Bork and Roberts

I was listening to Judge Robert Bork a few weeks ago (and got upset at Teddy Kennedy all over again that this man is not on the Supreme Court). Bork made a great point in reference to judicial review. He commented that if the Supreme Court rules that a statute is unConstitutional, the remedy is that a state legislature or Congress can re-write the statute (though I flinch that a state legislature needs to be beholden to the Supremes as we have a federal not a national constitution...at least up until the 14th Amendment).
However, how does a bad ruling on the Constitution by the Supremes get remedied? Judge Bork pointed out that there was only one way- by the Supreme Court revisiting the decision. No legislative action can reverse a bad Supreme Court decision on the Constitution. Consider what state of afairs would exist in America were the Dred Scott decision not revisited? Or Plessy vs. Ferguson (the separate but equal case)?
So, we have this from Supreme court nominee Roberts: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/8/2/202839.shtml .
Left wing ideologues on the bench have no compunction against revisiting any decision. But strict constructionists seem quite reluctant to erase the past sins of the their fellow judges.
And I'm therefore concerned in light of the NewsMax story.

Ignorance plus....

I notice my fellow blogger, Lady logician, has hit upon one of my favorite areas, the Constitution. I'd even go further than her and saying it not only ignorance, but also a terribly flawed and dangerously wrong understanding of what the Constitution means.
It's supposed to be a federal, not a national constitution. Also, it 's supposed to guarantee your freedoms via the government, not privately (if your employer doesn't want you to talk politics at work, as the company is his private property, he has every right, under the constitution to fire you for talking politics. How's that for an application? Dangerous to the staus quo,ehh? And don't even get me started on sexual harassment laws!). And as for law, there are Executive Orders that have the force of law unless specifically vacated by Congress within a certain amount of time (and if you ever want your blood to run cold, go here to read what power the office of President has ceded to itself with executive orders http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1999/may99/psrmay99.html and here for a history http://www.thisnation.com/question/040.html . Though these articles were written during the Clinton administration, all presidents since Washington have issued executive orders).
I remember a radio program back in 2002. I was on my way to Duluth for a rally that Charlton Heston was going to be attending. CCRN (the organization that sponsored and lobbied for the shall issue bill) was organizing the event with the NRA. The guest on the show was Gail Marks Jarvis, business reporter for the Pioneer Press. The discussion started out about Social Security and economics. The talk was around how Social Security is a disaster, what returns that money would make if privately invested, the incredible private economic growth that would have resulted, etc. As the discussion progressed, the show's host made one of the more insightful comments I've heard in a long time. The comment was "If basic economics were taught in high school, there would be a tremendous revolution in the voting booth!" I looked at the radio and said "You got that right, white boy!" And if basic history were taught, along with real,not Kenseyian economics, and a good legitimate discourse on the Constitution, there would be another revolution in the voting booth.
Ignorance of the Constitution, ignorance of economics,ignorance of history, failure of the courts. All based on ignorance.
And always remember, this has all been done in our names. We, the people do have the power.We can take it back. All we have to do is exercise it.

Ignorance

Ignorance (of the Constitution at least) is running rampant in this country. Between mis-intrepretations of the 2nd Amendment (the right to keep and bear arms) and the way people forget the 10th Amendment (rights not specificaly given to the Federal government in the Constitution reverting to the states) even exists, ignorance of the Constitution is daily on display. Sadly the majority of the cases seem to come from places where you least expect it - like our elected representatives and the main stream media.

The latest show of ignorance of the Constitution comes from the Minneapolis Star Tribune (or Pravda on the Mississippi as my friend Amendment X calls it) and Senator Charles Schumer. The Strib, in a recent editorial, implied that judges make laws when it calls for President Bush to pick a "moderate" to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Senator Schumer, in a recent press conference, stated that the President needed to be cautious in who he choose because this person would have 30+ years on the bench to "make law" (I am still looking for an online reference to this quote).

ATTENTION SENATOR SCHUMER AND THE STAR TRIBUNE EDITORS!!!!! The Legislature is the only body, out of our three branches of government, that is given the job of making laws. The President can not make law anymore than the Legislature can adjudicate legal cases. Fifth graders in Minnesota know that and I am appalled that a sitting US Senator apparently needs to be reminded of that basic Constitutional fact of life.

Is it just me?

Just when you thought that the critics of the Administration couldn't possibly sink any lower, comes this.

In reaction to the selection of John Roberts to the Supreme Court come these intelligent reactions. John Roberts is "obviously" gay because he a)went to a boys boarding school where he studied Latin, participated in drama and choir and (gasp) was a wrestler! Plus he wore plaid pants as a teen in the '60s (didn't we all I hate to admit) and if that weren't damning enough, his children are adopted! He is unacceptable because his wife has "strong" opinions on abortion and she dressed the kids "funny" for the press announcement.

This is all coming out of the same faction of the Democratic Party that thought that "outing" Mary Cheney during the campaign would somehow "hurt" the President. However, aren't these the same people who demand that we accept gays when it comes to issues such as gay marriage?

When did it become ok to attack the families of candidates and appointees? Has the "loyal opposition" sunk so low that they are fine with this? Do they realize what they are opening themselves up to when it is their turn to appoint judges? Do they really want to go down this road?

Saddam/al Qaeda links

I have not seen this getting much coverage so I think I will chime in.

The Weekly Standard has recently run a couple of really good stories summing up the overwhelming preponderance of evidence of the links between Saddam and al Qaeda that were run in the MSM during the Clinton administration. The author, Mr. Stephen Hayes, has related in this series of articles just how cozy Osama and Saddam were in the days leading up to 9/11 and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Vanity Fair columnist Christopher Hitchens, in a recent appearance on MSNBC's Connected program, schooled host Ron Reagan on the numerous connections between Saddam and terrorists like Abu Nidal. Claudia Rosette (of UN Oil-For-Food fame) reminds us in a recent Wall Street Journal column that, thanks to unprecedented access to the regimes files (I guess Saddam was a worse paperwork pack-rat than I am and that takes a lot of doing), we are just beginning to see how deeply intertwined the two (OBL and Saddam) really were.

You can read Mr. Hayes' articles here and here. In addition, the Standard has this enlightening article from Mr. Dan Darling.

When you sift through the gathered research, a large portion coming from European MSM sources (like Le Mond of all places) a logical person can not help but wonder why the willfull blindness of the alphabet soup media (ABC, CBS, MSNBC et al) to the facts. Some of the same sources that today loudly proclaim that there were "NO CONNECTIONS" between Saddam and al Qaeda are the same ones that 10 years ago were forwarning us that Saddam and bin Laden were indeed working together toward the same goal - the destruction of America - the Great Satan.

Reagan's 9 fearful words-revisited

Ronald Reagan said the nine most terrifying words anyone can hear are "I'm from the government and I'm hear to help." I'd like to amend that to "I'm from the government and you can trust me." The TSA (Transportation Security Administration) which is one of the biggest wastes of time and money, decided to illegally gather information on us, Stasi style (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050723/D8BGR5L80.html ) . Now, TSA is the Keystone Cops of security ( www.reason.com/0402/fe.jb.dominate.shtml ) . Even my commercial pilot friends say that we are no safer now than we were 9-11-01.
Don't ever trust anyone from the government. Ever!

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."
-George Washington

MSM AWOL! And why they have no credibility.

I just sent this email off to a friend of mine (I got the link from another friend):

Reeve-

You had a friend at Jeremy’s party who was opposed to the Iraqi war. I had mentioned an article on Fox called “What We’ve Accomplished”. He had never heard of any of what we’d accomplished in Iraq from that article and asked me why he hadn’t heard any of this. I returned the question to him.

Please send the following to him.

The bold italicized emphasis is mine.

From Powerline:

July 22, 2005

Iraqis Stand Against Terrorism

Haider Ajina sends us this translation of an article in yesterday's Kululiraq, an Iraqi newspaper:

Iraqis stood for three minutes of silence yesterday in commemoration of the lives lost in the two attacks in Baghdad Aljadedah and Almusaiyab, which claimed 105 martyrs, 32 of whom were children, and 128 wounded of whom 31 were children.

Traffic of thousand of cars stopped in the Allawi & Tahrier area (central Baghdad) as children (from “Baghdad Aljadedah” area) entered “Tahrier” square (with some of the wounded children) carrying Iraqi flags and displaying victory signs in defiance of the terrorists. These children also stood silent for three minutes to commemorate their relatives and friends who died in the homicide bombing attack last week.

Iraqi Prime Minister Dr. Ibrahiem Aljaafary said in a speech regarding this incident: “We will not sway from our path and we will not kneel to those who commit these crimes.” He added, ”We are confident that all nations of this world stand beside us, because to day terrorism does not only affect us Iraqis but the whole world. We Iraqis have the honor of being in the front line in the fight against terrorism."

Haider comments:

Tens of thousands of Iraqis stood silent for three minutes in over 130 Fahrenheit heat to commemorate victims of terror and in a sign of unified defiance of terrorism and I have not seen a single report on this. I waited all day Wednesday and all day today and nothing. The news reported the small anti America demonstration by Alsadar and some Baathists in April but some how missed the whole Iraqi nation standing still in defiance of terrorism.

When was the last time you heard an Arab leader say that his nation was honored to be in the front lines fighting terrorism?

Good question. The terrorists know that Iraq is the front line in the battle against terrorism; the Iraqis agree. Now if only we could convince the Democrats.

Posted by John at 01:53 PM | Permalink

What would NOW say?

The London Telegraph reports that by 2020 there will be 23,000,000 Chinese men that will be unable to find wives as Chinese parents regularly abort unborn female babies ( news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/22/wchina22.xml ).
So, we have "choice" going on, and I wonder what the National Organization of Women would say about this exercise of "choice"?

Of course,the governor still knows best.

Proving again that he's a REAL, not a fake, conservative, Governor Pawlenty is in Washington urging Congress to up ethanol standards ( www.startribune.com/stories/587/5518990.html ) . After all, there is no ethanol market without the government mandating it. He also ignores the fact that ethanol is a horrible fuel for combustion engines, costs much more than petroleum, and is a disaster that requires the government to force us to use it after it forces us to subsidize it.
"This doesn't just benefit farmers,'' he said. "It's good for rural and economic development. It's good environmental policy, and it's good national security policy.'' And who would know better than a guy who can't wait to get to the other side of the Potomac? But, of course, this flies in the face of facts ( www.taxpayersleague.org/issues/legislative_issues_2005.php and scroll down to Ethanol Mandates and Subsidies. The study by Pimentel at Cornell calls ethanol "subsidized food burning" www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/01/8.23.01/Pimentel-ethanol.html ) And yet the Governor goes merrily along extolling ethanol. And always remember, it was state government that brought you the final and fully convincing reason that they should never ever be trusted with decisions involving business: Excelsior-Henderson Motorcycle Company ( http://minneapolisfed.org/pubs/fedgaz/00-01/opinion.cfm .As you read the article, keep substituting "Twins Stadium") .
Crimeny Governor, haven't you done enough damage to your Republican credentials yet?

And we're still waiting.

John Roberts...who? I'm still not convinced. I agree with Ann Coulter in her special column today titled "Souter in Roberts Clothing" ( www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi ).
Here is someone who has a few cases under his belt. And not much else. I also agree with Ann that as we are being told to "trust Roberts" we were also told that we could trust Souter.
Ann goes on to say " If the Senate were in Democrat hands, Roberts would be perfect. But why on earth would Bush waste a nomination on a person who is a complete blank slate when we have a majority in the Senate!
We also have a majority in the House, state legislatures, state governorships, and have won five of the last seven presidential elections ,— seven of the last ten! We're the Harlem Globetrotters now - why do we have to play the Washington Generals every week? Conservatism is sweeping the nation, we have a fully functioning alternative media, we'’re ticked off and ready to avenge Robert Bork . . . and Bush nominates a Rorschach blot. ."
Even Fred Barnes, last night on Fox News Special Report, said that Roberts is NOT a Scalia or Thomas type justice (as Bush promised us during the election) but rather closer to Rehnquist.
Ann finishes her column with " The Democrats’ own polls showed voters are no longer fooled by claims that the Democrats are trying to block “judges who would roll back civil rights.” Borking is over. And Bush responds by nominating a candidate who will allow Democrats to avoid fighting on their weakest ground - substance. He has given us a Supreme Court nomination that will placate no liberals and should please no conservatives. Maybe Roberts will contravene the sordid history of “stealth nominees and be the Scalia or Thomas Bush promised us when he was asking for our votes. Or maybe he won'’t. The Supreme Court shouldn't be a game of Russian roulette."
I'm going to find out what Robert Bork and Andrew Napolitano have to say on this one.
I trust them.

And while we wait...

And so we hear that we are days,perhaps hours away from a Supreme Court nominee. I came across this from the Joseph Sobran archives of May, 2000:

"Those of us who urge conservatives to leave the
Republican Party are often charged with ensuring the election
of Al Gore and especially with helping see to it that Gore
will name the next few Supreme Court justices. But recent
Republican nominees to the Court -- Souter, Kennedy, and
O'Connor -- have saved Roe v. Wade; worse yet, Republicans in
the Senate have voted overwhelmingly to confirm Clinton's
nominees, Ginzburg and Breyer, and would no doubt do the same
for Gore's picks. Both parties show approximately equal
respect for constitutional law. That is, approximately none.
Put otherwise, both parties -- and both candidates -- would
support a continuation of lawless government. A moment of
peace and prosperity is the ideal time to build a new party."
And I reflect on this leaving the Republican Party  when we have a "conservative" governor who
supports spending still more, not eliminating a single program or giving a tax cut in the face of rising revenues,
talks about what a good idea it is that only Hennepin County  pay for a stadium for billionaires
so millionaires can play baseball and then is stunned that there's wrinkle called  a "referendum" that would
kill the stadium deal (note to the Guv: Trust me, if there is a referendum on the stadium  in Hennepin county,
there ain't no deal to kill as there won't be a stadium. Get it?)
Any how, just a few thoughts as we wait. 

And Congressman, there's a cell with your name on it too

I started writing this the day I heard Bernie Ebbers (of WorldCom fame) was sentenced to 25 years in prison. Now, it's well proven that he was the head of an organization that perpetrated the largest private financial fraud in U.S. history. What he and WorldCom did was use liabilities as assets to improve the financial picture of WorldCom. And the resultant fraud collapsed WorldCom. Amount? About $11,000,000,000. Now, if any of you know how Social Security is truly run, that is exactly how monies from you to "fund" the trust fund are used.
The Social Security Administration lends its "contributions" (FICA [aka Social Security] on your paycheck stands for Federal Insurance Contributions Act) to the U.S. Treasury, which then includes them in the General Fund as assets. And they are then spent (see below). This is the same as you or me getting a $1,000,000 loan from the bank, putting it in our savings account, which we then spend, and then go around telling everyone that we're millionaires. Uh, no, we OWE $1,000,000. We are in DEBT $1,000,000. And yet, the Treasury and Congress and the President have been doing this for over 40 years. To the tune of trillions (not mere billions) of dollars.
So, when I saw the WorldCom executives being led out of their offices in handcuffs (picture above), I thought : "Are the Feds on their way to Congress to arrest all the Congress?"
A multi-trillion dollar fraud. And they keep being elected.

"Do you know where your Social Security taxes are? Some of them went to pay for the National Cowgirl Hall of Fame and Museum in Fort Worth, Texas. The same monies helped the State Historical Society of Iowa in Des Moines pay for the development of exhibits for the World Food Prize. And we should all be happy that some of our Social Security surplus funded a study of mariachi music for the Clark County (Nevada) School District. As we know by now, Social Security is facing many problems that will require long-term, comprehensive reform. But before a doctor operates on a patient, the first step is to stop the bleeding. And the first step toward Social Security reform should be to stop Congress from spending Social Security money on anything except workers' retirement." --Michael Tanner
However, the only real reform is to end Social Security (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42013 )(which by the way, is unconstitutional) so the people in Washington can not fool with it. At all.

If I turn blue...

I've written my Congressman, John Kline. I've written Senator Coleman. I've heard back from both.
I urged them both, if they have the ear of the President, to urge him to nominate a Supreme Court candidate in the mold of Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas. I wrote the Senator and Congressman that we worked hard to win Minnesota for the President. That we worked for him as we believed him when he campaigned against judicial activism. When he campaigned for a Senate that would pass his judicial nominees. That he wanted justices in the form of a Scalia or Thomas. But, that was then.
Now, I hear the President say, regarding a Supreme appointment that he intends to appoint a "fair-minded individual who represents the mainstream of American law and American values." Now, I get real nervous whenever I hear the terms "fair" and "mainstream" in regards to an appointee.
I'm holding my breath on this appointee (remembering his Dad appointed David Souter).
By the way,having turned red, not blue, I've already exhaled on Tim Pawlenty.

IF a crime was indeed committed (Valerie Plame part II)

IF a crime was indeed committed (in the outing of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative) it is becoming more and more likely that Karl Rove was not the perpetrator. From the same Washington Times article that I referred to below (and linked here) it is reported that Mrs Wilson had not been on a covert assignment since her transfer to DC.

"She made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat," Fred Rustmann, a covert agent from 1966 to 1990, told The Washington Times. "

This Mr. Rustmann was Mrs. Wilson's supervisor in her early career. He also reiterated that it was common knowledge that Mrs. Wilson was employed by the Agency at it's Langley VA headquarters.

"Her neighbors knew this, her friends knew this, his friends knew this. A lot of blame could be put on to central cover staff and the agency because they weren't minding the store here. ... The agency never changed her cover status."

And over at the National Review, Clifford May suggests that the person who is responsible for "outing" Mrs. Wilson may have been her own husband. In an interview with David Corn (for the Nation) Mr. Wilson first raises the idea that his wife was "outed" as revenge for his speaking out against the Bush Administration, however, if you go back and read the Robert Novak column (that sparked the investigation to begin with) you will see that not once does Mr. Novak refer to Mrs. Wilson as an "undercover"operative.

Every day, new information is coming out on this case. Therefore, I think it is wise that we (in the words of the White House) wait until the grand jury has finished their investigation before we put anyone in jail.

THIS is the "world's greatest deliberative body"?

From today's Washington Post comes this little gem about a floor fight on whether or not to strip Karl Rove, Harry Reid and Dick Durban of their respective security clearances. The Republicans who proposed that Senators Reid and Durban be stripped of their security clearances (Reid for revealing on the Senate floor the contents of a classified CIA document on a Bush nominee and Durban for his abject stupidity in comparing US troops to Nazi's and Stalinists) have a certain point, the fact that this was even debated on the floor is a travesty! Don't our Senators have anything better to do, like passing a budget or voting on Presidential appointees? Don't the American people deserve a break from the partisan insanity? Come on people. You are supposed to be adults. Why don't you act the part?

Brutus and the Court

I read Joseph Sobran's column from Drudge. I don't always agree with him but I do much more often than not.
His recent column takes us from the Supreme Court vacancy, the Supremes decisions, and how we've arrived at a nation that the Founders would find absolutely foreign.
I've taken the liberty of posting it here in it's entirety (Brutus is the pseudonym from the Anti-Federalists.They were a group of men concerned about powers being given over to a central government and what they perceived as weaknesses in the Constitution. The Supreme Court was one. And the Anti-Federalists concerns were quite well founded):

BRUTUS AND THE COURT
June 30, 2005

by Joe Sobran

The U.S. Supreme Court has lately reminded us, in its decisions about government seizures of private property and about displays of the Ten Commandments, that it wields enormous powers that (1) are not found in the U.S. Constitution, and (2) may be abused with impunity. It’s high time we reopened the old controversy about judicial review.

Many controversies end prematurely not because one side is necessarily right, but because it wins elections, or a war, or just manages to get its view established as conventional wisdom. Eventually, people just stop debating very debatable things, and judicial review is one of these.

The argument over secession ended when the North won the Civil War; the argument over the New Deal ended because its programs were too popular to resist; Pearl Harbor suddenly put a stop to the debate over whether the United States should get involved in World War II. Yet the losers in these issues had strong points that were never adequately answered.

In the same way, mere custom has settled the debate over judicial review. Nearly all Americans have long taken for granted that the U.S. Supreme Court has a virtual veto over all legislation, Federal, state, and local. The Court has been claiming and exercising this power for nearly two centuries, and few Americans see anything questionable about it.

This means that one branch of government, unelected, unaccountable to the people, and appointed for life, may, at its whim, effectively change the meaning of the U.S. Constitution. The president can veto any act of Congress, and Congress may override his veto; but neither of the other branches has a similar control over the Court’s rulings, however wrong or even downright batty they may be.

The concept of “checks and balances,” parroted in civics classes, doesn’t apply to the Supreme Court. The justices are appointed for life “during good behavior,” and once appointed they are out of control. Furthermore, most of the laws they strike down are state laws, not Federal ones, and the state legislatures have no defense against them. So much for “checks and balances.”

The Court is often accused of “legislating from the bench”; but the power to edit the Constitution itself is far, far beyond any legislative power. In order to correct the Court’s mistakes, under the current system, it’s necessary to undertake the huge effort of adding amendments to the Constitution (or hoping that as the current justices die or retire, they may be succeeded by others who will reverse their decisions—slim chance of that!).

The power to strike down laws isn’t mentioned, or even hinted at, in the Constitution. The Court’s few powers are set forth in a couple of paragraphs. Judicial review isn’t among them.

So where did this sweeping power come from? In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton, after assuring readers that the Supreme Court would be the “weakest” and “least dangerous” of the three branches, argued that it must necessarily have the power to nullify acts of Congress that violate the Constitution. This view has prevailed, but Hamilton didn’t face the problems that might arise if such a power were abused.

Others did, though. The pseudonymous “Brutus,” arguing against ratification of the Constitution, saw the danger of the judiciary very precisely and presciently: the justices’ power would be “altogether unprecedented in a free country. They are to be rendered totally independent, both of the people and the legislature, both with respect to their offices and salaries. No errors they may commit can be corrected by any power above them, if any such power there be, nor can they be removed from office for making ever so many erroneous adjudications.”

Brutus further warned that the Federal judiciary might overpower state courts and legislatures. And he saw nothing to prevent the Supreme Court from expanding its own power.

All Brutus’s dire prophecies have been fulfilled. Yet his arguments have never been refuted. Today we are paying the price for ignoring them.

The Court is out of control, and the only solution conservatives can think of is to appoint more conservatives, who will use their power with restraint. But that power itself is the problem. Giving it to “better” justices won’t solve it.

What will? Only, perhaps, a serious threat of impeachment would make the Court think twice before abusing its power. But this raises further problems, which I’ll address in a future column.

Read this column on-line at

“http://www.sobran.com/columns/2005/050630.shtml”.

Copyright © 2005 by the Griffin Internet Syndicate, www.griffnews.com. This column may not be published in print or Internet publications without express permission of Griffin Internet Syndicate. You may forward it to interested individuals if you use this entire page, including the following disclaimer:

“SOBRAN’S and Joe Sobran’s columns are available by subscription. For details and samples, see http://www.sobran.com/e-mail.shtml, write PR@griffnews.com, or call 800-513-5053.”

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Was there are crime committed here?

OK - there has been much said in recent days about Karl Rove's supposed "outing" of Valerie Plame (as an undercover CIA operative). However as the USA Today reports, according to Joseph Wilson (the aggreived husband) Ms. Plame had not been working as a covery operative for quite some time. From the article:

"In The Politics of Truth, former ambassador Joseph Wilson writes that he and his future wife both returned from overseas assignments in June 1997. Neither spouse, a reading of the book indicates, was again stationed overseas. They appear to have remained in Washington, D.C., where they married and became parents of twins. "

Andrea Mitchell of NBC News, grudgingly admitted on one of the Sunday shows that it was well known (in DC cocktail circles) that Ms. Plame was CIA and that she and Mr. Wilson were married. Mr. Wilson, himself, admitted today (in an interview with Wolf Blitzer of CNN) that it was no secret that his wife was CIA.

All of which leads a reasonable person to ask, why all the fuss over what Karl Rove supposedly told Matt Cooper of Time Magazine. If it was "well known in DC circles" that Mrs Wilson was CIA and Mr. Wilson admits that she was not covert (how covert can you be working at CIA headquarters in Langley VA?) what harm was really done? Or could this possibly not be about Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson. Could it possibly be yet another attempt, by our friends on the far left, to "get" President Bush?

I'm sorry, which party again?

So, according to the Prairie Pravda, the Governor touts K-12 in the recent budget?
"Pawlenty signed a K-12 funding bill he said is "the best the state has seen in 10 to 15 years.' "
Which party is the Governor from again?
See what happens when you refer to the gridlocking Metrocrat Senate obstructionists as "The Legislature".
And even Jason Lewis weighed in on how the state K-12 education was being starved at over $10,000 per student per year http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5503334.html

Tax cuts lead to record revenue increases!

The AP is reporting (here) that surging revenue has lead to a $162 billion reduction in the deficit. "We're ahead of projections now," President Bush is quoted (in the article) as saying. What caused this surge in revenue, you might ask? The increase in revenue came from those "evil" corporations that don't pay their "fair share". It seems that those unfair "tax cuts for the rich" actually cause the rich to pay MORE in taxes this year, not less! Sigh....what is it going to take for our esteemed friends on the left to learn this simple truth!

India 59, America, ZERO!

I was listening to Bill Bennett this morning on AM1280 The Patriot and heard about an editorial in the NY Times. It was written by an Indian ex-pat (his parents moved to America in 1977). What was quoted was how, at 14, in India he was near the bottom of his class in mathematics. But when he arrived in America, much to his parents surprise, he was at the top of his American school class in math. Same for English. And shockingly, the same for American history, especially the American Revolution!
The specific paragraph:
"When I moved to Queens, in New York City, at the age of 14, I found myself, for the first time in my life, considered good at math. In Bombay, math was my worst subject, and I regularly found my place near the bottom of the class rankings in that rigorous subject. But in my American school, so low were their standards that I was - to my parents' disbelief - near the top of the class. It was the same in English and, unexpectedly, in American history, for my school in Bombay included a detailed study of the American Revolution. My American school curriculum had, of course, almost nothing on the subcontinent's freedom struggle. I was mercilessly bullied during the 1979-80 hostage crisis, because my classmates couldn't tell the difference between Iran and India. If I were now to move with my family to India, my children - who go to one of the best private schools in New York - would have to take remedial math and science courses to get into a good school in Bombay." ( www.nytimes.com/pages/opinion/text/index.html then "A Passage From India" [registration required]).
And as I wrote yesterday, MN education gets a huge spending boost.
And to achieve what?
Go to www.edwatch.org/ and get involved. This is something you really can do "for" the children ,not "to" the children.

What a winner - MN Care

I can't tell you how thrilled I am that MN Care is getting more money - ok I am being very sarcastic.....Let me tell you about my turn with MN Care.

Two years ago, during the height of the scandal driven telecom downturn, my husband lost his job with the local Bell Operating Company. No worries, we said - I still had my job with one of Ma Bell's comeptitors and as long as I have my job we have benefits. Well, last year I lost my job. I was downsized. The problem was my husband had still not been able to find a full time telecom job. Oh he was getting temporary and part time jobs, but nothing with benefits and my new job wasa 3/4 time working for one of those "evil" small business owners that makes over $200k a year. My new job was due to the extra money that he got due to those nasty Bush tax cuts (another rant for another day). However, he can not offer benefits. No worry we said - we are making enough to buy our own (or so we thought). Now my husband and I are both in good health, but due to family histories we are not the "prime" candidates so our rates were much higher than the sales rep quoted. After 6 months of scraping and barely making it, we decided to swallow our pride and apply for MN Care. There was one problem. In order to be eligible for MN Care, you had to have existing health insurance and if you can afford to buy your own insurance you obviously don't need MN Care!!!!! In other words, even though doing the responsible thing (having our own insurance) was bankrupting us, we could not get into this program for "those in need" because we were already buying our own insurance. HUH?????

Thankfully, due to God's grace and mercy my husband did get a new job in telecom with full benefits so we are ok but my close call with the bureaucracy was more than enough to get me to realize that these programs are nothing more than an employment project for the inept. MN Care needs to be cut drastically as it is not helping the citizens of Minnesota. I know from experience. Instead we need to work on bringing insurance rates down so that everyone can afford insurance. A key part of that is tort reform. Capping the amount of rewards that a jury can issue will help the insurance companies cut their costs. It will also help bring the costs of health care down by reducing hospitals costs and doctors costs and drug manufactures costs and...get the idea. If we help the medical industry reduce their costs of doing business, then our out of pocket costs for having insurance will go down making health care more affordable for all!

How it's supposed to be-

When we moved to the suburbs when I was 4, I remember going back to Minneapolis to visit Grandpa and Grandma. I remember on one visit looking south down Bryant Avenue from 24th Street and seeing that the elms on both sides made an arching tunnel across the street as far as I could see. And when I visited my grandparents over the years, I noticed the tunnel on all the city streets. And then Dutch Elm Disease struck. And the battle was on. But after much success, the battle waned until recently.
Today, I read this story www.startribune.com/stories/484/5499641.html . I noticed that this was true neighborhood activism. That the players went door to door to alert and inform their neighbors. They didn't go to the Feds. They didn't go to the state. They did it themselves. They did go to the Mpls. Park Board to encourage them to make a statement, but didn't hit them up for money.
Good for them for what they're doing and how they're doing it.
Now, if we could get people to stop stealing from their neighbors by force of law to promote state welfare and all attendant ills and go about true welfare reform through truly compassionate means...

You obviously don't give or care enough. (or the Reds have become Green)

In case you thought the G8 was a waste of the attendees time, and your money:
www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=7030

Not if, but when-

We heard about the London terror bombings and remembered 9-11. And I now hear some people snidely comment "That's the best they can do?" I'm not so smug.Nor that arrogant. Always remember, these people are true believers and fully believe that killing non=Muslims is truly their god's will.
Fox News had a special outlining the connection between Muslim terrorists and street gangs. One gang held out for special note is MS13, a very violent street gang originally out of El Salvador. It's worth noting MS13 is no longer considered a crime problem but a national security problem. And today, I read in WorldNetDaily that a month after 9-11, George Tenet told the President that there was intelligence that at least two suitcase nukes were in the United States in the hands of Al Quaida operatives (www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45203 ). It also appears that the conduit was over the Mexican border with the assistance of MS13. And yet:"However, it is worth noting that Bush failed to translate this policy into securing the U.S.-Mexico border through which the nuclear weapons and al-Qaida operatives are believed to have passed with the help of the MS-13 smugglers. He did, however, order the building of underground bunkers away from major metropolitan areas for use by federal government managers following an attack."
And the left only worries about the thermostat settings and properly handled Korans at Gitmo.

And the winners are...

So, we have a budget deal.How wonderful. So, who won:
Oh, goody. The 9,000 non-essential state employees are back at work (well, not work, but employment).$900,000,000 in possible savings lost to the real workers in the state, the taxpayer.
Education (and I use term quite liberally-pun intended), so there is an increase the money wasted so little Michael and Matthew and Jessica and Ashley will be taught that evil white men founded America, the country that is responsible for all the world's evil. The winners? The teachers union.
Minn Care-that wonderful program that you'll notice that the taxpayer pays for by that 2.5% addition to the bottom of your physicians bill (a few years back my Mom (who is a widow) asked me what this 2.5% addition was at the bottom of her doctor bill. I told her. She said "I need to pay my own bill and for insurance and pay for others too?") This part of the government is out of control and absolutely unsustainable according to the governor. The winners? Non-producers/takers in the state.
And a question to any and all the legilastors and Governor Pawlenty: What program was cut? And I mean REALLY cut? Eliminated? Not just spending not as much as was planned! With the fact that the state budget has more than DOUBLED from 10 years ago, there wasn't a single program that could be eliminated? There wasn't 10% of the non-essential workers jobs that could have been eliminated? None? Anyplace?
And the losers in all this? The taxpayers. The providers. The job creators and real wealth producers.
Wait a minute. There is ray of hope for the taxpayers...they got the re-opening of road side rest areas.
Note to all wealth creators, job creators and real workers-Be sure to stop at a road side rest area and leave a message about the budget deal.

P.S. Just read the article in Pravda on the Mississippi about the poor non-essential 9,000.
I heard someone who works in the private sector say that he'd never expect the legislature to argue for his job. Plus, he would never be assured that he would get his job back if he were laid off. And all the non-essentials knew they'd be going back too work. Not so with laid off employees in the wealth creation sector.
P.P.S.-From todays Pravda editorial proving that the left can't spend it fast enough and no amount of money is ever enough "None of those things could be said about the skimpy budget that Pawlenty proposed six months ago. "

The religious right vs. the religious left.....

We had one of those sermons in church today that was designed to speak on multiple levels. The main level was relying on God for everything, but it is one of the sub levels that hit me the hardest. For months prior to the last Presidential election, you heard the arguements that put God on both sides of some pretty basic and divisive issues - abortion and homosexual marriage. Now before anyone gets their hackles up - I am not going to say either side is "right" or "wrong", instead I am going to make so general observations on those that try to bend religion to suit their point of view. It was put to us in this manner, Christ's followers are his sheep and those that claim to follow him but spend all of their time butting their heads against his word (twisting it to suit their current needs) are goats.

The Bible consists of many different styles of writing - instructional, narrative, historical and poetic. You would not read a poem with the same mindset that you would read an instruction manual, nor would you read a historical tome with the same mindset that you would read a narrative story. One of the "instructional" passages states that a follower of God should not commit murder. To me that seems to be pretty straightforward, basic instruction - don't murder other people! Which is why it stuns me to see people who profess to be Christians who try to twist Scripture to justify murdering another human being - whether it be abortion or killing abortion doctors!

The main point of the sermon was "what are you after?" Are you following Christ's path for inner peace or the world's peace (or a piece of the world)? Are you joyful in his eternal path or are you looking for utopia today? Are we desiring Christ's companionship and approval or are we desiring the world's approval and companionship? In the long run - that is what we Christians have to figure out for ourselves. Are we in it for the world's approval or His? WWJD is a nice little marketing scheme, but think about it. What we know about Jesus we can find in the New Testament. According to that, would Jesus approve of the abortion of a "pre-born" child or would he be one to fight for that child? His Word has the answer. Would Jesus support gay marriage? Again the NT gives you a pretty clear picture of what He sees marriage as being?

You can't be Catholic and support abortion the Pope says. What say you? Are you a sheep or a goat?

G8 and IBM ads

I don't know how many of you remember the recent IBM ads with Knights of the Round Table.
There is one where it's acknowledged that there is a grievous threat approaching the kingdom.
King Arthur asks what weapon shall be used? A consultant addresses the king and suggests a catapult. When asked what ammunition shall be used, the consultant heaves a large bag up onto the Round Table that jingles and jangles. Arthur looks at the consultant and asks with an incredulous tone "You propose to throw money at the problem?" "Precisely" says the consultant. Arthur puts his head in his hands.
And once again, we see the lefties in control of the G8, including GWB, where they propose to throw money (other peoples money, your money, taken by force) at the problem of African poverty. Now, never mind that nowhere in history, especially recent history is there ANY evidence that giving someone else's money to poor strangers has ever alleviated poverty.That they admit as much as they are being told by long hair aging millionaire hippies to forgive/cancel debt from development loans that never worked and the development didn't happen, despite the fact that the plan was that they would create a paradise of development and the loans would be paid back with interest! Matter of fact they, and all such programs, only make the victims of government largesse poorer (namely the wealth creator, the worker and job creator). And by recent history, I would have hoped that GWB would have said to the G7, in that light Texas drawl,"Look y'all. We over there in good ol' America have found that in the $6,000,000,000,000 War on Poverty that, well, poverty wins. All the money, and all the programs in America just haven't changed human nature. Dang it. We've had the same success passing laws about day light savings. But, we don't get anymore sunlight.Dang it again. All we can do is take from sunrise and give to sunset. It just don't work. Seems it hasn't worked in any of your countries either. Y'all know, seems to me that every single plan we've ever come up never works. And yet, we keep coming up with them there plans. And we keep promising that this new plan, or any new plan, will be the one that works. And also will cure all the problems that the old one, all the old ones, didn't. Or the problems that the old plans created. Ya know, these plans and us, well they kinda remind me of Lucy and Charlie Brown and a football. Y'all remember Peanuts? Oh. Didn't get that comic in the Sunday funnies in your country, did ya? Well let's try something else other than what those rich music hippies over there are proposing (By the way, anybody know where and when they're giving up their millions for African poverty? Anyone know? They aren't? Oh.). Private enterprise seems to work well. Hey, isn't that the way those ol' music hippies made their millions? Private enterpirse? Free markets? Seems free enterprise does work. At least if you've got a Fender Stratocaster or two and a few millions watts of amplification. Free enterprise? As long as we in the government stay out of the way. Whaddaya think guys?"
A wonderful analysis is G8-Socialist Gospel at www.thomasbrewton.com/ .
Also, what is the largest source of foreign aid? www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1435769/posts The source will surprise you. Then again, maybe not.

London...

I agree with my colleague, Savage Republican, and I won't blog on for days about London.I've been to London and Great Britain twice. It appears that all my friends are safe, but scarred. I remember my own feelings on 9-11. Other than shock, I was angry. No, that's not accurate. I was furious! I even tried to enlist.The Brits are our closest friends. An attack on them is an attack on me and my friends.
And I also agree with Savage Republican in substance about the left-they don't get it, ever!
The first mouthful of hate they spilled out was "It's GWB's fault. Iraq. That's why they hit London!" etc.I heard James Lileks last night on Hugh Hewitt (5-8, AM1280 The Patriot). He made the point that the radicals on the left forgot that OBL, in 1998, came out for war on America because of UN sanctions on Iraq (hey, wait a minute. Who was President again in 1998? Oh, that's right. He was distracted because of the vast right wing conspiracy uncovered by the smartest woman in the world, his wife, the Co-President.).And so, if we didn't invade Iraq, and Saddam were still running rape rooms with 12 year old girl victims, and his sons were still torturing national soccer players for losing, and there were many more billions in the food for oil scandal (that makes Enron look like a lemonade stand operation), that if ALL these were still in effect (and you never, ever hear the lefty pukes saying they're glad these horrors are gone) that there would never ever be another bombing. Ever?!?!
And OBL was convinced that America would flee at any confrontation thanks to the cut and run we did in Somalia in 1993.Hey, wait another minute..who was the President in 1993?
And so, MR. and Msssssssssss Lefty, why the bombings in Bali? Why 9-11? Why the first WTC bombings (who was the President then?)? Why the embassy bombings in East Africa(who was the President then?)? The Cole bombing (who was the President then?)? What was the impetus for all these bombings?
The left's hatred for Bush shows so wonderfully how they have no reason, no logic. Ever.Their hatred for Bush passes their desire for anything else, including defense...other than getting rid of GWB. It would appear that this hatred has no end, and I would hope that it continues, as it would even eclipse their desire for self-preservation. Should life be so good.
This shows why these people, at any level (national, state, local) can not be allowed to even put their fingers, let alone their hands, on the levers of power.

You and Me & G8 = Terrorist - So Say the Left

I didn't plan to blog on London for days.
I was instead worrying about my fellow workers in London (so far it appears none were injuried) and privatly admire the courage of the English people. But what I heard on local radio in MN forced me to at least make one comment.

As I was driving yesterday evening, I was searching for a station and scan stopped on Air America.
What I heard next was in some ways surprising and in other ways, I guess, what I expected.
After a quick (and unfunny) fake news headlines, Garafalo started her show talking about the bombings that morning (or afternoon) in London.
Her whole opening monologue was about how self absorbed we white anglos were. That people died all the time in Africa and Middle East. That the criminals who did this, if you want to call them criminals or terrorists or freedom fighters, are no different then the ones who are killing people in the Middle East and Africa everyday. And the fact that people are dying from bombs or from ...

And here we get to part were are liberal friends just don't get it .....

People dying from bombs or from the neglect of the G8 who are meeting ..
She then went on to start her show.

So there we have it again.
People who target civilians and plan the attack for the time when most people are in the area of the bombs are the moral equivalent of you and me, because we are not giving money to the corrupt governments of Africa who are slaughtering there own people.

And the left wonders why they continue to lose.

More later...

The Minnesota government shut down

I had the opportunity to be on a conference call with several of the leadership of the Minnesota Republican Party today. The subject of the call - officially - was the partial government shut down and the state of the negotiations. Governor Pawlenty was on the call to tell us about the progress (or lack thereof). We were not two minutes into the call when the real subject of the call (to me) became apparent. To me it appeared that the call was a set up for a bomb that is about to be dropped on us. The Governor spoke about how tough it is for "us" to get things passed with a closely divided government and how compromises are going to need to be made - short term compromises - in order to get this crisis resolved. Now, I will readily admit that I am still trying to digest the information that was dispensed today and I am certainly not attempting to put words in the Governor's mouth, but it a)sure sounds like a compromise is imminent and b) the base is not going to like it.

A sad day in the free world.

There is certainly nothing that I can say about todays sad news out of London that has not already been said, other than to say that the people of London are in my prayers tonight! Prime Minister Blair has a tough road ahead of him and he will certainly need our prayers as well.

Humor and Truth

I've always enjoyed P.J. O'Rourke. He is to me what Will Rogers was to my Dad.
I came across a page of his quotes. The one that leapt out at me was this one:
"The mystery of government is not how Washington works but how to make it stop." P.J. O'Rourke

A Thousand Words...

Her sticker says "Governor, we have a problem." Really?
Well, I'm your Mom's , and the Governor's employer and I don't see a problem...except that there are 9,000 "non-essential" employess laid off. Now, therein is the problem: non-essential.
And why should we hire back "non-essential" employees?
Her Mom did want their last name used.
Who do you think her Mom voted for in the last Presidential election?
If you had to guess?











Stormi Greener Mpls Star Tribune All rights reserved 2005


P.S. 7 July-I got a call from a member of the Republican caucus today. We did a rough calculation on what we could save if we eliminated 9000 "non-essential" state employees. Figure $50,000 per employee (salary and generous benefits. I was surprised ,being their employer, at how incredibly generous I am). Add what it costs to support them (computers, furniture, utilities etc.) and we came to a figure of about $900,000,000. Nice savings.
OK. I'm convinced. Congratulations, non-essentials. You are now a part of the solution.

More judicial follies in Minnesota

Mitch over at Shot in the Dark has been covering the case of Jeff Skelton, who is accused of shooting his wife's lover 5 times (in the eye, the foot, the groin and 2 times in the chest), killing the man. Mitch goes into great detail on the case, how Mr. Skelton was released on bail, called a local radio station to brag about what he had done, was re-arrested for violating a condition of his parole (not contacting his wife) and was released yet again. While I agree with Mitch's outrage over the situation, I do not agree with his conclusion that it is Amy Klobuchar's (Hennepin County Prosecutor) problem solely . This is not just happening in Hennepin County (see my post "My heart is breaking...") - it is happening all over in Minnesota. If the blame is to be laid at any politicians feet, it should be laid at the feet of the man who wants to be our next governor - Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch! AG Hatch is the man who sets the pace for the county prosecutors - he sets the standards that the counties must abide by. Maybe we need to send the AG the memo that we are fed up with perps getting more rights than their victims! It is time for the people of Minnesota to stand up for the rights of the victims and make sure that their stories are heard!

My heart is breaking.....

As I have mentioned before, I am the parent of a grade school aged child. I also live in a suburb of the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul. It is with a heavy heart that I heard (yesterday) that Shasta Groene (the missing 8 year old Idaho girl) was found yesterday in the company of a known sex offender who had been released from a Minnesota jail. This is following the sad story of Dru Sjodin who was murdered by another sex offender who had been released from a Minnesota jail. As more and more comes out about Shasta's 6 weeks of horror, the angrier I - as a mother - get at the system.

Convicted child predators, like Shasta Groene's attacker, are supposed to register with the state. According to the US Department of Justice records, 67% of ALL sexual assult victims are under the age of 18. According to the same US DOJ records, there are approximately 550,000 convicted sex offenders in the country and 100,000 of them are "lost" - location unknown to law enforcement officials. Did you see that dear reader - 1/5 of the convicted sex offenders in the US can not be found by law enforcement!!!! One of them now stands accused of murdering 3 members of Shasta Groene's family, of kidnapping and sexually assulting Shasta and her 9 year old brother Dylan (before murdering him that is). The beast (for there is nothing human in my mind about him) was paroled from a Minnesota prison, where he was serving a sentence f0r raping a 6 year old boy.

What, in heavens name, are we - as a nation thinking, by placing the rights of people such as Joseph Duncan, John Couhey (who raped and murdered Jessica Lunsford in Florida), Roger Bently (who raped and murdered Jetseta Gage in Iowa) and Alfonso Rodriguez (Dru Sjodin's killer) above the rights of their victims? What happened to the rights of these beautiful little girls? Who is advocating for them? Starting now, this mom is! I am tired of having to explain to my child why he can not go do things that I used to do when I was his age. I am tired of having to train him self defense methods. I am sick and tired of being afraid for my child's life and safety.

We need to start - TODAY - to battle for the rights of our children. Our children deserve to be protected from the likes of those above who have no respect for anything but their own sick, twisted desires! We need to join up with groups like this who are fighting to do the right thing - to keep sexual predators of children locked up in jail for good! We need to get with our state and federal representatives and make jail terms for sex offenders longer and if they are paroled for any reason, they should be forced to wear an ankle monitor (if it's good enough for Martha Stewart...) and be on 24 hour GPS monitoring! We can no longer afford to "trust them" to check in with their Parole officer every 2 weeks or so! We need to hold these offenders AND the law enforcement system accountable for the deaths of these innocents! We need to do a better job protecting our children from the monsters of the night!

The Economically Freest Nation (oh, and WE ain't it)

Every year there is a study that ranks the nations in the world based on economic freedom. Not surprising those countries with more economic freedom also enjoy a higher standard of living (duh!).Let me pose the level of economic freedom with a question: You own an orange tree orchard. This is the harvest season. You and I strike up a conversation and my eyes fall on a particular orange. Now, I've never enjoyed an orange right off the tree and I decide that that one orange is for me. You, the grower/owner, pluck the orange off the tree and I pay an agreed upon price. Have there been any laws broken? If that orange is under 3 1/8 inches in diameter, both you and I have committed a crime. It's illegal to sell or to buy an orange of that size. Why? Because the Department of Agriculture says so. An agreed upon transaction, no force, no fraud. But illegal. A small segment (pun intended) of economic freedom is peeled away (intended again).
The Heritage Foundation does a study each year that ranks nations (161 this year) into four categories Free, Mostly Free, Mostly Unfree and Repressed. There are seventeen nations in the Free category. And the United States is NOT #1. Not even #5. #10? Nope.
We are #13. 13. Way below Singapore, below Estonia (Estonia?). Even below Chile (no offense to Guillermo, my first scrum half at the U of MN Rugby Club, who is a hard working capitalist in Santiago. My apologies Willy).
Click on United States and you'll see the category rankings and a graph of the past years ranking for that particular country. (www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm )
The very first sentence in the introduction states "The U.S. Constitution provides strong protections for private property, and the vibrancy and dynamism of the U.S. economy are testimony to these constitutionally protected economic liberties." The listings were before the Kelo v City of New London Supreme Court decision.Go down the list to near the end where there is a ranking for Property Rights and read the dire pre Kelo predictions.
Now, the lefties will seize upon the comment under Regulations "By global standards, the level of regulation in the United States is low." Now, the lefties ALWAYS claim "It could be worse." Well, I've ALWAYS found little comfort for my misery by seeing someone else who's more miserable. Especially when that misery is inflicted on me by someone else by force.
Vox Day, in his column yesterday ( www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45111 ) , near the end he comments:
" The genius of America was its independence. As that independence has been systematically reduced over the years, so too has its competitive advantage over other, less free, nations declined. The best and brightest have been leaving the country for years, and the American brain drain is accelerating as the Internet has made it possible to run a software company from the Bahamas or an import-export operation from Ireland, where the taxes are lower and there's no danger of losing your home to a Wal-Mart."
I remember about a month ago, while I was stopped at Hwy 13 and Cty Rd. 42, looking around and trying to find one thing, just one thing that was not taxed and/or regulated (as regulation has a cost and is therefore a tax). I couldn't find a thing.
When I look around and see what we have, I wonder how much more we could be if the government just got out of the way.

The 4th of July and some brief thoughts

Today, after my morning Bible readings and prayer, I took a moment to thank The Lord that I was born in the United States of America.I've often thought about gratitude towards God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit and how I really don't show much.Certainly not anywhere close to what's due Them. When I see the bumper stickers saying "Proud to be an American" I've always thought that to make a true statement it should read "Blessed to be an American".Humility becomes us and shows real gratitude.None of us earned America, achieved America or have America coming to us. We inherited America as it was bequethed to us from The Lord and those who came before us.
I see the bumper stickers "God Bless America", and when and how does
"America Bless God"? How do you show your gratitude? To the Lord? To those who are "out there" on the wall for you and for me? What are you doing to reclaim the promise that our Founding Fathers (and Mothers) suffered and bled and died for to provide this nation that was founded on liberty for you and for me? And do you acknowledge that liberty which has been grossly eroded thanks to yours and my indifference?
Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence? In it's entirety? (I'm impressed at how closely the complaints against the king mirror what we could list against our present overseers in Washington and St.Paul. We went to war over a 3% tax on sugar and yet today tolerate working over half the year to pay for government [http://www.atr.org/national/cogd/ ] and then call ourselves free{ see my blog The Economically Freest}).
I just finished David McCullough's book "1776". I'm a student of history and have always been amazed at how great events in history have turned on very small incidents (the horseshoe nail and the fall of the kingdom). And in "1776" it's amazing how close we came to NOT being.
So, go out and enjoy what God and our predecessors have provided and our armed forces protect ("Our loved ones sleep at night because of those rough men who will do violence to those who would do harm to our loved ones").
Always remember: Freedom is not free.That the only acceptable currency for liberty and freedom is and has always been blood.
May America Bless God!
He has certainly blessed all of us.