I did not vote for McCain, I voted against Obama. Having been brought up on the sayings, “birds of a feather flock together” and “you can tell a man by the company he keeps” I considered the anti-American, anti-democratic and corrupt politicians with whom Obama associated in Chicago and voted against him. I had no idea, however, how thoroughly corrupt the Democratic party had become until I read Michelle Malkin’s book, “Culture of Corruption” in which, as is her style, she gives names, dates, cash flow and her sources of information. It is disheartening reading. Now, I have read “Obama’s Moral Leadership Balloon Crashes” by Mona Charon (Townhall.com, Oct. 20). Ms Charon takes a different approach, but, like Michelle, names events and sources in writing about how Obama’s messages of “hope” in his campaign have translated into his support of dictatorships around the world.

Disappointed in the National Football League refusing permission for Rush Limbaugh to become a part owner in the Rams, based on false charges of racism brought by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and the president of the players’ union, I decided to stop watching professional football. I quit this past Sunday and was surprised to discover that I didn’t miss it, or even notice that I was missing it.

Perhaps this belongs under “Family Affairs,” but I suspect it is more political. I had a bad night last night, the first in a long time.  Fifty-five year old memories woke me at two and kept me awake.  I know what caused it. While at the hospital yesterday I spotted my friend Jim, an unreformed Democrat, waiting in Dr. Blazer’s office so I dropped in to make certain this was simply a routine visit. Reassured, I traded fun, political, jabs with him before asking if he still liked Obama. He said he objected to Obama having a thirty thousand dollar a plate dinner with people he had just bailed out with millions of tax payer dollars. I didn’t respond to that, but what bothers me, and woke me up this morning, is something different. I don’t like what is happening in Afghanistan.

We have generals and military leaders saying we need more men and equipment, but Obama is too busy to talk with them: busy interviewing five year old children in New Orleans, busy visiting Chicago and Europe to try for the Olympics, busy giving political speeches in New Jersey and attending that expensive donor dinner. All of this while our men and women are fighting, and dying, with a lack of help and equipment in Afghanistan. 

My knowledge of this awoke me in the middle of the night: memories of night after night of explosions and men dying. I laid down to sleep in Outpost Howe on the 10^th of June, 1953, thinking that it was the first night in over a week I could sleep with my boots off. I woke up an hour later with dirt falling in my face as shells exploded on top of and around our bunker. I spent the night working in stocking feet. The Chinese had decided to take Seoul by going through us, and they allocated two divisions to do it. When morning came and life calmed down, three of us were sent to a watching post about a hundred and fifty yards in front of the front line and a hundred or so yards off of the west slope of Outpost Harry, the point of the Chinese attack. I was there for the next three nights. As a point radio scout, I received radioed requests for more men, more ammunition and more medical supplies and forwarded them to headquarters. After the third night, the fourth night of the battle, we three were pulled back and returned to Regimental headquarters for a night’s sleep. I remember being shocked by the supplies and the guns. There were hundreds of cases of grenades and bullets stacked immediately behind the line. Heavy guns had been pulled into the area to support us: forty and fifty caliber machine guns, heavy mortars, artillery of all types including rockets. This was all new. We were in a fight, but our government was supporting us. Over the eight nights of that unknown battle in that forgotten war we lost about 2300 men while killing an estimated 7000 enemy, but we held. And we held with our government’s, President Eisenhower’s, support. 

Where is that help and support for our people in Afghanistan? Obama is too busy doing other things to even talk to those trying to run this war.

I know his work isn’t easy. Any decision he makes, to fight or to run, will be criticized. It wasn’t easy for Truman or Eisenhower or Johnson or Nixon or Bush either, but they were in charge and knew their responsibility. It is time Obama learned his.

Actually, we had an incident at a festival in Cumberland Furnace a few years ago in which a musician was showing too much interest in a young girl. Two or three of the men went over and told him they knew how to calm a man who was interested in young girls and that if he kept it up, they would take him up in the nearest cornfield and show him.  After they walked away, he packed up and left.

The most fun news article I have heard in weeks was reported on either CBS or NBC. It seems a group of elderly ladies, probably at a cocktail party, were sorrowing over the recent death by cancer of one of the husbands, a Mr. Baker. Wondering how they could raise money for cancer research, one said that people liked nude calendars, so these ladies, aged fifty to seventy, decided to produce one. They were the models. To date, they have raised more than a million dollars, had and provided a lot of amusement. It is true they were all nude, but the photographs were shot in such a way that the television station was able to show many of them. Laughing about it to Andrew, he wasn’t surprised. He said people were tired of pornography and would like something that satirized it.

Not at all humorous has been President Obama’s vacillation on troops to Afghanistan. Six months ago he said he had clear goals and a clear strategy to achieve them. Now he says he doesn’t know what to do. Granted, it is a difficult choice. He must send in another fifty or hundred thousand troops to – maybe – win or withdraw acknowledging that he was wasted the time and lives of the those additional twenty thousand he has already sent.  

Currently the Senate is considering a health bill that has the blessing of President Obama. What I found interesting was that a Democratic Senator on the committee writing the bill said he hadn’t read it, it was too confusing, that no one could read it. And the Senate will pass this with the President’s support?  I didn’t want McCain for president because I was afraid he would “shoot from the hip” without thought. Considering the trillions of dollars in “stimulus” passed at his demand over night and the above, maybe the nation elected an immature McCain, one with a lot of corrupt friends.

I tuned in to the Rush Limbaugh program during lunch and heard him say that the Sixty Minutes show of 27 September had reported that President Obama had not spoken to the top commanding general, who has been asking for help, in the past 70 days. To me, this is incredible, if true. He had time to praise himself at the UN, visit Chicago about the Olympics and fly to Denmark to campaign for Chicago, but did not have time to speak to the Commanding General in Afghanistan where we have between forty and sixty thousand young men and women fighting and dying – twenty thousand of whom he sent. I hope someone can tell me this is false.

On the other hand, I must respect Michelle Obama. After flying to Denmark with her friend Oprah Winfrey in the presidential private four engine jet, she said she made this “sacrifice” willingly for the children of Chicago. We should have a national “Michelle Obama Day” for this sacrifice. It was really tough on her: that taxpayer paid luxury flight, the dinner with the nobility of Denmark, the wine and cheese tasting party. Her life is hell.

In preparation for this walk, the Secret Service and the DC police brought in three dozen vehicles and shut down several streets, H Street, Vermont Avenue, two lanes of I Street and an entrance to MacPherson Square Metro station (Richie Rich, Bizblooger, Sept 18). They also sent in bomb sniffing dogs, had snipers on roof tops and put up barricades. It was, of course, too far to walk, so she was transported that block and a half in her armored limousine from the White House to the shop accompanied by her photographer and a sign language interpreter. Note that this did not include helicopters for low level protection and jet fighters for high level protection.  She did not want her lunch to cost the taxpayers too much.

Michelle graciously selected a black cabbage and a few other vegetables, permitted an assistant who accompanied her to pay for the vegetables and gave a spontaneous speech to an assembled crowd on healthy eating. 

I have tried to find the humor in this, considering adding that perhaps she had to walk through a black neighborhood, which would have made all of the protection understandable considering it was DC and what her husband had done to the black school children there, but I can’t. This incident is not laughable, it is not stupid, it is frightening. Has any empress in history been so protected? And for such a stupid publicity stunt? Face the fact that she has over twenty personal assistants making more than a hundred thousand dollars a year. They probably all have secretaries and clerks and, in addition, there is a large kitchen staff. All she had to do was say, “I want some black cabbage,” and any of those underlings would have run to the store and gotten some to please the princess. That two block trip was more than a publicity stunt, it was a demonstration of her royalty, of how important she is in relation to the common herd, of how she disdains us, including those who elected her husband. 

The problem is that this cannot be written off as the action of a sick, emotionally disturbed, perhaps paranoid woman who happens to be the wife of the President. It is true of too many of the leading aristocracy of the Democratic Party, the Party that formerly identified itself with the working class. Consider the Kennedys. I lived in Massachusetts for a few years where I learned of the special treatment that they expected (expect?) and received (receive?). Once, eating in the Oyster House, the waiter proudly told me that Jack Kennedy used to eat there. He added, “Of course, when he and the family came this floor was closed off to other customers.” There are numerous such examples if one chooses to hunt them down. The Kennedys are better than anyone else. The same appears true of Pelosi.  Her husband’s factories in Samoa were exempted from the minimum wage she forced on companies headquarters in the States.  The airplane that transported her and her entourage on a weekly or semi-weekly basis to her home in California wasn’t good enough. She wanted, and received, a four engine plane equipped like the Presidential plane, and then complained because it did not land closer to her home – it was too large for the air field. Are they simply the tip of an iceberg that could sink our freedom.

I recall with fondness President Truman’s solitary morning walks: a group of construction workers noticed him and placed a pile of debris in his way one morning. He walked around it, out into the street, while wishing them “Good morning.” He was the elected servant of the people, and he knew it. Now we are entering a time when the people serve the officials. It is not too late too change, we still have a vote but face the money and public power of organizations such as the NEA and other important unions as well as ACORN. Somehow the word must be spread. We need representatives, not rulers. 

I would never have heard of Empress Michelle’s visit to the peasants had it not been for the Limbaugh and Hannity radio broadcasts and it took a search of Google to find an incomplete report in the blurb by Rich. Where are our watchdogs, our guardians of democracy, the powerful, all encompassing press? Fawning at the foot of the wealthy and the powerful may be pleasant, but it is always temporary. They should remember that slaves, no matter how privileged and important are still slaves. 

Voters should remember that also.

Second, where will the national records on health care be stored and what will they include? In addition to my medical history, will they have such items as my social security number, credit card numbers, health plans I pay for, age and other personal items? How will they be secured?  No computer system yet devised, which includes top secret military information, has been found completely safe from hackers. Does this mean an ingenious individual or nation will have all information on all citizens?

How much will this bureaucracy cost?

Current estimates claim 45 million uninsured Americans, of whom 20 million earn more than 70 thousand dollars a year. My third question is how will these people be forced to purchase health insurance? Every state of which I am aware has a law requiring automotive accident insurance, but every state has uninsured drivers also. Twenty percent of the drivers in California are estimated to be uninsured. Will uninsured medical people be refused treatment at hospitals? Or jailed? If jailed, then they will receive free medical treatment. 

One escape reported in Massachusetts which has, I believe, such a law, is to fine any person requiring medical treatment between 5 and 6 hundred dollars. My income is much less than 70 thousand and I pay approximately 900 dollars a month for myself and family. It would be much less expensive, and people in Massachusetts have found it so, to forget the insurance and pay the fine.

A second option, again I believe in Romney’s Massachusetts plan, is to require insurance companies to accept all applicants regardless of prior health condition. Again, the report I read said that many younger people aren’t bothering with health insurance until they realize they have a serious illness. Then they sign up. Following treatment, they drop their insurance. Again, being personal, I have paid for health insurance for more than fifty years, during most of which I never saw a doctor. I didn’t need insurance during most of those years. Under the Massachusetts plan, I wouldn’t have had to pay those tens of thousands of dollars over the years. When I finally realized I had a problem – a heart attack that I ignored - I could have signed up immediately and then dropped it when cured, which took about three months. Thus three months worth of premiums would have paid my 200 thousand dollar bill. Incidentally, but relevant, the report I read said this practice is driving the cost of insurance up for those who pay monthly.

Back to the third question, how will the government force people to buy insurance?

My fourth question is why are the estimated 17 millions illegal aliens to be covered and how? One article said plans are to reduce Medicaid payments. Thus I, and tens of thousands of other elderlies, will be restricted in receiving medical treatment while illegals receive full treatment. One of the penalties of being a citizen I suppose. 

Now for others. I am willing to bet anyone a cup of coffee, even an expensive cup, that a review of college campuses would find at least ten million young adults in full attendance who are over-age to be on their family policies and unemployed – other than as students – so unable to buy insurance. 

Fifth, at least one or two million people change jobs every year, taking them off of company insurance policies for a brief period of time.

Now let us add the numbers. Twenty million making over 70 thousand a year, 17 million illegals, 10 million students, 1 million changing jobs. Whoops! That is 48 million uninsured and I’ve forgotten to include the insane incarcerated in mental hospitals and the mentally ill considered harmless to society who wander the streets. Obama is underestimating the number of uninsured.

If Congress truly believed in the “global warming crisis” they would ban all carbonated beverages. Consider it, every time a bottle of soda pop is opened, carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere. Then look at the grocery carts in the checkout counters, they are loaded with cases of soda pop. The people consuming them are probably releasing much more CO2 into the air than they did driving their cars to the supermarket to buy them. 

Members of Congress, in their seemingly infinite ability to act stupidly, passed a law requiring all television broadcasters to stop using analog signals and switch to digital signals. Most people’s television sets won’t receive such signals. At the time, I swore I would not spend a thousand dollars to watch football games, about the only programs I consider worth watching on television. Then our “leaders” discovered that most television sets would not receive such signals without new antennas and a converter box. As a result, they offered free coupons to help people buy the converter boxes – using taxpayers’ money of course. Now a new glitch appears. A recent article in the Wall Street Journal by Amy Schatz (April 2, 2009) pointed out that many people will be unable to watch television when the bill banning analog because the digital signals do not travel as far as the analog signals. She cites an example of a person living 40 miles from Washington D. C., who is unable to receive television with his new converter box and antenna. Were I running for Congress against an incumbent this coming year in a rural area – more than 40 miles from a major city – I might mention this fiasco to potential voters.

Also instructive concerning the wisdom of our Congress is the requirement to use the new light bulbs, the ones which have worked satisfactorily for the past 70 years being outlawed. The new mercury light bulbs, despite being much more expensive, are supposed to use less electricity and last much longer. Whoops! Reports coming in cite numerous instances of these new wonder bulbs burning out much faster than those old faithfuls. There are other problems also. Because of the mercury, they cannot be put in the regular trash and, if one is dropped and broken in the house, instructions are to evacuate the room immediately, waiting fifteen minutes before re-entering and then use gloves to pick up the pieces. Congratulations Congress!

The federal government under Obama is now running the major banks and the largest two of the Detroit automobile makers. (They claim this isn’t really true, but when I was working for a living I considered anyone capable of firing me or adjusting my salary as being in charge – and that is what people in the federal government are doing.) But, back to the subject, we can now expect great things out of General Motors, Chrysler, and the banks. If you don’t believe that, consider Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae, in their years under federal control they have paid handsome salaries to their leaders, contributed heavily to Congressional supporters, and assisted tens of thousands of Americans attempting to purchase homes into bankruptcy.

Obama, in his tour around the world (while Pelosi and Reid run the nation) has apologized to nation after nation for our arrogance in giving them hundreds of millions of dollars in help when they needed it, bowed to King Saud of Saudi Arabia and described Islam as a nation of peace. Some conservatives have thoughtlessly criticized him for this. After all, if Islam wasn’t a nation of peace, Islamic terrorists would be killing innocent people around the world, in the Philippines, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, Holland and, perhaps, even one or two in the United States instead of sending charitable teams to help all people, not simply themselves. Why shouldn’t he bow to King Saud, isn’t the King the leading Muslim in the world? All Muslims bow to him. 

Actually, I like Obama apologizing to the world for all we have done to them. I only hope he follows through by changing this. We won’t need those tax increases when he stops interfering with other nation’s ways by giving them billions of dollars: in cash, material, and aid. He could start by stopping the hundreds of millions we give to the United Nations every year.

I have lived long enough to be aware of and read about other leaders who have decided to “change the world.” Some called themselves Communists and some called themselves Socialists, which has always struck me as different labels on the same can of beans. In both cases, the leaders of a powerful federal government decide what is best for other people.   

The first of these in modern times was Lenin, and he did change his country, he effectively destroyed a fledgling democracy. His word was Communism, an idea in which all the power belonged to the people, but in reality rested in him and a powerful, privileged, leadership. Then he was ousted by Stalin, who used military power to take over Russia and much of Eastern Europe. In the process, he killed hundreds of thousands who opposed him. As his power spread in Europe, the number killed increased to millions, mostly among the working middle-class. But the indolent and the criminal classes did not profit either, he established re-education camps in Siberia, where they learned to work for a living – or starve.  

A second person who set out to change his country and the world was Hitler. His dogmatism was Socialism. (Nazi stood for “National Socialist Party.) Following his election to leadership in the then Democracy of Germany, he used his goon squads to silence dissidents: early victims, who were imprisoned and executed, included the handicapped, Masons, peace loving Christians such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and more than 800 Protestant ministers. Finally he turned his attention to the Jews. It was all for the good of the nation. He and those about him knew what was good for all. The consequence was catastrophe for Europe.

Mao knew what was best for the people of China. He executed over twenty million Chinese and, over the years, led the nation into poverty. It was only after his death, with the slow introduction of capitalism, which permits people to decide for themselves what is best for them, that prosperity returned for many, but it has been slow. 

Castro promised change. He was young, handsome and an excellent speaker – like Hitler. The people of Cuba needed change, and supported him. It was only after he gained control of the nation that they realized they no longer enjoyed the freedom to determine their own lives. Castro knew what was best. More than a million fled the nation and the others now live in poverty. Not, of course, the leadership. As in all Socialist (Communist) nations, the leaders live privileged lives in prosperity. 

Now Chavez has decided he knows what is best for Venezuela. Young, handsome and an excellent speaker, he won leadership. At first, the country prospered as Chavez reaped the profits of capitalism, now it is sinking into economic despair as industry after industry is taken over and directed by the government, but Chavez and the elite with whom he has surrounded himself still know what is best – and prosper.

Now we have Obama. Like Lenin, Hitler, Castro and Chavez, Obama is young, handsome and a marvelous speaker. He has been quoted as saying he will change the nation and the world. All of the major media supported him, and he won the Presidency. This has made me wonder how he might be expected to change the nation – and the world. This worries me.

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, on Fox Sunday morning (January 18, 2009) amazed me. I have never seen a person more adept at answering a question one way and then reversing that answer completely in a second sentence. I believe her best, but not her only, such reply was her assurance to the nation that Congress would present a balanced budget and then going into the need to “borrow” almost a hundred billion dollars of taxpayer money to start the economy. Only politicians can balance a budget by borrowing money, but few can present such a contradiction as well as Speaker Pelosi did.

The fact that police in WashingtonDC were putting up signs, “prostitution free zone” for the coronation of Saint Obama pleased me. My initial thought was that everyone was getting into the act to welcome Obama, even prostitutes were servicing for free during the holiday. Then I realized no prostitutes would be permitted in that area (I guess they wear signs). What a travesty of campaign promises. Promising to put the world back to work, to restore the economy, Democrats are depriving hard working women of their jobs for a week that would have given them their highest income of the year from all of the visiting politicians.

While campaigning, then Senator Obama said he would immediately close the GuatanamoBay recreation camp for killers who profane the teachings of Muhammad by killing and advocating the killing of innocent men, women and children of all religious faiths around the globe. Now he suggests it may take four years to do this. Works out very nicely. Three and a half years from now he can campaign for re-election by promising to close the place immediately.

There are two questions regarding the handling of these avowed terrorists. If he simply wishes to quiet the negative publicity, he should move the place from its present location on the Caribbean. Currently, critics can go, visit briefly, enjoy the luxuries of the beaches and the bars of prestige hotels and then write scathing testimonials as to the mistreatment of the prisoners. Move it to some small town in northern Alaska where summer comes on July 4^th and the rest of the year you wear coats, hats and worry about frost bite. No one would go up there to visit, the Liberals would stay home and soon the place would be forgotten. However, if he truly wants to release them where they could do no harm and possibly improve the place, turn them loose in San Francisco. Or simply behead them all as they have done to innocent people. Granted this last would create a five minute burp in publicity, but then it – and they – would be forgotten.

Phyllis Schlafly has written an interesting article (1993 All Over Again) for Townhall.com (January 20, 2009). It is interesting, but I fear she is understating the case. Our economy had been in an extended bubble, but slowed down. The President put millions of dollars into an attempt to improve the economy, but unemployment increased and rose to 7.2%. The President with a Democratic Congress enacted laws and rules to restore the glory, but all failed. Now, a gifted speaker has been elected President and the Democrats have swept Congress all on vague promises of glorious change. 

Sound familiar?  No, it was not Barack Obama, it was Franklin D. Roosevelt. His slogan was not “Hope and Change” it was “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Ask the average person, including most college graduates, if Roosevelt solved the depression and they will answer, “Yes.” In a sense he did. He and Congress poured millions of tax dollars into the economy, constructing programs for the unemployed. At the end of the first four years of his programs that 7.2% unemployment under Hoover had risen to 20%, but he was still a gifted speaker. Re-elected, the unemployment rate rose to 24%. Then he maneuvered us into the Second World War, either deliberately or through bad judgments. Put 11 million men out of a population of 150 million in the armed forces, kill off or injure a million of them, and, behold unemployment is solved. End of depression!

Now we have another gifted speaker leading the faithful with promises of hope and change. President Bush, bowing to Congress, poured several billion dollars into the economy, but things only got worse. By the end of his presidency unemployment had risen to 7.2%. Now Obama promises to pour hundreds of billions of tax dollars into the economy. I hope it works, but the precedent isn’t very good. In fact, it frightens me.

This isn’t really relevant (if any of it is) but I read a recent news article extolling Obama’s selection of Mrs. Clinton as Secretary of State. The writer exulted over Mrs. Clinton’s brilliance, claiming she had an IQ of 128. I had to laugh, but then looked up the statistics to be certain. In a nation of 300 million, which describes us, 6 million, 399 thousand and 900 people have higher IQs than Mrs. Clinton. 

Change the World?

By

William D. Dannenmaier

In a speech given during the primaries in New Hampshire, Barack Obama said, “We won’t just win in New Hampshire. We will win this election and, you and I together, we’re going to change the country and change the world.” (Toby Hamden, Telegraph.co.uk) Do we really want that?

I have lived long enough to be aware of and read about other leaders who have decided to “change the world.” Some called themselves Communists and some called themselves Socialists, which has always struck me as different labels on the same can of beans. In both cases, a powerful federal government decides what is best for all people.   

Probably the first of these was Lenin, and he did change his country, he effectively destroyed a fledgling democracy. His word was Communism, an idea in which all the power belonged to the people, but in reality rested in him and a powerful, privileged, leadership. Then he was ousted by Stalin, who used military power to take over Russia and much of Eastern Europe. In the process, he killed hundreds of thousands who opposed him. As his power spread in Europe, the number killed increased to millions, mostly among the working middle-class. But the indolent and the criminal class did not profit either, he established re-education camps in Siberia, where they learned to work for a living – or starve.  

A second person who set out to change his country and the world was Hitler. His dogmatism was Socialism. (Nazi stood for “National Socialist Party.) Following his election to leadership in the then Democracy of Germany, he used his goon squads to silence dissidents: early victims, who were imprisoned and executed, included the handicapped, Masons, peace loving Christians such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and more than 800 Protestant ministers. Finally he turned his attention to the Jews. It was all for the good of the nation. He and those about him knew what was good for all.

Mao also knew what was best for the people of China. He executed over two million Chinese and, over the years, led the nation into poverty. It was only after his death, with the slow introduction of capitalism, which permits people to decide for themselves what is best for them, that prosperity returned for many, but it has been slow. 

Castro promised change. He was young, handsome and an excellent speaker – like Hitler. The people of Cuba needed change, and supported him. It was only after he gained control of the nation that they realized they no longer enjoyed the freedom to determine their own lives. Castro knew what was best. Millions fled the nation and the others now live in poverty. Not, of course, the leadership. As in all Socialist (Communist) nations, the leaders live privileged lives in prosperity. 

Now Chavez has decided he knows what is best for Venezuela. Young, handsome and an excellent speaker, he won leadership. At first, the country prospered as Chavez reaped the profits of capitalism, but now it is sinking into economic despair as industry after industry is taken over and directed by the government, but Chavez and the elite with whom he has surrounded himself still know what is best – and prosper.

Now we have Obama. Like Lenin, Hitler, Castro and Chavez, Obama is young, handsome and a marvelous speaker. He has been quoted as saying he will change the nation and the world. Currently all of the major media, all of whom have supported him, predict he will win the Presidency. This has made me consider how he might be expected to change the nation – and the world.

For starters, I believe all lawsuits against ACORN for its corruption and millions in tax evasion will be dropped, Unlike Hitler’s Gestapo or Mussolini’s adherents, ACORN members will not start wearing black shirts or brown shirts to identify their allegiance – at least not immediately. A few hundred dollars cash will be thrown to the poor and the welfare careerists, much as the emperors of Rome and the nobility of Medieval Europe threw coins to the poor as they rode by, to ensure their allegiance. Higher taxes will be imposed on the workers, but not on the wealthy who already have their money, so the Pelosis, the Reids, the Kerrys, the Gores and other important, wealthy, friends will be spared. Health care will be nationalized, creating a new, privileged, bureaucracy in WashingtonDC. The “fairness” doctrine will be passed and imposed on radio, one of the two current means by which average citizens can express their wishes and communicate with each other. It will not be extended to newspapers and major media, as yet, as they are Obama supporters. If, however, they stop to think and analyze where Obama is leading the nation, it can be extended to them, as happened in Germany and Cuba and is currently happening in Russia. I also expect some sort of fairness doctrine to be imposed on the Internet, the other current media by which average citizens can express their thoughts and communicate with one another. In general, all power will be concentrated in WashingtonDC, where politicians, such as Biden and Kennedy, millionaires who have never worked for a living, know what is best for all of us. We may not like this, although many will. It is easier to obey than to accept responsibility for yourself. He will change our world, if not the world.  As indicated, others have succeed in one and attempted the other.

Racism is Dead

By

William D. Dannenmaier

One of the silliest things I have heard from news commentators recently, has been the assertion that Obama’s candidacy for President means that racism in the United States is dead.

If any of those white news anchors truly believe this fiction, they should try walking down the street in a black neighborhood or a Hispanic neighborhood in any major city in the nation, including WashingtonDC, without their camera crews, body guards and armored vehicles. Then let them say that, after they get out of the hospital, provided they live. 

When I was a member of an evaluation team for HowardUniversity we were quartered in a nice hotel bordering a black neighborhood. One morning I stepped out of the front door and the black doorman, a tall strong man, asked me where I was going. I said I thought I would take a walk down the street. Looking at me, he said, “I wouldn’t do that if I were you.” I took his advice and simply crossed the street for a much less expensive breakfast than the hotel provided. The media personalities seem concerned that some of the 40 something percent of the whites who intend to vote for McCain might do so because Obama is black. I have not heard one suggest that the reason 98% of the blacks intend to vote for Obama has anything to do with race. 

But racism is not limited to blacks, it extends across racial and ethnic lines. A friend, one of my wife’s co-workers of years past, who happens to be black, told me that he was walking though a Hispanic neighborhood when three young men started following him. He said when he speeded up, they speeded up. Knowing that he wasn’t a fighter, he didn’t know what to do, but he knew he had to protect himself, so he turned around and assumed the stance that he had seen karate experts on television use even though he knew nothing about karate. He said the Hispanics stopped also and one of them said to the others, “Hey, this guy is a karate expert, let’s leave him alone.” They left.  He gave a great sigh of relief.

The truth is that there are neighborhoods in which any person who does not “belong” is in danger. I taught in one of the worst white slum areas in St. Louis for several years. I could visit and walk in that neighborhood after dark because I “belonged.” The young men hanging out on the streets knew me. But I would not have felt safe walking in neighboring white neighborhoods. Even though I was white, I didn’t belong.

When I was a student teacher, I was assigned to a slum school in North St. Louis. To get there, after leaving the bus, I walked through a black neighborhood. My father, a salesman at Sears, was telling his best friend there, Walter Bibbs (the unofficial boss of the warehouse and a tall strong black man) about my walk. Walter told him that I shouldn’t be doing that. Dad reported that Walter said, “Danne, I wouldn’t walk through that neighborhood and I’m black.”

The truth is that people like to associate with others of their own type: type by race, by ethnic group, by religion, by socio-economic class. Not all such groupings are dangerous, although they are restrictive, even if that restriction is simply ignoring the outsider. During my two years in junior high school I was in a special class. I was the only non-Jew in the class for those two years. Now, looking back, I have only respect for those Jewish fellow students. This was in the early forties when the treatment of Jews in Germany was well publicized, and there I was: Germanic and the only member of the class who was blond and blue-eyed, yet never was I insulted or abused because of that. I was, however, ignored and never a member of any casual conversation group. I didn’t belong. 

Over the years, I’ve learned to accept the fact that people with commonalities like to associate with one another: so Italians like to group and complain about the treatment they received from the Nuns who taught them, so blacks hang out together, so do football fans and bridge-players. So what? 

When I was sixteen, an elderly friend gave me a cheap fishing outfit. I was delighted, I loved it. As soon as possible I took a street car to the end of the line, by Creve Coeur lake, outside of St. Louis. It was raining heavily and a black man was there sitting under a small tent. He invited me to join him. Sitting there, I talked fishing and, I suspect, he quickly realized I didn’t know anything about it. When the rain stopped, he gave me some tips, as any other experienced adult would do for an enthusiastic youngster. I even caught a fish (a gar). We weren’t a black man and a white teenager – we were fishermen, we belonged.  

The problem arises when some small sub-group decides their problems arise from someone else and decide to punish those other people.

My experience of teaching college students over the years, leads me to believe that those who blame others for their problems are typically the ones who don’t work: don’t attempt to direct and improve their own lives. Lazy, failing, students always blame the professor, workers never do, even when they fail. I suspect many (but not all) of the shouts of racist, sexist, ethicist discrimination, etc., arise from just such people, and that it is endorsed and promoted by those who profit from it. It is always easier to blame someone else than to correct your own problems.

Meanderings

By

William D. Dannenmaier

Media stars complained that Sarah Palin was sending the same message every time. That is a problem for a person who has values and beliefs. They don’t change daily. Perhaps that is why the media personalities favor Obama, he is for change. He changes on economics, he changes on Iraq, he changes on so much it is hard to keep track. But he can be depended on for something new every time he talks. 

My son Bill reported that the damage to the homes he and his brothers Chris and Eric own in Galveston has been much worse than expected and he wondered if Stephen and Andrew could use their spring vacations to come and help.  I asked Andrew and his immediate answer was “Yes.” While Stephen was preparing to leave for school I asked him if he would go, provided his half-brothers paid his transportation down and back. I liked his immediate answer. “Certainly, one has to help family.” 

Some may recall that early in Obama’s run for the Democratic nomination he visited Africa. Accompanied by photographers and news media, he recalled his family heritage which included a visit to his half-brother. In a follow-up visit by a reporter from a European newspaper, the half-brother was reported as living in a hut on a dollar a month and said that his one wish was to get enough money to go to school to be a mechanic, so he could earn a decent living. (Dinesh D’Souza, Townhall.com, September 8, 2008) If one considers it, the faith of some people is amazing. Obama, a millionaire, will not send his half-brother the few hundred dollars that would enable him to obtain the education that he needs to escape poverty, yet people believe that if he elected, he will do great things to help people he doesn’t know.

Following a small incident at the Cardiac Club, I am again under house arrest until I receive approval from my cardiologist – no exercising, no lifting of objects over 10 pounds, and a report from Sheila on my daily diet, heart checks three times a day, etc. I telephoned Dr. Smith’s office to protest (Dr. Gary Smith is my G.P.) in anticipation of visiting him immediately. His delayed reply was that he had broken his foot. I e-mailed in return that he should stop kicking the wall when he heard that I planned an office visit.

Sheila had a laugh on me today. It was time to take the trash to the dumpster, so I began carrying the bags out to the four-wheeler, when Sheila bustled in, pushed me out of the way and carried the heavier bags and put them in the trailer. As I drove down the driveway and headed to the dumpster, I was laughing to myself that it hadn’t occurred to my bride that I would lift them out and throw them in the dumpster. After I arrived at the dumpster and had thrown in a lighter bag, Andrew pulled up in Stephen’s car. Sheila had sent him racing down to unload the trailer. She enjoyed that petty victory over me out of all proportion (in my opinion) to her triumph.

I would never, ever, under any conditions suggest or even hint that my bride doesn’t anticipate needs, consider resources and plan in detail her delicious meals, that’s why I was a bit surprised when, as I asked her what was for dinner. She looked up from where she was bending over varied packages in the bottom of the refrigerator and said, “I don’t know. Probably what’s in this package as soon as I find out what it is.”

Still on the topic of brides, I noticed an empty Hershey’s wrapper the other morning, and accused Sheila of eating chocolate without sharing. Her reply, “I know you believe it is immoral to eat chocolate before noon, but I don’t. So I helped save a moral dilemma for you by not mentioning it.” When I replied that she was flip-flopping on morals, she said, “Absolutely not. I’m firm in my morals for me and I’m firm on my morals for you.” Husbands can’t win.

The other morning I awoke completely refreshed, noticed that Sheila was up and hopped up myself. Entering the kitchen, I noticed she hadn’t started my coffee so I began that, but decided a trip to the bathroom was more essential. On the way there, I encountered my bride returning. Going back to the kitchen, I started on coffee and then looked at the clock. It was 11:30! I had slept all of two hours. I quit on the coffee and returned to bed.

On a political note, I have enjoyed the picture of Pelosi and Reid standing together, not a Republican in sight, and proclaiming the success of their Wall Street Bailout. The picture occurred on the same day that headlines announced that the bill had failed in passage. Now, Pelosi puts the Republicans as responsible, forgetting to mention that 40% of the Democrats she leads voted against it. For once, members of the House of Representatives have represented their constituents’ wishes!

All in all, the month of September was not the best for either McCain or me. Our refrigerator quit cooling, the gas heater in the study was disintegrating, the microwave showed problems and I was unable to get the doctor’s approval to return to normal activity until he has put me through some tests and I have seen a surgeon. Now, we have a new refrigerator, a new gas heater, a replacement microwave and Sheila has been talking about how attractive some of the men in the Cardiac Club are.   

Stray Thoughts

By

William D. Dannenmaier

My son Stephen announced to me that he has finally figured out “global warming.” He says there is no such thing, but that politicians spend so much time in air conditioned offices, airplanes and automobiles that they are shocked by their momentary exposures to the out-of-doors. They are also concerned about all the energy consumed by their air conditioners. Their solution is “global warming.” By cooling off the planet as a whole, they won’t need to expend energy – or their suppliants’ energy – by turning on and off air conditioners. 

Obama has suggested that if we keep our tires filled, we will increase our gas mileage and reduce our dependence on oil. That is true, but he should expand that theme. For one, we should quit using plastics. Plastics are an oil derivative. Return to glass soda bottles, they don’t require the use of oil and they can be re-used. Quit using plastic pipes, which have a short lifetime. Return to copper pipes, which last for years. Quit paving roads with asphalt which is an oil derivative, use concrete which lasts forever. Women should quit using make-up, again an oil derivative. The government should quit paying for highways which encourage drivers and use that money to support electric streetcars and buses in cities. Return to coal fired locomotives. All of these changes would do much more to reduce our dependence on oil than filling up our tires. They would reduce our dependence on oil companies and our need to drill for more oil also. 

For the past fourteen years, Congress and Presidents, primarily under the lead of Democrats have prevented the drilling for oil in known locations. Now the Democrats are complaining about the economy. Hasn’t it occurred to any of them that sending hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, of dollars to foreign countries every year for oil, while not using our own resources, is going to hurt our economy? It is remarkable, and a testament to the strength of our nation, that we have done as well as we have done during this stupidity.

Son Stephen said that people like Justice Thomas, Secretary of State Rice, Drs. Sowell and Williams and Star Parker aren’t real Blacks because they’re too busy being successful. He said it is only fair to say that Sarah Palin isn’t a REAL woman. While she has a successful, full-time career, she also has five children and a husband. No real woman would do that.  ((I have since read that the spokeswoman for NOW (National Organization for Women) has said that Palin isn’t a real woman!))

The cold that has plagued me through July and August has resumed its attacks. I mentioned to my bride that one of us should go to Dr. Smith and get enough medicine for two – a gentle hint that I KNOW she enjoys driving to Nashville. Her reply was that Dr. Smith never gives her medicine, only me. It’s a plot. To increase his business and the pleasures of my visits, he gives only me medicine. Knowing that Sheila and I are what you might call affectionate, he relies on the fact that as soon as I am well I’ll catch her cold again, requiring another trip to his office. (Actually, I’m afraid to return. I ate so many of their office brownies on my last visit – they may have been under the impression I was sharing with Sheila – that I need for Sheila to cook some treat before I return, which seems unlikely to happen until Christmas.)

Dinesh D’Souza ( Townhall.com, September 08, 2008) reports that Obama’s half-brother is living in poverty in Africa on a dollar a month. Obama visited that brother when he was publicizing his African “roots.” Then he left him in poverty. Obama has said great things about ending poverty for all, but if he won’t help his half-brother, what makes anyone, who is not a member of his clique, believe that he would help them? In a way, it was like his tour to Germany. When he found out that his press corps would not be admitted to the hospital in Landstuhl if he visited wounded veterans, he played basketball instead.  If it doesn’t profit Obama, forget it.

My bride was not disturbed by Obama’s reaction to his half-brother, but son Stephen was. He said that if any of his half-brothers or sisters were in trouble he would certainly do his best to help them, and I believe that. I also believe that those half-siblings would never permit their step-mother or half-brothers or sister to need help. In fact, two of them have already offered free housing to Stephen if he wanted to attend school in their communities. 

I was reminded the other evening of rule number three for helpful husbands. “Never take a shower immediately after putting a load of wash in on hot.” That comes immediately after rule one, “Always obey your bride,” and rule two, “always obey your bride.”