Could the current political divide spell the end of the U.S

May 13, 2025

Douglas Murray is a British author, political commentator, cultural critic, and journalist, and his columns have appeared in a long list of publications, including the New York Post and National Review. 

Back in 2018 he created a video in which he said that “Europe is committing suicide.” He went on to explain that there were two major causes of Europe’s impending downfall.

The first, he said, “is the mass movement of peoples into Europe.” This process had been going on for a long time, “but sped up massively in the migration crisis of 2015, when more than a million migrants poured into Europe from the Middle East, North Africa and East Asia.”

The second major cause, which he said was equally significant, was “that Europe lost faith in itself — its beliefs, its traditions and even its very legitimacy.”

Given the current state of affairs here in the United States, Murray’s comments might also describe the suicidal tendencies we have here.

Our challenges have been going on since before the date that Murray first mentioned about Europe, 2015. And, like the European experience, they have increased markedly in recent years.

Like the European countries, the U.S. has seen a tremendous influx of people from other countries. Millions came across our open borders unvetted during the Biden administration. There were some good people, looking for a better life and escaping oppression. But there were thousands, or perhaps millions, who were drug and child traffickers, murderers, rapists, robbers and terrorists.

Over the last few decades the U.S., like Europe, has seen a gradual abandonment of its once strong history and culture.

We have seen persons in many areas forsake their solemn duties, favoring ideals that are not American ideals, and are dangerous to our future. 

Attorneys general and district attorneys refuse to prosecute many types of crimes. Mayors and municipal council members open their doors to illegal aliens, and protect them from being properly deported.

Many of the people we call educators put their professional integrity on the shelf and fail to present their students with a proper background of their country. They have done an equally bad job of teaching crucial basic concepts, like fundamental math, reading and writing. 

And many parents have likewise failed to teach their children about becoming a good American, respecting the law, the rights of others, and basic human behavior.

News organizations and journalists often see no problem with presenting “news” according to their political ideals, rather than abiding by journalistic principles.

Some medical professionals support and assist people in becoming the opposite gender, even children. And some in public education assist children in doing that, and hide that from their parents.

Members of Congress, Republican and Democrat, have recently been heard using what we used to call “cuss words” in their comments on the floor of the chambers. This sort of language, which is profane, is nearly always considered inappropriate, especially for formal settings like public appearances, media appearances, and public activities. 

And the frequency of violence in protests from groups with an ax to grind is shocking. What they are unable to achieve through persuasion with their ideas they try to achieve through force and violence.

Many of these activities are illegal, and all are certainly subversive to the established principles, values and culture of our country.

Politically, we have lost much ground. Many of us remember when Republicans and Democrats got along with each other, despite having different ideas about how to keep the country great, and even to improve it.

The current political discourse reflects the wide gulf in philosophy. One side wants to restore things while the other wants to change everything. The two sides talk to each other in sharp, cutting terms, rarely finding agreement on anything.

Roger Kimball, editor of The New Criterion, sees efforts to restore the previous state of things. He said that following the unsuccessful attempt to assassinate Donald Trump at a campaign rally last year there has been talk of restoration of the values and environment of the past. And that has picked up speed since Trump’s election and inauguration.

In a speech at Hillsdale College’s Blake Center for Faith and Freedom shortly after Trump took office in January, Kimball said, “We always hear about the ‘peaceful transfer of power’ when a new president takes office.

“The usual procedure is for the old crowd to vacate their positions while the new crowd slides in to take their places. The institutions remain inviolate. Nothing essential changes.”

But, he noted, Trump was not elected to preserve the upside-down status quo, but to make badly needed changes. Given the existing political divide as this process gets under way, there is fairly broad satisfaction on Trump’s side, but great fear and resistance on the other.

Whether the suicide that Murray talked about occurring in Europe will be the ultimate conclusion for America remains to be seen. Those who understand and appreciate the original unique design, individual freedom and other benefits of the American system are working hard to see that the shining city on the hill survives this attempted revolution.

The meaning of laws or the Constitution should not be changed on a whim

June 4, 2024

Why is it that those on the left — liberals, socialists, Marxists, “progressives” — think that the ideas expressed in our laws and the Constitution are just suggestions, and their interpretation by judges and others in positions of authority can vary with the wind?

Do they really believe that words mean whatever anyone wants them to mean at any given time as political fervor and social preferences dictate? 

Well, yes, many of them believe that whatever their political motivation is at any moment is enough to justify changing the meaning of a law or a feature of our Constitution that was written years, decades, or even centuries ago.

Those written words were just ideas of the moment, they suggest, and everyone knows that ideas and circumstances change as time progresses. Therefore, the meaning of laws and the Constitution must be flexible enough to be understood as they want to understand them at any point in time.

And they want to get rid of anyone in any position who believes the contrary: that laws and the Constitution mean what they meant when they were created, and will continue to hold that meaning until they are properly changed by the appropriate processes.

In order to get the world organized to their liking, the leftists want to remove anyone from their official position that doesn’t follow the popular ideological line. Supreme Court Justices, for example, who follow the law and Constitution as written. They are “originalists,” or “judicial conservatives.”

Like umpires and referees, judges, justices, magistrates, etc., must not take sides in their work. They must not change the rules of the game during the game. They have the duty to apply the laws and terms of the Constitution as they were intended when created, without applying political or ideological bias. 

That point is frequently missed by some observers who instead want their personal beliefs to prevail in such matters, despite what the intent of the measure in question may be.

But the interpretations of our Constitution and existing law must be based upon the circumstances that prevailed at the time they were created, and that those circumstances were why these laws and Constitutional provisions were created to begin with.

If the original circumstances that were the basis of a law or a feature of the Constitution no longer exist, if things have changed substantially, then the law can be repealed, or the Constitution can be amended as needed. But until those actions take place, the laws and Constitution must be followed as written, and as intended. The leftists prefer to consider the U.S. Constitution a “living document,” the meanings of which ebb and flow with the tide of time.

This concept was dealt with in an article by United States Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch titled, “Why Originalism Is the Best Approach to the Constitution.” 

In this article, he addresses some specific instances. However, we will focus on the primary meaning: “Originalism teaches only that the Constitution’s original meaning is fixed; meanwhile, of course, new applications of that meaning will arise with new developments and new technologies.”

“Whether it’s the Constitution’s prohibition on torture, its protection of speech, or its restrictions on searches, the meaning remains constant even as new applications arise.”

And then, the crux of the debate: “Living constitutionalists often complain we can’t know the original understanding because the document’s too old and cryptic. Hardly. We figure out the original meaning of old and difficult texts all the time. Just ask any English professor who teaches Shakespeare or Beowulf.”

And he then describes the leftists’ preferred solution to the disagreement: “For when it comes to the social and political questions of the day they care most about, many living constitutionalists would prefer to have philosopher-king judges swoop down from their marble palace to ordain answers rather than allow the people and their representatives to discuss, debate, and resolve them. You could even say the real complaint here is with our democracy.”

In common parlance, they want the documents to say whatever they prefer them to say at any given moment. And those meanings can change with a new breath.

“Suppose originalism does lead to a result you happen to dislike in this or that case. So what,” Gorsuch asks? “The ‘judicial Power’ of Article III of the Constitution isn’t a promise of all good things. Letting dangerous and obviously guilty criminals who have gravely injured their victims go free just because an officer forgot to secure a warrant or because the prosecutor neglected to bring a witness to trial for confrontation seems like a bad idea to plenty of people.

“But do you really want judges to revise the Constitution to avoid those ‘bad’ results? Or do you believe that judges should enforce the law’s protections equally for everyone, regardless of how inefficient or unpopular or old the law might be? Regardless of who benefits today — the criminal or the police; the business or the employee; immigrants or ICE?”

Originalism focuses on process, not substance. The originalist concept protects the country from renegade “jurists” who will do whatever improves their political/ideological position. This is not what America is about.

Ominous omnibus: There are many problems with the spending bill

Last Friday Congress passed the omnibus spending bill, avoiding a government shutdown when current funding expired at 12:01 a.m. on Dec. 23. At 2,009 pages it spent a dazzling $1.149 trillion, and like most legislation it had some good features and some less-than-desirable features.

It was described as far-reaching legislation funding the government until next October, passing tax breaks for businesses and low-income families, reauthorizing programs to compensate and provide health care for first responders and survivors of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and a cybersecurity measure that could help businesses cooperate more closely with the government and each other in fighting online threats.

The bill easily cleared both chambers, first in the House, which passed it 316-113, followed by the Senate in a 65-33 vote. President Barack Obama signed the measure.

Republicans, who hold majorities in both houses – 54 percent in the House and nearly 57 percent in the Senate – supported the bill by a significant majority in the House, but in in the Senate only about one-third voted for the bill.

Despite the Republican majority in both houses, the GOP managed only a few real victories, while the minority party won big, according to most analyses.

Republicans gained the lifting of a 40-year ban on oil exports, prohibiting funding to bail out the insurance companies in the Obamacare health insurance program, and preventing the IRS from regulating political speech.

However, they were unable to restrict the Syrian refugee program, end funding for Obama’s executive actions on immigration, defund Planned Parenthood, defund sanctuary cities, or restrain EPA over-regulation of ponds and streams, and coal-burning power plants.

Perhaps the most noteworthy provision in the bill is the one that could allow more than a quarter-million temporary guest workers into the country, an increase from the previous federal cap of 66,000 on H-2B visas for low-skilled foreign workers seeking blue-collar jobs in the U.S. This is a significant change to immigration law, and it has conservatives dismayed. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, told The Daily Signal, “It came out of nowhere, completely out of nowhere,” the chairman of the House Freedom Caucus said, “[and] everyone was shocked there was a change and no one had talked about it.”

Conservatives are displeased that the Republicans were unable to remove so many troublesome provisions that they should strongly oppose, and also with the very process that created the bill and brought it to a vote.

Critics of the bill and its passage complained that the rank-and-file members of the House were not included in negotiations. Congressional leaders assembled the bill in smoke-filled back rooms and did not release the text of the 2,009-page bill until 2 a.m. last Wednesday, and the separate 233-page tax-extenders bill was released just before midnight.

Prior to the vote Heritage Action for America chief executive Michael A. Needham said the package represents the most sweeping changes to tax policy since 2012. “In fewer than 48 hours, lawmakers will likely be asked to vote on two massive bills that were negotiated behind closed doors over the past several weeks,” he said.

After the vote Republican presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky explained his “no” vote to a New York radio station: “It was over a trillion dollars, it was all lumped together, 2,242 pages, nobody read it, so frankly my biggest complaint is that I have no idea what kind of things they stuck in the bill.” “I voted against it because I won’t vote for these enormous bills that no one has a chance to read,” Paul continued. “[T]his is not a way to run government. It’s a part of the reason why government is broke." And broken, he might have added.

Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, who voted against the spending bill, said Republicans voted for the bill in part to support House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-WI, who had just taken that position and they were hopeful he would be more inclusive with rank and file members than his predecessor, former House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.

“There were a lot of people who didn’t want to vote for this, but they were giving him a vote out of good faith,” he said. At the same time, many also were worried that Ryan had given Democrats too many policy concessions in the bill, a feeling now confirmed. “The Democrats unfortunately just learned that they can mistreat him like they mistreated Boehner, which is a really bad thing,” Labrador said.

What the Framers designed as an efficient and transparent system of lawmaking now operates in the gutter. These days, bills often reflect dishonorable characteristics like this bill had:
    •    Created in secrecy
    •    Hundreds or thousands of pages long
    •    Voted on without time to be properly considered
    •    Amendments not permitted
    •    Contain elements unrelated to the purpose of the bill
    •    Are approved for political expediency, rather than by broad support

Too many bills are designed not to produce needed and broadly supported laws, but to enact politically useful and narrowly focused measures that benefit some at the expense of the others.

This process is yet one more sign of the devolving nature of our country. If America is to survive, good government must be restored.

Republicans face problems in debates and the House of Representatives

Say what you will about the way CNBC conducted the Republican debate, the business side of NBC News did something that neither Fox News nor CNN were able to do.

All three had similarities, like gotcha questions and efforts to pit one candidate against another, elements that obstructed a discussion of the serious issues of electing a nominee for President of the United States, rather than assisting voters in making an informed decision. To the extent that real issues arose, the combative atmosphere moderators created in all three debates got in the way.

In sharp contrast to the mood in Republican debates was the Democrat debate on CNN, which also failed to reveal important information about the candidates, but approached not doing so by giving hugs and kisses to the candidates.

CNBC was both over the top and under the table. The three moderators were clearly not up to conducting a meaningful debate, not even on business and economic issues, and the muddle that resulted drew almost universal criticism. Moderators were poorly prepared, partisan, thought they were the stars of the show, were argumentative and often interrupted the candidates. While so many TV news people seem infected with the idea that being quarrelsome is cool, CNBC took that to a new level. You can challenge candidates on issues and answers, and still be civil.

However, as horrible as it was, CNBC did succeed in uniting the candidates for the first time since the campaign began, if only against CNBC’s amateurish approach, and the revolt that followed did produce a little discussion of important issues.

The 2016 debate series should be a valuable element in the process of selecting presidential candidates. Along with public and media appearances, the debates are opportunities for voters to hear candidates discuss their platforms and they are the only vehicle where the pros and cons of the various positions are aired in a way that voters have the opportunity to evaluate them side-by-side. 

So far they all have been disappointing, in terms of illuminating the candidate’s views, but CNBC wins the brown ribbon for the absolute worst. In place of questions on substantive issues, the moderators worked hard to trap and demean the Republican participants, which is very different from challenging them on issues.

Unfortunately, our campaign process identifies the best candidate, not necessarily the person best suited to be president. So much is based on appearance and performance, rather than candidates’ understanding of the country’s problems and sensible ideas for addressing them. A track record of success takes a back seat to image, charm and glibness.

And Republicans have the additional obstacle posed by the liberals in the media, who often misunderstand and not infrequently deliberately mischaracterize their objectives, and tell the world how awful they are.

Granted that the GOP is sharply divided, unlike the Democrat Party that pretty much possesses no diversity of thought. But the left portrays this Republican diversity as a weakness, which is interesting, since the left considers diversity one of the most important things in life.

It suits the purposes of the left to mischaracterize and demonize the House Freedom Caucus, the Tea Party groups and other elements of the right, and there are plenty of media sources indulging in that activity.

Some, commenting on Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan’s election as House Speaker, wonder how he will possibly be able to manage such an unruly group. The liberal writers characterize the conservative Republican bloc with terms such as “right-wing fringe” and “radicals.”

The liberal writers are happy to offer guidance to conservatives, such as that if their subgroup wants to set policy for its party, all it needs is to have a majority of the party’s support. And if it doesn’t have a majority, it should meekly abandon its position and support the position of the majority.

And that no doubt would please liberals and Democrats, and many Republicans. However, millions of Republican voters recognize that this approach is largely why things are worse today than when the GOP gained control of the Congress, and why the Republican Congress has been so ineffective at representing their views.

These conservative House members were elected not to offer their ideas and then surrender, they were elected to fight for their supporter’s beliefs in the traditional conservative values that built the country, and to stick by them. Isn’t that what republican government is all about?

The liberals advise that when voters have put one party in charge of the executive branch and another party in charge of the legislative branch, as is the case today, compromise is demanded to move the country forward.

However, compromise does not mean surrender, as many of these “advisors” suggest. One does not oppose a bill with multiple objectionable elements, and then “compromise” by accepting the whole package when others resist changes. The two sides identify those elements they agree on, take the rest out of the legislation, and move the compromise measure forward.

Compromise means that everyone gives up something, not just the conservative Republicans. It is sad – even dangerous – that so many Republicans do not understand this.

More business-like habits in Washington might rescue the country

Some Americans fully understand the potentially cataclysmic economic situation facing the country. They are not the ones we have to worry about.

Who we have to worry about are the ones – the millions – that either do not fully comprehend the problem, or have some level of understanding and either are unconcerned about the problem, are using it to their advantage, or have no idea what to do about it. Many of the people in this group hold positions in the federal government, and are responsible for creating the crisis and/or perpetuating it and making it worse.

While government and business are distinctly different creatures, there are aspects of sound business operation that belong in the Federal Government Operators Manual, and Chapter I is “Fiscal Responsibility.”

The Prime Directive, derived from the U.S. Constitution, is a simple one: Government must remain small with limited scope and interfere minimally in the lives of the citizens it exists to serve. It must be a good steward of the people’s finances, taxing minimally and spending frugally.

If such a manual existed and if it had the force of law, many politicians and bureaucrats would have been jailed or fired for their part in creating a crisis that more and more resembles to a frightening degree what now threatens socialist Europe.

The situation is this: The U.S. has borrowed debt amounting to $50,000 for every citizen in the country totaling nearly $16 trillion. Despite this enormous and growing debt, in most years the federal government willfully spends more than it takes in, averaging deficits of $1.3 trillion annually since 2009, which is approximately 40 percent more than revenue, and has increased the national debt by about a third.

To say it is foolish and risky to have done this for years on end produces one of those “well, duh!” moments. Yet, that is what we have done, and continue to do. Those Americans more concerned with the fate of the nation than with their own political well-being know that we cannot continue on this course.

There are three options to correct this crisis: Reduce spending; increase revenue; or a combination of both. The latter is the best option.

Some people advocate deeply cutting the out-of-control and frequently wasteful and fraudulent spending. These people are responsible citizens and conscientious public servants. They are accused of wanting to throw people out on the street, take food from babies, and other equally cartoonish slurs by those who want to maintain the status quo, people who a) benefit from wasting your tax dollars or b) benefit from government misspending.

Government taxation and spending is where common business practice should be applied: what would a business with costs 40 percent higher than its income do? Unlike government, which can – but shouldn’t – print money at will, if it wants to survive, a business must have more income than spending. Government should have a balance of the two.

One of the first things a business would do is cut non-essential expense. Here, the federal government has a vast array of opportunities: combine the dozens of wasteful duplicated services, reduce employee expense through attrition; fire unproductive and self-serving federal workers, and take the virtually unprecedented step of shutting down programs that do not work. Like Head Start, a true tribute to government inefficiency that a Department of Health and Human Services study found has wasted $150 billion since 1965, but produces no lasting benefits for participants.

It could scale back the frenzied regulatory efforts of the EPA and other agencies that spend our money killing jobs, raising costs for businesses and consumers, but produce negligible improvements, or do more harm than good. It could stop agencies like the GSA from robbing taxpayers to fund lavish get-togethers posing as training activities, and stop giving away the public’s money on dumb ideas like the half-billion President Barack Obama “loaned” to the failed solar company Solyndra, and other self-defeating assaults on the private sector. It could sell the 14,000 federally owned real estate properties that now sit empty and unproductive.

The government could give up its predatory attitude toward businesses and the wealthy in its futile effort to increase government revenue, and the politicians could replace their efforts to gin up class envy with practical steps that would foster job creation, thereby broadening the tax base and actually increasing tax revenue. The idea of raising taxes on rich folks might cause some people to get all tingly, but it won’t make a significant difference in balancing out the treacherous over-spending in which the federal government continues to indulge.

Federal government fiscal negligence predates Mr. Obama’s presidency by many years, but the sign that proclaims “The Buck Stops Here” is on the desk he campaigned so aggressively to earn in 2008, and before he asks a single American to pay a penny more in taxes to support a bloated bureaucracy or higher costs resulting from excessive regulation, he needs to get his administration under control. Some or perhaps most of the ideologues now running the administration are not up to the task, but the country has lots of capable people outside government that can do the job.

Click here to Comment

The third and final installment of the 2011 edition:

No. 362 of 365

Quote Teddy Roosevelt: "A gentleman told me recently that he doubted I would vote for the Angel Gabriel if found at the head of the Democratic Party, to which I responded that the Angel Gabriel would never be found in such company. Speaking quite dispassionately, and simply as a historian, the Democrats can be trusted invariably to walk in the darkness even when to walk in the light would be manifestly to their advantage."

No. 359 of 365

Ask your liberal neighbor to explain the logic of Obama's "stimulus" pork program. Say, "So let me get this right, the government takes money from taxpayers to put more workers on the government payroll that is paid for by taxpayers, and this helps the economy how exactly?" When he goes on to give a vague (and probably inaccurate) Keynesian explanation, you can cut him off with, "By that explanation, thieves are good for the economy, too— they help spread the wealth around; but I'll stick with the old-fashioned idea that we don't need the government to spread the wealth around, we can do that ourselves with our own free-market choices that support real free-market jobs and independent charities. What's the beef you liberals have with freedom anyway?"

No. 358 of 365

When your liberal neighbors knock excitedly on your door to show you ultrasound pictures of the baby they're expecting, look mortified and then say, "But surely, it's not yet a child, it's still a choice."

No. 354 of 365

Start a "Take a Liberal to Lunch" program to provide counseling for liberals whose high hopes for hope 'n' change are running out.

No. 353 of 365

Next time a liberal upbraids you for "maintaining narrow, traditional moral values" remind him that "tradition" is simply the inherited wisdom of our ancestors, which keeps us from making moral fools of ourselves, and anyway, which of these traditional moral values would he flat-out like to do away with: compassion, fidelity, honesty, restraint, deference, courage, chivalry, self-denial... (Actually, all of them, but he won't be able to say that.)

No. 339 of 365

Even an agnostic liberal might be a little taken aback to learn that Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky, a book that inspired the likes of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, is dedicated to "the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom— Lucifer." Point out that Alinsky was at least one radical who knew where liberalism led.

No. 338 of 365

Show them the neglected conservative flick The Wild Geese with Roger Moore, Richard Burton, and Richard Harris. A collection of truly free-market soldiers (mercenaries) blow the hell out of Communist, Cuban-aided Africans, to rescue a democratic African leader. True, the bad guy is a wealthy investor, as your liberal friend will undoubtedly point out to you, but you can say, "Yeah, you're right; he reminds me of George Soros."

No. 337 of 365

Remind a liberal that California used to be a reliable Republican state. It voted Republican in every presidential election from 1952 to 1992 with only one exception (1964). Remind a liberal further that in those days, California was renowned for having some of the most right-wing voting districts in the country (in Southern California's Orange County); and remind the liberal even further that in those days California was equally renowned for its prosperity. Since 1992, the state has been overwhelmingly Democrat, and — while flooded with illegal immigrants — native Californians have been fleeing to other states, and the economy has gone down the toilet. Is that all just a coincidence?

No. 336 of 365

Force them to sit down and watch the movie Patton. Then ask them just how well we'd have done in World War II with an army led by men like Barack ("We could learn from the Nazis' outreach to Islam") Obama, draft-dodging Bill Clinton, Al ("All these explosions must be bad for the environment") Gore, Jimmy ("America has to get over her inordinate fear of National Socialism") Carter...

No. 329 of 365

Quote Richard Lamm, former Democratic Governor of Colorado: "Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want and their kids pay for it."

No. 327 of 365

When the holidays roll around, always say: "Merry Christmas," never "Happy Holidays." Not only do 70 percent of Americans prefer it—according to Rasmussen polls—but you are much more likely to offend a liberal. While 88 percent of Republican voters prefer "Merry Christmas," only 57 percent of Democrats do.

No. 326 of 365

Pick a fight with a liberal on: PEAK OIL.

"Peak oil"—the idea that we've reached the peak of oil production and that it's about to run out—is an S & M fantasy scenario designed by liberals to justify their fetish for higher taxation, greater government control, more regulation, and the mass switchover to expensive, pointless energy sources that don't work, such as wind and solar power. As Dennis Miller says: "Relax. We'll replace oil when we need to. American ingenuity will kick in and the next great fortune will be made. It's not pretty but it is historically accurate. We need to run out of oil first. That's why I drive an SUV—so we run out of it more quickly. I consider myself to be at the vanguard of the environmental movement and I think individuals who insist on driving hybrids are just prolonging our dilemma and I think that's just selfish..."

No. 325 of 365

Defend Israel. Show them pictures of Gaza's ritzy new shopping mall; quote the Japanese journalist who said: "Gaza and the West Bank are the only places in the world where I see refugees drive Mercedes;" remind them that life expectancy for Gaza Arabs—seventy-two years—is nearly five years higher than the world average, with a higher literacy rate than Turkey's. Then explain: "And it's ALL the result of years and years of EVIL ISRAELI OPPRESSION!"

No. 324 of 365

Conservative history: Quote "liberal fascist" Woodrow Wilson as an early example of America-hating, One World Government addiction. Asked whether the League of Nations might compromise American sovereignty, he replied that he looked forward to the day "when men would be just as eager partisans of the sovereignty of mankind as they were now of their own national sovereignty."

No. 321 of 365

Pick a fight with a liberal on: "PEACE ACTIVISTS."

Oh, yeah right, like the "peace activists" on the "peace convoy" bringing aid to the people of Gaza in May 2010? The ones who engaged in the traditional "peace activist" activity before they set sail from Turkey of preparing suicide videos; the ones who armed themselves with iron bars, knives, and guns, and tried to beat up, slice open, and shoot the brutal Israeli soldiers who boarded their ships armed with paintball guns. So what you're saying, right, is that "peace" is the new "war"?

No. 320 of 365

Reclaim rock for conservatism: Speculate that the Rolling Stones' "You Can't Always Get What You Want" was almost certainly an attempt by London School of Economics-educated Mick Jagger to convey to his youthful audience two of the bedrock concepts of conservatism: life is unfair; don't expect the state to bail you out.

Please leave a comment.

Gingrich talks common sense

Once again Newt Gingrich identifies practical, workable solutions to a crisis. To get the country’s economy back on track the former House Speaker and present general chairman of American Solutions for Winning the Future, suggests 12 sensible things America should do:

• Create a payroll tax credit to help workers and small businesses.
• Cut the 25 percent marginal tax rate to 15 percent.
• Reduce the business tax rate.
• Stabilize housing prices by providing tax credits so responsible home buyers can avoid foreclosures.
• Control federal spending and move to a balanced budget.
• End Medicare fraud by requiring states to adopt anti-theft and anti-fraud measures.
• Develop more American energy.
• Abolish taxes on capital gains.
• Protect workers' right to vote in a secret ballot before being forced to join a union.
• Replace the Sarbanes-Oxley law regulating corporations' accounting practices.
• Abolish the death tax.
• Invest in infrastructure, including a new electric grid.

An ad in USA Today outlining these 12 ideas criticized the "failed Washington model of bailouts, deficit spending and a bloated federal bureaucracy."

Newt Gingrich is probably the most perceptive and credible voice on the scene today. We have to hope more people will start listening to him.

Click Here to Comment

Technorati Tags: Culture, Politics, War on Terror, Democrats

Dear President Obama: Taxing Charity? Is nothing sacred?

President Barack Obama signaled last week that he wouldn't back down in seeking to raise the taxes of the wealthiest Americans in order to pay for his colossal domestic policy agenda. He believes a proposal included in his budget request to reduce the tax deductions for charitable donations of the wealthiest Americans, thus raising their taxes, was the right thing to do.

"This provision would affect about one percent of the American people," Obama said. They would still be allowed to claim deductions, he noted, they would just not be able to claim as much as they currently do.

Some in Congress have expressed doubts about the tax increase, worrying that it could lead to lower charitable donations by the wealthy. Mr. Obama rejected this claim, saying there was "very little evidence" to suggest there would be a significant drop in donations as a result of the tax increase, and he then chastised the wealthy just in case they might use the deductibility factor in deciding how much to give to charity. After all, he stated, tax deductions aren’t supposed to be the reason that someone contributes to charity in the first place.

Just how much does the targeted group contribute each year? The Indiana University Center on Philanthropy released the following data in the summer of 2007 for charitable giving in seven categories. The data for two of those are:

Basic Needs giving: Of households with an annual income between $200,000 and $1,000,000, 74.5 percent give an average household gift of $3,076, cumulatively making up 27.9 percent ($5.30 billion) of the funds raised to help meet basic human needs.

Of households with an annual income equal to or above $1,000,000, 76.4 percent give an average household gift of $12,673, cumulatively making up 10.2 percent ($1.93 billion) of the funds raised to help meet basic human needs causes.

Health Related giving: Households with an annual income between $200,000 and $1,000,000, 74.1 percent give an average household gift of $2,805, cumulatively making up 21.9 percent ($4.81 billion) of the funds raised by health organizations.

Of households with an annual income equal to or above $1,000,000, 70.4 percent give an average household gift of $92,289, cumulatively making up 59.1 percent ($12.97 billion) of the funds raised by health organizations.

In summary, those in the two highest earning quartiles give 38 percent of all charitable giving for Basic Needs, a total of $7.23 billion, and 81 percent of all charitable giving to Health Related needs, totaling $16.78 billion. And, when it comes to charitable giving in all seven categories the wealthiest 2.3 percent of Americans are responsible for 56 percent of the total.

Why would the President of the United States want taxes raised on the charitable contributions of the wealthy, or of anybody? Wealthy people are the ones whose charitable giving comprises a majority of charitable donations year after year; they are the ones with the most to give.

Mr. Obama says that putting a limit on the amount of these donations that can be deducted won’t make that much difference. But why wouldn’t the President want to encourage everyone to give as much as possible to charity, so that those in need will have as much private sector money to assist them as possible, particularly at a time when the economy is under stress and more Americans are out of work than at any time in the last 30 years? And, more to the point, why shouldn’t every dollar of charitable giving be deductable?

So, what is behind Mr. Obama’s desire to make giving to charities less attractive for the people who are the greatest supporters of charities?

Does he dislike wealthy people, and seek to punish them at the expense of America’s neediest citizens?

Is he so hungry for money to fund his plans to increase the size and scope of government to gargantuan proportions that he would jeopardize private funding for the nation’s charities?

Barack Obama is a statist who believes in a centralized government in control of economic planning and policy, who believes that government is the answer to all questions, the solution to all problems. History teaches, however, that central planning always fails.

Statism is the opposite of capitalism, which in contrast to statism supports the principle of individual rights, the very foundation of the American ideal. Capitalism, not statism, observes the rights of the individual to live his own life as he chooses, without needing government permission to do so. This includes giving to charity, which supports a long-standing tradition of our great country for people to take care of each other. Our Founders believed government's sole responsibility is to protect those unalienable rights, and never violate them.

However, Mr. Obama is determined to achieve his statist goals, and if in doing so he must cripple private charities, take control of private businesses, and impose government’s judgment over that of the people, well, that’s just the way it has to be.

And so he is working to engineer the most ambitious and dangerous seizing of power by government in our history, and using an economic crisis to cover his tracks.

Click Here to Comment

Little Bits of Wisdom and Other Things of Interest

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.
- Margaret Thatcher


"In this world nothing three things are certain: death, taxes and eternal government programs."
- Benjamin Franklin and James Shott

======================

Israeli-Palestinian Politics

Here is all you need to know about Israeli-Palestinian politics:

What happens when a fly falls into a coffee cup?

An Italian - throws the cup, breaks it, and walks away in a fit of rage.

A German - carefully washes the cup, sterilizes it and makes a new cup of coffee.

A Frenchman - takes out the fly, and drinks the coffee.

A Chinese - eats the fly and throws away the coffee.

A Russian - Drinks the coffee with the fly, since it was extra with no charge.

An Israeli - sells the coffee to the Frenchman, the fly to the Chinese, drinks tea and uses the extra money to invent a device that prevents flies from falling into coffee.

A Palestinian - blames the Israeli for the fly falling in his coffee, protests the act of aggression to the UN, takes a loan from the European Union to buy a new cup of coffee, uses the money to purchase explosives and then blows up the coffee house where the Italian, the Frenchman, the Chinese, the German and the Russian are all trying to explain to the Israeli that he should give away his cup of tea to the Palestinian.

======================

Prosecutors have asked a federal judge to send former Washington, D.C., mayor Marion Barry to jail for failing to file tax returns for eighth time in nine years. He hasn’t paid taxes for eight years straight. So it’s either jail or a Cabinet position in the Obama administration. Take your pick.
- Jay Leno

======================

Great Orators of the Democratic Party

"One man with courage makes a majority."
- Andrew Jackson

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."
- Franklin D. Roosevelt

"The buck stops here."
- Harry S. Truman

"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
- John F. Kennedy


And for today's Democrats...

'It depends what your definition of 'IS' is?''
- Bill Clinton

"Those rumors are false .... I believe in the sanctity of marriage."
- John Edwards

"I have campaigned in all 57 states."
- Barack Obama

"You don't need God anymore, you have us democrats."
- Nancy Pelosi

"Paying taxes is voluntary."
- Sen. Harry Reid

Click Here to Comment

Technorati Tags: Culture, Politics

A Very Good Idea

(Author unknown)

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists, Obama supporters, et al:

We have stuck together since the late 1950's, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right, so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile, slate it up to irreconcilable differences, and go on our own ways.

Here is a model dissolution agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement.

After that it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes. We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU.

Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore, and Rosie O'Donnell (you are however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move them).

We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart, and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies, and illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's, and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood.

You can make nice with Iran, Palestine, and France and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protestors. When our allies or way of life are under assault, we'll provide them job security.

We'll keep our Judeo-Christian Values. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, and Shirley McClain. You can have the U.N. But we will no longer be paying the bill. We'll keep the SUV's, pickup trucks, and oversized luxury cars.

You can give everyone healthcare, if you can find any practicing doctors who will follow to your turf.

We'll keep "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and The National Anthem. I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute "Imagine," "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing," "Kum Ba Ya" or "We Are the World."

We'll practice trickle down economics and you can give trickle up poverty its best shot.

Since it often so offends you we'll keep our history, our name, and our flag. Would you agree to this? If so please pass it along to other like-minded patriots.

In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you ANWAR on who will need whose help in 15 years.

Sincerely,

John Q. Conservative

P.S. Please take Barbra Streisand.

Click Here to Comment

Technorati Tags: Culture, Politics, Conservatism, Liberalism

Who Pays for Your Government?

Reposted from a few days ago, with slight changes.

Depending upon whom you ask, we either pay too much, or too little to support a government that is either too large or not large enough.

Conservatives want a smaller government requiring less tax revenue to support it, using the private sector to satisfy most of the needs of society, and a government that does only what people cannot do for themselves, such as providing for the national defense.

Liberals generally prefer to solve problems through government programs, rather than relying on the American people to do what is needed through private sector initiatives. This latter approach requires a larger federal bureaucracy that demands higher taxes to support it.

Over the 221 years since the U.S. Constitution was adopted our government has grown into a gargantuan tangle of agencies and departments that the Founders would not recognize, and in fact could never even have imagined. This monstrous government costs a staggering $2.63 trillion ($2,630,000,000,000) for the upcoming 2009 fiscal year. The late Senator Everett Dirksen is noted for commenting, “A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it adds up to real money.” The federal budget is by his estimation much more than “real money,” given that we are talking about trillions, which are a thousand times more than billions. A trillion is such a large number that people have difficulty comprehending just how much money that is.

Realizing that our government costs $2.63 trillion might give some of us reason to doubt that we are getting our money’s worth, and of course the real problem is that somehow we have to pay for all of that government. Today, there are more than 304 million American citizens. When you do the math, each American’s share of the 2009 federal budget is in the neighborhood of $8,600.

Whether you believe that the government is too large and is too involved in our daily lives, or whether you think we need more federal programs that do even more for the people, $2.63 trillion dollars—or $8,600 per person—seems like a terrible burden for American to bear.

The United States tax system is set up so that people at the lower end of the earnings scale pay less than those who earn more, and quite a few pay no taxes at all. Americans are taxed on their adjusted gross income (AGI) according to a system of six tax brackets ranging from 10 percent to 35 percent. Actual tax computations defy an easy explanation, but in simple terms a person in the lowest bracket pays about 10 percent of his of her AGI to the government, and a person in the highest bracket pays about 35 percent of his or her AGI.

Under this system, the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers (69 million people) paid just 3.1 percent of the total tax bill in 2005. Those people had an AGI of $30,881 a year or less, and were in either the 10 percent or the 15 percent tax bracket. On average, those people paid $1,167 in taxes, well below their share. For every person that is excused from paying all or part of their share of the tax burden by virtue of their income level, someone else has to pay more than their share.

In 2005, the top one percent of taxpayers, those making $364,657 or more, paid 9.4 percent of all taxes. The top one percent consists of just 1,380,000 people, and this relatively small group paid three times more taxes than the 69 million people comprising the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers. This group is in the 35 percent tax bracket, paying more than one-third of their AGI to support the government.

If you had AGI of $103,912 or more, you are in the top 10 percent of wage earners, and that group pays 70 percent of all federal income taxes. There are 13,800,000 people in the top 10 percent of taxpayers.

According to the Tax Foundation, “despite the charges of critics that the tax cuts enacted in 2001, 2003 and 2004 favored the ‘rich,’ these cuts actually reduced the tax burden of low- and middle-income taxpayers and shifted the tax burden onto wealthier taxpayers.” Tax Foundation economists estimate that “for tax year 2004, a record 42.5 million Americans who filed a tax return (approximately one-third of the returns filed) had no tax liability after they took advantage of their credits and deductions.”

In America today we have a class of people who pay no income taxes at all that is increasing in size, and a class of people who are bearing the lion’s share of the tax burden that is shrinking. What is wrong with this picture?

Click Here to Leave a Comment

Thinking About endorsements

How should we evaluate the endorsements a candidate receives? Both Barack Obama and John McCain have been criticized for being endorsed by certain controversial people. In looking to see who has endorsed whom, I found that Barack Obama has been endorsed by or has the support of more controversial people than has John McCain, and I say that with the caveat that how one determines who is controversial and who isn’t is to some degree subjective.

That said, here are those whom I consider controversial that have endorsed or given their support to Obama: British MP and Saddam lover George Galloway, rapper 50 Cent, Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, filmmaker Michael Moore, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, and convicted terrorist and professor William Ayers.

Here are those whom I consider controversial that have endorsed or given their support to McCain: radical ministers John Hagee and Ron Parsley, Democrat Sen. Joe Lieberman, President George Bush, and former UN Ambassador John Bolton. I did a Google search honestly looking for as many controversial people as Google could find for McCain, and these are all I found. But how many are on each list really isn’t all that important for the purpose of this column.

It is true that a candidate cannot prevent some less-than-ideal person from endorsing him or her, but it doesn’t mean that the endorsee agrees with the views of the endorser. So, if Barack Obama gets the endorsement of, for example, Louis Farrakhan, that doesn’t mean that Obama agrees with Farrakhan. And, if John Hagee endorses John McCain, it doesn’t mean that McCain agrees with the views espoused by Hagee.

Those endorsements do tell us something, however, and they should not be ignored just because they do not constitute a direct link between the parties. They tell us that there is something about the candidate that appealed to the endorser, and perhaps that is more important. When you examine the people who have endorsed the candidates, you might ask, “why does John Hagee, a Christian minister with weird ideas about Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans, think McCain is the right person to be President of the United States?” And, “why does Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, a racist and anti-Semite, think Obama is the right person to be President of the United States?”

Hagee has been condemned for such comments as this one: “I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that.” That comment, and others by Hagee are clearly outside the mainstream of thought in America.

Farrakhan has created a litany of anti-Jewish and racist comments that are legend; he has called whites “blue eyed devils” and Jews “bloodsuckers” that controlled the slave trade. Like Hagee, Farrakhan is outside the mainstream of American thought.

I find many of these people’s ideas undesirable, on both sides. I don’t agree with the approach to Christianity of either Hagee or Parsley, but Bush and Bolton are okay with me. Hagee and Parsley have some strange ideas, but they aren’t racists, or America-haters, or former terrorists, or communists. On Obama’s side, I disagree strongly with the views of Galloway (Socialist/Communist and Saddam sympathizer), Ortega (Socialist), 50 Cent (rap is mostly poison, and isn’t very musical, to boot), Farrakhan (racist/anti-Semite), Ayers (former terrorist and radical Lefty), and Moore (radical Lefty and dishonest in his work). Even though it is possible that Obama does not agree with anything that any of them believe or say, the fact that these people see something beneficial in Obama is troubling. I don’t see the same sort of thing in the McCain endorsers.

Click Here to Comment

John Cornyn on Republican Conservativism

A while back I received an email from Vincent Harris in the Senate office of Texas Republican John Cornyn, and Vincent asked if I would be interested in being included in the Blog Roll on the Senator's Web site. I was, therefore I am.

I had heard of Sen. Cornyn and knew a little about him and his conservative views. I have made it a point to learn more about him, and have spent some time on his Web site. He is up for re-election this year, and three Democrats are battling for the right to oppose him in November. I find that he expresses the Republican conservative philosophy very well, and the video below, taken from a speech from the campaign trail, is a good example.

Why Not John McCain?

Dateline: Key West, Florida

Being in Florida on this Primary Day might be expected to provide a little insight into what’s going to happen. It doesn’t. The only thing I’ve come across today that even remotely smacks of politics was a conversation overheard at lunch in Islamorada, where a guy who is a Democrat said he and his wife had thought seriously about changing parties because the Democrat Party has its panties in a wad because Florida moved its primary up in the year without permission, and the party essentially disenfranchised Florida Democrats who might vote today.

But the reality is for this conservative fellow (me) that none of the Democrats is a viable choice because of their liberal ideology, and the Republicans are less than desirable for some of the same reasons. So now that the real political season has dawned trying to find a person suitable to be President begins in earnest and every candidate remaining in the race on the Republican side has his own set of shortcomings. Some of the shortcomings affect the independent vote more than the conservative vote, but that is of little concern when you think about the true nature of electoral politics. Mike Huckabee’s religion is a weight around his neck more powerful than his sense of humor. Rudy Guilanni’s record as the mayor of New York gets him respect as an administrator and manager, but doesn’t overcome his positions on certain issues and the “stains” many perceive from his personal life. Mitt Romney gets negative points for being a Mormon, as if that is somehow worse than being just a plain old Christian, or a Catholic, or an atheist, and despite his pretty impressive record as a governor, and his enviable record in the private sector, he’ll have trouble with the independents.

John McCain has recently risen from the dead, and is a force to be reckoned with; prospects of him being the Republican nominee are all too real, and more than a little disconcerting. McCain has a few assets, among which is his service in the U.S. Navy and having been a stand-up guy during five years as a prisoner of war in Viet Nam. A guy with McCain’s background gets a lot of sympathy and hero support, but it doesn’t get him the nomination or the election. There’s a dark side to McCain that deserves as much attention as his war record and public service record, and it is strong enough to neutralize those assets, and in fact to overcome them. And it isn’t his age, as Chuck Norris charged. Norris is another of those Hollywood and entertainment figures who ought to keep his political opinions to himself.

McCain has two stains on his public service record that disqualify him as the Republican nominee, although they are not strong enough to prevent me from voting for him over Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, and certainly John Edwards, whose continued participation in the race is nothing more than a power play. But that’s the subject for another day.

As every election season heats up we hear more and more about “reaching across the aisle for the good of all Americans,” the idea that compromise is the solution to our national problems. No doubt some issues can be resolved that way. But some positions cannot be compromised into solutions, and that is a lesson that John McCain either hasn’t learned, or has been willing to put aside for political expediency. One such folly is the the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA, or the “McCain–Feingold Act”) a reach across the isle by McCain to the outstretched hand of Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI). The Act has high-minded intentions, which are to reduce the increased role of soft money in campaign financing by prohibiting national political party committees from raising or spending any funds not subject to federal limits, even for state and local races or issue discussion, and to control the proliferation of issue ads, by defining as "electioneering communications" broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election, and prohibiting any such ad paid for by a corporation (including non-profit issue organizations such as Right to Life or the Environmental Defense Fund) or paid for by an unincorporated entity using any corporate or union funds.

And the problem with that is: The First Amendment. Our Founders were very concerned that Americans have the freedom to say pretty much what they please, and we can see today that many Americans avail themselves of that freedom in very explicit and ill-conceived ways. What the Founders were concerned about was protecting not just the right to criticize the latest movie or fashion trend, but to protect political speech, for without the right to criticize our government and our elected leaders, the United States is in the same boat as Iraq under Saddam Hussein, or other famous places where the boot of some dictator is firmly on the neck of the citizenry. John McCain co-authored a bill to limit political speech, and that creates substantial problems for many voters. I am one of them.

The second of McCain’s ill-advised ventures in bi-partisanship is his involvement with Connecticut Democrat Sen. Joe Lieberman, who joined forces in a feel-good measure to try to water down the harsh, unacceptable and disastrous terms of the Kyoto Protocols agreement to reduce carbon emissions. Kyoto’s aim is to reverse global warming by crippling mankind, or at least those of us in developed countries, under the fallacious guise that by reducing carbon emissions we can reverse global warming. We can’t, for the simple reason that manmade carbon emissions are not responsible for global warming, and even if Kyoto’s demands were met the reduction in greenhouse gases would be miniscule, and at the expense of billions of dollars in increased cost and great inconvenience to Americans. You might think that any effort to weaken Kyoto should be applauded, but merely weakening it, as McCain has twice attempted to do, is not nearly enough, and his efforts are nearly as dangerous as enacting Kyoto as written.

The depth of McCain’s failure to understand the “climate change” issue is breathtaking, and it is more than a little unsettling that someone who wants to be President of the United States would endorse a measure so dangerous to his own country. That tells me that one of two things is true: McCain doesn’t know the issue thoroughly; or he doesn’t care about the dirty details because pandering to the green lobby for political expedience is more important. I prefer to think it is the former, rather than the latter, but either way, John McCain isn’t “The Man.”

Technorati Tags: Politics, John McCain

Friday Rant

There is no political leader that I totally agree with, I’ve found, but there are some that I either agree with most of the time, or agree with generally and therefore support. George Bush is one in the latter category; I generally agree with him and support his presidency.

However, if things keep going the way they are, by the time his term ends I may not support him at all.

To start with, I support Mr. Bush on the war on terror, even on the warrant-less surveillance program, and I support going into Iraq, despite the valiant efforts of the history rewriters who try to make us believe that it really wasn’t the case that nearly everyone believed Saddam Hussein had WMD, and that widely held position was underscored by SH’s continual defiance of UN resolutions and inspections.

And, I support the President for commuting Lewis Libby’s jail sentence, as Libby most likely did nothing wrong at all, and if he did, it had no effect on anything. But this is where my support for Mr. Bush begins to slide. He should just pardon Libby, and let it be known that he won’t stand for politicizing the legal process and for witch hunting. Attention Mr. Bush: The next target is Alberto Gonzalez.

I have never bought into the “big government conservatism” concept, so here is one large area of disagreement. Conservatives believe that the smaller the government, and the less intrusive the government, the better. Far too much money is being spent on government, and it isn’t any more acceptable because a Republican/conservative is.

And I’m thoroughly disgusted with Bush administration’s idiotic position on illegal aliens and failing to strengthen border security, which is the second major area of disagreement, and right now is the most important one. That he hasn’t pardoned the two Border Patrol agents is only fuels an already smoldering fire.

Technorati Tags: Government, George Bush, Conservatism

Environmental Elitism

When you cook, travel, bathe, heat your home and a long list of everyday activities, you are contributing to the pollution of the atmosphere, we are told by the environmentalist nannies. Dumping leftovers from burning carbon-based fuels heats up Earth’s atmosphere to dangerous levels, and promises to unleash untold horrible future catastrophes that will make the planet uninhabitable.

If we accept this theory as fact, then what we ought to do is to stop burning carbon-based fuels as soon as possible; no more oil, gasoline or diesel; no more wood or coal; no more natural gas, et al. And, even though it doesn’t produce greenhouse gases like the foregoing sources do, no more nuclear, either. We should focus our intellect and money on developing non-polluting forms of energy such as wind, solar and hydropower.

And proponents of non-polluting energy sources, and opponents of fossil fuels and other pollution-causing forms of energy, should lead by example. Such climate experts as Sheryl Crowe, Madonna, Melissa Etheridge, Sting, Snoop Dog, and Al Gore, tell us how critical it is to stop dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere as they live in their mansions and flit about the globe in their private jets “spreading the gospel” to the infidels who don’t want to abandon their lifestyle on the say-so of mere celebrities and an unsuccessful presidential candidate. By way of example, Gore’s Tennessee home devoured nearly 221,000 kWh in a single year—more than 20 times the national average, and more in one month than the average American home uses in a year.

But it’s okay for the high priests of environmentalism to live outside the boundaries they expect others to observe, because the work they do is so important, don’tcha know? And besides, even if they are responsible for greater-than-average energy consumption, it’s okay because they purchase carbon offsets.

Carbon offsets are a neat little cheat device that allows a person to continue their comfortable lifestyle by funding someone else to cut back on their polluting activities. You don’t cut back; someone else does, and that computes to an overall reduction in carbon emissions, as the story goes. All that is required is that the person who doesn’t want to cut his carbon usage pays a nominal fee for the privilege, which enables them to continue living with a clear conscience. “We’ll conserve so you don’t have to,” might be the motto of the carbon-offset industry.

George Monbiot, an English environmentalist and writer, disagrees with the principle of carbon offsets, and has compared this practice to purchasing indulgences during the Middle Ages, whereby people believed they could purchase forgiveness for their sins, instead of actually repenting and sinning no more. He also says that carbon offsets are an excuse for business as usual with regards to pollution.

And, a program on a local TV station in Britain entitled "The Great Green Smoke Screen" showed academics and environmentalists questioning the ethics and impact of offsetting - and suggested that offsetting schemes have not been effective as claimed. Others are concerned that using carbon offsets actually increases demand for polluting sources of power, since overall power consumption is not being reduced.

But, friends, the old maxim is still true today: What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. And the environmental elitists need to understand that if they are going to be taken seriously, they have lead by example.

Technorati Tags: Environment, Elitism, Common Sense, Hypocrisy, Liberalism