One Gunshot Away

Welcome to the Middle East, a festering, bloody, unforgiving mess. Benazir Bhutto, age 54, a pro-Western, pro-democracy, secularist candidate for Prime Minister of Pakistan, was assassinated by a suicide bomber.

She served at this post in the late 1980’s, and again in 1993-1996 until she was forced into exile under charges of corruption. Her brothers and father had suffered similar fates.

Last October, President General Pervez Musharraf opened the door for her return. Under pressure from the United States, he issued a corruption amnesty which dismissed the charges against Bhutto. He reneged on his promise to let her run for re-election.

The Middle East experts speculated that Musharraf and Bhutto reached a private power-sharing agreement when Bhutto’s welcome home became deafening.

The Pakistani people lost patience with President Musharraf when he temporarily suspended the Constitution after unrest in the country teetered on anarchy. He jailed the lawyers who objected and sacked the judges who ruled against his action. Bhutto was placed under house arrest.

Bhutto, faithful to the democratic process, condemned these steps. Under pressure from the West and Pakistan’s seething intelligentsia, Musharraf rescinded his orders and stepped down as the head of the military.

The West exhaled as it appeared Pakistan’s precarious path toward democracy was again on track. Bhutto and her supporters were favored to win the majority in Parliament. The elections, scheduled for January 8, 2008 are now moot, as only one candidate, Musharraf, is still standing.

Musharraf’s grip on power is tenuous. His future depends on one man, General Ashfaq Kiyani, the leader of Pakistan’s military. Will the general support the status quo until Bhutto’s party finds a candidate to challenge Musharraf?

The West can only hope the General, in the tradition of Pakistan’s military, will remain neutral and be a calming influence. But there are no guarantees as the military and Pakistan’s Intelligence Service are riddled with Taliban supporters.

The death of Bhutto, a vocal opponent of the Taliban/al Qaeda entrenched in northern Pakistan, suggests the terrorists are responsible. But no one in the US State Department would stake their life on Musharraf’s innocence.

There is a lot at stake. If Musharraf, a US ally by day, is toppled, the Taliban could capture control of Pakistan and its nuclear armory. This is not out of the question, as 49% of the Pakistanis support these terrorists.

Although we’ve heard every US presidential candidate chirp about his/her solution, there is no solution—just a warning. Beware of the Middle East and secure the US’ energy independence without delay because global chaos is only one gunshot away.

It's Just Unfair

As many Americans, I spent a number of hours in retail stores over the last weekend. While waiting in lines, two fellow, beleaguered customers wished me a Merry Christmas. The seasonal salutes were spontaneous and sincere.

Of note, both greetings were from members of Hispanic families. Were they illegal aliens? Probably, as shoppers chattering in Spanish are recent phenomenons in New Hampshire.

These two moments of kindness didn’t change my mind on securing our borders or penalizing companies that welcome the cheap labor pouring into the country. But it did remind me of the reasons the US must solve the problem.

Firstly, the US policy of turning a blind eye on border security and ignoring the law of the land is a neon invitation for more people to enter illegally. This open gate policy pits illegal immigrants—mostly decent people—against US citizens competing for manual labor, construction and service jobs. The policy is an economic slap in the face to America’s lower and middle class.

Secondly, the undocumented status of illegal aliens keeps them in the shadows of society. And as long as the borders are undefended, the politicians and do-gooders who propose granting them the rights of US citizens (amnesty) only bless law breaking.

Thirdly, this situation is unfair to the American taxpayers, who directly subsidize businesses by paying for the educational, medical and other benefits of illegal aliens hired by American companies. The taxpayers are footing the bill, already in the trillions of dollars, for “cheap labor and goods.”

And here enters political hypocrisy of historic proportions. Every Democratic presidential candidate is demanding the removal of tax breaks for US corporations, while pledging amnesty for illegal aliens. The business tax breaks are chump change compared to the costs associated with illegal immigrants.

Fourthly, the US blind-eye policy stigmatizes all Hispanic immigrants as cheaters and brands them as second class citizens. It offers them little opportunity to integrate into the nation’s fabric, and automatically demeans those who enter legally.

Fifthly, the open border policy mocks every immigrant who patiently and legally applies for US citizenship. And this is a gross injustice.

Sixthly, it’s cruel and inhumane to deliberately entice workers to our shores—and that’s exactly what is occurring—and then put a bounty on their heads.

Lastly, an undefended border in the age of global terrorism is suicidal. The next 9/11 tragedy will lie at the feet of President Bush, Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid. All three are undermining our security. The President is combating terrorism in foreign lands while simultaneously inviting Muslim terrorists to invade our country.

Pelosi and Reid pretend they are patriots, while claiming the terrorist threat is the result of the US foreign policy. The sequel to this is logic is returning Afghanistan and Iraq to al Qaeda as bases for their anti-Western operations.

It all unfair and dangerous.

Merry Christmas

Tomorrow is Christmas—the world’s greatest birthday party. A celebration filled with angels, shepherds, kings with gifts, shining stars, cribs softened with straw and Santa, stockings and decorated trees too.

A holiday that proclaims peace of earth and goodwill to all. May the birth of Christ and every newborn child remind us of what is precious.

Christmas is a proclamation of hope for a better world. I hope yours is safe, merry and peaceful, filled with wide-eyed children and the twinkle of happiness.

Merry Christmas

Global Warming and Socialism

It must be an election year because every Democratic politician is expressing sympathy for the Middle Class. To hear them tell it, this segment of society is used and abused by the Republicans and their nasty friends involved in private enterprise.

Enjoy the sound bites while they last. The day after the election this voter block will be silently battered for another four years. If the Democrats retain control of Congress, it will be business as usual in Washington DC—just another prolonged attempt to heap taxes on Middle Class families.

Socialism is a hungry beast. It takes a lot of revenue to feed, groom and grow the Democrats’ entitlement hungry constituency. If Senators Edwards, Clinton or Obama win the White House, the Middle Class will remain the unnamed revenue source for earmarks and trillions of dollars in new entitlement schemes.

Granted you’ve heard the Democratic presidential candidates promise that they will only tax the rich. That’s always the promise. But remember that these are the same Democrats who promised to end earmarks. Evidently, Democrats reserved the right to change their minds after the last election and crammed $15 billion in earmarks into the pending appropriation bill.

Global warming is the liberals’ latest cause celeb for feeding the unquenchable appetite of the entitlement monster. The leftwing zealots trash any scholar who challenges the scientific data Al Gore collected to build the hysteria. We are to believe that Al Gore’s ranting is inspired by his love of the planet. That’s a joke.

Liberals are not interested in the truth, nor in US energy independence; they are interested in building a socialist state. They see energy as a wedge issue to expand government’s control over individual freedom and private enterprise.

And it is a united front. Every Democratic contender has promised to tax the profits of those greedy sellers of petroleum products. Only the truly ignorant believe the energy producers will pay these taxes.

Corporate America bundles taxes into the cost of its goods and services. The higher energy costs—caused by stiff taxes on industry profits—will be passed through to the consumers.

The inflated cost of energy will cripple the economy and the already staggering Middle Class. To quiet the predictable protest and “for the sake of the planet,” the Democrats will propose price caps, and introduce rationing under the guise of affordable energy.

Be guaranteed that they will adopt legislation that prescribes the acceptable size of a family’s carbon footprint. This is the pretense they will use to create standards for the size of the homes and vehicles Americans own. It’s the ultimate income redistribution program.

Energy suppliers will be transformed into energy police. Those families who exceed the usage standards set by Washington bureaucrats will be brutally taxed for excess consumption. This will be an historic step for socialism. Welcome to the Democratic vision . . . . Welcome to Senator Clinton’s America.

It's Romney and Clinton

It’s political crunch time. The media’s talking heads and writers are dissecting every nuance in the presidential campaigns. These experts, saturated in supposition, polls and sitting in front row seats, can’t decipher the tea leaves.

None are predicting the outcome of the primary election. And with good reason—it’s really murky out there. Most believe that Senator Clinton will be the Democratic contender, although the word “inevitable” is heard less and less. They all run for cover when asked which Republican will win.

It’s the shrewdness of the American electorate that has the experts befuddled. They can’t find the answer to the big question. Will the Democratic and Republican party faithful vote for their favorite candidate, or for the candidate they perceive as having the best chance of winning the general election? My money is on the latter.

In the primaries, voting for the lesser of two evils is not in the calculus. This distain is reserved for the candidates in the general election. The primaries are about selecting winners. The intelligent members of both parties vote with an eye on the independents, knowing the candidate must appeal to this block to win the Oval Office.

And never confuse the voters who register as independents with the real independent voters. The truly uncommitted constitute about twenty percent of the forty-four percent of the voters who classify themselves as independents.

The rest are wolves in sheep’s clothing. Despite registering as non-affiliated, they uniformly vote for the candidates of the same party time after time after time. It seems they perceive the non-affiliated category as a status symbol—a sign of their independent thinking. And they love to be courted.

Of course, political correctness has contributed to the stampede of voters registering as independents. This inoculates them from being associated with any of the negative attributes ascribed to either political organization.

Unless a fourth wife, or some such, appears on Mayor Giuliani’s resume, or Senator Clinton is indicted for a criminal offense, conventional thinking is that they will most likely be elected to face off in the general election. With good reason, this is a predictable outcome.

The Democrats would rather coronate a woman with fifty-percent negatives than gamble on a black man with ten minutes experience. They have their fingers crossed, hoping enough women will select one of their own sex, which will carry Senator Clinton into the White House. And it’s not a bad bet.

Few conservatives perceive Governor Huckabee as a national contender. Mayor Giuliani will win if the southern conservatives back away from Romney’s Mormon religion. The Mayor has the added advantage of being perceived as the best street fighter. But this scenario assumes that only religious credentials are important to southern voters.

Governor Romney is the best candidate, the best prepared and the best human being. He is a class act, articulate and presidential. It’s as if he was born to be President. The South will give him the nod. It’s going to be Romney and Clinton.

The Democratic Vision

The subjects of politics and religion can be volatile. Most people avoid both issues in social gatherings, or tread delicately when they are raised. This rule of the road is born of common sense, especially since political correctness came into vogue.

Our liberal-bent, national media doesn’t share this concern when Republican presidential candidates are under the microscope. In fact, religion seems to be their favorite litmus test to differentiate conservatives and moderates from liberal candidates.

This is evidenced by their drum beat of accusations, asides, innuendo and observations of Governor Romney and Governor Huckabee. The press keeps reminding the public of the candidates’ religious affiliations.

Their message: Beware of politicians with strongly held religious convictions.

This elite clique holds religion—especially Christianity—in such low esteem that they are comfortable using religion as a weapon to disparage conservatives. This attests to how insulated the national media is from the electorate, and underscores its complete lack of objectivity. And it defines its agenda.

The message they convey is that any candidates with religious convictions are dangerous. The implication is that any candidate with religious beliefs will forsake the Constitution.

There is an irony here. This is the crew that uses the Constitution as a sledge hammer. The leftwing, not strict constructionist adherents, twists the words in this national document to further its god-free agenda.

For good reason the creators of the Constitution barred the government from establishing a national religion. The leftwing’s legal henchmen, the ACLU, use this clause in the Constitution to rid the nation of any symbol or mention of a supreme being in the public square.

At best, this is religious tolerance run amok. At worst, it’s an effort to erase all religion and spirituality from America’s consciousness. The latter is required if the leftwing hopes to replace our democratic republic with a socialist state.

Hypocrisy drips from their quest to rid the nation of religion. The barrage of slander and ridicule heaped on born again Christians is a prime example. The leftwing mocks this group for its belief in divine intervention while asserting the government’s right to do the same.

No pure socialist state can co-exist with religion because socialism endows the state with absolute power. To them a higher moral authority is competition. The leftwing sees government as the sole source of all rights, and endows it with the absolute authority to define life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Once personal responsibility, God given rights, personal initiative and the moral code of the nation’s founders are equated with superstitions, the flag of freedom will be buried in a muddy ditch. Welcome to the Democratic vision . . . .

The Massachusetts' Environment

That the Massachusetts’ legislature recently drafted a bill to ban parents from spanking their children is not surprising.

This is the same Beacon Hill crowd that discovered the right of gays to marry buried in its 227 year old State Constitution, and ignored a legal/binding state referendum to lower taxes.

Nor is it surprising that Massachusetts suffered a net loss of about 46,000 American-born residents each year, from 2000 to 2005 (last available statistics). Despite this exodus, the Census Bureau estimates that the state’s population is growing at the rate of about 14,000 annually.

Of course, the net gain is due to the annual arrival of about 59,000 foreign-born immigrants. Some of these new residents enter the country legally. Most are illegal aliens.

Walk down any commercial street, enter a quick serve food establishment, shop in a mall, drive by Governor Romney’s home, enter a medical emergency center, or stay at a hotel and you will hear Spanish.

The state is filling with unskilled, uneducated, non-English speaking poverty stricken immigrants.

Massachusetts’ bureaucrats contend the legal resident bailout is primarily due to the lack of affordable housing. This would be an acceptable explanation if those leaving didn’t own homes. No statistics are available to support this claim.

Twenty-seven states take a larger tax bit from their citizens than Massachusetts, and only two states (New Jersey and Connecticut) have higher per capita incomes. Thus, it’s reasonable to conclude that high taxes and income potential are not the cause of the exodus.

The young, educated, productive members of society are leaving Massachusetts. It’s not a stampede; rather it’s a steady drip, drip, drip. The politicians are concerned. Why? After the 2010 Census the state will likely loose a seat in the US House of Representatives through reapportionment. Plus, the state’s cut of the federal pie will diminish.

As the quality of the skilled workforce deteriorates, businesses will seek better environments. The recent lawsuit filed by two illegal aliens against the Salvation Army in Framingham, MA has riveted attention on the workplace in Massachusetts.

The Salvation Army was sued after it fired two employees who could not communicate in English. The two employees were provided a year’s grace period to learn the language. They ignored the mandate.

The liberal judges in Massachusetts may well determine that business cannot demand its employees speak English. The corollary to this case—if the court sides with the plaintiffs—is that businesses can’t use a job applicant’s inability to communicate as a criteria in the hiring process.

Common sense would prevail in most states, but this is Massachusetts. Many of its politicians are siding with the fired employees. They believe companies should hire interpreters, or require a company’s management to learn foreign languages.

It’s this leftwing, political insanity that’s pushing people out of the state. There will be plenty of affordable housing if the leftwing’s stranglehold isn’t broken.

Government to the Rescue

It’s reassuring to know that the bureaucrats in our federal government are vigilant 24/7. Nothing gets by them. Their sense of duty and attention to detail is inspiring. The whole world must sit in awe as they watch these crack troops root out evil.

Just when you thought it was safe to venture out to buy Christmas presents, Rear Adm. Steven K. Galson, the U.S. Surgeon General of the United States, warned the public of a new danger—Santa Clause’s waistline.

He declared Santa Clause’s rotund shape makes him a bad role model for children. So keep your kids away from the malls, turn off your televisions and pray your children don’t get a glimpse of Saint Nick.

Who knew this symbol of parents’ love for their children, and kindness and generosity and sharing good will was setting a dangerous example? We should be thankful that this diabolical plot was exposed before our children were corrupted by a few moments of thoughtfulness.

And don’t get caught putting out milk and cookies on Christmas Eve. The PC police will be watching for any infractions.

Donna Rheaume, spokesperson for the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, recommends that children leave Santa “a nice apple or carrot and celery sticks.” How wonderful . . . . If reincarnation is possible, maybe Donna will get a life in the next round.

This spring we can expect the U.S. Attorney General to put the Easter Bunny on the FBI’s Most Wanted List for stealing eggs and putting candy in baskets. Anyone caught pandering to America’s sweet tooth should be reviled as pro-obesity.

Let’s hope there are stiff fines and jail sentences for such loathsome behavior. Certainly, bunny prisons are in order. Let’s get these candy scofflaws off the streets.

And beware of Thanksgiving. This celebration of the nation’s harvest condones eating desserts after a large meal. Certainly no one should be allowed to participate in such reckless behavior without a membership in a health club. And if the Surgeon General is serious about his mission to protect us, attendance should be verified.

Let’s be honest. It’s out of control. On Valentine’s Day, lovers give gifts of chocolate, and people drink beer on the Fourth of July. It’s a national disgrace.

So it makes us proud that the Surgeon General is all over this problem. Well . . . maybe not. But it does shed light on America’s sense of fair play. Having a measurable IQ is not a requirement for government bureaucrats. How Democratic of us.

CNN's Corrupt Debate

CNN hosted the Republican presidential debate in Florida last Wednesday. Once again, the YouTube format belittled the gravity of the decision the voters will make in 2008.

It did serve to highlight the generational technology gap. Most of the questions came from the computer savvy age group that is still fighting acne. The honest answer to about 85% of the questions they asked: Who cares?

Evidently these junior members of society aren’t concerned with Iran, healthcare, the environment, education and energy, as these subjects were never addressed. In fairness to the nation’s youth, the possibility exists that CNN scraped such questions to shield the Democratic candidates’ positions from comparison.

Beside the omission of vital topics, there was plenty of evidence which indicated CNN’s presentation was motivated by partisan politics—its promotion of the secular progressive agenda.

The most blatant example was not the forum provided General Keith Kerr to preach the leftwing’s pro gay and lesbian agenda. This member of Senator Clinton’s advisory staff received more airtime than some of the Republican candidates.

The moderator, Anderson Cooper, denied any knowledge of the General’s allegiance to the Clinton camp. If true, then CNN and Mr. Cooper—a liberal zealot—must broadcast from another planet, as the General is a major promoter of homosexuals serving openly in the US military.

CNN’s agenda was flushed from cover during the post analysis of the debate. It had assembled and monitored a group of “undecided Republicans” to see if the responses of any candidate had crystallized their support.

No minds were swayed during the exchange. The second person interviewed still supported John Edwards. Who knew that Senator Edwards was a Republican?

Were any Republicans selected for this undecided roster? The answer is irrelevant. This woman’s devotion to John Edwards demonstrated that CNN doesn’t know how to screen participants, or packed the assembly with Democratic shills.

In either case, her statement cannot be construed as a candid mistake or an embarrassing oversight. The footage of the woman’s Edwards response was a taped replay—not live—and thus was deliberately selected by the producers for the viewing audience.

The only reasonable conclusion: CNN wanted the debate audience to believe that “undecided Republicans” are leaning Democratic.

In this polluted environment there are no winners—only losers. The big losers were the millions of Americans who tuned in and wasted their time watching CNN’s leftwing propaganda machine corrupt the debate. How sad is that . . . ?