A generation ago, many in my generation yelled "He11 no, we won't go" as they marched against the Vietnam war.  Today the ideological descendants of those activists are in power in the Democrat party.  There are some myths I would like to address today in this light.

Myth:  The Terrorists are created by poverty generated by imperialism and Zionism.
Truth:  While many of the rank and file are indeed from poor areas, almost all of the officers are college educated and from wealthy families.  The top 5 most wanted are Osama, Adam Gadahn, Abdelkarim Hussein Mohamed Al-Nasser, Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah, and Ayman Al-Zawahiri.  Of these, Osama's father was the wealthiest builder in the middle east and he has a college degree.  Adam is an American son of hippie parents.  The parents were back to the earth commune types, but he went to USC and was taken abroad by aunts, so we can't call him oppressed.  Abdelkarim is pretty well unknown, but as a Saudi and friend of Osama, it can be expected that he again came from the privileged class.  Abdullah is a college educated Egyptian.  Al-Zawahiri is a medical doctor and son of a prominent Egyptian family. 

Myth:  This war is a response to American Imperialism
Truth:  It truly depends on your definition of the term Imperialism.  To these individuals, promoting our culture and spending our money around the world is imperialism.  Supporting our allies who are fighting expansionistic Islam is Imperialism.  If you accept this, then this is partly true.  But only partly.  If you read their literature.  The terrorists hate us because we are the biggest obstacle to their objective.  That objective is to first return all Islamic lands to Islamic control (This includes all of Northern Africa, All of Spain, and Eastern Europe half way through Poland.  Once this is accomplished, the objective is the implementation of world wide Sharia law.

Myth:  The invasion of Iraq has made things worse.
Truth:  The invasion of Iraq has made things more obvious, but not worse.  In terms of American deaths, the deaths have been moved to soldiers and away from civilians.  In terms of Iraqi deaths, the deaths have been moved from enemies of Sadaam to combatants and to random civilians.  However, regardless if you take the ridiculous figures or the sane ones, Sadaam killed hundreds of thousands.  Just not on the news and more targeted.

Unstated Myth:  If we just leave Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey..... The Islamics will leave us alone.
Truth:  I call this an unstated myth because it is not put out there in these terms.  However, it is the driving strategy of the American left.  The problem with this is their objectives.  As the ultimate objective is the implementation of a worldwide theocracy, any democracy in the world is a threat.  And, as we are the largest power in the world, we will remain a target regardless of where we abandon.  They have fought us in Islamic nations, in Christian nations, in pagan nations, and even in New York.  I hear that it takes two to make an argument.  That is certainly true, but it only takes one to make a fight and/or a murder.  If you punch me, I can choose to punch back or turn the other cheek.  That does not mean you will stop.  And, with their objectives, they will not stop regardless of how often we turn that cheek.

Myth:  If we negotiate with them, we can find some common ground.
Truth:  Their objectives again get in the way.  How can we negotiate with someone who wants worldwide sharia law?  This is completely at odds with our nation and it's ideals.  As such, either they must give up this objective, we must surrender, or we must continue the fight.

I am told that I am an unusual conservative.  I do believe that it is wrong for a nation as rich as ours to not provide for the needs of even it's lazy and drug abused citizens.  I do believe that we need to take care of the children regardless of the sins of their parents.  Maybe I am odd, but I don't think so.

In my simple mind, I think that when you need others to help you with the basics of your needs, you have either never left your childhood or have shown you do not have the abilities needed to live as an adult.  In this case, I feel that someone should act in loco parentis to you until you achieve functional adulthood.  As we are a mobile society and one where the parents themselves may not be functional adults, this falls to the government.  For Brian R, I am not saying this should be a Federal program, though the Feds can certainly help, but I am saying this is the responsibility of a caring people.

So, what is my suggestion.  My first point is that we are closing lots of military bases, many in and around most of the major cities and many of the minor.  Here in Omaha, we have Fort Omaha.  It is in the poorer area of town and it is largely unused since closing.  It has barracks, mess halls, and other buildings that were once used by the army.  I suggest that we reactivate the barracks and other buildings and cede them to the local people for this purpose.

First, as the recipients are provably not responsible adults, they must sleep in our barracks as they are, and eat at the mess halls, whatever they serve.  We would have on-site a clinic to help with minor problems and exams as well as job training classes, drug rehabilitation, mental health professionals, and other needed services.  We would have a day care, a front desk for receiving calls from potential employers, and would provide basic but serviceable clothing.  There would be no means testing for any of this.  If Bill Gates came by and asked for a bed and a meal, he would get one.  Not steak and pate, but certainly healthy food in healthy portions.

People who lived here could provide help with cooking, cleaning, the day care, etc and at the same time gain job experience.  The barracks would have to be policed to ensure they did not turn into drug dens or generate other problems.  This could be done by the residents themselves as they begin to show responsibility, by local civic organizations, or even by the police.

If a vagrant was found, they would be sent to the barracks and we would be able to reestablish vagrancy laws if they decided not to stay there.  Panhandling would also be made illegal once again, cleaning up our streets.

If a person got a job and decided that they would prefer to have more privacy and more say in their living conditions, they would be allowed to move to their own apartment but return here for food and other help.  Similarly if they want to eat food they choose, and they have money, they can go buy their own food (as long as it does not effect the health and cleanliness of the facility).

This has several advantages.  First, it will allow a place for a reasonable person to regain their feet and return to normal society.  As they move through this process, they will regain their rights and privacies as they grow.  Second, people who do not have the ability to grow to adulthood will still be able to survive and live in reasonably humane conditions.  All children would have safe places and access to medical care, schools, and other things that life requires.

One final point.  All people resident in the barracks would be required to obtain chemical or surgical contraception.  While you are still a child, you should not be allowed to have more children.  This would both be a positive for the facility and a spur for people who want families to use the benefits to regain their independence.

I know that the liberals will decry this as slavery and loss of dignity, but it is more dignity than urinating on the street corner.  To me there are 3 problems to be solved.  First, how do you stop the administrators from making it hell?  They could run drug or prostitution rings from the facility and abuse the residents.  This would have to be monitored closely.  Second, care would have to be taken to make sure it is not taken over by bullies and gangs of residents.  This will be difficult but not impossible.  After all, the military has done that for years.  Finally, we will have to close our ears to those who complain about the fairness of the conditions.  All children and teens complain their parents are not fair when not allowed to do exactly what they want, this would be no different.

Just a short post today.  I am concerned that we can't let the yahoos run our party.  We need my new contract with America.  We need conservative leaders.

Dick Armey has started a grassroots organization aimed at doing just that.  I have joined it both at the local level as a state worker and they tell me they are going to link my blog on their site.  Dick is one of the authors of the original contract and makes some of the most sense I have read.

I urge the rest of you to come join us in the future at Freedom Works.

One of the Town Hall columnists and responses got me thinking today about race and racism.  Does it exist?  What are the impacts?  What is the truth?

One of the first truths that I have come to is that racism is a real issue but that it is not based in any way upon race.  Huh?  To explain this, we have to discuss what is meant by race.  In today's world, race is an issue of self identification and not one of genetics.  I can as accurately say my race is "Republican Conservative" or "Catholic" as white, black, hispanic, or asian.  I mean consider Tiger Woods.  He is black right?  Well, he says he is asian.  So, lets look at his ancestors.  Earl Wood's grandparents were two blacks, one ethnic chinese, and one amerind.  Kultida Wood's grandparents were one ethnic chinese, one white, and two thai.  So, Tiger is 1/4 african, 1/4 chinese, 1/4 thai, 1/8 white, and 1/8 amerind.  BUT HE IS BLACK!  Actually, no.  He is more accurate when he says he is asian.  After all he is 1/2 asian but only 1/4 black.  But he looks black.  And there we come to the crux.  He has a skin hue that is a few shades darker than George Hamilton and a slightly wider nose.  Even though his hair is more asian, that color makes him black.

Well, what do we do about a friend of mine.  Her parents and her siblings all are varying shades from cafe au lait to semisweet chocolate, but she easily "passes for white" whenever she wants.  Is she black?  Her family says so and she says so, but if skin color is the determinate, nope, she is not.

How about hispanic?  What is that?  According to the best I can determine, a hispanic is anyone who speaks spanish as their original tongue, anyone who has a spanish, mexican, or latin american name, and anyone who comes from a latin american or south american country.  Race?

Ah, but asian, there is a race.  It encompasses mongolian, chinese, japanese, thai, burmese, korean, and even indian.  Each of those would tell you that they are independent races with the indians being (in many cases) colored to semisweet chocolate darkness.

Well, everyone knows white folk.  Germanics, italians, greeks, jews, eastern europeans, tartars....  Yup.  That is one race... NOT.  Well then jews.  That one is easy.  Sure.  They are an arabic stock mainly and look almost identical to their muslim neighbors.  Except for the northern african ones who are black colored.  And their northern european ones who have inbred with the russians and tartars.  Hmmm.

Enough of this.  I think we can see that race is a blind and a dodge.  In this world today, a person who is actually of a specific race (rather than of a specific appearance) is a rare thing.  So, what we are talking about is appearance.

Is there bigotry based on appearance.  ABSOLUTELY.  Try to get a job in the executive suite of a major company looking like Danny DeVito.  Short and fat.  No matter how smart he is, unless he makes his own company, he is unlikely to be promoted.  How about bigotry based on culture.  Yes.  Go to New York with a Georgia accent and see how you are treated.  Go to Texas with a Boston accent and ask the same thing.  This is not to say there is not and has not been a history of racism between the dominant culture and "people of color", but it is intended to show that if we eliminate the institutional bars against people, then we are left with not racism, but just human biases and those apply in all sorts of ways with all sorts of impacts.

But race has effects!  Blacks make only 60% of the money that whites do!  Here culture comes into play more than race.  See the Journal of Epidemiology from July 15,1999 for a study that indicates when you adjust for educational and marital differences as well as for criminal history, there is a 2% bias in income in favor of self identified blacks!  This means that the reason for the difference is that the black culture promotes less education, lack of stable families, and more criminal behavior.  And these are the primary factors reducing the income statistics.  If you decide to get a college degree, get into a stable relationship, and don't knock over gas stations, you will do better than most whites!  There are similar studies, by the way, for women.  When adjusted for time in work place without interruption, women do better than men.  But as we are a free nation, women can choose to stay home and raise families for 5-10 years out of the workforce.  Blacks can choose to drop out of school and be "playas".  Just don't blame it on race.

We, the Republicans promise if elected to:

1. Control the borders of this nation to eliminate the flow of illegal aliens into this nation.
2. Eliminate the incentive for illegal immigration by making it a felony to knowingly employ illegal aliens.
3. Create a database where a prospective employer can enter a name and a social security number.  In case of a non-match, it will be up to the worker to prove their identity.  If they have no proof and no match but are hired, this is prima facie proof of point 2.
4. Eliminate earmarks and other hidden spending from all legislation.
5. Create personal Medical and Retirement Savings accounts for all Americans.
6. Create an independent auditor of Congress, appointed by the SCOTUS to investigate and inform Congress of ethics violations on the part of members of Congress.
7. Act on all nominations of judges within 90 days of that nomination.
8. Require that any lawyer or client who is found guilty of "frivolous litigation" 3 times in 3 years be banned from submitting further litigation for a period of 1 year the first time, 10 years the second time, and life the third time.  "Frivolous litigation" to be defined as harassing or baseless filing of claims.
9. Require the loser of litigation to pay the expenses of the winner.  Loser defined as the 85% the litigant and 15% the legal representative.  However, allow the jury to award costs only to the litigant in the case of "reasonable but losing" verdicts.  This would be the case when the case was reasonable to bring, but on balance, the jury found there was no damage or where technicalities disallowed the resolution.
10. In cases where a public defender / public attorney is supplied to a litigant, the public defender shall be exempt from both the Frivolous Litigation clause and their portion of the loser pays clause.  In this case, the litigant shall be fully responsible.
11. Removing the authority of the courts to decide upon the constitutionality of school vouchers.
12. Removing the right of the courts to disallow evidence due to technical violations.  Police and prosecutors can be criminally liable for their actions including breaking and entry and assault, but if valid evidence is found, it is admissible.  The only reason for disallowing evidence is that it was coerced or in other ways gained in a way that a reasonable person would believe that it was likely to be false,
13. Require all legislation to follow the "Clear Legislation Policy"
14. All legislation passed by Congress applies to Congress as well as the public.
15. Change election regulations to allow any amount of money to be spent by anyone on any race.  All donations are to be listed on the Internet with the name and the amount of the donations.  Money cannot be listed by the name of a group, PAC, or company.  They must be identified by the actual person donating.  Hiding donations shall be considered a felony.
16. Make the 2002 tax cuts permanent.
17. Identify foreign nations with US Military presence and draw the troops in those nations down to levels that allow the bases to be retained for emergencies, but do not retain specific levels of troops above that minimum.
18. Continue expansion of the military with an emphasis on Military Police, Special Forces, and quick reaction groups.
19. Urge the White House to treat leaks as what they are, violations of state security.  If any members of Congress or the Senate engage in leaks, these shall be grounds for their censure and removal from Congress.  It shall also be an automatic firing offense if done by Congressional staffers.

Off the top, I think for domestic purposes, this could win us the election.  I really don't know where we would go on foreign affairs, but I know that would have to be there.

What is my "Clear Legislation Policy?"

1. All bills submitted by Congress must have a heading chapter of no more than 1000 words that explain the purpose of the legislation.
2. The heading chapter must be descriptive and as far as possible, measurable.  i.e. To reduce the flow of illegal immigrants from 6 million per year to 100 thousand or less .  No language such as "to provide budgetary allowance for spending" shall be allowed.
3. Any clause, section, or regulation that does not relate directly to the heading chapter shall be considered null and void upon review by the courts.  Such overturning shall only overturn the offending section and not the bill itself.
4. All bills must have a review date set in them.
5. At the time of review, the Congress must submit a formal report on how the bill has succeeded in addressing it's purpose.
6. At the time of review, the Congress shall have the responsibility to either:  Extend the bill for an additional time of review; revoke the bill; or amend the bill to allow it to better address the objectives.

Ok, there is my starter set.  Suggestions?  Additions?

There is a question I have been asking some of my liberal friends that, to me, fully explains the reason that liberals hate religions.  It is deceptively simple.

"If G*d himself came down from heaven and convinced you absolutely of his identity and then told you that one of your key beliefs was wrong, how would you react?"  The belief could be gay rights, abortion, or even the role of women.  For example, if he said "The role of the woman is to stay in the home and breed and raise children only."  How would you react?

Religious people would perhaps disagree, but they would try to obey the instruction of G*d.  Most conservatives would as well.  After all, this is our creator and the creator of the universe.  How can my reasoning and belief trump the instruction of the diety.

To a man, the liberals have said something on the line of "I would spit in his eye and refuse to obey."  After all, that instruction offends me and violates my morals.  Who died and made him G*d?  Ok, that is a joke.

As I said, that is illustrative to me.  Do you accept authority or is your egotism so extreme that your opinion is the only one that matters?  Religion demands the former and thus is hated by people who want the later.

Well, the dust is settling, the banners are folded up, and the campaign signs are coming off the roads.  We have 18 months before the big event.  What should we as conservatives be doing now?

First, and most important, look at your current representatives.  Check out the rumors and the sly comments.  Are they on the take?  Running around with the girls (and boys)?   In short, are they honorable or just some of the ones who haven't gotten caught yet.  If they are honorable, fine and good.  If they are crooks, begin using influence to convince them to take "honorable retirement" and begin working to find their replacement.  If they won't leave voluntarily, make it clear that they will not get support and that the support will go to people we have found to replace them.

Second, find replacements.  We have lost a lot of good people out there, but with tens of millions of good conservatives out there, there have to be some we have not tapped for positions.  We have to find these people, convince them to run, and begin to groom them for the campaigns to come.  Reach out to the schools.  That is where we got Armey and Gingrich.  Reach out to the businesses.  Reach out.

Third, develop the plan.  In 1994 we won, not because of the candidates, though there were a lot of good ones.  We did not win only because of the fecklessness of the Democrats.  We did not win because we "got out the vote".  We won because we gave the nation a set of core beliefs and plans.  This nation hungers for that.  They are tired of campaigns where the only message is "he is worse than me".  Be for something and then you can use the answer "Look, my opponent is smearing me because he has no plan.  Here is my plan."  That does resonate!  It got Bob Kerry elected Senator in Nebraska and has worked many places.  People don't tend to believe all of the negatives because everyone uses them constantly.  If that is all you have, then they work.  But if you have a plan, you can focus the people on that.

As others have said, our ideology has not lost.  Our leaders did.  Our lack of a plan did.  Our betrayals of that ideology did.  We can turn this around.  Lets get out there and do it.

http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009218

Absolutely correct.

Well, the party is over.  For the past 8 years, the Republican party has been on a bender.  Raiding the public treasury, lining their pockets, and generally out Democrating the Democrats.  This morning they woke up on the couch with divorce papers on their chest and a pounding headache.  What went wrong?

We have learned some things here and I would like to examine them.  But do not give up hope.  Yes, we lost both the House and probably the Senate.  But by razor thin margins.  We have not lost all that was gained in 1992.  But we still can.  I hope this is a wake up call and not just a step on the way to rock bottom.

There are just a couple things that need to be learned.  They are simple.

1. Governing is a performance business.
2. Communications is key.

While the party out of power can win (demonstrably) by saying we have a better idea, the party in power cannot hold by simply saying "no they don't".  The elected representatives were hired to do a job.  If they don't do that job they will be fired.  Bill O'Reilly says "war is a performance business."  That is true, but not complete.  If you are in the minority, it is your job to restrain the worst impacts of your opponent's policies.  If you are in power, it is your job to accomplish what you were hired to do.  We did not do this, and the Democrats did.

We were hired to fight the war.  Although we have tried, no movement is seen and so this is seen as failure.  Borders?  Nada.  Social Issues?  Nope.  Other than the judges (an important issue), nothing of substance has been done in 8 years.  People don't buy the photo ops any more or the posturing.  You have to do what you said you will.  With all due apology to my gay friends, even passing the gay marriage amendment would have been seen in a positive light.  People want something done.  And this is nothing new this congress or this generation.  To borrow from one of my favorite movies, 1776:

You see, we piddle, twiddle, and resolve
Not one damn thing do we solve

and one more:

"I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace, that two are called a law firm, and that three or more are called a congress."

But now we are in the minority.  It is our duty to point out the flaws of the Democrats and to fight to stop them from doing the more extreme things.  Not the good ones, please.  And there will be good ones.  The good ones you get in front of and claim as your own as Clinton did with Welfare reform.

The second point of what needs to be done is to communicate.  I cannot understand the Bush family.  They have been some of the worst communicators ever in office.  Look at Reagan.  Look at Clinton.  Both consummate communicators and effective because of that.  And we have so many more tools now.  The internet is here as is Fox News and conservative radio.  If you have to, buy ads to get your message out.  Learn from Clinton with his immediate reaction teams.  Fight back NOW.  Get in front of issues and TELL THE PEOPLE THE TRUTH.

As a conclusion, I have a suggestion to all of our surviving office holders.  Open a personal blog.  In that blog, discuss why you are doing what you are doing and your thought process.  Not everyone will agree, and allow them to comment.  You may learn something and they may.  Delete the offensive ones, but have an active blog.  If you are an idiot, and say unwise things, you may regret it, but then you should not be in office.

My suggestion to the President.  You are best one-on-one.  Forget the big rallies.  Those only get to the people there and most of them are the choir.  They will be spun to death by the liberal media.  Instead, as an idea, find a group of bloggers on the internet or other people who are literate wherever you can find them.  Include some rational liberals like AnimalGirl and invite 5-6 of them to the oval office once a month.  Have a conversation with them about the issues that you are facing.  Don't let the press know who they are until after the fact but broadcast the whole thing.  Don't prep the questions, just let it fly.  Do this every month with a different group.  And put the whole thing streaming on the web so anyone who wants to hear the truth without the spin can hear it all.  Yes, it is risky, but look how well playing it safe has worked.

Well, since the Democrats seem to want this election to turn on who had sex with that person, I thought I would investigate the subject of sex and politics.  Before I start, I want to enter a disclaimer.

***Not all men or women are alike.  There is a bell curve where people on the extreme ends for both men and women are alike.  Specific examples are meaningless as I am looking for a generic description.****

Now to the post.

One of the things that I am interested in is that women and men simply think differently.  This is not intended as a value judgment, but their brain biology is different due to hormones released during pregnancy.  In general women feel more and men think more.  Men are more physically aggressive.  Men are more into doing and women more into communicating.  Then we come to sex.

In my opinion, this all comes back to the differences we had in prehistoric days.  I wrote a post about this here.  In general, it serves the replication of the male genome by being promiscuous and the female by being monogamous.  In this light, it becomes probable that marriage as an institution came from the woman's need for safety and security while gestating and raising children rather than as a pseudo-slavery condition foisted on the woman.  We can see this strongly in homosexual relations since only one sex is involved.  Within the gay community, there are two telling stereotypes.  On the male side is the bath houses where gay men come together to have uninvolved sex with multiple partners.  While not all participate (see disclaimer), this is the major stereotype held by my male gay friends.

For women, the stereotype is of serial monogamy.  As one lesbian friend told me, "it is the one about the first date who arrives with a suitcase and a toothbrush."  The desire to bond and form permanent relationships is huge in the female psyche (see disclaimer).

So, what does that say about the political issues of the day?

1. Male gay councilors / Boy Scout leaders - These will be more attracted to their charges and more likely to act on their attraction than females or straight males.  However, all know this to be an unacceptable act and only people with other flaws will fall.  So, I would not call for banning, but this should be considered and monitored.
2. Gay adoption - The question here is where the role model for how to relate to the other sex will work.  If two gay men, who teaches the nurturing, communicating, and feeling.  If female, appropriate aggression, logic, and mechanics.  (see disclaimer).  With gay men, the first issue is also in play.  I would argue against gay adoption.  Yes, I know that the argument is that some parent is better than none.  However this is a false argument.  First, there is a lack of adoptable children in this country.  That is the reason that a huge number of adoptions are of foreign born children.  Second, it is a false choice.  Say to yourself that same sentence when the parents are mass-murdering cannibals rather than gay people.  No, in that case, no parent IS better than any parent.  I submit that while the cases are not similar (gays ARE NOT mass murderers or cannibals), the comment on the choice is appropriate.
3. Gay Marriage - I have discussed this in full here. 
4. Gays in the Military - This was discussed here.

Have I missed any?