Valley Forge, the Bulge, Chosin Reservoir -- just three of the winter battles fought and won by the U.S. Armed Forces. There are many other battles, over four seasons, across the globe and 232+ years.

Today as most of us sit by our firesides, worry about our 401(k)s, and perhaps exchange fewer gifts than usual, take a few moments, remember and say a quiet prayer for the almost 3 million active and reserve members of the U.S. armed forces. Many are away from home; too many are in harm’s way. They are there protecting us. Not protecting Democrats, Republicans, Liberals or Conservatives; they are protecting Americans.

So say a prayer of thanksgiving for these brave men and women and ask God to protect them and bring them all safely home.

To paraphrase General George S. Patton:

GM and Chrysler are getting a $13.4 billion loan to keep going; AIG $150 billion; then there is Fannie and Freddie; the financial industry gets a $700 billion bailout; and the Democrats may be talking about as much as a $1 trillion economic stimulus package over the next two years.

But wait, The Liberal New York Times in an editorial on December 21, 2008 called for:

• “End production of the Air Force’s F-22…The net annual savings: about $3 billion.”
• “Cancel the DDG-1000 Zumwalt class destroyer…Cutting the last two could save more than $3 billion a year.”
• “Halt production of the Virginia class sub…Net savings: $2.5 billion.”
• “Pull the plug on the Marine Corps’s V-22 Osprey…Net savings: $2 billion to 2.5 billion.”
• “Halt premature deployment of missile defense…for a net savings of nearly $5 billion.”
• “Trim the active-duty Navy and Air Force…Reducing the Navy by one carrier group and the Air Force by two air wings would save about $5 billion a year.”

According to The Times:

“The cuts above could save $20 billion to $25 billion a year, which could be better used as follows:

o       Increase the size of the ground force.

o       Pay for the Navy’s needed littoral combat ships.

o       Resupply the National Guard and the Reserves.”

Now just based on the editorial, some of the suggestions would seem to make sense, except that accepting The Liberal New York Times as a reliable source on military needs and spending is like thinking Saddam Hussein never used WMDs.

Gee, I wonder what is really more important to the future of the country: AIG or national security?

Without debating the merits of the specific suggestions, the most telling comment in the editorial was:

“Halt production of the Virginia class sub…The program is little more than a public works project to keep the Newport News, Va., and Groton, Conn., naval shipyards in business.”

Almost as an aside, one could discuss what the future might hold if we did not have these shipyards to build naval vessels?

What does The Liberal New York Times think is the point of the $1 trillion economic stimulus package? Certainly not public works projects!

I guess the liberal view of the stimulus is that it is to get Americans back to work and improve the Nation’s infrastructure everywhere except in the defense industry.

According to The Liberal New York Times (26 November 2008) the U.S. government’s financial assistance/economic stimulus/bailout was at least $7,800,000,000,000. Now that is $7.8 Trillion.

Several commentators have asked, “Where is all that money going to come from?” One even asked if the Federal Reserve was going to print it? Missing the point that the Federal Reserve does not print money, that is done by the Department of the Treasury’s Bureau of Engraving and Printing.

It is important to understand that the government is not spending all that money.

$3.1 trillion is being used by the government as an insurer for guarantees to investors and depositors (think FDIC). Now granted, in theory the $3.1 trillion is “at risk”, but it is very, very unlikely that it would be lost. In fact, much of the money is earning interest.

$3 trillion is available to the government to invest in commercial paper, banks, etc. Commercial paper is usually considered a safe investment and both the commercial paper and the capital investment in banks earns interest. Again, low risk with a potential for a return on the investment.

$1.78 trillion is for loans. These short term loans are backed by collateral. It is assumed most will be paid back. For those that are not paid back, the government can sell the collateral, but probably at a loss. The amount of the lost is unknown.

To paraphrase a quote attributed to Everett Dirksen: A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money. But, it is important to remember that the U.S. government is not going out and buying flat panel televisions and trips to Cancun. In fact, so far it has only “spent” about $1.4 trillion. 

Do you know Muntadhar al-Zeidi?

You may not know the name, but you probably know him – he is the correspondent for an Iraqi-owned television station who threw not one but both his shoes at President Bush.

The President was unharmed and showed quite good reflexes to dodge both shoes thrown from such a short distance.

Muntadhar al-Zeidi could face two years imprisonment for insulting a foreign leader. He has asked for a pardon.

According to reports, thousands took to the streets in Iraq to protest his arrest, and his actions were heralded across the Arab world.

Just a few questions for Mr. al-Zeidi, those protestors, and those in the “Arab world” who heralded his insult:

Assuming:

• there was a free press…
• there was a press conference…
• that Mr. al-Zeidi got into the room…
• and Mr. al-Zeidi threw his shoes, missed and shouted the same insult…

But that it was Saddam Hussein not President Bush, what do you think would have happened to Mr. al-Zeidi?

By my count there have been 64 U.S. Senators from New York State. Everything considered it is all but amazing that only two of these might be considered carpetbaggers: Robert F. Kennedy and Hillary Rodham Clinton. The other 62 were either native New Yorkers, or at least lived in the state for some time before being elected to the U.S. Senate.

It is also of minor interest that both Robert F. Kennedy and Hillary Rodham Clinton held the same Senate seat as Class 1 U.S. Senators belonging to the electoral cycle that were elected in the first election of 1788/1789.

Should Caroline Kennedy be selected to fill Secretary of State designate Clinton’s Senate seat she certainly would not be a carpetbagger. 

So, what are the qualifications to be a United States Senator? Pretty simple according to the U.S. Constitution, Article 1 Section 3:

No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

That is it; there are no other legal requirements.

The choice is solely the governor’s.

There is nothing to be gained by running a negative campaign about Caroline Kennedy, so Republicans and conservatives should treat her with respect, welcome her to the Senate, and prepare for the next election.

Roll back the calendar to the early days of presidential nomination process…

Today, candidate for the presidency Carl Marks outlined his position on domestic policy. Basically, if elected, he has said he will:

o       Spend hundreds of billions, perhaps trillions of tax dollars to buy parts of several major U.S. industries.

o       Spend additional billions to make loans to other big industries.

o       Appoint new “Czars” to oversee each industry, who under certain conditions will have the power to order the industry as to what they must do/produce.

o       Raise the national debt to pay for these new initiatives.

So, would you have voted for this candidate?

No. I doubt many Americans would either, but that is exactly what our elected politicians are doing. With an incoming Democratic President and Congress we can only expect more of the same.

Of course, no one on the Republican side has offered any alternative, other than by saying “no” to the loans to the auto industry.

Clearly, the nation is in difficult economic times. Saying “no” is fine, if you offer an alternative to get the country out of the situation, but just saying “no” is not enough.

The current lame-duck Republican administration and the incoming Democratic administration and Congress have made their plan clear: spend trillions to bailout industry and raise the national debt. What is the “new” Republican and/or conservative alternative? Right now there does not seem to be any.

My first car was a used 1964 Chevy Impala. Today, I drive a Toyota Matrix and in-between I have driven so called “American” and foreign cars, although it was near impossible to tell where the cars, much less their parts were made. My ’64 was fairly easy to maintain and fix, a screw driver, wrench and a few other tools and you could fix most anything. My ’05 Matrix forget it, you need a special computer and program just to begin.

My first bank account was a saving account opened in elementary school. The man from Franklin National Bank came to the school every few weeks, I would put 25¢ into my savings account and he stamped my book with the deposit. Today, most of my money and debts are with Citicorp.

To me banks and cars are utilities, like a washing machine. I want them to work when I need them and to make my like easier. 

Some things seem pretty obvious (otherwise why would they need billions of tax dollars?):

• Neither industry has been run well. 
• Management has not done its job.
• The lower level workers will be hurt the most.

What I do not understand is why the banks (financial institutions) can get hundreds of billions of dollars thrown at them with almost no questions asked, and the auto industry must jump through hoops to get a few billion.

Maybe the auto industry was not making the cars Americans really wanted, but the banking industry was making loans they knew were problematic at best.

Maybe the benefits the auto-workers receive and received were too high, but what about the huge year-end bonuses those in the banking industry received year after year?

If AIG, Citicorp, et. al. are “too big to fail”, how can all three of the U.S. auto be small enough to be allowed to fail?

If bankruptcy is an option for the big three, why wasn’t it an option for the financial industry?

Sure the auto industry and the unions have poured millions into the political system, but so has the financial industry.

From a purely political philosophy I am opposed to all these government bailouts, loans, etc. But, government was part of the problem, so it must be part of the solution. And since we have started down the road of nationalizing industries, where do we stop? Certainly, not at the auto industry.

By opposing the loans to the auto industry, Republicans and conservatives need to wake up and realize that they are going to be seen as supporting the rich and oppressing the middle class.

President-elect Barack Obama and his relationship with Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich is the subject of a great deal of discussion. I for one think that most of the Republican and conservative voices should be silent on the issue. Let the United States Attorney’s office in the Northern District of Illinois handle the case and show faith that, if the trail leads to Mr. Barack Obama, Patrick Fitzgerald will take all possible legal action.

Even with the liberal media bias is favor of Mr. Obama, you can be sure that enough people will be looking to break the story that Mr. Obama had some real involvement in the scandal. No doubt right now there are people digging in Illinois for any proof.

But, until someone has proof that Mr. Fitzgerald is not doing his job as it regards Mr. Obama, let the system move forward.

In the period between the presidential election and inauguration, Americans want to feel good about their future president; they have high hopes for a new beginning. All Republican and conservatives gain by using rhetoric to tie Mr. Obama to Mr. Blagojevich is the enmity of the American people. 

Judicial Watch announced today that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve as Secretary of State in the Obama administration. http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2008/dec/judicial-watch-announces-hillary-clinton-constitutionally-ineligible-serve-secretary-s

According to the Ineligibility Clause of the United States Constitution, no member of Congress can be appointed to an office that has benefited from a salary increase during the time that Senator or Representative served in Congress. A January 2008 Executive Order signed by President Bush during Hillary Clinton's current Senate term increased the salary for Secretary of State, thereby rendering Senator Clinton ineligible for the position.

Specifically, Article I, section 6 of the U.S. Constitution provides "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time." The provision is seen by most as designed by our Founding Fathers to protect against corruption.

Clearly, Judicial Watch is free to say and do whatever it wishes.

But please, please, please, Republicans and conservatives do not jump on this band wagon. It would serve no purpose, it will not be successful and all it will accomplish is further convincing the American people that Republicans and conservatives are sore losers.

Republicans and conservatives should treat President Obama with the respect they thought the liberals and Democrats should have treated President Bush.

The President is entitled to have the administration he desires. 

Quietly and quickly approve his nominees for his Cabinet, etc. Save your opposition for when it matters, on the appointment of judges and then only oppose those where you have a real legitimate reason.

Republicans and conservatives should question Senator Clinton with respect and restraint and if they then believe she is qualified to serve as Secretary of State they should approve her nomination.

 

The GOP needs to market its brand, and market it not just when there are big races (President, Senate, House) but all year long and around the country. Do some niche marketing; market from the ground up. Spend money on local issues and let people know it is the Republican Party’s stance on their local issue.

Here in my city, New Rochelle, NY, a heavily Democratic city with a population of about 75,000 “just 45 minutes form Broadway”, the Democratic controlled city government has proposed an 8.25% tax increase. That is just the city, it does not include the school tax, library tax, county tax or state tax.

The three Republicans on the seven-member City Council have proposed implementing cuts that could lower the proposed tax increase 2.81%.

Now why should the Grand Old Party care anything about the budget of a “small” Democratic city just outside a huge Democratic city (New York), in an overwhelmingly Democratic state? What difference does it make to Republicans in Georgia, Idaho, or anywhere else in the nation?

Simple, start a marketing campaign now to tell the people of New Rochelle (and surrounding areas) that the GOP stands with them for lower taxes, more responsible government. The local Republican Party does not have the resources to get that message out. But the national party does, and by doing it in New Rochelle and thousands of localities across the United States the GOP will begin building its brand. When people think of lower taxes and responsible government, they will think Republican.

If they are thinking Republican about local issues, they will begin thinking Republican during those House, Senate and Presidential elections.

One of the issues that must be faced by the “right” is that verbal firebomb throwing may feel good, may excite some to “the cause”, but ultimately all it does is burn down your own house.

A well-known columnist recently wrote:

Working in a homeless shelter is widely regarded as “community service”-- as if aiding and abetting vagrancy is necessarily a service, rather than a disservice, to the community.

Is a community better off with more people not working, hanging out on the streets, aggressively panhandling people on the sidewalks, urinating in the street, leaving narcotics needles in the parks where children play?

Now his real point was on target:

In other words, people on the left want the right to impose their idea of what is good for society on others-- a right that they vehemently deny to those whose idea of what is good for society differs from their own.

But, by including the incendiary language on the homeless what do you think most people will remember?

Now obviously, my view of those in a homeless shelter is vastly different than this columnist’s view. 

First, helping those less fortunate is a Christian value and beyond that I would hope our society and government would have a level of “caring”. What the level should be can be debated.

Second, not all homeless are: “hanging out on the streets, aggressively panhandling people on the sidewalks, urinating in the street, leaving narcotics needles in the parks”.

Beyond that, such language reinforces the idea that Republicans, conservatives, “the right”, do not care about people.

Most Americans, even those who have had encounters with the type of homeless described, want to think of themselves as kind-hearted, caring people. When they read or hear someone on the right use such language Americans have an almost automatic negative response – feeling/thinking like that is not who they want to be.

Okay, I will admit it, I am not a good American and while I do not want to speak for my wife, she isn’t either, so I will only comment for me when we would probably be more correct.

I (we) have been very blessed in many, many ways. I am sure many other Americans would say this so that does not make me a bad American.

First, what makes me not a good American is the mortgage on our house is much less than whatever the value may be in the current market. We have lived there for over ten years and have been offered numerous opportunities by financial institutions to take some of the equity out of our house. A few years ago we want to do a total gut remodeling of our kitchen. We thought we had enough money to pay for it, but wanted a cushion just in case. We discussed it and decided to take out a small equity loan, say $25,000. The bank offered us $250,000!

Now we did not take that money and buy icon cars (more on that it a bit), we did not take extra vacations, we did not buy all kinds of electronic gadgets.

Nope, we were bad Americans, we did not put ourselves into debt.

Then there are our cars, again we are bad Americans. Since I like to garden and tinker around the house, I got a big car, a Toyota Matrix, so I can shove all kinds of thing in the back. My wife has a Honda Fit. No gas guzzlers.

Then there are our credit cards. Even in these tight credit times, we keep getting unsolicited offers of credit cards. Yes, we do have balances on our credit cards, but nothing extraordinary. Again, bad, bad Americans.

Speaking only for myself, I did not do my part as an American to put myself so in debt that the government would have to bailout those corporations whom I cannot pay back.

Come to think of it, I am not only a bad American, I am a stupid America. I should have bought a big private plane. Then when I could not make the payment, may be the government would take over my debt.

From Bloomberg.com on November 18, 2008:

Thanks in part to funding from benefactors such as billionaire George Soros, the Center for American Progress has become in just five years an intellectual wellspring for Democratic policy proposals, including many that are shaping the agenda of the new Obama administration.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aF7fB1PF0NPg&refer=home

Somewhere out there must be a conservative who has the technical expertise to create a virtual “action tank”, to tap into the intellectual wealth of conservatives. Imagine a Wikipedia, or if you prefer a Conservapedia, which would gather and share conservative ideas, creating an online “book” of issues, ideas, positions, and solutions.

Perhaps one already exists, if so, please send a comment with the web address.

We will be away for a week to celebrate Thanksgiving.

The first black man elected U.S. president is poised to name Washington lawyer Eric Holder as the nation's first black attorney general…

In 1988, GOP President Ronald Reagan appointed Holder to the bench in Washington's Superior Court. Six years later, as U.S. attorney in Washington, Holder's office indicted then-Democratic House Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, who ended up pleading guilty in 1996 to mail fraud. And the Senate unanimously confirmed Holder in 1997 for the Justice Department's No. 2 post…

On the last day of Clinton's term, Holder told the White House he was "neutral, leaning toward favorable" for a presidential pardon for Marc Rich, a wealthy commodities dealer who had spent years running from tax charges. Rich's ex-wife, Denise, was a prominent Democratic Party donor.

It turned out to be a bad call. The pardon provoked howls of protests and a congressional investigation over whether it was politically motivated. Holder later publicly apologized for what he called a snap decision and said he would have advised against it had he paid more attention to the case.

Republicans and conservatives should treat President Obama with the respect they thought the liberals and Democrats should have treated President Bush.

The President is entitled to have the administration he desires. Quietly and quickly approve his nominees for his Cabinet, etc. Save your opposition for when it matters, on the appointment of judges and then only oppose those where you have a real legitimate reason.

If the only objection that Republicans have to Mr. Holder serving as Attorney General is his slight role in the Marc Rich pardon, they should question him with respect and restraint and then then they should unanimously approve his nomination.