When is Money Good Money?

Several years ago a story in the Readers Digest's Life's Like That, was a perfect anthem to the American Dream.

The young man who had sent in the story, was attending business school, and in the summer worked at his father's restaurant, a busy local eatery.  With his new found knowledge, he found himself frustrated with the way that his father did his bookkeeping.  Receipts were put on one memo spike and invoices on another.

Finally, in exasperation, he asked his father how he could possibly conduct his business like that.  "How do you know how much your profit is?"

His father's reply was priceless.  He said that he had come to the United States with nothing but the shirt on his back.  He now owned a business, completely paid for; a house and furniture, completely paid for and had put three children through college without having to borrow a dime. 

"I figure that, minus the shirt, is my profit."

That is what the American Dream was all about, but that kind of dream is now illusive to most Americans.

After many requests, Mitt Romney finally made his financial statements public.  It was learned that he "earned" $21.6 million in 2010.  To give that some relevancy, the median gross income in the United States is  $33,048.  Romney made that in less than a day.

$7.4 million of his annual income came from earned interest.  Money on money, not on hard work.

When we look at past "millionaires" and now billionaires, most did become rich through hard work and innovation.  We loved the stories of Henry Ford tinkering with motors on the kitchen counter, his wife with her sleeves rolled up as his assistant.  Or Gerber turning a failing food processing plant into a baby food empire and Howard Johnson selling his first flavoured icecream from a small wagon, when he was barely a teenager.

No one resented them because they were the true inspirational success stories.  But Romney didn't make his money with his sleeves rolled up and grease on his shirt.  He made it by swallowing up small businesses, which often meant ruin and unemployment for those not terminally rich.

He uses Staples as a success story for creating jobs, but what's the average salary of a Staples employee?  Are they living the American dream?

In fact, recent statistics have shown that Americans now rank 10th in social mobility. The citizens of nine other countries, now have a better chance of going from rags to riches, than the country that invented the notion.

One in five children live in poverty in the U.S.  One in five Americans is unemployed or underemployed; one in eight mortgages are in default or foreclosure; and one in eight Americans is on food stamps.  Newt Gingrich's solution to that is to reduce the number of food stamps issued, which will only make the statistic, one in eight Americans died from starvation.

Neoconservatism is turning the U.S. into a Third World Country.

But before we pat ourselves on the back, we are not doing any better.  According to the OECD, Canada has fallen from sixth to 24th place in infant mortality, meaning that babies are more apt to die in this country, than in 23 others, most without our wealth.

The numbers were “shocking” — a word used by half a dozen prominent commentators, including the Conference Board of Canada. We had slipped from sixth place in the world to 24, a virtually unprecedented fall for any country. We are now just above Poland and Hungary, with 5.1 deaths per 1,000 live births of infants less than one year of age. The actual tragedy beyond the percentages: 1,181 infant deaths in 2007.

The Conference Board of Canada also cited another statistic: 

Canada gets a “C” and now ties the U.K. for 15th place out of 17 peer countries. Its infant mortality rate is shockingly high for a country at Canada’s level of socio-economic development.

In a larger study, the U.S. ranked 41 out of 45 nations.

Conservatives like to take the moral high ground over the abortion issue, but as Gloria Steinem once said, for them "life begins at conception but ends at birth".  They want to save a fetus but do nothing to save a child.  They tout "family values" but are determined to keep most families living in poverty.

"These proposals included cries for billions of new money for social assistance in the name of “child poverty” and for more business subsidies in the name of “cultural identity”. In both cases I was sought out as a rare public figure to oppose such projects.” (Stephen Harper, The Bulldog, National Citizens Coalition, February 1997)

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives just released it's figures on the top 1%.  By January 3, most corporate executives had earned the same amount that the "average Joe" will make working a full year.  Yet the Harper government just lowered the tax rate for the wealthiest corporations, while raising it for the "average Joe" who will now pay about $150.00 per year more in taxes.

The last two decreases in personal taxes took place in 2001 when the tax rate fell from 17% to 16%, and in 2005, when it was reduced again to 15%.  The Harper government raised the personal income tax to 15.25%, the first increase in decades, but then took it back to 2005 levels, under a banner of "Tories lower personal income tax rate".  They didn't, they just took it back to previous levels.

This means that the Harper government has presided over the largest personal tax rate increases in a generation, not to mention Flaherty's HST.  Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty have made it easier for the rich to get richer, but have done little, if anything, to help the "average Joe" or the "average Jane".

"Universality has been severely reduced: it is virtually dead as a concept in most areas of public policy... These achievements are due in part to the Reform Party..." - Stephen Harper, speech to the Colin Brown Memorial Dinner, National Citizens Coalition, 1994.

In Arianna Huffington's Third World America, she discusses wealth and the way in which wealth is now created.

We’ve gone from an economy where we make things to an economy where we make things up: Default credit swaps, derivatives, CDOs, and the like have turned Wall Street into a casino ... the promise of upward mobility – that if you work hard and play by the rules, you’ll do well and your children will have the chance to do even better – has been broken. Two-thirds of Americans now think their children will be worse off than they are.

The Canadian banks, who received almost $70 billion in not so much a bailout as a handout, have lowered the interest rates on borrowing, but that also means lower interest rates on savings.  We just renewed an RRSP at 1.3%.   When we bought it we were earning almost 11%.  How can people save for retirement unless they are willing to gamble on the stock market?

And a lower borrowing rate only encourages more debt, and Canada now has one of the highest debt to income ratios in the world. 
 
Mitt Romney's financial statements should come as no surprise, because they are not unlike most millionaire's or billionaire's today.  The only way to make any real money is to become a vulture, capitalizing on the misfortune of others.
 
We all know what happens in Third World countries when that attitude prevails.

Would a Romney Victory Mean the End of the Conservative Movement?

Mitt Romney won the New Hampshire primary with 40% of the vote and appears to be heading toward winning the Republican nomination.

Unlike most of his opponents, he has not "surged" but just plodded along, attacking when he needed to attack, and standing up to the blows from his tag-teamed conservative opponents.

In the weeks leading up to these important votes, there was a lot of talk about the conservative movement mobilizing to knock him out, yet they were unable to do that.

They appear instead, to have burned themselves out, by focusing too much on issues that are now non-issues.  Same-sex marriage (more than half of Americans now support it), gay rights, abortion and immigration.  It's getting old and at a time when the American economy is in crisis, people are looking for someone whose attention will be on that.

The conservative movement was successful only when they downplayed the social conservative elements, instead working behind the scenes to pursue their agenda.  Ronald Reagan was able to play the role of a moderate, despite the fact that he was anything but.  Stephen Harper appears to be having some success with the same strategy, though the extremism is always there just beneath the surface.

The candidates endorsed by conservatives wear their views on their sleeves and because of that, will never be able to win an election, when the majority of Americans simply don't share those views.

What is telling about the New Hampsire results, is that Ron Paul, the Libertarian, came in second with 23%. 

On Chris Matthew's Hardball this week they discussed the possibility of Paul running as an independent, since he seems to be a hit with the younger generation.  He's not a social conservative, opposes big government and government spending, is anti-war and believes that marijuana should be legalized.

He may not win the presidency, but could split the right-wing vote.

Mitt Romney's chances would depend on who he chose as a running mate.  I actually liked John McCain and believe that he would have done much better, had it not been for Sarah Palin.  The thought that she would be president if McCain's health failed, was terrifying.

Romney also appears to be reaching out to corporate America, where the real Republican clout is. In his speech after the Iowa caucus victory, he said that he would get America on its feet with the help of the "job creators", conservative code for lowering taxes for the wealthy.

Same old, same old.

I Think I Can Answer the Question on This Week's Cover of Time

"In Gallup's poll of the Republican faithful at the start of 1966, Nixon was ahead by twenty-three points. Michigan governor George Romney sat fourth. But Romney was the one all the pundits were picking ..." Nixonland, By Rick Perlstein, 2008

George Romney was of course, Mitt's father.  But why did the pundits think that he would beat out Nixon?

I just received this week's Time magazine and on the front cover they have George's son asking "Why don't they like me?"

On Chris Matthews Hardball this week, several on the panel are still predicitng a Romney victory.  However, what they fail to understand is that the base of the party are not looking for a Republican who can win, but a true "conservative" to carry their banner, come hell or high water.

In 1966, the media had not yet caught on to the fact that the Republican Party had been hijacked by the conservative movement.  They simply felt that George Romney was the best man for the job, and assumed that all those voting Republican would see that.

However, Conservatives would not have thrown their support behind Romney the way they did Nixon, earning him not only the candidacy, but the presidency.

Newt Gingrich is surging in the polls despite the fact that he is a serial adulterer, and despite the fact that other polls indicate that he would not do well against Obama.

He is a regular on Fox News so he's one of them.

It's not that don't like you Mitt. You're just not "conservative" enough. It's that simple.

All the attacks in the world, won't change that.

A Half a Century Later and We are Losing Half a Century

The Canadian Manifesto: How the American Neoconservatives Stole My Country

In researching the conservative movement on both sides of the border, one thing becomes clear.  In the U.S. they don't like to be referred to as Republican any more than Stephen Harper likes to be called a Tory.  They are CONSERVATIVE, and there is a difference.  The Republican Party is only the vehicle on their route to power.

Historian Richard Perlstein, writing of the 1960s conservative takeover of the GOP, says "A right-wing fringe took over the party from the ground up" while the Eastern establishment has been reduced to a "fringe looking on in bafflement". (Nixonland, 2003)

The picture above is definitely worth a thousand words.  Nelson Rockefeller, who should have beaten Barry Goldwater for the nomination in 1964, George Romney and of course Ronald Reagan.

Mitt looks a lot like his dad, and like his dad he could very well be obliterated by history.  George Romney was a moderate who opposed the Vietnam War and supported Civil Rights.  The conservatives had to crush him, and now feel the same way about his son. 
 
This is important for Canadians to understand, because Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada, were born of this movement. 

Ernest Manning* and his son Preston, planned to take over the PC Party in the 1960s, until Robert Stanfield, a Red Tory, won the leadership, and they knew they'd have to wait.  They wrote a book Political Realignment, that called for a definitive right-wing party to challenge a definitive left-wing party, and no soft centre.
 
It's not hard to see how we are being realigned, though I think Canadians may finally be balking as such an unnatural situation in a country that has always been somewhere in the middle.
 
Colin Brown, the man who created the National Citizens Coalition, initially to oppose public healthcare, read Political Realignment, contacted Ernest Manning and together they built the NCC into a voice for corporate interests.  Stephen Harper ran the NCC before running for the Alliance leadership (they kept his position open for four years in case it didn't work out).
 
Gerry Nicholls, Harper's VP when he headed up the organization, was fired for criticizing his former boss.  Not his wasteful spending, though he did publicly denounce it, but because he committed the mortal sin of suggesting that Stephen Harper was not "conservative" enough.  
 
If lynching was legal they would have strung him up.
 
Perlstein tells us that while American Conservatives were devoted to Barry Goldwater, they had their suspicions of Richard Nixon, who had also initially spoke out against the Vietnam War.  It wasn't until a young Nixon aid, spoke to his Conservative allies and assured them that Nixon was only trying to garner support from moderates, that they agreed to back him. 
 
That young aid?  Pat Buchanan.
 
Being devoutly anti-Communist and anti-Civil Rights, Ronald Reagan was never in doubt.  When he ran against incumbent Jerry Brown, as Governor of California, Brown tried to expose Reagan's extremism, that included his ties to the John Birch Society.
 
However, as one Reagan insider told the Brown team: "A Bircher isn't identifiable, but a negro is."  At least they had the "'right' colour" on their side.
 
The conservative movement, as well as the Religious Right, has always been about race, and they appear to be successfully wiping out the last 50 years of tolerance.   One Kentucky Church is even banning interracial marriage.  How long before others follow suit?
 
This week Ezra Levant responded to the Attawapiskat crisis with so many "white people" chants, I was waiting for his Freudian to slip, and he break into a "white power" shout.
 
Richard Nixon and Stephen Harper shared the political expertise of Arthur Finkelstein, but it was the Reagan/Harper guru, Paul Weyrich, who taught them the art of hatred.
 
Harper's decision to cut 31.5 million in funding to Ontario immigrant programs, and his new immigration policies, must have the late Weyrich looking up, cackling in the flames.
 
Footnotes:
 
*Suncor founder, the late J. Howard Pew, gave money to Manning, Reagan, Goldwater and Nixon.  His Pew Foundation now supports many right-wing causes.

Picante Sauce and Why Mitt Romney May Lose the Nomination Race

David Horsey wrote recently that Mitt Romney was the only adult in the GOP Kindergarten Race.  He's probably right.  However, will it matter?

Since the Republican Party was taken over by the Conservative Movement in 1964, they have a different criteria for a leader than simply the ability to win an election.  You have to be a devout conservative, dedicated to their three pillars of military might, a free market economy (which includes dismantling the welfare state) and forced morality, mainly on the issues of homosexuality and abortion.

The surges have come and gone in this race, with Herman Cain now tanking, and Newt Gingrich picking up what Herman Cain and Rick Perry have lost.  This despite the fact that a recent poll suggested that Romney could beat Obama.

I just finished reading Rick Perlstein's, Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus.  He goes into great detail how the conservative movement, which actually began in the 1940s, was rejuvenated with the help of William Buckley Jr. and the conservative youth, who secured Goldwater's nomination.

The Republican Party at the time, was gravely concerned with this force, because the ideals it represented were not party policy.  Moderates, who had rallied around Nelson Rockefeller, saw their hopes dashed when he became embroiled in a scandal, leaving his wife for a younger woman.

So with Eisenhower leading the way, they encouraged other moderates to step up, including ironically, George Romney, Mitt's father.  Of course we know what happened.  Goldwater won the nomination, but was trounced by LBJ.

However, this was not seen as a loss by the movement, but in a crazy way, as a victory.  They now had a catalyst.  Something that would help to establish an "us vs them" political argument.

Lionel Trilling (1905-1975), a member of the New York Intellectuals, wrote of the reactionary nature of the new conservatism:

Such impulses are certainly very strong, perhaps even stronger than most of us know. But the conservative impulse and the reactionary impulse do not, with some isolated and some ecclesiastical exceptions, express themselves in ideas but only in action or in irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas.

I quoted Trilling because he is one of the scholars hated by the New Right.  Not that he was a "leftie", believing instead that "between" was "the only honest place to be."

A comment made by Buckley in 1964, validates the idea of the creation of a reactionary force, rather than a political party.

Buckley had had a conversation with Richard Clurman, Time's chief of correspondents, who wondered just what was Barry Goldwater's appeal to an urban scholar like Buckley, to which he replied:  "Barry Goldwater is a man of tremendously decent instincts, and with a basic banal but important understanding of the Constitution and what it means in American life."

"But what would happen if he were elected President of the United States'?" Clurman asked, to which Buckley responded: "That might be a serious problem."

The Conservative Movement was building a base, and they needed the Goldwaters of the nation to do it for them.  Someone who could reach into the banality of the masses.

I've visited several right-wing websites in the past few days, to get some idea of how the "banal" forces feel about the candidates, and there appears to be a common concern.  The East, as represented by Romney, is trying to take over the Republican Party.  They didn't care if he could win, only that he is deemed to not be a "true" conservative.

It reminded me of those Pace picante sauce commercials, with the "New York City??!!" line.  Very effective marketing.  Change the sauce to the GOP race, and those ads could be revived. Romney is not from New York, but it doesn't change anything.

This is not a race for a Republican leader, but for a Conservative leader.

And if someone like Rick Perry or Michelle Bachmann won, well ... "that might be a serious problem" for all of us.  They are now debating, not whether there should be an attack (even a nuclear one) on Iran, but who should strike first, the united States or Israel.

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.

The Republican Debates Now Turning Into the Reform-Alliance Debates

Watching the Republican presidential hopefuls duke it out to determine who is the most absurd, I'm reminded of how far this party has fallen since the days of Eisenhower. I doubt they'd get anyone "normal" to run now.

In the latest round of insanity, Rick Perry's team is attacking Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon, which apparently is the next thing to being in a "cult".

The Mormon faith of Mitt Romney, a leading contender to be the Republican presidential candidate, has been thrust to the forefront of the electoral contest. Robert Jeffress, an evangelical pastor and supporter of a Republican rival, Rick Perry, said the religion was an anti-Christian "cult."

... Jeffress, who leads a 10,000-member Baptist mega church in Dallas, said evangelical Republicans had only one option in the party's primary elections because Mormonism was "a cult." He added: "Every true, born-again follower of Christ ought to embrace a Christian over a non-Christian." Asked if he believed Romney, 64, was a Christian, Jeffress said: "No."

This nonsense reminds me of Canada in 2000, when Preston Manning and Stockwell Day were competing for the leadership of the Alliance Party.

When Jason Kenney and Day brought in the more radical fundamentalists to campaign for them, Manning's camp suggested that there was a "Jim Jones Kool-Aid quality to what was going on." (1) AKA: a cult, though in this case they weren't far off the mark.

Jason Kenney attended St. Ignatius Jesuit school in San Francisco, when it was said that one of the instructors, Fr. Cornelius M. Buckley's "liturgies based on Catholic orthodoxy, inspired a "cult like" following. One of Kenney's teachers confirmed in an interview, that our Jas wanted to take religion back to the 50s. "Not the 1950s, but the 1550s".



I called the university myself and spoke with a Jesuit priest, an extremely nice man. He claimed to remember the case well and said that the pro-choice advocates used law students from the school to represent them. It was a very polarizing time.

Stockwell Day also has a history of religious extremism. The minister who took over for Day when he was running the Bentley Bible schools told journalist Gordon Laird:

Throughout this period, Stockwell Day was assistant pastor and school administrator. "They changed their by-laws so that the people would have no say - leaders to be appointed by other leaders, as determined by scripture," explains Rathjen. "It was a haughty, arrogant, pride-filled success story that led to disaster." Fuelled by American-style revivalism, the church emphasized radical gospel practices - such as speaking-in-tongues - that whipped worshippers into a frenzy. "They have emotional experiences and then try to build a doctrine around it," explains Rathjen. The intensity of the church and constant stream of visiting American pastors gave Bentley an international profile within fundamentalist circles. But the church eventually succumbed to its own extremes.

"I would say that it was as close to a cult as you can get," says pastor Rathjen. "They were still holding on to the Christian teaching - but with manipulation and control. (2)

In 2002, when Stephen Harper and Day were competing for the leadership, similar arguments ensued. From Report Magazine:

One thing is for certain. This is going to be a dirty campaign--perhaps even nastier than in 2000, when the Tom Long campaign was accused of being a homosexual coven and Mr. Day was compared to mass murderer Jim Jones. And despite Mr. Harper's promise to avoid personal attacks--a promise made also by Mr. Day--it was his campaign that drew first blood.(3)

After Maurice Vellacott held a rally for Day at his Bible college, Harper accused them of exploiting religion:

Last week, organizers for Mr. Harper went public with concerns that Mr. Day is appealing to a narrow base of religious groups -- including orthodox Jews, Pentecostals and anti-abortion Catholics -- in a bid to regain the leadership post he was forced to relinquish late last year.(4)

Yet, not long after winning the leadership, Harper told a group of supporters that he would also be tapping into Day's fundamentalists to create "his base".

... he outlined plans for a broad new party coalition that would ensure a lasting hold on power. The only route, he argued, was to focus not on the tired wish list of economic conservatives ... but on what he called “theo-cons”—those social conservatives who care passionately about hot-button issues that turn on family, crime, and defence ... Arguing that the party had to come up with tough, principled stands on everything from parents’ right to spank their children to putting “hard power” behind the country’s foreign-policy commitments ..." (5)

Later Stephen Harper would brag that he had more pro-life supporters than Day. Good for him.

Anyone who doubts that Canada now has its first Republican government, only needs to watch the current Republican debates.

This is why you can't mix religion and politics. C.S. Lewis's hallway with the little rooms representing the different faiths, got boarded up and the house has been set on fire.

I think this "new conservatism" will collapse under the weight of their own nonsense.

Sources:

1. Requiem for a Lightweight: Stockwell Day and Image Politics, By Trevor Harrison, Black Rose Books, 2002, ISBN: 1-55164-206-9, p. 62

2. Bentley, Alberta: Hellfire, Neo-Nazis and Stockwell Day: A two-part look inside the little town that nurtured a would-be prime minister - and so"me of the most notorious hate-mongers in Canada, By Gordon Laird, NOW Magazine, 2000

3. Strange Alliances, By Kevin Michael Grace, Report Newsmagazine, February 04, 2002

4. Day slips into Bible college for Rally, By S. Alberts, National Post, February 13, 2002

5. Stephen Harper and the Theo-cons: The rising clout of Canada’s religious right, By Marci McDonald, Walrus Magazine, October 2006

Perry Down - Protesters Up

Rick Perry is now dropping in the polls, with Mitt Romney taking the lead.

I guess having a ranch named "Niggerhead" didn't win him any points. The Tea Partiers would have loved it, but the Republican leader has to be able to win over more than the crazies to get elected.

It really says a lot for the state of the party though, when Mitt Romney is now considered to be a moderate.

And on the good news front, the Wall Street protests continue to grow.

Let's hope these stories are related.

I just finished another section of my Canadian Manifesto. It's flowing better now and should progress faster. With two elections down, I'll have a bit more time to work on it.

Where is Barry Goldwater When we Need Him?

"I think every good Christian ought to kick [Jerry] Falwell right in the ass." Barry Goldwater

Many American Neoconservatives claim to have become politically active, after the trouncing of Barry Goldwater in the 1964 election. Deemed to be too far right, he lost to Lyndon Johnson, by one of the largest landslides in history.

Ironically, by today's standards, Goldwater would have been a moderate. He supported Gay Rights, and hated the Moral Majority. His call out for a butt kicking, was in response to Jerry Falwell suggesting that Sandra Day O'Connor was not committed enough to ending abortion.

He also once said that "I wouldn't trust Nixon from here to that phone. " and denounced Reagan's "parade of millionaires".   As to the lavish balls that the Reagans held in the White House, he thought them too ostentatious when so many Americans were suffering.

Goldwater was a Libertarian who wanted to dismantle the Welfare State, but he was not completely heartless.  Mind you, he also claimed that in war there no such thing as a civilian, so his humanity was not without its limits.
 
Recently, we have learned that 15.1 percent of Americans now live in poverty; the highest number in the 52 years that the Census Bureau has been tracking it.
 
Yet the Republicans are up in arms because President Obama wants to eliminate $467 billion in tax breaks for wealthier Americans and corporations, and they won't hear of it.
 
Wall Street is again nervous, but as we know, when Wall Street gambles and loses, taxpayers are expected to bail them out.  But when the American people, those same taxpayers, are suffering, that's just too bad.  They're on their own.
 
The corporate funded Tea Party waves their flag, and accusations of being "un-American", are never directed at those hording all the wealth, only at those waiting for the promised "trickle down".
 
Those lazy sinners.

The Republican presidential candidate race is coming down to two men: Rick Perry and Mitt Romney.

Though a devout Mormon, Romney is a moderate. He's for civil rights, Gay Rights, and even supports abortion for victims of rape and incest.

He should be pleasing to both the caring Evangelicals and right leaning Democrats. And he would probably make a pretty good president, though I would prefer that Americans turn down the volume on their right-wing noise machine, and give Obama more of a chance.

But Americans are suffering, and they will always blame that suffering on those in power, forgetting the horrible mess that the man inherited from George Bush.

However, it would appear that the Republicans believe that Rick Perry has a better chance at winning the White House, based partly on the fact that he can fill auditoriums in public prayer.  He's the man to bring God back to government, come hell or high water.

Another contender, Michelle Bachmann, claims that the recent hurricanes are God's wrath for the First Amendment, that separated Church and State.  Perry takes that even further, holding rallies against the Amendment and his state had Thomas Jefferson (the author of it) removed from their school books.

I'm reading a book Just leave God Out of it, by Tim Riter and David Timms of the private Christian University, Hope International  in Fullerton, California.

They open by telling the story of a men's religious retreat in Australia.  After a morning of prayer, they took a break to play a little rugby.  During the game, one of the men suffered an injury, resulting in his ankle being bent an odd angle.

Everyone scrambled, looking for ice and determining the quickest route to the hospital.  But then one of the camp workers came over and asked the group, "Has anyone prayed for him yet?"

"Ouch!  Great and intense teachings on prayer were ignored."  So the men prayed first and then took the suffering individual to the hospital.  According to the authors, this was a wake up call as to how much "cultural creep" was affecting society.  Secularism was clashing with "godly values".

"This challenge is serious. The value of our culture subtly squeezes us into their mold, at the expense of biblical values."

I would have put more value on easing the man's pain and making sure that he got immediate medical attention, but biblical values say that he must suffer while first they pray.  No mention of God-given medical know how.

I'm reminded of a joke I heard several years ago. 

Warnings of a flood had prompted an evacuation, but one man was without transportation to leave, so his neighbours offered him a ride.  He refused saying that he was going to put his faith in the Lord, who he felt certain would save him.  So instead he prayed.

The inevitable flood took place, and rescuers in a boat found the man in his water logged home praying.  They offered him a ride, but again he refused, saying that he was going to put his faith in the Lord, who he felt certain would save him.

Finally, as the waters engulfed his home, and the man was standing on his roof, a helicopter hovered overhead offering a life line. But again he refused saying that he was going to put his faith in the Lord, who he felt certain would save him.

The man drowned and when he got to Heaven he asked God why he had forsaken him.  The reply:  "But I sent you a car, a boat and a helicopter.  What more did you want from me?"

Rick Perry would not only be that man on his roof, but the tyrant who would lock the entire community in their homes, so that they could go down with him.

I wonder what Barry Goldwater would want to kick on this guy.  It's obvious that he's already taken a swift kick to the head.

I remember my mom being afraid of Barry Goldwater.  She was an English war bride who had lived through the bombings, and felt that he would lead us into another world war.

I can't believe I'm now looking back to the glory days of the Republicans, when Barry Goldwater was the voice of conservatism, and perhaps their last voice of reason.

A Harper majority and Rick Perry in the White House?  Heaven help us.