$53,000,000,000,000. That's the current estimated amount of the U.S. Government's unfunded liability. That's Social Security, Medicare, etc. That's a lot of zeros my friends.

That's a lot of money.

This past Sunday was the first Sunday of Advent. Advent, for those of you that don't know celebrates the coming of the Messiah and his eventual return.

Advent has always been one of my favorite aspects of the Christmas season. When I was a member of the United Methodist church our congregations would have an Advent wreath that would be lit by the acolyte. There were four candles for the Sundays leading up to Christmas, and one larger candle in the center representing Christ.

We also had a Chrismon tree—a concept originally created by Frances Kipps Spencer, a Lutheran, in 1957—that had Christ-oriented ornaments. Chrismon are ancient symbols of Christianity, like the Pisces and crosses, as well as others. The tree, like most Christmas trees, is an evergreen. It represents eternal life through Christ.

My family created our own Chrismon and an Advent wreath. We've somehow misplaced the wreath, but our tree always has a Chrismon or two on it.

I don't know how many other denominations beside United Methodist and Lutheran use the Chrismon but I always enjoyed it. I'm sure pagans will say that we stole the idea from them, but since God created the tree, it doesn't really matter what either of us think.

Despite what this time of year meant in the past, it has come to be the accepted time for celebrating the birth of Jesus the Christ. However, over the last several years more groups are coming out against public expressions of Christmas, even when the property in question isn't owned by the government.

The interesting thing about all the hubbub is that the majority of the people who protest the most about Christmas celebrations are people of no faith—atheists. Jews, Muslims, Hindus, none of them argue about it. And some even get in on the fun, whether they believe in the spiritual side of it or not. But atheists for some reason have a chip on their shoulder about Christians. I hardly ever hear of some atheist complaining about Eid al-Adha or Hanukkah decorations or celebrations. Admittedly there aren't as many overt displays of Jewish or Muslim celebrations.

However, I think it goes deeper than that. They are more terrified of Christianity than any other religion. It's not the Crusades or the Salem witch hunts. Those were crimes against people of faith and they happened centuries ago. And we have repented of those atrocities, whether anyone accepts that or not. But just as there are, and were, evil people who used the cover of Christianity to commit crimes that Christ abhors, there have been more than enough atheists that have committed crimes against humanity (read: Mao Zedong, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.). There have also been plenty of pagans that have killed on genocidal scales. For Christians this is simply proof of the fallen nature of man. For the atheist there's always the question: “What drove them to do that?”.

Regardless, Advent is a time of celebration and reflection for Christians just as Hanukkah and Eid al-Adha are for Jews and Muslims, respectively. We should all live with each other, if only for a month or so. There are so many real problems in the world that we don't need to be squashing the holiday season simply because we don't worship the same god, or any god. Take a deep breath and listen to some Christmas songs, light a menorah or watch the sun from Stonehenge on the Solstice.

God bless.

Events over the last few days have shown that the worst of the financial crisis has already occurred: fifty-two percent of Americans elected Barack Obama president. It is a cliché that in tough economic times people vote for Democrats, but it is what it is. The opposite cliché is that when the issue is national security, the people usually vote for Republicans. In this year’s election, people only saw the economic trouble and not the threat from Islamic terrorists and rogue nations. After all, 9/11 was seven years ago. That kind of thing can’t happen again, right? Wrong.

As I am writing this, the Indian people are picking up the pieces from a major coordinated attack in the city of Mumbai. There are hostages and over one hundred people are dead and hundreds are injured. Of course, Islamic terrorists have claimed responsibility. Witnesses claim that some of the terrorists were demanding American and British tourists.

Closer to home intelligence officials claim that they have credible evidence that terrorists are targeting New York City subways for Thanksgiving. The believed goal is to close down Amtrak’s Northeast corridor. This would shut down holiday traffic, as well as Black Friday traffic between Boston and Washington, D.C.

As I said earlier the problem is that the Americans’ that voted for Obama were only concerned with the economy. They apparently forgot the harm that September 11 caused to our economy. And there are worse threats than airplanes slamming into buildings.

Many on the Left have argued that they are just as strong on national defense as Republicans. Yet Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the chairperson of the House Financial Services Committee wants to downsize the military. In addition, Vice President-elect Joe Biden told backers during the campaign that he believed that there would be a major terrorist attack within six months of Obama’s inauguration, “to test” the new president. He added that then-candidate Obama might do some things in response to such an attack that people might not understand. However, he pleaded with people to be patient with him. This statement has always raised the hackles on my neck. It’s not because I feel it confirms what Republicans said about Obama’s lack of experience. It’s because it sounds much more Orwellian than I care for.

We are about eight weeks from the inauguration of a man who has only three years of service on the national level. He did not sponsor any meaningful legislation during that time and mostly voted “present” during legislation. Somehow, he has become the “Chosen One” that will lead this country out of the wilderness that the Left have claimed for the last eight years that we have been wandering in. The Left claim that he has the practical understanding to appoint experienced people that can make up for any lack of experience in any given area. But in the end it will be Barack Obama that has to make the final decision. If the American people have any sense whatsoever they will remember that in 2012. Assuming that is, of course if some group hasn’t irradiated a major city or infected large numbers of people with some horrible plague. If this has happened then the only people that can be held ultimately responsible for such a tragedy will be Barack Obama and the people that voted for him.

Oops. Apparently, Townhall.com also has the Chapman article.

I just finished reading an article at reason.com, by Steve Chapman that gave me a little bit of hope for the Republican party. Go read it and see what you think. I was unaware of some of the information I found in it.

 SOURCE: Reason Magazine article

In January, you can probably wave goodbye to the lower gas prices that we have experienced over the past several weeks. When the Democrats take a bigger slice of Congress and Barack Obama moves into the Oval Office the promises of domestic oil exploration will evaporate like so many gas fumes. The Dems are already talking about reinstating the offshore oil drilling ban. But why is it, you may think, that gas prices have dropped by almost half throughout most of the country? It was the furor that the American people raised at paying $4.00 a gallon over the summer. They demanded that domestic oil reserves be tapped regardless of where they were located. The oil speculators and the OPEC nations were scared that their only source of income would completely dry up. Now that the election is won and the prices have dropped so low, you will see all of the platitudes that the Liberals in Congress made disappear and your gas prices go up. And this time they will say that higher gas prices are good because it will force America to find "more sustainable" energy.

There is a new documentary out that questions the wisdom of Barack Obama's supporters (fans) as well as the complicity of the mainstream news media. The film, How Obama Got Elected, looks at twelve people who voted for Obama on November 4^th. The answers that these twelve individuals gave to various political questions are telling about the intelligence of the American people, specifically those identifying themselves as Democrats, and the voracity of the information disseminated to the public by the news media.

Though I have not seen the doc I have seen comparison-contrast clips on Hannity and Colmes. One of the questions was “Which party is in control of Congress?”. Inevitably, they either claimed not to know or that the Republicans were in charge. Those that claimed not to know “guessed” that the Republicans were in the majority. This despite the fact that Democrats have controlled both houses of the Congress for the past two years.

Another question was, “Which candidate claimed that they had visited 57 states during the campaign?”. Most answered “Sarah Palin”. The correct answer is of course, Barack Obama, the man they voted for. In fact, this was one of the gaffes that Republicans tried to use against Obama to show his naiveté and inexperience. The MSM repeatedly defend Obama regarding this gaffe by saying that anyone that had been campaigning as long and hard as Senator Obama would make similar mistakes. However, when Sarah Palin had similar problems with Africa being a continent and not a nation, the mainstreamers jump on it like ravenous wolves. Even though Palin was the vice-presidential choice, rather than on top of the ticket.

Now much of this ignorance is of course the result of that Democrat darling, government education. For nearly a hundred years the Liberals in the U.S. have pushed the compulsory government education agenda, as well as forcing liberal dogma down the throats of children. And when the results are inevitably horrid they simply claim that all they need is more money for programs, more teachers for the schools and more money to pay the teachers. The teachers unions, just like every other union in this country has the Democrat party tied around their little fingers. They're the only ones that benefit from this tax and throw down a deep dark pit strategy. The students are simply warehoused for eight hours a day for around fourteen years of their lives. And, of course, Liberals continue to try and make compulsory education the law for younger children every year. But the horrendous education system is not the only culprit in the debacle of this year's election.

The Mainstream Media's job is ostensibly educating the American people about the candidates and the option that they have as voters. Unfortunately, during previous elections the MSM has consistently augured for the Democrat. And this election was the most blatant attempt to mold the electorate as the media elites saw fit. Even the Washington Post admitted that they had unfairly given positive coverage to Barack Obama, when compared to John McCain. But why not admit it now; their guy won.

And of course let us not forget that Liberals love to claim that Conservatives are the stupid ones. But after hearing the people who supported Obama I believe that there is more than enough proof that the Dems aim at the lowest common denominator when seeking votes. For the past eight years Republicans have had to listen to the derisive jokes aimed at George W. Bush by those afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome. I guess they spent so much time hating W. and lamenting the past that they forgot to learn about their own candidates and the current election.

It should really be no surprise in a nation that gets its “news” mostly from The Daily Show with John Stewart and The Colbert Report, as well as Entertainment Tonight and Extra that people are politically ignorant.

Fascist, communist and socialist. These are all familiar epithets that are used in political discourse. This has been especially true in this country over the past two decades, with the Right calling members of the Left communists or socialists and the Left calling Conservatives, fascist. And every now and then you'll hear the dreaded “n” word: Nazi. The fact of the matter is that these are all slightly different flavors of the same philosophies. The core of all of these political systems is the supremacy of the State.

During the early part of the 20^th century governments and philosophers began to break away from the monarchies and empires of the past. They felt that royalty and oligarchs always put the people, the proletariat on the bottom of the totem pole. Socialists and others felt that the way to end this was to put the control of the government into the hands of the people. Something similar had been tried before with republican forms of government, first with the Greeks, and more recently with the United States of America and the French Republic.

However, the political philosophers saw what they felt was a flaw in the republican model. They knew that some would achieve more than others. Some would be richer, smarter, wiser. The socialists believed—and still believe—that all men are equal, not just in the basic rights of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, but also in every way. They believed that no one should have more than another. That regardless of whether a person works hard they should be given room, board and food, that everyone should drive a similar model of car or live in a similar house. Socialists believed that it was the duty of the State to provide an equalizer for all citizens. This is antithetical to what it means to live in a free society.

However, what Liberals don't tell you is that Nazism started in the same way. Nazi stood for the “National Socialist Workers Party” in Germany. The like all fascists believed in government control of private business. Now this differs slightly from socialism as it was envisioned by Marx, Engels and other founders of socialism in that they believed that the government should not only control businesses but that they should also own all businesses. But with modern socialism this has been modified more in keeping with fascist principles of private ownership, with heavy government regulation. Perhaps the fall of communism throughout the world has led to this modification of core principles. One need look no further than China, which has a communist government with much of the businesses being owned by private individuals. Both fascism and socialism believe that utilities and transportation, as well other services, should be owned and operated by the government.

In the final analysis, the names and terms that people use for the various political groups in this country are more similar than politicians and pundits—particularly Liberals—would have you believe. Instead of being an accurate description of the opposing side, they are simply different names than the standard “Republican” and “Democrat”. The Left uses “fascist” and “Nazi” against those on the Right, even though those terms have very little difference in meaning from Left-oriented “socialist”. While the Right uses the “socialist” tag for the Left even though there are elements to the neo-conservative movement that are firmly entrenched in socialist beliefs.

So, what is in a name?

Barack Obama was packaged and sold as a reformer, a harbinger of change. But as Republicans have said throughout this campaign, he is nothing more than a savvy politician with cunning handlers. He has stocked his cabinet and his Oval Office with former Clinton hacks. He is rumored to be considering Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State. Bill will probably the chief molester and of course let us not forget that there is most likely a place for Al "Moonbeam" Gore. Maybe he could create a new cabinet position for Secretary of Ego.

 No, there is no reform here. Simply the tired old mule of liberalism coughing out another idiotic administration; an administration that the American people will wind up paying for in the decades to come. Fifty-two percent of them deserve what they get.

Come and get it. The trough is open. First, it was the banks and insurance giant AIG. Then it was individual citizens. Now the Big 3 automakers are coming to Congress with their hands out and it appears that municipalities throughout the country will be next. Everybody wants a piece of the bailout pie and you and I are footing the bill.

The problem of course is that we are already spending at a deficit. Between two ongoing wars, the spendthrift nature of recent congresses and the dwindling revenue due to the financial crisis itself there's no way that the government can make up that gap. This is why the government uses credit from foreign nations to prop up its budget. But other nation's are feeling the credit pinch as well. And that brings us to an even more troubling situation.

The United States may lose its 'AAA' rating which will make it more difficult to get loans to pay all of the deficit spending that we are doing. And in the unlikely event that some nation calls in its loans, it will make the Great Depression look like a mild correction. I say that it is unlikely because the debt could not be paid off and trying to seize the assets of the U.S. would cause a catastrophic crisis around the world including the nation or nations that call in that debt. But we live in a world filled with suicide bombers and socialist dictators that would love nothing better than to destroy capitalist nations, especially America. The suicide bombers would have nothing to lose because the believe they answer to a “higher power” than Wall Street. The tin-pot dictators who believe they are the second-coming of Marx aren't bright enough to realize that socialism is no replacement for the free market. Case in point: Hugo Chavez. Since he nationalized most of the Venezuelan economy and put price controls on food, rationing of essentials and economic collapse has been the result. And let's not even get into Cuba.

So there are worries involved in any economic crisis, especially this one. But that's all the more reason to take a measured, judicious approach to the treatment of these crises. Republicans warned that the socialist bailout plan that Congress passed a few months ago would result in more problems than it would solve. Now that the nation knows that its so-called leaders can be cajoled to give handouts, everyone wants a piece of the action.

Props go to Drudge for the article on the 'AAA' threat.

SOURCE: CNBC article

The Dems are on a hunt for the heads of moderate and conservative members of their party. They have every intention of swinging far to the Left and I say that we Conservatives should let them. Sooner or later it will come back to bite them in the posterior and that's when we can retake control of the Congress.

The Libs in the Democrat party are trying to push Joe Lieberman and John Dingell out of their positions in the Senate and House respectively. Lieberman is on the chopping block because of his support of John McCain during the election. In 2006 he was kicked off the Democrat ballet in Connecticut because of his support for the Iraq War. He ran as an Independent and the people of his state voted the veteran senator back into office. Even after the betrayal of his party he continued to caucus with them on most issues. In fact he was one of the reasons that the Dems had a majority in the Senate for the past two years. But now that the Dems have won more seats his vote is no longer needed to maintain their majority so they're saying sayonara.

Representative John Dingell, of Michigan, is in a similar predicament because of his moderate views on climate and energy policy. With the extreme Left running the Democrat party only the “greenest” members are safe. Henry Waxman the ultra-liberal congressman from California, stated the day after the election that he would seek to replace Dingell on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Dems like Waxman refuse to accept terms like “reasonable”, “realistic”, “achievable” and “cost containment”. They want to pass a law that would force industries to cut emissions to 80% below 1990 standards by the year 2050. The thing is that Dingell passed a bill out of his committee that would more reasonably required emissions reductions to 80% below 2005 levels. As the Wall Street Journal puts it, this type draconian law would affect blue-collar Americans more than Waxman's Beverly Hills constituents.

The WSJ also points out that all of this is a warning to “Blue Dog” and rural-state Dems that they are on thin ice with the Obama-Pelosi-Reid triumvirate. If the Republicans' charges that the Democrat party is being controlled by the Moveon Left weren't enough to convince the rest of America, then this should do it. Unfortunately, it's too late. For the next two to four years we're stuck with the job-destroying, tree-worshiping liberals. I hope you're happy America.

SOURCE: Wall Street Journal story

On the 11th hour, of the 11th day, of the 11th month, in 1918, the armistice that ended World War I went into effect. It was, up to that point, the bloodiest conflict in modern history. It was the first war to use weapons of mass destruction, including tanks, machine guns, chemical weapons and the full fury of the Industrial Age.

First proclaimed in November of 1919 and finally made an official holiday on May 13, 1939, it was meant to remember the men that fought and died in World War I. In 1953, a Kansas shoe store owner named Al King began a movement to have Armistice Day honor ALL veterans, regardless of whether they served in war or peace. President Eisenhower signed it into law in May of 1954 and in November of that year Congress amended the law to change the name from Armistice Day to Veterans Day.

So today if you see a vet, whether currently serving or not, say thank you. Whether they served in war or peace they gave a portion of their lives so that ours could be free.

God bless America.

Well we have a new President-elect, Barack Obama. He ran on the promise of "change", but in just the first few days of his transition he has proven to be not as interested in change as he said during the campaign. He has appointed former Clinton aide Rahm Emmanuel as his chief-of-staff. Another Clinton-era staffer, John Podesta, is the head of his transition team. And that 's just the start. How long before we have Sandy Berger as the National Intelligence Czar?

 It seems that the only real change that Obama is making is to his campaign promises. From nearly the minute after he was declared the victor in the election last week he has already begun to try to lower the expectations for what he hopes to accomplish in his administration. He has even started talking about the need for a second term.

I was sitting at work trying to be at peace with the nation's choice of president and I came up with some interesting thoughts about race. It is something that our nation will always have to deal with but this particular election brings into the clear light of day, I think for the first time.

I never had any intention of voting against Obama because his skin was darker than mine. It really never entered my mind. And yet many black Americans did vote for Obama because he is a black man. One commentator said that the number of whites that voted against Obama because of color offsets the number of black people that supported him for the same reasons. I find this logic spurious at best.

Colin Powell is a prime example of a black man that voted for Obama simply because he is the same color. Powell had been a long time Republican—albeit a moderate one. Like John McCain he had served in Vietnam and he was well aware of the the Arizona senator's qualifications for the presidency. Despite his assertions to the contrary he endorsed Obama for no other reason than his race.

I don't have a problem with black people supporting Barack because he's black. They should be proud of the accomplishment of the first term senator from Illinois, the “Great Emancipator”, Abraham Lincoln's state. What I don't like is when a person tells a bald-faced lie about their reasons for making this very important decision.

It brings up a question that I feel has to be asked: why is it that people think they have to lie about it? If this were forty years ago I could understand the reticence of black Americans to state their reasons for voting based on race. Of course forty years ago a black man would never had made it. The point is that times have changed. And Colin Powell is one of the reasons that they have changed so positively. He served with distinction and became Chairman of the Joint Chiefs under George H. W. Bush. He led the successful campaign against Saddam Husein in the first Gulf War. He was the first black Secretary of State. He has no reason to be ashamed about the fact that he voted for Obama simply because he is also black. Powell has paid his dues.

One of the reasons may simply be that he feels that he was slighted by the current Bush administration because of his reticence to use military force against Iraq. He made the case to the world at the UN for war and the evidence was faulty. It made him look bad. He also may feel that he is partially to blame for the deaths of over 4,000 men and women of the American armed forces. I guess I feel that maybe I am too since I supported the war. But the fact remains that we were operating on the intelligence that we had at the time. And though I'm just a lowly civilian I supported the war because I thought it was the right thing to do. I made some mean statements about the people who were against the war and I am sorry. However, neither Colin Powell nor anyone else that supported the war should blame ourselves for that tragedy since we used the same info to come to our conclusions. So if a feeling of responsibility for what happened is one of the reasons that he lied about his reasons for voting for Obama, it is misplaced. A lot of good people were duped.

I don't think that Colin Powell is afraid of what people think about him. I don't think that that is why he lied about his reasons. But if that's not the reason then the only remain reason for lying is the worst reason. He was actively trying to mislead the American people. Remember he didn't have to publicly support Obama. He could have simply done what the rest of America did on November 5^th; he could have silently voted. But he went out of his way to make a statement of his support on all of the Sunday chit-chat shows. And while doing so he lied about his reasons.

I think that I have lost a little respect for Mr. Powell.