Daycare and Democrats

Day Care Centers exemplify the negative consequences of the Democratic agenda, and underscore the success of its adherents. Companies engaged in the child storage business are monuments to socialism, the destruction of families and the appetite of liberal politicians.

For many parents, these government regulated daycare providers are a necessity of life and livelihood. Most mothers and fathers feel a pang of anguish when the physical bond is broken as a small hand is released at the door of a business. Alone, these innate, maybe spiritual, feelings of separation provide ample testament that something is wrong with a system which created the need for institutionalized daycare.

Daycare centers owe their existence to the demeaning of motherhood, judicial legislators, taxation and the seduction of a conscience-free-life espoused by liberal secularists.

The ACLU, the de facto legal arm of the Democratic Party, works tirelessly to eradicate any symbols or mention of a Supreme Being in the public square. Why? Moral values and personal responsibility conflict with the tenets of a socialist state. Once the state becomes the sole arbiter of right and wrong, there is no moral authority or yardstick to contest or measure results.

The ACLU’s current defense of the rights of child molesters to live anonymously in New Jersey neighborhoods is a neon sign. It proclaims their willingness to sacrifice children to achieve its principle goal—the elimination of any objective code of moral ethics.

Five Supreme Court judges found the right to abort babies in our Constitution. This watershed ruling relegated the sanctity of life to the same trash bins in which the fetuses are dumped. This triumph of secularism abrogated the concept of personal responsibility. That’s why the Democrats revere Roe v. Wade. And, their ardent support of partial birth abortion defines the level of depravity they will defend to achieve their goals.

The Equal Opportunity Act (1984) rightfully ended discrimination in the workplace based on race or gender. Both Democrats and Republicans supported this legislation. But the drumbeat of the Democrats’ feminist apostles institutionalized disdain for stay-at-home mothers. It became so fashionable, that children watching Sesame Street on PBS heard a spokesperson sympathize with stay-at-home children, and proclaim the joys of public daycare.

The Democrats’ current leadership stated its intent to let the marriage penalty tax cut and increased deductions for family dependents expire in 2010, to a standing ovation from their comrades. This defines their attitude and agenda. But there is more proof of their hostility towards traditional families.

The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) targeted 155 high income households in 1969. By 2010, one of every five households will be paying it. Two week ago, Senator Charles Rangel (D), Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, stated the government can’t afford to correct this out of control tax. Really?

If all taxes had been indexed to inflation in 1969—the year the AMT became law—20% of the current tax revenues would be commensurate with the tax rate of 1969.

Few daycare centers existed before the mid-1970s. A 400% increase in taxes shoved the second parent into the labor pool, which created the need. What Senator Rangel wouldn’t say: The Democrats need these revenues to support, control and grow its socialist agenda and placate its constituency. Their “It takes a village to raise a child” philosophy is destroying America—it’s cultural terrorism.

The Petraeus Factor

The United States’ destiny in Iraq is in the hands of General David Petraeus, as is the future military and political strategies the nation will employ to crush global terrorism.

It is not General Petraeus’ duty to defend the US decision to stay in Iraq, nor does he care about President Bush’s legacy.

Since 1776, military victories have influenced presidential elections. Seated presidents and their political parties have universally benefited from military successes. Most notably, General Grant’s victories at Chattanooga, Vicksburg and Gettysburg, assured President Lincoln’s reelection.

The Democrats are aware that General Petraeus’ performance in Bagdad (this summer) is the fulcrum upon which the outcome of the 2008 election rests. They saw the radical, Shiite cleric, al-Sadr’s decision to hide in Iran, and General Petraeus’ brilliant counter-insurgency offensive in the al-Anbar Province, boding well for the Bagdad campaign.

When Senator Reid declared defeat in Iraq, it was wishful thinking. His party has bet the 2008 election on the Iraqi battlefront. Every Democratic candidate has wrapped his or her political future around the enemy’s success.

Their best recourse was to get General Petraeus off the field of battle. Hence, their legislative efforts to set a ninety day deadline to capitulate. The cut-and-run legislation didn’t survive. The next best option was to interrupt the flow of supplies, training and a sustainable military campaign with sixty-day budgets. That also failed. Alas, with heavy political hearts, they funded the war against terrorism for four more months. It took $17 billion of pork to sooth their anguish.

In fairness, the left’s challengers for the Oval Office can’t show a flicker of support for a US victory in Iraq and expect to win in the primaries. Senators Clinton and Obama symbolically buried the prayers of the nation beneath personal ambition when they cast dissenting votes.

Tragically, their political calculation signaled Iran, al-Qaeda, and Syria that increased violence in Bagdad this summer—especially dead Americans in uniform—will benefit Democrats, which will benefit them. This unholy alliance, bonded by a common cause, sheds light on their principles.

And they are equally short of options. It’s somewhat unlikely they could persuade the French to train Islamic terrorists. They see the line in the sand. The American public—and possibly even the New York Times—wouldn’t tolerate shipping arms and medical supplies to al-Qaeda.

There is a wildcard in this deadly game. General Petraeus can only set the table for a stable Iraq. If the fledgling government fails to pass the legislation which will defang the political situation, and end the stalemate, the Republicans will retreat. Iran, al-Qaeda, the Democrats and Syria will win.

If the cohesive elements of the Iraqi puzzle actually begin to fit by late September, the liberal bell ringers in our media will not toll the message. Listen for the sound of silence. It will confirm that the blood of our soldiers wasn’t wasted. God bless General Petraeus, his warriors, their friends and families and predecessors, on this Memorial Day.

Pillage of America

In 1907, exactly one hundred years ago, immigration was a hot political subject. The then president, Theodore Roosevelt, stepped forward and spoke these words:

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin.”

“But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American and nothing but an American . . . . There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag . . . . We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language . . . . And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

This clarity of tolerance and vision and wisdom and common sense has disappeared. It has been corrupted by political calculation, diversity, and treachery.

That millions upon millions of illegal aliens cross our borders nearly uncontested is an outrage. President Bush has relinquished our nation’s sovereignty and jeopardized our security for purely political reasons. He is providing his constituency—business—with masses of cheap labor. His undefended border policy is spurred by the Republican Party’s need to fill its campaign chests.

Where is the proof? Congress passed and funded legislation to stop the stampede of illegal migrants. President Bush continues to withhold this funding for border fences and adequate security personnel. To placate dissenters, he dropped a handful of unarmed National Guard troops near our borders, with orders not to interdict illegal aliens.

President Bush’s teary defense of illiterate, impoverished Mexicans as merely seeking an opportunity to provide for their families is a cynical, unmitigated subterfuge. The man has not only disgraced his oath of office, but has reneged on his pledge to reduce taxes and protect America’s families.

He knows that each illegal alien costs this country $19,000. The aggregate, $2.3 trillion and climbing, when coupled with his immigration proposal, will incur the largest tax increase in the history of the nation. He forgot to mention that his sympathy for traditional family values is reserved exclusively for illegal aliens.

The Democratic Party and a handful of Republican Senators are his hand maidens in this pillage of America.

The Democrats’ sympathy for illegal aliens is equally shallow. They see the proclamation of amnesty and open borders as a boon to party recruitment. Their cries for diversity have informed the world that the United States no longer expects newcomers to adopt our language, values, or pledge allegiance to our flag. And they regard the escalation of taxes as a hallmark of success.

But don’t blame the Democrats for this fiasco. They are being true to the socialist agenda they have professed and fostered for decades. They have survived these many years by convincing enough Americans to judge them on the merits of their good intentions, rather than on the disastrous consequences their programs have wrought.

It’s the treachery of President Bush, and Republican Senators like Judd Gregg, that undermines the Republican philosophy—the last bulwark of capitalism, our unity and security, independence, respect for financial success, and ultimately the strength of the nation.

Academic Robber Barons

Let’s put academia’s rigid adherence to the Democratic Party line in historical context.

The centerpiece of Lyndon B. Johnson’s campaign (36th President, 1963-1969), was the Great Society. In his words, it would “end poverty and racial injustice.” When the books closed on this Democratic initiative, the costs associated with this plethora of wealth redistribution schemes exceeded five trillion dollars.

What did five trillion dollars buy?

Poverty and juvenile crime increased at an alarming rate during the decades’ long march of the Great Society. Federal and state income taxes, excise, property, capital gains and sales taxes rose exponentially, divorce, bankruptcies and the national debt sky rocketed, public education deteriorated, welfare costs exploded, inner cities crumbled, the percentage of two parent families plummeted, the birth of children to unwed mothers reached epidemic proportions, and stay-at-home mothers became a scarce national treasure.

The focus of the Great Society experiment ended the poll tax. And during this period, the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Brown v. Board of Education case made segregated schools illegal, and the Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Acts became law. Also, forced school busing and Affirmative Action legislation became the law of the land.

With the notable exceptions of busing and Affirmative Action, America made giant strides in ending racial discrimination. Forced busing faded quietly in dozens of lower courts, and about 95% of the Affirmative Action regulations were ruled unconstitutional.

In summary, three pieces of laudable legislation cost the American taxpayers about 1.66 trillion dollars each. American families didn’t benefit from the legislation of the Great Society, they survived it.

In 1965, the Democrats passed the Higher Education Act. This legislation touted help for low income families. It enabled a college education for their children through Pell Grants and low interest loans—another laudable goal. In 2005-06, $59.3 billion in grants were awarded and $68.7 billion in loans were approved.

Who benefited? Tuition prices rose 35% in the last five years, after staggering annual increases since the inception of the legislation. Colleges have sucked every penny from this revenue stream by inflating tuitions—charging what the market could bear.

The program didn’t fail. It backfired. The Higher Education Act unleashed a feeding frenzy in our universities that has saddled the American middle class with outrageous tuition costs, second mortgages, and in many cases, loaded down graduates with nearly insurmountable debt.

Now we are warned that the average Pell Grant declined $120 per recipient. The Democrats’ solution? More taxpayer funded loans and grants to feed the insatiable robber barons running higher education.
The best way to reduce the cost of higher education is to rescind this remnant of the Great Society. When the plug is pulled, our universities will be forced to reduce tuition costs to fill the desks.

Any politician, or pundit, who objects to this college gravy train, will be scorned as anti-black, anti-children, anti-poor and heartless. This is the standard Democratic response when their social engineering projects negatively impact American families. Think not? Listen for Senator Kennedy to brand anyone who objects to amnesty for illegal aliens as anti-Latino, anti-children, anti-poor and heartless.

Scarier yet, this band of social engineers wants to reform our healthcare system. That’s what we need—$25 band aids.

Why Saddan Hussein is Gone

Until 9/11, the entire Middle East was generally regarded by most Americans as little more than a giant sand box, peopled by tribal Muslims who pitched tents above oil fields. Our history books describe the Bagdad area as the “Cradle of Civilization,” and depict its rich history of science, architecture, and culture. Ditto for the Persian, Syrian and Egyptian Empires.

The Medieval Crusades, launched by Pope Urban II, initially pitted Christians against Turkish Muslims for control of Jerusalem. Then the Moors came running from North Africa. The clashes ended about 150 years before Columbus was credited with discovering America.

The United States’ first military conflict with Muslim nations began in 1801, when President Thomas Jefferson refused tribute payments (bribes) to the pirate states of the Barbary Coast. The annual bribes bought safe passage for our merchant ships and crews in the Mediterranean Sea. Direct naval and land engagements with Tunis, Algiers, and Tripoli ended this practice in 1815.

Of course, the Suez Canal crisis in the 1950’s and sporadic newscasts about the Soviet Union’s attempted hegemony in Afghanistan (1979-1989) reminded us of the Middle East. And who could forget the little State of Israel repeatedly defending its existence? When the American hostages were returned a year after the Iranian Revolution (1979), news of the Middle East rarely flickered unless oil prices spiked.

Then Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990. The Gulf War brought the Middle East back into focus. Kuwait was liberated and we left, except for the forces that enforced the U.N. sanctioned no-fly-zone over Iraq. The spasm of terrorist crimes—including the first attempt to down the trade towers and the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon—appeared to a layperson as disjointed acts.

Until September of 2001, the Islamic jihad was neither understood by the Western populace, nor portrayed in our media, as a worldwide effort to destroy Christians, Jews, democracy, and capitalism—the engine propelling the West’s success. Soon after 9/11, the Taliban in Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda became household words.

Next came Iraq. Oil is at the heart of the US presence in Iraq, but not the cause of the conflict. Saddam’s eight year war with Iran in the 80’s and invasion of Kuwait weren’t pointless exercises to amuse his military. He wanted control of the reserves and the oil flow off the Arabian Peninsula. The Saudis recognized his intent, and assisted our military buildup out of self-preservation.

Saddam’s willingness to butcher and torture hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Shiites to solidify his control of Iraq is well documented, as is his donations to the families of terrorist, suicide bombers, and his tirades against Israel.

The question is not whether or not Iraq had, or was developing nuclear weapons, but why every nation on earth believed he did? The cat-and-mouse games he played with U.N. nuclear inspectors for over a decade honed this perception. When his geo-political goals, ruthlessness, public statements, and earlier efforts to acquire a nuclear arsenal were combined with these tactics, common sense dictated the only reasonable conclusion.

Saddam is gone because of the confluence of Muslim terrorism, his willingness to encourage it, his goal to control the Middle East’s oil fields, for thumbing his nose at the U.N. and for under-estimating America’s willingness to enfore the Carter Doctrine. Simply, the US couldn’t risk the annihilation of his neighbors, or Israel, his domination of the world’s oil reserves, or nuclear weapons in the hands of jihad proxies on our shores. And there sits Iran . . . .

Obfuscation & Indignation

Lying is politically dangerous. In this age of 24/7 cable, media coverage, the denial of accusations usually offers little more than a temporary stay of execution. So our august Democratic leadership in Congress and their presidential aspirants have adopted, en masse, a lexicon of phrases and techniques to overcome this nasty reality. It can’t be defined as doublespeak or chicanery—it’s more subtle.

Democrats are not suicidal, so they won’t admit to being pro tax, anti-religious, anti-patriotic, anti-business, and certainly not anti-military. The latter position decimated their ranks in the post-Vietnam era. And they hope we forget that President Clinton slashed 500,000 troops and support personnel from the Pentagon and gutted our intelligence agencies. They called those measures a “peace dividend,” which was good old fashion doublespeak.

The DNC has adopted a new strategy when challenged—obfuscation and indignation. Of course, they are entitled to a few lies. But it would be unseemly to remind them of their promise of immediate price relief at the gasoline pumps, or mention the blizzard of save-the-nation legislation they promised to pass in the first hundred hours after winning control of Congress. In fairness to Speaker Pelosi, she was busy auditioning for Secretary of State.

Listen carefully to their sound bites and you’ll hear the new playbook in action. For example, “Our disagreement with Bush’s Iraq policy doesn’t give anyone the right to question our patriotism.” Despite political correctness, the First Amendment still guarantees this right. But it is it easier to deploy the personal affront, indignation strategy, than to rationalize their pro-terrorist stance, their empty bag of promises and their mock legislation.

Democratic obfuscation runs rampant in their answers. Listen for clues. When you hear, “It’s for the children,” know they are hiding a whopper of a tax increase behind people too young to vote. And run for cover when you hear “We need comprehensive reform.” The Democrat mouthing these words has no idea how to solve the problem in question, but be confident that another layer of inefficient bureaucracy with a catchy title is imminent.

There are any number of variations to the standard preamble, “NBC, Time magazine and the New York Times all support my position.” Translation: I thank my lucky stars that George Soros and MoveOn.org are telling our media pawns what to spout. Without this prestigious cover, our agenda would never sell.

This answer is brilliant. “That decision will be made in the courts.” Translation: I hope the judges we’ve appointed will abridge the Constitution without exposing our real agenda in an actual congressional vote that is sure to fail.

If you’re aghast at this diagnosis, sit back, relax and enjoy the kool-aid. Your soul mates in Congress are doing their best to create new rights that will undermine American traditions and Judeo-Christian values.

The Black Myth

Senator Barack Obama is a charming man—well educated, intelligent, wealthy, charismatic, handsome, articulate and goal oriented. These are positive marks on anyone’s checklist, and especially beneficial for presidential candidates.

And he happens to be black. For those of us who remember affirmative action in the 70’s and 80’s, he brings a smile to our faces. In those years we watched women and minorities get promoted based on Corporate America’s fear of being labeled racist or insensitive. The label, Male Chauvinist Pig, was commonly used to deride white males.

There were a multitude of legitimate grievances, but preferential treatment created resentment, stoked the flames of racism, and introduced America to political correctness. Minorities in business and government became suspect. The question became: Is this woman or minority seated across from me here because of his or her talent or hiring quotas?

It’s ironic. Affirmative action created awareness of inequalities and simultaneously shaped an atmosphere of racial cynicism. The final phase of any revolution is the endorsement of the absurd. Remember the flurry of lawsuits in which eighty-five pound women screamed discrimination when they failed the physical tests required to be on the front lines of fire departments? Remember minorities receiving extra points on civil service exams? These practices disgraced every qualified woman and minority.

The last bastion of this ideology is practiced in our universities. They have merely substituted diversity for equality as the goal. Their programs continue to malign and undermine blacks who legitimately earn a seat behind a desk.

Senator Obama has risen to the top tier of presidential candidates because of his attributes. Americans of his caliber have never needed preferential treatment. And I would hold all blacks blameless if they vote for him only because of his ethnicity. How many Catholic Republicans voted for John F. Kennedy because they grew tired of the anti-Catholic innuendo in Nixon’s campaign? I would expect Mitt Romney to land the Mormon vote for the same reason.

For decades now, I have watched the Democratic Party stir the flames of racism. Its programs insinuate black inadequacy. Shame on the Democratic Party, our universities, the Black Caucus, black spokespeople and so many black ministers for perpetuating this myth.

Conflict of Interest

WE have all used the expression, “I can’t win for losing.” Everyone has experienced those kinds of days when everything goes wrong. We usually say this when our goals are side swiped by a string of setbacks, or worse yet, a head-on collision.

Americans have always accepted setbacks with a disgruntled grace, stiffened our resolve, recalibrated our tactics or strategy and tried again. There is something innate in the American spirit, maybe it’s in the water, that doesn’t allow us to give up on our goals. We believe in success. Think of our history. General George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Martin Luther King, and even Richard Nixon didn’t quit after suffering brutal loses.

We have carried this spirit unto all battlefields—domestic and foreign. The Preamble to our Constitution begins “We the people . . . .” and that is the secret of our strength and resolve. We have always banded together in the face of adversity.

All wars have generated heated debate. That’s natural and wise in a Republic. But the conflict in Iraq—the major battlefront in the war against terrorism—is insidiously changing the American perspective. The Democrats’ slogan, “We can win by losing,” is sending America down a dangerous path.

Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, and Senator Charles Schumer, NY, have publicly advised their Democratic colleagues that they can win the White House in 2008 by undermining success in Iraq. In effect, they are willing to flush our military foothold and security down the drain for political gain. Their recent bill to inform the terrorists the day the US military will withdraw from Iraq, tells us that these are not hollow plans.

And we all heard Senator Reid unilaterally declare defeat in Iraq. I’ll bet this surprised al-Qaeda and put some swagger in Iran’s President Mahmud Ahadinejad’s footsteps. This is the same Senator Reid who recently proposed pulling American GIs off the front lines, and using them to train Iraqis—after bashing the former Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfield, for the identical policy.

It’s obvious that Senator Reid has memory problems, but how can Senator Schumer forget 9/11?

It’s neither fashionable, nor politically correct, to question their patriotism. So I won’t. I’ll merely suggest they have a conflict of interest in the war against terrorism. What emboldens them? They are driven by polls, their hatred of President Bush and traditional values. I don’t much care for President Bush either, but he does understand the difference between popular opinion and principle. They don’t.

Common sense suggests the Democrats’ words and deeds strengthen the resolve of the terrorists. If this sounds harsh, answer these questions:

If you were a terrorist, or a nation supporting terrorism, how would you act if the most powerful nation on earth was totally united in its effort to eradicate terrorism, and unflinchingly demonstrated this resolve in Iraq?

In the heat of combat, would you want to share a foxhole with Senator Reid?

The truth is, we haven’t lost in Iraq; we are just recalibrating. And this is the only message that will cause Arab and Persian terrorists to tone down their exuberance for celestial virgins.

A Real Republican

The Republican debate held May 3, 2007, at President Reagan’s Memorial site in Simi Valley, was a real eye opener. Rep. Duncan Hunter, CA was the winner. He exhibited the class and measured responses I have always associated with Senator Hatch. Where has the Republican leadership been hiding Duncan Hunter?

A better question: How did an articulate, realistic, well grounded, focused, sincere, reasoning conservative get elected in Speaker Pelosi’s Nanny-Land? Is it possible that all Californians aren’t entombed in drug induced stupors? He makes it seem possible that special inoculations and a passport may not be required for visitors from the other forty-nine states.

The other candidates didn’t pale by comparison; they just don’t measure up to the benchmarks he set last night. Mayor Giuliano—an al a carte Republican—never missed a cue, Senator McCain seemed scripted, and Governor Romney is too perky and perfect—a chardonnay and lace doily kind of guy. The other candidates merely showed up, although there is something innately decent and sincere about Rep. Tancredo.

Rep. Hunter is real. It is obvious that he is not a packaged Republican. Although the polls probably influence the wording of his responses, it is blatantly clear that he speaks from his heart, gut and intellect. He believes in his message. In fairness, the same can be said of Senator McCain.

I have been mulling over a Fred Thompson candidacy as I am less than enthralled with any of the first tier candidates. If Duncan Hunter can break from the pack, Fred Thompson would be a distant memory. Congratulations Representative Hunter! Last night you introduced the voters to the definition of a Republican.

Links to Duncan Hunter Websites:
www.PeacethroughStrengthpac.com
www.Gohunter08.com

Illegal Aliens

I can’t identify the culprits behind the illegal alien fiasco. I can only guess. No one can argue that when twelve million people storm our borders that it is not an invasion. It seems that Mexico, with President Bush’s cooperation, is reclaiming the Southwest one street at a time. That the onslaught rarely makes the news, invites me to believe the President has the full cooperation of Speaker Pelosi, her friends and her allies in the media.

Anyone with an IQ that hovers near a kid’s shoe size knows it is not benevolence underpinning their decisions—it’s a political calculation. So who benefits? Certainly not the potential immigrants in the legal queue, or the US tax payers burdened with the school, welfare, and medical costs associated with a major influx of uneducated, penniless migrants. And it is a colossal economic affront to the US working poor, especially blacks, struggling to achieve middle class financial status.

It is a matter of record that Democrats need the black vote to secure seats in Congress and the big prize, the Presidency. So why would they jeopardize this voter block by turning a blind eye on illegal immigration? The answer seems two-fold—cynicism and twelve million potential voters who will quickly balloon into one hundred million. History proves the Democrats can take the black vote for granted.

When the Democrats restricted school choice—a solid stepping stone for black children mired in rotten schools—what was the black response? Silence! When Democrats blocked the semi-privatization of Social Security—which would have created the accumulation of private wealth for blacks—what was the black response? Silence! Few blacks know, or remember, that Republicans created the NAACP, and ended segregation. Yeah, the Democrats can afford to be cynical about the black vote while landing the majority of Latino votes by promising them amnesty.

What do the Republicans hope to gain from amnesty? My guess is fat donations from the business sector. Corporations, through NAFTA and other national policies, discarded American workers for the cheap labor of foreign countries. They have pretty well milked this avenue dry. If you don’t believe this, try to find a product manufactured in the USA.

Business sees illegal immigration as phase two—the replacement of American workers with cheaper migrant labor. Legal, or illegal, they don’t care. Why? Illegal aliens grant greater profits and a competitive edge. Remember, publicly traded companies never look beyond the next quarter’s P&L statement. Their claim that Americans won’t do these jobs is complete hooey. They know re-instituting slavery would bring bad press, so the next best thing is paying slave wages to appreciative illegal aliens.

And when it comes to cynicism, the crafty Republican leadership is no slouch. It understands that the base won’t vote for a cadre of slobbering Democrats, panting to raise taxes to solidify their grip on minorities. Plus, it also needs a percentage of the Latino vote.

So who do I point my finger at for the illegal alien pandemic? Howard Dean and Karl Rove are at the top of my list. The situation—both political parties winking at the alien invasion—undermines our future. A pox on both their houses.

A Political Platform

I’m the product of a rural upbringing, private education and corporate America, who believes the country’s greatest heroes are those who go to work everyday to support and nurture their families, and understand that a friend never waits to be asked for help.

I see political correctness as the antithesis of common sense, and an affront to honesty, morality and horizon busting. It blurs the distinction between success and good intentions, worships mediocrity, and glorifies diversity as the end game, which is rapidly turning our melting pot into a powder keg.

I see a nation divided between the goal oriented who view government as a system for justice, commerce, national preservation and opportunity, and complainers willing to jettison their freedom, pride and imagination for the solace of a perpetual handout.

I believe education should be a fertile platform for opportunity, rather than an oasis of crumbling standards, and excuse ridden, misguided indoctrination.

I understand the current tax structure is unfair, unfathomable, and a disgrace. It is a mockery, fostered by politicians and lobbyists interested in filling their campaign chests and lining their pockets.

I detest the whimpering of the victims of self-inflicted wounds, religion bashers, those who sneer at the concept of duty and honor, confuse consensus with moral principle, and those that relate the lowest common denominator to fairness.

But most of all, I am an American outraged by the bias in the media, its homage to the secular progressive agenda, and those sad fools who drink the kool-aid.