Union Discussion (1)

Friends,
I’m probably going to get myself in trouble with this one. I would like to address the concept of unions in this country. I believe in putting the bottom line up front. That way there is no guessing my point of view. I am not a fan of labor unions. Now, that is my point of view.

Early unions or guilds in America played important parts in the struggle for independence. Just one example is that the “hosts” at the Boston Tea Party were members of the carpenters union. It is natural for us here in America to equate unions with independence.

There are few people who have studied American history would argue that the organized labor movement back in the early to mid 19th century was necessary. Early factories were a hold-over from the sweat-shops of England. Child labor laws and safety regulations were non-existent. In the late 19th century the general attitude was that labor had no rights at all. Anytime there was a strike, it was a mere rubber-stamp exercise to get a federal court injunction to end a strike. If the strike did not end, federal troops were called in to break it.

In 1902, the anthracite coal miners as members of the United Mine Workers struck and closed down all coal mining for the entire summer. The only reason the strike lasted as long as it did was because the mine owners refused to agree to arbitration. President Roosevelt intervened by appointing a board of arbitration. The strike was over in five days.

In those early days, there was no attitude of commonality of effort between labor and management. Management failed to understand that without labor, there was no company. Labor failed to understand that without a profitable business there would be no wages. The battle-lines were drawn and they were inviolate.

Those attitudes, at least on the side of management, have changed. Fifty years ago, I remember my dad, who was a trucking executive tell me of some of the early days of Teamsters organization in the 1940’s. Many of the smaller trucking companies would allow drivers to use company vehicles to and from home. After the Teamsters came in, that perk was not written into the labor contract and the members suffered for it. The trucking company owners/managers had been more like co-workers that bosses. The union forced an antagonistic relationship on all parties.

Looking at unions of today, they are losing membership at unprecedented rates. There are a number of reasons for this, but probably the most significant one is that they have been too successful. The large salaries the unions have negotiated for their members force the retail of those goods produced by union members to become unaffordable to the average purchaser. With extraordinarily high salaries, entire industries are finding it much more cost effective to move manufacturing out of the country, thereby depriving American workers of any salary.

When you go to the department store, or the mega-stores, it is nearly impossible to find American made products. Wal-Mart, which used to pride itself on selling American products, has given up and now sells a very large percentage of merchandise from China, India, and Indonesia because the same American made products just cost too much for their customers.

The United States used to have the corner on the high-tech manufacturing market. This is no longer the case. How many of you have called a Dell Computer representative and spoken to a native American-English speaking technician? If you have, it was a long time ago.

Now the big three auto makers are going to Congress with their collective hands out because they are in serious danger of going under. What are they planning to use the money for, reorganizing, re-tooling, or propping up their union obligations? The extreme success that the unions have had in negotiating wages and retirement benefits has forced the big three to a position of unsupportability. That is not to say the big three front offices have not made their share of mistakes. In addition to routinely caving to the unions, not having the ability to quickly switch manufacturing emphasis based on existing conditions has a devastating effect on profitability.

Staying with the auto industry, the United Auto Workers (UAW) is so powerful and has such a strangle hold on the industry that the front office boys have to go to Congress with their hands out because the UAW wants to make sure their flow of cash continues unabated. Now, Congress is going to give billions of our dollars to the big three and we will be saddled with this enormous debt for the rest of our lives and probably for the rest of my grandchildren’s lives. To paraphrase Everett Dirksen, “A billion here, a billion there and pretty soon you are talking about real money.”

Well friends, we are way past real money here. It is time the unions play by real world rules and not rules for children who have to have everything handed to them. I have been haranguing on the UAW, but that is not the only union in great need of a wake-up call.

Probably the most powerful union in the United States is the National Education Association (NEA). This union has such a strangle hold on the education of our children that parents have little or no say over what goes on in the classroom. However, that is a subject for another posting.

As always, your comments and discussion are welcome.

Dan

Our Uncontrollable Debt

Friends,
We are in the middle of an economic crisis. Wow! Is that a shock to any of you? Let me start off by saying that I am no economist. I’m just an average guy who is trying to look at this situation in the most logical way possible.

Here is the way I see it. In the mid ‘60s, President Johnson brought about the Great Society which, among other things, sought to alleviate the “crushing weight of poverty.” He wanted to solve these problems with a new form of “creative federalism.” Those of you who regularly read this column will remember my posting of 21 Oct of this year:

So, what did Johnson mean by “creative federalism?” In his speech, he urged the audience to “join in the battle to give every citizen an escape from the crushing weight of poverty…. To join in the battle to build the Great Society, to prove that our material progress is only the foundation on which we will build a richer life of mind and spirit.” These are wonderful thoughts and goals; no one will debate that. However, Johnson’s intent was to make those goals achievable through government action, not through the sweat and perseverance of the individual. As a result, the welfare rolls jumped drastically as government agencies tried to “distribute the wealth”….

The slippery slope was firmly set in place.

Let’s fast forward now. Under President Carter, the Community Reinvestment Act was passed. This was a law that forced lenders to violate good commercial practices by making loans that were, at best, questionable and at worst, unsupportable. The slippery slope had just developed a more pronounced down-angle.

Once again, let’s fast forward. Under President Clinton, even more disadvantaged borrowers were able to take out mortgages to achieve the “American Dream,” irrespective of their ability to support that dream. President Clinton “encouraged” lenders to even further violate good business practices and make more money available to these disadvantaged borrowers. Remember the mantra that there are more homeowners in America than ever before? Did anyone in Washington ever bother to look to see whether these homeowners could afford the “American Dream” they had achieved?

One of the great joys in my life has been the accomplishment of a goal through hard work. When I want something enough to work for it, the satisfaction that comes through achievement makes all the effort worth it. The message sent by the federal government to the so-called “disadvantaged” was that it did not want them to feel left out; therefore serious shortcuts were made available to them. Nobody bothered to tell them that they had to work to support their dream.

Once again, let’s fast forward to today. We have had the collapse of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, and a host of others. The way I see it, there are two culprits in this debacle. The first is the federal government which had the arrogance to interfere with the free market system. This was wrong for many reasons. The Founders were wise enough to keep the federal government out of the free market. I am no constitutional scholar, but I am aware of only one situation where the Constitution allows the federal government to get involved in commerce within the US, and that is when there is a dispute between the States (some of you scholars can correct me on that one).

The other culprit is business and industry allowing the federal government to get away with their meddling. Truly astute business professionals should have been able to foresee the coming economic collapse caused by the meddling of the federal government and stopped it.

Now we are soon to be saddled with over one trillion dollars worth of debt that could have been avoided with the foresight of a sophomore economics student. What makes this situation even worse is that both the Republicans and the Democrats are fighting each other to see who can give which industry more of our money. The latest polls show that the overwhelming majority of Americans bitterly object to the bail-outs taking place, but Congress seems to be made up of people whose wisdom is so superior that they do not need to listen to their constituents.

There are a few brave Congressmen and Senators who have attempted to stand up against this tax against our future, but not enough. We have about a year to put together a slate of candidates that will decisively overturn this rampant growth of our debt, debt that is a direct result of government interference in the marketplace.

This interference in the marketplace is not limited to the front office; it extends down to the union halls and the massive corruption and power flexing that exists in the union hierarchy. That will be the subject of my next posting.

As always, I welcome your comments and discussion.

Dan

The New Administration

Friends,
We have a new administration due to take charge on 20 January. For those of us of the Conservative persuasion, it was a disappointing election season. A large number of people were disenchanted with the Republican ticket that was foisted on us by the main-stream-media. Many of these people stayed at home instead of voting for the “lesser of two evils.” Because of this, we may deserve what we will have to endure for at least the next two years.

There is a fairly wide variety of opinions on how we Conservatives are to approach the new regime. Numerous pundits have advocated sitting by and give the new administration and their Congressional Stooges a chance; that they may surprise us (oops, did I give myself away?). I am not cut from that cloth. I firmly believe that it is our responsibility to hold their collective feet to the fire. Obama made a lot of very liberal and socialistic claims during the campaign but now that he has been elected he seems to be a bit of a mixed bag. He is keeping Gates as SECDEF, but his choice for attorney general, Eric Holder, is an avowed gun grabber.

When you step back and examine where he came from you have to realize that his political roots are definitely not conservative but are they truly liberal? They may be best described as opportunistic. The political machine that spawned Obama, Chicago, is opportunistic to the extreme. Looking at the “auctioning off” of Obama’s Senate seat, this should not shock the astute political observer. I was gratified to see that Obama’s organization took on the investigation of how much contact his people had with Governor Blagojevich concerning the auction. On the surface, the fast reaction of the Obama organization is laudable; do I believe any findings they will “uncover,” unlikely. (Refer back to the second sentence of this paragraph.)

I do not intend to give the Obama administration a “pass” for one instant. I urge all Conservatives to adopt the same attitude.

As always, I welcome comments/discussion.

The Increasing Terrorist Threat

Friends,
Over the last several days the world has witnessed incredible carnage in the name of religion. Fox News reports “Indian police said Sunday that the only surviving gunman told them he belongs to the Pakistani militant group Lakshkar-e-Taiba. The group is seen as a creation of the Pakistani intelligence to help fight India in the disputed Kashmir region. Another group, Jaish-e-Mohammed, has also operated in Kashmir. Both are reported to be linked to Al Qaeda.” In that part of the world, religion is inextricably linked to politics and foreign policy.

We are also hearing reports that Muslims across the Middle East are condemning the violence which has killed more than 170 people. These “conscientious Muslims” are afraid that the violence will tarnish the image the world has of Muslims. I find this attitude astounding to the point of hilarity. Palestinians have been shelling Israeli settlements for years. The only reason they have not amassed the kill rate of the Lakshkar-e-Taibi is because they are so inept. They keep shooting small rockets into the Israeli settlements with no idea where they will land.

When you compare the average Muslim extremist attack with that undertaken in Mumbai last week, it is like comparing the bush league with the majors.

The BBC reported that the planning for the Mumbai attacks was extensive. At least one ship was hijacked and used as a mother ship to transport the attackers close to shore. They then went ashore in dinghies in two to four-man teams to conduct their attacks. The targets were preselected. All indications are that the attacks were rehearsed and well choreographed. The attackers were very well armed for the selected targets to affect maximum casualties. While a large number of people were killed, it doesn’t look like those killed were completely random victims. The attackers were specifically looking for people with American and British passports. They also specifically targeted the residence of an Israeli priest who had frequent Israeli guests.

This attack shows a high degree of planning and coordination, possibly with the complicity of elements of Pakistani Intelligence.

On the other hand, looking at the average Muslim extremist; young Muslims, mostly young men, are more than willing to strap on bomb vests and blow themselves up along with anyone who happens to be close by. But this is in the name of – well, I don’t know what they are trying to accomplish – I guess they are trying in some perverted way to advance Muslim principles. In my view this is a prime example of cowardice, not on the part of the suicide bombers, but on their handlers. If it is so glorious to die for Allah, why are they recruiting the young, passionate believers? Why do they not prove their devotion and blow themselves into the arms of their 72 virgins?

While fanatics can and often do create havoc, they are not the major concern for America; rather, it is the calculating and organized groups that may or may not be affiliated with Al Qaeda. However, certainly Al Qaeda has been an inspirational influence in the world of Islamic terrorism. The planning that took place before the Mumbai attacks reflect the thoroughness of the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks. I’m sure the planning did not take nearly as long, but it was certainly as thorough. This shows that the enemy is still willing and capable to undertake the requisite planning for a successful attack.

What really worries me is that the exact same scenario can be used right here on American shores with only a few alterations to the plans. These highly coordinated groups would like nothing better than to conduct a successful attack against a high profile event.

With a change in administration and a change in national emphasis the next couple of years will tell how the world of terrorism views the United States. If we are viewed as ineffective or uncommitted to the war on terror we can expect renewed targeting of US assets, if not on US soil itself. Vigilance and pressure on the terrorists is the only thing that will keep their attacks from our soil.

As always, I welcome your thoughts and comments. This posting can also be viewed at: http://carpentersmate.blogspot.com.

Dan

Statism in America

Friends,
My wife subscribes to a publication put out by Ligonier Ministries called Tabletalk. In addition to daily bible devotionals, each month it contains numerous articles written by leading Christian authors. I read one in the August edition written by Dr. R. C. Sproul, Founder and Chairman of Ligonier Ministries entitled “Statism.” In it he notes that he asked Dr. Francis Schaeffer his “biggest concern for the future of the church in America?” Dr Schaeffer said immediately, “Statism.” Dr. Sproul goes on to define statism as a world view philosophy that the federal government is the ultimate authority removing God from His position of supremacy.

A subset of this philosophy is the devolution of authority from statehood to statism. I am not going to address the removal of God from the public square, even though the evolution of the “separation of church and state” has certainly played a major role in this trend. Instead, I am going to look at the evolution of American society as an entitlement society, thereby moving ever forward to statism.

In the early years of the US the country was, for the most part, an agrarian society. Key among the characteristics of this society was self reliance and dependency on family. Each family knew that if they were to make their way in life they would have to do it themselves and maybe with assistance from their neighbors, if they had neighbors. Not in the equation was the government.

Over the last 200 years, it has become more acceptable and even expected for government to hand out those essential elements of survival as basic subsistence with no strings attached. This tendency became more evident under the Great Society of Lyndon Johnson. Barry Goldwater phrased it well when he said, “The government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.”

In a speech Johnson gave at the University of Michigan on 22 May 1964, he discussed the ills of America and called on the students to work toward solving those ills. Among other things, he pointed out the “crushing weight of poverty,” the overcrowded, understaffed classrooms with out- dated curricula.

To solve these problems, he it would “require us to create new concepts of cooperation, a creative federalism, between the National Capital and the leaders of local communities.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines federalism as, “the theory or advocacy of federal political orders, where final authority is divided between sub-units and a center.” This is the concept that the Founders envisioned when they wrote the Constitution.

So, what did Johnson mean by “creative federalism?”In his speech, he urges the audience to “join in the battle to give every citizen an escape from the crushing weight of poverty…. To join in the battle to build the Great Society, to prove that our material progress is only the foundation on which we will build a richer life of mind and spirit.” These are wonderful thoughts and goals. No one will debate that. However, Johnson’s intent was to make those goals achievable through government action, not through the sweat and perseverance of the individual. As a result, the welfare rolls jumped drastically as we tried to “distribute the wealth” as is being touted by Senator Obama.

Our country had been on an ever-steepening slide toward statism since the New Deal days, but Johnson accelerated that slide. It was further accelerated to include the commercial side our lives under President Carter when the Community Reinvestment act was passed. This forced mortgage companies to make loans that were questionable, at best. This placed a lot of bad loans under the umbrella of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

President Clinton took up the mantle of statism by “encouraging” lenders to make loans available to disadvantaged borrowers to make home ownership more available. This resulted in massive numbers of people buying homes they could not afford. Remember when the Clinton Administration changed the depository regulations for banks in the early to mid ‘90s? You could buy HUD housed for pennies-on-the-dollar. I contend that these actions were a direct result of the Federal Government’s push toward statism.

Now we can fast-forward to a few weeks ago when Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac imploded (along with a number of very large financial institutions). The Democrats are blaming the current administration for this implosion. Talk about mendacity! They are the ones that caused the crisis but are putting the blame directly on the Republican administration.

With the $700B bail-out, not to mention the billions spent to bail of earlier failures, we have steepened the slippery slope to complete statism to almost vertical. Treasury Secretary Paulson is now going about buying large blocks of bank stocks, putting the Federal Government right in the middle of the market square. In many cases, the banks have no choice about the purchase. The federal government is, in effect conducting a hostile takeover. While I am no constitutional scholar, there seems to be a serious constitutional issue here.

I have urged my Congressman and Senators to vigorously oppose these measures. Congressman Lamborn has done so. Unfortunately, our two senators supported the bail-out. Each and every citizen in America has had a huge debt burden placed on them. We have now sunk to not only the concept of individual statism, but now commercial statism has put a pall over our entire economy.

It is time that we put people into office that will vigorously work to reverse this trend and get us back on the track set out by the Founders.

As always, I welcome your comments and discussion.

Dan

Points to Ponder

Friends,
I normally do not post email exchanges but the one below from a friend was very interesting and I thought I would share it. It is done so with her permission.
Enjoy
Dan

From:
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2008 6:34 AM
To: 'Daniel C. Lanotte'

Subject: Points to Ponder

Hi Dan, The Dems and press are trying to destroy Joe the Plumber by showing he has no plumbing license, yet he said he worked for a plumbing company- has he ever actually said he worked for the company as a plumber? He may fill some other role in the company. There are also other routes to learning plumbing beside Union ones of which he may have availed himself, and it is the union that is screaming the loudest right now because they supported Obama.

At our caucus, all I heard was “So and So should be our nominee because he is electable”. Isn’t it about time (PAST TIME) that Reps start picking the right man and making him (or her) electable.! And stop letting the liberal press pick our candidates by suddenly promoting the man they think is most defeatable (or will “suck up” to them- pardon my French). McCain quite suddenly became the front runner after much hype in the press created a “Bandwagon” effect among Reps causing Mitt Romney to pull out. In (public) high school back in the late 50s/early 60s we had a class called “Problems of Democracy” in which we learned propaganda techniques and how to spot them and avoid believing them over our common sense. Bandwagon was one, “The Big Lie” was another whereby a lie is told often enough that people believe it (Joseph Goebbels’, Hitler’s propaganda minister’s, favorite technique). All one need do is listen to Obama or Biden (who said in his debate with Gov. Palin that Obama did not say he would meet with Achmadinijad and was never called on it, but you could see by the look on Palin’s face that she was appalled)- if their lips are moving, they are lying. McCain has done his share of “misstatements” too, and it is time we, including the press, start calling a lie a lie and start pointing out blatant efforts at propaganda.

I have forgotten the names of some of the other forms of propaganda, but they include one very commonly used by the Dems, possibly named “Substitution”- accuse the other guy of what you yourself are doing to refocus blame on your opponent. The Dems (Barney Frank and others) started this whole mortgage mess by forcing loans to go to many, especially the poor, who could not sustain the payments and were doomed from the beginning to eventually default on them. Now that it has hit the fan, the Dems accuse the Reps, the Bush Administration, of causing the entire mess when it was primarily the Dems who started it.

Another form of Propaganda is the use of celebrity to gain prestige for your candidate/cause. Get enough Hollywood luminaries to speak for your guy and the other guy looks like a “Nobody”. And who wants to vote fore a “Nobody”.

Just my 2 cents worth for the day.

My Reply:

S ,
There are certain issues on which you and I will respectfully disagree. This is not one of them. There are a lot of us who were very surprised when Romney pulled out as soon as he did. We have all come to the conclusion that the press “fell in love” with McCain because they saw Romney as a tougher competitor and unbeatable. Notice how soon they turned on McCain as soon as he became the only Republican in the game. They want Obama to win. This is not just my ranting. The MSM has bought into the “Globalization Effect” to the extent that they have sold their souls to make it happen.

Another area you have nailed it on is “Isn’t it about time (PAST TIME) that Reps start picking the right man and making him (or her) electable.!” This is another area where a number of us are working. The primary target for 2010 is Senator Salazar. He is identified as one of the most “suck-up” Kennedy Democrats in the Senate. I email him on almost every issue that comes up. To his credit, he never ignores me; he has always responded with a position paper. To his detriment, he is almost always on the wrong side of the Constitution. Most of his positions are not Constitutionally supportable. As you know I am just a simple carpenter and if I can recognize unconstitutional behavior that should be an indication that a lot of other Coloradoans will be able to do the same. I have saved all of his emails and have the evidence to back up my contention.

You also talk about “The Big Lie.” Boy! Is that an accurate assessment. I would like to refer you to two articles. The first is by Mike Gallagher on Townhall.com (first attachment). He does an excellent job discussing this issue. The second article you should have received last night on one of my postings and is available at http://carpentersmate.blobspot.com/. Andy Pico has been called “Mr. NORAD” because of his years of experience and astute insights into national defense/security. His study into “The Big Lie” of global warming has drawn a lot of fire from “experts” who are sucking on the big money bottle. In my book, that is something of which to be proud.

Thank you for your comments. With your permission, I would like to pass this exchange around.
Dan

Daniel C. Lanotte
dlanotte@falconbroadband.net
719-683-5506

Audacity of Mendacity - Guest Article

Friends,
The following article was written by Mr. Andy Pico, who has been published on these pages in the past and, I hope, will be so many times in the future.
Enjoy,
Dan

Our country is on the verge of potentially electing a new Triumvirate of Obama, Pelosi and Reid together with The One’s sidekick, the Bumbling Biden, with the most radical, socialist agenda this country has ever seen in national politics. The Triumvirate could have a potentially filibuster proof senate majority able to ram through whatever far left radical measures dictated to the Triumvirate by their political backers within such groups as ACORN (currently under investigation for massive interstate voter fraud), Moveon.org and such Soros funded groups.

This coalition has a radical, leftist agenda that has nothing to do with preserving individual freedom, full employment, a robust economic climate or any of the key moral or social values this country has developed. Their entire methodology is built on deceit, fraud and intimidation of political opponents.

This Triumvirate has manufactured a great economic message focused on the current meltdown of the financial markets, aided and abetted by a complicit press which combines economic illiteracy with historical ignorance. The seeds of the current financial crisis were planted by the Democrat administration of Carter in the Community Redevelopment ACT and expanded by Clinton with the assistance of ACORN to strong arm lending institutions into making bad loans. The brief period of Republican control was unable to reform this coming, and predicted, financial meltdown due to Democrat obstructionism in Congress and in the courts.

Bill Clinton - "I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress, or by me when I was president, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

I certainly would not be one to call the Former President a liar.

The facts, unreported by a complicit press, is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were established by Democrats, staffed by Democrats, (the former executives of these failed institutions are currently part of the economics team on Obama’s campaign staff), “regulated” by Democrats and provided campaign contributions with taxpayer guaranteed funds to Democrats. Obama, in his extraordinarily short time in the US Senate, managed to skim the 3rd largest amount, barely behind the Democrat chairman of the committee which oversaw those organizations. While technically legal, this defines the worst kind of corruption.

That the architects of our current financial crisis are likely to be rewarded with political control and given the responsibility to fix their own mess is one of the travesties of the scandal that is the current journalistic abandonment of any pretense of standards or integrity. That the Bumbling Biden could utter the most outrageous and complete fabrication of the history of Hezbollah in Lebanon and our involvement there along with the utter fantasy of his proposed intervention, and not be held to account by a press more interested in investigating 25 year old traffic tickets by Governor Palin’s relatives and whether Joe has a current plumber’s license, has to rank as one of the most despicable failures of modern and corrupt journalism.

The economic measures being proposed by those who have brought you this looming recession will repeat the governmental economic idiocy that ushered in the Great Depression.

Here in Colorado the Democrat candidate for the Senate is one of those responsible for restricting energy development resulting in high gas prices and utility bills, based in part by the fraud of man-made global warming and extreme environmental over-regulation. His possible election will not only reward his own complicity in our economic problems but help hand a filibuster proof Senate majority to this radical and irresponsible Socialist Triumvirate.

Rarely has so much been at stake. On positions of the economy, conduct of the war, worldwide anti-terrorist operations, opposition to the state sponsors of international terrorism, energy development, phony climate control, misguided tax policies and most of all, a culture of death which will include taxpayer funded abortions; this Radical Triumvirate is far outside of the political mainstream.

Do not reward this Audacity of Mendacity with political victory and the near dictatorial control over our economy by economic illiterates. Here in Colorado, vote to elect Doug Lamborn, Scott Starin, Wayne Wolf, Marilyn Musgrave, Mike Coffman, George Lilly and John Lerew to their Congressional seats; Bob Schaffer to the US Senate; Sarah Palin for Vice President and that other guy running with her for President.

Pico, of Colorado Springs, is a retired navy commander, naval Flight officer and economist.

As always, your comments and discussions are welcome

Why We Must Defend the American Way of Life

Friends,
The following article was requested by a Colorado publication that may or may not use it. It is a bit long, but I thought I would make it available.
Dan

When I was asked to write a piece on “Why We Must Defend the American Way of Life,” I was flattered and immediately accepted the request. Then I looked around for source material and came to the realization that I have not written on an assigned topic in many years. I always get the urge to pontificate on a subject and sit down and “tickle the plastics.” Bounding one’s thoughts can be a bit confining and, therefore, daunting. Well, they say you will usually find something when you are not looking for it; and that is exactly what happened. I came upon an editorial by Chuck Colson titled “What’s the Matter With Canada?” on Townhall.com., and it instantly gave me some clarification as to why we must defend the American way of life. This article, discussed below, shows how one group can erode the rights of another.

Before I go too far, it might be appropriate to define what I see as the “American Way of Life.” In today’s world I see this as a moving target. We can point to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and then add our modifiers such as equal opportunity, affirmative action and the like. Being a strict Constitutionalist, I prefer to look at the American Way of Life as those tenets envisioned by the Founders. I believe they looked at America as a place where there was little in the way of government intervention and regulation. They were individualists who felt free to express themselves in whatever way they were moved. This included the freedom to express their belief and love of God and Christ. They understood that it is the responsibility of each man to protect and provide for his family. It was, and still is, the responsibility of each man to protect and provide for the security of his country. I see the American Way of Life as an individual way and not a way dictated by government or special interests, whether they be religious or commercial. The founders were bounded by the cultural mores of the day and certainly did not envision the cultural changes that we have seen come about. I would advocate the return to the mores of fear of God, patriotism, and the centrality of the family.

Each and every one of us should be able to think of any number of reasons to defend our way of life. The short list should be the US Constitution and The Bill of Rights. Before 1773, there had never been the concept of a country that ruled by the consent of the governed. In that year, the colonists began taking control of their own destiny when their protest against the king’s tea tax prompted them to action in the form of the Boston Tea Party. The crown had been levying onerous taxes on the colonists to recoup the cost of the French and Indian war that had ended ten years before. As the independence movement progressed and then was articulated by the Declaration of Independence, penned mostly by Thomas Jefferson, Americans began to “think out of the box” and into a new concept of government. The first experiment in government, the Articles of Confederation, failed to meet the needs of the new country. This experiment evolved into the US Constitution, that magnificent document that places restrictions on the federal government, not the states. However, the states demanded greater guarantees of the freedoms of the citizens, and, in 1789, the first Congress proposed 12 amendments to the new Constitution. The first two were never ratified. These involved the number of constituents for each Congressman and pay for Congressmen. The next ten were finally ratified by ¾ of the states in 1791 and became known as the Bill of Rights. The amazing aspect of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is that they both restrict the powers of the federal government. This was a totally new concept.

Our precious freedoms and rights have prompted us to go to war a number of times since those struggling years immediately following our independence from Great Britain. Our first war as a independent nation is a good example of the young nation’s conviction that its autonomy with all the freedoms guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights were worth defending at all cost . Only 30 years after we thought the fighting was over, the British navy was in desperate need of men and supplies under the crush of the war with Napoleon. They were regularly raiding American shipping and war ships to obtain supplies and sailors to fight the French. We could not stand by and passively allow our ships, shipping, and sailors to be plundered from the seas. We went to war to defend our freedoms and our sovereignty. Even though the war was officially declared a tie, it showed that the young nation was not one to trifle with.

Each war we have fought has been due to drastic and sudden threats to our freedoms and sovereignty. But what about those insidious “under the radar” threats? Those threats are just as real as Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Both the Pearl Harbor and 9/11 attacks were perpetrated upon US soil due to perceived injustices by despots’ intent on world domination. Japanese naval forces attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 for the purpose of destroying the US Pacific Fleet and, ultimately, our way of life. This would have left them free to wreak havoc across the Pacific while their partners-in-evil did the same across Europe and North Africa. And then on September 11, 2001 a group of evil men, guided by despots, used four airliners to kill over 3000 innocent people who had done no harm to the perpetrators or their bosses. Both of these attacks were carried out because evil men wanted to end our way of life.

Another example of evil people intent on taking over a culture is what is happening in Europe today. In France, militants riot at the threat from their legislature that they are going to have to work for the government support money they receive; at least that is the cover story. Just who are these French militants? The press uses the term “militants” as a euphemism for Muslim radicals. Paris police cannot even enter certain sections of the city or the surrounding area unarmed. In October and November, 2005, the violence was so brutal that thousands of cars were burned and several police were killed. On 14 November of that year, President Jacques Chirac pledged to create greater opportunities for the young people, showing the militants that they had won. French officials cite evidence that Muslim extremists are being pipelined to the Middle East for training and being returned home to conduct jihad. [1]

The expansion of Muslim radicalism in Europe has brought along with it immigrant enclaves where Sharia (Islamic) law rules. How many of us really understand Sharia law? I certainly do not, but I know a few of their tenants as illustrated by the following cases-in-point:
1. Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped

2. Islam allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives.

3. Islam allows an injured plaintiff to extract legal revenge – physical eye for physical eye.

4. Islam orders death for Muslim and possible death for non-Muslim critics of Muhammad and the Quran and even Sharia itself. Good examples of this are the death sentence against Salmon Rushdie for Satanic Verses and the threats against the Danish cartoonists that just drew a likeness of Muhammad.

5. Islam commands offensive and aggressive and unjust jihad. This has been an on-going effort since Muhammad was alive. [2]

While these provisions have not been accepted in the US to date, slow encroachments are making their way into our society.

For example, On August 03, 2008, in a news release by the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, a new agreement with Tyson Foods eliminates Labor Day and the instatement of Eid al-Fitr as a holiday. Eid al-Fitr celebrates the end of Ramadan and falls on October 01 this year. [3]

A recent expose aired on Fox News outlined a number of “honor killings” perpetrated by Muslim men on their daughters and sisters here in the US. These killings are acceptable forms of punishment under Sharia law. Fortunately, our rule of law brings these killers to justice, but what about the floggings that are permitted under Sharia law? When a woman or man is murdered there is bound to be a body or an individual missing. But what happens in the case of a flogging when the victim does not come forward to notify the police of the assault? It’s likely that in many instances these crimes go unpunished.

The ever creeping encroachment of Sharia law is overtaking the societies of Europe and Scandinavia. Examples can be cited from any of the western European countries. In Great Britain, even the Archbishop of Canterbury has stated that he believes it is legitimate to have entire enclaves within the country that are Muslim only, where Sharia law can be practiced exclusive of British law. Having two legal systems in force side-by-side is an untenable situation.

But what happens when the rights that we have come to cherish are eroded ever so slowly over the years? Specific Sharia law is not the only assault on our freedoms. A possibly more insidious intruder into our free America is political correctness. I fear that this is what has happened to Canada, culturally our nearest neighbor and relative. A Canadian writer and popular blogger, Mark Steyn, wrote a book, America Alone, where he describes how America’s fight against global terrorism is basically a solo act. Maclean’s magazine, a popular news magazine in Canada, printed excerpts from Steyn’s book, and then the carrots hit the fan. Chuck Colson explains what happened like this: “Mohamed Elmasry of the Canadian Islamic Congress charged that the content of these excerpts about the expansion of radical Islam ‘subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt [4].’” This criticism is so strong, that both the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal have been brought into the fray. The Canadian Human Rights Commission did not pursue legal action but the BC body is, complaining that Steyn’s book “subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt.” As of July 21, a ruling had not been issued. While Maclean’s has the resources to fight the BC Tribunal, the average Joe next door who makes a derogatory statement about Muslims does not. As Colson explains, Maclean’s was given a kangaroo court without a jury. They are so afraid of offending the Muslim community in Canada that they have traded in free speech for some kind of cheap appeasement [5]. This is the level to which the Canadian ideal of political correctness has sunk. The average guy next door could expect the same. With the current attitude of the Canadian judiciary in British Colombia he is convicted before he gets to trial. But wait; why is there any necessity for a trial in a country with free speech? This is only partially a rhetorical question. The reason for the trial is the slow, steady decline of the acceptance of basic freedom of speech in Canada.

Remember the cartoons that were drawn by the Danish cartoonists showing caricatures of Muhammad? How many times have you seen them printed in the US? The State Department condemned their publication in the Danish press. Where was the ACLU during this furor? They were characteristically silent. The American press does not want to run afoul of the State Department and the ACLU. However, during this time, the press was perfectly willing to cover every sordid detail of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. This shows the lengths the press will go to appease those who want to erode out freedom of speech.

We have allowed our freedoms to be so eroded that they do not look like the same freedoms that the Sons of Liberty fought for. Are we going to go the way of Canada? Each of us is responsible for exercising our God-given and Constitutionally-guaranteed unalienable freedoms.
In this article, I have only addressed a few examples of our eroding freedoms but there are others that are appropriate to mention:

· If we exercise our God-given and Constitutionally-guaranteed right to express our belief in the tenants of Christianity and Biblical standards we are criticized for being intolerant irrespective of the intolerance of the Muslims or the atheists. If we are critical of the treatment of women at the hands of Muslim men, we are racist.

· Today, in many school districts, the discussion of the world having been created by God is completely out of the question. Only evolution is allowed in the discussion.

· In many schools there are Muslim clubs but Christian clubs are not allowed.

· Our children are not allowed to pray in school because it may be construed to be advocating one religion over another or one parent or student finds it offensive. The rights and religious preferences of the Christian are not allowed to be considered.

· If we advocate controlling our borders, we are called racist and/or isolationists.

· If we believe that a marriage consists of one man and one woman, we are called intolerant homophobes.

These are but a few of the freedoms that are slipping away. Make no mistake; there is a deliberate, concerted effort to make this happen. If you look around at the US today, you will find that there is a very big difference in the American way of life as envisioned by the Founders and the American way of life of today. This is a process that has been in progress for approximately 150 years.

I have always hated being told that there is a problem. I would rather be told that there is a solution. OK, here it is. It is incumbent upon all Americans to exercise their freedoms and speak out in no uncertain terms when those freedoms are trampled. Our elected officials need to hear from each of us, individually, that we are displeased with the direction our freedoms are going. When freedom-loving organizations such as Colorado Family Institute ask for a signature on a petition to stop the erosion of one freedom or another, sign it. In addition, write your Congressmen and Senators. Frankly, my Congressman and Senators are tired of hearing from me. That is unfortunate because I am certainly not through writing and expressing my views. I hope you are not either.

References:
[1] John Anderson, “France Says Extremists are Enlisting Its Citizens,” Washington Post Foreign Service, October 19, 2005, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/18/AR2005101801632_pf.html
[2] The American Thinker, Top Ten Reasons Why Sharia is Bad for all Societies, August 03, 2008, http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/08/top_ten_reasons_why_sharia_is.html
[3] Speechless – Silencing the Christians, Tyson Foods Warms up to Islam, August 03 2008, http://www.onenewsnow.com/Business/Default.aspx?id=202506
[4] Townhall.com, What’s the Matter With Canada? , July 21, 2008, http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ChuckColson/2008/07/21/whats_the_matter_with_canada
[5] Mark Steyn, America Alone, The End of the World as We know It; Regnery Publishing, Washington DC, 2006

Warming hysteria despite new data

Friends,
I am posting an article by a guest columnist who writes periodically for the Colorado Springs Gazette. I have known Andy for almost 20 years and have found that when he takes pen to paper (or tickles the plastics) it is definitely worth taking reading. I hope you enjoy it.

By ANDY PICO, GUEST COLUMNIST
Global warming hysteria continues to make its impact on our state, national and global economies with increasingly devastating consequences. Severe impacts to food and energy supplies and prices are a direct result of some of the policies adopted to "fight global warming," including the conversion of agricultural resources from food to fuel and intentionally restricting energy supplies in order to force energy conversion. These results were predicted by many with scientific or economic credentials.

Dr. James Hansen, the corrupt director of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, celebrated his testimony from 20 years ago this July by once again warning the Congress of manmade greenhouse gas warming; testifying of imminent catastrophe and calling for the criminal prosecution of "deniers." Warmers would deny the rights to free speech, academic freedom and open scientific research. The warmers deny that 32,000 scientists who have signed the Oregon Petition or the Manhattan Declaration (www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=1) against the fraud of manmade climate change should have a voice.

Twenty years ago, GISS predicted significant warming and its annual reports have shown an accelerating increase in global temperatures. The GISS monthly data, as well as the data from every climate monitoring agency, show otherwise.

In June 1988, the reported station and land-ocean anomalies were .84 and .67 degrees over the century average and Hansen projected that by June 2008, the temperature would increase by another degree. When he testified to Congress in June of runaway warming, the temperatures had declined to .26 degrees for both over the century average.

Predicted mid-troposphere warming is the key component of the theory of greenhouse gas warming, but actual midtroposphere temperatures have declined by .2 C over these two decades. All of the climate reporting centers; NASA GISS, Hadley, RSS and UAH satellite coverage have reported sharply declining temperatures since January 2007.

It is significant that 20 years of warming have been reversed in a year and half with the trend headed sharply down interrupted only briefly in July, which most of us call "summer." The sea level rise has also stopped, Antarctic ice cover remains above average, and the Arctic summer ice melt continues to trail last year's levels by a significant margin. All these measures run counter to the catastrophic predictions and continue even while the CO2 level continues to rise.

This decline in global sea surface, land and atmospheric temperatures correspond to the decline in solar activity as measured both by sunspot numbers and solar cycle length and the shift in oceanic circulation patterns to the cool side. This sharp cooling trend is particularly notable in that both the IPCC and GISS estimated that today's temperatures would be about a degree higher than they actually are. The decline was predicted by those of us who have pointed out the solar connection, amplified by atmospheric and oceanic circulation, as the principle driver of terrestrial climate changes.

During this Holocene Interglacial period the prevailing temperatures have been higher and lower in a regular cycle. During the initial Holocene Climactic Optimum at the end of the last Ice Age and beginning of this warm Interglacial period, the temperatures were several degrees warmer than now.

Several cool periods and warm periods alternated on a regular cycle over the millennium with a pre-Roman cool period, a Roman Warm Period several degrees warmer than now, a Middle Age Cold Period, the Medieval Warm Period that was at least another degree warmer than now, and the Little Ice Age at least a degree colder than now which the current Modern Warm Period has only slightly recovered from.

Recent archeological finds have located a Roman road crossing a pass in the Alps that is still mostly covered by glaciers. The Romans were certainly advanced in their engineering accomplishments for their time, but how and why they would have built a road underneath a glacier is an interesting question for the global warming hysterics to answer.

The cooling trend is now well established and correlates with the current, extended solar minimum. A number of independent solar scientists are predicting a multi-decade quiet and cold period. It is clear that climate change is a natural phenomenon.

Pico, of Colorado Springs, is a retired navy commander, naval Flight officer and economist. He is a signatory of the Manhattan Declaration.

This column may be viewed at:https://webmail.si-intl.com/OWA/redir.aspx?C=7f5a83b97ba442dbb6af073ef370373f&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.gazette.com%2fsections%2fopinion%2fguestcolumnists%2f

The Russian Incursion Continues

Friends,
A couple of days ago I received the email below from a trusted friend. He says that it is authentic and that is good enough for me. Forgive me for removing the names; I’m sure you understand the reason.

Begin forwarded email.
Capt _____ provides input from someone inside Georgia. If he emailsit, it's reliable. FYI

-----Original Message-----From: Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 12:42 PMTo:

Subject: FW: Georgia
Admiral, Sirs,
Word from Inside Georgia. Sad news.
v.r.CAPT
Counter-Terrorism & Defense Operations
-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 11:38 PM
Subject: Georgia
By all accounts, the Georgian Coast Guard was essentially destroyedyesterday by Russian regular army troops in Poti. No people killed orinjured, as there was no resistance. Three ships seized and destroyed.Buildings on the base damaged and/or destroyed, including the commandcenter. Other GCG vessels had left Poti before this and were not taken. Theradar station at Anaklia was destroyed. Not yet at Supsa, the Russians wereexpected to destroy that station as well.

It has chilled me to hear of all of this, as so much of that infrastructurewas built or improved as a part of my work these past years. It can be rebuilt if the money is found but i t pains me nonetheless.

It is the destruction and looting in the villages near Abkhazia, and aroundSouth Ossetia that is so horrific. There is no foreign aid to help familiesrebuild their lives. The Georgia, Osset and Abkhaz youth who are a part of it are thugs and criminals easily brought to the Russian fold in return for free reign. There is no reasonable explanation on earth for what theRussians are now doing in Georgia. It does not equal the genocide of Darfur,but it is all here in my backyard.

My family is terrified, and the patriotic rhetoric is maxed out in volume.Thankfully it appears that the Russians will not press on to Tbilisi. Amazingly we still have electricity and phone service. And water.

Gracefully yesterday provided a moment of peaceful irony - at the Olympicsin Beijing Georgian athletes won 2 gold medals. The first was in judo. The second was in wrestling. The Georgian defeated - a Russian! And in Olympicappropriateness the two combatants threw their arms around each other inexhaustion and respect. I think all of Georgia was standing for their anthemduring the medals ceremony.

Best wishes,

End of forwarded email


Click on map to see full size

As I pointed out in my last Political Discourse, Putin wants to put the old Soviet Union back together. It seems that Georgia’s crime was being friendly with the West and specifically their desire to join NATO. When the rebelling region of South Ossetia tried to break away and rejoin with Russia, Georgia went in for the purpose of putting down the rebellion. That was the excuse that Russia needed/wanted to attack Georgia.

North Ossetia has long been aligned with Russia. In the map insert above, North Ossetia is the area marked as Alania. While South Ossetia has strong ties to Russia, has long been considered a part of Georgia.

Russian forces have been in South Ossetia, theoretically as a peacekeeping force, but their wonton actions against the Georgians as noted in the above email goes beyond merely protecting allies and preventing further violence. Georgia has also had peacekeeping forces in the area.

As of this morning, 16 August 2008, the Russians and the Georgians have signed a cease-fire agreement, stipulating that Russian forces are to return to their previous positions in South Ossetia with the ability to patrol the Georgian border. General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, the deputy chief of the Russian military staff has stated that a return of Georgian forces to South Ossetia would not be acceptable.

To slightly shift gears, the Associated Press reported today that Poland and the United States have concluded an agreement to place anti-ballistic missiles in Poland. The negotiations have been going on for 18 months with the stated goal to place missiles in Poland to protect from any current or projected IRBM/ICBM capability within Iran or other potentially unfriendly Middle Eastern country. Russia believes that the anti-ballistic missiles are a direct slap in the fact to them and has threatened retaliation in the form of its own nuclear arsenal.

Two days ago, Russia also made the statement that Georgian borders are no longer sacred, the same with any rebellious region within any of the former Soviet states that ask for Russia’s assistance.

Given the bellicose stance Russia has taken in the recent past, it would be reasonable to expect all of the former Soviet states to be in danger of re-absorbs ion. Russia is already looking with laser focus on the Baltic States.

After my last posting, a number of commentators as well as several of my friends have commented on the similarity between the current Russian actions and the incursion of German troops into the Sudetenland on 01 October, 1938. This incursion was due to the appeasement mentality of the Europeans at that time. The current actions of the Russians and the world’s desire for peace today make it feel like it must have in the late ‘30s. How many more of the former Soviet satellite states are going to be given to Putin?

Since the pull-out of US forces from Viet Nam, and the Marines from Lebanon, the United States has come to be viewed as a country that does not go the extra mile to back its friends. I believe that it is time to reverse that trend and show the world that we do back our friends. In the past, the Russians have typically responded only to adversaries that come to them from a position of strength. Giving in to their bullying in Georgia and Poland removes any semblance of strength. If we do not stand up for our friends now we could see a resurgence of Soviet dominance in Eastern Europe and a renewal of the Cold War.

As always, I welcome your comments/discussion.

Dan

The Russian Bear Out of Hibernation

Friends,
On June 12, 1987, President Reagan made the famous demand, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” in a speech to the people of West Berlin. It was also heard on the East side of the wall. This was the prelude to the greatest peacetime implosion of a multilithic regime this world has ever seen. Today, 21 years later, we still laud Reagan for his courage to even make this challenge, after all of his advisors counseled against it.

In December of 1991, after the erosion of the Soviet world from the edges, the Soviet Union ceased to exist. A painful period of the Russian version of democratization began. The newly wealthy grew out of the corrupt officials that had run the country. Still, there was some hope that the new Russian Republic would work through these growing pains and come out the other side as a democracy, governed by the rule of law. The old hard-line Communists were suppressed and it looked as if Boris Yeltsin might just be able to pull it off, if his health held up. At least that is the short version.

Now fast forward to 2000. With the succession of Vladimir Putin to the presidency of Russia, another KGB professional was again in power. For the past eight years Putin has been consolidating and confirming his power.

In the run-up to the 2003 parliamentary elections, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the wealthiest of the new Russian billionaires, financed opposition parties running against Putin’s United Russia Party. For this indiscretion, the government charged Khodorkovsky with fraud and tax evasion. The sentence was for eight years. Under the Russian legal system, he was eligible for release in 2008. Removing this source of financing, Putin’s ruling party easily won reelection. In early 2007 Khodorkovsky faced new charges of money laundering and embezzlement in preparation for the upcoming 2008 elections. Putin could not take a chance of losing his legislative mandate.

Putin and the ruling party have recently taken to flexing their collective muscles in the old ways. In August of last year, Putin announced the resumption of long-range bomber flights because of security concerns. This renewed assertiveness now can be viewed as the first overt step in a campaign to reestablish the regional power base that the Soviets had established after World War II.

In the past week, Georgia has sent troops into the break-away enclave of South Ossetia to discourage thoughts of independence. Since the break-up of the Soviet Union, South Ossetia has claimed to be independent from Georgia. This urge for independence was further enhanced with the recent declaration of independence by Kosovo.

Russia has been claiming that they are just acting as peacekeepers. But Russia is goaded by NATO’s promise to admit Georgia. Last week, Russian forces rolled into the area in support of the separatists. Two days ago, 8 Aug, it was reported that Russian troops had moved into South Ossetia with 150 tanks plus assorted other vehicles. Today, it was reported that Russian and Georgian forces are engaged. There are also reports of the Russian Navy blockading Georgian ports.

With the aforementioned examples of Russian expansion of control, both internal and external, it could be argued that Russia under Vladimir Putin is attempting to rebuild, at least partially, the Soviet power bloc of the Cold War days. While the West has been watching developments related to Muslim Terrorism, Putin has been restoring the Russian military which had fallen into abject disrepair; this repair and modernization being paid for by proceeds gained from re-nationalized industries such as the petroleum industry.

This is a complicated world, made more so by the resurgence of Russia as a power with which to be reckoned. Only time will tell the lengths to which Putin will go to achieve the level of his desired power.

As always, I welcome your comments and discussions.
Dan

The Cowards of Palestine

Friends,
I am going to start this off with a disclaimer. This posting will be very slanted. I hate cowardly murderers. They remind me of hyenas; they wait until their prey is completely defenseless and then they strike. They will normally take great delight in causing pain and shock whenever they know that they are not in the line of fire. You now know my leanings and you can read the rest of this with that knowledge.

Several weeks ago it was announced that the government of Israeli Prime Minister Olmert was considering a prisoner swap with Hezbollah in the name of peace. This swap was negotiated with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Hezbollah is not in the habit of making one-for-one exchanges when these swaps are negotiated.

What the Israelis got were the bodies of sergeants Elad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser. What the Israelis gave to Hezbollah were five prisoners. All five of these were Lebanese; but one, Samir Kuntar is considered to be one of Israel’s most reviled prisoner. What did he do? Just exactly what did this coward do?

On the night of April 22, 1979, when Kuntar was only 16 years old and already a veteran of terrorist training in Lebanon, he and one other Hezbollah coward rowed their rubber boat ashore in northern Israel with the intent of kidnapping Israelis. During the raid, they invaded the home of Danny and Smadar Kaiser in Nahariya, six miles south of the Lebanese border. Smadar and their daughter Yael, 2, hid in the attic but Danny and their daughter Einat, 4, were taken to the nearby beach when they heard the police coming. They made Einat watch while they shot Danny to death and then killed Einat by beating her in the head with the butt of a rifle. This was a defenseless man but worse was the cowardly killing of a four year old girl. This is an abbreviation of the raid that the New York Times says “went horribly wrong.” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/16/world/middleeast/16kuntar.html The rest of the story can be read at http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110008710 in the Wall Street Journal.

The government of Israel has bent over backwards time after time to try to bring peace to their country. So far, nothing has worked. They have had the “Land for Peace” program, this program, that program, and numerous prisoner swaps. Each time, the cowards from Palestine come out way ahead. Now, it looks like the cowards have done it to the Israelis again. They murder two brave soldiers and give back the bodies and get, in return, bloody cowardly terrorists.

When Kuntar crosses the border into Lebanon he will receive a hero’s welcome. You see, the Hezbollah honors baby murderers. What they seem to be unable to understand is that these actions exemplify their lack of manhood. They recruit children to strap on bomb vests to blow themselves up in the name of the Allah. If martyrdom were so glorious, why don’t the adults to it? This is obviously a rhetorical question because we all know they don’t do it because they only have conviction for martyrdom if someone else is getting killed.

Just the fact that the Israeli government would even consider giving these animals back is disappointing and shows the level to which the Olmert government has sunk.

Looking at the political situation in our own country, there are people here in the US that believe that we can just take these cowards aside and “dialog” with them, and they will “play nice” with us. To these people, I say, “Wake up and smell the cordite.” These animals have proven that they cannot play nice with anyone. This was foretold in Genesis 16. When the angle of the Lord spoke to Hagar about her son who was soon to be born he said:
“Behold, you are with child,
And you will bear a son;
And you shall call his name £Ishmael,
Because the LORD has given heed to your affliction.
12 “He will be a wild donkey of a man,
His hand will be against everyone,
And everyone’s hand will be against him;
And he will live to the east of all his brothers.”
This is how it has been with the descendants of Ishmael and how it will be. These cowards revel in their perversion and we here in the United States, as well as all of the free world, had better know who the enemy is.

As always, I welcome your comments and discussion.

Dan

The Government Crush

Friends,
In this election year, there is a lot of discussion on the economy, the environment, the terrorist threat, the oil/price crisis, entitlements, and a myriad of other “hot buttons.” What I hear precious little about is what is really great about our country; what is really great about our people.

When we look back on the accomplishments that have come out of the USA we cannot help but marvel at the ingenuity and perseverance of American entrepreneurship. However, when we look back at the golden age of the Industrial Revolution, one thing that stands out as different from today is the lack of government regulation and taxation.

Back when Carnegie, Rockefeller, and the other industrial titans got started they were not hampered with such onerous regulations as Sarbanes Oxley. They were not taxed to the point that exploration and experimentation were activities that could only be undertaken after all of the government regulations and accounting had been satisfied. That was a day when the entrepreneur was able to let his ideas soar.

Today, the entrepreneur is buried under a mountain of regulation and is often taxed out of existence. If this intrepid entrepreneur is foolish enough to take on five or more employees, he comes under the laser beam of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Here is a true story. I know a man who is the safety engineer for a company that cleans meat packing plants. One of the safety requirements of the workers is that when they are working over a certain height off the floor they must wear a safety harness to arrest their fall in case of a mishap. This requirement was/is well briefed and enforced for all employees. During one shift a few years ago, an employee neglected this rule and fell off a catwalk and tragically died. This happened several hundred miles from my friend’s office. My friend was not at the site of the mishap when it happened. Enter OSHA. The OSHA inspector wanted the US Attorney to prosecute my friend for murder because the worker neglected to fulfill his responsibility to protect his own life. Fortunately, the US Attorney did not deem it a credible case and did not prosecute.

This is only one example of the crushing bureaucracy that the federal government has placed on us. There are such examples as declaring a farmer’s field unworkable because a mouse lives there or a forest cannot be logged because an owl has taken up residence ten miles away. The worst case for the United States is banning oil exploitation in that massive wasteland called ANWR. If you have seen photos of this barren frozen desert you would be as aghast as I am.

Our current Democrat-controlled Congress is crushing the very livelihood out of our country. Please do not mistake my ire as to be aimed only at Democrats. There are plenty of Republicans out there who are complicit in this crush. We are at a point where we are going to finish sliding all the way down that slippery slope into a totally socialistic society where the government controls every facet of our lives, or we are going to take it back and re-take our position as the world leader in innovation and entrepreneurship. It is time we stop living with our hands out for our daily pittance and take responsibility for our own actions and living. It is time for the federal government to discontinue its evolvement into what Lenin made of Russia. It is time to return to the ideals of conservation of the US Constitution.

As always, I welcome your questions/discussion.

Dan

Friends,
One of my readers has sent the following for posting. I am doing so without comment except to say that it is well thought out and expressed.
Dan

Why I must vote for John McCain

I want to start this off from the beginning. I had never planned on voting for John McCain. Matter of fact I told many friends that if John McCain won the nomination I would switch to the Independent party. Now that was quite shock for my friends considering one of my favorite sayings is, “An Independent is someone who can’t make a decision.”

I started with supporting Mike Huckabee. Later I realized that his views and mine weren’t quite inline, but I was willing to overlook it since there was no other candidate that came as close. I ended my Primary journey supporting Alan Keyes. To this day I believe he is the best candidate for America.

Then the bad news struck. John McCain won the Primary. I was extremely disappointed and decided I was going to vote for Alan Keyes anyway.
However, I decided I would pull a Benjamin Franklin and get a piece of paper and write down the pros and cons for voting for John McCain. The cons filled up fast, but there was one glaring pro that caught my eye and made me think. Supreme Court Judges!

Most likely, over the next four years, a handful of liberal judges will be retiring. Who will take their place? Well, if Obama gets elected I have a pretty good idea, liberal judges. If John McCain wins, at least there is would be a chance for more constructionist judges.

Most people today think that the war on terror is the main issue.
Perhaps that issue is neck-and-neck with the economy. Some people believe that gay marriage is at the top of the list. But I believe that Supreme Court Judges are the main issue. Why? Since the start of our country, but even more in the last 40 years, Supreme Court Judges have been writing law with their decisions. Over the next four years (and most likely even longer) a judge will determine whether we even fight the war on terror, how we will fight the war on terror and to some degree when we fight. A judge will determine whether the states are separate governments or simply a map point made available so google maps will work easier. Now don’t get me wrong, I do not think judges should have that kind of power, but since the American people have allowed them to have it, I want judges who will use that power sparingly.

For those who plan on sitting out this election out or who just can’t seem to bring themselves to vote for McCain I completely understand, but I would like to plea with you to think about this. Can we really afford 30 more years of liberal Supreme Court Judges?


--
Shawn Mullen

Friends,
Since I started these postings, I have never hidden the fact that I am a strong supporter of Congressman Lamborn. His campaign has asked me to forward the following. The only comment I will make regarding the blog contained within is that I have met Mr. Crater and am familiar with the Wilberforce Center. I have found Mr. Crater to be a highly intelligent individual who fully understands and espouses Conservative Values. You are invited to consider this posting.
Dan

Subject: The Transparency of Congressman Doug Lamborn

In the Interest of Full Transparency...

In the interest of full transparency Congressman Doug Lamborn has released his funding requests. http://lamborn.house.gov/issues click on FY2009 Funding Requests

"There are only 110 lawmakers in the House and Senate who either don't request any earmarks or disclose their earmark requests." - Steve Ellis, Vice President of Taxpayers for Common Sense

Taxpayers for Common Sense is a nonpartisan group that demands and promotes fiscal responsibility and government accountability. They vigorously watch for and report on earmarks.

Congressman Lamborn's funding requests simply divert existing funds in the defense budget to areas with higher priority and away from failing or stagnant projects. This does not raise overall spending.

The Congressman has repeatedly been acknowledged and praised for his fiscally responsible and conservative actions.
Among these acknowledgments are:

- The "Taxpayers' Friend Award" from the National Taxpayers Union.
- A 100% anti-pork rating from the Club for Growth.
- A 100% rating from the American Conservative Union.
- A 100% pro-growth rating from the Club for Growth.

In fact, National Journal has ranked Congressman Lamborn as one of the top eight most conservative members of Congress.
______________________________________________________________________________
Here is a blog entry we found interesting and informative.
We thought you might want to read it.
Defend Doug
By Dave CraterJune 8th, 2008
http://backboneamerica.net/2008/06/08/1017/
“If You Care About Taxes, Spending, and Earmarks, Defend Doug”
It’s Republican primary time, when ambitions, conservative promises, and Reagan invocations are in full flower. And the only way to tell real conservative defenders from perennial conservative pretenders is to examine their records..

Let’s start with the record of incumbent congressman Doug Lamborn of Colorado’s Fifth Congressional District. Mr. Lamborn is finishing his first term in Congress and in that time, according to Congressional Quarterly, he voted against the Democrat agenda in Congress more than any other Republican (“CQPolitics.com Candidate Watch,” Congressional Quarterly, Aug. 10, 2007). This includes social, economic, and fiscal votes.

Mr. Lamborn was also one of five members of Congress – that’s five out of 535, and only three of the 435 members of the U.S. House – that the nation’s leading fiscal conservative group, Club for Growth, has given a rating of 100% for 2007. Club for Growth tracked votes on a range of tax, fiscal, and regulatory issues in the last Congress and determined that Mr. Lamborn voted correctly every time. See the entire 2007 Club for Growth scorecard here:
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2008/05/the_2007_congressional_scoreca.php

This is no new pattern. Over the twelve years he was a member of the Colorado legislature, Mr. Lamborn consistently led both the Colorado House and the Colorado Senate with his record of opposition to big-government spending, pork projects (these days fashionably referred to as “earmarks”), and tax increases.

With this kind of record, it is striking that Mr. Lamborn has a Republican primary opponent, Jeff Crank, attempting to criticize him on his fiscal record. It is well-known that, in justifying his own candidacy against a man who for a decade and a half has consistently defended all the things Mr. Crank claims to believe in, Mr. Crank has settled on one fundamental, earth-moving issue that gets the blood boiling of every principled Republican everywhere: franking expenditures.
That’s right, franking expenditures.

The franking privilege dates to the founding of the United States and covers expenses members of Congress incur in sending mail to their constituents. The purpose is obvious: communication between congresspeople and their constituents is a good thing. Clearly, this privilege like any legitimate privilege can be abused, so there are processes in place in Congress by which all franked mailings must be approved. Mr. Lamborn is a first-term congressman whose constituents need to get to know him and what he is doing on their behalf – again, this is not empty campaign-speak, but a rationale endorsed by the framers of American government – and all his mailings have been approved by congressional leadership. All such mail, moreover, is paid for out of a congressman’s official budget; what he does not spend on constituent communications he is fully authorized to spend on other things, and what he spends on constituent communications is not available for other things.

The use of this kind of issue against someone with the fiscal record of Mr. Lamborn says more about Mr. Crank than it does about the Congressman: from the standpoint of conservative policy, there simply is nothing more substantial on which Mr. Lamborn can be criticized.
Mr. Crank raised the franking issue most recently in a May 30 opinion column in the Colorado Springs Gazette, where he also offered glowing promises to, if elected, “rock the boat” of the Washington establishment, eliminate earmarks, eliminate the federal departments of Education, Commerce, and Energy, and cut federal spending by 20%.

Aside from the fact that even Ronald Reagan was not able to accomplish such heroic feats, if Mr. Crank were sincere in these convictions, he would be supporting Mr. Lamborn for Congress rather than running against him.

No Republican in the last two years, and very few Republicans in Colorado in the last half century, have more consistently, philosophically, and courageously opposed Washington (and Denver) excesses than has Doug Lamborn. It is the lack of people in Washington like Mr. Lamborn, and the interest of too many self-proclaimed conservatives in running against them, that is at the heart of the very Washington excess Mr. Crank now decries. It is also at the heart of the national Republican malaise that is quickly heading the GOP toward an electoral cataclysm in November.

Mr. Crank waxes poetic against earmarks. Again, if this conviction were superior to his personal ambition, Mr. Crank would be supporting Mr. Lamborn. Here are all Mr. Lamborn’s funding requests for fiscal year 2009, a list the Lamborn office has made public. All directly relate to defense spending, a core purpose of government, all Mr. Lamborn has offset in the budget by equivalent cuts in other programs so that there is no net increase in the federal budget, and all ironically recall Mr. Crank’s criticism of Mr. Lamborn during the 2006 campaign for allegedly not being as strong as Mr. Crank on defense:

Land Acquisition for Peterson Air Force Base
Missile Defense Integration and Operations Center
ACES 5 Ejection Seat
Expeditionary Alternative Power Generator
Radiation-Hardened Memory Technology
Digital Engine Technology
Military Information Management Software
Space and Electronic Warfare Analysis Tools
High Altitude, Long Endurance Communications and Surveillance System
Improved Ground Access to Peterson AFB
Improvements to Ft. Carson Gates 5 & 6

With requests like these, and with Mr. Lamborn now occupying a seat on the House Armed Services Committee, it is no wonder the defense criticisms have given way in Mr. Crank’s rhetoric to complaints about franking. As with his fiscal record, Mr. Lamborn’s history at the state level on issues of national security and defense was as impeccable as his federal record has now become.

As a side note, if Mr. Crank should criticize Mr. Lamborn for the above funding requests and call them “earmarks” as if they were pet pork projects, Mr. Crank should explain why as a lobbyist on behalf of a defense company in 2005 he requested, according to public lobbying records, “increased spending for the HH-6OL program” in defense authorization bills. The name of Mr. Crank’s lobbying company was Rocky Mountain Government Relations, and the HH-6OL is the Blackhawk medical evacuation helicopter now in use in the Army and National Guard. Earmark, or legitimate modernization of the armed forces that defend us and that are such central issues in the Fifth Congressional District?

In addition to franking, Mr. Crank can regularly be heard calling for better “leadership” in Washington, presumably implying that Mr. Lamborn’s leadership is somehow defective. For starters, here is a short summary of Mr. Lamborn’s legislative resume, a kind of resume of which Mr. Crank has not the beginning: Colorado House of Representatives, 1995; House Republican Whip, 1997; Colorado Senate, 1998; Senate President Pro-Tem, 1999; U.S. Congress, 2006; U.S. House Armed Services Committee, 2007. Mr. Lamborn is also a member of two other U.S. House committees.

Moreover, here is a quotation from a letter written to Mr. Lamborn last week by the Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Crank’s former employer, concerning Mr. Lamborn’s funding requests. The letter is dated May 28, 2008 and is signed by the Chamber’s CEO.
“Your policy of only making requests that promote our nation’s defense, as well as providing full disclosure on these projects reflects not only their legitimacy, but also their important role in improving our nation’s defenses…It is with great pleasure that we offer our support, on behalf of the Greater Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce, for not only the appropriations you’ve requested, but also the manner in which you have done so. In a time where real transparency is lacking in Washington, your actions provide a refreshing change of pace.”
Sound suspiciously like leadership?

It should be noted clearly what many noted during the 2006 primary contest between Mr. Lamborn and Mr. Crank. Nobody doubts that Mr. Crank maintains a coherent conservative philosophy of government and a genuine desire to serve his country. Given Mr. Lamborn’s stellar record at both the state and federal levels, what is in doubt is Mr. Crank’s ability to subordinate his ambition to his desire to see the things he believes implemented in government. There simply is no improvement he could possibly make to the record of Mr. Lamborn, and plenty of ways he would not likely match Mr. Lamborn; indeed, at least according to the Club for Growth, there are only a handful even among current members of Congress who are in Mr. Lamborn’s league.

There is only one wise route for Fifth Congressional District Republicans on the ground to follow this August: ignore empty criticisms and empty promises, and say a prayer of thanks that in this age of messianic Democrats and the empty-headed crowds who love them, Colorado and Colorado Springs have a congressman with the kind of real wisdom, real mettle, and real leadership that will far outlast the latest political fad and the latest self-promoting Republican challenger.

The author can be reached at crater@wilberforcecenter.org

The Farm Bill

Friends,
Yesterday, our Senator from Colorado, Ken Salazar, once again got it wrong. He said, “President Bush’s veto of the farm bill is an insult to rural America and would hurt all those who benefit from the food our farmers provide.”

To paraphrase Shakespeare, “Pork by any other name would smell just as foul.” America’s farmers can hardly get any more crops into the ground and they are reaping huge profits off those crops, and they deserve every penny. A farmer’s life is hard; they deserve the profit they earn.

However, I see no reason for the massive subsidies promised every year, in some cases, subsidies to NOT plant. According to the Associated Press, $40 billion is to go to farmers for subsidies, $30 billion is to also go to farmers to NOT plant, and the rest goes to nutrition programs such as food stamps, etc. As I understand it, this is the government’s way of regulating how much of what crop is made available. What happened to the governance of the marketplace, and the law of supply and demand? The federal government has been manipulating the agricultural market for decades. It is time they stop!

We are looking at a $290 BILLION tax on the American public. We are being taxed into the ground as it is and the concept of paying one segment of our workforce to do the job (or not do the job) they have chosen is ludicrous. The farmers are working for the consumer, just as the plumber or the carpenter. I have yet to see any subsidies for plumbers and carpenters to NOT go to work. That would be called welfare.

I fully understand that there is a segment of our society that needs a hand up. Some school children must have subsidized breakfasts and lunches or they will go hungry. The question is why parents are not held accountable for this lack of care? Where are the mandatory education and/or training programs for those who cannot care for their children? Do not misunderstand me; I know that there are some who are not physically or mentally able to accomplish this. These folks need whatever assistance they can get. But isn’t that a state concern? Where in the Constitution is this type of aid authorized?

I have written our Congressman and two Senators to urge them to vote against this pork.

As always, I welcome your comments/discussion.
Dan

Illegal Aliens and the War Supplemental Bill for 2008

Friends,
Below is a copy of a letter I have just sent to Senators Allard and Salazar:
Senator,
It has been brought to my attention that Senator Feinstein has successfully attached an amendment to the War Supplemental Bill for 2008 that would give legal status to an estimated 1.35 million illegal aliens working in agriculture. I have also been informed that this bill is to be voted upon in the Senate in the next few days.
I strongly urge you to vote against this bill and work for its defeat. Illegal aliens are, by definition, law-breakers who have proven that they have no respect for the laws of our country.
There is an alternative to having illegals working in agricultural jobs. That is to have an established “guest worker” program such as that proposed by Marsha Looper in the Colorado State House. Using this approach, we would know who is coming in to work, where they will be working, and when they will leave. If they come in on a permanent work visa, we will still know who they are, where they are working and their exact status.
Why should illegals be given preferential status over those who stand in line and have respect for our laws?
Sincerely
Daniel C. Lanotte
Falcon, Colorado

S. 2433, the Global Poverty Act of 2007

Friends,
The US Senate is getting ready to vote on S.2433, the Global Poverty Act of 2007. This bill, introduced by Senator Obama, is just one more piece of legislation that the Liberals want to use to promote their “One World Order.” The wording of the bill as printed on Senator Obama’s website is:

"U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL), Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) have introduced the Global Poverty Act (S.2433), which requires the President to develop and implement a comprehensive policy to cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief, and coordination with the international community, businesses and NGOs. Representatives Adam Smith (D-WA) and Spencer Bachus (R-AL) sponsored the House version of the bill (H.R. 1302), which passed the House in September." http://obama.senate.gov/press/071211-obama_hagel_can/
As a further example of the intent of this bill, the following is also copied from the source above:

"America needs to do more to help the 1.1 billion men, women and children throughout the world living on less than $1 a day by helping promote sustainable economic growth and development," said Senator Cantwell. "We need to do more to save lives in the poorest countries. The U.S. needs to implement a real plan to combat poverty on a global scale while also addressing the national security risks extreme poverty creates."

The goal is to work toward the implementation of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/ . If this legislation passes, it would obligate this country to billions of dollars for world welfare. This clearly goes against the principles of the Founding Fathers.

This has been, from its inception, a country based on the principle of each individual working for and achieving goals based on the sweat of the brow. For this country to take on the responsibility and financial burden of over 1 billion souls would drive us so far under the financial curve as to permanently bankrupt us. The Liberals of Congress have, for the past 75 years, worked to turn this country into a totally dependent entitlement society. The Soviets finally realized that type of society does not work and they collapsed for trying. Now, our Liberal-led Congress under the tutelage of House Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid want to contribute to turning the rest of humanity into a completely dependent entitlement world.

When I first found out about this bill, I contacted Senator Salazar (D-CO) to urge him to work to defeat this bad piece of legislation. He sent this response:

"As you know, S.2433 would direct the Secretary of State to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the U.S. foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the United Nations Millennium Development Goal.S.2433 currently awaits action in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, of which I am not a member. However, please rest assured that I am fully committed to combating poverty, disease, and hunger around the world, and that I will consider S.2243 with that commitment in mind should it come to the full Senate for consideration."

Senator Salazar is playing very loose and free with your and my money, with the intent of sending it around the world. It was always obvious that Senator Salazar was sucking on Ted Kennedy’s Kool-Aid, but this time he has really gone too far. I urge all of my readers to contact their respective Senators to urge that they work to defeat this really bad piece of legislation.

As always, I welcome your comments/discussion.

Dan

Energy (Part 2)

Friends,
As promised in my last posting, I am going to continue with my discussion on energy, even though I started the last one with Rocky’s shopping trip.

When I wrote the last posting about the grocery bill, ethanol, etc., I had no idea that it would find its way to ColoradoPols.com. WOW! I really generated some discussion. There were comments from both ends of the spectrum. One individual, who was extremely critical as well as rude, inadvertently provided me with some very good data. To that individual, I say “Thank You.” He showed a pie chart from DOE that shows only 1.6% of our electricity is generated by using petroleum. I stand corrected.

The chart also shows that only 19.4% is generated by nuclear power. I think that this is one place we could make major improvements. The Europeans have broken the code on nuclear power. One of the main concerns about nuclear power is what do you do with the used fuel rods? The Europeans do not have the bureaucratic problems we have. They reprocess the spent fuel rods to get more use out of them. We, by law, are not allowed to do that. Instead, we have a huge cavern in Nevada to take them to (of course, the citizens of Nevada are really happy with this concept). Instead of processing the real waste down into a pint can, we have to bury the entire rod. What a waste!

I have to assume that “Other Renewables” (2.4%) on the pie chart is referring to solar and wind. That is a pathetic number. When I was stationed in Alameda, CA, I can remember driving east out of the Bay area and going past a huge windmill farm. All of the wind mills were turning and making electricity. After I returned to the Springs I heard that the environmentalists made the power company shut them down because the birds were flying into the blades. OK, boys and girls, which way is it going to be? You cannot have it both ways. I think this example is sad in the extreme. The good part about wind and solar in today’s technology is that great strides are being made in solar collectors, storage capability, and wind mill technology. The price is coming down and the availability/choices are going up.

Now, getting back to the topic I started with last week; we are in love with our automobiles and use an appropriate amount of gas and diesel to feed that love. We are shocked at the pump when we fill up. It takes me almost $20 to fill my motorcycle and over $100 to fill my truck. Nobody will be able to convince me that the answer to the gas crisis is ethanol. Contrary to what some of the respondents on ColoradoPols.com think, I am not that stupid. I have read reports that say ethanol burns dirty, it takes an inordinate amount of fuel just to manufacture it, and it eats up arable land, driving up food prices. I do not see anything smart in this lineup.

There is an unlimited supply of hydrogen on this planet. Even if we tried, we could not use it up. With all the talk about conservation where is the effort to develop a reliable, cost effective method of producing, storing and using hydrogen for the internal combustion engine, or some other technology. There has been a lot of research done on the fuel cell that converts hydrogen into electricity as it passes through a membrane. This is one of the outgrowths of the space industry. For commercial use, the technology is still immature, but some very smart people got this far; who is to say they will not make the breakthrough necessary to make it commercially feasible?

We have been crying about energy shortages for the last 40 years (almost) and yet, comparatively little has been done. Now we are faced with $4+ gasoline, and food prices that are skyrocketing because it is more important to plant corn for ethanol. To me, that borders on stupid, or greedy, or both. I certainly do not blame the farmers. In our competitive free market system, they are doing what they have to do in order to maximize their profits. The ones I blame are the bureaucrats and, yes, the eco-terrorists who are more concerned with protecting their income or their “movement” than seeking real solutions for real problems. It is high time that the smart people step up to the plate and say “enough is enough.” The bureaucrats are not the ones to do it. It is the scientists and engineers and their bosses in industry that will see this thing through.

As always, I welcome your comments/discussions
Dan