I THINK ... there is no economic recovery with Obama-nomics.

It appears that the “recovery” recently proffered by President Obama and his Democrat cohorts is now falling into relapse -- at least that is the latest report from the economic wunderkind. We should not be surprised.

First: There has been no recovery. Oh sure, the stock market had some gains, foreclosures abated a bit and the rate of new joblessness started to level off. Don’t those things suggest recovery? Nope!

First of all, the stock market tends to respond to corporate profitability. Profits go up. Stocks go up. The reason, however, is not good. Corporate America’s bottom line starting looking better because of cost cutting, not increased sales – and cost cutting was largely in the workforce. That is why the stock market rose and unemployment did not go down.

Second: The Obama stimulus package was largely a waste of money. It was more like a pain killer that makes the pain lessen until it wears off. Now that the stimulus money passed through the financial system, the same old economic headache has returned. This is what happens when we treat only the symptoms and ignore the disease.

Finally: Obama did very little to fix the real problems. His attempts to have the government produce growth by financing work projects is a loser. Never worked, and never will. Remember, every time Obama says the federal money will create spending, and therefore jobs, he does not want you to understand that he took away the money, through taxes, from people who would have spent it, themselves.

His age-old scheme simply redistributes wealth from those who oppose him to those who support him. Obama is using the economic downturn as cover to impost his big government agenda on the United States. He is operating more like a looter who uses a disaster as a cover for his actions. It may be good Machiavellian politics, but certainly not good economics.

You might counter by noting that a lot of the money being spent by Obama is not from taxes, but from borrowing or simply printing more money. Borrowing only insures that we will have a much larger financial crisis in the future. He is literally stealing out children’s and grandchildren’s … and by this time maybe eve our great grandchildren’s ... money. This means a lower standard of living for future generations. This is not only bad economics, but immoral.

Printing money is another short term solution that will bring hyper inflation to a nation that will be, by then, reeling on the brink of economic chaos. They call it “stagflation.” Keep in mind that inflation can feel good because wages go up. This is not economic growth, as Obama and the Keynesians would have you believe. When you go to spend your wages at the store, you will find that your “buying power” will be no better, or even worse, as prices soar.

Government spending is often compared to a narcotic, since there is a certain short term good feeling followed by an inevitable crash – and people and institution do get “hooked” on government money.

Brace yourself for a rocky economic ride for the foreseeable future. For real relief, we should be looking at 2014 – two years after we toss out Obama and the Democrat leadership. If we do not, the long term outlook is grim.

I THINK ... the post office is like any government agency.

Every now and then, when a person is inclined to think government can do something ... anything … right, you are gifted with reality – sometimes with the most modest of examples.

Not long ago I received a letter from the United States Post Office. They explained that they were returning the contents of an envelope that they could neither deliver to the “unknown” addressee nor return it without opening the envelope. They returned my enclosed check and the accompanying brief note – finding my name printed on the check and apparently doing some sort of search to secure my address. I mean, if the Post Office cannot find your address, who can?

On the surface, it seems like pretty good service. However, you may change your mind when you learn that the check was made out to and mailed to … Ready for this? … the United States Post Office. That’s right. Apparently, they could not find their own address.

Sort of reminds me about the time I tried to call the phone store, only discover that they had an unlisted number.

Obama is no socialist

I THINK ... President Obama is not a socialist.

So, stop calling him one! He is not!

He is a fascist, and about that, I am not kidding.

First you must remember that he and his cadre are products of the Illinois (nee Chicago) Machine, the “banana republic” of American politics. It is that same form of government that produced Franco Spain, Mussolini Italy, Hitler Germany and the old dictatorships of South and Central America, Illinois. Yes, Chicago is a classic dictatorship – a fascist dictatorship.

For more than two generations, we feared and loathed Communist socialism, forgetting about the fascism we crushed in Europe in World War II. Our “eternal vigilance” has been so focused on the failed, frail and fading extreme socialism that we hardly recognize the threat of fascism.

Knowing the basic distinction between the two is critical to understanding why we are not sufficiently alarmed by what is happening in Washington. Socialism means the government taking over all aspects of civic life. In socialistic society, the government owns and operates everything. Except for the most minimal human interaction, there is no private sector, no personal property, and no inalienable individual rights that trump the pseudo rights of the collective as determined by an elite minority.

Like socialism, fascism is an authoritarian and elitist doctrine (again I refer you to Chicago), but with one great difference – maybe more in appearance than reality, but significant nonetheless. In fascism, the private sector succumbs to the power of the central government, but does not lose its technical private status. The great businesses become quasi governmental entities. The business leaders become less entrepreneurs and more like bureaucrats.

We can see this in the creation of Fannie May and Freddie Mac – two “banks” that are as much public sector a private. With the passage of the so-called financial reform legislation, the small banks are put to virtually fatal competitive disadvantage, while the big banks morph into Fannie and Freddie-type institutions. The Healthcare legislations is nothing less than a “great leap forward” for government run medicine.

The co-opting of General Motors is yet another example. Unlike a loan or the bailout that was given to Chrysler a generation ago, GM comes under the management control of the federal government. Through the use of unelected “czars” and bureaucrat overlords, GM is effectively being owned and operated by the central government. Obama even talks about hiring and firing officers. Car dealerships are now doled out by liberal congressmen to friends and contributors.

There is movement toward bringing other industries under “regulatory control,” such as energy and agriculture. Among the more ominous proposals is the “bailing out” of the old media companies, such as the New York Times and the Chicago tribune. Combined with efforts to force pro government viewpoints onto the media by edict, the independence of our “free” press is significantly imperiled. You should be thinking Pravda here.

One of the reasons we are blind to fascism is that it appears to align with free market conservatism – which is totally inaccurate. When bailing out (co-opting) Wall Street, it appears that the Obama administration is siding with a conservative business community – the private sector. This is the dangerous myth. Any true conservative abhors the neo-fascists business leaders as much as anyone.

For those who take the time to notice, the current crop of business leaders are not free market zealots, but fellow travelers of the “big brother” types who now control our federal government. They are buying into the unholy partnership. Their chief mission is personal wealth, power and glory – with little regard for America’s entrepreneurial tradition and dying spirit. In short, the fanged wolf of fascism is better able to hide beneath the lamb skin of capitalism. Socialism has no disguise.

Despite their pro-big government bias, the independent trade unions will be big losers. Already, the gigantic public sector unions, such as _______ and _______, are turning into the 500 pound gorillas. The United Auto Workers are already co-opted by the GM take over. Trade unionism will survive, but only as a government agency of sorts -- like those in China.

As President Lincoln once feared, we are a nation divided. The anxiety and conflict we see at the grassroots is due to the fact that we have reached the fulcrum between the dominance of individual free-market capitalism that gave America its strength and the highest standard of living in the world and fascism's road to an oppressive central government and the eventual decline and fall of the American democracy, as we know it.

Under Obama, and the Chicago Way, we are most certainly moving swiftly toward a stronger and more dominant federal government. No sane person can auger against that. This path leads inevitably to authoritarianism. Socialism and fascism cannot prevail in a society were power is truly derived from, and exercized by, the masses.

The American fate is sealed unless this country has the strength and the understanding to not only slow down the intrusion of the federal government into all aspects of our daily lives, but to commence a rollback that will restore the powers of the several states and the municipal governments. It is there where the people have their strongest influence, and there where matters of education, welfare, police protection, etc. can be most responsively and economically managed.

If we continue to be suckered into thinking that all matters of our daily lives must be addressed by the distant federal government, we are witnessing the last days of "the great American experiment in democracy."

Of human bondage ... liberal style

I was pondering our current economic and political situation and for some reason the term "slaves of the state" popped into my mind.

We know that the term had real meaning to the peasants of ancient China, the pyramid builders in the days of the pharaohs, the serfs of medieval Europe, the subjects of potentates, and even the proletariat of Communist Russia. In fact, it was not until the democratic experiment of the Greeks and Romans did mankind begin to envision of system of governance that was based on the assumed or God-given authority and inalienable rights of the governed. This has led to a growing global era of political, social and economic enlightenment -- and freedom. Central to political freedom was economic freedom -- to own property and freely distribute the earnings of one's labor. However, the forces of totalitarianism are an ever present danger.

Under one system, the people derive their rewards and success from the beneficence of the state -- be it a regime or an autocrat. You obey the rules of the state, turn over the fruits of your labor to the state for redistribution and accept the paternalistic care -- at least minimal care -- from the state according to the power elite's will, whims and their need to remain in power.

The key to any slavery is that the benefits of your labor are confiscated for the benefit of the slave master, first and foremost -- and subsequently doled out to those who support the system. In most cases, you, the peasant, receive only the barest of sustenance in return -- only a fraction of the value of your labor.

The key question is: When do you and I become slaves to the state? At which point is the confiscations of our personal wealth tantamount to slavery?

This is not a frivolous question. Most "slavery" does not come in the form of kidnapping, being sold to some private enterprise and whipped into submission. In fact, most slavery is the result of authoritarian governance -- slaves to the state. It can come by sweeping change as was the case in Chile, when the generals overthrew the democratically elected government. But, more often it comes by slow erosion, as the corruptive influence of power consumes more of our rights and freedoms with the false promise to improve the quality of our lives.

The most common characteristics of slavery is a wealthy elite and an impoverished captive laboring class. It is the same whether the enslaved is chattel or just subjected to the dependency on government for life's minimal essentials. If you look closely, you realize that the residents of the American socialist ghettos are captive -- stuck in generational poverty and segregated, figuratively and literally, from the personal opportunities of free market America.

You not only find slavery in America's Old South, but in every society governed by rulers. The evidence of the suffering of the masses in undemocratic societies is so overwhelming as to be indisputable. All-powerful governments produce deprived masses. It can be called communism, socialism, Marxism, feudalism, or whatever. The more the state possess decision-making power over the lives of the governed, the more the governed are "slaves of the state."

Many liberal political science professors like to proffer the theoretical benefits of a "benevolent dictatorship" as the potentially best form of government. However, significant examples of this "ideal" are impossible to find. Therefore it is safe to say that the more a government confiscates the value of our productivity, the more we are enslaved. More government means less freedom. Simple as that.

The Greco/Roman precepts of democracy have given those who live under them the most advanced and highest standard of living in history. Political freedom, the right to own property, pick our leaders, and engage in free market enterprise have brought the commoner personal wealth beyond the wildest imagination -- far better than even those in this modern world who are still enslaved to their state.

While state-desired innovation has occurred under totalitarian regimes, it pales compared to the staggering progress achieved for the masses under free market capitalism. The Soviet Union did not sire the technology that got them into space or balanced our nuclear advantage. They stole it. And while the Russians and Red Chinese were able to focus on specific competitive military technologies (the so-called "arms race"), the people of their nations lived two centuries behind the average American.

As Ronald Reagan said, we are always only one generation away from totalitarianism. The democratic revolution in France, that was to mimic our own, ended with the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte. The more democratic Mensheviks of the Russian Revolution were crushed by the brutal statism of the Bolsheviks. Democracies are always threatened by forces, internal and external, which would enslave the public. This is why Thomas Jefferson admonished us to "eternal vigilance."

So, what is the point.

The point is that we have every reason to be fearful with what is happening in Washington today. It is currently calculated that we already work for government from January 1 until mid August -- more than half a year. This means that more than half of the wealth you and I earn is confiscated and redistributed by government. For most of the year, we already are "slaves of the state."

As if that is not bad enough, we now have a regime in Washington determined to extend or servitude even more. Like all would-be dictatorship, they claim that the government must provide the benefits to society since you and I are not either capable enough or good enough. Like all statists, the radical Democrats currently in power demonize the producers of wealth as greedy and immoral -- and only their government can protect the poor, the infirmed, the needy, and the very natural world in which we live from the evil of our intentions.

This sounds good, like the pitch of the snake oil salesman, but look at the reality of their world. We need not look to history or overseas to find the examples of socialistic statism. Detroit was a city run by radical socialists. The most "liberal" (read that socialistic) states in America are on the verge of economic collapse.

After a speech in a African American church in one of Chicago's Democrat-run ghettos, I was challenged by an young lady to explain what free markets and capitalism has done for her. I told her, "Nothing." Before she got too smug, I explained that she does not live in free market American. She is trapped in socialist America -- an island of socialism surrounded by the obvious benefits for capitalism.

I often refer to the plight of modern inner city African Americans as the second great enslavement. They are trapped in dependency on the meager hand out of the government masters. Like the American slavery that ended with Abraham Lincoln, the new and more subtle economic slavery of today results in depravation of housing, depravation of food, depravation of healthcare, depravation of education, depravation of mobility and depravation of personal freedom. For meager considerations, the slaves of yore were to pick cotton. Today, the enslaved minorities provide the political plantation owners with votes.

More than anything, our founders were small "d" democrats, and more than anything they feared unbridled government as the enemy of the people. "The government that governs least, governs best." "A government that can give you anything, can take away everything." Their warnings ring through their writings, which, by no coincidence, are no longer taught in our government-run schools.

One can argue the extend of the danger in Washington today, but can anyone really say that we are not moving in the direction of an authoritarian regime? Already, the grip of Washington is so strong that many see it as inconceivable to take back the influence of the federal government.

Over the course of my blogs, I will examine this most critical issue from different perspectives.

Is the GOP being stupid ... again?

As the saying goes, I have been around the block a few times ... and this political neighborhood is looking very familiar.

I am talking about the tendency of the GOP to win elections every day EXCEPT Election Day. I am hearting a lot of excitement and opitimism these days. Big gains in November are being predicted by pundits of every stripe. Some even say the pachyderm party will take control of the Congress.

Republicans are giddy becasue they believe the current mode will prevail through election day. The Democrats are willing to concede to any extreme prediction in order to make the GOP over confident. That is the Chicago way of politics.

Typically, the Democrats do not campaign seriously until eight weeks before Election Day. That strategy was told to me by a Chicago Democrat operative some 45 years ago, when I was president of my college Young Republicans. For a generation and a half, I have watch the GOP get sucker punched in the Land of Lincoln.

Fool me once, your shame. Fool me twice, my shame. Fool me for 45 years, my stupidity.

Wait until September, when the national Democrat machine, now run by David Axelrod and the Chicago political mob.

The healthcare battle should be a lesson to the ways of the Chicago crowd. Vicory and vanquish. They are without doubt the most partisan and ruthless political characters in America.

Back again ... and better than ever?

Been a really incredible six months since I last posted. Rather than get into all the details, let me just say that it is good to be back ... and I hope I can be more disciplined in the future.

No No Nobel Prize ... and why not?

Nothing gives more evidence of the narrow philosophic view of the grantors of the Nobel Peace Prize than the omission of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.

The bold diplomacy of Nixon transformed China from dangerous adversary to friendly trading partner. In bringing down the old Soviet Union, Reagan ended the 40 year Cold War. No diplomatic efforts in

modern times have brought more global peace and stability.

The largely failed or nonexistent peace making accomplishments of Nobel winners Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama fade to inconsequential by comparison. If you add Al Gore as another recent political recipient, the Nobel Peace Prize becomes a farce.

Peace prize and past presidents

When it comes to awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to U.S, presidents, the folks in Oslo have had a dubious record. Four American Chief Executives have received the Award: Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Jimmy Carter and now Barack Obama.

Roosevelt was famous for his statement that American should “speak softly, but carry a big stick.” Of course, the “big stick” was military might, which he tended to deploy with little hesitancy. The bellicose Mr. Roosevelt was never known to speak softly – literally or figuratively.

Woodrow Wilson let this nation into the “war to end all wars” – which it did not. Perhaps the Nobel committee was impressed with his failed effort to create a League of Nations. They were, and are consistent promoters of unitary global governance. They apparently were not concerned that Wilson was a virulent racist who segregated the armed forces, among other things.

Then there was Jimmy Carter, who produced a series of high visibility summits and peace accords in the Middle East. You may be aware that the good work of Jimmy Carter has not provided a moment of peace in that region.

And into this undistinguished field cometh Barack Obama., taking time away from managing two major wars (in Carter’s Middle East, no less) to accept the Nobel Peace Prize. In one way, he may be more deserving than the others. Where they have all failed, Obama has done nothing.

Nothing Noble about the Nobel Prize for Obama

The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama is not about his accomplishments in advancing world harmony. He has none. In fact, his continuation of the war in Iraq -- despite his campaign promises -- his expansion of the war in Afghanistan, his appropriate threats against Iran’s nuclear program and the unveiling of America's newest super bomb would have brought George Bush the derision of the left-wing Nobel committee.

Why then the prize?

It is quite simple. The Nobel folks did not award Obama the Prize in recognition of any accomplishments, but as a means of promoting his embrace of their “after America” global view in which the United States is only a participant in an international collective, not a noble leader. The Obama doctrine repudiates the concepts of America as an inspiring beacon of democracy, as well as the traditional “America first” perspective of his 42 predecessors. Not since President Franklin Pierce secretly aligned with the Confederacy has a president stood in such opposition to the fundamentals of America.

Obama’s increase in world popularity results from his decision to build himself into a global personality at the expense of a weaker America, political and economically. From community organizer to President of the United States, Obama has always found comfort with the critics of America -- not just differences over policy, but a repudiation our fundamental concepts of limited government, personal freedom and free market capitalism. In many ways, he is the anti-Reagan.

The awarding of this year’s Prize does not reflect Obama’s accomplishments, but reveals in stark clarity the vehemently anti-American view of the Oslo committee. To have them in premature praise and promotion of this President ought to have us significantly concerned about what they find so appealing about him.

A postmortem on the postmortem of Ted Kennedy

Have we passed the mourning period for Ted Kennedy yet? Since his name now appears in the press less than Princess Di, I assume we have. I did not want to seem disrespectful at the moment of the Senator’s internment, and I thought I should wait to see if my reflections of the moment would prevail over time. They did, and I assume it is now safe to be disrespectful.

You see, there was a moment in time that I thought the Kennedy industry would set aside their usual pompous self importance and their habit of putting everything in their lives (and deaths) to some partisan political advantage. They presume that somehow their personal affairs (no pun intended) are of epic historic proportions. If their family constitutes an American dynasty it should be appropriately known as the Dysfunctional Dynasty.

I was hoping for some dignity in the latest Kennedy nationalized funeral. Now, I said “dignity” – not to be confused with pomposity and grandeur. In that, they are without peers. To be brutally blunt, the funeral and the reporting thereof, especially the left wing blogs, made me puke – well, figuratively.

The objectives of the Hyannis Port public relations machine were three-fold. First, was the effort to sanitize a history of debauchery and immorality that characterized the youngest of the Kennedy boys to a greater degree than his older siblings. No small task, to be sure. Second, to advance his legislative agenda. Third, to create the illusion of good standing with his Catholic Church.

I know one does not usually delineate shortcomings in obituaries – although the most dramatically flawed public figures often find their peccadilloes noted along side the accomplishments in the public press --especially if they are conservative or Republican.

However, the Kennedy obits, written and spoken, created an entirely fictional character. Listening to one speaker after another delineating the biography of Kennedy, the man, I was unable to find anything recognizable from my 45-years of observation of his public life (and a few personal involvements with him). Funereal protocol aside, I must say, there was not much to admire about the man other than his successful grasp of fame, fortune and power.

The second mission of the Hyannis Port public relations machine was to put as much steam behind the faltering healthcare legislation as possible. The funeral was less a wake than a lobbying event. “Single payer” and “public option” were as common an uttering as the more conventional “doesn’t he look good” and “he will be missed.”

Any hope of solemnity and dignity, evaporated in the crassly political content of the various memorial events. The Intercessions portion of the high Mass (in which God is called upon to bless specific pleadings) became a roll call of his liberal legislative agenda. Apparently, the Lion of the Senate was channeling his political roar through his own requiescat.

Obituary after obituary favorably referenced Kenney’s political causes, with an array of political guests advancing the illogical notion that Kennedy’s demise should, for some reason, end opposition to the liberal agenda – especially the current healthcare bill. Some suggested that they should pin Kennedy’s name on H.R. 3200 as if that, in and of itself, would de-putrefy the proposal.

Thirdly, there was the painfully obvious effort to turn the apostate into a devout Catholic. I do not think Mother Theresa could have been deemed a more faithful Catholic than the dead Kennedy based on the eulogies.

The low point was the letter to the Pope from the dying senator, carried to His Eminence by none other than President Barack Obama – perhaps the most powerful messenger angel ever so deployed. Keeping with the Democrats’ and the Kennedy’s propensity for the grand scale lie, Kennedy introduced the President to the Pope as a man of enormously deep faith.—who, incidentally, is still trying to figure out where to attend church in D.C.

The epistle to the Pope was nothing less than a pre-posthumous, self-serving stunt to make Kennedy appear to be a devout Catholic. It, too, contained Kennedy’s legislative agenda. The letter carried to the Pope served both the legislative and the canonization purposes.

However, the Holy Father was to smart to be suckered into a backhanded absolution of Kennedy’s Catholic failures. Teddy received a reply from a staffer that was more or less a boilerplate “thanks for your letter” response, with a promise of some prayers on the Senator’s behalf -- much like the letter my wife’s grandmother received posthumously from the previous Vicar of Christ via a staffer.

The grandeur of the Catholic funeral would suggest the demise of one of the Knights of Malta. The praise of powerful clerics reinforced the image. Kennedy’s own priest/confidant gave an obituary that was so biased that even the press called it an attempt to refute any critics who might question Kennedy’s devotion to and good standing with the Church of Rome. Not only was Kennedy given the appearance of a general absolution for his apostasy, but it was alleged that his separation from the Catholic Church never occurred.

Despite the best efforts of the powerful Kennedy media mill, there were hints of the bad Catholic Kennedy. In a sly political move, the funeral was shifted from the likely Boston Cathedral to a lesser church so there would be an excuse for Cardinal Seán P. O'Malley to take a pass on officiating. He had been under considerable of pressure from pro-life Catholics to reject a high ritual canonization-style ceremony. At Arlington Cemetery, it was retired Cardinal Theodore McCarrick who did the honors.

Dealing with the letter from the Pope …er … not the Pope, the Kennedy media spinners began selling the notion that it is the tradition of the Pope to answer through underlings. Of course, this is true for all the mundane mail the Pontiff receives, but the Pope actually does communicate in writing when he see fit. He did not see fit in this case. Put in its proper perspective, the Pope showed more contempt than respect for the public relations gimmick.

According to the Catholic Church, anyone who engages in abortions, patient or practitioner, and anyone who supports abortions exists outside the Catholic communion. It is an excommunicable offense – beyond the simple matter of confession and absolution. Repentance and forgiveness requires a course correction. Senior Church theologians have placed the encouragement of abortions as an automatic excommunication. You will recall that when running for President, Senator John Kerry was denied communion for his stand on abortion.

It seems to me that no amount of power and money, and no level of corruption within the Church, can alter God’s mandates as Catholic teachings state and enforce them. On this issue alone, Kennedy cannot offer himself as a devout Catholic adherent. He may not have been a Catholic at all in the eyes of the true Church.

The Catholic Church’s bending to the power and money of the Kennedys has garnered it significant and well deserved disrespect. Bending dogma to accommodate Kennedy’s cash-on-the-barrelhead annulment of his 25-year marriage to his first wife and mother of his children; to overlook his stand on abortion, the Church’s most fundamental issue of the day; and to turn a blind eye to his public infidelity and his repeated tendency to cause scandal (another major Catholic no-no) have all harmed the Church more than it helped him. The Church’s granting him its highest rituals, honors and endorsements have shown the Boston Catholic hierarchy to be as easily bought off as a Chicago city inspector.

Even from the grave, Kennedy is his own salesman. His recent book is little more than a long press release to spin his tawdry legacy into a Camelot fantasy. To entitle his autobiography “True Compass” is reflective of his unmitigated gall. “Crooked Shillelagh” might have been a more appropriate title.

Following the assassination of brother John Kennedy, there was a folk ballad with the lament “Johnny we hardly know ya.” In hearing the funeral oratory and examining the posthumous autobiography, one can come to the same conclusion about Teddy.

The Lion of the Senate will roar no more

On the passing of Ted Kennedy, we are being deluged with nothing short of a canonization obituaries – as if extreme praise will obliterate the facts of his personal history. The Kennedy family, their circle of friends and the press have always been treated like royalty. The occasions of their lives are always cast as some seminal historic event. Only the gods of Olympus could equal Kennedy's thundering oratory.

Certainly, Kennedy was a powerful senator, and a political tour de force. I give him that much. I will also respect the left’s affection for a man who carried the standard for so many of their causes.

But there is the other reality. The man had the personal ethics of a back alley crap shooter. Throughout most of his life he was noted for his lapses, not his achievements. He got into Harvard not on the merits of his intellect or academic achievement, but simply due to the pocketbook of his parents – a practice that has brought scandal down on the University of Illinois system. He was bounced out of Harvard twice for cheating. Daddy’s money took care of that.

He was both cowardly and criminal in leaving the scene of an accident that cost the life of MaryJo Kopechne. He ran from the scene in an attempt to conceal his involvement. He called family and political aides before police and medics. Reports suggest that the young lady had enough air trapped in the submerged vehicle to have survived a rescue. One judge said outright that the late senator was the cause of MaryJo’s death. By all accounts, the distinguished senator from Massachusetts was guilty of vehicular homicide. Again the Kennedy money thwarted justice and accountability.

He destroyed is first marriage, and almost destroyed his first wife, with womanizing, drunkenness and belligerence. His fame and financial contributions to a corrupt Catholic Church system bought him a unique annulment after a long consummated marriage with children – and disrespect to the Church that genuflected to the Kennedy power and wealth.

While his office issued central casting photos of a handsome statesman with flowing white hair, the tabloids had a field day showing the real Ted Kennedy as a blubberous drunken sot cavorting with an endless string of women.

The man dubbed as the “Lion of the Senate” by a fawning gallery of liberal leaders was really more of an alley cat.

He slowed down in later years, his body somewhat ravaged by decades of abuse. Once it was obvious the Kennedy clan had no inherited right to the Oval Office, and his flaws were great to win public acceptance as the nation’s leader, Kennedy seemed to focus on his career almost exclusively. Perhaps there was a moment of epiphany -- a redemption that somehow escaped the Kennedy public relations machine. I hope so. I hope he found his way to heaven. I really do. But that does not mean I find his departure from this mortal shore an uncompromised loss. It still could be that he took more from this world than he gave.

It is ironic that the Democrats should lose his voice and his vote as Congress comes to a moment of truth on Kennedy’s trademark issue – nationalized healthcare.

May he rest in peace.

FOOTNOTE: One way to look at the excessive attention given the Kennedys is to look a political family with an equally impressive record of public service – the apparently more humble Bush family. Old Prescott was a U.S. Senator for Connecticut. His son, George H., was in Congress, headed the CIA, served as ambassador to China, Vice President and then President of the United States. In the third generation, George W. was in Congress, then Governor of Texas and on to the White House. George W.’s brother served as Governor of Florida. The Kennedy advantage in gaining public attention may be due to monumental ego, dysfunctionality to the point of repeated scandal, and liberal bonefides that turned the press and historians in to flaks.

OP ED: Burris burrows in ... as well he should.

Many in the pundits in the press conjecture that Illinois Senator Roland Burris (pictured with Senate President Harry Reid) will have to resign as a result of the onslaught of negative publicity fomented by the press, itself. This media feeding frenzy has been given more heft than it deserves by a gaggle or self-serving politicians who either have an interest in replacing Burris with themselves of an ally, or merely see piling on as a hook to get their name and face in the press for another day. The psychology that is driving this hyper hype is the same that leads mobs of otherwise descent people to “take matters into their own hands” as an outcome of irrational hysteria.

So many of those calling for Burris’ resignation claim to respect him and consider him a friend. They cite his distinguished career. He is often described simply, but meaningfully, as “a good man.” Are we to conclude from this that the U.S. Senate is no place for “a good man?”

More specifically, all the jawboning and editorializing in the world cannot force the resignation. Only the U.S. Senate can expel a member, and it is more than likely that the collegial Upper Chamber lacks the authority or resolve to take such action in this case.

There are two major reasons that Burris should not resign. First, he has done nothing that warrants his stepping down. Yes, there have been inconsistencies in his testimonies and affidavits – nothing, according to prosecutors, that rises to the level of perjury. Despite media smears that have label Burris an egregious liar, his inconsistencies are not too far outside the range of anyone being asked questions in different ways on different occasions -- and certainly nothing near the level of prevarication by those who now smugly demand his ouster. Unfortunately, such hypocrisy is pandemic in politics.

The second reason is that Burris needs to complete his current term to have any chance to reclaim his hitherto pristine reputation as public official. For some 30 years, Burris was praised by the political, civic and business communities as an outstanding public servant and honorable man – never even a hint of scandal (quite and accomplishment in Illinois). But even that history has been twisted, distorted and re-written by press and politicians to further demonize him. Once known for his friendly manner, accessibility and humility, Burrs is now labeled an arrogant hack.

If he were to resign today, he would slip into the shadow of public attention as the press created caricature. He would leave the public stage with the unfounded accusations of his detractors as his legacy.

Some say that the controversy leaves him powerless to perform his duties. How so? He still has all the powers of his office, his intellect and his skills. He can and will wheel and deal with the best of them. His colleagues are not likely to shun him for the benefit of the home town lynch mob – especially since they need his vote to stay close to that veto proof number and he still has the distinction and advantage of being the Senate’s token African American.

Once it is obvious that he will not resign, I suspect the media will cool down and shift lens and pens to some new political reality show – new indictments, new scandals, new investigations, the trial of Rod Blagojevich (or maybe just the antics of Rod Blagojevich). This will give Burris an opportunity to settle in as a hard working Senator for another 18 months – and longer if the public suddenly finds their incited anger turning to a sense of guilt.

People in the public eye are often advised to step down at the peak of the career to lock in their future reputation. Conversely, it is not advisable to step down at the nadir.

REACT: Making your car a tax taxi.

It just goes to show that you cannot rely on Republicans to have any respect for American freedom. They can be as avaricious of tax money and as contemptuous of public privacy and freedom as any so-called progressive Democrat. Big Brother has more than a few siblings in the GOP camp. How bad can it be if President Barack Obama has to oppose a federal government tax increase and power grab proposed by one of his own Cabinet members -- an infamous RINOs (Republican In Name Only), to be sure?

Once again the American public was about to be hoodwinked, or should I say LaHood-winked. Seems that newly minted Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, an Illinois insider Republican (need I say more?) has proposed that drivers be taxed on the miles driven by having a GPS unit mandated for all cars (increasing the sticker price, of course). Essentially, you car becomes a tax taxi.

LaHood proposed to nationalize a concept that is being explored in a few states, including Massachusetts (need I say more?). The mileage charge would vary according to the driving locations. City drivers, where there is more congestion, would pay a higher rate. Rural drivers, where cow flatulence is the most serious pollutant according to our environmental geniuses in Washington, would be taxed at lower rates. The GPS feature, will allow that rate to change automatically as you travel from zone to zone. Of course, government issued cars would not be taxed.

One of the outcomes of this creative taxing is a form of punishment for drivers using low-fuel consumption vehicles. The feds are afraid that lower usage will reduce tax revenues. Duh!

Now … they could just increase the gas tax to achieve the same result. So, why not? Because … this new form of taxation will provide government with two things it loves almost as much as our money. It will give them a reason to establish another cancerous bureaucracy (probably in LaHood’s DOT) and provide a windfall of personal tracking information on every citizen in America.

I suspect the next group in support of this will be law enforcement officials, who will claim that they can track suspects through this system. No one can argue that constant, around-the-clock surveillance of all citizens can reduce the crime rate. But … a police state is not what the founders had in mind.

Fortunately, President Obama has slapped down his Trans Secretary in rather firm tones. This will not be the policy of his administration. Whether he comes to this out of conviction or political savvy – realizing the public backlash that would ensure – is of no consequence. Give him credit where credit is due.

Footnote: Anyone who thought LaHood would bring conservative Republican values to his new post does not know him or the political environment from whence he comes. Putting him at DOT is akin of inviting the fox in the hen house – case in point.

NOTABLE QUOTABLE: The voice of Ronald Reagan

Sometimes a person writes something that cannot be improved by analysis or editing. I recently read this article by Michael Reagan, son of the late President. Rather then regurgitate his points with less eloquence, I thought you should just read what he wrote. So here it is.

Requiem For A Republic
By Michael Reagan
February 14, 2009

It is not true that grown men don't cry. I'm grown and I'm on the verge of tears. A Republic I have loved all my life is being is being murdered and the crime is an inside job.

If you hear a whirring sound in the background it is my dad Ronald Reagan, who loved and served this nation, spinning in his grave as his latest successor plunges a carving knife into America's vital organs.

In his wildest dreams Ronald Reagan never thought that a president of a United States, now in the throes of a serious economic crisis, would adopt a solution to the problems of our economy that would not only worsen the situation, but set in motion the beginning of a transition of the government of the United States from a Constitutional Republic into a coercive quasi-Marxist regime where Washington is the master of our people instead of their servant.

Let it be said loud and clear: Barack Obama's so-called stimulus bill, feverishly embraced by his sticky-fingered Democratic minions in the House and Senate (and three craven Republican senators), will not do a single thing to revive our ailing economy. Nothing.

Instead it will put Washington's grasping hands into every nook and cranny of America's economic and social life, and bankrupt an already penurious nation for generations to come.

Think about it -- nearly a trillion dollars to be squandered on a host of pork-laden projects, payoffs to pet leftist groups and causes grasping for their share of the booty, and a few bucks to create jobs, mostly in the public sector.

A trillion dollars we don't have and will need to borrow from our grandchildren and their offspring. A trillion dollars created out of thin air that will drastically reduce the value of the dollars in our pockets in an orgy of runaway inflation.

It wasn't all that long ago that spending a billion dollars on government projects and programs was viewed with alarm. As the late Sen. Everett Dirksen once said, "A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you're talking about real money."

A trillion dollars is $1000 billion, a sum that the imagination cannot comprehend.

If you could have spent a million dollars every day since Christ was born you would not even come close to having spent a trillion dollars, yet Mr. Obama and his wastrel Democratic stooges on Capitol Hill have no qualms about spending that amount -- and more -- on programs that will do nothing to alleviate the current economic crisis, and in many ways worsen it.

Have we forgotten what Thomas Jefferson warned us when in 1791? He said, "To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. If we run into such debts, we (will then) be taxed in our meat and our drink, in our necessities and in our comforts, in our labor and in our amusements. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labor of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they (will) be happy."

Jefferson would have refused to believe that a free people would allow their government to saddle them and their children and grandchildren with a debt so enormous they could not even begin to comprehend.

Nor would he have even dreamt of the government wasting money on projects noted by former Georgia Rep. Bob Barr, such as a billion dollars to subsidize money-losing Amtrak, $20 billion to expand the already-bloated food stamp program, about $2 billion diverted from the wallets of hard-working Americans to subsidize childcare, and $2.8 billion to fund advocacy programs studying the global-warming hoax.

There's another $600 million for newer cars for government bureaucrats $44 million to refurbish the Department of Agriculture, $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts, and $150 million to spruce up the Smithsonian buildings and more than $400 million to promote anti-smoking programs and programs to fight sexually transmitted diseases.

That's what future generations of Americans will be paying for. I'm sure they'll thank us.

OP ED: Holiday angst

I get a little testy about the February holiday season.

First there is SAINT Valentine's Day. I am by far not a holy roller, but I resent the so-called mainstream transforming this day to simply "Valentine's Day" out of some politically correct secularization. I not only fault the liberal goo goos, but the media and the card, candy and carnation advertisers for censoring the traditional name of the holiday. St. Valentine was a real person, and this celebration of loving kindness has historic roots in the St. Valentine legend.

Then there is Presidents' Day. We once celebrated the individual birthdays of our first President, George Washington, and our greatest President, Abraham Lincoln, with separate days in February. Now we have some nebulous day recognizing all our chief executives. Some how, lumping Washington and Lincoln in with Millard Fillmore, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton is an abomination. I think the Martin Luther King holiday is fine, but it seems ironic that he can have his own day and the likes of Washington and Lincoln are shuffled in a deck with a few too many jokers. In fact, King is the only person in American history now to have his own personal national holiday. No matter how much you admire King, that is just not right.

I TOLD YA SO: Blago hits the celebrity trail

After the booting out of office of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, a lot of the smarty pants reporters and pundits were lamenting their belief that the colorful and headline making public official would sink into some sort of oblivion. I predicted that he would continue to maintain high visibility as a celebrity in his own right. Well, one look at his post-ouster national media schedule and you can see that Blago is going to give Paris Hilton a run as the spotlight hog of the year. He even appeared on the David Letterman Show. That's star status.

Frankly, I'm at a loss to see why so many reporters and columnists think the media tour is so stupid. What do they expect -- that he will sulk at home until the feds carry him off to court for a quick trial before he is marched up to the gallows?

The media schtick makes perfect sense. He is getting a lot of criticism for what some think is an attempt to influence future jurors -- you know, makes him sort of human, funny and maybe some of his protestations of innocence will be persuasive? And why not? What's he got to lose.

Granted ... he could not deflect the impeachment by the Illinois House and conviction by the Illinois Senate. And despite all the swagger in public, it is mostly likely that he is going to get convicted and sent to the pen. In the meantime, he will be one of the more interesting personalities this side of Drew Pearson.

REACT: Recalling the uterus

Warning: This blog is a bit "salty" as they used to say. If you are clueless, it means that there is adult content and language herein. X-rated, as they say today. Maybe only R -- if you are more liberal in these matters.

As they used to say on Monty Python ... and now for something completely different.

Despite the title over this blog, it is not about some reminiscence of the womb. No. It seems a newly introduced toy "plush uterus" (yeah, you read it right) had to be recalled because the ovaries constitute a "choking hazard." (I will not proceed until you stop laughing -- and hopefully you are not now spewing out a mouth full of coffee.) This news report invites an almost endless number of comedic and/or vulgar retorts. However, you will have to think of them on your own since I will not indulge you with mine.

What I will express is my utter bewilderment as to why this toy was ever conceived. (<-- Did I use a poor choice of words in that sentence?) What parent, in their right mind would bring home this furry piece of anatomy for their daughter? And surely not for their son. My suspicion is that this is a product directed at wacko feminist mommies. You know ... the ones that go to the theatre to see a production the title of which refers to a vocal version of the same organ. Someone should tell them that when their darling daughter asked for a furry pussy, she probably meant a cat.

And what can you do with this toy besides sucking off the ovaries? Cuddle with it? Use it as a pillow? Banish THAT image from my mind. I am not sure what this toy is called. I'm thinking maybe Miss Cutie C*nt would work.

Is this to be an educational toy? If so, will these enlightened little girls reach puberty thinking that they will grow fuzz insides like the telltale hair in all those other body places? And what about that smiley face? Frankly, if I had just looked at this "thing" without prior knowledge, my first guess would not have been a uterus. Way no. I would be thinking a colorized Casper the Ghost carrying a couple plums. Or maybe Barney as a baby. How educational is that?

No boys' version? No Mr. Cuddle C*ck? Maybe the manufactures recognized the obvious chocking hazard without having our government have to tell them. Also, how do you market a symbol of manhood to those wacky fems? Still, I think if we want boys and girls to play well with each other, there needs to be some equity here.

I am also disturbed by the concept of "sharing." I am certainly not the type of parent to advise my daughter to share her uterus with her friends. And I do not want to console my little sweetheart because the boy next store took her uterus and won't give it back. Even worse ... I may have to go next door and tell the parents that their son has my daughter's uterus and will not give it back.

Enough already. Next time you take the kids to the local toy store, make sure you check out the X-rated section.

OBSERVATION: Random thoughts on Blago's political demise.

I have a few closing thoughts on the ousting of Governor Rod Blagojevich.

Thought One: Almost unnoticed in the impeachment and removal from office of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was a provision that he be barred from ever again running for office in Illinois. I think this is overkill … piling on. Frankly, I think the Legislature is way out of bounds in preventing him from running for any office in the future – including Governor.

I mean, I wouldn’t vote for him. His chance of being elected to any major office is pretty minimal. However, I think he should have the right to run, and the voting public should have the right to decide to hire him or not – and not be pre-empted by a mob of over heated politicians.

While the odds suggest Blago will get indicted and convicted, that is not a certainty. What if he beats the rap? He is then an innocent man. What then?

Thought Two: I wonder … if this all happened one year earlier, would Barack Obama have made it to the White House. For sure, the world outside of Illinois had no idea just how corrupt is the political environment that spawned President Obama. So much of life is timing. (I put this item in as a shameless means to get a photo of Obama in the Blog and attract search engines. Forgive me ... but it seems the thing to do these day.)

Thought Three: I heard some pundits chagrining the fact that they will not have Rod Blagojevich around to generate news. They opined that he will now fade into the shadows of public attention. I think not. In fact, I expect Blago to continue to be a very highly visible public figure -- continuing to champion his cause in the main spotlight. More interestingly, he is very likely to seek revenge on his enemies – now as a citizen accuser – by dragging them before the same court of public opinion in which he was convicted.

While the self righteous political leaders sell themselves as the noble civic tribunes, I sort of think of them a bit more like Mafia don’s disposing of one of their own – you know – the guy that became a “problem” to the bosses. There is one of these characters in every mob movie.

Also, I am sure Blago knows where a lot of political bodies are buried and the impeachers forgot to take away his shovel. In view of the large volume of taped conversations, I suspect that a lot of others will find their hitherto secret schemes exposing them to a lot of embarrassment, minimally, and maybe criminal complicity. I dare say, old Blago could actually wind up being an unintentional agent of reform.

So cheer up sports fans. We are about to go into extra innings.

Thought Four: Most objective observers seem to agree that the press lost all sense of fairness and impartiality in the coverage of Barack Obama. It would appear that is also true in the case of Rod Blagojevich -- althought it was wrath, not adulation, that powered the disturbing bias. I mean, I don't like Blago at all, but I expect the media to adhere to traditional standards of professional objectivity. Rather than report on the issues, they scolded him, mocked him, belittled him. He was ravaged from every perspective ... news, editorials, columns and talk shows. At times, I could not tell if Blago's antics or the reporting of them was more outrageous. I guess both politicians and the press lose their perspective when offered an opportunity to be pompous.

Thought Five: Is the Blago saga reminding you -- as it is me -- of the Huey Long (right) epic? If you recall, he was the highly corrupt populist governor of Lousiana. He also was removed from office, but by only one disgruntled government employee with a gun. Blago had 59 disgruntled government employees with an impeachment. Ballots. Bullets? Same result ... well ... almost. If you have no idea what I am talking about, go to Blockbuster and rent the movie. All the King's Men. The author of the story claimed it was not about Huey Long. Yeah! Right! Just like Citizen Kane is not about William Randolph Hearst.

REACT: Governor ousted ... but was it proper?

First the obligatory disclaimer: I am no fan of Governor Rod Blagojevich. I did not like his policies. I think he is most likely guilty of criminal conduct, and will be convicted and sent to prison. I think he deserves no less.

BUT …

I am equally distressed by the way he was removed from office. What transpired is the closest thing to a coup that I have seen under our American system of “innocent until proven guilty” and the quoted more than implemented “rule of law.”

First, there was the highly questionable press conference by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald (who I admire greatly). According to many legal experts, he was out of bounds in bringing the case against the Governor to the court of public opinion before he was ready to announce an indictment. In fact, to this day Blago has not been indicted of any crime. Without that press conference to stir the public against the Governor, and coalesce his political adversaries, there would not have been any serious discussion of an impeachment – bad as Blago may be.

Second, there is the question of the impeachment process. Repeatedly noting that it is a “political process,” and not a judicial process, the leaders of the Illinois House and Senate still failed to explain why “fairness” should not be a consideration. In a unique irony, the Governor was barred by the U.S. Attorney’s office from obtaining testimony from those who might be on the witness list for his eventual criminal trial. He could not cross examine witnesses. The Senate-as-court could only listen to a few minutes out of thousands of hours of wire taped conversations because most of the real “evidence” was being withheld for the trial.

Third: It was not a secret vote. While one may say this provided transparency for the public, it really put the “jury” under the pressure of the mob. The secret ballot protects the individual from the intimidation and retribution of the public. I am quite confident that a secret ballot would have produced a number of “no” votes.

Fourth, since it was quite obvious that the Legislature could not prove a “high crimes and misdemeanors” case, they switched to the less specific “abuse of power” accusation. This dubious charge is in the eye of the beholder. By most standards, the Governor’s battles with the Legislature would not rise to impeachment and removal from office – in fact, the notion of impeachment was not even hinted at the time he took the actions now condemned. This means that the central charges against the Governor were not the accusations of the U.S. Attorney, but things he did several years ago that angered members of the Legislature. In other words, those sitting in judgment took advantage of the public anger over the unproven criminal charges to oust the Governor on the vague “abuse” charges.

Fifth, the leaders of the impeachment effort have demonstrated both chutzpah and hypocrisy. Not only did they not accuse the Governor of abuse of power at the time of the alleged abuse, but they praised him, endorsed him, and served on his campaign committee for re-election in the interim. His abuses of power were not recently discovered, only recently defined by those who engaged in the very same processes as one time comrades-in arms.

Yes, it is good that Blago is gone. And yes, Patrick Quinn (left, being sworn in) will most probably make a better governor. However, the impeachment should only be the first step in a broader effort to clean up Illinois government. The political assassins need to be brought to justice next -- if nothing more than to be booted from office in the next election. Though they will now blame the former Governor for every ill in Illinois, they are still part of the business-as-usual process that has brought national shame to the Land of Lincoln.

TIDBIT: Gore gets frozen out?

Is there a correlation, or is it just a coincidence? As the prolonged cold across America reaches record lows in one place after another, I seem to notice a reduction in media interviews with Al Gore, the Pied Piper of global warming.