I THINK … our government is getting scary with seizure of children based on politics

Here is the situation. There is an illiterate couple in New Jersey who had the poor judgment to give their kids, ages 4, 3 and 2, offensive Nazi names. When the oldest turned 4, they went to a local bakery to get a decorated cake … “Happy Birthday Hitler.” The bakery refused and the story spread across the Internet and news media. Adolf eventually was provided a birthday cake, but just before the nannies of government removed him and his siblings from the family home.

Now, the government has announced that they will not return the kids to the parents, but rather are putting them in foster care – almost guaranteeing them severe trauma and lifelong “issues.” Of course, being named Adolf Hitler Campbell, Joycelynn Aryan Nation Campbell and Honzlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell could also create “issues” for them. So, it seems, the kids will have “issues” one way or the other.

I think the biggest problem is the birthday boy, A. H. Campbell. He gets the full name of the Antichrist. Apart from a formal name change (which seems inevitable for these kids), maybe he can soften it by not using the middle name (a common practice), or by becoming Al Campbell. Joycelynn can simply not use the middle names, which makes Joycelynn Campbell a rather fetching name. If you are unfamiliar with the Nazi-esque Honzlynn Hinler, you are not alone. Some think it is an off-the-mark reference to Heinrich Luitpold Himmler. That would be akin to my parents naming me Larry Patrick as a reference to a Chinese dynasty. But after Adolf Hitler and Arian Nation, you can see the basis for the assumption.

As stupid, offensive and inconsiderate as the names may be, does that justify making them wards of the state? Given this Hobson’s Choice, I still think taking the kids is the worse of two bad options. If I were in the middle of this, I would give the kids back to their parents and maybe counsel them into changing the names for the benefit of the kids. I think that is doable.

After all, one can see how giving children unpopular names can damage them for life -- limit their potential. (Why did the name Barack Hussein Obama suddenly jump into my head?)

Now the plot thickens.

Authorities now claim they are not returning the kids because of family violence. They refer to a letter the mother gave a friend in which she accused her husband of being a dangerous person. She has since recanted the accusations, and now claims Mr. Campbell is quite the ideal hubby and daddy.

The fact that the government rationale came AFTER the authorities took the kids is chilling. They exceeded their authority, both legal and moral, in the first place. Instead of issuing an apology, the authorities are trying to belatedly justify their actions. That is a classic abuse of government. Does it strike you as ironic that in revulsion to the children’s names, the New Jersey authorities are acting like … oh … Gestapo?

In my modest investigation, I could not find any previous problems with the parents or the kids. The latter seem rather healthy and happy – obviously too young to know their names are time bombs set to go off in the high school years. (Imagine some young Jewish princess announcing to her parents that she is going to the prom with Adolf Hitler.)

When you see how many truly endangered kids are NOT taken away by the state – often with tragic and fatal results – it is hard to imagine the justification for the removal of the Campbell kids. Show me kids in serious danger, and I will be the first to take them away from the parents, but not over matters of political opinion or stupidity – whichever defines the Campbell situation.

I say, give the kids back to the parents.

Footnote: This idea that kids should be removed from parents for political reasons is not new. You will recall the case of Elian Gonzalez, the young Cuban boy that created a national controversy when Florida relatives wanted him to stay in American even though he had a father, his only parent, in Cuba. After a lot of debate, we did the right thing. We sent the boy home to be with his father. A lot of my conservative friends got cranky because I joined the side of Elian’s dad. As a father, I have a very strong belief that family ties trump politics – even offensive politics.

I THINK ... the death of Dan Rostenkowski takes away one of the great political characters.

With the death of Dan Rostenkowski, or Rosty, as many of us knew him, a giant of a man has left the political stage. That can be said both figuratively and literally. The six foot, four inch former chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee towered over most members of congress in stature and in power. He was known around the congressional campus only as “Mr. Chairman” of “THE Chairman.” Even though there are scores of members of Congress with that title, anyone who was anyone knew who “Mr. Chairman” was. That’s power.

I have known Rosty long before he was called by title only. But even in his pre-Ways and Means chairmanship days, he was a formidable member of congress. Lots of congressmen get into fights over legislation, but Rosty was one of the few that could step in and settle them.

He was an old style Chicago Machine politician, as was his father. He had a gruff ward heeler demeaner at home, but could hold his own with any President or head-of-state passing through Washington. He was a laborite, but with scores of CEO buddies.

Thought more than a 40 year association with him, there are two periods that stand out.

In the early 1980s, as Executive Director of the City Club of Chicago, I was leading a long and seemingly hopeless effort to save the Chicago Theatre from the wrecking ball. On the eve of the successful conclusion of that fight, things when off track. The developers, led by attorney and political insider, Marshall Holleb, needed an Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG). These were being held up by the Reagan Administration, specifically by then-Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Sam Pierce.

Since he was already a supporter of my effort – politically and financially -- I traveled to Washington to seek Rosty’s help with the UDAG, After I explained the situation, Rosty asked his secretary to get Vice President George Bush on the line. Rosty made the case for the UDAG, then closed with this memorable line: “And tell the President, if he can’t give me this piddley UDAG to save the Chicago Theatre, he’ll have one pissed off chairman during the next round of tax reforms.”

The UDAG was granted, the Chicago Theatre was saved – and as a bonus I got the Vice President Bush as the headliner for my next City Club annual dinner.

A decade later, I was on opposite side of the partisan divide from Rosty, handling the congressional campaign of little-known Michael Flanagan. Mike was the David taking on the political Goliath. Even though Rosty was hammered by a serious of indictments for misusing public funds and public employees, he was considered a shoo-in. On the eve of the election, Associated Press lead off with a headline that Rosty was in a “cake walk” election. I told former WLS-TV political reporter Andy Shaw that we would take it by 10 points. No one took me serious. Flanagan won by ten.

Rosty’s defeat also exposed a bit of the unholy bipartisan central power structure in Illinois. On the morning after the election, Governor Jim Edgar hosted is traditional Republican victors breakfast. With Flanagan behind him on the stage, the Guv lamented the defeat of his “good friend” Dan Rostenkowski. But why not? Edgar was openly supporting Rosty throughout the campaign. Edgar would eventually aid and abet the return of that seat to the Democrats in the person of Rod Blagojevich, followed by Rahm Emmanual.

To the surprise of many, even after his election defeat, Rosty was as friendly to me as ever. That would seem impossible in today’s politics-as-blood-sport culture. In those days, partisanship was more like a boxing match. You were expected to fight hard to win partisan battles, but when the bell rang, the dukes were dropped and civility resumed. Rosty understand that culture, and he lived it.

For good or bad, Rostenkowski was the personification of the Chicago Machine. He was partisan. He loved “pork.” He was tough. He didn’t always play by the rules.

No matter if you were working with him, or against him, you had to love the guy. He will be missed.

I THINK … killing people because of alleged racism is … racism.

If you believe the spin, Omar Thornton killed 8 white co-workers at a beer distributorship in California because he was subjected to prolonged racism from his employer and colleagues. He left a recorded message to that effect, but failed to cite examples – just random ranting.

In fact, the most heinous act of racism was perpetrated by Thornton, himself. He killed 8 people because of their race … period. There were pattern of racism evident in the company, and no complaints from his African-American co-workers.

Oh! And what led to his termination? Video recordings and other evidence that he was stealing beer and reselling it privately. I suppose that was his way to bring justice to a honky society.

Balderdash!

You can argue that Thornton was insane, or you can argue that he was a malicious mass killer. What is beyond debate in a civilized society is that he is the guiltiest of all. His excuses, and those offered up by his girl friend and family, should not be taken seriously.

Black, white or green, Thornton was a killer, a psychopath and ablight on society. His only modicum of decency was to serve as judge, jury and executioner in ending his own life – saving society the trouble and expense of prosecution.

On the larger scale, it is about time that the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world stop placing their need for publicity above common sense and common decency. They enlarge the racism by pandering to paranoid sentiment and give post mortem license to the actions of people like Thornon. To give credence to Thornton’s excuse, they widen the racial divide the purport to rue.

The Jackson/Sharpton brand of racism was seen in the aftermath of the wrong verdict on O.J. Simpson, the controversy surrounding the Tawana Brawley “rape” case (pictured with Sharpton), the defense of racist Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and their statements in support of the provocative behavior of Harvard Professor Louis Gates, Jr. that led to his arrest. These two “ministers” will find and promote racism whenever there is personal advantage.

We will know when we have arrived at a post-racial America when the likes of Jackson and Sharpton have no more appeal and no more relevancy -- and I believe we are closer to that day than the fawning media yet knows.

I THINK … Elmwood Park, Illinois is taking a page from the Communist manifesto.

Sometimes the largely unnoticed issues are the most telling. Take the recent events in the middle American Chicago suburb of Elmwood Park (where my parents lived out the last years of their lives).

As a preface, you need to recall how public criticism of the old Soviet and pre-Nixon China was treated. Expressions of displeasure with the government would result in arrest or commitment to mental institutions. Anyone speaking out against the “wise leaders” -- even for the most modest of reasons – was punished as a malcontent, a nut or a criminal.

Now consider this.

An Elmwood Park city council committee chairman, Stephen Hipskind, recently ejected Darlene Heslop because she “rolled her eyes” in as a sign of disgust over the hiring of a $30,000 lobbyist. Ponder this for a moment … getting kicked out of a public meeting for a disparaging facial expression.

Such enforced “respect’ is opposed to everything America is about. We are a nation that protests our leaders, when we disagree. We yell out pejoratives, and scream out opposition. This is the American way. This is what personal freedom is about. This is what the First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees.

But wait! There is more.

Elmwood Park’s city attorney has been directed draft an ordinance to make it illegal to “disrupt” a government meeting with non verbal facial expressions or body language. Will this include frowning, shaking your head in a negative gesture, looking shocked, glaring, folding your arms across your chest or maybe just falling asleep? Where is the borderline of disrespectful or contemptible appearance? You can only imagine what would become of people who boo, hiss or groan. On the other hand, you can bet that clapping, cheers and attaboys would not be considered disruptive. I am not sure even the old Communists in Moscow and Beijing ever went that far.

This is just another example of how our populist republic is slowly evolving into elitist statism.

Disclaimer: The photo is for illustration purposes and not from the Elmwood Park meeting.

I THINK … I think a minor overreaction by a person should not cause a major overreaction by government.

Francis Hajosy (pictured left) is a 54-year-old high school teacher in Stafford, Connecticut. He threatened an unruly female student with taking her over his knee for an old fashion spanking for refusing to take her feet of the desk and sit properly. She raised the ante by taking a can of spray glue and defiantly shooting it to the air. When he grabbed her, she starting kicking at him. There was a bit of a scuffle, but Hajosy apparently managed to get her over his knee at least long enough to apply three or four slaps on her butt.

I think we could all agree that his handling of the situation was a bit extreme … things escalated. Minimally, he needed to be sent to the principal’s office, as they say. Assuming that this was an exceptional situation in an otherwise exemplary teaching career, I see this as something to be handled by school administrators, with apologies and punishment all around.

There are still a lot of well educated people alive today who can remember corporal punishment as a routine part of school discipline – especially in the Catholic school system I attended. The criminalization of academic corporal punishment and the decline of quality education are pretty much similar chronological charts. I am not sure that this is an unrelated coincidence. Lack of classroom discipline is a major factor in failed educational systems. However, I will leave that argument for others.

Instead of some administrative discipline, Hajosy was arrested and charged with second-degree breach of the peace (whatever in Hell that is) and fourth-degree sexual assault. A judge issued a protective order against Hajosy. He was suspended from his job indefinitely. Out on $5000 bond, he faces years in jail and a life of a registered sex offender – not to mention thousands of dollars in legal fees from criminal charges and a possible civil suit. Right or wrong, win or lose, this case can screw up his life for years to come.

Frankly, I don’t see sexual motivation in his actions. This is just another example of the neo-puritanical component of political correctness that runs in conflict with the flagrantly liberalized sexual mores of our times. Without further evidence, his motivation seemed to be punishment, and his flaw was an anger that blew away his common sense and good judgment at the moment. Happens to us all, at times.

I know all the anal retentive, politically correct libs are going to be outraged over my opinion on this matter. They will produce a litany of “what ifs.” They will wax on about some imaginary psychological scar that will doom this young lady to a life of therapy. They will elevate her humiliation to the level of trauma when, in fact, punishment and humiliation are Siamese twins. You cannot have one without the other. The strident left-wing feminists will call Hajosy’s actions a form of rape (which is a cruel disservice to anyone who really has been raped), and declare both Hajosy and me as insensitive male pigs.

Let me stress, I am not endorsing his actions, but think the punishment should fit the crime – or in my opinion the non-crime, in this case.

What we really have here is another small example of an overreaching government. Every problem in our lawyer-ruled society must be handled by the lawyer-run legislative, juridical or enforcement communities. I wonder if we will close the loop with a civil suit filed by parents against Hajosy, the school, the local board of education and whoever else some opportunistic attorney wishes to put on the list -- and on behalf of parents who are more motivated by money than justice.

With a sex component, Hajosy may well be placed into some government sex counseling program – which is intended to bring his thinking around to what he most likely already knows and embraces. These thought adjustment programs scare me. While seeming innocent enough at first glance, they smack of the thought control agencies depicted in futuristic sci-fi movies and novels and, for real, in the old Cold War Communist regimes in Russia and China.

When we are not allowed to settle difference between ourselves, or with minimal civic involvement, we are succumbing, inch by inch, to the oppression of a police state. One of the common retorts of yore was, “don’t make a federal case out of it.” In other words, don’t make it more than it is. Today, we seem to see government involvement as the first and only option.

As a parent, what would I do if this had happened to my daughter? First, I would want to know what behavior on her part caused the confrontation in the first place. I would want to know why she was unruly, disobedient and disruptive. I would talk to Hajosy and the principal in private to have them explain the behavior. I would demand an apology, BUT without absolving my daughter’s culpability.

In other words, I would have both Hajosy and my daughter sitting in the corner with the proverbial dunce cap. My fear is that Hajosy will be made a perverted criminal, and the girl’s bad behavior is not dealt with. I can almost see the smug look on her face. That would not be a good outcome for anyone.

I THINK … California should serves as a BAD example.

I did not mind that we followed California’s lead into elements of the sexual revolution. I did not mind following the casual dress code for business. I was okay with the pseudo healthy life style. I was not okay with avocados and pineapple slices on what they call “pizza,” however. But, that is off my point.

More specifically, I wonder how far the rest of America will follow California’s go-for-broke financial schemes. In some cases, I guess pretty far. Here in Illinois we embrace it completely – which explains why we are heading into financial ruin, ourselves.

Because the tax raising Democrats and the cost cutting Republicans in the state legislature cannot agree, California is not only without any money, they still cannot produce the obligatory state budget to distribute the money they do not have.

The failure to create the budget has lead Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to order all state employees, except union members, to be paid only at the minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. The State Comtroller refused to obey the Governor. The Governor went to court. The legal battle rages atop the legislative fight.

There is no doubt that Schwarzenegger’s will create a hardship for thousands of employees, and, if prolonged, could result in repo’d cars, house foreclosures and mounting bills. Consequently there is a lot of anger being directed at Governor Steroids. But, he is not the culprit. The anger should be cast at the Democrats, at all levels of state and municipal government, who spent California into bankruptcy.

They have followed the Keynesian, socialist economic model for years. Maybe that is even unfair to Kenyes and the socialist. Maybe it is merely the Democrats nature to buy political support with taxpayer money without much consideration to economic theories or realities.

Keep in mind the budgetary deadlock in California is between the tax-increase Democrats and the cost-cutting Republicans – and this is mirrored all over America, especially in Washington, D.C. Even before we fight over cutting taxes, which is exactly what we need to do to get the economy growing, we need to resolve the money debate of the moment. Do we increases taxes (or borrow even more of our children’s future) to cover and continue the spending frenzy, or do we place a moratorium on increased government spending and figure out how to cut it in real dollars.

Remember, the Democrats will never stop spending, taxing and borrowing. It is there nature. They are a political party that depends on people being dependent on them.

While I feel sorry for those who will suffer if the $7.25 wage is imposed, it is sadly true that California has earned its economic punishment. Rather than follow the California example, we should be running from it. Personally, I prefer the Indiana example – maybe more about that another time.

I THINK ... we need to resurrect our historic concept of treason.

It is reported in Politics Daily that Wikileaks has released to publications all over the world more than 90,000 top secret documents relating to the military and diplomatic situation in Afghanistan -- and this is not the first time.

The sole purpose of the leak is to undermine our war effort … pure and simple. It will embolden our enemies, weaken our allies and cost the lives of untold numbers of military and intelligence personnel. Perhaps we cannot yet put an exact number on the latter, but additional loss of life is inevitable.

The White House, through National Security Advisor James Jones, strongly condemned the action and complained that Wikileaks did not contact them first.

Condemn the action? This is what you get from liberal governance … words. I can only imagine what our reaction would be if Ronald Reagan were President at this time.

We are in war, and giving out military secrets is treason. It is about time we enforce the laws against treason without sympathy. The First Amendment rights and the tradition of a free press do not entitle individuals or organizations to release and publish secret documents. There are no nuances.

Unless President Obama enforces the treason laws and brings to swift justice all those who now flaunt them, he will again prove that his left wing global philosophy trumps the traditions and laws of the United States of America, and the Constitution which he has sworn to uphold.

When you couple this with his refusal to secure our southern border for political purposes and his willingness to enter into international pacts detrimental to the power and wealth of the United States, it is no wonder that a significant percentage of the public consider him the first un-American President.

I THINK … it’s time to lay the blame for America’s poor quality urban education where it belongs – on the education industry, the unions and the polit

I have been a consultant to the Chicago and Detroit Boards of Education during brief times of reform. I have even traveled to Lithuania to consult on the then new, post-Community school system. I was the founder of the first school choice coalition in Illinois, etc. etc.

I say this just to establish that I know something about American education. The situation is not so complicated. Our public schools are failing … ah … have failed … because of politics. This is not accident. In most major cities, tens of thousands of blossoming minds are trampled down for political and financial gain.

Kids are kept prisoners in substandard schools with inferior education because they are the currency that provides the education unions with members, money and political power. The political value of each kid can be calculated through wages, dues and pension funds.

Why has so much money produced so little good? If you think the “good” is the education of our young people, you are wrong. No wonder you are confused. For most urban school systems, the “good” is the money for the teachers, the unions, the suppliers, the contractors, the support services … and oh yeah … the politicians. As long as these folks are rich, fat and happy, the education machine is running properly – to hell with the kids.

There is no good reason that we cannot give our kids the best education in the world. It is done all the time. It is done in the Catholic Schools. It is done in private schools. It is done charter schools. It is even done in hundreds, maybe thousands, of suburban and rural public school systems.

The big urban school systems do not fail because they cannot teach kids, or because kids come from poor families and single-parent homes. They do not fail because of classroom size. They do not fail because of drugs. They do not fail for lack of money. They fail because the politician and the union officials want them to fail.

How can I say something so outrageous? All you have to do is look at the many examples of quality education, and you know that the failure of the urban government run schools is no accident, no inevitable fate, and no force major. It is the simply the unholy trade off for money and power that dooms the children of the cities.

You want proof that inner city kids can be educated. There are many examples – way back when Marva Collins ran Chicago’s Westside Prep in the heart of the ghetto (and you can download the resulting Hollywood movie).

Maybe it is not a movie yet, but check out Chicago’s Urban Prep Academy. The Class of 2010 will be sending 100% of the graduates to four-year colleges. That’s right. The entire senior class is going to college.

Urban Prep is not some fancy school in an upscale neighborhood that accepts a few promising inner city kids out of noblis oblige. This is a totally minority school in the heart of Chicago’s black ghetto. The kids now graduating were previously on the path of joblessness, gang membership and menial jobs or crime.

The point is … if there is a sincere effort to educate kids, we can do it. If we do not do it, it is because we don’t want to – or, I should say, they don’t want to.

It’s time we stop giving the urban school industry the benefit of the doubt. They are in the business of destroying the kids’ education for political and financial gain. Until that ends, no amount of money will fix the problem – maybe make it worse.

I THINK ... GOP National Chairman Michael Steele should resign.

I was all in favor of Michael Steele becoming the head of the Republican National Committee. In fact, I made a number of calls in support of his candidacy. I could think of nothing better than a conservative African American to be one of the key voices in opposition to President Barack Obama’s far left agenda.

I got what I asked for, but I did not think to ask that the person be intelligent and skilled.

Steele has a history of foot-in-mouth statements, but none can compare to his remarks about the Afghan War made to a crowd of donors. Maybe he thought the insider session was off the record, but even that does not excuse the ineptitude of his remarks. Basically, he said the Afghan War was started by Obama, and that it is unwinnable.

His facts are so provably wrong that it is impossible to understand how he could not know better. Is he that ill-informed … or does he think he can heap blame on Obama with his own version of the facts? Does he think his audience is that stupid?

In addition to his case based on ignorance or malicious misinformation, Steele also joined the extreme left wing in suggesting we should pull out immediately – the consequences be damned. If there is any unifying issue in America these days, it is the broad belief that we must win in Afghanistan. Only the crazies think America can walk away – and apparently Michael Steele.

The GOP has a good and important message to convey to the American people in this election year. It should not be diminished or demeaned by the foolish and counterproductive rhetoric of those who prattle.

As National Chairman, Steel possesses one of the most important Republican megaphones. Despite his next day public apology and position reversal, it is time for him to pass that amplifier to someone with the knowledge and skills to convincingly articulate the GOP message. Political insider stuff aside, I would give the job to Newt Gingrich. Far and away, he is the best spokesperson the GOP has. In any event, Michael Steele needs to go -- sooner than later.

I THINK ... Mayor Daley should be made to to write the Second Amendment on a blackboard 100 times, so he gets it.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

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.