We are still a city on a hill

Thoughts on Obama's apologetic speech before the UN

I have been teaching my students about the Pilgrims. I have been imagining their rolling ride across the sea and their windswept, icy first days in the dangerous forest. I hear the ghostly voice of their pastor and leader, calling on his teeny tiny congregation on the edge of a vast wild to fulfill the gospels and stand as Zion, the "city upon a hill." What an opportunity! What an audacious plan! What fantastic conceit!

It is amazing to consider that these few people barely able to feed themselves in, what to them, was a wild land, would lay the cornerstone for what would become history's greatest experiment: America. And it is even more astounding when you consider the lowliness of their position and weigh it against the cockiness of their agenda for us. And we have been debating their "city on a hill' concept ever since. It is so tough a thing to do. Perhaps, it is simply too noble a goal. Perhaps, it is quite the opposite and is proof of a dangerous arrogance.

But while we were debating the issue, there we were being a "city on a hill," an example to the world. The very fact we were arguing the issue proved a point of inspiration to those millions living in oppression around the world. Here was a place where democracy was the rule. We printed our newspapers, and formed political parties, and lobbied our representatives and the world took notice. In 1776, when we declared our place in the world, and took up arms against those who limited our freedom in London, we inspired and changed the world. We became that example the Pilgrims dreamed of, whether we wanted to or not.

Freedom and democracy are our lights. It is said in the Gospels held so dear to the Pilgrims that one does not cover a lamp with a bushel, but lets its light shine so that the whole room is filled with light. Perhaps, it is corny now or unfashionable to say things like "freedom is a light." But it is so passe because it is so true and so often said. We, as Americans, have trouble imagining what it is like to live in subjugation. We cannot comprehend a place where our opinion not only doesn't count, but also can lead to our arrest and death. We think the whole world is like ours.

The world is not like us, though. We are an abberation. We are freaks of history. History and geography and nature have come together to create a perfect and unique crucible for true freedom. America is still a place where one can reach his full potential as intended by the Creator. Our vast continent aches for freedom and heaves with it. I have seen it myself and the whole world sees it. You cannot hide it. It is a sin to try to cover this light for the oppressed.

Whether we like it or not, we are, as our president says so often, "citizens of the world." Our reaction to this should be to cry louder to the sleeping world to wake up and embrace freedom. We have a responsibility. We are linked with every nation on the planet. We proved this at Normandy and alongside the Berlin Wall.

We should not be ashamed of freedom and democracy. We should be sure in our steps to bring these blessings to the world and the best way is to be that example, that "city upon a hill." We should continue to welcome the oppressed and those hungry for justice into our country. We should continue to chide and bring an end to dictators and autocrats and genocidal regimes. We should renounce phony elections like those in Ukraine and Iran. We should reject non-capitalistic economic theories. We should stand up, as if it is a life and death matter, when people are denied the right to decide their own destinies. And we should not be bashful or apologetic about it. We should temper our pride, to be sure, but we should not apologize for our place in history.

Read the Shining City on a Hill speech here.

Problems with Obama's Prescription for America
Democracy and freedom win the battle on Obamacare, not the war

I was very proud this week to watch President Obama stopped dead in his tracks as he tried to bully through his healthcare agenda as the next step in the "change" that he promised in 2008. What made me so proud was that he was stopped by democracy. The process actually worked. The collective voice of Americans saying "NOT SO FAST" was heard in D.C. loud and clear.

What made it even better was that I was in Canada when it happened. The patriotic music played in my head as Canadians worried that their American option to avoid their own government-run healthcare was about to no longer be an option.

Even though Obama in his weekly address blamed Republicans for preventing this legislation, it should be noted that the Democrats have majorities in both houses of Congress. It is his own party that has put on the brakes and forced an uncareful president to stick his foot in his mouth when calling for passage of the healthcare bill by the August recess. Perhaps they remember the disaster Democrats faced when they last tried this in the 1990's and the G.O.P. swept the 1994 election.

Obama continued filled his mouth with foot the next day by jumping to conclusions on the Professor Gates situation. I agree that Gates should have been let off the hook (I think "disorderly conduct" is a phony crime), but feel that the president of the free world should probably be worrying about something else. Oh, well.... I will not let him successfully distract me from his first major political failure since running against Bobby Rush for a House seat.

So without further ado, here is a list of problems a simple working-class Northwest side Chicagoan has with the Obama-care initiative:

1.) It has been rushed through in a roughshod Daley-style fashion. It is no surprise that he tried to do it this way. It is best to rush through things that you know ahead of time will be unpopular and he learned it from the king of this, Richard Daley. Daley rushed through a parking meter reform bill without public debate. It is a undemocratic maneuver and it will not work in Washington the same way it works over here in Chicago's City Hall. Could we at least have real public debate on this, before we fundamentally change America? Obama says no.

2.) It takes away freedom. Americans are free and this is what makes us so unique in history. We are not a bastion for tyrants. The power truly does belong to the many in our country. And freedom is the cornerstone. We are free in America. We are allowed to take risks and this is why we we so often succeed. The other side of freedom is failure. How many businesses must fail before a Microsoft or Apple come along? We are allowed to fail so that we can succeed. Government healthcare will eliminate freedom to some degree. We are not allowed to choose for ourselves. Obama claims that there will be a choice, but the government program will leave little option in the end. When one of your choices is half paid for by taxpayers, it will be so much cheaper than the other programs that to not choose it would be lunacy. After all, whether you are in the government program or not, you are going to still be paying for it. Why not pay for healthcare once. So there is no choice really.

For government employees like myself, there will be even less choice. I will not be able to choose my plan and once in the government plan, I cannot choose what to do with my own body and for my own health as I see fit. A government bureaucrat, even if he has an M.D. after his name, is still a government bureaucrat.

3.) Speaking of choice, I will not have the choice to be pro-Life. The new program already has words in the bill that refer to government sponsorship and payment for abortions as a health procedure. I am not one to march up and down the streets in the 35 year-long abortion debate America has been having. Even so, I am upset when my tax money will be used to fund abortions, which I do not agree with for religious reasons. Abortion clinics, which have seen a sharp decrease in business lately, will be bailed out by Obamacare.... and with my hard-earned money. It is cute to hear reps talk of this plan creating a budget surplus over time... proof that we will be taxed into ruin.

4.) Taxes. This is going to be expensive... very expensive. Our government is in debt, owes trillions in bonds to Chinese banks, and is running with a serious budget deficit in a bad economy. Why would this new burden be placed on us at this time? Why not wait until the health of our economy improves? Taxes have gone up all over the place and at every level of government. Americans are really beginning to feel the squeeze and we have a proud history of throwing bums out of office who raise our taxes.

5.) Fat taxes? Will I pay a penalty for being overweight and for being a burden on the struggling government? Will we be paying fat taxes soon? Who will decide what is the correct weight for me? Will smokers have to pay higher taxes than they already do? Will drivers pay more for their insurance? These questions have not been answered by our representatives because...

6.) The Senators and Reps voting on this bill have not read it and they admit it. They simply vote the way they are told by their caucus leaders. Well, usually when we regular people do not do our jobs, we are fired.

7.) It takes away incentives. Any government-run healthcare system is going to come with a pricing structure that dissuades incentives to create cutting edge medical procedures and medical research by doctors and big pharmaceutical companies. Obama seems to think that making profits is a sin of some sort, but really profits and riches are the goals that keep the big American medical industry moving forward. Capitalism is what cured polio. Capitalism is looking for a cure for AIDS. And since we are one of the last countries on earth where this kind of research is rewarding, Obamacare could spell the end of our innovative medical research, research that has improved the quality of life for billions of humans around the world.

8.) Poor people can get healthcare already. Capitalism, which has so many benefits, does have some drawbacks. No system of man is perfect. Under capitalism there are HAVES and HAVE NOTs and we need to be careful as individuals to take responsibility for those less fortunate than us. People receive care in our country even if they cannot afford it. Many hospitals and doctors will give discounts to people based on their ability to pay. Some state-run programs like Medicaid go a long way to helping individuals who cannot afford healthcare in the most innovative health system in the world. Big pharm has drug programs for those based on their ability to pay. If worse comes to worse, people are protected by bankruptcy laws in our country. Luckily, health is not something that can be repossessed. Not only can poor people access healthcare, they have access to the best, and most innovative healthcare system in the world.

9.) Problems with our system are overstated and based on class envy. We hate those damned docs and those damned pharmaceutical executives and those damned insurance companies with their swimmin' pools and limos. Class envy is not a just political tool and Obama should figure that out soon enough. America is not Nazi Germany where such arguments can meet much success. In America, we have hope that we can rise up and move up the chain. This is why class envy is short-lived political trick and not a sound basis for policy-making.

The American healthcare system has problems, but it is not bad enough to knock it down and start from square one. The system is fat, bloated, and needs to be stream-lined. We need to find out what makes it so pricey. We need to look at malpractice lawsuits. We need to cap awards or, perhaps, institute loser-pays laws to discourage frivolous lawsuits. Under the current system, a doctor has to rule out every possible diagnosis, even if he or she is sure about what they are seeing. Docs have to run every single test and the prices go up, up, up.

10.) It is about Obama, not America. This is Obama's baby. This bill signifies his political might and will be his mark on history. He will be the brave president who made America look more like the rest of the world. He will be our hero. Why don't we Americans just shut up and let him do what he needs to do and FAST?

11.) It eliminates jobs. There are real problems in this country with unemployment and Obama said he would help alleviate unemployment somehow. The Dems have dreams of a New Deal era wherein Americans will work on public works projects and money will be controlled by the Democratic majority in Congress. They are acting like solutions to economic problems from 80 years ago will work in a hyper, globalized economy of today.

That is beside the point, Obamacare will eliminate jobs that only Americans can do. Jobs will be cut in hospitals. Medical coders, medical billers, insurance reps, pharmacists, and technicians will be out of work. Doctors will be forced to take drastic pay cuts. A huge and profitable American industry will be gutted at a time when unemployment is out of control. I worked for a time in the industry and I am sure in this new era, my job following insurance claims would become obsolete.

12.) It hurts small businesses. Wal-mart puts Ma and Pa businesses out of business. It is what they do. If Ma and Pa sell shampoo for $2.00 a bottle, Wal-mart ships production overseas to China where they pay workers 20 cents a day to produce the same shampoo (hopefully) at $1.85 a bottle. (It really costs a few cents a bottle, but the difference is hidden profit.) This plan has been paid for and pushed by outsourcers like Wal-mart. Big companies can make even more profit if they shift payment for their workers' healthcare to the workers themselves (i.e. taxpayers). This is why Wal-mart has paid for air time urging the public to support Obamacare.

13.) It solves for a symptom and not the cause. Obamacare puts a band-aid on a massive wound. We need to solve the real problems affecting this country. Why can so many not afford healthcare? Because they have no jobs. Many people, especially those with high school or trade school level educations, have seen their jobs go south to Mexico with the passage of NAFTA. In Mexico you pay someone 55 cents an hour for the same work it costs $7 an hour to do in America. Then the jobs went across the ocean to China where the government allows people to make about 20 cents a day. Even cheaper labor is available in places like Haiti and Indonesia.

Americans love the low, low prices and cheer on the Wal-mart happy face as he jumps around the ads rolling back prices, but then we are unemployed. We get what we pay for. And then we are out of work, cutting pills, and unable to purchase our own insurance or healthcare. The money we would have made is put into Chinese banks, which buy American government-issued bonds, and we are no longer in control of our own destiny.

This is a problem. But Congressmen won't touch it because it benefits big stock-holders who need profits and perceived growth and who pay for lobbyists to make sure the gravy train never leaves town.

14.) Who will decide if I live or die? Under Obamacare, my opinion is not worth a dime. If I am in my eighties and need a pacemaker to live, will I be an investment that the government will consider worth making? Maybe this is why part of the bill expands funding to hospices. Maybe it is already presumed by the bill's writers that many Americans will be denied the right to decide whether they should live or die. I would love to know this for sure, but Obama wants it passed right away without delay or discussion (unless he is leading it.)

15.) Government-run business is not efficient business. The government has proven its efficiency in dealing with problems. It is a slow-moving giant. I do not need a slow-moving giant when I am having a heart attack or need a life-saving surgery. I am already disgusted that Obama felt it was his place to step in and take over General Motors, but taking over healthcare is going too far. Now my life is at stake. I know the lines I wait in for my driver's license and do not look forward to those lines in the ER.

Okay, so there it is. I just want to debate this a bit more and I have already urged my Senators and Congressman Mike Quigley to do so. I also acted by sending a small check to Mark Steven Kirk for the Senate. The past few months have proven that it is already time to throw the bums out of office.

P.S. I was right about a few things in my last post. It seems Giannoulias wants to be Senator. He and his criminal ties will fit right in at the Capitol. Look forward to my support for Kirk, who just came back froma tour of duty in Afghanistan.

Giannoulias is knee deep in slime

Can Illinois set a new record? 5 governors in 40 years to prison.

The people of Illinois are proud to be first among the states. No second city for us! We have the nation's tallest buildings and most storied architecture. We are home to the largest commodity market in the world. Our universities produce record numbers of Nobel laureates. Our state also is first and foremost in political corruption. In the last 35 years, Illinois has seen four of its governors in handcuffs. You would think that the people would learn, but they keep doing the same thing. With the announcement that popular Attorney General Lisa Madigan will not run for governor (perhaps eyeing an Obama-supported run at the Senate), the stars have aligned for the possibility that we may have a fifth incarcerated governor on the way.

In 2003, a little-known, young Chicago politician, with a hard-to-pronounce last name captured the governorship of Illinois. His rise to the top, it has been discovered, rested on bullying and questionable associations. The Blagojevich story is set to happen all over again in 2010. Since Madigan stepped down, a front-runner among the few Democratic candidates set to challenge Pat Quinn for re-election, is a little-known, young Chicago politician, with a hard-to-pronounce last name and questionable ties that fueled his rise. Alexi Giannoulias, who was careful to associate himself with Obama and his promise of "change," was invited by Obama's people to speak at the Democratic Convention. Giannoulias, though, is not "change," but is more of the usual for Illinois.

Giannoulias will be dogged by his associates. They will take him down like they took down Blago. He is standing on a pedestal of stink and corruption. He has no foundation. Giannoulias is simply an inlet of money and is set to buy any seat he can. He does not hide his ambition. Dems in Illinois know this, but the money talks. This is why Senator Durbin has called Giannoulias a "formidable candidate."

Another politician who will listen to the money and not the people. The problem is money stinks. Giannoulias' rise began when he was made president of the family business, Broadway Bank in Chicago. It just happens to the bank where Tony Rezko, the infamous convicted fund-raiser for Obama and Blagojevich wrote his checks from. When Rezko was on top, he recommended his banker Demetrius Giannoulias, Alexi's brother, to an influential state position. The bank, meanwhile, backed some Rezko real estate deals. Support from the Giannoulias family was rewarded on more than one occasion by indicted governor Rod Blagojevich, maybe due to the intercession of Rezko.

Broadway Bank, of which Giannoulias was president, also has interesting business with known figures in the mafia. Convicted bookie, boxing promoter, pimp, and mafia dupe Michael "Jaws" Giorango was able to secure a $11.8 million loan to build a casino. Alexi has changed his story often about this deal. Sometimes he blames his brother for the deal, other times he has called Giorango a "very nice person." In an interview with the Chicago Tribune, he admitted that he helped service the deal and that he spoke with Giorango about his criminal history. Money speaks and doing business with people entangles you in their business. Maybe it was Giannoulias money that Giroango used to fuel the prostitution ring he ran in Miami until he was convicted in 2004? Who knows?

An associate of Michael "Jaws" Giorango also did business with the Giannoulias family. Millions of dollars in loans were extended to Spiros Naos and Giorango, who was working on a big floating casino deal. (Naos is the nephew of slain casino owner Gus Boulis. After selling his floating casino operation to convicted influence-peddler Jack Abramoff, Boulis was gunned down. Gambino family associates have been convicted of the Boulis murder.) Naos, in turn, donated thousands to the Giannoulias campaign. When news of the Naos-Giannoulias connection broke, Giannoulias returned the contributions.

Giannoulias knows money. And he knows it talks in Chicago. That is why he hitched his wagon to star and became one of Barack Obama's top contributors in 2004. Obama kept his campaign funds in the Giannoulias family bank and has since paid for the support. Giannoulias was invited to speak at Obama's Democratic Convention and was allowed to act as a voice from the victorious Illinois Democratic party on the national stage. Giannoulias held fund-raisers for Obama and has called Obama his "political mentor."

While Obama and Giannoulias do run with the same crowds, Giannoulias is more Chicago, I must admit, than Obama. Giannoulias' rise was fueled by his family, his connections, and money from dark places. He is Chicago, though and through. His short career has been built on shady promises and backroom deals. It is the kind of stuff Illinois governors of late have been made of.

The opinion of Illinoisans have no place in the political world of Giannoulias. He knows power does not come from the democratic process, but from money. How else can a 30 year-old nobody become a viable candidate? He will grandstand. He will call his opponents out of touch. He will act as if he is the voice of change, but he is more of the same.

And his chances are good. The Democratic primary will probably be between him and Pat Quinn. Quinn has proven unable to govern or solve any problems. Instead of using sound politics and working on relationships with state legislators, Quinn has focused on silly scare tactics. It will be all too easy to point out his failure to lead. The Republicans so far have no big name candidates and seem as if they will face an expensive slug-fest of a primary. The GOP candidate will probably emerge to the general election politically damaged and financially broke. This is where Giannoulias will outspend his opponent and saturate the airwaves.

Soon Giannoulias could be sitting in the same seat as Rod Blagojevich. And he will probably learn the same lesson: when you surround yourself with slime, you tend to get dirty.

My predictions: (1) Roland Burris will announce he will not run for the Senate. Lisa Madigan will beat out Kennedy for the Democratic candidacy for the Burris Senate seat. I wish Mark Kirk would run for the GOP, but he may not want to lose his seat in Congress. (2) Giannoulias will beat out Quinn and will be the next governor and U.S. attorney Patrick Fitzgerald will run him out of office and into prison. (3) Sarah Palin did something wrong that she is trying to hide.

A Profile in Cowardice

Dems have foot right up in mouths

A coward is someone with no principles. A coward bends this way and that and always checks to see which way the wind is blowing. Many Illinois and a few national stars of the Democratic party fit that definition and many are finding themselves in the position that cowards often find themselves: with foot in mouth. Much light has been shed because of the recent release of tapes in which Senator Roland Burris offers to indirectly buy his Senate seat.

The biggest coward of all is Senate majority leader Harry Reid. Reid, at first, utterly refused to seat anyone selected by scandal-ridden Governor Rod Blagojevich to fill Barak Obama's vacated Senate seat. It made sense to take this position. Blagojevich was, after all, under investigation by federal authorities for many crimes, including his offering of that very Senate seat to the highest bidder. Reid called Blagojevich's eventual selection as "unfair" and "regrettable."

What is truly regrettable, though, was Reid's cowardice when Burris pushed his way into the Senate, backed by former Black Panther and current Democratic Congressman Bobby Rush. Rush, who once vehemently opposed the idea of the governor making any appointment, had a change of heart and wanted to make it clear that the Congressional Black Caucus was very interested in having African-American representation in the Senate. Rush threatened Harry Reid and chided Reid and Senate Dems not to "hang or lynch" Burris because of Blagojevich's scandals. Burris and Blago, it seemed, were not above playing the race card.

This pressure, history will write, is the reason Illinois Senator Dick Durbin who once also promised to deny Burris the seat, turned around and saw it Burris' way. It is the reason, history will note, that Reid followed suit. It is the reason Burris was allowed to take his seat in the Senate. History, as usual, is forgetful...

History forgot that the people of Illinois were overwhelmingly demanding an election to fill the Senate vacancy. It has been all but forgotten that there was a strong movement to petition the people. It would have been only a fitting gesture and a rightful bow to democracy, since the people of Illinois had taken a backseat to the power politics and games of Governor Blagojevich and the ruling Democratic party in Springfield. The people wanted democracy, but the Democrats couldn't bare the thought of bringing democracy into the process. After all, "the people" do not matter to Illinois Dems.

The Senate, at Burris' election, was split in such a way that Senate Republicans would be able to hamper Obama's initiatives by enacting filibusters. With one more Democratic vote, the Dems would be able to stop any filibuster and continue with the institution of Obama's "changes." If the seat were left to an election, there was a chance, a slight chance albeit, that the scandal-wary people of Illinois, might elect a Republican. It was petty politics, not race, that led to Reid's decision to seat Burris. Consideration for the electorate was not a priority. So democracy took a back seat and Dems hoped Burris wouldn't be too big a disappointment.

They questioned him in Springfield to be sure of it. The state impeachment committee, headed by State Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie, questioned Burris on the relationship he had with Blagojevich. They did not question his run for governor a decade back, which assured Blago the victory over rival Paul Vallas. When Republican rep Jim Durkin decided to get specific, Burris refused to answer and was defended by fellow Dems on the committee. Burris sat in front of the state legislature an lied and lied and lied.

After taking his Senate seat he "adjusted" his testimony to avoid perjury charges. Questions resurfaced and then slowly the matter was buried in the fantastic story of the impeachment, removal, and indictment of Governor Blagojevich.

Only yesterday, it resurfaced after the feds released several minutes of recorded phone conversations between Burris and the governor's brother. In the tapes Burris is asked for financial support and he insists that he wants the Senate seat. When the governor's brother asked for a "donation" and upped the ante by explaining that there were other buyers in the market, Burris explained that he did not want his donation to appear as payment for the Senate seat. Then his ego got to him. Burris, who's self-styled mausoleum heralds him as an Illinois "trailblazer," could not refuse the bait any longer. He finally concocts a plan to send money to the governor through his lawyer.

Disgusting. The Democrats sold the Senate seat to the highest bidder, denied the democratic process, knew about pay-to-play corruption, worked to sweep it under the rug of time, and now they want us to forget their involvement in the whole sordid affair. I remember though.

The good, hard-working people of Illinois were denied by Dick Durbin. We were rejected by Harry Reid. Our voice was silenced by Currie and Madigan. We were ignored and laughed at by Bobby Rush. We were kicked to the curb by Roland Burris. And we were bent over backward by Rod Blagojevich.

So why do we keep voting for these people? I do not understand this madness. Are we happy now that we have a scandal-ridden Senator to add to our long list of indicted governors and jailed politicians in Illinois?

And how are we thanked? We are thanked by people like Currie, who in an intense talk with my students this week, asked where she was supposed to get the $12 billion needed to correct the out-of-control Illinois budget if not from further taxation of the people. While she conceded that times were tough, she insisted that taxes were going to be raised this week to meet state "obligations." Many of my students asked me why she was blaming the deficit on them. They felt personally upset that Currie's lack of sound decision-making and inability to control spending was being blamed on them.

The unelected governor, Pat Quinn, meanwhile lobbied Springfield to accept a huge 50% increase in the state income tax. He and Currie point out that Illinois, among states that tax income, has very low taxes. They would have us believe that we need to pay our fair share. They want this to be our fault.

Well, it isn't. It is their fault for not governing and we should on the whole reject them and vote in a new legislature. Democracy, I do believe, is the only way for Illinoisans to defend themselves from these criminals. (And when I say criminals, I am not blowing anything out of proportion.) As Currie herself told my students: "Show me the votes. Show me the votes and things will get done."

So let's show these cowards the votes. Let's reclaim Illinois.

The only legislator who met with my students and who talked of cutting spending in these tough times was Republican Michael McAuliffe. The only state rep interested in asking tough questions to Burris was Republican Jim Durkin. The only people worth their salt in Springfield right now are the endangered Republicans.

P.S. Just a little story. When a fellow teacher brought some students to Washington to meet our new Senator he posed for a group shot with them. He directed the students to smile and then said, "MONEY!" (Instead of "cheese.") He chided the students for not following suit and it was done again until the bewildered kids followed him in his mantra.

Nazis, Witches, and Herrings... Oh my!

They hope we don't notice...

Facing 29000 counts of murder

John Demjanjuk, a naturalized U.S. citizen and retired Cleveland auto-worker, was deported on May 11th to Germany where he faces 29,000 counts of murder for war crimes he committed as a guard at several Nazi concentration camps. The U.S. Supreme Court made a wise decision upholding the revocation of his citizenship and deportation. There is no place in America for war criminals like Demjanjuk. While we have no room for him, it is the height of arrogance and hypocrisy for the German courts to pursue tens of thousands of murder counts against the man.

Demjanjuk worked for the German government and did exactly what he was ordered to do. His treatment of the prisoners in the camps and the Polish people he arrested was disgusting and inhumane, but was not extraordinary for S.S. guards working for Hitler's Reich. Demjanjuk was a German official participating in the business of the German people. He did not break any German law.

He might be guilty of the 29,000 murders he has been accused of, but he should not be tried alone. The entire population of Germany should be tried for pursuing a policy of murder. This is a national crime and it is time for the German people to acknowledge their part in it.

The German government has been very apologetic. Just last week, the German ambassador to the U.S. made an apologetic speech at the dedication of the Holocaust museum in Skokie, Illnois. Holocaust denial is a crime in Germany, and it is true that few people deny the Holocaust. They just wish the world would move on. The people of Germany are sick of the word Germany being a synonym for genocide. This is why Demjanjuk is being tried. He is the scapegoat for a crime committed by millions. He will pay the price for the sins of the German people.

Many histories explain it away by saying that Hitler had extraordinary speaking powers and was a persuasive individual who knew how to manipulate the media. He is portrayed as a hypnotizer. In history books, the sins of the Holocaust are the result of one man's anti-Semitic projections. The masses of German people were simply cogs in the Hitler machine.

This common interpretation of history is flawed. It is the work of historians who cannot comprehend that a fully industrialized country like Germany would or could sink to such barbaric levels. It took something or someone supernatural to make this happen. It is an abnormality. These historians fail to see the barbarity and inhumanity interwoven in the fabric of the modern nation-state. These states, pushed forward by, what Eisenhower called, the military-industrial complex, think nothing of individuality and freedom. Human life is a commodity and is not sacred.

The modern state is also democratic. Hitler's rose to power in a democratic Germany. He went from out-of-work veteran and struggling artist to world conqueror because the people of Germany chose him. He reflected them. He was the embodiment of their vicious world view. He was not the cause. He was the effect.

American essayist Ralph Waldo Emerson once said that "in every work of genius, we recognize our own rejected thoughts; they come back to us with a certain alienated majesty." Emerson explained that there is no such thing as genius. No one is considered a genius, as Hitler was during his hey-day by the Germans, unless he reflects the minds of the people who revere him.

Demjanjuk makes a suitable scapegoat and example for the German people, especially because he is not a German. He is a Ukrainian. This denial of responsibility should not go unnoticed.

The German people, not Hitler, bear the burden of the sin of the Holocaust. They will do so for generations and should accept the judgement of the world. It was not Hitler, and it certainly was not a lowly S.S. guard like Demjanjuk. If anyone should stand trail for 29,000 murders, it should be the German people.

Witch Children of the Congo

Nightline on Thursday featured a disturbing report on a serious child abuse epidemic in the Congo and other countries in sub-Saharan Africa. It seems that it has become common practice in the Congo for families, undergoing tough times and facing myriad problems in an effort to simply survive, to accuse their own children of witchcraft.

A Congolese government official told the ABC reporter that he believes children can be witches is they "have distended bellies or dark eyes." Many children with developmental or psychological diseases have also been identified by locals of witchcraft. The AIDS deaths of relatives are said to be caused by the dastardly deeds of these little witches. Of course, we know that distended bellies are not the result of a secret union with the devil, but the result of malnutrition. Listless eyes, perhaps the "dark eyes" identified by the Congo official, can often be found in the malnourished and diseased.

Many Congolese parents have begun to take their children to exorcists. These hucksters purport to be pastors- men of Christ- and set up shop performing magic tricks to make it seem they are doing something to cast out evil spirits. They were taped pouring hot candle wax on children, burning them, and then pretending to pull the wax out of the body of the children. It is, according to them, the skin of demons. The pastors also poke things in the children's eyes, blinding them. Pastors, men of God, stab, abuse, and maltreat children. They do all of this for a hefty fee from the struggling families.

70% of Congo's homeless children have been accused of witchcraft. It seems to be an excuse for parents who cannot afford another mouth to feed. These "witches" roam the villages as outcasts, starving, afflicted, and with no human dignity. While the pastors would have us believe it is demons causing all of this affliction, it is obvious that poverty is the real demon. We can exorcise that demon if the U.S. finally takes leadership and the initiative to be a voice for justice and health in Africa. President Bush's PEPFAR program was a great start. It is time for Obama to make Africa a top priority. I cannot stand to see the continuance of this hopeless poverty, a poverty that is the result of Western ignorance.

While this is an issue, what disturbs me most is that criminal snake-oil salesmen are claiming to be pastors. They are committing the worst of sins. Taking the name of God in vain is a one-way trip to hell. Making yourself the object of worship, particularly for profit, is faithless and far more evil than any witchcraft. Their sin is particularly malodorous when one considers the poor families they take advantage of. The Christian Churches should stand up and strongly and forcefully reject these quasi-pastors who claim to speak in God's name.

Cheney wants us to look the other way

One of the worst things about the Bush administration and one of the reasons he was eventually rejected by most Americans was that torture was used in our war on terror. Torture surely leads to hostile feelings toward the U.S. around the world. It is true that attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq increased dramatically with the release of photos of prisoner abuse at the Abu-Gharib prison. Torture makes us unsafe. If it has any effect on terrorism, it is not the effect we might want.

The policy, before being fully implemented, was researched by an army of lawyers headed by America's worst Vice-president Dick Cheney. (Good veeps should do nothing but sit around and wait for the president to die... like Dan Quayle always did.) Cheney wanted Bush to have nearly unlimited powers to collect information to fight the terror threat. If it meant sacrificing freedom of even American citizens, it was okay with Cheney. If his actions made a mockery of the Constitution, so be it. It is all for your safety.

It is no surprise then that Dick Cheney's lifelong political ally, Donald Rumsfeld, headed a military that made torture part of its policy toward prisoners. Cheney, himself, said that the president would fight this war from the shadows, "the dark side." When the Abu-Gharib torture news shocked the nation, it was only a matter of time before Rumsfeld took the hit for his friend Dick Cheney and his boss George W. Bush, and resigned.

Rejection of torture was a central part of John McCain's message in the 2008 election. McCain, a victim of torture while serving as naval officer in Vietnam, time and again criticized his fellow Republicans Cheney and Bush for allowing such a damaging policy. He rightly stated that such action would lead to more terrorism and would focus the aim of terrorism against the people of the United States.

This is why to hear Dick Cheney attack President Obama's decision to reassess America's treatment of prisoners today was very disturbing. It has been centuries since a former administration so publicly criticized the administration that followed them.

Despite Cheney's obvious involvement in the matter, conservatives in the media today spent the last week attacking House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi denied that she knew anything about torture, but CIA officials have testified that she was completely briefed on the methods being used by American interrogators. It is easy to catch Pelosi in lies like these since she lies so often, but making her the center of attention at this time is a red herring. She will not lose her seat as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity hope. She has lost the last few shreds of credibility she had, but she will keep her seat.

Pelosi knew about the torture. Cheney and CIA friends like Cofer Black administered the torture. Who should we criticize most for engaging in activities that did not reflect the will of the American people? Who put the American people more at risk?

Get real.

I can't afford Chicago Democrats right now
Hypocrites rob from the poor and give to themselves as economy tanks

Word on the street is that the U.S. is in the middle of a recession. Struggling businesses are laying people off. Ten percent of Americans are reviewing their budgets and cutting their spending because they are facing unemployment. They are going without the movies and trips to Six Flags. Tough times call for responsible spending.... that is, unless you are a Chicago Democrat. When they have trouble making ends meet, they just tap into that "never-ending" pot of money that comes from taxes.

The Democratic party considers itself the defender of the poor and downtrodden. The voice of the weak. The modern-day Robin Hood. A few weeks ago, in a presentation to my students at Taft, our Congressional representative Jan Schakowsky used some very Robin Hood-like rhetoric.

When asked by my student about the economy, she responded that it was high time there was "an evening out" of wealth. Perhaps, that rhetoric is more Marx than Robin Hood, but, whatever the case, all it is is rhetoric and nothing else. In action, she and her fellow Chicago Dems are a bunch of hypocrites and crooks. I will not waste my time delving into the specifics of Schakowsky's lobbyist husband's years in prison for fraud. That kind of corruption costs us a lot of money and I cannot afford it.

Mayor Daley is too expensive.

I cannot afford Mayor Daley and his paternalistic approach to governing this city. I am just sick of it. He has made a mockery of his responsibility and has time and time again sold out his duties. He has been looking for a buyer for our city-run airports. He sold every parking meter in the city to an outside agency and has installed more cameras at intersections to monitor and automatically ticket. (What about when I demand my constitutional right to question my accuser. Will the camera come to court and SPEAK?) He has doubled fees for city stickers and has signed into law a water bottle tax of five cents per bottle. (That adds up, when you buy a case.)

His Renaissance 2010 plan has been a nightmare. Almost $50 million of state funding goes to the Civitas CICS charter schools in Chicago, which consider their private schools when teachers ask to unionize. When Daley and CPS dole out the money, the CICS schools become public schools. Recently an overcrowded grade school in Albany Park was about to be relieved by the building of a new, bigger building. When the new school opened, it was not offered to the community in need, but to another private charter school company. It is still closed off to the neighborhood.

Daley backstabs his constituents almost daily. When challenged, he throws around flippant remarks and snickers with reporters. It is all a big joke to him that his people are leaving the city. It is not important that the people who made Chicago great are having to leave their neighborhoods, often to intruding wine-sipping yuppies from out of state in search of "something authentic." (There is little authenticity to the suburban blandness they grew up with.) The hard-working, beer drinking Chicagoans have to get out of the way. We do not tip as well as these intruders.

Daley has sold out the city. This weekend, he drove me up the wall, when it was reported that the city was going to install new parking meters at $1 per hour in the city parks, most notably in Lincoln Park. Failure to keep up with the meters results in a $50 ticket. But, don't worry, the mayor is going to install credit card machines.

What makes Chicago unique is that its park stretches for miles and miles along the cool lakeshore. This was part of our city charter in 1833 and was realized by Burnham's plan in 1909. This is in our city's design and is part of its spirit.

People go down to the lake to escape the heat and soul-crushing of the city. They spend the day and swim and play and cook out. This is especially true of the poor in Chicago who find relief in the parks and live amiably there with their more wealthy neighbors. So who does this new tax hit the hardest? Who is most prevented from enjoying the park? That's right. The poor. The people the Dems claim they defend.

And Mayor Daley's response? With a self-assured, cocky smile, he explained that this would free up parking so more people could enjoy the park. He did not mention the millions of dollars that he would reap as a result, mostly on the backs of the already struggling poor. Disgusting.

Mike Madigan and Pat Quinn are too expensive.

Even more problematic for the Chicago taxpayer is the corrupt and monolithic state government in Springfield. Now that their corrupt, bribe-taking embarrassment of a governor is gone, they have installed a new embarrassment named Pat Quinn. Quinn used to be a reformer who spoke often of the people and claimed to represent the voters. (It is an easy thing to do when you have no power.) As governor, he has been nothing more than a puppet for the Dem machine run by powerful Michael Madigan.

He says we need to raise "funds", "revenue", and "capital" to balance the budget in Illinois. (He never calls them "taxes.") He claims it is the responsible thing to do. The government, he explains, is piling up debt since we are spending more than we are taking in.

It is not hard for some people to understand that when times are tough, one should try to spend less. But Quinn has taken the Dem approach and has decided to call for major tax increases across the board. He says it is high time since we have not raised taxes in years. So the defender of the voter has gotten started offering up Doomsday scenarios and urging for an orgy of tax and spend. With no opposition party to speak of in Illinois, he will get his way and the poor, once again will pay the most.

Dems responded by considering a state tax on alcohol, an item already heavily taxed at the local level. The poor, once again, will bear the brunt of this tax. They also are considering legalizing video poker machines to pay for schools. (Never mind that the state lottery was supposed to do that years ago.) These "amusement-only" machines, it is well-known, are operated by the Outfit. Syndicate reps come by to collect the money, splitting proceeds with the bartender who offers payouts from under the counter. A big time mob bookie in Chicago applauded the legalization and promised that he would give the state theirs as soon as he collected his portion.

This sort of collusion is unacceptable considering the already shady relationships that exist between mobsters and state politicians like state treasurer and former Syndicate banker Alexi Giannoulias. It is a disgusting way of governing, but they will do anything...

We cannot afford Obama and Pelosi

Chicago Dems reach far now that one of their own is president of the United States. Obama has been pushing for a partial state takeover of the private healthcare system. The American healthcare system is the strongest and most effective in the world, so it must be fixed right away.

One option for paying for this that was discussed enthusiastically by Senate Dems was an excise tax on sugary drinks. It is believed that sugary drinks like pop or beer or juice lead to diabetes, heart disease, and other unhealthy lifestyles. The demonized high fructose corn syrup, used to sweeten drinks in America, is fully subsidized by the government that now wants to tax it in an effort, they say, to modify behavior. They know we have no choice. They know what we are going to drink. Sometimes there are few other choices, especially true for the poor. So they are going to tax it.

And where has this money gone? The lobbyists who run our country made sure that $1.6 trillion dollars went straight to the banks. The defenders of the downtrodden, the Democratic party called it a bail-out. They said they were fixing the economy when they took the money out of the meager paychecks of the poor and send it along to the CEOs and big wigs in America's crooked banking industry.

And while they did it, Obama complained that the taxes benefited the rich. He said that he would be sure to give the poorest people in this country a break. And as he said it and offered them his "hope", his friends in Congress slipped their hands into the wallets of these same, poor Americans.

I cannot afford ignorance

We pay the highest gas prices in Illinois because of local taxes. We pay the highest parking fees in Chicago because of taxes. We pay the highest sales tax in the nation. Our road tolls recently were doubled. The list of taxes we pay is never ending and is growing now that the Dems have little opposition from the Republicans in Chicago, Springfield, or D.C.

Does anyone care? Does anyone remember what freedom was like? Is anyone interested? Will they vote in an opposition to stop this madness or do they buy the line the Dems are selling? That the Republicans have been destroyed, that they have no interest in the working man, that the G.O.P. is a collection of antiquated racists and yokels who miss W, a prty of intolerance. Why do Republicans jist sit there and take such abuse?

The day has come for real protest, like the April protests against taxes by thousands of citizens across America. (An exercise of First Amendment rights that Schakowsky called "despicable.") It is time to do what Americans do and get out our tar and our feathers and go to town on lobbyists, political puppets, and the bankers who took our money. It is time to take back our parks and to tear out the parking meters and throw rocks at the cameras that patrol our streets in place of cops. It's time to get on that phone and that Internet and call for change.

It is time to vote! Vote out the criminals who take our money in our time of most need and who sell us out. Vote out those who call freedom of speech when directed against them, "despicable." Show them who really runs things in our republic.

Stroger did not try to kill Peraica
But he has tried to kill democracy


I want to make this very clear: I am in no way suggesting that Todd Stroger had anything to do with the attempted murder last Wednesday of his political rival Tony Peraica. Stroger had nothing to do with the drive-by shooting that hit Peraica's neighbor's house in upscale Riverside. That would be libel. Yes, the shooting was probably planned by one of the many countless residents of Cook County that enjoy paying the highest sales tax in the United States, especially during this economic downturn.

Stroger could not have planned such a brazen and orchestrated crime. He is, after all, out of his mind. If you need evidence, note his veto today of the legislation passed through the county board to cut the sales tax 1%. The tax cut passed the board on a 12 to 3 vote. This cut would eliminate Stroger's tax hike, causing him and the Board to find ways to trim the bloated county budget and create a streamlined and more efficient county government.

The people of Cook County were behind the tax cut. 94% of people polled recently by the Chicago Tribune supported the tax cut. The people have seen drastic reductions in the value of their homes. Nearly ten percent of them are unemployed. Many residents leave the county to avoid the sales tax. The poorest people in the county, those with no easy way out to buy staple goods, are forced to pay the 10% sales tax and bear the heaviest burden. Stroger failed to hear the people's clamoring. He failed to consider the will of the people because his constituents are not the tax-payers of Cook. He does not represent them. Stroger represents the family members he puts in high-paying non-essential county posts. He represents do-nothing government employees and he represents waste and fraud, nepotism and all that is disgusting in Chicago politics.


Some members of the Board, many who originally voted for the tax but changed their mind, DO, in fact, represent the will of over-taxed county residents. Many board members have heard the people, have opened their mail, and have seen the writing on the wall. Instead of cow-towing to political hacks, they have decided to do their job. Tony Peraica, painted as insane and a nutcase by opponents during the last couple elections, it turns out was reflecting the will of his contituency all along. Eleven board members voted for the cut and alongside the "nutjob" who led the charge against it for the past year... Mr. Peraica. The margin of victory was a source of deep embarrassment to the county president. When several townships, inlcluding Peraica's, voted to secede from the county and to take their tax dollars with them, some began to listen.

Peraica is not wishy washy. He is among the most honest men in Illinois politics. He tells you exactly what to expect of him and always has an ear for the people he represents. He is not Larry Suffredin, a county board member, who voted for the tax hike and then decided to vote against it only when the noise against it was too much to avoid. Peraica is not like member Joan Murphy, who voted for the cut, then against it, and who is considering supporting it once again. Peraica is not like Forrest Claypool, who wears the cloak of a reformer, but remains loyal to a political party that routinely lies to the people of the county, a Democratic party with no opposition, and no pretense of democratic decision-making.

This Cook County Democratic party that has sold out the trust of its supporters by funding non-union charter schools and doling out their responsibilities to the highest bidding private companies.... this party that sold the right-of-way on the streets and the meters that regulate them to a foreign company... this party that has tried to sell off the airports and county hospitals.... this party that raises taxes to support unqualified bureaucrats in useless posts.... this Democratic party that knows better what to do with your money than you.... the party that gave rise to the impeached Governor Rod Blagojevich and his friend, and business associate (through Tony Rezko), President Barack Obama. This Cook County Democratic party that tells county residents to "eat cake" when we call for lower taxes.

When county commissioners of that party, in a split second of sanity, finally stood up for reason, Stroger called it "grand-standing."

Peraica is firm and has been firm in his position. He has been firm in the people's position. And this is why someone took shots at his house, their bullets instead ripping into the living room of his neighbor. Some people hate it when they are listened to by their representatives. By "some people," I am in no way including Todd Stroger. he had nothing to do with the attempted murder of Tony Peraica.

While Stroger is a tyrant who cares nothing for the will of the people, he is not a murderer. He did not try to kill Peraica. But when he vetoes a bill that properly reflects the will of the people, he will be guilty of taking a few shots at democracy.

The Republican Party is Not Dead

It's just a rebuilding year... like the Cubs are always having.

Rahm Emanuel is a master of the art of using words to get what you want. He must have been the force behind all those Clinton lies that piled up. (Not that I'm saying Emanuel or his trusty Dems have cornered the market on lies.) Emanuel's philosophy, the Rahm Doctrine, we'll call it, seems to be that if you keep saying something over and over again, it becomes true.

I am not sure how he has done it, but it seems that the media is biting too. The latest lie that Rahm is turning into truth is that the Republican party has died. The word on the street (and in Time) is that it is no longer relevant and does not speak to the American people. Rahm would like us to know that in four years it will cease to function as an American institution and we will have no choice but to blindly follow the plan for "change" that his boss has lined up for us.

It is amazing to read the headlines. It seems that even quasi-conservative talking heads like David Brooks are biting. Only George Will seems to have a firm grasp on reality, and, as usual we can look to history for some guidance on this issue.

The Republican party has been around since before the Civil War and has survived many presidential administrations that calmer heads might even label as worse cases than the last eight years of W. Ulysses Grant's administration was covering up crimes by cronies. Hayes all but bought the election of 1876. Harding was a travesty as president. The G.O.P. even survived the dastardly deeds of Herbert Hoover, who Dems would have you believe, caused the worldwide Great Depression that began ten years before he took the oath of office. And let's not forget Nixon and Watergate. How could the G.O.P. survive all of this?

Because it took time to redefine itself.

The last time the G.O.P. was declared dead was in 1964. Barry Goldwater ran a disastrous presidential campaign, winning only five states. If Johnson, the Democratic candidate, wanted to, he probably could have challenged the results in Arizona, Goldwater's home state, which was very close. The Republicans and conservatism were declared dead. It was a triumph for big government.

And then Johnson went on his spending spree and expanded the size of government. No one could stop him. Like Obama, he had near total control of the legislative branch. He introduced his Great Society programs and threw America waist deep in Vietnam. And four years later, the supposedly "dead" Republican party, behind Richard Nixon, won the presidency.

1964 Results

1968 Results

Nixon and the G.O.P. redefined themselves as national party. They spoke of the "silent majority" and vowed to bring law and order to the troubled country. They took a moderate approach and vowed (as they always do, vainly) to reduce the size and scope of the federal government. 12 years later, despite the disaster of Watergate and ineffective leadership of Gerald Ford, the conservative message continued to be a force, as Ronald Reagan and then George Bush took their seats in the Oval Office. In fact, when Clinton ran for president in 1992, he had to sel himself as something like a conservative.

But I thought conervatism died in 1964?

So, as Dr. Phil says: "Get real!"

Don't get too excited over your exciting victory, Dems. Remember the past. The G.O.P. will be there and people will be sure to stand behind it again. Unfortunately for Rahm Emanuel, our two-party system is fully functioning. Americans do not like big, wasteful, and ineffective government. If O delivers all the change he promised, there will be a backlash and there will be some brave, open-mouthed Republican will be riding the wave of that backlash.

Here are some people who offer different approached the party can take in the future.

7 Republicans I like nationally

If only there were someone who had all their super powers... the party would be resurrected and be a strong force against change I cannot believe in. These people, although I like something in each of them, could probably not stand each other for five minutes.

1.) The Moderate Crusader: Christine Todd Whitman. Her time has come. Her political opponents within the party, namely Cheney and Rumsfeld, are in the ashheap of history. She is outspoken advocate of good government and sound energy policy and a founding member of the Committee for Responsible Government. Sounds like a good idea to me.

2.) Face the World: Colin Powell. I miss him and think he made a major mistake by not standing up to Cheney and Bush. I hope it did not do him in. Powell has a firm shot at reshaping the party if he is up to the task. Many Republicans miss his balanced approach to foreign affairs. See, though, some people answer the call to serve and others look the other way because they are too tired. He may be too tired.

3.) Principled: Bobby Jindal. Democrats attacked him months ago because Jindal is a threat. He bravely rejected Obama stimulus money because it would make him a slave to the feds. He was right, when one considers what Obama did to GM’s president.

4.) The Angry Voice: Newt Gingrich. He will never be elected because of the backlash against many of his decisions in the 1990’s (good decisions), but he has been rising up, in my opinion, to be a formidable critic of Obama’s New Age and the spokesman for the conservative movement.

5.) Hedging his bets: Mitt Romney. He could run in 2012 and, depending on the economy, might not do too badly. A lot of Republicans regret choosing McCain over this guy… who has business experience and a solid conservative pedigree. I am not predicting any wins and see him carefully slipping into the background watching events unfold. This is a smart move.

6.) The Elder Statesman: John Danforth. He is an Episcopal priest who wants to keep the government from dirtying up religion and wants to keep the Lord’s name from being uttered in vanity, as so often happens in the G.O.P. He is also a former Senator, an accomplished diplomat, and elder statesman. I can think of no one better qualified to be president or chief justice. But, alas, he is over 70 years old.

7.) The Libertarian: Ron Paul. I loved Ron Paul when I was in college and always wanted to vote for him. When I got my chance in 2008, I chose not to do so. He is not popular, will never be president, is painted as a nut-job for defending the Constitution. He speaks the truth and is a strong advocate for classic American political philosophy.

8.) Other Republicans I like: Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, John Roberts, Tom Ridge, Joe Lieberman

9.) Republicans I do not like, but who Democrats do like: Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Dick Cheney, Fred Thompson, Michael Steele

3 Republicans I like in Illinois

Now here is some change I can believe in. And since the Dems have made a mess of things here in Illinois, it seems the pendulum must swing the other way. Here are some choices...

1.) For Senate: Mark Kirk. The most honest, promising, and firm Republican in the state. He would make a masterful Senator and leader of the G.O.P. in Illinois. He is in the armed forces as a reservist, has foreign relation experience in the House, and is level-headed. He can also work with both parties, which is key in Illinois.

2.) For Governor: Tom Cross. Probably too crass to be elected to governor or Senator, but a mad dog who can bite the knees off his opponents. He is the Rahm Emanuel of the Illinois G.O.P. and I wonder why he is not foaming at the mouth more. Good governor candidate, especially against Alexi.

3.) For King: Patrick Fitzgerald To the people, he is a minor god of Illinois politics, because he puts people who deserve it behind bars. I know his staff does that work, but he is the man in front of the camera… the boss. He does a great service to the people of Illinois working exactly where he works now, but would be a shoe-in no matter what office or party he chose to run for and under.