There was an interesting family event this weekend which prompts this essay.

My 24-year-old daughter occasionally gets migraines. Generally, she’s used prescription-strength ibuprofen, and it’s had very limited efficacy. So when she started getting a migraine this weekend, she decided to see if she could get a more effective medication.

She found a clinic that was open and manned by a PA. For those who may not know, a PA (physician’s assistant) is one step down from being a doctor; in California they have to have a Master’s Degree. They can treat and prescribe and perform many duties of a doctor, including even some minor surgery.

Anyway, this PA told me daughter that there was a different med that could be prescribed, but he refused to do it unless she had a CT scan first.

Why? Defensive medicine, of course! On the off-chance that my daughter might be the one in ten million who may have a tumor or something. On a holiday weekend, where was she going to get a scan done, or the several hundred dollars to pay for it, just to get some headache pills?

This is a classic example of why healthcare costs are out of control. NO common sense was being exercised whatsoever; the incredibly remote possibility of some kind of malpractice lawsuit developing somewhere down the road obviously precluded that PA from making a judgment call and giving my daughter a med that would be more effective than the one she already has.

And what can we expect under Obamacare? Even more of the same. Because there’s nothing – nada, zero, zip – in that program that does anything at all to address the real problems we have in our system. In fact, it further complicates an already overcomplicated system.

Is there medical malpractice tort reform? No. Is there a removal of the restrictions to interstate competition among insurance providers, which would lower the cost of insurance? No. Is there anything at all that makes sense in a free-market system? Emphatically no!

Today, the International Energy Agency (IEA) announced it was releasing 60 million barrels of oil from its emergency energy reserves (Here), sending oil prices tumbling, a good thing for consumers. Further, the Obama administration announced that 30 million of that would be American oil (Here).

What does that tell us? Well, first of all it’s important to put it into the proper perspective. Sixty million barrels sounds like a lot of oil, but it’s really only a drop in the proverbial bucket. This country alone consumes 20 million barrels a day, so we’re talking about only three days of US consumption having such a whopping effect on oil prices.

Second, it tells us that the Saudi/OPEC stranglehold on oil prices is a chimera, and easily broken.

But most importantly, it clearly illustrates how the full utilization of our own domestic deposits would allow us to break that stranglehold of dependence on foreign oil and stabilize prices at a much lower level than where they’re at now. If such a tiny increase in supply can have such an effect, think of what would happen if we move forward full steam.

After reading the chart, the question occurred to me:

Is such a disparity of contributions a statement of political ideology?

Or is it just cheaper to buy Republicans?

OPTION NUMBER 1

It’s January of 2013. Obama has just been sworn in for his second term in office after a relatively easy campaign against one of the GOP’s usual lame nominees.

BUT…

The new Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress have also taken their seats.

Now what?

1)    DeMint (great conservative) replaces McConnell (weenie) as Senate Majority Leader. Paul Ryan (great conservative) or Cantor replaces Boehner (weenie) as Speaker of the House. GOP-controlled Congress finally grows a spine, gets its act together, and actually starts passing conservative legislation. Obambi threatens to veto everything. Congress holds firm, and the PR war begins. The experienced true conservatives controlling the message defeat Obambi, and he’s basically gelded for the remainder of his term.

or

2)     The GOP leadership under the new majorities remains the same. Ignoring the fact that their ascension to congressional control is due to conservative/Tea Party support, the GOPers lapse back into their usual ways of being wary of criticism from the MSM and their fear of not being invited to the fun parties in DC. Obambi takes control of the message as confrontations begin, and with the help of a complicit press outmaneuvers the GOPers in Congress, managing to save parts of his agenda, though in watered-down form.

OPTION NUMBER 2

It’s January of 2013. Romney/Gingrich/(other Establishment GOP Hack) is being sworn in for his first term as President.

AND…

The new Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress have also taken their seats.

Now what?

1)     The Establishment GOPers in both chambers of Congress decide it’s back to business as usual, since the old GOP “message” of being the Dem-Lite Party worked once again, a la both Bushes and now the new guy. Tea Party conservatism is shoved to the back burner. The country continues to hurtle toward the cliff, but just a little bit slower.

and

2)     The Democrats feel especially emboldened, because even though they lost significant ground in the election, they see the President as being weak in the traditional “reach-across-the-aisle” mode, and they know that if they continue to play their traditional hardball they’ll be able to continue pushing their agenda forward, though in weakened form… for now. They’re encouraged, because the results of the election have assured them that the GOP still hasn’t even learned what a “hardball” is.

or

3)     Congressional GOPers – with the understanding that their electoral sweep is due to the unrest of traditional American conservatives, including “Independents” and Tea Partiers –  elect a hardcore conservative leadership and force the new “moderate” President down the path of true Reaganist conservatism. Frankly, I consider this the least likely scenario of all.

OPTION NUMER 3

It’s January of 2013. The new President – one in the Reagan mold – is being sworn in for his first term in office.

AND…

The new Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress have also taken their seats.

Now what?

1)     The GOP finally gets the message – at least temporarily – that traditional American conservatism is the vehicle that drove their electoral success. They heed the message and put forward their policies, the only hope for the future of this country.

2)     There is no “2)”. There’d better not be.

Because here’s where the rubber really meets the road; any meaningful recovery from over seventy years (with the exception of the eight-year Reagan Era) of primarily liberal and socialist policies – from FDR to Obama – is going to be extremely painful. Can it even be done?

I don’t know. I do know that if we don’t even give it this shot, this country as we know it is over.

But it’s going to require political courage of a magnitude that was required to carry out the Revolution and the Civil War. Do any of today’s politicians have that level of courage, conviction, and skill?

Again, I don’t know.

Even more importantly, do the American people have those qualities?

Once again, I don’t know. I see signs of it.

As we all know, Giuliani dropped out (good!), but McCain – AKA “Juan McAmnesty” – won the nomination and went on to lose to Obama.

I lived up to my promise and refused to vote for McAmnesty, and am glad to this day that I did so. I believe that his loss to Obama fueled the fires that led to the formation of the Tea Parties – of which I consider myself an unofficial founding member – which as far as I can see is the only hope for the survival of this country as we know it. I got so disgusted with the GOP that I cancelled my membership of almost 40 years and re-registered as “Decline to State”, Commiefornia’s version of “Independent”.

Now the GOP is poised to commit the same error again, ignoring Santayana’s dictum that “those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it”. Let’s take a look at who’s throwing their hats into the ring this time.

MITT ROMNEY

Good… Grief.

This is the guy who, during his time as Governor of Massachusetts, signed into law the state’s mandatory healthcare law, the very same law that was used as a guide by the socialists in Congress and the White House when they foisted Obamacare on the country.

So, when he officially announced his candidacy, in full knowledge that Obamacare is one of the huge issues with conservatives, what did he do? Did he renounce his support of that program? Say he’d reconsidered and realized that it was a bad idea?

Nope. He tried to rationalize the whole thing by saying that he thought it was the right idea at the time and for that state, and that the states were designed to be the “laboratories of democracy” where ideas are tried out and either succeed or fail.

Well, that second part is true… but that doesn’t make the idea of socialized medicine any the more palatable just because it’s at the state level. In other words, Mitt’s clueless as to what he REALLY did wrong, i.e. he failed to stand up for traditional American conservatism and principles.

Further, he gets a failing grade in smarts for not even getting that NOW, when he’s trying to get the GOP’s nod as the candidate.

Even were he to get the nomination, his opponent would beat him to death with the FACT that he supported socialized medicine when he had a chance to stand against it. It’s called “hypocrisy”, and it’s a character failing.

LOSER.

NEWT GINGRICH

The moon-faced former conservative named for an amphibious reptile.

Gingrich lost all “conservative” creds with me when he sat on that couch with Pelosi in those TV ads bleating about “climate change”. What the hell was he thinking? He’s either incredibly politically stupid – sitting on the couch with conservatives’ avowed ENEMY? – or he really believes in that “climate change” garbage, in which case he’s the wrong guy for the job anyway.

Then today, on “Meet The Press” (Here), he said this:

“I've said consistently we ought to have some requirement you either have health insurance or you post a bond or in some way you indicate you're going to be held accountable.”

That’s a slightly modified version of the Obamacare “mandate”. The very same idea that’s so unconstitutional and so inflames conservatives. It’s the very essence of the meaning of the words “socialized medicine”!

What in God’s name gives this Bozo the right to call himself “conservative”?

Then, of course, there’s Gingrich’s “personal baggage”, of which there’s enough to fill a barge. Girlfriends, wives, affairs, divorce papers served to one on her deathbed, congressional investigations; a soap opera worthy of Peyton Place or Bill Clinton.

So… a fake conservative with loads of baggage he can be clubbed over the head with.

Now we want to take THAT national?

Yeah, he hasn’t formally announced… yet. Hopefully, he was just playing for some face time on camera, and he’ll go back to “firing” D-List “celebrities”. The guy’s a complete joke; the Clown Prince of this election Silly Season.

His tough talk was just meaningless mumbo-jumbo. How’s he going to “force” Saudi Arabia to lower its oil prices? How’s he going to “force” China to open its markets to the US? Those are sovereign nations. Is he planning on going to war with them? Is he going to go to war with every country with which we have disputes? Isn’t that gonna spread us pretty thin? Is he planning to do that without congressional approval, which is required by law?

He’s just a blowhard promising the moon, which he will be completely unable to deliver… again just like our girly-man Governator.

RON PAUL

Paul’s announced another run for the office. Paul’s an interesting study. He has a small following of devoted, almost cultish devotees, mostly extreme libertarian types.

He also has some very, very good ideas in line with traditional conservatism. Unfortunately, when he goes wandering off into some of his more “libertarian” beliefs, he goes WAY off the reservation.

He’s for legalizing all drugs, including heroin and cocaine. He doesn’t believe we should engage in any wars, pretty much, unless our own country is directly attacked. His policy on immigration is garbled; he’s for unrestricted and uncontrolled immigration when times are good; not so much when times are bad. He doesn’t believe in round-ups and deportation, but he’s against amnesty. He’s all over the map. Stuff like that. As far as I can tell, there’s no coherence nor consistency to his stances on issues, which is confusing to voters (to say the least).

Zero chance of even getting the nomination.

SARAH PALIN

She hasn’t said she’s going to run. She hasn’t said she not going to run. Like Fred Thompson did last time, she seems to be playing a game of tantalization in which she’s waiting to see how many people are going to “clamor” for her candidacy.

Personally, for a variety of reasons I don’t think she’s qualified for the job. But I’m not going to go into that. I’d rather assess her strengths and weaknesses as a candidate.

She has a very strong following of devotees, like Paul and Trump. She also has a very large disapproval rating. Hand it to Palin; people either love her or hate her. There doesn’t seem to be any middle ground.

Like Trump (and Schwarzenegger), she seems to talk in platitudes and slogans, with little real meat in the bun. But far more importantly, she has very little experience at which she can point as qualification for the job as President of the United States, arguably the most powerful individual in the world.

She has one uncompleted term as Governor of Alaska, a state with a population smaller than that of Los Angeles County. She didn’t even complete that term, quitting for incomprehensible reasons never clearly articulated. Something about the “strain” put on her family. Well… what about the pressures of the job of Prez of the USofA? I think those would make the job of Alaska’s governor pale by comparison. So people can’t help but ask themselves: what would you do as Prez? You going to quit that, too?

That’s the problem with being labeled a “quitter”. It sticks.

She also has absolutely zero foreign policy experience or expertise.

Then there’s her position on amnesty for illegal aliens. Her last official position, when she was McCain’s running mate, was pro-amnesty. As I said, a deal-killer for me. Since then, she’s never disavowed nor even modified her position. She’s got the same problem with amnesty that Romney has with socialized medicine. Yet more weaknesses and inconsistencies with which her opponent can club her to death, and use to alienate from her the base support she’d need to win.

Unless something radically changes, if she gets the GOP nod, I vote third-party again. Further, if she gets the nod I think she goes down in flames, big time.

LOSER.

So, there you have it. My analysis – for what it’s worth – of the state of the GOP race for the nomination and presidency as of now.

Bottom line: the GOP is poised to make the same errors they did four years ago, which could give Obama the second term he wants so badly. Now, that’s not quite the disaster it may seem to many. If the GOP retains the House, and particularly if they take the Senate, and especially if they start paying more attention to the base and the Tea Partiers, a second Obama term would be pretty harmless, as he’d be gelded by a GOP-controlled Congress.

I have to say, as an Independent – the demographic both parties claim to clamor over – there’s no way I vote for Obama… but there’s no way I vote for any of these five people, either. If any of these people are the GOP nominee I’ll be voting third-party again.

We’ve been hearing the mantra for years, but in this spring of 2011 it seems especially galling as the country’s mired in economic crises, unemployment is through the ceiling, and gas prices at the pump are so high that we’re used to $4 per gallon and are being set up to get hit with five bucks per. And that war cry grows shriller by the day.

But there’s a dirty little secret you should know.

The reality is that this country is absolutely awash in oil. We have more oil right here than Saudi Arabia. In recoverable shale oil alone we have over a TRILLION harvestable barrels of oil available according to the Department of the Interior's (DOI) own studies ( Here ). In Utah we have about 18 billion barrels recoverable in tar sands. We have oil in Alaska, offshore, all over the place. We’re actually drowning in oil.

Or we would be, if we actually used any of it.

We’re the only oil-producing country in the world that doesn’t utilize its deposits to the fullest extent possible.

According to that DOI report, we use about 20 million barrels of oil a day. Do the math. That means that in shale alone we have enough oil to last us 50,000 days, or one hundred and thirty-seven years. Throw in all our other known resources, then add those so far undiscovered, and we have plenty enough oil to be, not only completely energy-independent, but a net-exporter country well into the next century if we so choose, with petro-dollars flowing our way instead of to foreign nations.

Canada’s Athabasca tar sands project has proven the technology viable and economic. As a matter of fact, we import quite a bit of our oil from Canada, and that’s exactly where it comes from: the tar sands.

Further, as extraction technology advances even MORE oil will become available. Wells that were previously capped because the remaining oil was deemed unrecoverable will enjoy new life. And who knows where the next fields will be discovered? Well, surely not us, since the government makes exploration and development almost impossible by making the task of getting permits an insurmountable hurdle.

The ugly truth is that there is no “shortage”. There’s an artificial scarcity created by bad government policy pursuant to enviro-fanaticism. Our personal finances and the economic viability of this country as a whole are being held hostage to the demands of the eco-freaks.

The price of fuel to power our transportation grid is a major driver of economic health, as transportation is where 70% of the oil is used, and as those costs rise so do the costs of virtually everything else in our economy.

The enviroNazis' response? "Projects would take years to come on stream and would only increase our oil addiction, the heart of the problem." (LA Times, 15 April 2011)

Well, if we'd started using these deposits all those years ago, instead of letting enviroNazis block them, they'd all be online now. The words “oil addiction” reveal the true agenda: social engineering.

Lunacy.

Instead, they propose we develop forms of “alternate energy” that are even further down the road (if they’re achievable at all), depending on wishful thinking and bad science.

Yeah, okay, maybe the Vulcans will show up and share their dilithium crystal technology with us, but unless they do we're stuck with oil to power our transportation infrastructure for the foreseeable future.

You can't power ships and aircraft on solar power. Some ships can use nuke power, but the ONLY way to fly jet aircraft is with kerosene. Period. And that ain't gonna change.

Further, what about the hundreds of millions of cars and trucks already on the road? Gonna just wave a magic wand and make them disappear? Replace all the gas stations with... I dunno, something else? Absurd.

The ONLY reason the price of gas will continue to go up is because of the artificial shortage created by that self-same government and the "enlightened" elitists who then bootstrap that "shortage" into a "reason" for why we should do away with cheap personal transportation.

The Islamic Uprisings

First, let’s clear the air geographically. Egypt and Libya, though both Islamic countries, are also both located on the continent of Africa. So news stories about them that call the issue as something taking place in the “Middle East” are, at the least, sloppy. The problems taking place in Jordan, Yemen and Iran do fit into that description, though, hence my referral to “Middle East/Islamic countries”. A more accurate blanket term.

Ever since these events have begun, there have been calls from both sides of the political aisle for the United States to “do something”. After all, we’re told, these are the stirrings of nascent democracy.

Well, pardon me if I don’t buy that soap.

We were told the same thing when the Palestinian Authority held monitored elections, and who won? Hamas. Not exactly a pro-Western government; not exactly a Western-style democracy; and a regime that’s been turning ever-more repressive to its own “citizens”.

What’s happened in Iraq since they formed their own “democracy”? Not much. A completely inept and corrupt government is now in charge, one that can’t even seem to finalize its constitution. Ineptitude and corruption are par for the course in Islamic countries in that region; it seems to be in the DNA.

You see, “democracy” as we practice it isn’t something that just pops into being at the drop of the hat as a natural state of human affairs. As a matter of fact, our own country – the good old USofA – is the longest-extant democracy (a constitutional republic, which we are, is a form of democracy) in the world, and we’re only less than 300 years old. Western-style democracy is the result of an entire cultural history based on Western mores derived from Greek, Roman, and Judeo-Christian values. None of that applies to the Middle East or Islamic culture. Frankly, in my opinion, any expectations that the uprisings in the region are going to lead to enlightened democracies as we know them are bound to be disappointed.

The only successful democracies in the region are those of Israel and Turkey. Israel succeeds because it was founded by European refugees of World War 2 and the Holocaust; and Turkey succeeds because, as the country that straddles two continents – Europe and Asia – and was the seat of the Eastern Roman Empire, it is steeped in Western/European values.

If one is to talk about the “normal” state of human affairs, democracy as we know it is actually the exception rather than the rule. The vast majority of humanity throughout history has actually lived in some state of repression, despotism, and/or tyranny.

So what, exactly, do those who promote our intervention in these matters expect us to do? And why should we be involved at all?

The only reason the US should be involved in foreign matters is to promote our own national interests. How does getting involved in Egypt or Libya or Syria or Iran or Jordan do that? Once American citizens have evacuated the country at issue, I don’t see how their internal affairs are any of our concern at all, given that whatever new government arises isn’t likely to be any more pro-American than the one that just left the building. Just look at what happened in Iran when the Shah was deposed.

I expect neo-cons – most of whom are Republicans – to constantly promote foreign interference; it’s part of the very definition of “neo-con”. But what’s particularly interesting is the reaction of Dem/libs. When Bush was President and kept us engaged in Iraq on a mission of “democracy-building”, they castigated him to no end. But now that their guy is in the White House, all of a sudden there’s a national imperative to engage in a rampage of that very same democracy-building. We saw the same thing with Clinton and Haiti. Look how well that’s turned out. The capacity for liberal hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Further, there’s the issue of the cost of getting involved militarily in foreign “revolts”, or whatever they are. This country’s completely broke. Period. We’re still engaged in a war in Afghanistan for which I can see no end. We haven’t yet pulled out of Iraq. We can’t even protect our own border with the failing nation-state named Mexico.

Why is anyone even considering getting involved in the tar-baby of even more Middle East/Islamic messes?

Japan’s Tsunami/Nuclear Disaster

Yes, it’s very tragic, sad, and lamentable. But just as this country isn’t the world’s policeman, we’re not the world’s ambulance service, either.

We’re just as broke when it comes to Japan’s problems as we are regarding the Islamic uprisings.

The rest of the world has to learn how to cope with their own problems without constantly coming to us to bail them out. That ship has sailed. We can’t afford it anymore. We have our own problems to deal with. There’s no Money Tree Forest hidden somewhere in the DC suburbs in Virginia.

If some country needs our help, then they can petition us for it, which should include some plan for indemnifying the American taxpayer for the costs involved, plain and simple. Some realistic plan for reimbursing our outlays in helping them, including interest. Otherwise, forget it. We’re not the world’s Red Cross.

The American taxpayer is already buried in debt from profligate government spending, under the administrations of both major parties, and grossly accelerated during the first two years of Obama’s administration. The piggy bank’s not only broken, but the pieces have sunk under a sea of red ink.

The Japanese nuclear crisis also clearly illustrates the specious nature of the Obama/lib fanaticism of “alternative energy sources”. Japan is one of the countries that have, by necessity, come to rely on one of those sources – nuclear power – because of the scarcity of native resources. They have no carbon-based deposits – oil or coal or natural gas – of their own to speak of. They have to import anything of that nature. Nuclear power is the only “alternative” source that’s dependable and consistent.

We hear the green fanatics yakking about wind farms and solar farms… but what happens when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine? That’s the problem. Geothermal can help, but it’s not available in areas that don’t have subsurface geothermal activity (naturally).

That leaves two choices: nuclear power and hydrocarbons, meaning oil, coal, and natural gas. Sources that don’t depend on the vagaries of nature such as windy and sunny days. Japan has no such natural resources and so must use nuclear reactors and import everything else. Our country has those resources in vast quantities. But instead of using them, we have politically created artificial shortages, turning ourselves into net-importers and putting ourselves into a position of dependence on foreign sources of supply. Exactly the position in which Japan finds itself, except self-imposed. That’s insane, as foreign policy, as energy policy, and as fiscal policy. It must be changed. Particularly in light of all the unrest in the Middle East, the source of so much of our imported oil.

He agreed with the plaintiffs pretty much down the line, writing in his opinion, “Or, as discussed during oral argument, Congress could require that people buy and consume broccoli at regular intervals…Not only because the required purchases will positively impact interstate commerce, but also because people who eat healthier tend to be healthier, and are thus more productive and put less of a strain on the health care system." Clearly, using such a rationale allows the government to mandate anything at all, without restriction, if somehow a “greater good” is the only justification needed, freedom of choice be damned.

There’s no doubt this case is now headed to the Supreme Court. If they refuse to grant certiorari, the decision stands and Obamacare is dead. If they hear the case, I’m almost certain Obamacare is still dead. More good news.

The Republican-controlled House recently passed a repeal measure. It’ll be interesting to see what happens to that in light of this ruling. Obviously, it’s on its way to being a moot issue. But they’d be well advised to keep it going at this point, for a couple of reasons. First, until the final court has spoken (depending on the outcome of an appeal attempt), it could still be necessary. The process could take a while yet.

But more importantly, it will be interesting to see how many Senators continue to oppose it in light of this ruling, and the possible political fallout due to Obamacare’s unpopularity. Will they be willing to stay on a sinking ship? I think Minority Leader Mitch McConnell should keep fighting to force this measure to a vote in the Senate. Let’s see how many of those politicians are willing to hitch their horse to that wagon, now that the wheels have fallen off.

I find this ruling particularly interesting in light of another article I read today (here) in which, according to the Associated Press, the FDA “advises” people to cut down on their salt intake. From the article, “The Food and Drug Administration has said it will pressure (food production) companies to take voluntary action before it moves to regulate salt intake.”

“REGULATE SALT INTAKE”. There’s nothing these nanny-state nags think is beyond their powers in dictating to people how they must – not “should” – live their lives. What’s next? A ten-day “cooling off” period at the supermarket before you can pick up a box of salt? The Salt Police standing by your table in the restaurant, or inspecting your kitchen? Salt rationing?

Enough is enough. The pendulum in this country has started swinging back, away from this rampant, out-of-control Big Government paternalism and back to traditional American conservative values. It’s long overdue. Today Obamacare; tomorrow the FDA, EPA, and other overweening bureaucracies that think they have the right to micromanage how we Americans live our lives.

According to the Associated Press (AP) on 20 December (Here), “Rainfall records weren't just broken, they were obliterated. The weather service said 3.45 inches of rain fell in Pasadena during three days. The old record was 1.5 inches in 1987.”

According to another AP story the same day (Here) travel in Europe is virtually paralyzed as airports and rail lines are shut down by record snowfalls. The story says: “Forecasters have said Britain is experiencing some of the most severe winter weather in a century, with continued freezing temperatures and snowfall accumulations expected…”

This month’s “climate change” conference in Cancun, Mexico – buried in the Tropics – took place amidst record-low temperatures for the city.

Of course, everyone remembers “Climategate” from a couple of years ago (or at least, they should) wherein we learned that the UK’s University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit had blatantly manipulated and suppressed data in order to further their preferred outcome supporting the theory of global warming.

But the global warming fanatics are nothing if they’re not… well, fanatic. Buried deep in that story about the European blizzard problems is this little gem: “Experts said the extreme winter weather may be related to climate change due to global warming… ‘That's because with a warmer climate, there's more moisture in the air, which makes storms including blizzards, more intense’, he said”, referring to Greg Holland, director of the earth system laboratory at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in the United States.

So, global warming leads to colder winters. And this guy’s a “scientist”? If there is more moisture in the air due to “global warming”, it would be falling as rain during a warmer winter, not paralyzing an entire continent with snow in record-low temperatures. This guy’s a US Government employee; your tax dollars at work. Feel better now?

This is also why the weather-change zealots are trying to change the nomenclature from “global warming” to “climate change”. Not only do they look extremely foolish every time we have these record-cold winters – which is frequently nowadays – but the climate isn’t a static system. It’s dynamic. It’s always “changing”. Talk about hedging your bets.

Thirteen thousand years ago, a mere blink of the eye in geologic time, half of the North American continent was covered under a massive sheet of pack ice thousands of feet thick. Here in Southern California woolly mammoths and saber-toothed cats were part of the local fauna. Thank God for some global warming! Traffic’s bad enough here as it is. Can you imagine what it would be like with mammoths and mean big cats running around wild?

To say that this state has reached the terminus of a dead-end road would be an understatement. We’re in a state of undeclared bankruptcy, with red-ink deficits as far as the eye can see. The liberals running this state – from both major parties – have spent us into oblivion. Outgoing Governor Schwarzenegger was a disaster at least as bad as the guy he replaced in the recall election. The Democrats running the legislature wouldn’t know fiscal responsibility if it walked up and kicked them in the head. Governor-elect Brown is a classic Big Government nanny-stater in the pockets of the labor unions.

This state has about 14% of the nation’s population, and about 35% of the nation’s welfare recipients. That alone is a clear sign of disaster. But wait! There’s more!

We have government pension obligations that are simply unsustainable, coupled with one of the highest-paid government workforces in the country, thanks to the power of the unions here.

We’re awash in anti-business regulations that have been driving employers out of the state for a long time. The official unemployment rate stands at 12.0% as of October, the latest stat posted on the official government website.

So, the intuitive answer to the original question would be that the new Governor will try to get a “bailout” from Washington, while the legislature will resort to their usual efforts to increase taxes on the ever-shrinking productive sector.

Ah, but here’s the rub in that plan. Starting in January, the House of Representatives in the US Congress will be controlled by the Republicans, and that’s where all spending bills must, per the Constitution, originate. I think it’s highly unlikely that they’re going to be very inclined to throw money at Commiefornia.

Because of the passage in the last election of a couple of the ballot propositions, the state can no longer steal money from local governments to meet their own budget shortfalls (Prop 22), nor can they label tax increases as “fees” to try to circumvent the 2/3 approval requirement for the levying of new taxes (Prop 26). This is definitely going to put a crimp in any plans to steal more money from the shrinking pool of taxpayers.

Then add this to the mix: before the next election, and pursuant to the latest census, voting districts are going to be redrawn by an independent commission in order to try to attain true representative balance in this state, something long overdue. For the first time in a very long time, there are going to be elective races in this state – hopefully—that will actually be competitive. The Democrats’ death grip on power here may finally be broken.

Now, when you consider all those factors, I think that Brown and his fellow liberals are finally going to be forced into a position in which they’re going to have to make a serious effort to substantially cut spending. I don’t think mere cosmetics will work, either. That pig already has lipstick slopped all over its face.

If they don’t, I don’t know where they think they’ll get the money to sustain current spending levels. There is no Money Tree Forest anywhere, and their sources are pretty much dried up, as we’ve seen. The last effort to get voter approval for a tax increase, 2009’s Prop 1A, was defeated by an almost 2:1 margin.

Their further dilemma is that if they do actually make substantial spending cuts, their own constituency of handout recipients will set their hair on fire. That’s not the kind of reaction that typically leads to re-election.

The argument has been made that airport screening doesn’t raise Fourth Amendment issues which bar unreasonable searches, as they’re applied universally. Not so, any more than the police can set up random roadblocks and search the occupants of any car that happens by if they search all the cars that happen by. It is long-established doctrine that there has to be “probable cause” to search a vehicle pursuant to a stop for any reason. Just as these searches are a “condition” of being able to fly on a commercial airliner, the same argument could be applied that such a search would be a condition of using that stretch of road. Yet we don’t allow such random roadblocks on our roads. Even at sobriety checkpoints, the driver must show signs of intoxication before any further action by the police can occur.

Further, these searches are mandated by the government, not the airlines themselves. If the searches were a condition of use imposed by the airlines, there would be no constitutional issue involved, as the private entity airline is free to impose conditions for the use of their service. But that’s not the case here; it’s a government requirement, hence the Fourth Amendment issue.

So it’s clear that our society has decided that the suspension of Fourth Amendment protections in airports serves a higher purpose, in this case “public safety”. There is an argument to be made for that; I agree with Justice Robert Jackson that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. But how far are we willing to go down this road? How much is too much?

These new search procedures and technology have reached the point that in any other context they’d be considered sexual assault; in the case of children, the body scans would be considered child pornography, and the “pat down” searches would be child molestation. People would be going to jail. Yet we stand idly by in sheep-like acceptance.

There’s also a practical issue to consider. As the terrorists come up with new and inventive ways of blowing themselves and everyone else up, the scope of the screening becomes increasingly invasive. Have you noticed that? This is a classic case of closing the barn door after the horses have wandered away, as the bad guys are not going to use a method that’s already been figured out by the authorities. So, if you follow this through to its logical conclusion, the only way to achieve a comprehensive level of “security” will be for everyone to fly in the buff. Are you ready to fly in a plane full of naked people? The mind shudders at the thought.

More importantly, if we as a society have decided that everyone must surrender their constitutional protections against unreasonable searches, why must we still worry about offending Muslim minorities by using the valid and effective law enforcement tool of profiling? If we’re willing to suspend the Fourth Amendment in airports, why not also the Fourteenth?

We know that the primary threat posed to commercial air travel is from young Muslim men, not five-year-old infants or Norwegian grandmothers. Yet we still insist on treating all three groups the same as we bow at the altar of political correctness.

The time has come for some common sense in airport security. We need to focus our efforts on certain target groups – primarily Muslim males – and at the least exempt other groups from the searches altogether, such as Granny and the little kids among others. There should be a process available that would give frequent flyers, such as business travelers, the ability to acquire an exemption ID card of some kind if they meet some predetermined criteria. This would speed the whole process up with no adverse effect on security that I can see.

Obama and the Democrats spent the last year or so deriding the GOP as the “Party of NO” in their attempt to secure electoral victory. Clearly, that strategy failed; evidently the country’s ready for a little “NO” when it comes to profligate spending that would shame a drunken sailor. Hopefully, even a lot.

Interestingly enough, when he hears hoof beats Obama’s still thinking of zebras instead of horses. He still claims the people simply don’t “understand” the wonderfulness of his policies. Apparently, in his view we’re just too dense for our own good.

A couple of days ago Obama did mention a “mid-course correction”, but what does that mean? Over the last couple of years, all his talk of “compromise” basically boiled down to Republicans and conservatives having to give up all the ground. In other words, it can more readily be summarized as “my way or the highway”. He facilely uses a word that a lot of people supposedly like to hear – “compromise” – but then doesn’t give up an inch, castigating his opponents as being obstructionist when they don’t forsake their own principles and cave in.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I think “compromise” on basic core principles is not a good thing. Obama is a True Believer in his liberal/socialist policy ideas, and is determined to fight for them to the bitter end. But then his opponents must be given the same credit for their positions, too. There are some things for which there simply is no such thing as “compromise”. That’s why we have elections.

It was Obama who said to the Republican negotiators when they were squabbling over spending, “I won”. Now the GOP can turn around and say the same thing. Elections do have consequences. And whether or not Obama wants to acknowledge it, his policies were the core issues over which the election outcomes were determined. Like it or not, the Representatives and Senators who stood for election were his proxies, and they stood or fell pretty much on the basis of their support for Obama policies.

Obama launched into a rambling discourse about the political opposition he was facing, and it included this little gem (read the entire interview Here):

“And if Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, we're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us…”.

What’s that? “Our enemies”? What does he mean by that? Is he talking about Latinos saying that, and that those who oppose amnesty are the “enemies” of Latinos? Is he trying to sow racial discord and animus?

Or does he lump himself in there with the Latinos and mean that those against amnesty are common enemies of Latinos and him? In which case I have to wonder about all the campaign promises about “post-partisanship” and “cooperation” and “bringing people together” and being the “Great Uniter”.

I have never in my 61 years heard a President call his political opponents “enemies” other than in the Watergate tapes. For a guy who’s always complaining about the rancorous tone of public debate – especially talk radio – this is arrogant and hypocritical beyond belief. In this country, one has political opponents, not “enemies”.

We do indeed have “enemies”, such as Islamic fanatics like bin Laden. That’s an “enemy”.  But for loyal Americans who disagree on policy to be called “enemies” by the President of the United States is an absolute insult of the worst order. It’s also a symptom of a very, very dangerous mindset in American politics. Don’t forget that this is the same administration whose Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, called American veterans potential “right-wing extremists” and “security threats”.

That also raises the question of where the mainstream press is on addressing this comment. If this had been said by Christine O’Donnell or Sarah Palin, I have absolutely no doubt they’d be drooling at the mouth like rabid dogs. The howls of sanctimonious outrage would be all over the TV talk shows and newspaper editorial pages. Don’t forget the brouhaha when Rush Limbaugh said he hoped Obama’s policies would fail, a completely benign statement by comparison.

I’ve read the arguments in favor of the idea: it’s not a “gateway” drug; it’s no worse than alcohol; legalization would get the gangs out of the marijuana trade; there’s no constitutional foundation for the war on drugs. Frankly, I don’t find any of these arguments persuasive.

The science is split on whether or not it’s a “gateway” drug. It may not be worse than alcohol, but we already have plenty of problems with alcohol; do we want to add to them? I see nothing in the Constitution that forbids laws against illicit drugs, especially at the state level.

As to the premise that legalization will magically make the illegal drug trade in weed go away: who came up with that loony idea?

Are the drug gangs who make tons of money suddenly going to just shrug their shoulders and walk away? Why would they do that? They make a boatload of money tax free.

No, no more than legal gun stores have ended street trade in illegal guns. All they'll do is cut their prices to be more competitive, and that's easy to do as illegal weed is cheaper than dirt to grow.

Meanwhile, the legal weed sold in stores with profit margins and taxation just won't be able to beat the price.

And that doesn't even begin to address the conflict with federal drug laws. Nor does it in any way address the issue of rampant marijuana use by underage kids. How is that issue going to be “solved” by legalizing weed?

The whole idea's ridiculous.

The name of the Saint Crispin Day Society was derived from Shakespeare’s “Band of Brothers” speech in Henry V. You should read it if you haven’t before; it’s very stirring, especially the salient lines that led to our moniker:

We Crispies welcome the Tea Party newcomers to the fight. But what, exactly, is that fight?

Naturally, we’re opposed to the leftward direction the country’s been headed down for quite some time. But just as important as fighting liberalism as personified by the Democrat party, we’re fighting it whenever it rears its ugly head in the party that claims to espouse the traditional American values of conservatism… the GOP. That’s probably the more important fight of the two.

Democrats are pretty straightforward about their goals of remaking America to fit their image of what it should be. That battle can be fought on its own merits. The fight against liberalism within the GOP is against a much more insidious foe: a leftward drift that tries to disguise itself under the false mantle of “Reaganism” or “compassionate conservatism”, but which is, in reality, simply a form of Liberalism-Lite.

There are some good people within the GOP, and several come immediately to mind: Issa, McClintock, Cole, DeMint, Sessions, Jindal, Paul, and a handful of others. But for every one of those, there seems to be a legion of McCains, Gingriches, Romneys, Snowes, Giulianis, Medveds, etcetera, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

In the Tea Party phenomenon, the GOP sees a parade marching by, and wants to jump into the lead. When that doesn’t work, they can be just as vicious as their Democrat counterparts in trying to discredit and diminish it. They should take note that they do so at their own political peril.

This last Tuesday, there were some GOP primaries in which some of the non-establishment candidates supported by Tea Partiers were successful in beating their establishment opponents. The party hacks didn’t take kindly to the result. In Delaware, for example, Tea Party favorite Christine O’Donnell beat GOP hack Mike Castle for the nomination ( Here ). The state GOP’s initial response?

“Republican Party officials who saw Castle as their only hope for winning the Delaware seat once held by Vice President Joe Biden made clear they will not provide funding for O'Donnell in the general election.”

Apparently since then, cooler heads have prevailed ( Here ). US Senator John Cornyn, Chairman of the GOP Senatorial Committee: “Let there be no mistake: The National Republican Senatorial Committee – and I personally as the committee’s chairman – strongly stand by all of our Republican nominees, including Christine O’Donnell in Delaware.”

But that first response was just so instructive of the mindset of so many in the GOP establishment. This has been an ongoing war within the GOP for about a half century, as the Country-Club/Rockefeller appeasement wing has fought the Goldwater/Reagan wing over the direction their party should take ideologically. The issue has been compounded now with the emergence of the Tea Parties as a big factor on the political landscape.

The Country-Clubbers continually buy into the idea that they can win power by trying to out-Dem the Dems, or at least promote a somehow less odious form of liberalism. They’ve historically been completely blind to the simple fact that whenever candidates run on traditional American conservatism, they almost invariably win, and usually by large margins. They’re intent on continuing the discredited strategies of the past, which is why we see them promoting candidates like McCain, Giuliani, Gingrich, and their ilk.

And they seem to want to continue their willful and obstinate approach even in light of the very clear message represented by the surge of the Tea Party movement. Truly Einsteinian insanity; continuing the same actions while hoping for a different outcome.