Buy the Numbers?

OK – do this little exercise yourself if you don't trust me.

$787,000,000,000 / 306,000,000 people = $2,571.90 per person

That's the so-called stimulus package divided by roughly the number of people the US census bureau estimates right now – so, let's round our result to $2,600 per person. I'm afraid the Republicans are right. That just isn't much of a stimulus. But wait! That's debt per person – right? After all, we're not getting a check in the mail and if we did we'd still have to repay it eventually. Oh, maybe some of us will directly benefit from the Great O'Spendulus, aka the “American Recovery and Reinvestment (ARR) Act of 2009”. For instance, those people qualifying for government assistance in weatherizing their homes. Now, there's a role for the federal government the founders overlooked!

So, here's my proposal to correct the problem. The government buys a Walmart gift card for every man, woman and child in the United States with the generous sum of $2,500 attached. Mine is a modest proposal, so I rounded down a little to save us all some debt. Why Walmart? Well, Wally World is already socialist in nature – limited choices at “fair” prices. And, you can buy almost anything there. Seniors can get their drugs... the kids can buy a variety of toys... liberals will find all their favorite Obama authored books and Bruce Springsteen CDs... conservatives can stock up on guns and ammo... why, if it is a superstore, the spendthrifts among us can even get food there! And think how stimulative it would be! Every manufacturer with products at Walmart would see revenues go through the roof. Toy makers, tire and hardware manufacturers, plant and food growers, drug makers... you name it! Jobs, jobs, jobs and not just at Walmart or whatever alphabet soup of government make-work programs Obama's team is yet to reveal. I'm a genius!

Seriously though, this is my evidence that Obama doesn't want economic recovery. It took me less than ten minutes and less than a page to develop this idea that truly would be stimulative and less expensive than what the Democrats just did to this country in the so-called stimulus package. In just under a month, more than a 1,000 pages and some 787 billion dollars of debt, the Obama administration has planted our collective feet firmly on the road to serfdom.

Why? I think there are many reasons. Perhaps first, because he can (as in “Si, se puede” or “Yes, we can”). He is a great deceiver – maybe The Great Deceiver. Did you hear what he said at the press conference about economists agreeing the New Deal type intervention was necessary?

“Most economists, almost unanimously, recognize that even if philosophically you're wary of government intervening in the economy, when you have the kind of problem we have right now -- what started on Wall Street goes to Main Street, suddenly businesses can't get credit, they start carrying back their investment, they start laying off workers, workers start pulling back in terms of spending -- when you have that situation, that government is an important element of introducing some additional demand into the economy. We stand to lose about $1 trillion worth of demand this year and another trillion next year. And what that means is you've got this gaping hole in the economy. “

Economists almost unanimously recognize that FDR's New Deal was a disaster which deepened and prolonged the Depression. Politicians argue for government introducing demand into the economy – economists argue for government unfettering the free market to let failing corporations fail and strong one's innovate, to increase efficiencies and let prices fluctuate according to nature's law of supply and demand. FDR's own treasury secretary, economist Henry Morgenthau Jr. spoke before Congress in 1939 and said,

"We are spending more money than we have ever spent before and it does not work. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started and an enormous debt to boot."

But Obama is smooth and articulate. I bet he had 54% of the people listening convinced.

He also said, “What got us into this mess is banks taking enormous, wild risks with other people’s money...” Here's a case of deception by not telling the whole truth. The government – specifically Democrats – instituted government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which, because they were backed with taxpayer's money (“other people's”), took enormous wild risks on bad loans. They did not originate them (they bought them and sold securities based on them), but the banks that did were responding to the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which threatened them with anti-discrimination lawsuits if they didn't lend to high risk cases - as if all money isn't green. And who imposed the CRA? Democrats in government. Now, there's also the securities rating problem where GSEs trying to mitigate their risk by selling securities which bundled good loans with bad ones, managed to get their securities rated triple-A. I don't know who was responsible for allowing this part of the problem, but whether Republican or Democrat, I'm 99.99% sure government had something to do with it. But Barry would have us believe it is all the “banks” and “Wall Street” who are irresponsible and therefore, responsible. B.S.!

Other reasons why our new president doesn't care about economic recovery:

- more government dependency = greater Democrat power and influence

- moral vanity and sanctimony = I'm so good and right, historical facts don't matter.

I don't think I need to elaborate on these last two.

Do you think there's any significance to the fact that Democrats passed the ARR Act (which I will henceforth call the Piracy Act of 2009) on Friday the 13^th? Buy the numbers? You and your kids and your grandkids just did. $787,000,000,000 worth. Plus interest.

SOS Hillary Clinton!

Has anyone else noticed how bad Hillary Clinton looks lately? It was this picture that made me think she's going downhill.

Now, I'm not a Hillary fan, but I thought she was looking pretty good during the campaign. Is there something about the job of Secretary of State that does this to Democratic women? Seriously. Look:

I used a flattering picture of Madaleine Albright for the sake of comparison. Blond, high cheekbones, nice smile, strong chin. But this may be what Hillary is in for if she takes the job:

Run, Hillary, run!! You can still be president! Don't do this to yourself!

Just a Few Thoughts the Morning After

To black Americans - Welcome home. I truly hope you feel completely a part of your country now. We'll all be better for it.

To the Left - you of the unconstrained vision - This is your shot at utopia. You have it all - the federal government, the media, the education establishment and the judicial system. No excuses now. We'll all be watching to see if you really can do it better than your comrades in Europe, Canada and elsewhere.

To the Obama administration - Not all criticism is racism. Live with it.

God bless America.

Dear Friend and Barak Obama Supporter,

Thank you for your email with the link to Colin Powell's endorsement of Barak Obama.

Here we find common ground. Like Colin Powell and you, I too believe Obama is a transformational figure. I fear how he would change America though, given his dark vision of the "fundamental flaw" in our constitution regarding our government's missing authority to redistribute the wealth. This essay at American Thinker details his alliance with leftist ideology:

Yet, no one to my knowledge has yet connected all the dots between Barack Obama and the Radical Left. When seen together, the influences on Obama's life comprise a who's who of the radical leftist movement, and it becomes painfully apparent that not only is Obama a willing participant in that movement, he has spent most of his adult life deeply immersed in it.

I believe you have the best of intentions in your desire to emulate the socialist countries of western Europe, your highest goal being equality. However, I hope we can agree, factually, that “equality” is not the value that brought America to this pinnacle of prosperity and freedom. As a conservative, I wish to “conserve” what America has achieved and I believe you and Obama wish to “progress” beyond it. Is that fair enough? One might say, you want to dance with a new guy at the prom and I want to dance with the guy who 'brung' me.

This is why charges of “anti-Americanism” and “un-American” are brought by conservatives. I don't believe you are unpatriotic and I challenge you to quote one mainstream Republican politician who has leveled that charge. We believe you love America in the abstract – what it could be. We also believe your vision for what it could be is a Marxist utopia. This is why pictures of Bill Ayers standing on the American flag and stating he and the Weathermen only regret they “didn't do enough” in the way of bombing American institutions don't strike you as anti-American. Bill Ayers just wants a better America – right? You have seen these pictures and read or heard these words, haven't you? Or are they only available on alternative “right-wing” media?

We conservatives love America for its founding principle of Liberty. This freedom is what makes the American Dream possible for the likes of Joe the plumber and, yes, even Sarah Palin. Americans have not traditionally been awed by expertise and college credentials – by intellectualism. In fact, Matthew Arnold, a British poet and culture critic said, "If there be a discipline in which the Americans are wanting, it is the discipline of awe and respect." To which Mark Twain, the target of his criticism replied, "A discriminating irreverence is the creator and protector of human liberty."

The inscription is from Leviticus (25:10):

"Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Land unto all of the inhabitants thereof."

You will answer we don't love liberty enough to protect a woman's “right to choose”. Again, I find common ground with Obama, who said in his eloquent professorial manner at the Saddleback Forum that abortion is a moral issue. “Gee, thanks for enlightening us, Senator." Yes – and moral values are codified in our laws. You support a man who, when in doubt (after all, it is “above his pay grade” to say when human rights accrue to a fetus), prefers to place absolutely no limits on the practice of abortion, including denying legal protections to a viable fetus who happens to survive an abortion attempt. Did you know that – or, again, is this information only made available to those who seek out conservative opinion? Don't try to weasel this one with Obama campaign talking points. I have too much information at my disposal about his actual record.

You, on the other hand, would happily sacrifice everyday liberties for what you believe would be a more virtuous society. Given the chance, you will outlaw trans fats (NYC), high fructose corn syrup and compel all farmers to grow organic. No smoking – ever, unless you meet the state's standards for medical marijuana use. I suppose you will make another exception for Presidente Obama's cigarette smoking. We'll all be living under the sterile blue light and happy little hum of energy efficient fluorescent light bulbs and the state will monitor and remotely control our thermostat settings (tried in California). The feds decided long ago how much water should be allowed to flush through our toilets – the unintended consequence being multiple flushings required to eliminate our elimination.

These losses of liberty are nuisances compared to what the Democrats have promised will be at the top of their agenda next session. In true fascist fashion, they will silence the opposition by re-instituting the Orwellian-named “Fairness Doctrine”. Um – freedom of speech an American value, anyone? And second, they will eliminate the secret ballot in unionization voting via the deceptively named “Employee Free Choice Act”. Even George McGovern opposes this. But, I understand – the goal of equality is so preeminent, so absolutely fabulous – any means of achieving it is worth it. Up is down. Right is left. Black is white. The Christians with whom you live and work are bigoted, intolerant, hateful warmongers and Barak Obama is a healer and is wise beyond his years. George Bush is the “worst president ever” despite seven years of unexpected national security and an amazing post-9-11 economic recovery and the Democrats have supremacy on the economic issues despite instituting government sponsored entities (GSEs) run by Democrats and their political allies into the ground and opposing any regulation that might impinge on their ability to feel good about loaning money to people who can't pay it back.

FFA? Future Fascists of America rally on their
way to early voting at Colorado College.

You see only fundamentalist Christians and anthropogenic global warming (AGW) as threats to civilization. We see Christian values as the foundation on which this great nation was built. And we believe America is the greatest national force for good the world has ever known. We actually believe this is indisputable. We see AGW as another manufactured crisis used by your side to justify state control of the commanding heights of the economy on the road to your Marxist utopia. Often when you or your candidate describe America, we simply don't recognize the place. Not that we think it is perfect – we just see it as a whole lot better than you do. This is also why we don't have an urgent need for radical “change”.

However, we also have two threats to civilization we fear. We see Islamic fascism as this century's biggest threat to western civilization together with, frankly, your suicidal tendencies. You and Senator Obama believe, through the force of his personality (another interesting correlation with previous fascist regimes), we can reason with our enemies. Really – to understand the nightmare we conservatives are envisioning, you should read Lee Harris' “Suicide of Reason”. Professor Harris is a man of the left – a gay man with a long-term partner – and a member of the intellectual elite. He so clearly identifies what we see – that Western civilization has fostered the “rational actor” - us soft, pampered, affluent people acting in our “enlightened self-interest”. You on the left expect everyone to behave rationally, while we conservatives and the Islamists themselves recognize that they are “tribal” actors living by the rules of the jungle, the first of which is – there are no rules. While you're fighting for the “right” of gays to marry and scrupulously monitoring your carbon footprint – we see our common enemy advancing on us with his scimitar poised to lop off our heads. And that is what is making us crazy! It is one thing for you to be suicidal – it is another for you to take us down with you!

We acknowledge the good that has been done by various movements originating on the left. The civil rights movement really has succeeded at eliminating institutional racism in America. There are still racists to be sure, but racism has become socially unacceptable - unless you're Jeremiah Wright. When I was a kid, I played in creeks with orange foam floating over the ripples and the Cuyahoga River really did burn – more than once. The environmental movement succeeded admirably in cleaning up the air and water. I also happen to believe prosperity is a huge factor as people of affluence don't like to live in effluence. But if you want to see polluted environs, check out those workers' paradises! Even the socialists in France and Britain do not enjoy the air and water quality we have here (you don't want to know what they drop on the train tracks in France!). Feminism made it possible for me to pursue an engineering degree in a class that was half women twenty-five years after my sister was denied entry to a dermatology specialty after completing medical school as one of very few women allowed in the program.

But, what we recognize, which you seem to overlook, is how these movements have radicalized. Feminism is all about the right to abort your offspring. Did you know between a third and a half of black babies suffer this fate in our country? Talk about racial genocide! Civil rights now take the form of reparations and grievance studies, which Obama promotes as one of his education policies. We Ohioans have family stories that include great grandfathers and great uncles marching off with Sherman's army to fight and die for black Americans' freedom. If we pay reparations, do we then get to start classes in grievance? I admit, I am deeply aggrieved by affluent black Americans about to become president and first lady being ungrateful for the blood spilled on behalf of them and their ancestors. Is there anything as unattractive as ingratitude for the ultimate sacrifice? Environmentalism is now used as a tool to punish “evil” capitalist corporations that have made American prosperity possible. If you manage to kill Walmart, it is the poor you claim to champion who will suffer. Environmentalists have already killed millions in Africa with their anti-DDT absolutism. All hail the pristine environment in which mosquitoes and eagles thrive and humans die!

I also want to mention the other radical movement - secularism. America has developed as the most highly advanced country with a secular government and religious society. You seem to fear the rise of a Christian theocracy despite having lived in a Christian culture your entire American life and having succeeded in influencing both Christianity and the culture more than the other way around. With the breakdown of authority in the 60s and the rise of the therapeutic culture, churches have responded by eliminating God as judge and have made Him everyone's best friend. And really, you can't open the paper or turn on the TV and believe the religious right has influenced the culture much, can you? Yet, you seem to chafe under the religious influences in our society. George Bush believing he will be held to account is no comfort to you. But, Barak Obama's professions of faith cultivated for twenty years in a radical racist church don't disturb you. Could it be you doubt his sincerity?

We do believe a non-denominational prayer in schools, like the ones said back when we were united by common values, really never hurt anyone. “God bless our parents, our teachers, our school and our country” just doesn't seem all that threatening when you consider the other cultural influences our kids are experiencing. You seem to think MTV good, prayer in school bad. We also believe you promote anti-Biblical values. Your tax policy of taking from the worker to give to the non-worker promotes sloth, ingratitude and covetousness. As the economist Arthur Laffer said, “don't be surprised if you end up with a lot more people not working”. In Jewish law, even the person living on charity is supposed to tithe 10%. Do you believe there is any wisdom in that? We get really fried when you want to confiscate our hard won earnings to support everyone's sexual sin. Sure, in a free society, you have every right to get knocked-up. We just don't want to have to pay for your birth control to prevent it, your Viagra to help it along or your abortion when you “succeed”. In a flier I received from NARAL in support of Obama, they call these “reproductive rights”. Oy vey, the emanations and penumbra!

As David Horowitz says, you are so “intoxicated with your virtue”, you can't or won't admit the harm your utopianism has done in the world. Do you really believe the rise in government dependence has made people happier or better citizens? And yet you promote more. Do you really believe America is a “mean” and ungenerous place? Why does the world look to us then when people suffer tsunamis and earthquakes and yes – even cruel dictatorships like Sadam Hussein's? And how will the Europeans and the UN who are so desirous of an Obama win respond to these crisis when President Obama weakens our military and chokes our economic engine with confiscatory taxes? Have you ever heard about “the tragedy of the commons”? Unfortunately, it was an argument made for population control, which may end up being the only success the left ever fully achieves. But it very clearly illustrates why socialism leads to rationing. Once the Democrats achieve their dream of socialized medicine in America, where are the Canadians going to go for timely and high quality health care? Their system works great until you get sick, but somehow America's liberals will just do a better job of it I guess.

Low-tech lynching of uppity conservative
Christian, Sarah Palin, in California

Your side sees Sarah Palin as an object of scorn and derision at best and an immoral unenlightened Bambi-killing, book-banning, Bible-thumping troglodyte married to an incestuous, testosterone-poisoned hillbilly at worst. We see her as one of us – an exceptionally decent, hard-working, righteous-living self-made one of us. Yet – we are the ones accused of hate-mongering. As my sister says... interesting times. Indeed, Big Brother.

Float at Obama rally in Denver 10/26/08

At this point, you're either uncomfortable with some of the truths encountered here, or you think I've lost my frigging mind. Honestly, no one would be happier than I to discover I'm suffering paranoid delusions. No one. I also don't believe I'm going to change your mind as I'm sure you are as committed to your world-view as I am to mine. I used to share your view, so I guess it is possible to change. For now though, we both believe we have Truth on our side. So it is. Now that I've had my say, at least we have some clarity and we can both be authentic in our relationship.

I'm obviously not praying for an Obama win. However, I am praying that, if he wins, it is by a convincing margin. God forbid it would be a few thousand votes here and there. If that happens, I will suspect the election was decided by the drunks and drug addicts taken off the city streets of my home state by ACORN to register and vote on the same day (Democrats only, thank you) , or the Howard Stern show interviewees who support Obama because he is pro-life and selected Sarah Palin as his running mate. I might become bitter. I pray, “Please Lord, don't let it be a Mickey Mouse margin.”

Believers in the Bubble

There is an astonishing capacity among humans, perhaps especially among pampered affluent Westerners, to believe in infinitely expanding boundaries of just about everything good. In contemporary language – the bubble. This is true despite all the bubble remains littering our recent economic past... the dot-com bubble, the real-estate bubble, the credit bubble.

I believe we're about to see our civilization's bubble go the way of the others. Oh – maybe not in the next four years of the Obama administration. Maybe it will take another hundred years. Let us pray. But, fully half of the country either doesn't know how exceptional and fragile this nation is, or believes that it will continue forever no matter how it is “changed”.

My evidence for this is to look at Western Civilization in decline in Europe. The Europeans are committing demographic suicide and importing Muslims to "do the work Europeans won't do". The modern enlightened ward of the state in Europe can not be bothered to reproduce. He believes the only moral code that matters is the one within his enlightened brain, so even if he did reproduce, he wouldn't succeed much at transmitting his values to his progeny as they would probably believe the same about themselves.

Now, what do the enlightened Obama voters envision for America? Why, to be more like Western Europe of course! The success of their Marxist revolution (and this will be undeniable in an Obama/Reid/Pelosi era) will "change" America into a more secular, socialist, effeminate, welfare state resembling - France, Britain, Spain? It doesn't matter - it won't be America as we have known it.

I live in a city with several military institutions. I see real men - American men - in uniform on the streets every day. They exude masculinity - a certain muscular confidence and aggression that is both a little scary and mostly comforting in the thought of their role as protectors. In the ideal world of the left, these men will be unnecessary, will be neutered and enveloped in the loving arms of the state.

I will miss them. The world will miss us as we were before the promised "change".

Six Step Survival Strategy

Big Media (HT: American Thinker) has finally done it. It has been close the last two presidential elections, but Big Media, George Soros, MoveOn and Hollywood have finally pulled it off. They've obscured the facts about their cipher candidate and foisted the weak choice on Republicans. Yeah – I still think Giuliani would beat Obama like a drum. But Big Media cleverly applied the divide and conquer strategy to Rudy and our friends in the evangelical movement fell for it. I'll write about what I think the psychological factors are behind this later, but for now, brace yourselves – we're about to get CHANGE... Good. And. Hard.

Here's my plan for surviving the next two years. Yes, I mean two years until Congress changes hands again. I'm very optimistic about this. If I'm wrong, I'll deal with that two years from now.

1. Pray every day giving thanks for your friends and family and the natural beauty around us (my condolences to those living in the big cities). Gratitude makes you a happier person and therefore more people will want to be with you, making you happier still. In engineering this is called a positive feedback loop, but in this case its a good thing (not so much in engineering).

2. Don't allow despair to even get a foot in the door. Bill Buckley once said, speaking on the death of his wife, that despair is a mortal sin. I agree – it is soul killing and diminishes your ability to be grateful (see my first point).

3. Keep up your friendships with Obama voters. These people tend to be charming, intelligent and fun. And if you don't occasionally expose them to conservative thought, who will? Set ground rules though. Stick to one topic at a time. No name calling. Derision and scorn are not arguments for your side. One of Dennis Prager's many mottoes is “I prefer clarity to agreement”. I think that is a great attitude to take into a debate - “let's discover where we disagree”.

4. Don't expect to change your friends' minds. Disappointment is sure to follow. Be satisfied with clarity.5. Don't let derangement set in, as we've seen happen to so many of our liberal friends. If you start sounding like Naomi Wolfe (George Bush is halfway through the 10 steps to a fascist dictatorship!) or that guy on the corner wearing the sandwich board that says “THE END IS NEAR”, people will believe you're nuts. Even if you might be right, credibility may be the only thing you can really maintain in this world, and you can't keep it by predicting the future. Neither Naomi Wolfe nor you know. Although, I admit I believe Wolfe is especially clueless.

6. Give credit where it is due. Bill Clinton has spoken honestly about the Fannie/Freddie mess being the responsibility of Democrats in Congress resisting regulation. Give him credit. George McGovern is making TV ads for the Employee Freedom Action Committee to fight Democratic legislation that would eliminate the secret ballot in unionization voting. CNN did an honest piece on Obama's alliance with Ayers (don't ever call it an association again. See Thomas Sowell). Camille Paglia, a reliable truth teller (although surprisingly blinkered in what she wants to do with it), says some astonishing things in defense of Sarah Palin and attacking liberals and feminism. These instances of responsible behavior on the part of liberals need to be acknowledged and encouraged. And frankly, I find it comforting that even some Democrats seem to be having an “uh-oh” feeling. Giving credit will also increase your credibility.

Someone once said “hope is gratitude for the future”. If we can live by that, we'll all be better for it.

Brain Candidates Versus Mind Candidates

I assert that some candidates appeal more to the brain and some more to the mind. I also believe liberals are generally “brain-voters” and conservatives are generally “mind-voters”. The brain is the more primitive part of cognition associated with feelings. For example, “I like the cookie” - Hammy the squirrel from Over the Hedge. The mind is higher order thinking that generally resists the brain. For example, “I would like that cookie, but I see it has a little mold on it, which might cause me to become sick and if I consume it, it will contribute empty calories to my daily intake causing me to gain unwanted weight”.

Brain Candidate:

Brain voter: "But, I like the Cookie"

Mind Candidate:

Mind voter: "I see the appeal of the Cookie, but I'm going with the old beat-up guy because he's better for me and my country. I'm choosing Castor oil over the Cookie."

Now, some candidates have cross-over appeal and they generally win elections by landslides. You can have your Castor oil and your cookie too!

----------------------------------Update----------------------------------------

For some brain voters, clearly voting with their brains is an evolutionary(?) step up.

Losing the Culture War

If you had to guess, what would you say was the subject of the above picture? I'll make it easy with multiple choice:

a) Is it an artsy class picture of hip high schoolers?

b) Is it an anti-smoking pitch?

c) How about the latest “boy” band?

Aw – you noticed the speakers in the background and the guy on the right holding drumsticks. But you're still wrong!

This is a “back to savings” (you know – like, back to school, Dude) advertisement for young men's clothing from a respectable department store. Does clothing still make the man? If so, what are these supposed high schoolers made of with their long tresses, facial hair and tattoos? I don't even want to think about the unseen piercings (made you think about it, didn't I?).

I'll be called a throw-back – a primitive – for this kind of critique, but here goes. Did you know there's a biblical prohibition of tattoos? Someone with more time or more biblically versed than I can provide the chapter and verse. You'll ask, “What is the significance to today's life? That is so before last millennium!”

Here it is. Most Americans – even Americans of faith – have no idea where they come from. What makes an American an American or a Christian a Christian or a Jew a Jew? Greater minds than mine (Natan Sharansky, Victor Davis Hanson, Dennis Prager, et al) have noticed there's a war on identity going on, but I'll add my voice to the chorus.

The biblical prohibition against tattoos was, like Judaism in general and Christianity by extension, a reaction to the decadent cultures Jews rejected for ethical monotheism. Judeo/Christian values reject the death culture of ancient Egypt, the sexual deviance, in the form of pederasty and homosexuality, among ancient Arab and Greek cultures, and yes – even the tattooing of the ancients. But, you wouldn't know it even at my Catholic parish where recently the mother and godmother of a baby being baptized sported tattoos between their shoulder blades. I suppose I should be grateful the young couple was having their baby baptized into the faith. And yet...

How can a culture be sustained when the values that got us here are no longer recognized by most people – even the people that claim some allegiance to the institutions that represent those values? How can a Catholic profess to be a Catholic and vote for Obama, who not only defends infanticide in the form of partial birth abortion, but argued against legislation that would protect infants who miraculously survive an abortion from death by neglect. The fight for human dignity is fundamental to being Catholic (recommended viewing: Archbishop Chaput on Uncommon Knowledge). And yet, Catholics are voting for Obama – I know this is happening because it is happening in my own family.

How can a Jew claim to be a Jew and vote for Obama or any liberal when those liberals cancel Sarah Palin's appearance at a protest rally against Ahmadinejad because they are more opposed to Palin than they are the genocidal impulses of Iran's leader?

And finally, will America still be America when President Obama turns us in the direction of secular humanist socialist Europe? He will grow the dependent class. He will stop projecting American power in a misguided attempt to have America loved by the rest of the world. He will promote irresponsibility in the name of compassion as with this subprime mortgage mess. And this grand experiment in liberty will die a redistributive death because of liberal “intoxication with their virtue” (David Horowitz). Expect greater human suffering and death to follow America's demise, but to the true believing liberal, it will be worth it because at least there will be fewer of us human pollutants producing CO².

Here are Natan Sharansky's words in his interview with Dennis Prager:

“Identity and freedom are not enemies. To the contrary, they must be allies. That if you don't have strong identity, you will not be able/capable to defend your freedom. Identity without freedom becomes totalitarian/fundamentalist. But, freedom without identity is decadent, is weak, is meaningless and that's why I'm against that great dream of John Lennon: imagine the world without religions, without nations; the world where there is nothing to die for. If there is nothing to die for, you will not be able to defend your freedom.”

Mark Twain for McCain/Palin

How do I know? Believe it or not, I read it in Time magazine while at the dentist. Here's a quote from the article:

In the 1880s the british poet and culture critic Matthew Arnold paid two visits to the U.S. to observe the native customs. Eventually he set down his impressions in a book, Civilization in the United States. On the whole, he didn't think there was much. For one thing, he was troubled by the way Americans appeared to lack any capacity for reverence toward superior men. "If there be a discipline in which the Americans are wanting," he pronounced, "it is the discipline of awe and respect."

Arnold was directing this criticism at America's love of funny men, particularly Twain, who he said was "so attractive to the Philistine." Twain had a classic response: "A discriminating irreverence is the creator and protector of human liberty." Time says this was Twain's way of saying "Go stuff your awe." And that is exactly what Sarah Palin said to the elitist American Left last night. Ronald Reagan isn't the only one smiling.

McCain/Palin 2008

A Couple of Laughs

I just had to share a couple items that made me laugh.

Did you hear the one from the Enquirer about John Edwards meeting with his mistress and love child at a hotel? OK - I don't get my news from and I'm not a fan of the tabloids, but the piece linked on Drudge about catching Edwards "in the act" was pretty convincing. Sounds like there were lots of witnesses and he didn't handle it well. Well Slate published a piece asking why the story wasn't getting MSM press attention, especially compared to the Larry Craig bathroom shenanigans, and here is the conclusion of the author:

Or are they observing a double standard that says homo-hypocrisy is indefensible but that hetero-hypocrisy deserves an automatic bye?

When I read the words "double standard" in the subtitle of the Slate piece, I thought, wow, Slate is really coming around if they can be honest about this. Boy was I wrong! No, the difference in coverage of Edwards and Craig isn't that one is a Republican and the other a Democrat former presidential candidate who also happens to be on Obamessiah's short list for VP. NO! It's homophobia in the press! Riiiiight.

And this other is a real beauty from NPR (thanks to American Digest). NPR is profiling an extended family in Ohio that is out of work and lacking transportation to help them get work. Apparently without any sense of irony, the NPR piece falls under the title "Feeling the Economic Pinch; Struggling in Ohio as the Economy Tightens". That isn't the only pinching and tightening these poor folks are feeling! As Vanderleun says, "obviously this works better as radio".

Seriously though, this is an iconic image for what government dependency in America looks like. These people didn't start eating starchy diets when the price of gas and food went up.

Impervious to reason…

When it comes to matters of faith, I am. Even if Darwinists found every missing branch in the human evolutionary tree, I would still believe evolution from bacterium to Beethoven was the work of God. I believe God used Moses to lead the Hebrews out of Egypt and then gave him the Ten Commandments on Mt. Sinai. If an empty arc were discovered, I'd still believe it. I believe Jesus was God incarnate, died on the cross for our sins, rose from the dead and ascended bodily into heaven. If archaeologists found a tomb containing what they believed were the bones of Jesus, I would adamantly believe they were wrong.

But, none of my religious beliefs is damaging to others in my life or to society at large. To the contrary, strong arguments can be made that these widely shared religious beliefs are not just beneficial to me and my society, but essential for a virtuous and purposeful human existence. If only the same could be said of the irrational Left.

Think of all the irrational beliefs the Left holds:

Men and women are essentially the same;
Secularism is vital for sustainable civil society;
Socialism is a better system than capitalism;
Women are happier in pursuit of meaningful careers;
Higher tax rates lead to higher revenues;
Earth is destined for catastrophic man-made climate change;
Peace is the dividend paid out for unending diplomacy;
Universal health coverage means better health care.

I know the list could go on and on. The point is – everything listed above is disprovable by facts, knowledge of history or common sense.

If you are either a man or woman (and hopefully you are), the first Leftist belief on my list is disproved by life experience. It also happens to be disproved by science of the brain.

Secularism has been the well-spring of the vilest totalitarianism of the 20th century (Nazi Germany, the Soviet Gulag, Red China, Korea, etc…). True, the greatest threat to civilization in the 21st century is Islamofacism, but this doesn't disprove the history of the 20th century. And the Left doesn't even believe Isamofacism is an existential threat to civilization.

Socialism is crumbling everywhere it has been tried (even Sweden is lowering its tax rates and reducing welfare benefits). The French and Germans are moving to the right politically in an attempt to undo the damage socialism has done to the fabric of their societies.

My personal experience tells me women are happier in pursuit of meaning (not necessarily a meaningful career). The fact that women are depressed at roughly twice the rate of men, despite all their liberation, indicates women have been sold a lie by feminism.

Lower tax rates lead to higher tax revenue (Kennedy, Reagan and Bush tax cuts prove it – see Laffer curve).

The correlation between CO2 levels and increases in temperature does not indicate causation. From the data, it is unclear whether CO2 rise causes temperature rise, or the reverse. Something is amiss in the global warming models; the hysterical Left has predicted an ice age as recently as the 1970s (see Newsweek). Kyoto and other Gorian attempts to change the weather will destroy the prosperity of the world and do nothing for the health of the planet.

Unending diplomacy has lead to war time and again (think Chamberlain and WWII, even the Iraq war and especially Israel). Peace is the dividend paid to the victors of war – or if the opponent happens to be a Judeo-Christian nation with a free-press – it is paid to the righteous of a peaceful resistance campaign (think India over Britain).

The British are now pulling their own teeth and the Canadians regularly fly south to get timely health care. Not to mention the rate of cancer survival is by far the best in the United States and Britain has a rate comparable to Poland, despite spending three times as much money. Medicine socialized, people die (to the rhythm of "Bush lied, people died", which is itself a lie).

So, we appear to be a species in need of irrational beliefs. You get to choose – the benign and even beneficial irrationality of Judeo-Christian beliefs – or the truly harmful and even deadly irrationality of the Left.

Disagreeing with My Friends

I've recently been in an email dispute with one of the leaders of the values voters (I'll maintain his anonymity as I haven't asked his permission to publish this) on the third party option being promoted by James Dobson. Let me say I am strongly pro-life and generally respect and admire Dr. Dobson's work. But, I find the position of these "pro-family" leaders to be, to use Krauthammer's term, "moral vanity" at its worst. Don't read on if you're fighting depression. Here's my correspondence:

I couldn’t disagree more with you and James Dobson on this issue. Let’s be intellectually honest. This “consensus” of pro-family leaders is aimed at Rudy Giuliani. And the problem lies in this statement by James Dobson:

"The other approach, which I find problematic, is to choose a candidate according to the likelihood of electoral success or failure. Polls don't measure right and wrong; voting according to the possibility of winning or losing can lead directly to the compromise of one's principles."

The political process is all about compromise. Your purist ideology will inevitably lead to a Supreme Court loaded with Hillary Clinton’s judicial picks, which would doom this country to decades more of the clearly immoral, not to mention unconstitutional, Roe v. Wade. Where Giuliani’s picks would be in the mold of Sam Alito, John Roberts and Clarence Thomas and would, in all likelihood, overturn this hideous decision. If you want to save babies and traditional values in America, clearly the only choice for values voters is the Republican candidate – whoever he is. Please stop this madness.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Western,

I appreciate your thoughtful comments. And I receive them in the spirit given.

Let me be clear, I am rarely criticized for being too ‘purist.’ To the contrary, we often get criticism for giving too much consideration to the political realities. To clarify my statement: my comments were not directed at Rudy Guiliani. Certainly anyone reading my comments will know that Rudy is supportive of abortion rights and is the frontrunner at present. But insert another name and my statements stand. I recognize as well that Rudy is not as radical as Hillary Clinton when it comes to abortion rights. But because he believes it is a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion without government restriction, the effect of his stance will keep the status quo in place which to date has led to the destruction of over 40 million lives.

The point of my comments is not “destroy Rudy.” The reality is this: pro-life voters will either hesitate or sit out the election. If a pro-life, third-party candidate emerges (Alan Keyes, for example, has publicly entertained the idea), many pro-life voters will vote for that person. A poll released today by Rasmussen (click here to see it) has 27% of Republican voters saying that they would do just that. No matter what we think of Guiliani as Mayor of New York or how electable he seems, there will be a mass of pro-life/pro-family voters who will not be motivated. Third-party candidate or no, that’s a bad situation.

Lastly, keep in mind, it is very important to hold every candidate accountable to the issues we hold dear. Without this sort of pressure being placed on them, their tendency is to compromise. Picking winners rarely leads to picking leaders. The GOP picked a “winner” in 1976, but many of us stood for Ronald Reagan that year. If we had not stood for the guy who had the “least chance to win” but the most chance to carry our values forward, we wouldn’t have had a Ronald Reagan presidency in 1980. That’s the indisputable fact. And it’s a lesson we must consider as the presidential primary process goes forward for 2008.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you misrepresent my statement about this “pro-family” leadership position and Giuliani’s position on abortion. I accused you and other pro-family leaders precisely of throwing the election to the Democrats in order to stand by your principles (as was done in the country’s disastrous decision for Carter in 1976), which you seem to admit in your reply. It is an exaggerated statement for you to claim Reagan’s success in 1980 was due to your support of him at Ford’s expense (the GOP sensibly picked the incumbent president as the candidate and unfortunately Ford paid the price for Nixon’s corruption). Your statement is highly disputable – I credit the ineptitude of the Carter administration with Reagan’s electoral success in 1980. And the difference here is, the Supreme Court, whose membership is the only practical influence the president has and is our only hope for overturning the abomination that is Roe v. Wade, is at a tipping point. It has a conservative minority with somewhere between 4 and 6 (mostly liberal) positions to be filled in the next presidential term. Now, you and the leadership with whom you formed this consensus WILL be accountable if Hillary Clinton (who is indisputably supportive of abortion rights) gets to throw the court firmly back into the abortion camp for decades to come. This IS factual and indisputable and I find your and Dr. Dobson’s position tragically short-sighted.

Rudy Giuliani has said he is personally repelled by abortion, but takes a federalist position on “the right to choose”. Meaning, he would let the states decide rather than having the Supreme Court impose this fictional “right” from the federal level. This is tantamount to saying that he would prefer Roe v. Wade to be overturned (he may have actually said it explicitly – as many pro-choice lawyers have based on the unconstitutionality of the law). And he has explicitly stated that he would choose strict constructionist judges in the mold of Alito, Thomas, Roberts and Scalia. You may not believe him, but having read about his leadership record as a prosecutor and mayor and the decency and integrity with which he treats those he leads, I do.

I did not accuse you of trying to “destroy Rudy”. I accused you of destroying the “good” in pursuit of the “ideal”. And if you call for us pro-lifers to sit out the election or vote for a “minor” candidate, that is precisely what you will do. For anyone interested in saving babies, traditional marriage and other conservative pro-family values in America, the choice is clear. Vote Republican in ’08. I pray you, Dr. Dobson and others in this movement will use your leadership position wisely to influence that 27% to pursue the good – even if it calls for compromise.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Western,

We'll have to disagree. One point: Reagan would never have been in a place to pick up the pieces of the Carter administration without 1976. And remember, Ford lost because he did not connect with the Reagan base. True, RR graciously asked everyone to vote GOP, but Values Voters voted for Carter in droves because of his claims to Christian faith even though he was not in the least aligned with their values. Guiliani could very well cause the same thing to happen for Hillary (she is pushing her Christian faith as well though less than Carter did). Thus, I believe the conclusion I came to in my email yesterday to be accurate. One other point: you said in your reply, "Rudy Giuliani has said he is personally repelled by abortion, but takes a federalist position on "the right to choose". With all due respect, that is John Kerry's position as well. And I believe they would both handle issues like the Mexico City Policy and other abortion funding issues the same. Honest people might disagree on this, but I am not willing to take that chance. But, that having been said, Rudy isn't even the nominee yet. And someone else in the field could very well represent our values. The issue is, why are we not focused on that fact and standing by our principles in regard to all the candidates at this moment. Blessings. No hard feelings though disagreement may remain.

Notice how he doesn't go near the Supreme Court appointment issue? I'm hoping this is because he's trying to influence the primary results, but plans to come through in the general for the Republican candidate. I'm not holding my breath though.

Ahem! You Read It Here First

Someone else is finally talking about milk prices. Breitbart has a piece titled Milk Prices Rise to Record Highs. It emphasizes the increased demand in the Chinese market, but I find that curious as Asians are notoriously lactose-intolerant (or is that an urban myth?). It mentions the biofuel relationship to feed prices about 2/3 of the way into the article. And as I predicted, gasoline is now cheaper per gallon than milk in our area.

Got Milk, VDH?

Have you noticed what is happening with milk prices? If you've got kids, this is a bigger concern than gasoline prices, although, as it turns out, it is directly related. Up until just a few days ago, the cheapest milk we could get was at the local convenience store for $2.50/gallon. This was even cheaper than Walmart. Now, the convenience store price is $3/gallon and Walmart is $3.38/gallon. Organic milk prices have always been high ($5/gallon at Target a couple years ago), but now they're outrageous (Walmart's price is over $7/gallon). And you thought gas was expensive!

I have it on good authority from my nephew in the business that farmers are storing their corn waiting for the prices to go up as a result of ethanol legislation. So, now consumers are not only paying more at the pump, but apparently the corn shortage has driven up the cost of feeding dairy cows. This is what happens when environmentalists and the government diddle with the free-market.

Victor Davis Hanson explains the relationship between fuel and food with his usual brilliance in "The Impending Food Fight".

The Primary Problem with Public Education

My position on public education has evolved in a shocking direction – shocking even to me. I now advocate abolishing the Department of Education and dismantling the public education system.

I used to be a huge supporter of public education. It seems so obvious in theory. Let's educate as many children as possible to benefit them individually and to benefit society as a whole. Using taxpayer funds to provide that education makes sense since the whole society benefits.


But, the problem is, the greatest achievement of the public school system, the production of good and loyal citizens for the melting pot, is no longer happening. Public schools used to unify the country by teaching commonly held American values. Sure, reading, writing and arithmetic were taught – but there was something more that I suspect was consistent from school to school across the country. Portraits of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln hung in every classroom. The flag was prominently displayed. The teachers and administrators imparted a love of country and pride in the ideals of America to students. The founding principles of "all men created equal", of the "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", of the "American trinity" (Prager's term) - "liberty", "in God we trust" and "e pluribus Unum" - were points of pride. Blacks didn't want to be "Africanized" – they wanted full and active participation in the American dream. No one questioned whether it was good to be an American. We all knew we – our country – were something special.

The opposite is true today in the public schools. The culture and values to which I refer above are now known as "white culture" – or even worse – "white Christian culture". The schools are in the business of Balkanizing the students. "Let's see – you're black, so you belong in this group; you're Latino, so you belong over here; you're gay, so go over there; you're white and Christian, so you go way over there where you're ideas can't hurt anyone." When my older siblings were in elementary school, the day started with a prayer and the pledge of allegiance. When I went to elementary school, the day started with the pledge. Today, the prayer is unthinkable and the pledge is controversial. This is the "secular humanism" taught in public schools. Don't believe that religion isn't taught. The schools are preachers of the modern liberal faith in multiculturalism, environmentalism, moral relativism, anti-imperialism (as if this is what America is about!) and what I call racialism (race consciousness). They are essentially Democrat party indoctrination camps.

Multiculturalism and moral relativism have led to labeling and categorizing by race, language, sexual orientation, etc… This is even more evident at the college level, where many universities have separate student unions, sororities, fraternities and even separate graduation ceremonies for black and white students. And this "diversity" is promoted as not just a good thing, but essential to the full learning experience.

This is why I'm for destroying the public education system. I believe it is beyond repair and that the damage it is doing to the fabric of our country is way beyond any good it might do by teaching the three "R's". I'm not sure I have a solution, but perhaps public funding should be provided to parents to let them choose a private institution. I admit I fear some of the ideologically driven schools that might crop up (like madrassas), but I believe many more kids would be taught American values through private schools than the current public school system. This is the unfortunate result of the Left's take-over of the education establishment.

I know Chesterton says if you love an idea, you work toward it; you don't change the idea when the going gets tough. I've decided I love the idea of my country too much to tolerate the public education system anymore.

How about a little Chesterton?

Chesterton on the press:

"So again, we have almost up to the last instant trusted the newspapers as organs of public opinion. Just recently some of us have seen (not slowly, but with a start) [published in 1908! - w.c.] that they are obviously nothing of the kind. They are, by the nature of the case the hobbies of a few rich men… There is no fear that a modern king will attempt to override the constitution; it is more likely that he will ignore the constitution and work behind its back; he will take no advantage of his kingly power; it is more likely that he will take advantage of his kingly powerlessness, of the fact that he is free from criticism and publicity."

Thankfully, we have the "New Media" to criticize and shine a light on the MSM. For example, I heard Joe Klein on Hugh Hewitt yesterday calling Victor Davis Hansen, Bernard Lewis and others "silly" and "absurd" on the Iraq War and Middle East situation. Whew! Let me just say I have never – ever – heard more arrogance and foolishness on the part of a single person. Of course, if the Democrats have their way, talk radio will be silenced through the Fairness Doctrine and we'll never have to listen to the likes of Joe Klein again. If you're for freedom of speech, you're not a Democrat. And if you're part of the MSM, you're not a Republican.

Here is Chesterton on the anti-democratic democrats (or Democrats):

"I have listened to scientific men (and there are still scientific men not opposed to democracy) saying that if we give the poor healthier conditions vice and wrong will disappear. I have listened to them with a horrible attention, with a hideous fascination… If these happy democrats could prove their case, they would strike democracy dead. If the poor are thus utterly demoralized, it may or may not be practical to raise them. But it is certainly quite practical to disfranchise them."

Doesn't this remind you of the excuses given for Islamic terrorists? They're from these poor and oppressed cultures, and therefore not held to the same moral standards as the rest of us. And doesn't it also make clear the ugly elitism that the Left has concerning the American voter? I remember my attitude (which was widely reflected on the Left) when Reagan was elected: Americans are a bunch of buffoons to vote for that idiot actor; clearly they don't know what is in their own best interest! It has been quite a humbling lesson for me to realize that the common American was much wiser than I, who voted for Carter! Liberal elites believe they have all the answers that commoners just can't comprehend. So, just leave the important stuff to the ruling elite in the government (assuming you'll elect Democrats) and we'll create Utopia. The rich will give their money
to the poor (through the tax code) and the poor will show their gratitude by re-electing Democrats!

And finally, Chesterton on why Christianity gets democracy right:

"The mere machinery of voting is not democracy, though at present it is not easy to effect any simpler democratic method. But even the machinery of voting is profoundly Christian in this practical sense – that it is an attempt to get at the opinion of those who would be too modest to offer it. It is a mystical adventure; it is specially trusting those who do not trust themselves. That enigma is strictly peculiar to Christendom… But there is something psychologically Christian about the idea of seeking for the opinion of the obscure rather than taking the obvious course of accepting the opinion of the prominent."

I'll be the first to admit that I wish fewer Americans voted every time I hear the turn-out complaints. I believe that a turn-out over 70% occurs either shortly before a civil war or immediately after a dictatorial coup. The candidate races aren't my concern so much, but the issues and unintended consequences (concerning taxes and distribution) are so complicated that I don't consider myself "educated and informed" enough to decide (even though I think I pay more attention than 90% of the population) . This is why I generally vote against any new initiatives, unless the idea is to reduce the government. But, as far as who is voting, I'd still much rather have the "common man" casting votes over university professors and students, media elites, Hollywood stars and the Ninth Circuit court of appeals. In this I agree with Chesterton: there is much more wisdom in "common sense" than elite opinion.

Truth and Consequences

There is such a spirit of deception on the part of the mainstream media and the Left. Why don't our politicians address it? Why can't one Republican say that the Democrat desire to raise taxes on the rich will have the consequence of lowering the federal government's intake of money (revenue)? And if George Bush raised spending in every department of the federal government (by anywhere from 6% to 60%), what do you think a Democrat will do? So, the Democrat's plan is to spend more and reduce revenue. How does that work for ya'?

The Left keeps screaming that education is way under-funded in this country – so start there. OK – Washington DC has one of the highest per student expenditures in the country (average $10 k/year nationally) and is at or near the bottom of student performance. We've proven time and again that money isn't the answer and that is all the Democrats can suggest. Yeah – vote for them!

The Democrats aren't even honest enough to acknowledge that they have changed their minds about the Iraq War because the going is tough. Isn't there a 527 out there that can collect the audio/video of Bill and Hill, Edwards, Kerry, Reid, et al giving exactly the same reasons the administration gave for going to war? It was Clinton that started the policy of regime change in Iraq. Do the Democrats have no ideas on which they are willing to follow-through? And why can't Republicans get the message out there?

And what if we walked away from Iraq? Let's pretend that there wouldn't be a bloodbath. Can the Democrats and the Left at least admit that the jihadists would be celebrating their victory? So, what motivates the Democrats to advocate for America to lose this war? I can think of only one reason apart from treason. They believe this loss would permanently adhere to Bush and the GOP. So, they're basing their foreign policy on what will gain them politically – no matter what the damage to the United States. Repulsive.

I'm writing this as the Republicans hold their second debate, so I'm praying that this is all moot now. Hopefully our candidates are getting out the message. The Democrats preach covetousness (tax the rich) to get you to vote for them. They bear false witness against their opponents and even the American people; institutional racism is dead in America and only the Left uses race as a political ploy. And perhaps worst of all – their hunger for power is so overwhelming that they would betray the Iraqi people, the American troops and America itself. How can anyone, in good conscience, vote for the Democrats?

A Convert's Lament

I just finished Chesterton's "Orthodoxy" and feel compelled to write about the painful consequence of my political and religious conversion. I feel I have discovered some great truths – and having done so, I have joined a group for whom many feel contempt, if not hatred.

To quote Chesterton:

"All those vague theosophical minds for whom the universe is an immense melting-pot are exactly the minds which shrink instinctively from that earthquake saying of our Gospels, which declare that the Son of God came not with peace but with a sundering sword. The saying rings entirely true even considered as what it obviously is; the statement that any man who preaches real-love is bound to beget hate. It is as true of democratic fraternity as a divine love; sham love ends in compromise and common philosophy; but real love has always ended in bloodshed."

That pretty well sums up the current state of our nation's politics and our world's values, doesn't it? Sundered.

The split is painfully apparent every time I pick up the newspaper or listen to talk radio; it is even more acute at social occasions and discussions with friends. So, here is my post-mortem on a recent conversation.

I have a friend who is searching and feels she must abandon the Democrat party over its hostility to family values. She says she can't be a Republican because of the environmental issues. But, our conversation leads me to believe it is much more than that. I was sharing with her that I was very much to the left politically until recently, at which point our discussion was joined by another women with whom I was unfamiliar. She was obviously hostile to conservatives as she asked me "how conservative are you?" To which I answered, "I'm a committed conservative." I don't know how it even came up but the both of them turned to me and said "There were no WMDs." They said this with an absolutism that was frankly shocking. I turned to address my friend and said "What about the photos of the gassed villages in Kurdistan?" She responded "Those photos were doctored". I said, "But those photos were from long before the Iraq war and that gas was a WMD". To which the other woman responded "That was mustard gas that lots of people have and we don't go after them."

Where to begin?! Let me first say, I was cynical enough about our government that I claimed from the very start of the war that we would "find" WMDs! I honestly thought that the Bush administration had emphasized the WMD issue enough that the CIA would plant the WMDs in Iraq if none were found so that America's image would be salvaged. The fact that we haven’t found any (not entirely an accurate statement) has been evidence to me of the Bush administration's honesty and integrity. But, not evidence enough to my friend and clearly not to anyone to the left of her. If the government could (and would dare) doctor photos of mass killings, why would it not plant WMDs to save itself from such enormous controversy at a historic moment?

It became apparent to me that we weren't talking about WMD and the Iraq war. Why are we still debating what got us into the war in the first place? My friend and the other woman were telling me what they think of Republicans and conservatives in general and what they believe about the Bush administration in particular. This will be a familiar litany to most of us who have any exposure to the mainstream culture. Republicans are liars, homophobic, sexist, xenophobic, racist, and religious zealots. Ouch.

That hurts personally, not because it is true, but because I just finished telling my friend that I used to be on the left. I was one of you. That buys you nothing with the dogmatic left. Repeat the litany and you don't have to debate the issues. I've decided the next time I get into one of these senseless debates, my response is going to be "If we can't agree on the facts, we have nothing to discuss." In other words, you're calling me a liar and I can't get past that with you.

Here's one more name that the left would like to attribute to us conservatives. We're "close-minded". I find that one really laughable, given my complete conversion. Who is more open-minded, the one who has been a lifelong Democrat or the one who changed from a leftist ideology to a conservative one?

I have been seeking the truth and found it only after considering that I might have been wrong and that people of the past and present might have something to teach me. I've learned that I don't have to follow others off the cliff to find wisdom, but I also don't have to start with only my own ideas. I don't feel that my liberal friends are evil – just wrong. I wish they could say the same of me, but I am unwilling to deny the truth to rejoin the immense melting-pot to which Chesterton refers.