Both Hanukkah and Christmas are about the celebration of God’s miracles to the world. Yet, there are many who simply see it as a time to “celebrate”; although celebrate nothing in particular. As a Christian, rather than be offended by the “hijacking of my religion”, I have faith that God has a plan for all of us; that we are all on a journey. When people talk about the joy and “spirit” of the holidays, the door is already there and open - all it takes is a single step through it. Maybe this is part of God’s plan. The omission of God in much of the celebratory activities - for me anyway - is steeped in this sense of hope.

I try not to reflect too much on the attacks by secular activists on my natural, inalienable freedom to express my beliefs. I can sustain these direct, politicized assaults on our freedom, but I think many fail to understand how all of this impacts day-to-day life. Simple things -  like a friend or relative, who expresses “discomfort” when you say a blessing with your kids before the meal in a restaurant -  make it clear how effective the secularization of our country has been. The “right” not to be offended is considered more important than my Right to practice my religion; even in something as basic to our beliefs as prayer. That a person who would be offended if I did not thank them for purchasing a meal would be offended if I thank God for providing is dismaying.

Hanukkah without God is meaningless. Christmas without Christ is nothing. If you celebrate as a believer, the meaning is obvious. But if you are “celebrating the joy and spirit of the season”, I ask you: Why is there joy and what is the spirit? The answer is simple - you are caught up in the joy and spirit of God’s miracles. Try to remember what “the holiday season or Xmas” would be like without the spirit of celebration; without the joy. Then try to save being offended for something other than the reason for that joy.

Happy Hanukkah & Merry Christmas

This is a transcript of a discussion on yesterday’s show:

President-elect Barack Obama calls it “the largest new investment in our national infrastructure since the creation of the federal highway system in the 1950s.”

The New Deal – all over again.

Most of the infrastructure spending being proposed for the massive stimulus package that Obama and congressional Democrats are readying, however, is not based on anything new. The money will go to projects that have been on the wish lists of state highway departments for years.
Obama wants to “rebuild America” with an “infrastructure bank” run by a new board that would award $60 billion over a decade to projects such as high-speed rail to take the country in a more energy-efficient direction. But the current economic issue has put some pressure to start projects immediately – low hanging fruit - “use it or lose it,” according to Obama. What he means is that while America is in a spending mood, we gotta get some stuff started. Gotta get the spending started. But let’s take a look at the New New Deal – and actually the Old New Deal for that matter.

FDR created a lot of government work during his New Deal Administration before WWII – 1934 – 1940, we were in a deep depression caused by the type of economic policy we followed in the 1920’s. In 1929 financial disaster struck. By 1934, unemployment was 17.4 percent. So FDR came into office with Relief, Reform, and Recovery – I will fix the economy. When we entered WWII, the economy was not terribly better than is was in 1934 – unemployment was still 17.4 percent and had not dropped below 14% at any time during this period. The New Deal was all about government spending and regulation. The New New Deal is all about government spending and regulation – this is why we have the “deregulation” caused our economic problems meme out there now. They are already making the case for more regulation. There is going to be a car czar. There is going to be a new board to oversee this $60 in improvements that is the low hanging fruit of the “chase your tail economic policy” that is going to end up defining Obamanomics.

President Elect Obama is going to fix the economy the same way and with the same effects. The New Deal took money out of the economy and put it into government work programs and hand outs. But the soup kitchen lines didn’t go away. And when people finished the CCC projects, and left their camps to go back home – the jobs still were not there. Only a war saved America from another 10 years of depression.

Let me quote a recent article at RealClearPolitics.com by Mona Charen

“Amity Shlaes’ “The Forgotten Man” reminds us that FDR was a class warrior with a vengeance, always at pains to pin the nation’s ills on “economic royalists” who had, he claimed, depressed wages, fixed prices, and conspired to keep all of the nation’s wealth in their own greedy hands. FDR’s war on businessmen (which featured not just rhetorical but actual criminal prosecutions) spread fear and timidity throughout the entrepreneurial sector. Shlaes writes, “The New Yorker magazine’s cartoons of the plump, terrified Wall Streeter were accurate; business was terrified of the president. But the cartoons did not depict the consequences of that intimidation: that businesses decided to wait Roosevelt out, hold on to their cash, and invest in future years.”

President Obama wants to spread the wealth and spend more of your money; and the same thing is going to happen. This recession is going to go on longer than it would if that money was kept in the economy.

It is only recently that the New Deal myth has really taken hold. At the time there was less pretense. In “New Deal or Raw Deal?” Burton Folsom of Hillsdale College quotes Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau. Testifying before the House Ways & Means Committee in May of 1939, - and this was a guy who was an ally and acolyte of FDR – here is what he said in his testimony.

“We are spending more money than we have ever spent before and it does not work. … I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started … and an enormous debt to boot.”

So, FDR’s failed policy is the basis for President Obama’s economic policy. Taking more money from you and spending on government projects.

Now, let’s take another view. Let’s look at what happens when your employer has more money. Let’s look at what happens when YOU have more money.

When your employer has more money, they tend to invest it. They invest in better computers for example. They invest in better benefits to retain good employees. They give out bonuses for good performance. Raises are significantly higher in the corporate world than they are during tight years. In a country where our businesses pay higher tax rates than 95% of the rest of the world, the President Elect wants to take more money from your employer and then give it to someone who hasn’t worked for it. Wouldn’t you rather that money went to you than to the government? Doesn’t it make more sense to leave that money with you than to take it, process it through this archaic economic structure of the government and then give it back to you? Isn’t that an expensive way to let you keep your money? That is, if you get any back at all. Some of you – more than anyone is willing to admit – are going to pay into a tax system and get nothing back. Your money goes to someone else.

But President Obama is going to preside over his call to service programs and his New Deal programs. Make work government spending instead of putting that money into the private sector, where it is spent efficiently. Government is almost NEVER the efficient way to get something done. The New New Deal – channeling FDR.

This goes back to what I was saying during the campaign. You had Barack Obama channeling JFK, MLK, RFK. Then we have the “shoes photo” where he is channeling Adlai Stevenson. Then on election night – which was profound and memorable to me – I a think we were seeing Ronald Reagan being channeled. Now it is FDR. I don’t think we have met Barack Obama yet – but to be fair, all we have are the 8-9 press conferences he has had since election night.

We will get to know the Real Barack Obama over the next 4 years. That should worry you a bit - I was hopeful until I saw his choices for Cabinet positions. Liberals in key positions and moderates where he could afford them. What does that mean? Liberal policy on key issues and moderate policy where he can afford it.

On election night, President elect Obama talked about unifying and reaching out to Republicans, so he could be everyone’s president. I knew we had heard it before - I have been around politics a while now. But, on that night, and since, I have been willing to give hope and change a chance. For me, it was hope that the Clinton legacy related to the White House was over. As President elect Obama makes those tough choices for cabinet positions and other appointments, two things become clear:

1) There is no indication in any of the prominent posts of anything resembling “crossing the aisle”.

2) President elect Obama is either taking over the Clinton oligarchy or becoming a victim of it.

In any case, change is not yet apparent in an Obama administration. The folks being considered as top of the list for cabinet posts are part of the very means by which the current state of divisive, highly polarized politicking has gone down since the Clintons came to town.

Rahm Emmanuel, Chicago ties. While a bulldog of the Democratic Party, was a pretty good choice for WH Chief of Staff. That job requires a tenacious, kick-ass temperament and utter loyalty to the President, while knowing how to get things done in the inner-circle.

Peter Orszag - this makes a lot of sense for an Obama administration. Orszag seems competent and he is being awarded a post well within his sphere of experience - gifted in this area even.

Penny Pritzker - Commerce Secretary. Chicago ties.  Well, she knows how to make money, but she was also involved in the sub-prime mortgage mess and a bank she chaired was seized by the FDIC in 2001 because the over-extended themselves in sub-prime lending.

Tom Daschel - Health and Human Services. Puting former Senator Daschel in charge of the $650 Billion/year (and likely to grow) HHS budget, well that seems logical. HHS is all about spending money and Daschel is god at that.

Eric Holder - This is Janet Reno 2.0

Janet Napolitano - Homeland Security Secretary. I didn’t see this coming at all. Napolitcano was appointed by Bill Clinton to a Federal attorney position in Arizona. She ran for State Attorney General and won. Then she ran for Governor and won. She owes a lot to the Clintons. I figured she got tapped for the transition team as a concession because of her support for Obama, when it was expected she would support Hillary. HSS? I don’t see it. She can’t even secure her own state’s border with Mexico. On the other hand, she has claimed that securing that southern border is a federal issue, so now she has the power to do something. Will she?

Tim Roemer - National Intelligence Director - it was his idea to create this department and he has a lot of skin in the game as far as the way this should be run. He is a social conservative and a political liberal. I honestly don’t know a lot about the guy, but I don’t have a beef with him because of that. This seems a good posting, but it certainly is not reaching across any aisles.

James B. Steinberg - Deputy NSA under Clinton.

Here is the complete list from the AP of possible personalities for these posts. The trend is clear - nothing is changing. These are all well entrenched members of the Democratic Party political machine that has been involved in the polarization and lack of accomplishment in Washington for more that a decade. Knowing many of these folks’ policy stances and records, I understand exactly the type of political battles that are going to be occurring in the next term.

President elect Obama, the honeymoon is already over.

The 44th Vice President of the United States, Dan Quayle, offered advice to the 44th President (President-elect Obama) recently- Learn to say no. President-elect Obama seems to be challenged with a need to say no to a lot of people right now, whether he wants to or not.

He is going to have to say no to many who thought his administration was going to immediately shift into major immigration reform. Some will say this is because his aunt is an illegal immigrant, but that isn’t the issue - although it could prove to be a short period embarrassment for a new president. But President Obama has a lot of other reform to achieve and most of it will not be easy -with or without Rahm Emanuel.

The Obama Administration is going to have to tackle the economy first and fast. There is health care to address and this issue alone is going to bring out all of the rancor and rhetoric that can be mustered in American politics. Social inSecurity is going to occupy this administration as more boomers, whose retirement plans have been devastated by the Fannie and Freddie debacle, begin to ease out of the workforce.

Which reminds me - if there was any doubt that how people “retire” is forever changed in America, that should be comepletely gone at this point. Except for some of the Union workers and government employees out there, there are no more “Gold Watch and Pension” retirements for the average American.

President Obama is going to find that the enormous political capital reserve he has will dry up very fast with the American people. It is time to look at policy and a lot of that landscape looks bad, bad. On January 21st, the Kumbaya portion of President Obama’s administration is over. I pray that “Hope and Change” does not better define how we get over and Obama administration - we’ve got a lot riding on this guy.

Is he graying yet?

Be proud!

God bless you and God bless America.

I have heard a lot of commentators and pundits talking about “what went wrong”? And we have heard of a group of conservative big shots meeting in West Virginia to talk about how to repackage conservatism and push the Republican Party back to the right. Repackage and brand conservatism to be more appealing to Hispanics, blacks, Jews, and the more centrist Republicans. I will tell you right now, for all of their dedication to the cause of conservatism, these folks are bonkers. They are missing the entire freaking boat. Those who are attacking Palin or McCain for that matter are missing the boat as well. This is not the fault of anyone – any one. This is the result of what we have become as a party and where our movement has gone as conservatives. But we don’t need to rebrand it.

- Conservatism is not a shoe polish, nor a floor wax; and no, pets do not love it too. It does not slice, dice, nor make thousands of Julienne fries. Conservatism is not something you MAKE appealing to someone. These folks are trying to figure out how to SELL conservatism to voters. How to mass market it and this my friends will not work – this was tried with the Republican party in general and what we have now is a Party that has been watered down to the extent of being rather meaningless from the point of a political movement. Republican or Democrat is meaningless because the center of the American political spectrum is made up of both Republicans and Democrats. There is no delineation, no set of policy circumstances which clearly define why someone is a Republican or a Democrat. The outcome of trying to rebrand conservatism is going to have the same impact – people will become “conservatives” for entirely the wrong reason, the movement will be watered down and in this way it will die as an effective force in American politics.

Now, some might say, it is already ineffective. They might tell you that Right of center principals were rejected by electing Barack Obama. Well, one conservative principal is protecting the definition of marriage. That measure passed handily in California – a state Barack Obama won easily. Hawaii recently terminated a health care program that was a mirror of the ideas President Elect Obama has put forth – the mandated care for all children. They learned that it is impossible to manage and impossible to pay for. The point I am making is that some conservative ideals are natural for people to gravitate toward and others are things people will have to learn. Conservatism is philosophical in nature more than it is scientific. There is no finite set of criteria involved here – if you try to sell the philosophy – repackage it – to fit a larger number of people, are you changing the peoples’ minds about the ideals or are you changing the meaning of conservatism?

Here is what I propose. This universe and everything in it works on a cycle. Everything – God built an automatic renewal system into life. We are born, we grow and die. Day follows night, good economic times follow bad economic times. Other examples of this can be seen on whatever micro or macro level you choose to explore. Everything has its cycle.

What I propose is instead of trying to make conservatism more appealing to people, make them understand why it exists to begin with. People need to know the facts about who pays for what in this world. Let’s take taxes. K-Mart makes over $250,000 per year, I am pretty sure. So, President Elect Obama will raise taxes on K-Mart because this company is rich, right? We’re going to spread some of K-Mart’s wealth. Do you think K-Mart pays those taxes? There are accountants of various flavors who have these neat pricing models for everything K-Mart sells. All they have to do is increase the prices of 7000 various items Americans purchase; and guess who just paid K-Mart’s higher tax rate? Big companies don’t pay taxes – their customers do, because these folks owe it to their investors – and by this I mean the retired teachers, factory workers, etc who have pension plans and 401Ks they are now using to live off of – they owe it to these people to make a profit. So, tell people what it means when they say tax the rich. Tax the rich means the poor pay more for all the goods and services they buy. Conservatism points this out – it is not a rebranding of conservatism, it is a better, logical explanation of why conservatives favor lower taxes. If the cost of doing business is lower, more business gets done. It is not rocket science and does not need rebranding.

People don’t reject these sorts of issues, when they are explained. But then there are social issues. Same Sex Marriage and Abortion are a couple we can use as examples here. A large number of Californians and Arizonans have again stated they want something which protects the definition of marriage. Now, I believe this number would actually be larger if more people – on either side – stuck to what the issue was. But people being people – on both sides – this becomes a boggy mess. Is it about religion? To a degree yes – marriage is an institution that only exists because of religion. Government has made it a probate issue. Marriage should not be manipulated by government – period. If you want to assume all of the life and death responsibilities and probate benefits of your uncle Earl or a life mate of the same sex as you are – I could care less. I don’t care what you do in your bedroom and I agreed with the folks in the 80’s and 90’s who said the government has no business dictating what folks do in their homes as long as no lawful evil was being done to victimize anyone. I agreed with the sodomy laws being overturned in all of the states – if the states themselves so voted – so we were not prosecuting gay couples for their activities in their own abodes. You cannot stop people from caring about one another – although I disagree with your choices in this issue, it is none of my business. Now, I apply that same logic to Marriage. Government has no right messing with it. We have folks on one side of this equation talking about it is evil and I will help stop it. You are wrong. We have folks on the other side using marriage to gain acceptance for something most folks don’t practice or agree with, if they care about it at all. You are wrong. Legislation and judicial fiat has never overcome a cultural norm. It may exacerbate the circumstances surrounding the issue, but never has it solved a cultural problem. Conservatism cannot either.

Conservatism does not need to be rebuilt. It was not abandoned, and it has not lost anything. On policy, we will watch carefully what goes on in Washington and I will expose the political mumbo jumbo as it happens and give you a common sense conservative viewpoint of the issues. We will continue to promote smaller government, with less spending ability, with less power, we will continue to advocate that we are best able to govern ourselves at the state and closer venues, rather than folks in a single large city in the US deciding what is best for us. They we can shape our own policy.

At the same time - there are things in life bigger than governing and policy. I think we experienced an event of monumental proportions with the election of President Elect Obama – because he is a black man, yes that has great meaning to many in this country; but more than that. A vast segment of the American population has been impacted by this man on a notion. Some call it hope and change because those have been the words used to label it, but that is not it either. It is the notion that they have a voice. They have an impact, a say it in their future. ore people taking the time to care, taking the time – even if it is only the time to fill in the little circles on the ballet - to be heard. We can work on how much these people learn about political philosophy, but it is nice to see more people have a position about America’s destiny.

For those of you worried about the “slippery slope to socialism” - Socialist policy does not survive the real world. It has been proven in every country it has been tried in. The same challenges are always the defeat of this way of governing. We will always throw out poorly executed, or poorly applied ideals, and we will always conquer socialism – it has already been done around the world and we know how to do it. Common sense must rule how we do this – not by rebranding our ideals, but by living them.

This is sad news.

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) — Michael Crichton, who helped create the TV show “ER” and wrote the best-sellers “Jurassic Park,” “The Andromeda Strain,” “Sphere” and “Rising Sun,” has died in Los Angeles, his public relations firm said in a news release.

Crichton died unexpectedly Tuesday “after a courageous and private battle against cancer,” the release said.

He was 66.

Alaska, this question goes to you.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over? You re-elect a guy who was just convicted of 7 felonies? Can he even vote in his state?

Minnesota, this question goes to you.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over? You pour out the vote to a tax-cheating pornographer prone to violent outbursts? He’s not even funny anymore!

Guys! Really??

WTF?

As I write this, Senator Obama has 333 electoral votes. I did not vote for him. Yet, I am so proud of my country tonight and I am proud to call Senator Obama, “Mr. President”. This is a historic night for the entire world. The 44th President of the United States is a man of both African and American descent - this is only possible in America.

President Obama will lead an administration that supports policy I vehemently disagree with. I will write and speak out about these things, just as I would if John McCain had been elected. But, in all other things with regards to this country - these United States of America, which I have served in uniform and love beyond words - I am committed to my President. That man is Barack Obama.

We have a lot of work before us. President-Elect Obama is now facing the toughest time of his life - a war on two fronts, an economy that is impacting so many of our fellow citizens, and then those challenges we don’t know about yet. The honeymoon will be short for our new president. I pray we will endure and I pray President Obama will endure.

My hope is that those of you who voted for Senator McCain, or simply voted against Senator Obama, as I did, will join me in supporting this wonderful, humbling, historic event. It does not mean you should not fight for policy you believe in. But let us not turn this proud moment in our history into something destructive. You don’t have to give him a free ride, but do Give President-Elect Obama a chance to do what he has promised - bring us together.

God bless you and God bless America

First, I would like to offer my family’s sincere condolences to Senator Obama and his family. I am certain Mrs. Dunham was extremely proud of the historic path life has taken for Senator Obama. I hope everyone finds Christ’s solace for their grief.

History will be made today - has already been made. America has shown the world, again, that the reins of power can be changed from one leader to another without violence. America has shown the world, again, that in America anything is possible - you don’t have to be born to money, power, be a certain gender, or a specific skin color, in order to succeed.

My wish for my children and their children is simple - that this should always be so in America. That we can always make history in this way.

God bless you and God bless America.