THE MOUNTAIN OBSERVER

Vol. 4                                       Issue 3                                    April 1, 2004              

A FREEWHEELING CONSERVATIVE COMMENTARY DEDICATED TO THE DEFENSE OF FREEDOM,THE NEXT GENERATION, AND THE WAY THINGS OUGHT TO BE.   TO UNDERSTAND THIS NEWSLETTER, IT IS NECESSARY THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO READ AND TO THINK.

            Produced occasionally when I decide to do it, but at least 6 times a year.                                                                                            J. E. Sohmer, P. O. Box 129, Jefferson, CO 80456

Flyover country, where the air is thin and the hunting and fishing are good.

***************************************************************************

SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."                             (It's not about hunting ducks.)

On “The Passion of the Christ”: Pope John Paul II - “It is as it was”.   This movie is about the greatest love story ever told.   Those who think it anti-Semitic either don’t, or won’t, “get it”.   We are all in Mel Gibson’s debt, many times over.  Thank you Mel, and may God bless you.                           

Blowing off steam:

One of the reasons a lot of people hate politics is that it takes a lot of time and effort to understand what most politicians are actually saying, or not saying.  One of the biggest problems that Democrats are having with George Bush is that he picks his words very carefully, and those who support him believe he means exactly what he says.  That does not fit the popular template that Liberals assume of politicians.   George Bush is not OJ Billyboy, a fact that Liberals do not understand, and, in fact, reveals much about the absence of [a Liberal] intellectual compass.   Over the years Liberals have tended to get increasingly sloppy with their words and thoughts as their world of moral and intellectual relativism continues to collapse.   This Letter has serious policy differences with the President on a number of issues, but has never had reason to doubt the man’s personal integrity or sincerity.   On the Republican side, one of their biggest problems lies with what they don’t say, having been cowered for years by natural instincts of politeness, and in more recent years by political correctness.  This Republican political defect is beginning to show signs of correction, largely in Conservative circles.   The issue of “gay marriage” may finally prove to be the fulcrum of actual rebellion, and sadly, actual division of the country. 

Aside from the fact that the Administration never claimed that Iraq was a “certifiable imminent threat” why should it have been necessary to proceed as we did?   Because, as the President very clearly, and correctly, stated, the threat to the United States, on several levels, was emerging and real, and could not be specifically assessed with respect to the immediacy of danger.  Specifically with respect to the issue of WMD, we moved ahead on the basis of intelligence documentation that a serious WMD capacity had existed, still existed and had possibly been distributed into the possession of highly motivated Islamists.    Irrespective of the details  of intelligence estimates, the direction Saddam’s regime was taking was very clear.  Today, the pre-war assessments continue to make sense in context, Saddam’s regime no longer exists, and we are slowly wadding through literally tons of additional captured evidence, including general collaboration with al Qaeda.  On September 11. 2001, the United States was attacked directly, with serious casualties, by Middle Eastern terrorists.  This was not a criminal act, but an act of war.  Those who attempt to de-link Saddam Hussein from what happened on September 11 are thinking like international defense attorneys, and in the case of some alleged friends overseas, like someone with financial interests at stake.   In the absence of Iraqi cooperation with international efforts and numerous UN mandates following the 1991 conflict, but more pointedly in the context of the threat of additional Islamist acts of war against the United States, the President had no other responsible choice than to direct the actions that were taken.  He repeatedly, and correctly, made clear that to take no action would not only continue to further elevate Islamist adventures against us, but would provide further time and cover to extend the level of damage capacity.  The nature of intelligence is that the information available is never complete, totally reliable or stable, and rarely meets the definition of evidence acceptable in the court room.   It is on this basis that field commanders, and Presidents, must make decisions.  Dithering with the United Nations for a year gave Saddam ample opportunity to hide evidence, but eventually, President George W. Bush acted correctly.    National leaders need to engage in statecraft.  Judges belong in courtrooms.    The United Nations needs to be confined   to the distribution of porta-potties, and Liberals need to be kept out of national office.

In 1941 it took 48 hours for the United States to unite with a Declaration of War against the Japs for an attack against the mid-ocean territory of Hawaii.   Today, over 2 years since the events of September 11, 2001, we are   in the midst of a national political debate about how, or even whether, any response at all should have been made in the wake of a direct attack on the American east coast.   The ‘60’s peacenik crowd effort to sever Iraq from the September attack is pathetic to watch.    Was Saddam directly involved in the 09/11 attacks?  A direct link has never been established, and was never claimed by the Administration.  What was claimed, correctly, was that the Iraqi regime had a relationship of convenience with a variety of fundamentalist Islamist terror groups throughout the Middle East, and beyond, including the supply of equipment, funding and training.  That this process had been ongoing, was continuing to mature, and could reasonably be expected to become more lethal    is beyond question.  It is more than clear that this entire threat package was, and continues to be, deployed against the USA, Israel, and Europe, although some in Europe seem not yet to understand, or wish to understand, the discussion; follow the money trail.   Iraq, under Saddam, was a keystone in this Islamist arrangement.  Others remain, and will require appropriate attention, tailored individually.   With the exception of some disturbing Wilsonian impulses, the President has been exactly correct in his actions.  It is interesting to observe the almost perfect correlation between those of our “allies” who objected, and who were documented “on the take” with contracts with Saddam, including, but not limited to, the so-called Oil for Food program under the administration of Kofi Annan.  Very little of the money collected by the United Nations found its way back to ordinary Iraqis as food and medicine, the stated intention of the program, but rather was used to fund palaces and torture chambers.   The UN, France, Germany, Russia and others were “on the take”.  This is not a “right wing conspiracy theory”, but a documented fact.   I find the fact that so many Americans seem to have fallen for the Left Wing rhetoric on this matter highly disturbing, but not surprising.  The cultural destruction caused by the ‘60’s generation continues apace.   Those who object to the War on Terror would prefer to hide their heads under a pillow with a teddy bear and tell fibs to themselves.   Those who continue to suggest that this is all about oil don’t seem to realize that if that were the case, we could just simply take it.  There are contingences where that might be the recommended policy, but it is not now in the cards. 

No, children, this is all about national defense in an era of ICBMs, unaccounted suitcase nukes, millions of shipping containers, open borders, willing Muslim martyrs, some very nasty chemical and biological agents, selfish Liberals and preserving your right to make complete fools of yourselves.   Better to take them on now in the sand pile of the Middle East than tomorrow in Central Park.

Spain just took a big hit from terrorists under circumstances not entirely clear as this is written.  In this regard they deserve our complete sympathy and concern.  Their electoral reaction three days later, however, was unfortunate, as the results rewarded the tormentors.   Irrespective of the degree of actual direct involvement  by Wahhabi oriented terrorists, at the very least the bad guys have been handed a model with which to proceed against the weak kneed elsewhere, all the more reason for America to stand firm.  A real understanding by American critics of what we actually found ourselves up against on September 11, 2001, cannot happen too soon.

American voters this Fall really need to think this through.  Which of our two candidates would Osama prefer?

Sheik Ahmed Yassin, “spiritual leader” and terrorist leader of Hamas, assumed room temperature instantly, together with 7 colleagues, when his wheelchair took a direct hit from an Israeli helicopter gunship.  Excellent marksmanship and the Israeli crew are to be applauded.  Will Arafat hide behind his sofa?  I am reminded of the times, when as kids, we used to shoot rats in the dump.  Does this raise the risk of increased terrorism against us?   No, it illuminates the risks and dangers, already present, that have been unfolding for years.  To cower in fear before this vermin is to extend to them the victory they wish.  The primary problem in this part of the world is not between Israelis and Palestinians, but between Palestinians and their own corrupt leadership.  George W. Bush cannot fix that; Arabs must, or leave it to Ariel Sharon and Israeli helicopter gunships.

The term “neocon” has been applied so reflexively and so often, by some, that it is losing definition, except that to hardcore Buchananites one suspects it is code for “Jew”, unkindly intended.   In this context, “neocon” used   as a pejorative, is not constructive in advancing a useful policy discussion.   Presumably, only neocons (“Jews”) support the President’s policies in Iraq and the War on Terror, a thesis so absurd that it marginalizes its authors, raises questions about their self proclaimed Conservative credentials, and suggests an agenda inconsistent with the priority of American national security, or the survival of Israel, which ought to be a Conservative issue.   Assorted mis-fits in conservative “drag” are not helpful and otherwise alleged “conservatives”, including Greek playboys, who fail to acknowledge genuine threats to the security of  this  nation invite others to consider their motives.   A closer look at this curious phenomena is on my “to do” list.

Without equivocation, The Mountain Observer is a 100% supporter of Vice President Richard Cheney’s general views on the Middle East, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s efforts to reform the Department of Defense and his efforts to advance our Special Operations capabilities.  My problems with the Administration lie elsewhere, principally with respect to trade deficit policies, federal spending and immigration.   I will consider the possibility that, in 2008, the right guy for the top job might be Tom Tancredo, U.S. Representative from Colorado.  Tijuana is closer to our border than Baghdad.

Speaking of selfish Liberals, the State of Massachusetts has come face to face with the consequences of equivocation over the years on the matter of tolerance, in the name of “diversity”, with the public agenda of Queers.  Let’s put it right on the table.  What you choose to do in your bedroom, with the shades drawn, is your problem with God, but that is where it ends.   John Marshall, meet Barney Frank.  If it has become acceptable for the Massachusetts Court to declare that Queer “marriage” is to be legally recognized, then why, at the same time, does the Court find it necessary to order the Massachusetts Legislature to create a law that says so?    Does anybody out there, besides myself, have a problem understanding this legal rationale?  The problem today, of course, is not really with John Marshall, but with a muddle headed electorate, which empowers the muddle headed politicians they elect and the elevation of political correctness as a substitute for the wisdom of the ages.  Now under the Constitution of the United States, the State of Massachusetts has every right to do what it will, and to allow its own Courts to run the State if the electorate is so stupid.  But to allow this to happen at the legal, political and cultural expense of other states and the rest of the nation, is not acceptable to most Americans.  Specifically, with regard to this matter, the Full Faith and Credit clause must be excepted.   Given the apparent illiteracy of many American judges there is no longer any acceptable excuse for further delay in proceeding with a national Constitutional Amendment to define marriage consistent with the wisdom of the ages; those who drag their feet on this issue are making themselves out to be part of the problem.   We are too close to allowing ourselves to be ruled by perverts, judicial or otherwise, and it is time to call a spade a spade.   The cancer of “diversity” is out of control.  Meanwhile, certain American mayors, all self-absorbed Democrats, are peddling “marriage certificates”, of dubious legality, to same sex “applicants”.  Going into a serious political year, this would seem to be a dubious marketing strategy for Democrats.   As a Conservative, I say the more headlines,   the better.  It will be interesting to watch John Kerry squirm.  Meanwhile, it is curious that the Governor of Massachusetts, and the State Legislature, have all become so feminized that there seems to be no one in Massachusetts with enough testosterone to stand up and simply tell their own Court to buzz off.  The Courts instruct us only because we allow it to happen; a day of open confrontation is overdue.

In my original letter in this series, dated 11/20/00, I proposed the constitutionality of policies of negation, in which at some length I suggested that the President or Congress affirmatively assert themselves against court decisions which are determined to be clearly illegal and/or un-constitutional by the President or Congress.  Go back and read the details of what I said then.  (This will be easier when the website is up and running).  Basically I am saying that, as the culture war continues to unfold, as it will, the time will come when there will be plurality support for sending the 1803 decision back to the drawing board, which may include sending a few judges to Guam.  Meanwhile, if the Massachusetts Legislature has any sense of responsibility left, it would tell the Massachusetts Supreme Court to take a hike.   The substance of the issue at hand is irrelevant.   In my America,  Courts do not instruct American Legislatures as to what laws to write.  These son-of-a-bitch judges need to be  put in their place.  Thank you John Marshall, although I doubt that he ever intended, or foresaw, the consequences of his decision.

As this edition is being “locked up”, one Richard Clarke, a failed hold-over from OJ Billyboy days, is publicly telling tales 180 degrees out of honk with his previously documented statements about the Bush  Administration’s policies and actions vis-a-vie terrorism.  Neither does his testimony square with what happened.  See my next letter.

Corrections:

There have been a couple times in the past when I have indicated my support for cutting payroll taxes, motivated by the same enthusiasm that I have for cutting and/or eliminating any personal tax imposed by the Federal Government.  Upon reflection, I think any cut in payroll taxes needs to be hard linked to the real reform, or elimination, of the specific programs the tax is alleged to support.  The problem here is that to simply cut payroll taxes, without qualification, is, in effect, a tax hike on those paying income taxes, who would have to pick up the slack.   The subtle moral degeneracy of a progressive income tax code is of interest to a minority constituency, but I like to believe that I know the difference between right and wrong.

Bush Score Card:

            Excellent:

You’ve come out forcefully for a Constitutional Amendment to properly define marriage.  Now you need to follow through with Congress and insist on some timely and proper results.  Then, of course, there will be the problem of getting hetrophobic judges to read it.  Perhaps an affirmative action program for judicial literacy would be in order.

You’ve announced the formation of an Intelligence Commission to investigate all dimensions of American Intelligence performance, presumably from about 1960 forward.  You have asked for a report by 03/31/05.  The timing, and the announced membership of this group, should assure that the focus will be on a constructive assessment of our intelligence problems, and not election year politics.  This is exactly as it ought to be, recently minted Liberal Hawks notwithstanding.  I would like to believe that most Americans will see through the efforts of Democrats, already begun, to frame it otherwise.  Most people informed on these matters recognize the origins of our current problems reaching back at least as far as Vietnam, which should make certain folks nervous.

Than you for giving us William Pryor.  You still have a few more to go.

Thank you for supporting the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, defending the rights of those still in the womb.

Not So Good:

What in the world are we doing in Haiti?  There is nothing about Haiti that represents a threat to our national security.  This is pure OJ Billyboy.   This is pure Wilsonianism.  Get us the hell out of there.

If Haiti is a problem for anybody but themselves and Charles Rangel, it is an issue for the French.

The spending continues, and the electorate gets more addicted every day.

Terrible--or even worse:

The trade deficit gets worse and worse.  Specifically, what is your plan to deal with it?  This issue, together with the Mexican border, specifically is the biggest single blind spot you, and Republicans generally, have.  The truth is that these issues are not being worked at all.   Libertarians like Larry Kudlow and the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal do not have the answer, and you are being snookered by Vicente Fox.  This Fall, you may very well get your head handed to you on both these issues, sadly by people who will only make things even worse.  One helluva choice.

Wall Street & Main Street:

Those who continue to claim that the way to solve an alleged labor shortage is to encourage the importation of cheap illegal foreign (non-citizen) labor are somehow encouraged by a school of economics I do not understand.   If, in fact, some segment of the economy is failing to attract sufficient numbers of qualified applicants, then the right course of action in a defined free market is to offer better compensation.  This is what it takes to attract more, and better qualified, candidates.  This puts the employer in a better position to screen for quality, demand performance and realize the savings of a more stable and loyal workforce.  If competitive pressures are such as to foreclose this approach, then perhaps the signal is that you are in a lousy, and over saturated, business environment to begin with.  You cannot have it both ways.  A truly free market economy, by definition, includes the pricing of truly free labor.  That is what the 13^th Amendment was all about.   Slavery, union extortion and anti-competitive practices by corporations all have in common the willful subversion of free markets.  Next time you hear somebody mouthing off about “free markets”, go examine the money trail.  The Bush proposals on immigration flunk the test.  There is nothing Conservative about those who equivocate about secure borders.   There is nothing Conservative about those who equivocate about trade that is not truly free.  The Mountain Observer is a staunch advocate of trade that is legal and competitive, in the nation’s security interest and truly free.

Free trade is a concomitant of a free market, for which the only alternative is socialism and central planning.  Sorry Dems, there is no “Third Way”.   The problem we have today, as a nation, is that what is being sold as “free trade” is too frequently a cover for special interest power struggles on both sides of the discussion.  Sadly, there are few folks with a stake in this discussion who give a hoot about actual free trade.  The existentialist culture of “me, first, last and only” has taken a heavy toll.  In the context of the current political season and economic climate a few facts need to be considered:

1 ). American business, manufacturing and otherwise, continues to respond to over regulation and taxation in any way it can to cut costs, an entirely rational response under the rules of free market capitalism.   Managers are properly responsible first to stockholders, and no one has a “right” to a job.

2). Under the rules of free market capitalism, business pays no taxes.  Taxes, such as are assessed, are passed through and paid for by customers, ultimately at the retail level.  That is YOU, sucker.  Regulations aside, this tax burden, on consumers, is the biggest single drag on the economy.   A very rational competitive business response to the effect on prices of their product is to relocate manufacturing and service activities off shore.  Taxing business income for anything at the federal level is really, really dumb, specifically identifiable user costs excluded.

3). Regulations are another form of taxation, frequently the main purpose of which is to support the life style of Federal bureaucrats.  Federal regulations, such as are necessary to identify the boundaries of the field and the goal posts are necessary and proper.  Regulations imposed to accomplish an alleged social agenda are out of order, and are the main burden.  Follow the money trail far enough and you will generally discover lawyers at the end of the line collecting all the bucks.   A very rational competitive business response to the impact of regulations on their operations is to relocate manufacturing and service activities off shore.

4). In manufacturing operations, the cost of labor is typically a small percentage of the final product cost, and more often than not, is not the primary driving reason for sending work off shore.  It is a convenient excuse, as it frequently takes the spotlight off the real culprits, lawyers, regulators and tax collectors, who hold a gun to the head of ownership.   Comparing cheap foreign wages to American wages can be misleading, especially in manufacturing for this generally fails to take into account the vast differences of American productivity and the marginal increased overhead costs of conducting foreign operations.

5). unfortunately, there is one issue that influences business outsourcing/downsizing decisions that is a domestic national tragedy, and that is the state of American education and culture.   Business needs people who can read, write and do math, and who can be depended upon to show up at work on time and sober.  This has become an increasingly difficult problem, and a major incentive to replace people with computers and foreign workers.

6). If you are an American worker you must face these facts, and decide how best, personally, to respond.  If you think a union, or a pandering politician who justifies your distress with conspiracy theories, is going to fix your concerns, you are, my good fellow, a fool.   If you are going to fix your problem, you are going to do it yourself.  Make yourself more valuable and competitive in the marketplace.  Show up for work in the morning sober and on time.

7). In the political arena you can support reforms of the difficulties that harass business in general, or, on the other hand, subsidize business and union activities undermining free market competition.

a). Demand of politicians that we do not import, without adjustment, foreign goods and services that are subsidized by foreign governments.   It is not reasonable that you, or your boss, should have to compete against hard foreign government subsidy.

b). Stop federal tax dollar support of subsidies to business marketing and R&D.  There is a case to be made for the elimination of the Department of Commerce.

c). Demand of politicians that we come up with constructive measures to reduce the balance of payments problem, a broad and complex issue, without demagogueing the producers.   Everyone likes cheap consumer prices, but at the cost of jobs, national security and ownership of the nation?  Bilateral balance of payment “flywheels” need to be considered.

d). The best way to reverse “outsourcing”, and eliminate the balance of payments problem, would be to eliminate all corporate income taxes.  The results would be dramatic.

e). Demand a sober look at the regulatory burdens that drive business off-shore and your boss nuts.

However, it is unreasonable for you to expect simple job protection measures.   We have a problem with “outsourcing” and a negative balance of payments because of bad government policies, not because your boss is cruel and mean.  Class warfare, conspiracy theories and blaming the boss won’t work.   

“Punishment” of producers always backfires, which is exactly why so much work has gone overseas in recent years, or replaced by computers which don’t take vacations or call in sick.   Your acceptance of personal and public responsibility and civic sensibility is called for.   I have complete faith in the ability of legal American workers to compete toe-to-toe with anybody under truly free market conditions.  You might also consider going to work for yourself, and becoming your own boss.   Kiss your wife and hug your kids once a day. 

Meanwhile, the figures for both increased manufacturing activity and hiring, and general job creation throughout the economy, have moved up sharply in March.  Supply side economics works.

There are two sectors of the economy today where inflation remains rampant and out-of-control: Education and Medicine.  What they both have in common is that they are under the direct control of the Federal Government and depend heavily on enormous taxpayer subsidies.    Both thrive on the fact that Liberals are at their best at spending other people’s money.

The pedigree of US Airways includes a stable of busted eastern regional carriers, many with their own proud histories that, it would seem, all shared in common the inability to survive in the face of lower cost competition.   Further, in common, was a pedigree of employee union intransigence that not only discouraged the tenure of competent management, but guaranteed failure, step by step.   So it is, I predict, that US Airways, like its cultural sister Eastern Airlines, will soon bite the dust.  The absolute refusal of the Union Culture to deal with reality has always been a source of wonderment to me.  Perhaps it is an inevitable product of a mindset that always finds someone else to blame and a belief in entitlement to the efforts of others.  It is the purpose of free markets to isolate and expose such malignancies and consign them to the ash-heap of history.  What amazes me is that, for US Airways, it has taken so long.  Southwest Airlines, carry on.

Stunning news from Rochester, NY: Eastman Kodak has announced the end of marketing traditional film cameras in the United States, Canada and Western Europe.  The digital camera, and Japanese competitors, prevail.   I think George Eastman would understand, and only question why Kodak was not out front on this matter, rather than bringing up the rear.  As of today, Kodak has been kicked off the Dow 500 Index.

Ad Nausium:

Rush Limbaugh, who I first became acquainted with during the first Gulf War, and with whom I have frequently had differences, finally hit one right out of the park.  His program on February 24 was the best he’s ever done, in fact it was perfect.  The President had, that morning, announced his support for an Amendment banning gay marriage.  Rush launched on the whole subject of gays and marriage and it was a perfect performance.

Rush is not so perfect, in my opinion, on the issue of the 1^st Amendment.  He seems to be unable to distinguish between the intended function of the 1^st Amendment as a barrier to government interference with political speech, on the one hand, and its abuse by pornographers to flaunt indecency on the other hand.  In defending Howard Stern, Rush comes down on the Libertarian side, as opposed to the Conservative side of this discussion.  

The six nation dialog going on over North Korea’s nuclear program appears to be going well because everyone involved, each for their own reasons, has an immediate stake in cosmetic progress.  In diplomatic back-channels it is well understood that North Korea is stalling until the results of the American election are in this Fall.  The North Koreans, their own denials aside, would much prefer to deal with a Democrat Administration, a reflection of the ongoing price of a foreign policy legacy authored by OJ Billyboy, aka The Manchurian Candidate.

Similarly, the Teheran Times has openly endorsed a victory by Democrats this Fall.   Little things for Americans in the “mushy middle” to ponder on.   It is not hard to guess at the thoughts of Baathist remnants in Fallujah.

In the evolution of western culture, it is my opinion that there have been three technical developments that have secured, and continue to secure, freedom and republican democracy:

1.)    The invention of the printing press.

2.)    The invention and continued development of personal firearms.

3.)    The invention of the computer and the deployment of the internet.

What will destroy western culture is a turning away from God, and our Judeo-Christian heritage.  Is it too late?

February 8, 2004, was Ronald Reagan’s 93^rd birthday.  

The condition of higher education in this country has deteriorated so badly that it could be reasonably argued that the best reform policies would include a total tax defunding of all activities of the private institutions.  There is, of course, no constitutional authority for this government funding anyway.

Those anxious to vote for “anybody but Bush” are reflecting the total absence of core beliefs on the part of modern Liberals.  It is a totally negative rationale.   Democrats have a twin problem; they haven’t had a new idea in decades, and the premise of their ideology is built on the foundation of socialist Statism, now discredited many times over around the world, at the cost of millions of lives.  This makes for a tremendous party platform.

In a vacuum of substance, watch John Kerry melt into the philosophical soup of Howard Dean; they all have nothing left to do but engage in hate for George Bush, Conservatives, and God.  One hopes, however, that his meltdown does not occur before the end of July and the Convention in Boston, because Democrats do have an option that I do not wish to discuss.

Notice that in the age of George Soros, the name of Richard Mellon Scaife has disappeared from press commentary and Democrat fever attacks.  The deployment of personal wealth in behalf of personal political preferences is subject to a double standard.  Meanwhile, the Campaign Reform Act, which was supposed to “fix” this king of “problem”, is mocked by the facts of life regarding money in politics.  The damage to the First Amendment caused by gagging political advertising 60 days prior to an election remains in place, thanks to John McCain, George W. Bush and the Supreme Court.  The only way to reduce money in politics is to reduce the size of government

His GOP colleagues should make it abundantly clear to Connecticut Governor John Rowland that he needs to resign immediately.  His lack of judgment and moral perspective with respect to accepting perks and favors from staff and contractors is deplorable.  Certainly, this is not the kind of behavior by a public official that is, in any way, acceptable to Conservatives.

Notice that the East Coast Establishment swoons over what’s-his-name, Mayor of San Francisco, for his law breaking in behalf of perverts after the same bunch got all worked up about Judge Roy Moore in Alabama installing the Ten Commandments in his Court.  I really look forward to the day, after electing the right guy as President that we can all gather to sing “Dixie” at his inauguration.  It will take a younger generation to see what’s going on in this country to connect the dots and make this happen.

On the domestic security front, the underlying mistake that is being made, be it particular features of the Patriot Act, airport screening or control of the border, is the general structured distrust of American citizens.  This is a reflection of decades of an Elitist (Republicrat) Statist corporate mentality out of Washington, coupled with its offspring of politically correct affirmative action logic and “diversity”.  So it is that the default assumption of the new laws and regulations is that everyone must be considered equally guilty of something until proven innocent.  So it is that in this post-modernist kettle of soup, that law abiding citizens are disarmed, grandmothers have their knitting needles confiscated and federal agents are free to roam around your property, under the supervision of federal judges, of course.  If this has to happen, I would prefer the supervision of the Feds by the local Sheriff, an elected official.  Needless to say, there are legal citizens who could be bad guys, but then I would suggest that ordinary Americans, and their local officials, are generally pretty good at sniffing these things out, and know when to call for targeted help from appropriate state or federal levels.  A central government that does not trust its own citizenry will sooner or later find itself in trouble, especially if that central government is in the hands of those who actually prefer Socialism with the attendant cultural controls.   Someday, Hillary Rodham, or someone like her, will actually get back into the White House.  (Where did those FBI files ever wind up the last time around?)   Keep your powder dry.  Meanwhile, the amount of federal money being spent hunting down “box cutters” and toenail clippers are disgusting.  It would be cheaper, and more effective, to allow every American citizen not convicted of a crime, or without a documented record of any mental disorder, (most of us) to get on airplanes at least with a knife.  In addition, citizens, including cops, don’t all need to be running around scared to death of being charged with racial or ethnic profiling, especially when it is entirely called for.

Note to The Weekly Standard:  It would have been better appreciated if your reference to South Park on page 2  of your 01/12/04 issue had made note of the fact that the real South Park, where Jefferson CO and this letter are located and based, bears no resemblance to the Liberal TV farce.  I suppose I should have a sense of humor about it, but many of us up here in the real South Park never have.

Prediction:

The Heartland popularity of Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” will continue to stun our secular overlords.

Heartland rebellion update:

The Administration’ immigration proposals will not fly.  Neither will Liberal Secular Statism.  I am talking about issues that potentially could bust up the country in the long run.

CURRENT READING RECOMMENDATIONS

1.)  THE MAIN ENEMY                                                 CIA vs. KGB                

            MILTON BEARDON & JAMES RISEN

            RANDOM HOUSE                                              576 PGS                                   $27.95

2.)  CAPITALISM AND FREEDOM                                 ( RE-ISSUE 2002)                     

            MILTON FRIEDMAN

            CHICAGO                                                         208 PGS                                   $13.00

3.)  THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE: A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT

            INDUR M. GOKLANY                                                                            

CATO                                                               124 PGS                                   $17.95

God Bless America

                                                           JIM

                                                              JIM SOHMER                         

                                                              AMERICAN NATIONALIST CONSERVATIVE

                                                              JEFFERSON, CO 80456

                                                                            IN GOD WE TRUST