Personal Stimulus:

2008, Bush:  $1,800.00 ($1.8 thousand)

2009, Obama:  $250.00 ($0.3 thousand)

  - Difference:   Obama gives me $1,550.00 ($1.6 thousand) less … one seventh …

Corporate Stimulus (Aprox):

Bush:          $1,630,000,000,000.00 ($1.6 trillion)

Obama:       $3,160,000,000,000.00  ($3.2 trillion)

   - Difference:   Obama deficit spending, just on stimulus: double Bush’s.

Allegations:

  - 2008:  Bush Jr was quite clear he was refunding peoples' taxes; his detractors claim the tax refund amount was too paltry to have bothered with. What is “one-seventh of paltry” ?

  - 2009:  Obama cannot account for where stimulus monies went; his detractors claim at least a significant amount of it went to his 2008 Campaign political supporters; we do know that Obama has closed down GM & Chrysler dealerships that have been profitable, if they failed to adequately support Obama in 2008.

[The following is copied here by request:]

What do LeRoy Carhart, Warren Hern, and George Tiller have in common? They are among an unknown number who perform abortions in the third trimester of pregnancy (the third trimester being the seventh, eighth, and ninth month!)

For two decades I have been proclaiming from the pulpits of America that abortions happen in the third trimester. Many Americans find it hard to believe. Now, in the aftermath of the death of George Tiller, this fact is getting a bit more attention.

The Associated Press reported on June 2 in an article by Eric Olson that physician LeRoy Carhart of Nebraska wants to continue performing abortions at this late stage, but he, as well as Warren Hern, also want to make sure enough physicians are trained in how to do so.

How many are we talking about? The AP story reported, "Carhart said 75 to 100 of the "several thousand" abortions he performs annually are in the third trimester."

Stanley K. Henshaw, a senior fellow at the Guttmacher Institute, the research division of Planned Parenthood, and the best source of these statistics, is quoted in a June 5 Washington Post article as saying, "The information just isn't available...This is an area that we just don't know much about."

The Guttmacher Institute does report in its official statistics, however, that some 13,310 abortions each year are at 21 weeks or more of pregnancy (that is, 1.1% of the 1.21 million abortions per year). Of the 40 states that reported in 2005 to the Centers for Disease Control, 32 states reported abortions of babies 21 weeks or older.

This means that every day, 37 babies the size of a large banana are dismembered and decapitated - and these include healthy babies of healthy mothers...and it's happening legally.

These are babies that the mother can already feel moving. According to MedlinePlus, a service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health, these babies are storing fat on their bodies, their heartbeat can be heard with a stethoscope, they can hear, they have eyebrows, eyelashes, fingernails and toenails. Incidentally, MedlinePlus calls them "babies." (See www.nlm.nih.gov/MEDLINEPLUS/ency/article/002398.htm ).

Many people wonder how they can get some traction in the seemingly intractable abortion debate. How can they get people to listen, or make pro-choice people believe that pro-life people have good reason to be against abortion?

My suggestion: start by discussing the facts I just mentioned.

It's morally legitimate to focus on late-term abortion; that doesn't deny that all abortion is wrong; it's simply a way to get the ball rolling, a pedagogical method of going from the most obvious to the less obvious, of starting with what people know and leading to what they don't know.

When people are astonished by these facts, as they will be, they are forced to re-evaluate just how much priority "privacy" and "choice" have over life. If they are "pro-choice," they are forced to figure out when in pregnancy the line is drawn - and why.

And now you're talking.

The text and audio of this column can be found online at www.priestsforlife.org/columns/columns2009/09-06-15-pro-choice-crisis.htm

Fr. Frank's columns are podcast. Click here for more information.

3. The burning need:  time marches on.

Metal fatigue will make our current aircraft completely incapable in another ten years.  Most would still be capable of flying, but not under combat loads.  Remember, longirons are failing, and old all-metal planes are already breaking up in mid-air.  Those that aren't breaking up are still requiring ever more hours in detailed maintenance and upgrade facilities -- reducing availability across the board.  Worse, retrofits only postpone the inevitable ...

Procurement Lags:

As to new aircraft:  remember we need time to get procured equipment fielded, into battle plans, and into exercises so we really know how to use them – not just theoretically (or even in computer simulations of theory). 

In a decade, could we win with current aircraft supplemented by F-22s?  I doubt it.  But I pose that the cost would be horrendous if we did win.  China in a decade will not be a pretty adversary.  Our current fighters will strain mightily by then;  'in a decade' is when China, Russia, and Islam all pose foreseeable threats far greater than today’s world poses:

 - China WILL seriously threaten our interests in Taiwan, not to mention Korea, Japan, Philippines, Singapore, et al.  China will threaten with quantity of modern aircraft and (more ominously) relatively inexpensive high-tech air defenses that will seriously hurt us.  Already, China possesses anti-carrier weapons that will keep our aircraft carriers at arm’s length.  With 1970s-era airplanes, plus a handful of stealth at far-away Guam, Air Force would have nothing to offer, to replace ‘persistent’ air presence China is increasingly forcing the navy to position ever more distant (in event of war).   

 - Russia’s re-emergence will have re-armed that country, which may not be all that friendly.  Worst case:  xenophobic ultra-nationalists (a Russian historical tendency), whether with a resurgence of 1900s atheistic communism or not.  Best case:  western-friendly leader like Gorbachev or Catherine the Great, who would actually trust and welcome a western alliance --- an alliance that maybe we could make actually useful to Russia and it’s long vulnerable southern borders.  As if Russia's gradual transition from President to Dictator isn't worrisome all on its own, recent international events in Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Georgia, and Ukraine (among others) indicate Russia's western-friendly leaders are about as scarce as USA's conservatives have been in the last several years.

 - Islamic countries’ oil income could indeed well-fund militant Islamic resurgence like we’ve not seen in 600 years.  I propose this is an Islamic funding decision made more likely if we slide along with old all-metal fighters that they can counter with metal-seeking and heat-seeking hand-held SAMs.  That oil is also a potentially lethal chokehold on Japan, and would severely hinder us (the USA) and our European allies.  We have the ability to drill and solve that problem, except for environmentalists --- but that’s another dissertation.  We also have the spacefaring technical ability to dramatically reduce oil needs in non-vehicular uses, which would entirely remove the petroleum stranglehold by reducing the petroleum quantity needs mostly just to vehicles --- but this too is another dissertation.

c.  Why now??

Some say our current fighter aircraft fleet can serve us well for another decade.  Good!!

We will need that hypothetical decade, to acquire stealth aircraft in sufficient quantity for any big fight we hope to fight from navy carriers as well as from allies’ land bases.  A decade from now is when the current monopolar world doubtless will have changed again…

Again, most F-22 presentations concentrate on high-end threats.  Don’t forget the low-end!

I spent 20 years in uniform. In 20 years, I was betrayed. I swore an oath to 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic'. While I 'manned the walls', somebody let the enemies under the walls and into the courtyard: fellow countrymen have allowed internal rot to erode the force & effect of the constitution I defended. Outright betrayal.

Still, a point to amplify: betrayal from arrogance 'reaching across the aisle' to the usual liberal suspects.

As a conservative, I have a memory that I'm not afraid to use. I remember the lies & duplicities of liberals & outright admitted socialists, of 'compassionate conservatives', and of would-be conservatives who behave as if having tumbled gyroscopes for their Jiminy Crickets. Being conservative also means I believe in an immutable standard of right versus wrong, that I'm not ashamed to call a lie a lie, and that I insist all should stick to the agreed rules, like the constitution ... or leave us.

No, the 80% change I want is to take the kid gloves off against those who throw mud to see what sticks. I want to lose the politically correct veneer: the politics of personal destruction is NOT in calling a lie a lie, it's in telling the lie in the first place. Those who speak plainly, unashamed to point out the lies, those are the candidates I'm willing to vote for and support. Conservatism does this. Conservatives will send a Packwood packing just as quickly as sending away a Studds, while the liars will join against Packwood, but circle wagons around a Studds. 

Most of America doesn't give a hoot about 'partisan politics' so much as we want integrity we can trust ... integrity that forbids betrayal. ENOUGH with lies and all the rest of Relative Morality's hidden praise of duplicity!

Conservative victory, the phoenix of integrity ... we need it.

Anybody ever notice that Republican success in national elections is directly related to how conservative the Republican is???!!! ('DumbOxBellowed' blog shows details in a featured essay.)

I wish the 2008 ticket was Palin-Anybody, with a cabinet including Thompson, Gingrich, Alexander, Keyes, DeLay, Lott, Santorum, Thune, etc. (I remember how some of them were tarred & feathered, run out of DC on a rail, then exonerated. THAT is the politics of personal destruction.) No human is perfect, but a cabinet like those names would probably keep each other true to politics of service, away from politics of self-embellishing duplicity. 

It was liberals who enabled – mandated – Fannie & Freddie & all the rest, to create this mess. Obama’s record and intentions are like his fellow liberals: more government to solve a problem created by too much government already.  How can this crisis possibly be benefitting Obama???  Does nobody know the truth???  Possible.  McCain sure isn't telling the real story.  Broadcast media sure won't.  Obama Campaign certainly has nothing to gain, everything to lose ... from truth.

B. The Guilty Parties.

The way it seems to have played out: 

   1. Liberals mandated that Fannie, Freddie, and other banks must find ways to qualify folks with very low incomes and no significant savings, to give them mortgages they couldn’t possibly ever pay off – whether the former standard mortgage or the newfangled interest-only mortgage. Politicians, like Frank, Pelosi, and the rest, must have gone home with such a warm glow that night: they'd legislated wealth redistribution, and corporate America not only has to absorb the price, but also the effort of generation & oversight, and bear the ‘burden of proof of enough low-income mortgages’ to regulators!

   2. Liberals mandated that Fannie, Freddie, and other banks be legally allowed to write mortgages for interest-only payments. Wow! American dream! And banks didn’t fuss too much either … Occupant gets a house much bigger & plusher than he can ever pay for, because his legal mortgage payments are now within his budget … even though he’ll never actually own the house since you never pay a dollar towards principal! Banks write mortgages for homes they never relinquish title to. Wow! Anybody heard of ‘rent’? Always wanted my landlord to be my bank … so I can pay for all the repairs myself …

   3. Then the mortgage bubble starts growing. Ordinary folks seeking ordinary homes financed with ordinary mortgages find the prices getting sky-high for the value of home to be gotten. But all the national economic numbers were looking up, with more & more Americans became homeowners … of homes they’d never be able to pay for and truly own.  

C. Other solutions.

Why couldn’t we just free up money for credit without a government buy-up? 

     - We could indefinitely suspend corporate taxes, assuring executives they’d have at least a 3-month notice before a phase-back-in would commence. 

     - We could terminate all capital gains taxes.  What good are capital gains taxes when the economy is tanked and there are no gains to generate taxes on anyway? Yet, free up the expectation of losing all that cash to tax, and you conversely increase incentive to invest, thus investors ‘find’ cash for loans and all that …

E. How it *could* happen. But won’t.

It seems McCain & Palin would fight corruption in DC.  Probably won't get the chance.

    - But McCain won’t allow the campaign to raise their voices now, naming names. 

Conclusion: insanity.

Insanity: doing the same thing over & over again, and expecting a different result.

    - Politicians want us to believe the government bailout will solve the problem of too much government involvement. Insanity.

    - McCain wants to believe he can remain his old conservative-confounding, liberal-enabling self, and somehow win in November 2008. Insanity.

Barack Obama, candidate for USA President, has decided to face a grave danger. Maybe he’s not fully aware of the danger and its implications. Maybe he is. Probably, the USA is not fully aware of the implications. The discussion hasn't started!

1. Significance.

2. Facts.

Regardless of anything related to Mr Obama’s own choosing, objective reality is that he is the son of an African Muslim. 

 - To Christian and secular ears, that last phrase elicits “So what?”. But not to Muslim ears. Islam holds that all descendants of a Muslim are also Muslim, without choice. (This bit of Islamic doctrine helps explain why countries, once Islam arrives, have almost never changed to any other religion, and never without significant bloodshed.)   

3. Implications.

a. Apostate, under death sentence, in the White House.

Mr Obama’s religious choice also gives the USA certain inseparable uncertainties. Every president faces certain assassination risks, with resulting Secret Service costs, and personal movement restrictions. We contain & guard our presidents and, to lesser extents, their family members and friends. USA citizens accept the cost, and presidents accept the restrictions on their freedoms of movement, since the president fills a singular elected office that is critical to the continuing functioning of the U.S. government. But … 

 - What is the cost, Secret Service and the rest, of protecting a president and his family from Islamic apostasy’s automatic death sentences?   

 - What would be the cost of Islamic terrorists successfully assassinating somebody close to a President Obama?   

 - What would be the international and propaganda cost of radical Islamic terrorists successfully carrying out the death sentence on a USA president and/or family member(s)?  

b. Secrets.

There is another option. A President Obama could chose (or could have already chosen) to be a secret Muslim. This could save his life, and the lives of his girls. But this option would still spell certain grave difficulties for the USA. The difficulties would be real, whether the difficulties resulted in actual problems or not, with an Obama presidency during a war against Islamic terrorists.   

 - Having non-public associations or actions, that one wishes to remain secret, usually will prevent a military individual or civil servant from obtaining (or keeping) a security clearance. Extortion has been proven a powerful tool against citizens entrusted with national security. Thus the White House should also have no secrets that ‘bad guys’ can leverage for extortion.

 - The War Of The Reconquest (France, Spain, & Portugal, 660s AD thru 1492 AD) holds many examples of how secret Muslims left varying levels of havoc within Iberian cities & countrysides.  Most cities in central Iberia changed hands many times. Often, the secret Muslims would be simply awaiting the arrival of the next Muslim army, then become active 5^th Columnists (albeit centuries before the term was coined).

Would a secret Muslim in the executive office … 

 - be a conflicted mind, and thus pose a low-level threat to the nation from within?   

 - be coerced or co-opted into actions harmful to the USA? 

4. Conclusion: 

Again, this post only raises a question.   The question's worth noting, and discussing, and resolving

 - It’s proven that Mr Obama, and his girls, are apostate Muslims, whether they (or we) would wish it to be, or not.   

 - What is NOT clearly proven is whether the automatic Islamic death sentences are a burden unwise for the USA to accept in the Oval Office.  Maybe it’s unwise. Maybe it’s actually wise. And, maybe it just doesn’t matter. But if it does matter, we’d better go into it with full awareness …   

 - The ‘death sentences’ point is worth a little discussion, since ‘we the people’ have to know what we’re getting with our vote, or else democracy turns into dictatorship…

Dear Presidential Hopefuls:

A President Obama scares me. I spent twenty years in uniform to fight socialists – violent revolutionaries bent on government control & power in the name of Worker’s Paradise. That was two decades of my life to fight these enemies, whether foreign or domestic. 

But a President McCain doesn’t inspire me, and hardly even reassures me. Frankly, a political history like his is one of appeasing liberals on their pet issues, while not even achieving quid-pro-quo from them.  His ilk have not been political champions in the fight against socialist revolution, especially not against their political usurpations within our own borders. Even in this 2008 election, Sen McCain's ilk have proved wimps when disavowing state-level political ads that dared to tell the unvarnished truth about opponents; they were concentrating on cream-puff ads. We will see if recent changes in Sen McCain's ad styles remain, and we will see how he heals with damage caused by prior disavowals & distancings.

Yes, I want “change”.  But I want change the opposite direction from which Republicans & Democrats alike have been going in the last five years. I like a stand against earmarks. But that doesn't go far enough. I want change of the kind that boldly proclaims, and ACTS, to get the Federal government smaller overall. I want change that refocuses the Federal government from wealth-redistribution to governmental chores that equally benefit all citizens: national defense (including military, border, and strategic materials), internal infrastructure (interstate roads, rails, bridges), space exploration (with environment favorable not just to NASA), international trade agreements (especially to account for foreign governmental subsidies and slave-labor), parental freedom to raise & educate their own children, the constitutional right of ALL men to live from conception to natural death (unless one proves to be an uncontrollable menace to others’ right to live), and a judicial system that actually punishes offenders (so they never want to come back to jail/prison).