In a recent interview on Piers Morgan Tonight, Academy Award winning actor Morgan Freeman, once again, laid down the charge that has no proof, that the Tea Party is racist. I like Morgan Freeman. I think he is a great actor. But with this display, I also think that he needs to get out of the Hollywood bubble that includes such deep thinkers as Michael Moore and Janeane Garofolo, and actually visit a Tea Party gathering, (they are very safe places to go to). Here is his thinking. The Tea Party is opposed to Barack Obama, therefore the Tea Party is racist. Game. Set. Match. Gee, that was easy. Does Morgan Freeman know who Herman Cain is? How does he explain that one?
Liberty
Tomorrow is the New York State Republican Primary. We go to the polls to choose our candidates who will go up against the Democrats in November. This is an important election and an important turning point for our country. New York is a deep blue state and the Republican party seems to be part of the problem rather than part of the solution. The candidates that they often put forth are more likely to make Republicans throw up their hands and stay home on election day than turn out and vote.
We have seen the hope and change of the Obama administration and it scares the hell out of many Americans. The change we need is to turn out the “go along to get along” crowd and put in true reformers. At Tea Party meetings I encounter more and more New York conservatives who say they are tired of hiding their beliefs. They used to keep their political views to themselves because they feared repercussions from their employers, their customers, their schools, but they are tired of it. They tell me they are coming out of the closet.
We need to embrace this view. It may mean we lose some races like the special election in New York’s 23rd Congressional district, where the Republican bosses picked Dede Scozzafava, who after falling behind Doug Hoffman, the Conservative candidate, in the polls, dropped out and endorsed the Democrat. It is time to stand and be counted. Liberty’s Life Line makes the following endorsements.
New York’s First Congressional District
In New York’s First Congressional District, Liberty’s Life Line endorses Randy Altschuler. Randy came out early and often to challenge incumbent Congressman Tim Bishop and Speaker Nancy Pelosi on their reckless spending. He has articulated a conservative view on the major issues that we face and he is a free market conservative. Christopher Cox has a number of positions that are similar to Randy Altschuler, but instead of focusing on explaining how he would govern and why he is the better candidate, he chose the low road to attack his fellow Republicans in a mudslinging campaign that angered numerous voters. Mr. Cox also promotes a protectionist point of view, rather than a free market point of view and he seems confused about what the job of Congressman entails. In one of his ads he talks about putting Suffolk County taxpayers first. If he were running for County Executive, that would be fine, but a Congressman cannot put his constituents ahead of any other taxpayers. Federal tax laws should affect all Americans equally, and where they don’t they should be changed so that they do.
George Demos’ campaign is verging on the desperate. His positions on his web site are little more than platitudes and he has chosen to make the centerpiece of his campaign social issues that are not what the majority of the voters are concerned about right now. We are heading toward a debt crisis, and Mr. Demos oddly chose to run on an issue that will let the incumbent change the subject from the economy.
New York Senate versus Kirsten Gillibrand
Liberty’s Life Line endorses David Malpass for United States Senate for the seat currently held by Kirsten Gillibrand. Mr. Malpass has more experience at the federal level having worked in the Reagan administration. He also understands that New York has, for years, paid more money in taxes to Washington than New York has gotten back in government money. Yet every year Sentators Schumer and Gillibrand vote for more spending and more programs that New Yorkers will fund and others will reap the rewards. Mr. Malpass understands that the answer is not to fight for a bigger share of the pie for New York, but to shrink the pie and eliminate unnecessary programs and spending. Mr. Blakeman has relied more on imagery in his campaign and attacks on Mr. Malpass rather than focusing on how he would govern and therefore be the best choice for the Senate. Mr. DioGuardi seems to advocate the same old ways of doing business. For example, he advocates “Paygo” which was the tool Democrats invented to force tax increases as new programs were added to the economy and which the Wall Street Journal described as “kind of budget gimmick that gives gimmickry a bad name.” We need straight forward shrinking of government not better tools to monitor how badly it is being done.
New York Senate versus Chuck Schumer
Liberty’s Life Line endorses Jay Townsend for United States Senator for the seat currently held by Chuck Schumer. Both Mr. Townsend and Mr. Gary Berntsen have strong national security views, are for tax reduction and reduced spending. Mr. Townsend’s positions seem to be more thoroughly developed. For example, he is for the repeal of ObamaCare and in its place he supports some common sense methods to reduce the cost of delivering health care without spending $1 trillion. Mr. Berntsen doesn’t address health care on his website. Mr. Townsend also has pledged to ban all earmarks, which are basically the way incumbents bribe their constituents to send them back to Washington. Replacing Chuck Schumer will be a tough challenge so we need to put forth the best candidate we can.
New York State Governor
Liberty’s Life Line endorses Rick Lazio for governor. Although Carl Paladino has captured the anti-incumbent energy and had energized people to come out and support him, Rick Lazio has a concrete plan on how he would attack the issues. New York State government is so broken, Life Line could see that an outsider like Mr. Paladino could just be hamstrung and stalled by a legislature that is vehemently opposed to him. Think Arnold Schwarzenegger in California, who came in on a re-call election to turn things around but ended up being the one turned around. Mr. Paladino, as a CEO, is coming from an environment where he calls the shots, in Albany he will have to work with the legislature to get things done and it will take him a little while to figure out what buttons to push. Mr. Lazio has legislative experience as a Congressman, and has thought through his plan in sufficient detail that it might actually work. Mr. Paladino has moved the debate which is a major victory and if he loses the primary Life Line hopes he will support Mr. Lazio. Likewise, if he should prevail, we all must get behind him to defeat Mr. Cuomo in November.
There was a time when people came to our shores to find a better life. To escape persecution and poverty and to build a better life for their children was their goal. They found Lady Liberty lifting her lamp beside the golden door.
What happened next was that people assimilated. Their children went to school with other children and learned to read and speak English. Their names may have sounded different but before long their voices didn’t. Sure, New Englanders sounded different than those from Mississippi, but they sounded very much like their neighbors. They became Americans.
I just finished reading Newt Gingrich and William Forstchen’s historical novel, To Try Men’s Souls, which is the story of the George Washington crossing the Delaware on Christmas night, 1776, and attacking Trenton. Trenton was guarded by Hessian mercenaries, who were some of the most elite soldiers in Europe. It was a mismatch beyond belief, but in a last ditch effort, their password that night was “Victory or Death,” and with the element of surprise, they prevailed. In one passage it mentioned American soldiers of Dutch and German extraction shouting to the Hessians to surrender, in German. They were probably closer to the Hessians in culture and blood than to their fellow Americans from Boston, but they considered themselves Americans and were willing to die for their country.
The Balkanization of America
Today, we are mired in multiculturalism. I remember the story of an Hispanic man loudly protesting to his local school board regarding bilingual education to which he was opposed. “You’re teaching my son to be a janitor!” he said, “I want him to learn in English, so that he can get a job with a future!”
We should not lose track of our roots. It is right to celebrate where we came from. One of the great things about New York is the different neighborhoods and parades that teach and celebrate about where we came from, which is good. But if carried to the point where we no longer assimilate; where we remain pockets of groups with their own identity and politics, we are in grave danger of ceasing to be America.
During World War II, what if people of German heritage refused to fight against Hitler or for that matter felt a greater allegiance to him than to America? Some did. They were tried for treason. What if they were protected instead? What if their differences were looked at with admiration rather than suspicion?
Fort Hood
Commentators in the news are twisting themselves in knots trying to disassociate Major Nidal Hasan’s slaughter of 13 Americans from his jihadist proclivities, despite evidence of outright hostility toward America and contact with a radical imam. It is politically incorrect, to speak of his religion. The Army Chief of Staff raises concern about negatively impacting the military’s record of diversity, if we focus on anything but a lone gunman who snapped.
But what if there is a larger plot? What if there is an effort on the behalf of some Muslims to purposely not assimilate, to infiltrate the military and become a fifth column within? Multiculturalism makes it far easier for this to occur because if everyone looks different, no one stands out. On the other hand, if everyone assimilates, those who speak, act, or plot against America become more obvious. Again, imagine multiculturalism in the United States in 1943. You might have whole communities that were German to the core, did not like non-Germans among them and quickly spread the alarm when a stranger approached. How much easier would it have been for Hitler to build a network of saboteurs?
Kill Multiculturalism Before it Kills Us
We must reinvigorate the idea of assimilation. Speak any language you want at home; dress any way you want; practice your faith as you please, but where government is involved, we should be treated equally. We should speak one common language for all official business. If not, where do we draw the line?
In Minnesota in 2007 a public university coffee cart was banned from playing Christmas Carols, but public money was being used to install foot baths to accommodate Muslims before prayer. After the terrorist attacks on 9/11 and now another terrorist attack at Fort Hood, we have to be able to tell the good Muslims from those out to kill us. We must have true peace loving Muslims, become true Americans. We have to engender that we are Americans first, like those early Americans of Dutch and German decent, and not have divided loyalties particularly where the “other loyalty” insists on killing us infidels.
The drumbeat is starting. The Democrats are gleefully opening their playbook to the right page and holding it open for the weak kneed Republicans to see. “If you vote against Judge Sotomayor, the Hispanic vote will go against you and make you pay.”
Ah, the politics of class warfare. Republicans fall for it almost every time. That’s why we got John McCain as our nominee. The news analysis will point out how fewer Hispanics voted for McCain than for Bush, with Bush getting 40% and McCain only 31%. Maybe it was because McCain was a weak candidate? Bush put forward Miguel Estrada for the Supreme Court, he appointed Alberto Gonzales as the first Hispanic Attorney General, McCain and Bush were both for open borders. Boy, did that pay off!
Bush appoints Colin Powell as the first black Secretary of State, followed by Condoleezza Rice as the first black woman Secretary of State. So how did the black vote turn out for Bush?
So let’s get over copying the Democratic practice of appealing to groups and get back to our conservative principles of appealing to individuals. Don’t worry about the black vote, the Hispanic vote, the gay vote, the union vote, the Catholic vote. Worry about doing the right thing for all Americans. The Democrats want us to worry about all these blocs so that they can get us to meekly wave through their nominees. But when the tables are turned (e.g., Clarence Thomas, Michael Steele, Miguel Estrada, et. al.) they will be vicious, slanderous, mean and ugly. They don’t give a damn about offending the black or Hispanic vote because they think they own them. And when we put up candidates that are a weak imitation of the Democratic candidate, they do.
We need to stand for Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness and not back down from that. The votes will follow.
In an editorial yesterday in the New York Times they demonstrate once again how deep they are in the tank for the Democratic Party. The title of the editorial is Harmful Lending Practices and it attempts to describe the current financial crisis. It begins:
“One of the questions lurking beneath the surface of the national debate over the mortgage crisis, which has placed six million Americans at risk of losing their homes this year and next, is who is to blame.”
They proceed to round up the usual suspects
1. Major Share of Responsibility
- Reckless bankers
- Feckless regulators
- Greedy Traders
2. Some Measure of Personal Responsibility
- People who bought homes with mortgages they could not afford
The editorial goes on to advocate more government intervention, naturally, as the solution.
There has hardly been a more egregious example of government intervention causing a massive problem and hardly a more egregious example of it being uniquely owned by the Democratic Party, going back to FDR. Here is the history:
- Franklin Delano Roosevelt (D) creates Fannie Mae to help people get mortgages to buy homes. This is a classic example of It seemed like a good idea at the time. At its outset it seemed pretty benign, but like most government programs it lived on far beyond its original intent continuing to solve the problem long after the problem didn’t exist.
- Lyndon Baines Johnson (D) privatizes Fannie Mae. With his ambitious Great Society programs getting cued up he didn’t want to have Fannie Mae’s debt on the national balance sheet. It might make the national debt look bad, which it was
- James Earl Carter (D) created the Community Reinvestment Act – to encourage lenders to make more home loans to low and moderate income people. The same people, because of their economic circumstances who were more likely to default on their loans.
- William Jefferson Clinton (D) through his HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo and Attorney General Janet Reno put more teeth into the Community Reinvestment Act threatening banks with legal action if they didn’t increase lending to low and moderate income borrowers. Not wanting to be tagged as racists the banks (reckless bankers) comply.
- Barney Frank (D) and Christopher Dodd (D) block efforts to increase regulation and oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac saying as recently as mid-summer of 2008 that they were both fine and not only that, but good investments. Christopher Dodd, meanwhile gets a sweetheart mortgage from Countrywide mortgage.
So while the Times is calling for more regulation and oversight they never once mention any of the above. They mention lawmakers in general bipartisan language:
“Lawmakers, for their part, missed important chances to curtail some of these problems last year as the scale of the crisis was becoming apparent.”
Missed? Gosh darn it, how did that one slip by? They didn’t MISS anything, they actively BLOCKED IT! There is quite a difference between missing something and actively stopping it dead.
It is no wonder that the circulation of newspapers like the New York Times is crashing. There are other media outlets and the Internet that show just how fallacious these editorials are. With bigger and bigger government our liberties are being whittled away and the Freedom of the Press, enshrined in the First Amendment was put there to protect us from tyrannical government not to aid and abet it in the process.
That being said, this should brighten your day. Real Estate Downfall on YouTube
I got the phone call around 7:30AM. It was my wife and her voice was shaking, choking back tears. She said she was in an accident and that the truck was totaled. Totaled? I thought to myself, my God, what kind of accident could have totaled a 2 ½ ton, hulking Ford Excursion SUV? Before I could ask the next question, the one I didn’t want to ask, she said, “The girls and I are alright, just some cuts and bruises.” I was able to start breathing again. She began to apologize for the SUV and I gently cut her off. “I don’t care about the truck, as long as you and the girls are okay.” The girls were my two daughters.
I got the location of the accident, briefly told the lead guy in my shop the situation, light on the details which I didn’t have anyway, and jumped in my truck to find them. As I approached the accident scene, I saw an ambulance, with siren blaring and lights flashing, going the opposite way. I called my wife’s cell phone and when I got her I asked, “Did you just pass me in the ambulance?” She said, “Yes, we’re headed to the hospital to be checked out.” So I made a U-Turn to go meet them in the emergency room.
The Accident
What had happened was that my wife was crossing an intersection when another car blew through the red light. According to one witness it looked like he was going 60 mph, according to another it looked like he was going 100 mph. They said the nearly 19′ long, 2 ½ ton vehicle with a massive V-10 engine that my wife was driving was lifted up in the air, turned 180 degrees and landed on its side. My wife had to kick out the windshield to crawl out and guide our daughters out behind her to safety. Thankfully it didn’t catch fire.
Why the other driver was driving the way he was we never found out. He was pronounced dead at the scene. He was driving a Kia, a small Korean import, and before impact, I’m sure he was getting great gas mileage. He went from leaving a small carbon footprint to leaving no footprints at all.
My wife was exonerated from any responsibility for the accident. She and my daughters were completely innocent. Had Ford been required only to build highly fuel efficient econoboxes, half my family would have been killed that morning. In fact, the driver who was behind my wife said that if she had not been there, he was sure he would be dead, as it would have been him that was hit by the speeding car in her place.
Freedom to Choose
They are alive because I have the liberty, so far, to buy any vehicle that I choose and can afford. The choices are many and I have made many choices through my life. That is primarily because the government has not yet taken away that liberty and demanded what types of vehicles can be built and by whom.
My first car was a Toyota Celica, which I purchased just after graduating from college. It was well made, well equipped, and although a little expensive at $4,700 brand new, I thought it was worth it. That car served me well for 105,000 miles. When it was time for a replacement I bought a Plymouth Sapporo and I really liked it. Unfortunately, someone liked it as much and it was stolen when it had just 9,000 miles on it. It was a Chrysler Corporation car, but under the hood it was Japanese. Still living in the Bronx, I decided to buy something functional but not too attractive. I remember my friend’s rationale for buying a Subaru while living in the city. None of the parts fit in a gypsy cab. My next vehicle was a Toyota Corolla.
Cars for a Growing Family
When my wife and I married in 1986 she brought to the marriage her Ford Mustang. My Corolla was starting to get tired and my wife was pregnant, so it was time to get a new vehicle. I bought a Ford Probe, with front wheel drive and turbocharged. It was hard to decide if it was American or Japanese. It was sold by Ford, built in the United States by Mazda which is a Japanese company, but Ford owned 25% of Mazda at the time. It made for interesting conversation, but not worth losing any sleep over.
After our second child, the Probe and the Mustang were getting a little cramped. So we said goodbye to the Mustang and hello to a Volvo 740 Turbo Wagon. This was my wife’s dream car, owing somewhat to her Swedish heritage.
Things were going well for us and it was time to replace the Probe. I leased a BMW M Roadster and had more fun behind the wheel of a car than I can remember before or since. We both thoroughly enjoyed tooling down the road with the top down, turning heads as we went. Life was good.
My wife and I had two more children and as they grew, the jump seat in the back of the Volvo was less than optimal. In the winter the heat never seemed to reach back there and in the summer the kids in the back felt like a couple of tomato plants in a hothouse. So it was time for our next vehicle, which for the first time I bought completely on the Internet. It was a Ford Expedition. I had seating for eight and room for some cargo as well, and heat and air conditioning all the way to the back. The kids could each sit comfortably without bumping into each other and to reach out and smack someone next to them took some effort. That vehicle served us well for a couple of years and then as they grew, our needs grew and when it was time for the next move, we got the Excursion, bigger, they didn’t come.
Meanwhile things became a little more challenging for us. When the BMW’s lease was up, back it went. I took over the Volvo for a while until I started a new construction related business and then I took over my father-in-law’s Chevy pick-up truck which he left for my son when he passed away. After a year when the business got more established I put the Chevy aside for my son and the company bought a Ford F-350 Super Duty, dual wheel pickup truck with a diesel engine, which I still drive.
The Nest Starts to Empty
Then came the accident. As soon as we got the insurance money for our totaled vehicle we immediately went out and bought another Excursion, with safety the foremost reason. Ford wasn’t making them anymore so we bought a used one. I wanted my family protected.
When my son moved out freeing up a seat on the “bus” and my wife started selling real estate and gas prices started to climb, we reevaluated the Excursion. The Volvo was gone, and at twelve mpg and my wife driving a lot more, it didn’t make sense. With five of us at home, at worst we could all fit into the pickup truck with its crew cab. So she bought a Volkswagon EOS. The savings on gas would make up for any differences in payments on it. She now had her own convertible and was very happy.
About six months later, my older daughter got her license and wanted a car. She didn’t have much money for purchasing it or for gas so she needed something economical. Her choice, a Volkswagon Jetta.
Individual Liberty or Government Diktat
What’s the point of this stroll down vehicular memory lane? To demonstrate that with liberty we have a great many choices. We also have different needs at different times in our lives. Through a free market I was able to select from a number of vehicles from different manufacturers, from different countries, to find what fit our needs. Those companies decided what to build to suit the market. The cars that I eventually chose, though not done conscientiously at the time, were from each of those manufacturer’s strengths, not their weaknesses. I did not choose an economical car, when I needed one, from one of the Big Three. We did however, choose some of their sporty models (Mustang, Probe) and their trucks (Excursion, Expedition, F-350, Silverado).
The market should tell them what cars to build and build at a profit. Government should not require them to build six or eight cars that they have to sell at a loss for each vehicle they can sell at a profit, to meet some government mandate such as CAFE standards. As the market causes fuel prices to rise, the market will react with increased demand for more fuel efficient cars. We should be able to choose when that works best for us. If we have a distance to commute, we will more inclined to factor fuel efficiency into the equation. However, if we want to travel in luxury two miles to our favorite restaurant, who cares if the car that gets us there only gets 8 mpg? Many families have more than one car for that very reason. Who is some government bureaucrat to tell us what we can choose among?
This Thanksgiving I can sit down with my family, and be thankful that I had that choice, and I can hug each one of them and pray it stays that way.







