We're sorry.  We admit, we've overspent ourselves into bankruptcy.  We've taken all the money you've given us previously and frittered it away on shiny things that caught our attention.  We've ignored every previous law, budget reform, and policy statement ever enacted.  We can't help ourselves; we can't control our spending habits.  We need you to control us with a new set of budget reforms and spending limits, and we promise you, this time, we'll obey them.  Really.  We mean it this time.  And we want you to give us a whole truckload of additional money while you're add it.  You can trust us this time.  We promise.  We really, really promise.
 
Trust us.
 
This is the message being sent to Californians next week to sell them on a collection of new ballot measures.  California, we keep getting told, has a "budget crisis."  Here is the honest truth: California does not have a budget crisis; what California has is a state government with a spending problem.

The facts are inescapable.  First, California is one of the most affluent economies in the world.  By ourselves, we used to be the fifth largest economy in the world; now, I believe, we are still seventh or eighth.  California is awash in assets, in terms of resources, production, and personal wealth.  Second, with a raft of recent tax increases, Californians are the highest-taxed citizens in the nation.  It doesn't take a lot of brain power to put these two facts together and draw a conclusion: if California is the richest state, and its government takes a bigger share of that richness than does any other state, then the California government receives an awful lot of money.  And yet, as we read in every newspaper and hear in every news broadcast, the government is broke and panicked.

How can that be?  The only explanation is that the state government is spending money faster than it can receive it.

The six ballot propositions Californians have to address on Tuesday, Propositions 1A to 1F, do nothing to control the government's profligate spending.  They extend the government's reach into its citizens' pockets through taxation, and reallocate money already specially designated for particular needs to general spending.  There are no reforms in any of these propositions.  The backers of these propositions are the legislators and governor who can't control their spending, and the corrupt, greedy public employee unions who are the only ones who reap the benefits of this giant government largesse.  Remember that: when you hear the commercials saying that police, firemen, teachers, and others support these measures, the truth is that it is their unions - such as the giant SEIU you keep hearing about - whose coffer will swell with the dollars taken from you in taxes.

Proposition 1A is a $16 billion dollar tax increase.  That's the plain truth.  Its backers tell you that it will cure unemployment, balance the budget, and heal the state economy.  Nothing could be further from the truth; if you disagree, then name an example from history of a society that lifted its economy by taking massive wealth from its citizens and redistributing it to fat government-employee unions, welfare, and self-aggrandizing pork projects.

Proposition 1B is, on its face, a funding system for California's dismal public school system.  This school system is the laughingstock of the nation.  There are no reforms in this measure for the problems causing the quality of education in our state to be so poor; it simply throws money at it.

Proposition 1C claims to modernize the state lottery.  California's venture into state-sponsored gambling as a fundraiser currently currently requires that 50% of ticket sales to be paid out in prizes, at least 34% to be paid to the education system, and no more than 16% to go to overhead and operating system.  In a bit of fuzzy math that could only have come from a con game or from someone who failed junior-high math, Proposition 1C wants to take $5 billion from the lottery and spend it on the General Fund instead of education, increase the share to be paid out in prizes (according to the information provided, to as high as 70% or more of ticket sales), and magically have more money to give to education.  Let's do a little math together, shall we?  Suppose we increase the prize payout to 65% of ticket sales, and somehow, through efficiencies never before seen in government-run enterprises, reduce the cost of the overhead from 16% to just 12%.  That makes 77% right there, reducing the portion for education to 23%.  Ticket sales would have to increase by half of the present sales (do the math yourself, if you studied the subject outside of California) to break even on the number of dollars available for education, and that doesn't even take into account the $5 billion already borrowed by the state.

Proposition 1D's title starts with "Protects Children's Services Funding."  Well, that sounds good, doesn't it?  Of course, the Legislative Analyst's summary in the top half of the very first page says this measure reduces funding for the children's programs by $608 million immediately, and $268 million every year for the next four years, to be spent in the state's general fund.  Now, how do you protect funding for this program by reducing it by well over $1.6 billion?  Only in Orwellian terms could this title possibly be placed on this ballot measure.

Proposition 1E does for state mental health funding what 1D does for children's services - robs them to fill the holes in the governments budget shortfall.

Finally, Proposition 1F denies a pay raise to legislators when there is a budget deficit.  It's a feel-good measure for the voters.  Never mind the fact that the proponents of the measure admit "California's legislators are the highest paid in the nation."  And of course, given the current crop of legislators, what do you think they'll do when faced with a salary freeze because their spending has created a deficit?  Why, raise taxes to make up the difference, of course!  What, do you think they're going to stick it to themselves when they could be sticking it to you instead?

STAND strongly urges an adamant NO vote on all six propositions.

California voters need to vote NO on every tax increase and every bond measure put on a ballot, and vote against any incumbent of either party who supports continued reckless spending.  Period.
 
Faithful Readers: I'm new on Facebook; if you're also on Facebook, you can get instant updates of new posts through my status messages.  Search for me by my e-mail address: keith-DOT-arnold-AT-charter-DOT-net.

*** UPDATE ***  True Americans and good friend JohnGalt over at ThreeSources points to a simple and easy solution.  He asks the question "I wonder what California has that someone might be willing to pay cash for..."  Read the answer here.  For a clue, it's something that the California government can sell that is worth far more than the debt, and finance our state for years to come.  To quote that beer commercial: "Brilliant!"

(Cross-posted here and at the Alhambra Bible Fellowship website)

"And Nehemiah, who was the governor, and Ezra the priest and scribe, and the Levites who taught the people said to all the people, 'This day is holy to the LORD your God; do not mourn or weep.'..." (Nehemiah 8:9, ESV).

There comes a time when God's people mark an occasion specifically dedicated to turning to God in dedication, and this is ours.  Thursday, May 7 is dedicated as our National Day of Prayer, in a tradition over fifty years old - a short time in the shadow of the history of mankind, surely, but a bright light in contrast to the dark of the increasing drift into secularization that made this day a national necessity here in America.

National leaders have marked this day with a call for all God's people of good will to stand together, shoulder to shoulder, in seeking God's blessing for the nation.  For a believer, this should be seen both as an obligation and a privilege.  An obligation, because God Himself calls upon His followers to pray for the good of their nations, and because prayer is a hallmark of a person committed to Him; a privilege, because there is no greater privilege than to draw before a holy God at His invitation and carry to Him the needs and burdens of a country.

The National Day of Prayer Task Force helps with specific things in need of prayer, and I encourage you to visit their site to see a well-rounded list of prayer suggestions, as well as supporting Scripture references.  I ask all of you reading this to spend time today in prayer for the seven areas they identify:

Pray for our government.  In these times, the various members of our government press in many different directions, and opposing group contend over the issues.  Pray that our elected leaders will understand their role to govern in accordance with the will of the people, the principles upon which this nation was founded, and in submission to the direction of God Himself.

Pray for our military.  The members of our military sacrifice their comfort, their family lives, and if need be their own lives, for little thanks and reward.  Pray for their protection, their success in their efforts, and their commitment to high-minded conduct when called upon to engage in combat.

Pray for the media.  This includes not merely the institutional television, radio and news outlets, but the new media as well - citizen journalists and bloggers doing a yeoman's job of reporting the truth in this age of lies and deception.  Pray that they will recognize the need for honestly and for the revelation of news, bringing to the public the stories behind the events of the day.  Pray also for the entertainment sectors of the media, because they shape the values for so many people in our entertainment-addicted society.

Pray for business.  Businesses in America are challenged today in ways unthinkable just a year ago.  A society requires the security of knowing its members are entitled to the benefits of the work of their hands, a fair return on their investments, just laws in which contracts and agreements are honored, and the promise of freedom of trade for goods and services.  All these are threatened by the chaos being visited on business today.

Pray for education.  Public education has become nearly valueless in many parts of our country, sacrificing both educational content and moral instruction for political correctness.  Pray for teachers and administrators to return to sound, godly principles.  Pray for private schools, for which many parents pay tuition on top of taxes to support the private schools, paying doubly in order to obtain a sound education for their children.  Pray for home-schooling parents, whose sacrifices go to ensuring a sound upbringing for their children.  Pray for our colleges and universities, where tomorrow's leaders are inundated with biased theory and worldly, empty learning.

Pray for our churches.  Churches today, large and small, need to rise up as anchors of truth and uprightness in our communities, in the face of declining attendance and increasing marginalization.  Pray for your pastors, your teachers, your leaders, and your missionaries.

Pray for families.  Families have become increasingly splintered in our age; what was once every child's first and most important source of values, stability, and identity continues to decay.

To these things they have asked, I would add a few of my own.  First, pray for our citizenry across the nation, and for genuine godly revival within our land.  Second, pray for yourselves and your closest circle of friends and relations; there is no point in praying for all these things for others and not including yourself.  Finally, and most importantly, pray that in all these things, God will be honored as sovereign and His will would reign supremely above our own will and desires.

If you can, start your day in prayer for these things, and finish the day in prayer as the day draws to a close.  Set aside some time for prayer in the middle, and thoughout the day, pray when you can.

Last, understand that prayer involves submission to God.  Prayer is more than a laundry list of the things you want Him to do - at the heart of every prayer should be a commitment of your will to His.  Every "Thy will be done" that leaves your lips should be followed with "and start with me."  This nation is made up of millions of individual citizens.  Do you want God to heal the nation?  Ask Him to start with you.  Do you want God to guide our leaders?  Ask Him to start with you.  Do you want God to strengthen our churches, fix our corruption, restore our moral fiber, and live by His principles?

Ask Him to start with you.  And He will answer that prayer, and when He does, His work in putting this nation back on the right path will have begun using your life as His first step.  Will you join me in this prayer?  Because I will gladly join in it with you.

Bill and Ellen think no one in town knows they have been seeing each other on the sly for the last several years; the truth is, everyone knows.  The way they act when they're around each other; the way they exchange glances across a room; the way they go to the county fair together; the way it's no secret in town that Bill's Pontiac is parked in Ellen's driveway two nights out of every three.  Bill and Ellen have "something going on," and there's no reason in keeping it a secret.

Well, maybe one.  Let's say Ellen is married to Jim while she's seeing Bill.  There's a lot of tension in the marriage, you see: Jim keeps begging Ellen to change her ways and start living as if she her marriage to him meant something.  But faithfulness doesn't come easy to Ellen, and she sees Bill as being more her kind of husband.  Jim is conflicted: he knows her tendencies, but he supports her and protects her even when she strays, because no matter what she does, he married her, and he really wants to be a good husband and honor that commitment.  Jim is the long-suffering husband to a cheatin' wife - like John C. Reilly's role as Amos Hart in "Chicago."

So when the day finally comes that Ellen leaves Jim and announces she's marrying Bill, no one is surprised, though some wonder why it took so long.  All through town, the recurring phrase is "so, Ellen is finally becoming an honest woman."

We had a moment like that this week in politics, when Arlen Specter finally announced he was divorcing the Republican Party and making it official with the Democrats, with whom he has been cheating for years.  None of us are surprised, and more than a few Republicans are asking where the happy couple is registered, while secretly wondering how long it will last - though in this case, the issue is not faithfulness so much as Specter's sinking electability.  The Democrat Party is likely to find out that Specter is not so much a trophy wife as he is fading matron.

Let's be honest - Specter has never been a conservative, and never a mainstream Republican.  He started his political life as a Democrat; When he ran for District Attorney in Philadelphisa, he did so as a Republican because it offered him the best chance to get elected, not because of positions or philosophical agreement.  His reason for changing back is no different: he left as a matter of political expediency.  He faces a challenge in the primary from solid conservative Pat Toomey and other conservatives who might be disenchanted enough to throw their hats into the ring.  He recently begged for help from Democrat voters to rescue him; fortunately for honest politics and unfortunately for Specter, the primary is now closed, and cross-party voters can cause no mischief in the Pennsylvania primary.  Facing near-certain defeat in the primary, Specter realized that his only hope for avoiding unemployment was to change parties.  You can almost hear the voice of Claude Rains in Casablanca here: "I have no convictions ... I blow with the wind, and the prevailing wind happens to be from Vichy."  I know of no movie line that better suits Specter at this moment.

The Democrat spin machine is already applying torque to the story.  Bob Menendez has gone on record as saying that "...the Republican Party is so out of touch with Americans that they're losing one of its most prominent leaders."  Prominent party leader?  This guy has been regarded as a party outlier for as long as I can remember.  I sure don't know anyone in the GOP who regards him as a leader they follow.  Specter has been reviled within the party.

Possibly the most bizarre pieces of spin come from Specter's fellow-traveler Olympia Snowe of Maine.  According to this article, she cites Specter's defection as proof that the GOP needs to lurch to the left to be relevant.  But catch this money quote:

"Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe, one of a few remaining GOP moderates in the Senate, called Specter's decision another sign that the Republican Party needs to move toward the center."

Bask in the irony of that statement.  First, Snowe is hardly a moderate; she is another RINO.  Second, she is "one of a few remaining GOP moderates in the Senate."  Tell me, if Snowe's advice is so spot-on, then tell me why it is that it's the moderates (like her) that are in such short supply?  Here's a simple fact: Republicans get elected - and re-elected - when they run as consistent conservatives.  When they run as wavering "moderates," that's when their political lifespans approach their end.  The party's base has no use for RINOs (Mr. Schwarzenegger, call your office...), Democrats-lite, or anything similar.

John McCain didn't lose the election as a result of being too conservative; John McCain lost the election, in part, as a result of being too Democrat for the GOP's base.  You're not going to win a lot of elections when the only reason you give the electorate to vote for you is that you stink less than your opponent does.  When voters have to hold their nose to vote for you, a critical section of for constituency is going to stay home of election day.

The notion that the party should move to the left in order to succeed would be a...

(... wait for it...)

... Snowe-job.

I should probably apologize for that one.

Having said all that, the polite thing to do is to smile at Specter and the Democrats and wish the happy couple well, and be content that they've finally made an honest man out of Arlen.  In the meantime, we should encourage the good people of Pennsylvania to avoid a costly and unnecessary fight in the primary, keep going to Tea Parties, and work hard to ensure Specter is promptly sent into retirement to enjoy his new relationship.

Hope they've got a pre-nup.

Ladies and gentlemen: the President of the United States, Leonard T. Renard.

"My fellow Americans: recent events in the Middle East have captured the attention of many people, both here and throughout the world.  As you already know, Muslim pirates based in coastal regions of Somalia have, in recent years, plagued international shipping.  They have attacked and boarded numerous vessels from various nations, holding their crews and cargos for ransom.  This has become more than a cottage industry; it has risen to the level of a multi-million dollar business, the proceeds of which have gone to fund warlords, despots, and international terrorism.

"This week, the world watched as events unfolded when these pirates captured and took possession of an American-flagged ship, the Maersk Alabama.  Until this event, the pirates had the good sense to avoid American shipping.

"However, that pattern of good judgment ended this week.  Fortunately - no, I take that back; this was not the result of good fortune, but of good American resolve to not be the victims of evil men - as a result of the efforts of good American maritime men, the pirates were repulsed, and the crew regained control of the Alabama.  The captain was taken hostage in a lifeboat, and I join the captain in saluting the Navy SEALs who took part in securing his freedom.  One pirate was captured and was brought back to America for trial.

"These events have demonstrated the need for a clear and unambiguous policy on the subject of international piracy.  To that end, I have formulated the following statement.  This statement has already been delivered to the ambassadors and heads of state of most nations; specifically, I have personally received confirmation from the Somali ambassador that this statement has been both received and understood.

"There is a term I'd like you to hear: hosti humani generalis.  My Latin isn't very good, but if I've said it correctly, it means 'enemy of all mankind.'  Civilizations for thousands of years have understood that some acts are crimes, and these acts are to be dealt with by laws, courts, and prisons; some acts are acts of war, and these acts are to be dealt with by combat, military action, and treaties.  Some acts fall outside both of these categories, and piracy is one of them.  Pirates are neither criminals nor military combatants, but a different category, and the ancient Romans understood this and called them 'enemies of all mankind.'  Neither law nor warfare is the method for dealing with pirates.

"Historically, pirates who were captured in the act of piracy were not entitled to a trial; they were simply and summarily executed by the captain and crew that captured them.

"What follows is our new policy in responding to the cancer of piracy:

"First, the officers and crews of all American-flagged ships will have all restrictions on firearms removed, by executive order.  I am ending the day where American commercial vessels can be seen as unarmed targets.  I am calling for Congress to pass legislation to that effect as well.  I realize that there are nations that have some qualms about vessels in their ports with weapons; I have no objection to our crews sealing their weapons lockers while in those ports and unsealing them when they leave.  That can be dealt with however those ports and the shipping lines see fit.  I am not limiting this to sidearms and rifles.  If a shipping line desires to obtain mounted deck guns to protect themselves from pirates, American law will not stand in their way.

"Second, understand that the captain of a vessel is the chief judicial officer of his vessel anywhere in international waters.  You already know that; after all, that captain can also conduct marriages, just like any other judge.  Henceforth, we will recognize the right of these captains to adjudicate piracy at sea for captured pirates.  We will not, obviously, require captains to issue summary judgment and hang captured pirates from the yardarms, but we will honor that right, and defend them from any other nations that might have a problem with that.

"Excuse me, is there a doctor in the audience anywhere?  I believe Ms. Thomas here in the second row might be having a stroke; she doesn't look well.

"Third, we honor and encourage any other nations who do the same.

"Fourth, we have issued a general order through the United States Navy, both in the region in question and elsewhere in the world, to wherever possible assist both American vessels threatened with piracy, and vessels bearing the flag of any nation with whom we may enter into piracy enforcement agreements in such a situation.  As of today, our naval vessels have a standing order to sink any vessel engaged in piracy, and any vessel supporting a pirate vessel.  Any captured pirates will be executed by summary judgment; where this is at the captain's discretion for commercial vessels, it will be mandatory for military ones.

"Fifth, we have called upon Somalia to take responsibility as a sovereign nation for this piracy problem.  They need to take whatever measures are necessary to deal with this and ensure it stops.  If Somalia cannot control this problem on its own, then the United States stands ready to assist, in the best way we know how.  We have put the Somali government on notice that we have identified four specific coastal areas that are sheltering the pirates, and which serve as the pirate bases of operation.  If piracy continues more than thirty days beyond today's date, we will assist the Somali government through naval bombardment of these four locations, and the bombardment will continue until those locations are completely uninhabitable.  After that, our fleet will move on to any other locations that we have determined to be confirmed pirate dens.  Understand that we do not view this as an act of war against Somalia. Quite to the contrary, the Somali government has assured that they also wish to end the scourge of piracy, and we have made them aware that we see this as our best way of assisting them in achieving this goal, and not merely for our benefit or theirs, but for that of the entire world.

"In honor of the vessel and its brave crew from which the occasion for this new policy arose, this anti-piracy policy will be referred to as the Alabama Doctrine.  Roll, Tide!  Now, I'll open it up to questions from members of the press..."

Nineteen short centuries ago, Juvenal lamented the fallenness of Roman society, decrying this way: "the people that once bestowed commands, consulships, legions, and all else, now meddles no more and longs eagerly for just two things — bread and circuses."  The Romans had once valued participation in their Republic as citizens; by Juvenal's time, they had traded away that participation in return for just two things: the grain dole and lurid entertainment.  As long as their overlords provided those two things for the masses, the masses in turn would let their overlords rule in any way they chose.

Panem et circenses.  Bread and circuses.

The politicians have learned again that the masses will happily fall in line if they are kept fed and entertained.  By these laconic words, Juvenal skewered both the rulers for their pandering and the citizenry for their willingness to be bought.  Not since Esau sold his birthright for a bowl of red stew had a people sold their citizenship so cheaply.

Fast forward to the present.  Today, American citizens are ceding whole sectors of our lives to our own overlords in return for these two things.  As long as proles have a welfare check in the mail and American Idol on their cable TVs, they will continue to vote to keep in power those giving them those things.  In return, they will gladly let their eyes glaze over and surrender everything else to government: free speech, self-defense, property rights, choice of doctors for treatment, retirement plans, and our own livelihood.

We saw the "bread" half of this equation back with FDR.  Welfare and dozens of other redistribution programs moved the responsibility of feeding people from individuals and their own efforts to the governmental nannystate, in return for nothing except for an ever-increasing share of the earnings of producers by way of taxation.  Suddenly millions of people became clients of the State, and those millions were not going to vote against the overlords who were feeding them.

But what about the "circuses" part - other than the unending gladiatorial spectacle that Washington itself is, I mean?  I thought that the Congressional meddling in the steroid controversy in major league baseball was it, or perhaps the Federal concern over the conversion to full-digital television would be the key.  Until today.  Today I learned that these things were just small players in the unfolding drama of the nannystate taking responsibility for keeping us mind-numbingly entertained and distracted.  Here is how our overlords are going to take over our entertainment sector:

Senate Judiciary Subcommittee To Take Control Of BCS - here, here, and here.

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) has stated that "the BCS system has proven itself to be inadequate, not only for those of us who are fans of college football, but for anyone who believes that competition and fair-play should have a role in collegiate sports."

Fine, Orrin, you get no argument from me about the diagnosis: I hate the BCS too.  As far as I'm concerned, the BCS doesn't prove which college team is America's champion.  It can't, because football isn't Major League Baseball.  The MLB has a limited number of teams, and can have best-of-five and best-of-seven playoff systems to avoid eliminating a good team that happens to have one bad day.  College football?  Apples and oranges, Orrin.  If you're concerned about every college team, the large and the small, having equal access, in a sport that is so demanding that you can't play more than one game a week, then your annual championship system will take six years to go through.  Do the math.

I also understand that it's a personal thing for you and your constituents.  Your Utes (no, readers, that's not a reference to My Cousin Vinny) had a good season - no, a GREAT season, rolling to an undefeated 13-0, starting with a win over the Michigan Wolverines and ending with a trouncing of the Alabama Crimson Tide in the Sugar Bowl.  That's a season you can hang your hat on.  I feel for you, Orrin, and I'm not trying to be condescending.  The University of Utah has every right to claim the title of Best in the Country for this season.  The Utes were awesome, and they weren't just playing a lot of bottom-rung teams to get there.

Finally, Orrin, I also realize it's not just bragging rights we're talking about: there's serious money involved.  A big stack of Benjamins that the Utes didn't get because of how the BCS works.  Here's an idea: instead of messing with the system, why not just earmark a piece of some bailout to the school to make up for the inequity?  I mean, you guys have plenty of practice at that, what with 9,000 or so of them.  What's one more between friends?

So, now that we both know I do understand the situation and your feelings, let me just ask two simple questions to counterbalance:

(1) On the basis of what Constitutional authority does the Senate feel it has any business stepping into the whole controversy of how college football decides whose team is better than whose?  Hint #1: any answer that includes any reference to "the Commerce Clause" is grounds for immediate disqualification, because it's a wrong answer.  Hint #2: this would be a really good question to ask about ANYTHING the three branches of the Federal government get the urge to stick their grubby little fingers into.

(2) With so many larger and most important things taking place in the world to which the Senate is probably giving some of its attention - oh, for example, an economy that you all are taking a wrecking ball to; a nuclear Iranian headcase; a North Korean despot compensating for his self-esteem problem with ballistic missiles*; the loss of fair and free elections in this country; I'm sure a few more concerns could be added - what possible compelling interest exists for the Senate to have to get involved in this?  IF you had some legitimate Constitutional authority to go there (which you don't - see #1, above), and IF you've cured cancer, protected our borders, defeated crime, ended the scourge of drugs for our children, given all the hippies a bath, and everything else more important, then I'd have no beef with you saying "you know, we ought to take a look at fine-tuning the way college football decides on a champion."  But until you do, shut the heck up and get back to work.

Oh, by the way: "the BCS system Federal government has proven itself to be inadequate, not only for those of us who are fans of college football freedom, liberty, and prosperity, but for anyone who believes that competition and fair-play should have a role in collegiate sports life here in America."

There.  Fixed that for you, Orrin.  You're welcome.

* Watch the comments section for my off-center thoughts on this.

### UPDATE ###  Special News: Orrin Hatch scores in the news twice in one week.  Today, Michelle Malkin highlights another Hatch tour de force, along with legislation which plays fast and loose with the Thirteenth Amendment.  Who'll be the first to denounce this for bringing slavery back to America: Jesse Jackson?  Al Sharpton?  Michael Steele?  The Prezznit?

Good morning, brothers and sisters; it's always a delight to see the pews crowded on Sunday morning, and so eager to get into God's Word.  Turn with me in your Bibles, if you will, to the 47th chapter of Genesis; we'll begin our reading at verse 13, and go through verse 27.  Brother Ray, would you stand and read that great passage for us?...

... Thank you for that fine reading, Brother Ray.  So we see that economic hard times fell upon Egypt, and the people turned to the government of Pharaoh to deal with this for them.  And Pharaoh nationalized the grain harvest, and placed the grain in great storehouses that he had built.  So the people brought their money to Pharaoh, like a great tax increase, and gave it all to him willingly in return for grain.  And this went on until their money ran out, and they were hungry again.

So when they went to Pharaoh after that, they brought their livestock - their cattle, their horses, their sheep, and their donkey - to barter for grain, and verse 17 says that only took them through the end of that year.  But the famine wasn't over, was it?

So the next year, the people came before Pharaoh and admitted they had nothing left, except their land and their own lives.  "There is nothing left in the sight of my lord but our bodies and our land.  Why should we die before your eyes, both we and our land?  Buy us and our land for food, and we with our land will be servants to Pharaoh."  So they surrendered their homes, their land, and their real estate to Pharaoh's government, and then sold themselves into slavery to him, in return for grain.

What can we learn from this, brothers and sisters?  That turning to the government instead of to God to be our provider in hard times only leads to slavery?  Yes.  That the only reason government want to be our provider is to also become our master?  Yes.

But look how that passage ends, brothers and sisters!  "Thus Israel settled in the land of Egypt, in the land of Goshen.  And they gained possessions in it, and were fruitful and multiplied greatly."  God provided for His people, just as He always has!  They didn't end up giving all their possessions to the government, no, it says they gained possessions!

But I also tell you a great truth today, and an ominous one.  We see the same thing happening today - the government today wants to "share the wealth" once again, to take it from us and redistribute it back to us.  It wants to take control of healthcare, just as it has taken control of education, and ration it back to us, and when government rations it, then government decides who gets it, and how much, and what kind.  And if we go along with it, and do it willingly, then we will wind up no differently than the people of Egypt did four thousand years ago - as slaves to the government, and as slaves to our leaders.  What Mr. Obama's government is doing now is no different from what Pharaoh's government did then, and it will end the same.

And a lot of people like to call Mr. Obama a "Messiah," don't they?  Is he a Messiah, a savior?  Didn't the Egyptians say, after Pharaoh made them his slaves, "You have saved our lives; may it please my lord, we will be servants to Pharaoh"?  Well, I tell you this - I know the Messiah; the Messiah is a friend of mine; and Mr. Obama is no Messiah!  No, brothers and sisters, if Mr. Obama is a character from the Bible, then he is Pharaoh.

Bow with me in prayer, if you will.

Lord, You alone are worthy to be served, and we rely on You, and You alone.  We confess that the government is not our deliverer, and never rightly will be.  We read in the eighth chapter of 1 Samuel, when Samuel warned the people of what a ruler would do, where it says "And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day."  And Lord, we acknowledge that day has come.  We cry out to you because of the ruler that we have chosen for ourselves as a nation.

Lord, we pray for this nation.  We pray for revival, and we pray for deliverance from those who would be our masters.  Give us hearts to seek You and hands to serve You, and protect Your people from the atrocities of Pharaoh's government.

And all God's children say...

California is having a moment of crisis.

My California readers will be aware that virtually every year without fail, the Legislature fails to produce a budget for the state.  And, of course, by "budget," the people in Sacramento mean something very different from what you and I mean by the word.  You and I sit down over the dining room table with out husbands and wives and tally up how much we bring in, and looking at our total income, we ask painfully questions like:

• "How much money goes to things we can't control - the rent or mortgage payment, the electric bill, the medical insurance?"
• "How much can we set aside for things like retirement, a vacation, or home improvements?"
• "How much does that leave us?"

We start with what we have, and go from there to what we can afford.  The California legislature, probably like most states, does this is reverse - they start with what they want to spend our money on, and then after totaling up the numbers, figure out how much they'll need to tax us in order to pay for it all.

Let's consider the total illogic of that for a minute.  If your family started out by deciding you were going to spend $73,000 this year, even though you only make $58,000, then you would have to go to the boss and say, "Fred, my family has set our budget for this fiscal year; as a result, I'm raising my salary by $15,000 a year.  Be sure to notify Accounting..." - well, let's be honest; you'd probably discover that your final paycheck was in the process of being printed about three minutes after Fred stopped laughing.  At you, not with you.

And yet when the Legislature decides to raise income taxes because it wants to spend more of your money, we grumble, tighten our belts, and do nothing; after all, they're in charge, and we do what we're told by our masters.

Let me make this painfully clear: taxes are the allowance we give our elected members of our government to spend on doing the peoples' business.  Unless and until we teach them that IT'S OUR MONEY, AND WE DECIDE HOW MUCH TO GIVE THEM, they will continue to spend like the profligates they are.  If your son came to you and said "I spent all my allowance of crack cocaine, and it's gone; I need a twenty percent increase to pay my debt to my dealer and buy a new game for my Wii," you wouldn't do it, would you?  Then why do we do it for our legislators?  We need to make them understand; they're our servants, not our masters.

If memory serves, the California government is $42 BILLION in debt.  The government got into this fix by spending itself into poverty.  The proposed budget includes $14.5 BILLION dollars in tax increases - that's over $4,000 for every living, breathing Californian, if you stop and do the math, just for this coming year, or over $16,000 for an average family of four - between a quarter and a half of your income for an awful lot of families.  Remember, too, that's on top of the $28,000 and change the Federal government just put onto the shoulders of each and every living, breathing American on this deceptively named "stimulus" bill.

They're also proposing $16 billion dollars in spending cuts, and borrowing another $10 billion in loans.  Four and six... carry the one... hmmm... by my figuring, IF they're successful in collecting that extra $14.5 billion from you, and IF they don't spend money "off-budget," then they're still going to be billions in debt, and surviving by borrowing.

Why do you keep electing and re-electing these people?

Read it for yourself in the L.A. Times, if you can stomach it.  There are a handful of legislators holding out against the tax increases, and you ought to thank every one of them.  I'm going to make an offer: any of you reading this who thinks it's okay for the legislators to raise taxes to get a budget passed, you can go along with it just as soon as you write a check covering my share.  You're fine with raising taxes?  Cool.  You pay mine, and everything's peachy.

Don't ever forget - you're dealing with a legislature that has already taken what you've given them and frittered it all away on shiny things, and then come to you saying you need to give them more because they can't control their spending.  You're dealing with a Governator who got the job because his predecessor did what?  Oh yeah, he raised taxes.  That car tax thing.  How did we ever forget Gray Davis and the car tax?

"But we're cutting spending now!"  Great.  Why didn't you do this five or ten years ago, before you got us into this mess?

"But we're going to have to eliminate jobs and cut services!"  Yeah, that burgeoning 210,000-strong army of State employees, with their generous benefits packages and gigantic guaranteed pensions.  Don't think for a second that cutting that by 50% wouldn't actually improve life for most Californians, and free those trimmed from government jobs to go do something productive for a change.  While you're at it, this would be a good time to think about pulling the plug on welfare, ending all spending on illegal aliens, and doing away with a couple dozen do-nothing State agencies.

Here's a thought - all that oil off the coast?  Think of that as a source of income, as well as a way of doing something toward this nation's energy independence.  "But the environment!  The seals!  The ocean!"  Trust me, Mother Gaia will be just fine, it will go a long way toward solving our problem, and Al Gore is a boob.  And I'm super-cereal about that last part.

The notion that our elected legislators got us into this mess, and they think we have an obligation to get them out of it by coughing up more of our hard-earned money, is offensive.  Because of our legislators' inability to not spend money like drunken sailors on liberty in port, and the anti-business climate of our regulatory state, California has gone from being the fifth largest economy in the world, to the ninth largest.  I was concerned when France passed us; at the rate we're going, Zimbabwe will pass us by the time I retire.

If I can ever afford to, I mean.




 

... Or, "Seven Strangers In Search of an Exit."

This entire post today is dedicated to my good friend Bob's My Uncle over at the Backyard Grill Blog.  BMU posted a retelling of the tale of the little red hen - a classic story about a hen and her neighbors who would not contribute in any way to helping her make bread, but expected to share in the eating of it.  It's a straightforward story with an obvious meaning, recast in our modern day and contrasted with our present redistributionist milieu.  BMU, though, is plagued with a troll who doesn't get the obvious, and instead has deduced, all by his lonesome, that the little red hen deserves to have her bread taken away from her and redistributed because she did not pay her neighbors a living wage.

Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot-Interrogatory?

I'm inspired as a result to retell a story of my own, a modern-day parable.  Picture the scene: imagine, if you will, seven ethnically non-diverse persons from a variety of circumstances, joined together by seemingly random chance on a pleasure cruise out of Honolulu and stranded by dint of an unexpected storm on an uncharted island, far from the established shipping lanes and without hope of an early rescue.  Eight days after their shipwreck, the first mate of the unfortunate vessel, conquers his gnawing hunger by climbing a palm tree and retrieving a coconut for himself.

The captain of the vessel, hampered by a moderate obesity, bad knees, and a mild cardiological condition, find himself unable to duplicate the tree climbing.  But his wallet survived the tempest intact, and he brings out a ten-spot; recent fares had been good.  "My friend," he says to the first mate, "I'd gladly pay you ten dollars to get me a coconut the way you got yours."  In their present situation, this is an excellent deal; the coconut has much more value to him that a ten-dollar bill, which has no value unless and until they get rescued.

An hour later, a wealthy capitalist sees the two of them dining on fresh coconut, and takes in the tale.  He too is incapable of the climb, but to him, ten dollars is a pittance; as fate would have it, he managed to salvage a steamer trunk laden with Jacksons.  "Get one for my wife as well," says the Harvard-educated industrialist.  Soon, the first mate has a small business with these customers, plus the three others: an out-of touch tenured member of academia, an elite starlet of the Hollywood left, and a rustic minor agriculturalist from America's heartland, who had been vacationing on the proceeds of the taxpayer-subsidized corn harvest she produced for the ethanol industry.

In the space of twenty-six months, the first mate collects every bit of currency from the six other castaways, as a result of being the sole provider of coconuts, as well as being the only one who knows how to fish, and even having the opportunity to skewer the occasional wild boar.  Because he had the foresight to take care of his health and stay fit, plus some basic survival skills learned during an enlistment in the Navy, the first mate has been able to take on the role of the provider.

Just at the end of this period, while walking down the beach of afternoon and wondering what he is ever going to do with all these worthless pieces of green paper he has collected in return for his back-breaking investment of labor, he sees a flash of light in the distant water.  It flashes again, and he realizes it is a ship passing nearby.  He starts a fire on a promontory and shouts for the others to join him.  Remembering his basic Morse code, he flashes a distress signal to the passing boat; it is spotted by the helmsman, and they are rescued.

The crew of the ship makes space for their seven new rescuees in a cargo hold; the ship, a crowded luxury passenger liner, is a charter traveling from Australia to San Diego, three weeks distant.  Our heroic first mate asks the captain of the liner if there might be some better accommodations.  "Well, yes," admits the captain, "there are a few unbooked luxury cabins; but you have to understand, these cabins cost the line a great deal to keep up; they go for over two thousand dollars for the length of the cruise."

"I'll take one," answers the first mate, reaching into his steamer trunk.

Our hero is now traveling in first class, enjoying the benefits of a soft bed, deluxe dining, and a chance to relax.  But his six fellows below deck are less enthusiastic.  "He has all this money now," they complain, "and he has made his fortune off us.  He owes it to us to share in his good fortune with us.  He needs to give back to the community."

Of course, our hero sees things a little differently.  Every transaction made in their group was a free-will transaction, mutually and equally beneficial to both parties.  He traded his labor on an equal standing for their currency, every single time.  As he sees it, they had twenty-six months of being waited on and catered to while he labored and invested his effort and skills in their survival.  He realizes they never really were his friends, or they would have worked alongside him, instead of being jealous of his new place in life.  As he drifts off to sleep in his cabin with a Mai Tai in his hand, he decides this would be a good time in his life to give up the risks of maritime work and get a Masters degree in economics, based on his new-found understanding of capital formation, the free market, and human nature.  Perhaps he'll write his thesis on the origins and evils of class envy.

Submitted for your consideration...

 

... and it will not be televised - at least, not until not until the television networks' news departments can be freed from the shackles of imposed group-think liberalism.  Nor will it be published in the op/ed pages in your average dead-tree-edition newspaper; most of the newspapers you can name are beholden to the same hidebound mindset as the television outlets.

But the growing revolution can be found - not just on conservative talk-radio outlets, but in the great vox populi of the blogosphere.  Never underestimate the awesome power of a fully operational blogosphere.

'Way back on November 20, I wrote "think about a network of grassroots conservatives - exchanged blogroll links, for example."  The battalions of the rank-and-file conservatives were forming up at that point, and individual conservatives, armed with keyboards, ideas, and a dissatisfaction with what they were seeing, began connecting, forming alliances based on the knowledge that were we not alone.  From one coast to the other, ordinary Americans with a love of the founding ideals of this country took the stance that most of America was made up of people like us.

And so the transition began.  Quietly, the networks began to form - and rapidly.  Individuals began to link hands; not organized by the leadership of a political party or a handful of charismatic personalities, but of common, patriotic citizens.  We began to become an army of John Galts, a community of citizen journalists, a resistance made of the salt of the earth.

Of course, there will always be the big fish, the elite and the well-known.  But there is also a vast, nearly endless society of ordinary people who are your neighbors, your co-workers, and your family.  I know this because I am one of them, and because I have met many more like me.  We are the real Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, and I am going to introduce you to some of them.  And I hope to regularly introduce you to a lot of them, a few at a time. 

Let me introduce you to bobbiekelley at Speak Up America.  Bobbie has worked tirelessly to organize the volunteers in this part of the Army of John Galts.  If you'll visit her December 1 post, you'll find out how you can be a part of the growing movement.  Then let me introduce you to bob's my uncle of the Backyard Grill Blog, where common sense and a friendly welcome reign supreme, and good neighbors always feel at home.  Let me introduce you to Darvin Dowdy of Street Level, who cuttingly (and colorfully) has his finger on the pulse of everything that's wrong with the GOP, and a perspective that can contribute to nursing it back to health.  Let me introduce you to Gray Ghost of Gray Ghost Country - and whether he's being humorous or giving you cutting-edge opinion, you'll appreciate his way with words.  And let me introduce you to Jackpine Savage of FunDMental Politics - and I will vouch that he reveals all that is fun, and all that is mental, in the realm of politics.

These, and many more I'll be sharing with you, are the people you should be reading.  Never mind the inside-the-beltway pundits and political insiders at the Times or the network news; they're all out of touch with the real world.  I'll be introducing you to real people who punch the timeclock, make the ends meet, wash their cars, and live real lives.

That's the first part of the revolution.  Here's the second: The Patriotic Resistance.  Join up; there are plenty of smaller groups within The Patriotic Resistance, too - groups specific to your state, and groups specific to issues.  If you join up there, do me a favor: find me and drop me a note so we can connect.  More on that next time...

In an exchange between Sen. Jim DeMint and James Steinberg, nominee for the office of Deputy Secretary of State, Sen. DeMint asked whether Steinberg supported Obama's goal of repealing the Mexico City policy.  The Mexico City policy prohibits the use of taxpayer funds to pay for abortions overseas.  As a result, Americans have the knowledge that their tax dollars going into foreign aid aren't being used for the butchery of unborn infants.

Here is Steinberg's response:

"President Obama has supported repeal of the Mexico City policy, as has Secretary Clinton... The Mexico City policy is an unnecessary restriction that, if applied to organizations based in this country, would be an unconstitutional limitation on free speech."

That's the short version; you can visit Sen. DeMint's website for all the details.  But it got me thinking, and as you all know, getting me thinking can lead in some strange directions.

Go with me for a minute on this.  The nannystate, big government thinking here is that, if the government grants you a right, it has an obligation to bear the cost of your enjoyment of that right - otherwise, you have not really been given that right, and the government has not done its duty.

For instance, the Sixth Amendment states that an accused has the right to counsel to assist in his defense.  As anyone who has watched more than forty-five minutes of prime-time television knows, if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you without charge.  This is because we decided that if you don't have the money for a lawyer, but the taxpayers don't pay to finance yours, we're just fibbing about giving you that right.

Steinberg argues this line of reasoning about abortion: the Supreme Court decided that abortion is also a Constitutionally protected right; refusing to allow taxpayer dollars to be used to perform those abortions would be an unconstitutional limitation on your exercise of that right.

Now, before you go and have a stroke, I want you to let me use that same line of reasoning.  Before I go down this road, let me point out that I am not a lawyer, and therefore I can't dispense legal advice.  But according to the Second Amendment, as I private citizen, I have a Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.  If I cannot afford one, the gubmint has an obligation to ship me a weapon, paid for by Uncle Sam.

For my readers at BATFE, I have a liking for the Sig Sauer P229 DAK, in the .40-caliber flavor, though I could also be happy with just about anything chambered for the .45 ACP.  I'd ask you to contact me for the shipping address, but I'm pretty sure it's already in that file you have on me.

In our politicized age, leaders (and leaders-elect) endure the constant scrutiny of the world, and every choice is deconstructed for its nuance and shades of meaning.  Every actual leads to the question "what message did he mean to send by that?"  Some are real; others are imagined, or pretended.  Real or not, public office has become a matter of full-time image management.

None of these choices have stirred up a hornet's nest of public opinion than Barack Obama's selection of invitees to pray publicly at tomorrow's inauguration.

In recent memory, newly-elected Presidents have each tapped several persons from a range of faiths; going back over the last seventy-five years, inaugurals included varied sets of officiants.  Famously, Truman, Nixon and Reagan all selected prayer leaders through a spectrum of faith traditions.  This year is no exception - but this year, the selections have taken an ominous new tenor.


Instead of selecting "safe" choices, innocuous men of their respective faiths, this inaugural will feature choices who have been lightning rods for controversy - polarizing household names.  First, Southern Baptist pastor Rick Warren of "purpose-driven" fame, whose stance against homosexual marriage has made him a target of the ire of the anti-Proposition 8 crowd; second, episcopalian bishop Gene Robinson, whose openly homosexual life prompted catastrophic division within the American denomination.  It doesn't help matters any that new announcements add Ingrid Mattson, head of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) to the slate.  The ISNA, with documented ties to HAMAS, the Holy Land Foundation, and the Muslim Brotherhood, is a Wahhabist disinformation group, and Mattson's addition can only add further fuel to a fire.


These choices represent a radical departure from past practice.  In prior inaugurations, the selections served to unite the nation.  The leaders selected for the prayers had a universal character, in a way that though not everyone in the audience came from the same faith tradition, all could pray along in a generic way with the understanding that each was a sincere and heartfelt appeal to God on behalf of a united nation.  Theological differences and ecumenicism aside, it was understood that each individual prayer was offered on behalf of all of America, and not merely those of the same faith or denomination.


This time, it's nearly impossible to reject the notion that the selections were made to appease groups of constituents.  Nearly every commentator I have read has reacted with cynicism, and rightly so.  The choice of Warren is viewed as a bone thrown to theological conservatives to win them over; the subsequent choice of Robinson is then seen as a bone thrown to the theological liberals to appease them after the offense of the Warren choice.  Ultimately, the discerning viewers of every stripe are left to consider the preacher they like as a cynical choice, and the one they don't as offensive.


This is the balkanization that results from the ascendancy of identity politics.  Instead of a group of unifiers, this panel of prayer leaders is a collection of affirmative-action choices where every segment of society is supposed to be satisfied that "one of theirs" made the cut.  The only difference is that instead of being done along racial lines, it is done along theological ones.  

Edward Gibbon famously wrote "The various modes of worship which prevailed in the Roman world were all considered by the people as equally true; by the philosopher as equally false; and by the magistrate as equally useful."  It certainly smacks as true in this instance.  One is left with the notion that Obama believes in none of these faith traditions, but all is for show.

The Mattson choice adds fuel to the fire of those who continue to see Obama as a closet Muslim.  Frankly, I doubt it.  I don't believe Obama is a secret Muslim.  Honestly, this whole chain of events substantiates the conclusion I drew at the end of the whole Jeremiah Wright fiasco.  Many people wondered about how Obama, after years in Wright's church, could claim that he didn't ever see Wright's race hatred.

It becomes easier to believe when you realize that Obama is no more of a follower of Wright than he is of Robinson or Warren.  His consistent pattern of behavior gives us good reason to believe that his religion is opportunism.  I can accept that Obama joined Wright's church for no greater reason that for the credibility with and access to the parishoners of the community he hoped to organize, and what would become the political base for his entry into the world of politics.

Obama has given us no reason to believe he holds to any specific religious doctrine.  What's most likely is that he sees all religions as... equally useful.

I am a patient man, and I've bided my time letting bigger blogs than mine do the heavy lifting, but the time has come for me to sit back and speak my peace.

An article in Salon entitled "The Economic Civil War" by Michael Lind (I'm not providing a link; I see no reason to benefit this clown by sending him traffic) takes exception to resistance to the great socialist bailout of the Detroit automakers and the labor union that has so effectively ruined them, most vocally by Republican legislators from the South.  You can read about it here, and here (big tip o' the hat to both Misha at the Rottweiler and Dave at Ace of Spades - thanks, brothers!).

Now, for all I know, the Salon article may have been intended as satire; I sure didn't read it that way, then then, I'm just a dumb redneck and may not have the sophistication for Lind's Rust-Belt-loving nuanced way with words, bless his heart.  But the whole premise of this article is that this is not a matter of Detroit's Big Three building cars that no one wants (my Mustang notwithstanding) and the United Auto Workers pricing the cars out of the market, and some common-sense Senators saying there's something wrong with taking money from taxpayers (and their grandchildren) by force and transfering it against their will to these failing businesses; no, this clever and enlightened author recognized that in actuality, this is the endgame of a concerted economic war on the North being waged by the rogue South.  How could we not have seen it?

Never mind the fact that it's the North that's driving around in Camrys and Corollas, while the South keeps buying all those F-150s, Silverados and Rams.  City boy, we've been carrying Detroit.  His allegation that we're conspiring with Toyota's Japan and BMW's Germany really muddies his metaphor - he makes this all sound like World War Two, rather than the War of Northern Aggression.

He then goes on to propose that the only solution is to torch the South like Sherman by imposing on the South - by force of government - those same policies that have ruined the industrial North: unionization, artificially increased minimum wage levels, greater involvement of the Federal government through taxation and revenue sharing.  He repeatedly labels his imagined opposition as using "race-to-the-bottom" tactics - never mind that it's Detroit and the UAW that is in trouble; they're the ones facing bankruptcy and demanding a bailout, not Dixie, thank you very much.  The Northern auto industry destroyed itself, thank you very much, without any help from Johnny Reb.

I think I have the right to speak from a truly unique point of view; after all, I was born in Springfield, Massachusetts, to a pair of rock-ribbed New England parents, and quickly shuttled south to spend my formative years in Jacksonville, North Carolina; I like to tell people that I was nearly eight years old before I learned that "damn Yankees" was two words.  I stand in a place with roots equally on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line.  Presently living in Alhambra, California, barely a howitzer-shell distant from downtown Los Angeles, I consider myself as being uniquely qualified to see all sides of the playing field, and I think I recognized the Lind article for what it is: the last desperate act of the losing side before surrender becomes the sole remaining option.

Think about it!  He's demanding that we impose the policies on the South that are already destroying the North.  The North is facing economic collapse, and the only strategy he sees left (since he plainly won't consider the option of the North changing its self-destructive ways) is taking the South down with it.  We know from history that when one party to a conflict is considering this kind of strategy, it's clear that they already see their own imminent collapse and loss.  Do you see it?  The North is preparing to surrender!

I say that if this is the way they want it, then fine; I'm willing to offer the Yankees these terms of their surrender, and give them, gratis, an opportunity for a do-over on that whole secession-from-the-union thing:

The South shall freely secede from the Union.  For a period of twelve months, any persons residing in the South who wish to remain citizens of the North, or any persons residing in the North who wish to become citizens of the South, shall be given free passage to pull up roots and relocate to the state of their choice.  After that, any person legally residing in the South shall be deemed to have surrendered his citizenship to Washington DC and be granted citizenship in the South.  Dual citizenship shall not be recognized, as no man can serve two masters.

Y'all can keep your political correctness; we will get by on good, old-fashioned right and wrong.

Y'all can keep your Brady Bill and your gun control laws, and surrender your right to self-defense to the government; we'll keep our guns and our right to keep and bear arms, and for those few whose parents are unable to pass firearm skills on to their children, we'll teach it - probably in the second or third grade.

Y'all can keep your civil unions and bathhouses; we will continue to hold marriage as solely as a sacred uniting of one man and one woman.

Y'all can keep your Happy Holidays, and we'll keep our Merry Christmas.

Y'all can keep your open borders and your illegal aliens, your Bilingual Education and your amnesty; we'll keep our borders secure.

Y'all can keep your business-destroying labor unions; we'll recognize a citizen's right to work and to compete for jobs based on his own merit.

Y'all can keep your "separation of church and state" fanaticism and your abject fear of any public display of honest religion; we'll continue to hold a high regard for religious faith, start each session of the legislature and every graduation ceremony with prayer, and probably every day of school, too; and while we will respect any person's right to practice any religion he pleases, or none at all if he's so inclined, we'll also tell him that he doesn't have the right to silence the majority to cater to him just because he's different, and if he doesn't like it, he can sit quietly and respectfully for a few minutes while we pray, or politely step out of the room, or shut the hell up and move to New York - his choice.

Y'all can keep your big central government, pre-empting what used to be a sovereign union of many sovereign states, dictating to you how you can live you lives and use your property, and taxing you into poverty while they rule over you as your federal masters.  We'll recognize States' Rights and individual liberty, and our elected and appointed officials will be public servants, not our bosses.

In short, we'll have ourselves a government pretty much like what America started out being just a few short centuries ago; the North can continue on down the road to serfdom, collectivism, and subservience to the central government, for as long as they want, or at least, for as long as they can.

Obviously, there are going to need to be some details hammered out.  For example, we'll need to pick a name.  "The Confederate States of America" has already been tried.  We might vote for "The United Southern States," "Dixie," or something else.  We'll also need to pick a new capital, whether it's Richmond, Mobile, Memphis, or Montgomery.  The important thing, of course, is some agreement on which states will become members of the seceding South.

I told y'all that the South would rise again.  You heard it here first...

I've got to get around to working on my blogroll.

I got a pleasant e-mail from one of the writers at one of my daily reads, ThreeSources, offering me a place on their blogroll. Of course, I am a firm believer in a policy of reciprocal trade agreements, and I've been reading ThreeSources for a while, so I was delighted, and you'll find them added on to the blogroll below.

ThreeSources is a group blog, overseen by a team of very bright writers, and if you'll get them a visit, you'll find they're conversant on politics, current events, economics, and foreign relations. While they don't always agree with each other on everything (which keeps the banter level joyously brisk), they are deep in Smart Guys territory. They're also very readable. If we had people who think like these guys running the country, we would not be anywhere near the situation in which we presently are. Visit them; you'll be very glad you did.

Which leads to an interesting thought: no man is an island.

I've recently exchanged thoughts with a good handful of people as a result of blogging. A lot of it came from the "I Am John Galt" post here back on September 24. We've quietly compared notes, some of which you'll find in the next post, and we've concluded there's a real need for mutual support among genuine conservative bloggers. Let's face it - conservatives got left out in the cold in the recent election.

Stay tuned for further developments on this, but for right now, I'm going to plant a few seeds:

(1) Visit and encourage fellow conservative bloggers - and especially, leave a comment when you do! I know how much traffic I get, and how it compares to the comments. This is a conversation, not a monologue! Comment regularly, and let us know if you agree or disagree, and why. Nothing feels better than to know we're not alone.

(2) Think about a network of grassroots conservatives - exchanged blogroll links, for example.

That's it for this post. Watch this space for the next step on this; you're going to be introduced to some new people with some good ideas.

If you can read this post, thank a teacher.  If you can read this post in a free country and enjoy the blessings of liberty... thank a Marine.

Today, November 10, marks the 233rd birthday of the United States Marine Corps, the most distinguished branch of the military in the world.  With no offense intended toward any other branch of the American military, nor any disrespect intended for a number of elite organizations serving their own nations throughout the world, STAND confesses to a particular awe and respect for the Marine Corps.

Marines have a long and distinguished history for their courage and their combat expertise, forged in the fires of harsh combat.  The Corps has never flinched in the discharge of its duty, braving conditions that would wither other men.  As a result, Marines have proved themselves to be the most dangerous warriors on Earth.

Marines, I salute each of you who have earned the right to wear the Eagle, Globe and Anchor.  Tomorrow, the veterans of all branches share the day; but today belongs to the Marines.

Reader: now it can be told.  In the aftermath of the campaign season and the election, many citizens had been left perplexed at how the nation came to choose the leader it elected.  This writer spent months within one campaign as an assigned journalist, from the time of his party's nomination to the final decision back in November.  I honestly believe I had a unique advantage, having been able to see the candidate from within the campaign, and now that the election is past, I can freely share the account of the things I saw and heard.

I have covered four Presidential campaigns now, and I must say this is the most unusual one in which I have taken part.  To be honest, I was part of the attached press following a competitor in the primary, and I had thought it a dream assignment; by my own request, I accompanied the candidate for whom I was voting.  When my man was eliminated late in the primaries, it was only then that I was reassigned to the campaign that the following story will relate to you.

Segments of this story, of course, are not entirely first-hand; the parts that I dramatized were drawn from the accounts of other writers and eye-witnesses, and I pledge to you that those sections are faithful to their observations.  I hope you will forgive my dramatization, which I did solely to make this narrative flow more smoothly and more readably.

Further introduction would only be a waste of your time.  I give you, for your own edification, the insider's view of the Presidential campaign of Leonard "Len" Renard.


David Hinshaw turned off the television.  "That's it, friends," he announced to his collected advisors.  "Governor Renard has enough of a lead to lock the nomination for the Republicans.  He'll be our opponent in the November election, and I don't think he'll be very difficult to beat."  He found himself tempted to run around the room high-fiving all the others.

As a sitting Vice President at the end of a quiet two terms, he'd been the front-runner to receive the Democrat nomination and succeed the current President.  Even though there had been a few other candidates, they had been weak single-issue hopefuls.  The Republican campaign, on the other hand, had pitted three ambitious moderates against the upstart Renard, and their primary had been marked by strong words.  Renard had run as something of a firebrand, dismissed by some pundits as a crackpot.  Renard had cornered the conservative wing's vote, while the three moderates, all of whom wanted the Presidency too much to bow out of the race and defer to one of the others, had evenly divided the moderate vote.

Hinshaw and the Democrats had recognized this as a gift.  Running against Renard, a relative newcomer with no national experience, would clearly be easier that taking on any of the three others - two of whom were sitting Senators and all three of whom had run four years previously.  Renard, in contrast, was a two-term Nevada governor who had served briefly in the Nevada state legislature, and before that, in a few local offices in a rural part of the state - and those had been part-time offices to boot.

"So, do we open the champagne now?" came a voice from the back.

"No, it's late," Hinshaw answered.  "We've all stayed up watching to confirm the results of the primary.  I say we get some sleep, and meet bright and early to frame issues for the general election.  I want to revisit all of Renard's weaknesses, so we can start stressing them in the media."

"'Whores and poker for everyone!'" came a shout from a young aide, a reference to one weakness they had already decided they would exploit - Nevada's legalized gambling and prostitution, out of touch with most of America.  General laughter filled the room, and they began to exit, and the last to leave killed the lights.


"... and you know that the results in today's primaries," boomed the big voice of Len Renard, "put us over the top in the delegate count.  Because of your hard work, and everything you've done, we will be going into the Convention to receive the nomination, and as will be competing in November for the Presidency!"

The hall erupted into cheers, and it seemed like a hundred flashes from a hundred cameras seemed to fire in unison.  The light played off the bouquet of microphones, each representing a different broadcaster.

"This," Renard resumed, "has been a journey like no other, and you and I have made it together.  But it's not finished.  We still have a long way to go."  More cheers came; it seemed they would never end.  It was already late into the night, but Renard had stayed up waiting for the day's projections to be called, well after the polls had closed, and of course, the faithful had stayed up with him, sure that the day's primaries were the ones that would seal the nomination.  They had been right.

"Before I go any further," Renard continued, "I need to express my thanks to my remaining opponents: Senator Windell of Ohio, Senator Sarnecki of Wisconsin, and former Speaker Audell of Mississippi.  I hope I can count all three of them for their support in the coming months.  I know we have agreed on a lot of issues and disagreed on a lot of others.  But they are good men, and they have campaigned hard and honestly.  Support them, keep re-electing them, and give them all the encouragement they deserve."

Renard continued for perhaps another three or four minutes, mentioning twice that he knew how late everyone had stayed up for this event.  He then quickly brought it to his final point to wind it down.

"And as I promised, this will be a different kind of campaign, far from the manipulation and corruption that you and I have seen in previous elections.  Even now, I have sent my offer to Vice President Hinshaw to agree to a new kind of campaign.  And you want to know something?  It's not really new - it's old, and honest, and American.  Let me tell you the kind of campaign we're going to offer to run..."


An assistant at Hinshaw's headquarters picked up the fresh output from the fax machine.  As always, he scanned it quickly to get the main point and who it should go to.  Halfway into the second paraphaph, he stopped, tracked upwards again, and restarted.  He read two more paragraphs, and then skipped to the bottom.  It wasn't just from Mr. Renard's campaign; it was from Governor Renard himself, and he's signed it by hand.  It opened with friendly greetings and good wishes for the upcoming Democrat convention, and then announced himself as the putative nominee, something most everyone at the office had expected for weeks; in fact, it was an open secret that Hinshaw's speeches were laden with bullet-points that were meant to attack Renard's opponents, with a goal of making the volnerable Renard the nominee.

It was in the second paragraph that Governor Renard began laying out a proposal for a jointly agreed-to campaign plan.  As he realized what was being proposed, he broke into a canter to track down the overnight operations manager.  That manager in turn read the fax, then read it again.

"This is just nutty, that's what I say," the manager finally announced.

"What will Mr. Hinshaw say?" the assistant asked.

"He's already left the building and gone home.  I'll bet he's asleep by now."

"Do we wake him?"


More to follow...