for women to be combat soldiers... your heart still insists that's just not the way it is supposed to be.

2012-02-08T19:02:00.001-06:00

Is Obama non-partisan???

It wasn't that long ago when President Obama was taped at a West Coast fundraiser, accusing we peasants of "clinging to our guns and God".

Well, now... the Administration certainly was not "clinging to their guns" when Fast & Furious was going down. Millions of taxpayer dollars were spent to purchase high-quality weapons to give free to Mexican drug cartels. We know, of course, that grateful druggies made use of those guns in killing at least one Border Patrol agent, hundreds - maybe thousands - of Mexican citizens, and perhaps a few of the Americans murdered while south of the border on some sort of humanitarian mission.

But, the Administration is most certainly clinging to its guns in the case of Syrian civilians begging for arms to protect themselves from their own government. Obama says 'no' to smuggling arms into Syria.

Is that Fair and balanced, or what?

Now we see that the Administration is not "clinging to God" as they walk all over the religious beliefs of American citizens. Does your conscience oppose the use of contraceptives? Doesn't matter, you may be forced to pay for contraceptives to be given free to persons with different beliefs.

So... in the aforementioned spirit of being fair, should we not expect from this president a show of strong support for God's followers in some coming issue?

2012-02-06T18:04:00.000-06:00

What do we old "Tea Party" Conservatives want?

Recently, in my city, a shopper came upon a young mother, breast feeding her infant child, while inside a store. Outraged, the shopper stormed to the front of the store and angrily complained to the manager.

What have we become? Is that most basic, most natural, most gentle act in all of human endeavor now outrageous? That infant's tiny stomach must become empty much more frequently than yours or mine. What is it to do when it feels hunger pangs? What is that mother to do? Ignore her child's discomfort in favor of the warped sensibilities of some uncaring shopper?

When I tell young people that I never removed the keys from my car, indeed never locked my car, until I was nearly 40 years of age; or that our family's home during my entire youth, never had a lock on a door, they stare in disbelief.

With a little thought, I could fill pages with facts from my youth... facts that seem implausible in today's America.

We old Conservatives are not religious nuts. We do not want to see women return to a wash tub and scrub board to do laundry. We do not want our kids to walk to school in bare feet and home made shirts, as we did. We do not want them, or us, to give up our TV, cell phone, or any of the other technical marvels enjoyed today. We long only for a return to the attitudes, the integrity, the honesty of years past.

You don't have to go back many decades to see differences. Remember, President Kennedy said "Ask not what your country can do for you...". Compare that with today's government that wants to do everything for people, and a population that expects it from them.

We seniors have lived through happy times when people had pride, self-respect, discipline, honesty... when people understood, cared and could be trusted. We wish, oh God how we wish we could help America's youth experience those times again!

A Brave Newt World

2012-01-22T14:04:00.006-06:00

Buckle up, America...it's going to be an interesting year!

The political class and the talking heads continue to prove just how far out of touch they are with the people. To them, 2012 is business as usual - in reality, it is anything but.

Americans are fed up. For decades, we have watched as administration after administration move us ever closer to socialism, confiscating our wealth to support countries, people and values we find abhorrent. In 2010 we thought we sent a powerful message to Washington, D.C. - it was not received. We are starved for someone who GETS IT...someone who is in touch with reality, who understands that our nation is facing an enormous crisis and doesn't shrug off a national debt in excess of fifteen trillion dollars as no big deal. We are in no mood for mushy moderates who embrace political correctness and sugar-coat the issues - we are in the mood for a revolution.

Enter Newt Gingrich.

We are told he's not reliable, he's a loose cannon, he's not a true conservative. He is hated nearly as much by the establishment right as he is the left. His personal life story is the stuff from which soap operas are made. Unelectable! Unworthy! Inappropriate!

In the past, we would have meekly turned away without giving him a chance. Not this time. This time we sized up the rest of the field and found it (with the exception of Ron Paul) to be more of the same. Sure, they make some good points and say the right things...but they just don't share our anger, our indignation at the course our country is following. Cookie cutter candidates, lined up neatly on the debate stage, each trying to convince us they are the perfect cookie and ever so much better than the others...but they're all the same. They all parse their words ever so carefully - mustn't say anything that might offend anyone! They smile their perfect white smiles as they try to appear to be the best informed, the strongest, the ONE. And we don't care. Any of them would be an improvement over what we have now, we tell our friends, but none of them is inspiring or exciting. None of them give us any HOPE for real CHANGE.

Except that one man stands out. One guy up there seems to understand. But, no, we can't support Gingrich! He is a Washington insider! He is the physical embodiment of everything we despise...isn't he?

For me, it was the night he was asked to list examples of things he would change were he elected. He listed several, including Agenda 21. I was bored at the time, only barely paying attention, and had to back it up and listen again - did he really say Agenda 21? Yes, he said it, and he swore to fight it. I was pleasantly surprised...no other candidate had ever given a sign they even knew what it was. That was the moment I first seriously considered Newt Gingrich.

Shortly thereafter, he began to rise in the polls, as others had their moments with Newt. The breadth of his knowledge is astonishing - his passion and willingness to speak truth to power so refreshing. Millions of us began leaning toward Gingrich, but we quickly learned that it wasn't prudent to admit it - the mere mention of his name in conversation brought ridicule as the attacks on him mounted and opposition to him solidified.

After Iowa, and Santorum's unlikely rise, it seemed Newt was destined for the ash heap. His own inept attacks on Romney nearly completed his political death. But the debates continued, and he continued to strike exactly the right tone for an angry electorate, time after time after time. The South Carolina debates had viewers nearly jumping up and down with excitement - yes, excitement! - at his direct responses, his refusal to run in terror from charges of racism and his willingness to push back against the media. They threw everything they could dig up at him, including a bitter ex-wife, and the electorate simply didn't care.

Newt went on to win South Carolina - convincingly. He won almost every demographic, losing only those who could rightly be called "the establishment." He won all but a couple of counties across the state, uniting the Christian conservatives, fiscal conservatives and military in a style that prompted at least one pundit to note that he was recreating the Reagan coalition. He generated record turnout in spite of severe thunderstorms across much of the state. Now the new Florida polls are showing a roughly 30 point swing in less than a week - Romney's 20+ point lead is now approaching a double digit deficit in the Sunshine State.

It's still very early in the process, but something important is happening here. Americans know that Newt Gingrich is dangerous and uncontrollable, but we sense that he is one of us, that he understands the issues which keep us awake at night, and, perhaps most importantly, that he shares our anger and indignation. The people are searching for a leader, and will gladly embrace a man who is shunned by their oppressors - the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Barring self-destruction, Newt Gingrich will soon find himself in command of an army of millions of motivated citizens who have longed for leadership for decades. The possibilities are endless.

2011-07-23T10:41:00.002-05:00

Medicare Fraud? You tell me.

In 2006 I was diagnosed with severe sleep apnea and received a prescription for an oxygen concentrator. Like a good patient I contacted Pacific Pulmonary, one of several companies providing medical devices.

They delivered a Respironics EverFlo-Q Oxygen Concentrator and a supply of Salter Labs Nasal Cannulas. For use of this equipment, Pacific Pulmonary has billed Humana, my insurer, about $121 per month, and they have billed me a co-pay of $24 a month. It has been a total of about 60 months, but Pacific Pulmonary claims there were 15 months during which they did not bill.

I am not very good at remembering due dates or payment details, so I leave that to my wife of forty years. She is generally quite frugal, extremely good at meeting all obligation dates and amounts and is good at arithmetic. Perhaps Pacific Pulmonary has billed us only 45 months... I'll take their word for it pending further checking.

In any event, 45 months at about $145 a month, totals over $6,700. During this period, they have sent perhaps an additional 50 nasal cannulas.

Humana has advised that they will no longer pay for Pacific Pulmonary services, and has advised we contact a different provider. This prompted me to add up what we have paid Pacific and what they have provided.

I Googled "Respironic oxygen concentrator" and was instantly provided with the URL of several providers. I clicked on one, http://www.portablenebs.com and learned that the Respironics unit I am using is available for purchase for $599; nasal cannulas are about $12.50 for 10.

To summarize, Pacific Pulmonary has "rented" me a piece of gear worth $600 and tossed in about $75 worth of accessories, for the amazing low price of just $6,700!

Gee, what a business!

Is it legal? Probably. I signed whatever paperwork was presented me.

Is it fraud? In my opinion, decidedly yes! How about you?

2011-07-05T11:40:00.002-05:00

The Legacy of New Mexico Democrats

My adopted state of New Mexico is a shining example of how the Democrat Party shapes any governmental unit they dominate.

Democrats have held the majority in almost every city, county, state or federal office. In November, 2010, we elected a Republican governor; broke the Democrats hold on our congressional delegation by electing a Republican to one of our three districts, and we gained some seats in our state legislature. But Democrats still hold majorities.

What is the result: Here is how the American Society of Civil Engineers graded New Mexico's infrastructure:

1. Aviation: D
2. Bridges: C
3. Dams: D
4. Drinking Water: D-
5. Energy: D+
6. Hazardous Waste: D
7. Inland Waterways: D-
8. Levees: D-
9. Public Parks and recreation: C-
10. Rail: C-
11. Roads: D-
12: Schools: D
13. Solid Waste: C+
14. Transit: D
15. Wastewater: D-

Meantime, New Mexico's Department of Higher Education reports that, for the fist time in history, New Mexico's older residents are better educated than its younger ones. A higher percentage of those 45 to 65 years old have an associate's degree or higher compared to those who are 25 to 44. In other words, our system of higher education is no longer working.

New Mexico has a variety of climates, from toasty warm deserts to cool mountains. It has an abundance of natural resources, including oil, natural gas and uranium. It has fishing, big and small game hunting; lakes, ski areas and other tourist attractions. And, New Mexico has spectacular scenery and breathtaking sunsets nearly every day.

New Mexico now has a commercial spaceport. (It costs a lot less to launch from 4,000 feet than at sea level, as in Florida.)

There is every reason why New Mexico should be a thriving, prosperous state. Sadly, its management - its government - has prevented that from becoming a reality.

2011-06-29T20:43:00.002-05:00

Things that irk!

George Mason University's Distinguished Professor Walter Williams recently wrote: "There are a lot of things, large and small, that irk me. One of them is our tendency to evaluate a presidential candidate based on his intelligence or academic credentials."

Well.. that started me thinking... what was Dr. Williams talking about? So I decided to look up the formal education credentials of the presidents.

First, a few of the "good" presidents:

No. 1: George Washington has long been described as First in War, First in Peace, First in the hearts of his countrymen. His education was rudimentary, probably being obtained from tutors but possibly also from private schools, and he learned surveying.

No. 2: Abraham Lincoln gained what education he could along the way. While reading law, he worked in a store, managed a mill, surveyed, and split rails.

No. 3: Thomas Jefferson attended the College of William and Mary and read law (1762-1767) with George Wythe, the greatest law teacher of his generation in Virginia.

No. 4: Ronald Wilson Reagan earned a BA degree in 1932 from Eureka (Ill.) College.

No. 5: Harry S. Truman attended the public schools in Independence, Mo.

And, a few "stinkers":

No. 1: (Thomas) Woodrow Wilson. A Princeton graduate, he turned from law practice to post-graduate work in political science at Johns Hopkins University, receiving his Ph.D. in 1886. He taught at Bryn Mawr, Wesleyan, and Princeton, and in 1902 was made president of Princeton.

No. 2: Franklin Delano Roosevelt. A Harvard graduate, he also attended Columbia Law School.

No. 3. Theodore Roosevelt. A Harvard graduate.

No. 4: William Howard Taft. A Yale graduate.

No. 5: James Earl Carter, Jr. Graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis

And, we must not forget:

No. 6: Barack Hussein Obama obtained early education in Jakarta, Indonesia, and Hawaii; continued education at Occidental College, Los Angeles, Calif.; received a B.A. in 1983 from Columbia University, New York City; studied law at Harvard University, where he received J.D. in 1991

I could go on, but no need... I now think I see what Dr. Williams was talking about!

2011-06-26T12:31:00.002-05:00

Does anyone believe

those political talking points? Or do they just keep repeating them to persuade the uninformed to believe a lie?

Last night my wife and I attended a Town Hall type meeting conducted by our New Mexico Congressman, Republican Stevan Pearce. A couple of people persisted in demanding to know why the Republicans refused to "tax the rich" as a way to ease the nation's debt crisis. After the Congressman quoted New Mexico's former Democrat governor Bill Richardson that raising taxes killed jobs, the questioner stormed out of the meeting in a huff.

The fact is, if the government confiscated every dime of income of the top 2% of the nation's earners - not just an increase in their tax rates, but every dime of their income - it would raise only enough cash to operate the government for a week or ten days. There are other sound reasons why raising tax rates on top income earners would be a mistake, but are more reasons needed?

Again, I ask... does anyone believe those talking points? I worry that they do, and those people also vote.

2011-06-24T18:26:00.003-05:00

An Urgent Message

to all political pundits predicting who can or cannot, will or will not win the 2012 presidential election:

Take a deep breath. Read a little history. Then shut up.

Everything we are being told is wishful thinking, imaginings from fantasy land, or, perhaps, deliberate spin in hopes of influencing election results.

Just check the elections in my lifetime. In 1936, Roosevelt was completing his first term. He had brought us more than a dozen failed government programs. Kansas' Governor Alf Landon ran against FDR as the Republican candidate. The only polling of the day, conducted by The Literary Digest, predicted a Landon win by a landslide. Roosevelt won.

FDR died in 1945. V.P. Harry Truman became president and ran for reelection in 1948. Even on election day, everyone thought Truman would be defeated by Republican Thomas Dewey. The Chicago Tribune famously published a headline proclaiming a Dewey win. Truman won.

In 1960, Richard Nixon, a former U.S. Senator and Vice President under the popular Dwight Eisenhower, was favored to win over the young Massachusetts Senator John F. Kennedy. Kennedy won.

Following the first Gulf War, George H. W. Bush had approval ratings in the 90% range and was considered unbeatable in the 1992 election. The economy took a cyclical downturn and an unknown governor of a small southern state, William Jefferson Clinton, defeated Bush.

Even after election day we may not know the winner in November 2012. Recall how long it took in 2000 when Al Gore's on-again-off-again concession delayed the inevitable win for George W. Bush.

When Barrack Obama announced his candidacy, even the respected columnist Dr. Charles Krauthammer scoffed. His comment, almost word for word, was "Many Americans, myself included, would like to see an African-American elected to the presidency, but this inexperienced candidate has no chance of winning." As the canned tuna people would say, "Sorry Charley"! Obama won.

So, hang onto your TV remote. Every time a learned pundit starts telling you what the election results will be, change the channel!

2011-01-27T11:19:00.004-06:00

Elections Have Consequences!

And, apparently, one of the consequences of last November's elections is that Uncle Sam's Tavern has a new sign out front!

But, If you peek through that dusty window, you'll see one lonely patriot sitting at the end of the bar, nursing a now warm, flat beer.

The back door is unlocked! Will one of our one-time contributors join me!

2010-11-23T22:27:00.001-06:00

Jay, meet Adolph!

I was just a little kid, not yet in school, when the Nazis staged their big 1934 book burning in Berlin. Obviously I do not remember the actual event, but I have heard it demonized all my life. Today, the very concept of book burning - the literal attempt to destroy the ideas of persons who disagree with your own ideas - is a horror to me. I don't like MSNBC, or the Huffington Post, but let them exist! They are their own worst enemy.

You can then imagine my shock and surprise this week when a United States Senator, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, actually said he wanted the F.C.C. to shut down MSNBC and Fox News Channel. Of course, he really meant to say only Fox News Channel. Comcast is about to acquire NBC - and MSNBC - so the fate of that cable network, as we know it, is already sealed.

Sure, I meet people who demonize CNN and MSNBC. But they are not United States Senators!

I think the good people of West Virginia, loyal Americans beyond a doubt, should demand that their Senator apologize for his Nazi-like comments.

An Open Letter to the Republican Party

2010-11-07T18:35:00.003-06:00

This piece was written by Larry Halloran, a true patriot and dear friend. I agree completely and feel his words should be shared far and wide.

While the election results of this past Tuesday were impressive, the natural tendency for jubilant celebration was tempered, at least for some of us. We realize that the difficult task ahead is to awaken our party and fellow citizens to the awesome responsibility that comes with the victory. We can not allow ourselves to simply become the empowered party and granters of favors but must assume the more difficult task of providing principled leadership.

The progressives in both the Republican and Democratic parties would have us believe that they have evolved beyond the mortal status of our Founders and are no longer shackled with the frailties of human nature. Our Founders rightly understood that if unrestrained power and wealth were concentrated in government, the scourge of the earth would soon arrive at the doorstep to relieve the citizens of both. We would be hard pressed today to find any citizen that does not look to government for the benefit of an unhealthy promise.

This is not a time for political deal makers to prevail and claim victory. Rather it is time for citizens to stand boldly and break the chains of political corrections. It is time to both teach and live our heritage. It is time for the party to assume a role in that task and provide a rallying point for the greatness of America that resides in self government and the fervent independence of its citizens.

The Tea Party represents the heartbeat of America and it’s greatest attribute; the citizen. The Republican party would be wise to exercise great humility in the victory of Tuesday night. Those elected must hear clearly the mandate of the citizen - HONOR our trust in you and your OATH to us. We appreciate that hard decisions lay ahead and unlike the past we do not expect that you carry the weight solely upon your own shoulders. We must do our part as well and we look forward to participating in our own governance. Concentrate on fulfilling the obligations of your office and let us concentrate on whether we will return you to that office or not.

As the Republican party moves toward reorganization it would do well to remember from where its victory came else it find itself again sitting in the bleacher seats. The Tea Party is not a prize to be co-opted or taken advantage of but an advantage to be incorporated and encouraged. The choice is yours.

Larry Halloran. Chairman
Wichita - South Central KS 912 Group

2010-11-05T14:46:00.003-05:00

What I learned on 11/2/10

Having now lived through 42 national elections, I thought I had seen everything. Nope.

This year, for the first time in my experience, awakened voters (especially we seasoned citizens) fully realized that people we had trusted and elected had let us down. We said "No more!" to business as usual.

A percentage of us got off our butts at primary time and looked over the field of hopeful candidates. Then we actually worked for and went to the polls and voted for people we thought would not let us down. Certainly not always "attractive" candidates in the usual sense of the word. But we felt the usual attractive candidates were the ones who had failed us (like Harvard Law School grads who had made it to the U.S. Senate). Better to have a new kind of candidate, the kind we believed was telling us the truth - warts, if any, notwithstanding. We chose our nominees.

Ah, but here is the next new part. A lot of folks, largely the ones Angelo M. Codevilla called The Ruling Class, decided we had chosen our nominees stupidly and proceeded to trumpet their opinions far and wide. The opposition party instantly grabbed those opinions and made their negative political ads.

Sadly, many members of our party's electorate who had sat out the primary cycle, bought into the poor choice syndrome and bypassed the general election - or actually voted for our nominee's opponent.

Some fresh, new candidate choices lost. Would they have been good leaders? No one knows. But I remember when candidate Ronald Reagan was considered a low-class Hollywood type, not appropriate for high political office! And we all have read that self-educated Abraham Lincoln was considered a bumpkin log-splitter.

I may or may not live to see my 43rd national election. But I would hope that when it does roll around, all the smart guys work for and vote for their choice of candidate. When the primary winner emerges (your choice or your neighbor's) support them or just change parties, but spare the world your learned opinion.

Who Owns Chris Biggs?

2010-10-27T09:15:00.005-05:00

Chris Biggs makes a lot of noise about keeping the Kansas Secretary of State's office non-partisan:

“I believe that partisanship should have nothing to do with the Secretary of State’s office,” said current Secretary of State Chris Biggs,“Elections in Kansas are fair, accessible and non-partisan.”

“That will change is if Kris Kobach is elected,” continued Biggs. “It’s clear that Kobach and his partisan allies are pursuing a political agenda that will destroy Kansas’s proud tradition of non-partisan Secretaries of State and make it harder for eligible Kansans to vote.”

All very noble, Mr. Biggs - too bad you don't practice what you preach.

The truth is that nearly 60% of Mr. Biggs recently reported (10/25/2010) campaign donations came from labor unions, special interest groups, lawyers, law firms and political sources.

Mr. Biggs' is his own single largest benefactor, having loaned his campaign $30,000 during the reporting period. This generous contribution is dwarfed, however, by the $61,562 he received from various lawyers and law firms. Contributions from legal and governmental interests represent a whopping 45.40% of Biggs' total fundraising efforts.

Labor unions and special interest groups were also very generous to the "non-partisan" Biggs campaign, kicking in nearly $30,000, or another 13.35% of Biggs' funds.

All total, 58.75% of Mr. Biggs' donations came from these highly partisan sources. By contrast, his opponent, Kris Kobach, reports a mere 12.74% of his donations were received from lawyers, governmental and special interest groups.

Who is the real "partisan" candidate, Mr. Biggs? What kind of favors will your contributors be expecting should you be elected?

2010-10-21T18:10:00.003-05:00

I voted!!!

On October 19, exactly two weeks before Election Day! In my case, that says a lot about how important this election is to me.

I have always loved Election Day. You start your day knowing that voting will be the top priority of your day. So you begin the day by deciding exactly when you will go to the polls. Since retiring from a 9-5 job, we try never to vote in the early morning. Lots of people have to get to work, so best not to crowd the polls between 7 and 9. Same holds true for the noon hour, and the last two hours, 5-7, when people who had to be at work early will be trying to vote on their lunch hour, or on the way home from work.

It was always fun arriving at the polling place and sometimes having to wait for a parking place. Then standing in line. I remember one election day when the lines were so long they extended out the door and we shivered in the cold for about ten minutes before the line moved us indoors.

But this election is so much more important. Ever since I first read one of the ancient Greek philosophers discuss the fragility of man, I adhere strongly to the principal of not putting off until tomorrow. So, when the time for early voting began, we hurried to the temporary polling place.

In keeping with President Obama's view that this year's voters are angry and fearful, I voted like a angry, frightened old man. Democrats have controlled Washington, and our New Mexico state government, and I do not approve of their job. Years ago, a business client suggested that an employer should not hesitate to fire an employee who is not doing their job. His reasoning is that firing them from a job they do not like (why else would they do a poor job?) helps both the employer and the employee... forcing them to find a job where they will be happy.

So, I voted a straight Republican ticket for all candidates, and voted against every proposed Constitutional Amendment. If you want to amend my Constitution, don't spring it on me on a sample ballot while I am in line at the polling place. You are gong to have to spend some time convincing me.

I also voted against every bond proposal. Before I agree to any spending, prove to me that the population as a whole will suffer in the absence of the spending.

When Republican Gary Johnson was in our state house, he viewed every spending bill from the angle of how it would benefit all the people of New Mexico. If it didn't pass that test, he vetoed it! I learned a lot from Gary Johnson!

Yesterday a campaign worker approached my wife with some literature supporting some candidate. She said, "Sorry... I've already voted!" It feels so good!

Kansas Democratic Secretary of State Needs Ethics Lesson

2010-10-14T22:12:00.003-05:00

A couple of weeks ago, the Kansas Secretary of State, running for reelection and lagging in the polls, decided that the official website of the office needed to be redone to make the site "as helpful and user friendly as possible." Problem is, it's still a rotten site - the major change is that it's now a full page ad for Secretary of State Biggs, featuring a large picture, and this text (emphasis added):

About Us

Secretary of State Chris Biggs is one of only four state officers authorized by the Kansas constitution and elected state-wide every four years. With his vision and leadership, our office serves all Kansans by performing numerous statutory duties related to the administration of statewide elections, business entities, and the uniform commercial code. The Kansas constitution created our office, but statutes define our daily duties.

Chris Biggs is "authorized by the Kansas constitution"? And the office only runs, I'm sure, because of his "vision and leadership." Transparently political...from the man who harps constantly about how non-partisan the office is supposed to be.

Today, we learned that Biggs is spending $159,000 of taxpayer money to run this ad:

He calls it a public service announcement. Just educating the public, he assures us. I'm sure it's important for the public to hear the name of the Secretary of State in order to learn about advance voting options in Kansas. Another blatantly political move, less than three weeks before the election.

The gall of an elected official spending $159,000 in taxpayer funds to display his mug all over the state this close to an election is incredible. And, by the way...how do we know he's spending $159,000? Because his campaign communications director, Tyler Longpine, tells us it is so. Why would anyone from his campaign need to be involved with the public service duties of the Secretary of State?

This is an outrage, and as a Kansas taxpayer and voter, I urge you to reject this transparent ploy and send this slimy politician packing. He has no respect for our money or our intelligence and is not fit to preside over elections for class president, let alone for the great state of Kansas.

2010-10-13T18:55:00.005-05:00

Remembering 1972

It is a surprise to me that none of the political commentators are mentioning the 1972 elections. My guess is that Richard Nixon was so demonized that that election has been purposely ignored.

Mr. Nixon was the Republican incumbent. The Democrat nominee was George McGovern. For a running mate, McGovern chose Missouri Senator Thomas Eagleton.

Throughout the campaign, McGovern's left-leaning philosophies proved to be out of step with the American people. (He was tagged as the candidate for "Abortion, Amnesty & Acid") His choice of Thomas Eagleton, only added to that image.

Mr. Nixon was quite popular and there was every indication of a huge Republican victory. Then, just before the election, it was discovered that Mr. Eagleton had undergone electro-shock therapy for depression. That sealed the election outcome. Eagleton withdrew and was replaced by Kennedy brother-in-law Sargent Shriver. It did not help the Democrats.

McGovern won only the state of Massachusetts and The District of Columbia - 17 electoral votes in all. Nixon won 49 states and 520 electoral votes. It was, and remains, the biggest presidential landslide.

Toward the end of the campaign, some members of the Nixon campaign staff foolishly decided to break into the Democrats National Headquarters at the Watergate Complex and plant listening devices. The left-leaning media, spurred-on by the anti-Viet Nam War protesters, rode that break-in scandal mercilessly. As investigations unfolded, Nixon and his White House staff, hoping to protect their colleagues, made cover-up attempts which led to Nixon's resignation. Thus, our most spectacular election victory was followed by the first ever resignation of a U.S. President.

November, 1972 was 38 years ago. If you were 18-years-old then, you would be 56 today. It is not surprising that most of today's voters do not remember 1972. What they do know of the election is what the liberal media have taught... that Nixon was a crook.

Now, these 38 years later, I am seeing another landslide Republican victory in the making. And, following the election, I worry that there will be a relentless search to find some small infraction on the part of Republicans, Conservatives or Tea Party members, which can be exploited and blown into a Watergate-like bomb.