"If at age 20 you are a conservative then you have no heart. If at age 30 you are a liberal then you have no brains."
Sir Winston Churchill

Obama obviously knows very little about economics, specifically that "Society stagnates when independent productive achievers begin to be socially demonized and even punished for their accomplishments." This dilemma fogs Obama's reality. To him, accepting this truth is a "false choice", his answer to things he doesn't understand. And by the way... where is John Galt?

Saturday, December 24, 2011

The Experiment of our Founding Fathers

I've noticed a revisionist attempt to desparage the "radical" ideals of the founding fathers, ideals which are now recognized as the basis of modern conservatism in the United States. No one called them conservatives back then and they probably couldn't imagine what Mormonism would become either. Looking back, with one eye or two, we would certainly call them "conservatives" by our modern day definition. Even as certain individual founders might have preferred a "king", the experiment in democracy was only that, an experiment. What it became as it was tested in actual practice, is what it really was and still is today, conservatism. To single out one moment in time to label our founders and their evolving principles in any other way, is simply not valid. And that is Universally accepted, but probably not University accepted.

Wednesday, December 14, 2011


If you live long enough, a lot of science fiction, begins to resemble reality. David Brooks' Bastille Day NYT's essay this past July entitled "Death and Budgets" is the kind of sophisticated sophistry that the "chattering classes" of the right and left love to embrace over cocktails to prove that there really is common ground on issues of importance. In this instance however it is the effort to find moral consensus for what constitutes a life of quality and then shoehorn it into politics,policy, legislation and regulation.The insertions of bookkeepers with lampshades between Doctors and patients and their families is really a predictable result of living beyond our means and looking for the lowest of low hanging fruit to balance our national ledger.

Tuesday, December 13, 2011


The persistent accusation that conservatives are not sympathetic to and are even hateful towards individual civil and human rights for all individuals who live within broadly acceptable norms of lawful behavior  is  I believe, either not true or overstated for emotional or political reasons.
Some in the LGBT community for example, are currently making that charge due to certain campaign ads by Gov. Rick Perry in Iowa.  Others cite the reactions to  the efforts of Secy. of State Clinton to protect the civil and human rights of  such persons via  economic, political  and diplomatic sanctions by the US, within the over 70 nations that now criminalize gay and lesbian people.

While it is ironic that Secy. Clinton makes this effort while addressing the inappropriately named UN Human Rights Council in Geneva,  her efforts are important nonetheless, and should be supported by all people who believe in the basic natural  rights of  all individuals.  Many if not most conservatives, don’t like addressing rights on a group basis.  Yet history has an unpleasant way of reminding us that the most prevalent way of demonizing individuals is by demonizing the “group” they either identify with or are associated with by others.  Hence the struggle for equality and at times survival often must begin with group identity but should always end with individual liberty.

Friday, November 25, 2011


First and foremost I am a conservative who is a husband, son, grandson, nephew and cousin of immigrants. In addition my extended family all live abroad including two stepdaughters, one stepson and all my grandchildren and there is literally no way I and my wife, who is a US citizen, can bring them to the United States so that our family can be reunited and I can enjoy the comfort of their love and presence in my final years. The other part of my family all came here legally and with regard to my wife, at great expense while overcoming barriers this government has thoughtlessly put in the way of those who try to do things by the rules…rules, I must add that seem to keep changing by the year.

My wife has an application to bring our youngest unmarried daughter here that will take by our best estimate, 20 years before it is even reviewed. I will be long dead by then. I raise all of this to make three basic points : One is that legal immigration is broken in this country and is in itself a cause of illegal immigration. We simply do not have a comprehensive and coherent policy as to who we want to let into this country and why we want them here. If we did we would not now have job shortages in certain parts of the country in agriculture and skilled trades that inexplicably unemployed Americans don’t seem to want to fill.

My second point is that the statement that Speaker Gingrich made on how to deal with undocumented individuals who have been here for a substantial period of time, have sunk deep roots into this country and have families here, has been one small part of his very public comprehensive plan on immigration for months as well as a reflection of his views in this area for years. It is not amnesty but a path to legality he seeks. The two are distinctly different.

Friday, July 1, 2011

More Stupid Socialist Perfidy

Yes again, more stupid socialist perfidy as California's politicians pass a law to have affiliates of online retailers like Amazon, Overstock, and others, collect California sales taxes on their sales and send them to the state. The obvious result of this, which of course socialists will never understand, is that Amazon and the others have eliminated their affiliate programs in California. So, the again-obvious result is that the income the affiliates would normally pay state income taxes on, will be gone, and there will be no sales tax collected at all. As most people understand, except the California socialists, there will be less revenue collected for the state and there will be a flight of hundreds, if not thousands, of business' to the business-friendly states like Arizona, Texas and Florida. Nationally, the current socialist government wants to have a national sales tax on these internet sales and then pass the collected revenues on to California as a way to make everyone pay. If they get their way, online sales will be completed in Canada or Mexico or the Bahamas. Internet sales taxes are already paid by these retailers, but only if they have a physical presence in the state, like a factory or warehouse. The freedom of the internet is being attacked by these treacherous, greedy politicians.

Sunday, June 5, 2011

Lamestream Media Falls on Their Collective Asses

NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams seemed to take smug delight Friday night in pointing out how Sarah Palin’s off-the-cuff recounting of Paul Revere’s ride was at odds with the correct history, smirking that Palin’s version “already has tongues wagging.”
This was stupid, and I don't mean Palin. The lamestream media used Longfellow's 1860 well-known poem about Paul Revere's ride as the basis for their ludicrous, "factual" attack. Anyone who really knows history knows she was exactly correct. Paul Revere himself, wrote about the event and Palin described it exactly. Apparently, after noting that Obama said he had visited all 57 states, Palin decided to throw out stickers for the media to roast themselves on. It should be noted that NBC, CNN and USAToday were the only ones taking the bait. ABC, CBS, and Fox appropriately ignored Palin's new tactic. LOL

Monday, May 30, 2011

Newt and media hypocricy

Newt Gingrich is to announce his candidacy for presidency today and the media hypocrisy will be flying. First let me say: Yes, he has baggage and yes, his behavior while speaker was disappointing; and no, I don't know if I will support him. But once he announces, the gloves will be off. The first attack: his infidelities and three marriages. This behavior will be analyzed and scrutinized as if it were Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trying to board an airplane. Yet Newt has been candid about his personal failings and by all accounts has finally established a stable relationship the third time around -- it has lasted 16 years and 11 years of marriage. Yet while his dalliances involved consenting adults and is long in the past, the media will be much harsher on him than President Clinton, who by many accounts, was a sexual predator who did not give up his ways even upon entering the White House -- or since. A second attack; his wife Callista. Already, left wing satirical web sites are calling her a Stepford Wife. Yet she is a smart, independent, articulate woman -- and also a talented musician. This is just the standard liberal narrative for all conservative women.The third attack: his post-congress work, especially with Citizen United. Forget his prolific and at times brilliant writing, his sharp commentary and his uncanny understanding of policy. President Obama's ties to Acorn, Rev. Wright and terrorist Bill Ayers be damned. The media will be indignant about Newt's conservative initiatives and will insist on a proper "outing" of Newt -- despite the fact we know much more about Newt than we do about the current president even now. When I moved to Georgia in 1993, soon to be Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich represented my district (interestingly my home town district produced current Speaker John Boehner). No political scientist (right or left) thought it possible for Republicans to gain control of the House after 40 years -- it was mathematically impossible. But Newt's brilliant Contract for America did it. He believes, unlike the current administration, in American exceptionalism. He deserves serious consideration. There are legitimate concerns about Newt -- too much of a policy wonk to be a leader and his intestinal fortitude to name a couple. No doubt, he botched his speakership a bit. But focus should be on examining legitimate issues -- not the hypocritical muckraking we are about to see from the media. Here is some background by someone who knows him well: http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2011/may/11/newt-gingrich/

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Should Oil Companies Pay More Taxes

I think every reasonable person wants big business to pay taxes (most pay no tax on profits) but we also have to be prepared for the consequences (it's happened before). The fly in the ointment is the depletion allowance tax credit. A producer only has a finite amount of oil in their reserve and in order to pump it out when the incentive is low, the gov't. gives them a tax credit for each barrel that is removed or "depleted" from the oil bed. The price of oil/gas will skyrocket as American producers slow down or stop producing in order to keep their same profit (less oil means higher gas prices as they try to maintain that profit). Additionally, the position of our government is not to find more of our own oil.; more of our dollars will end up in Saudia Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela and Brazil instead of here. Remember, we can't force American producers to pump more oil for less money. So, again we see the "buzz-word generation" urging action on something they know nothing about. What will you do if, like many experts think, the price of gas goes to $6/gal. this summer? It's estimated that living in the suburbs and driving to work and back will cost $60-$80 per week, eliminating everything except food, gas and taxes for most low and middle earners. Remember, this has happened before, and the results can readily be projected. The more government interferes with business, the more it costs each of us. Additionally, these companies pay several other taxes, like the Job and Family Services tax that is based on their employee's salaries; they pay half of the social security and medicare taxes... and there are other, larger state and local taxes. Tax collections will decrease when these companies make less profit and employ fewer people causing us to fill the gap with our own higher taxes or fewer benefits. This "simple" tax problem is so complicated that adding more parameters to the equation will certainly have many undiscovered consequenses. The philosophy of Ayn Rand is starting to play out for everyone to see, and very few to understand, I'm afraid. We're tiny, minuscule gogs in this wheel. Where is John Galt?