At what point does merit supersede affirmative action?

In my childhood, I always dreamed of being a professional athlete. I played football and baseball in high school. Though I was recruited to play football at a local college, my true love was basketball, a sport I did not play well in high school. I apparently lacked the requisite skills to play that particular sport and was not invited to play on the school basketball team.

It really was no fault of my own. In fact, some of the factors that made me good at football and baseball were a hindrance in basketball. I was cursed with short legs and a low center of gravity. I simply didn't have the necessary genetic make-up to excel at that sport. As I attended my high school basketball games as a spectator, I watched our basketball stars soar through the air as they slammed the ball home in dramatic form, and thought how unfair life was. Hold that thought.

This past week I attended my daughter's high school Christmas celebration, grateful my children could attend a high school that still allowed the season to be called Christmas. She was a member of the school's choir. As the program advanced, I was struck by the amount of apparent preparation and planning that went into the presentation by both student and faculty. I also noted the presence of three students who were obvious special-needs kids. They were on stage participating with the performing artists, and clearly performing well below the mean. Two looked to be having a load of fun wandering around the stage, singing on occasion and clapping their hands with the music, while the third didn't seem to be aware of much of anything. I'm sure their families were having a great time watching them on stage and thought their participation on the program a wonderful thing and good for their kids. For them, as well as some in the audience, no doubt it was all good. Not so much for me.

You may think me an uncaring bigot. I assure you, I'm not. While I have a great deal of respect and sympathy for the families of these kids, believing the over-all performance of the group was hindered by their presence causes me no small degree of guilt. They were distracting to the other kids, had no appreciable music skills to contribute to the performance, and their presence seemed some sort of nod to the surreal that - IMHO - detracted from the general performance. In short, it was like watching me in a Laker uniform.

I clearly understand the differences between a professional basketball team and a high school choir. But the experience brings a question to my mind. I see the above as metaphor that extends beyond the high school stage. At what point between the high school choir and the Los Angeles Lakers does merit and performance supersede affirmative action? Where is that line? Where can I see it? It seems to be an illusive point moving through politically correct space based solely on the perceptions of intellectual elitists that happen to find themselves in policy-making positions. Unfortunately, those policy makers are quite often our liberal socialists bent on hammering the majority of us into their socialist template where the majority loses their right to excellence to the minority definition of fairness. How unfair life truly is.

Perception is the mask that hides the monster

"What you see is what you get."  How many of you believe in that old adage? Ever since Aaron Burr - America's first professional politician - put a lead ball into Alexander Hamilton, Americans have had to be more aware of what truly goes on behind the scenes in Washington, D.C.  In our time, we need be similarly concerned with the dark machinations within the minds of our contemporary professional politicians. I believe that if the average American was privy to the behind closed doors conversations and intrigues that occur daily "in our best interest", they would be appalled.  Maybe some folks would hang.

Let's consider the liberal socialists currently walking the hallowed halls of Congress today.  What is their goal?  How will they accomplish their agenda?  They certainly cannot openly discuss the beauty of a Marxist State in a conservative leaning, capitalist country like the United States of America without damning themselves to electoral oblivion for quite sometime. How can they argue for the European socialist model they so dearly love when many European socialists are watching their countries burn down around them due to their very own failed liberal socialist policies of multiculturalism, social justice, and mandated wealth redistribution? There are fundamental reasons communism has failed in every country where it's been implemented. The answer is that our domestic communists must adopt a strategy of camouflage and obfuscation if they are to survive and further their socialist agenda.  Satan often comes dressed in white.

The most effective lies are those that mingle some truth with the corruption. For example, there are some unfortunates within this country that legitimately need and would benefit from a government mandated health care system. However, those numbers would be shockingly small and easily managed through other means if an honest appraisal was made. These extreme cases, often cited by Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid, were the whitewash for the diabolical intent of the nationalization of the American Health Care industry

Since the goal of the liberal socialist is the incremental, yet complete control of all national wealth, they must magnify these needs and fears in order to foist their various programs on the people of this country. They will use the above model over and over again.  They effectively seized the U.S. banking industry last year by following that model. Next, a series of disasters like the gulf oil spill, will provide the cover for the nationalization of the petroleum industry. Much touted environmental concerns will circumvent private property ownership through environmental law. They are even floating trial balloons regarding the seizure of our private retirement accounts.  After all, retirement accounts are just too important to leave exposed to the ravages of an open market and private account managers.

A socialist paradigm does not work.  It is a giant ponzi scheme that is in constant need of fresh capital to maintain the appearance of vitality while sucking the life from its host.  Nancy and Harry need your wealth. Unfortunately, we are running short of the stuff. Recent turn of political events have given me some hope.  The real hope. Not the faux hope Mr. Obama cleverly used as a campaign slogan in yet another stroke of the whitewash brush. I am anxious to see what the new congress will do starting in January.  I've heard some rumor of a Repeal Amendment.  The purpose of which is to give the states an opportunity to repeal federal legislation with a two-thirds vote.  That will place power back with the states, where it belongs,and limit future federal encroachment on our freedoms.

The Five Pillars of Liberalism

During my consideration of contemporary politics, I have noticed five reoccurring themes regarding liberal socialist thought. The Five Pillars of Liberalism detailed below, seem to capture the prevailing position taken by most every liberal socialist to which I have had the pleasure of conversing.  I have put their collective thought into words, and organized them for your pleasure.

1)      Scorn - America is bad

In order for a world socialist workers utopia to have any chance at realization, the United States of America, as we know it, must cease to exist.  The reason all prior communist revolutions have failed is because the United States of America, a minority of the world population, consumes the clear majority of the world’s resources.  This consumption deprives non-Americans of their rightful portion of the world’s bounty, and keeps a majority of the world’s population in poverty.

2)      Diversity - Divide and conquer

American exceptionalism, and the American identity must be attacked and broken down in order to expedite the conversion of The United States of America to a Marxist paradigm.  Corruption of borders, mingling of language, and dilution of prevailing culture must be accomplished to these ends.

3)      Hauteur - Few are fit to lead

Expect the worst in people. People are stupid.  They are incapable of any degree of independent, or intellectual thought.  They must be told what to think.  Words must be defined so people will understand them within the socialist model.  Any political discussion must be limited to socialist themes.  Any deviance from a socialist theme, or consideration of unorthodox thought, is undesirable.  However, debate within any socialist theme should be as brisk as possible to further the movement (Chomsky).  Few have the requisite intelligence to define words as they pertain to the revolution.  Those who do will lead the masses, and their authority will be absolute.  Political strategy should be based on the assumption people are stupid and will respond to greed, lethargy, and racism.

      4)  Hubris - Government is salvation

There is no God, but god.  There can be no authority above that of the government.  All vestiges and symbols of any higher authority must be purged from the public conscience.  Religious fervor and devotion are serious obstacles to the revolution.  Therefore, priestly functions must be infiltrated to add a revolutionary voice to the people’s communion to advance the liberal socialist agenda. Government is the final arbitrator, not God.

5)      Ambition - Ends justify the means

Those who dissent and resist do not understand the ultimate goal of the revolution.  If they did, they would welcome the end result.  Those voices must be overcome by any means necessary.  Once the objective of the world socialist worker’s utopia has been achieved, all will understand the beauty, and forgive any transgressions perceived along the way.  Any murder, theft, or lie may be forgiven by the grace offered through the victory of the masses.

Election-day mistakes aren't random

As of late, I have been impressed with the number of electoral irregularities that have been reported during the past several election cycles.  By electoral irregularities, I mean all these lost-and-found ballot boxes and bags, miscalibrated voting machines, judicial interventions, etc.  Please understand, I am no mathematician or statistician, but I would think the very nature of any series of errors leading to those irregularities would be random, i.e. those errors would favor democrats and republicans equally.  In fact, a decent dictionary definition of the word random could be a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen. So, my argument would be it is mathematically impossible, over the long run, for either democrats or republicans to have a clear majority of electoral irregularities that benefit their candidate, unless someone's cheating.  Unfortunately, that appears to be the case.

I have conducted a non-scientific study of all the news reports I can find addressing voting irregularities since the Bush v. Gore Florida debacle.  I looked at reports from local, state, and national elections.  I am not including any of the reports listed on Fox's voter fraud report web page because anyone can call in a report for inclusion, substantiated or not.  I'm only including reports that turned out to be headline material.  I’ll admit, the sample data is flawed since I cannot guarantee I have found all relevant reports. With that said,  I have found fourteen reports of voting irregularities benefiting democratic candidates, and only two where republican candidates have been the beneficiaries.  Though I beleive the Bush vs. Gore Florida recount to have been caused by a democrat attempt to steal the presidencey, I’m including the Supreme Court ruling resulting in the Bush Presidency among the two republican scenarios since Bush benefited from the decision.  I am not including the Murkowski thing in Alaska.  I do not consider Murkowski to be a republican, nor can I count her as a democrat – yet.

I do not want to believe the democrats are manipulating the American electoral process as it seems they are.  Democrats are Americans too, aren’t they?  Tampering with the electoral process violates the law and the core beliefs most of America shares.  Why would someone cheat the nation by illegal manipulation of the sacred voting process?  So, can someone find and post any examples of voting irregularities benefiting republicans? I’ve already noted the Bush/Gore recount in Florida. Bring me something else.  I need at least twelve examples for the math to work out for me and make things right in my world.  I'm really into the whole seeking balance and order in the universe thing.

Murkowski is a cheater, a traitor to her party, and shouldn’t be trusted - travels "Bridge to Nowhere"

In addition to potential theft of elected office I see in various parts of the country, the debacle in Alaska is turning my stomach.  Lisa Murkowski has shown she is unworthy of any serious consideration as an elected official.  Other than democrats, I’m actually shocked any appreciable number of Alaskans voted for her. She is the next self-promoting loser in the parade of blue-blood republicans willing to do whatever it takes to stay attached to the government teat.  It is behavior I expect in a liberal socialist, and disappointed to see in a republican.  Specter, Crist, and now Murkowski all put “self” above “service”. At least Crist had enough integrity to run as an independant.  Not Murky.  She knew she lacked the level of support she needed to beat Miller as an independant, so she turned the general election into a de facto second republican primary effectively opening the door for democrats to have a say in which of  the two candidates they prefered .  If establishment republicans, like Murkowski, adopt a continued strategy of running write-ins like this, i.e. running as a second republican , the TPM may be forced to become The Tea Party proper to protect their candidates.  How would the republicans like that?

Knowing their candidate couldn’t win, and preferring a RINO over a proven conservative, I believe a large number of democrats “crossed over” to support the Murkowski write-in candidacy.  That number may be large enough to keep Miller, the conservative candidate, out of the Senate.  A combination of the democrat cross-over vote, combined with the Ted Stevens republican vote may be enough to do the trick, though Ms. Murkowski’s ego is likely unable to accept the possibility any potential win was provided by such a twist.

I really can’t blame the democrats who crossed over to vote for Murky.  It was a smart move on their part.  I would do the same thing if the roles were reversed.  If the strategy proves to be successful, they will have eliminated a principled conservative in favor of a woman who has shown to be willing to place her own ambitions above anything else.  She has proven to be the type of practical politician that liberal socialists are comfortable working with in Washington, D.C.  And believe me, after hiking her skirt like that, the Dems will come courting.

If Ms. Murkowski is seated, I would say to Senate republicans – beware.  Though Ms. Murkowski says she will caucus with republicans, she has shown she cannot be trusted to stay within established practices and traditions.  I don’t believe it a far stretch to fear she is capable of switching parties if something pretty is dangled in front of her.  If she is successful in her write-in campaign, she will have cheated her party out of their candidate of choice and robbed Americans of a much needed conservative voice in Congress at a critical time.

O'Donnell and Angle will be the only tea party candidates mentioned by MSM

Oooh! That’s going to leave a mark! Well, it’s official: the tea party movement has left its mark on the face of the American Body Politic.  Both democrats and republicans have felt the effects of the TPM, and the slap may smart for quite some time.  A slap across an otherwise stuporous face is precisely what the republicans needed, while democrats will attempt to call it anything other than what it was – a sizeable rejection of their liberal socialist agenda.

As I stayed up late on election night watching results pour in from across the nation, many thoughts crossed my mind. I was impressed by the rarity of what I was witnessing.  In less than two short years, a unique grassroots political movement sprouted from the on-air rant of an American business reporter and grew to a fearsome stature.  Also interesting was the ever-present ramblings of political commentators.  Some were socialists, some were conservative, and some were clueless.

It seemed liberal socialist commentary fixated upon the O’Donnell and Angle races like they were deciding the fate of the universe.  Perhaps, in the pundit’s minds they were.  Smugly calling the two women “tea party candidates”, liberal after liberal proclaimed a rejection of tea party extremism while they downplayed other tea party backed candidates who were successful elsewhere in the country.  I’m sure the MSM will spend the next several days in detailed analysis determining exactly how badly tea party credibility was hurt by the losses in Nevada and Delaware, and what it means to the future of the failing TPM movement.

Some so called conservative commentators failed to do much better.  Many republicans rued the candidacies of O’Donnell and Angle.  Apparently, if the two women had not been backed by the TPM, and not won their primary contests, better candidates would have emerged enabling the republicans to win the ten seats necessary for a Senate majority.  They blamed the intransient “ideological purity” of the tea partiers for the trouble, which got me to thinking…what benefit does intransient ideological purity bring to the fight? Several benefits come to mind, but space will allow for only a brief exploration. 

To begin with, I see a rejection of the idea of a practical politician: a man or woman who lacks any core beliefs, or integrity.  Washington is already full of elected officials who seek to further their ambitions and protect personal viability at the expense of what’s best for the people they represent.  How’s that good for the future of our country?  But, does that explain why the tea party would support candidates opposing RINOs in their local primaries even if the tea party candidate appears to be the weaker of the two in the general?  Why are they willing to sacrifice a candidacy to the “greater good”?  I believe the answer is not that elusive.  It has immediate positive effects on republicans, and long term negative effects for democrats.

As for how the democrats are affected, the DNC viewed the Nevada contest as a battle between Obama and the tea party.  Period: end of story.  Perception is paramount to the liberal socialist. Perception is the mask that hides the monster.  They couldn’t allow Mr. Reid, the face of Obama’s policies, to be defeated by a neobarb (new barbarian) “tea party candidate”.  I can’t imagine the amount of money and personnel hours spent in Nevada saving Reid.  That’s money and time pulled from a dozen democrat candidates across the country.  Many of those candidates risked their jobs in supporting the Obama agenda.  In fact, pulling cash from those candidates made the news cycle recently.  They were sacrificed on Obama's alter to save a single figurehead.  Saving Reid was practical politics at its worst.  The final landscape of this election is much different because of the Angle candidacy alone.  The ripples of that action will damn the democrats for years to come.  No democrat candidate will trust the national party with any verve, and any democrat elected to Congress will be less likely to support a party line vote on a return promise because of it. 

Republicans have learned, through their primary experience, they must refrain from practicing practical politics.  No playing the ear mark game, or reaching across the aisle like Bennett (R-Utah) so loved to do.  The lesson there: you probably won’t survive your state’s primary.  O’Donnell helped to teach the republicans that lesson.  The TPM caused all republicans to take a hard look at themselves, and to take stock in their core principles.  They will be better for it.

To both women, I say thank you for your service.  It is a rare thing for a person to be willing to endure what those two have in the service of others.

Happy Halloween! Dead voters break to Dems two days before election

In an otherwise bleak month leading up to the 2010 midterm election, democratic pollsters announced today their latest polling data indicates America’s dead are breaking to democrat candidates at an unprecedented rate.  Though enthusiasm for democrat public policies wane among the living, on a generic ballot the dearly departed prefer an unspecified democrat party candidate over any republican at a staggering six to one ratio. 

A further breakdown of polling data indicates major shifts within the dead demographic.  While interest among groups traditionally supporting democrat candidates remains strong, even dead conservatives now seem poised to cast votes for democratic candidates on Tuesday.

Senator Harry Reid said about the development, “I’m pleased with the news, obviously.  I can’t just rely on the voting-machine gremlins at this point. While we have traditionally enjoyed support from the lifeless in prior election cycles, any additional bump right now would be welcome.”  Senator Reid was not alone in his enthusiasm.  The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) reports in a recent press release, “…launching a major get-out-the-vote project to allow for maximum voter participation.”  SEIU representatives said they plan on canvassing morgues, obituaries, and cemeteries throughout the country to uncover any likely voters.  The SEIU press release further states, “If we can find enough dead voters, maybe we can have a positive impact on some of these close races.  If we’re polling within two points on Tuesday, we can win it.”

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is publically supporting the SEIU effort.  ACLU public affairs staff warns, “Any attempts by the far-right fringe to disenfranchise voters will be met with aggressive legal action.  The integrity of the American electoral process must be preserved.”  When asked if the dead vote could help turn the election around for the democrats, an ACLU attorney cautioned, "Referring to them as dead simply plays into the far-right's attempts at marginalizing Americans that don't breathe.  In my opinion, that's a form of hate speech.  Please refer to them as metabolically challenged."

The Tea Party - a clear and present danger to the status quo

Rarely has the political differences dividing our country been so stark.  Certainly, the antebellum period prior to the Civil War was such a time.  The Civil War itself remaining a clear reminder of what happens when political policies and actions are taken to extremes.  Two very different interpretations of the 10^th Amendment, protectionism of northern industry the Confederacy viewed as biased against southern agriculture, and a popular abolitionist movement in the north proved to be a volatile combination.  The rest is, well, history.  (Please, no flames - I know the causes of the Civil War were more complex and varied.  In the interest of space, I listed just a few.)

Today, there are political policies and actions that can be readily perceived as extreme. Warning to my readers, I have chosen sides and this article will reflect those affections. Certainly, the liberal socialists currently in power in the United States of America will view any political action contrary to their socialist catechism as an “extreme movement”.  It’s in Alinsky’s book.  That’s why one can see pure vitriol reviling any conservative, or the tea party movement, spewing forth from Washington and their supporting media organs on any given day. The Republican Party, such as it is of late, has been tamed or bought off and is not esteemed by our liberal socialists as much of a threat.  But the tea party…

The tea party represents a clear and present danger to all that Karl Marx holds dear.  It is a focused, moving target, comprised of possibly thousands of sub-units acting in concert to abolish the socialist cancer that has started to metastasize into an inoperable state.  The tea party is like chemotherapy or radiation in that regard.  It is flowing through the American body politic via the Republican Party not because tea partiers hold the GOP in any particular esteem; the GOP is simply the path of least resistance.  The liberal socialists know it will be easier to catch wind in a bottle than to stop a grass roots movement by the masses of this magnitude.  I’ll bet they are currently enduring a gut wrenching jealously that such a populist movement, which reminds some of them of their heady anti-war days during the 1960s, is not fueled by socialist revolutionary zeal. 

The perception of these liberal socialists can become a significant problem when considered within the template of their primary world view – “that if only everyone could see the end result of our work…the beauty of our new world socialist worker’s utopia.  Then they would understand what were working towards and agree that any means necessarily employed along the way was well worth it.”  I don’t know about you, but that frightens me.  What will such an animal do when faced with extinction?  Hide? Fight?  Kill?

World history has answered that question and shown us the extremes of communism.  Manifesting itself in this country, the above world view has given us Sandy Berger stealing documents from the National Archives; a liberal socialist President committing adultery in the Oval Office; dead people voting; reports of voting machines rigged to vote “D” when the lever for “R” is pulled; cigarettes, food, and cash traded for votes; shill tea party candidates placed on ballots to confuse voters and steal votes intended for another; disenfranchised overseas military voters while non-Americans vote; reports of a liberal socialist candidate’s name appearing already checked on ballots in Nevada;  a liberal socialist narrowly elected as Governor of the State Washington thanks to more votes cast in King County than there were registered voters; union thugs posing as tea partiers beating up an old black man in an attempt to frame the tea party as racist; socialist New Black Panther Party activists threatening voters at a polling place with impunity; the list could go on, and on. How do they live with themselves, you ask?  It's all in their world view: the philosophy of the ends justifying the means.

Do we live in a country of political extremes?  I’d say so.  What does the future hold for our country?  I wish I knew.  I do fear “We the people” have not been vigilant during our stewardship.  We should have not let the problems get this far.  We are the last of the checks and balances built into our political system.  We’re awake now.  Let’s get out there on November 2 and push that tsunami home.

2012 GOP presidential candidates may find tea pot too hot to handle

I just finished reading an excellent article by Peter Wallsten, “Tea Party Shaping 2012 Race”, October 25, 2010, in the Wall Street Journal.  Mr. Wallsten breaks down potential rivals Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney quite nicely.  However, several notible candidates were omitted from the article.

What I find most interesting about the topic is the extent to which potential 2012 presidential contenders seem willing to go to harness the tea party momentum.  It reminds me of when I was in high school, and a hot new girl transfers in.  All the suave “chick magnets” come out and start busting a move.  Sometimes two or three adolescents at a time would be lurking nearby, waiting for an opportunity to get her attention. Some resourceful suitors would give little gifts, open doors, or promise to take her to “really cool places” on dates.  Others, more sophisticated, would resort to flattery and guile.

What they usually found was the hot girl, the object of their adoration and/or lust, already had a life of her own and had other plans.  She was already dating a college football player, or some pro hockey player.  Preppy school boys simply held little or no appeal.

Anyone following contemporary American politics knows the names of most GOP presidential hopefuls looking to 2012.  I have my favorites, but I believe any would be preferable to what currently sits in the Whitehouse. 

My advice to any GOP presidential candidate looking to court the tea party passion -- beware;  she may be too hot to handle.  Tea partiers are a savvy group.  The reason they are tea partiers is because they know they are beautiful; they are tired of all the pick-up lines that have been tossed their way over the years; they have been promised presents and taken to places they did not want to go; and have been caressed in the night by lotharios only to be abandoned the following day.  If you seek a relationship with the tea party, the best strategy if you are a  true conservative, is to be yourself.  Others need not apply.  If the tea party gets the idea that you are posing, or playing them, 2012 is over for you.

Diversity vs. E Pluribus Unum

Diversity. What a pleasant sounding word. I see colorful posters bearing the word placed in prominence around the office where I work. I often see the word applied in noble motto: “Strength in Diversity” or “Celebrate Diversity”. What a lovely sentiment. What could be wrong with that? I am a German American, whose original German-born ancestor arrived in the United States of America in 1853 following the death of his first wife. I’m quite sure his life in Germany was shattered. He came to America destitute, with small children in tow. He remarried an Ohio woman and settled in the fertile fields of Illinois to continue his life as a farmer. I have an appreciation for Oktoberfest that may well be genetic. I’m sure my love of the food is at any rate. Growing up in the South-West, I also dearly love the Cinco de Mayo celebration (also for the food and drink – Mexican food is the bomb!). I often found myself in the racial minority on some of the streets where I grew up. My first serious girlfriend in High School was a Latina. Is that what “Celebrate Diversity” means? Successfully living and working alongside those who are different than us? That’s what it may seem, unless you think about it a bit more.

I believe those of the liberal persuasion who find themselves in contemporary positions of power and policy making (i.e. the guys who write the quaint sayings) could define “Diversity” as a variety or multiformity based on a point or respect in which things differ. It's not that simple. In socialist political theory, diversity is the strength of the masses as derived from the individual socio-ethnic, economic, and racial class from which the individual comes; the greater those differences, the greater the power of the masses. Unfortunately, there are some among us who seek to empower themselves by promoting and harnessing those differences. The greater the differences, or needs of the individual, the greater their value to the liberal society or politician. I believe this definition is one of the pillars of liberalism, and the clear antithesis to the original spirit of E Pluribus Unum as promoted by our Founding Fathers.

I have found that for every lovely idea or mechanism that exists in the physical world there is a diabolical counterfeit intended to obfuscate the intent and values embodied in the original. In the world of politics I’ve noticed the counterfeits are most often foisted upon us by those promoting elitist multicultural materialism (liberals). Charitable giving is replaced with government mandated wealth redistribution; the church is replaced by the state as the source of divine authority; and the “village” replaces the family as the primary nurturing force for our children. Diversity is simply another diabolical counterfeit.

On July 4, 1776, the Continental Congress empaneled a committee to oversee the design of a Great Seal of the United States of America. A number of suggestions were considered, with input by Benjamin Franklin and Charles Thomson. The Latin motto E Pluribus Unum was ultimately approved for inclusion on the obverse of the seal. Its translation closely means “Out of many, one”. It also describes an action of “Many uniting into one”. Charles Thomson said the motto refers to the union of states, but I believe the ideal of E Pluribus Unum could go beyond that. If the states comprise the nation, it can be said that the people comprise the states.

My best friend in High School is second generation American. His father legally came to the United States just in time to enlist in the U.S. Army during World War Two. Following the war, this man worked and put himself through college earning a B.S. Degree in Engineering. Following graduation, he secured a life-time job as an aero-space engineer in Southern California. I remember this father not allowing his children to speak Spanish in their home claiming, “You’re Americans now! Speak English!” At the time, I thought that was a bit harsh, and that learning Spanish would be an advantage for someone living in California. But, their father greatly valued the United States more than his origins, and was more than willing to place all he had upon her alters. In fact, my friend recently retired from the United States Air Force following a successful career as a bomber pilot. All those siblings consider themselves Americans, first and foremost. I never saw anyone in this family look back after coming to this country.

As for my German ancestor, he enlisted in the 15th Illinois Cavalry, United States Army when the Civil War broke out in 1861. He campaigned in the western theater until he suffered a debilitating injury. His grandson fought in France during World War One, against Germany. Later, many on my “German side of the family” fought during World War Two, several again fighting in Europe. And me? I did my bit in Iraq.

The ultimate point of this rodomontade is simply this; I believe this country is being torn apart by diverse groups seeking their own vain ambitions. Being an American is no longer as important as achieving those ambitions. The extensive entitlement state that attracts dead weight must be eliminated quickly and efficiently if we are to have a chance at pulling out of the current nose dive. I’m all for giving anyone who wants to be an American a chance at that dream, but they have to truly want to be American and understand what that means. Remember “Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.”