'Almost flying': Climber survives 1,000-foot fall

We all have a Guardian Angel.    

There are probably many explanations for this:  strong updrafts; loose clothes that acted to slow down his fall; even a landing area that was angled just perfectly to bleed-off the speed of his fall.  But those are just conjecture and this young man by all rights should be dead.  It is clear that sometimes our Guardian Angel receives instructions to save us from ourselves because God isn't finished with us yet.

Follow the link for more.

Sarah Palin Schools the Washington Post on History

If the Liberal Democrat Left and the Left Stream Media are going to continue to propagate their war on Sarah Palin at any cost they should probably do their homework.  Palin was absolutely right in her comments and the WaPo was about as off-base as you can get and still be in the game.

That's one of the problems with liberals.  It's not that they aren't smart, it's just that so much of what they know isn't true.  (Tip o' the Hat to President Ronald Reagan for that one.)

Follow the link for more.

Academy prof: Admissions easier on minorities

Graduation Day at the Naval Academy.  Has it been made easier for some than others?  

The U.S. Naval Academy was my not-so-secret dream when I was 12-years old.  At the local high school graduation ceremony that year I stood at the end of the line of the graduating Seniors in order to ask the guest speaker, Senator Frank Church, what I needed to do in order to get an appointment to the Naval Academy.  When he saw me he was most gracious and stood talking to me about the appointments process for a good 5 minutes while members of the local Democrat party fidgeted in background.  I’m certain they wanted their precious time with the Senator but he wouldn’t leave me until he had answered all my questions.  I remember my mother smiling at my chutzpah.  I don’t think she really liked the local Democrats all that much.  

With that background you can see why I was exceedingly pleased last year when my grand-nephew got a letter of interest from the U.S. Naval Academy.  He’s a fine young man and a tremendous athlete and almost a 4.0 average well into his Junior year in high school.  While I’m proud of him--and his younger brother and sisters--I’m even more proud of his mother.  She’s been divorced from his father for a long time and has struggled as a working mother, ensuring her children are clothed, fed and taught good, common sense and wholesome family values.  She also goes to college and is inching closer to having her own degree.  She sets a living example for her children to emulate and it is clear that they love and respect her.  (She’s much like her late Grandmother in that regard.)

While I was exceedingly pleased that my grand-nephew got a letter from Annapolis--and was kind of secretly hoping he’d go there even though I was Army--I was thrilled when Boise State showed interest in him along with Oregon State and the University of Oregon.  Imagine, two of the top football schools in the nation looking at my grand-nephew based on what he has accomplished through hard work, sweat, effort and study.  He’s an outstanding young man who is working towards achieving his dreams.  No one is giving him anything.  He is earning it and that’s what makes me proud.

The linked article about the Naval Academy in which Academy English Professor Bruce Fleming alleges that the Navy has set a lower standard for non-white students is both disappointing and insulting.  You see, my grand-nephew’s father, like President Obama’s, is black, and it is extremely insulting to my grand-nephew, to his mother and to his whole family that a government institution like the Naval Academy would show an interest in him because of his bi-racial heritage rather than his own actual accomplishments.  In lowering standards to become more diverse they have de-valued his efforts when they need no devaluing.  I can look anyone in the eye and say that this young man takes a back seat to no one either physically or mentally.  I admit that it saddens me, though, as I always thought that the goal of the Naval Academy was to produce Officers and Gentlemen.  Now I find out that they are a social studies school interested less in educating war time leaders than in appearing to be diverse.   It is clear that the Naval Academy as it stands today is not good enough for my grand-nephew.  It is certainly not the same institution as it was when Joe Bellino and Roger Staubach were Midshipmen.  

My niece has raised a very fine young man.  He has character and natural leadership abilities beyond that which can be taught in any military academy, much less one that is more worried about appearing politically correct than producing polished leaders.  He can stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the best in academics and sports and that and his character, not his skin color, are what are important.  My grand-nephew deserves the right to rise as far as he can on his own abilities so that when he is my age he can look back on his life with pride and say, “I did all that on my own” without having the nagging thought in the back of his head that he was given the chance to accomplish it only because of the color of his skin.  I am confident that he will go far on his God-given abilities–farther than any of us now imagine–and it won’t be because anyone, or anything, had to use lower standards to fit him in.  

That being said, I have a feeling that he’s going to become an Oregon Duck and I think that’s a great choice.  I just hope that the Ducks realize what an outstanding young man, both athletically and as a student scholar, they will getting if he goes there.  

Follow the title link for the story about the decline of Annapolis.  

Maybe Hu Got the Last Laugh

Doug Powers writes an excellent guest blog on Michelle Malkin's site.  My only criticism is the use of the word "Maybe."  There is no doubt in my mind that Hu enjoyed the choice of tunes.  I do wonder, however if Lang Lang, an extremely talented pianist, chose that one particular song or if it was suggested by someone from Obama's White House staff.

Follow the link for more.

Federal Employees: A Cash Cow for the Unions

"What a deal!  I shoulda thought about this scam!  What a deal!  They don't bother to buy judges, they buy politicians!"  

I remember a day when I was young and JFK was President that we had an extended family dinner...a reunion of sorts.  One of my cousins that was at least 20 years older than me was there and he was very happy about President Kennedy issuing an order that allowed for public sector unions in the Federal government.  My father, a farmer and rancher, did not look favorably on unions and always kept his peace rather than say anything that would cause an argument; but my cousin, who was working as a union organizer at the time, was so excited that he didn’t see the sour look on Dad’s face.  But I saw it and wondered why.  It took me several decades to figure out what my father was thinking back then but I finally did.  Essentially, he could see no good coming from allowing unions to get involved in the government.  Actually, my father could see no good in unions at all as when company wasn’t around he commented that unions weren’t good for anything but driving up prices and taking people’s money.  Of course, Dad wasn’t politically correct and he firmly believed that what you got in life you got because you worked hard and did a good job.  In his mind, unions allowed people who didn’t work hard or do a good job to have job security that they didn’t deserve.  

When you look at the history of unions, however, it’s hard to say that unions were always unnecessary (and I’m not saying that they are totally unnecessary now).  To the contrary, unions were very necessary at the beginning of the industrial revolution when the economic class distinctions within the United States and elsewhere in the now developed world were stark.  Unions can rightly be credited with helping destroy the barriers that prevented the movement between economic classes and allowed for the American dream of upward mobility to come to fruition in the modern world.  The key in the early union movement was that they were formed to provide a balance between the workers of a factory who produced the goods and the owners of the factory who wanted to sell the goods while maximizing profits.  It was recognized in those early years that the workers had a valid position in sharing in the profits while ensuring that the factory continued to operate profitably.  In other words, if the union’s demands made production unprofitable the factory would close and there would be no profit for anyone.  Keep that in mind as I move on to the government.

It is now that my support for JFK during those wonderful days of my youth comes back to haunt me.  I was proud--and still am--of his wartime record and his relationship with the members of the military and that he understood the need for Special Forces; but I’m appalled when I think that it was he that opened the door for public sector unions to operate in the Federal Government.  You might ask why and the answer is simple: The Government does not operate with “profit” as an outcome of its operation.  In reality it is quite the opposite.  A Government manager who does not spend 100% of his budget is considered inept and will likely have his budget decreased in the coming fiscal cycle.  The manager who does spend 100% of his budget, and then cries appropriately about what he could have done if he had more funds, has his budget increased.  Such is the nature of government at all levels but especially at the Federal level.  There’s one other thing to consider in this formula, however, and that is that the cost of labor is never a budgeting factor.  Full Time Employee (FTE) positions are authorized and justified by Congress purely on the mission justification of the Federal Agency involved.  To increase the size of your organization you must show that your agency’s ability to complete the mission given it by Congress is suffering and you can only improve that with an increase in FTE positions.  No discussion of a cost-benefit is needed–something that a business would naturally do–but a justification of mission capability enhancement is required.  It is in this environment that public sector unions exist and, oddly enough, thrive.  

All of my government service was, of course, spent in a union-free environment as either a member of the military or in Federal Law Enforcement.  Neither can be unionized under because as ignorant as Congress can sometimes be, they have never been that stupid.  Of course, some professional organizations have sprung up to “represent” individuals in personnel matters, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association or FLEOA, is one such but they are limited to providing access to specialized insurance policies in case the law enforcement officer is sued, and access to an attorney familiar with the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) rules and regulations.  OPM, you see, is the agency that governs all aspects of Federal employment for all agencies and their rules and regulations codify everything from entering on duty for the first day of work through, and including, retirement.  That includes disciplinary issues, an area that many unions like to trumpet as one of their most important duties:  protecting the employee from wrongful punishment to include termination.  One look at OPM’s regulations governing discipline and you know intuitively that the Federal Government employee is anything if not protected.  

My last years in government service dealt with exactly that area as I handled policy compliance for the Eastern half of the nation for my agency.  It was my job to ensure that all the evidence in a discipline case was collected and then to evaluate that evidence with the appropriate individuals before taking the case and the recommendation of the deciding official to Employee Relations (ER) and the staff attorney for a final review.  Nothing could be done off-the-cuff and everything had to meet the arcane standards of OPM as well as the agency’s guidelines; and, any action recommended had to be balanced with similar issues across the broad spectrum of the agency.  In simple terms that means that the Special Agent in Charge of an office on the East Coast couldn’t fire an individual for a violation that would merit a Letter of Reprimand in all the other offices.  The process was not quick and was rather cumbersome with some issues taking a year or more to resolve, but that was designed that way on purpose.  The multiple layers of review and consultation protected both the agency and the employee from the human factor that can be involved in any disciplinary issue.  It was designed to take personal feelings and put them aside to ensure fairness and it did that extremely well.  It also provided for an appeals process that went up to the agency head before going over to an Administrative Law judge and finally to the Federal District Court.  You should know that this system is in effect for both non-union and unionized Federal employees.  And OPM doesn’t deduct any kind of membership fee from the bi-weekly checks of Federal employees.

Now with all that protection in place for both non-unionized and unionized employees in the Federal Government you might be wondering what does a union do for Federal employees.  That’s a good question.  I always wondered that myself.  

First, an approved union representing Federal employees does do some negotiations on behalf of those employees.  For example, they ensure that the employee is given adequate breaks at an appropriate time during their work day.  (If you’ve ever been in a passport line at a major airport that was suddenly moved to the rear of other passport lines because the Immigration Inspector closed shop after the person just in front of youl was processed, you’ve seen this in action.)  They ensure that the employee is not required to do any work outside their job description.  (If you’ve ever been in a Federal office waiting for someone to return to their desk to help you while watching other Federal employees sit on their hands, you’ve seen this in action, too.)  They ensure that the employees are not abused with having to work unscheduled overtime and that if they are they are paid accordingly.  (If you’ve ever tried to call a Federal office with an urgent question 1 minute after closing and could only get a recording that recited the office hours, you’ve seen this in action.  Don’t these type of things make you wonder where the term “public servant” originated?)  

Now these issues were all a matter of negotiations between the union and the representative of the agency in question.  So what is the driving force behind the negotiations?  Well, for the union it is taking something...anything...back to the employees that justifies their belonging to the union.  For the government negotiator, it is getting it over with as soon as possible with an equitable win-win solution so he can get back to his regular work which is piling-up in his absence.  There is no profit to protect, there is only a desire to keep the workforce happy and, anyway, it’s up to Congress to come up with the tax dollars necessary.  The bottom line is that all the issues are already covered in the OPM personnel manual.  Employees can’t be abused regardless of the union and they do have recourse.  They do get breaks on a regular basis regardless of the union.  And why can’t they answer that phone 1 minute after closing for a 3 minute call if they are truly “public servants.”  With the employee already protected beyond anything in the private sector, why do public employee unions exist?

I’ll let you in on a nasty little secret:  They exist to put public employee money, i.e., tax dollars, in the union bank account on a direct deposit basis every two weeks, month after month, year after year.  They exist to provide the union with a ready and constant source of income for which they do very, very little.  They print up a nice membership card.  They answer the phones and they have their attorneys (the one’s already on staff) pick-up any legal questions that might come up and handle the negotiations which, in reality, aren’t negotiations but bargaining sessions in which one party (the union) has everything to gain and the other party (the government) has nothing to lose.  

It’s the greatest legalized protection racket ever devised.  Every employee is charged dues (depending on the pay grade in some instances but as much as $16.00 per pay period) that are deducted by the government from the paycheck before the employee ever sees it.  The union gets the dues monthly direct from the Federal Government and smiles all the way to the bank.  And come election time, the union bosses spend the money to suit their own interests regardless of the desires of the membership.  If Al Capone were alive today, I guarantee you he’d be the head of a public sector union instead of a bootlegger.  

Now I see that TSA may be organized by March and two different unions are competing for those 40,000 employees.  (See http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/24/tsa-screeners-set-choose-union-following-public-sector-trend/)  The why of it is a no-brainer.  The union that successfully organizes TSA will reap a windfall of around $15,000,000 per year in dues for doing very little.  They will tout of course, in their recruiting literature, cases involving multiple AWOLs that they managed to get reduced from removal to a mere 15-day suspension but that happens way too often anyway given the multitude of existing rules and regulations codified by OPM.  (Terminating a Federal employee for anything less than murder really does become the proverbial “Federal Case.”)  The reality of the situation is that the unionization of government agencies is a cash cow for unions.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.  And remember, isn’t being done to correct actions by the employer that starves the Federal employee.  It’s allowed to be done by politicians as payback for union support during their successful political campaigns.  That’s why President Barack H. Obama has promoted increased unionization of the Federal workforce at a time when the numbers of workers participating in unions in the private sector is shrinking.  It’s all about payback and using tax dollars to ensure continued union support.  

Like I said before, if Al Capone were alive today, he’d be running a union.  And voting Democrat, no doubt.

WikiLeaks lawyer vows to prosecute Palin if she goes to Australia

Julian Assange:  International Man of Mystery who was evidently attempting to live out a 'James Bond' fantasy and ended up being charged with sex crimes.  

It's not at all about whether Sarah Palin violated Australian law for even though Australia has some very weird ideas about crime (they still send people to debtor's prison there and you can't defend yourself in your own home).  It's about jumping on the liberal band-wagon to get publicity for a client whose story has begun to disappear from the headlines.  (In case you missed it, the weasel has signed a book deal that's been optioned for a movie already.  Things like this help make money.)  But lawyers being lawyers he managed to get a couple of paragraphs in an Alaskan newspaper.  (I'm not sure what would upset me more:  My daughter bringing home a Democrat or a lawyer to meet her parents?  I'll have to think about that.)

But the WikiLeaks lawyer can say what he wants.  That's the beauty of the 1st Amendment in the U.S. Constitution (obviously something our Australian cousins don't follow much less understand).  Allowing people to speak up makes it ever so much easier to spot the idiots.  I'll leave it to you to make your mind up as to who is the idiot in this instance.

Follow the link for more.

Obama recalls Roe v. Wade, backs abortion rights

An unborn baby just 20-weeks after conception.  Look at the hands, the mouth, the nose, the eye the leg then tell me that this is just cellular material.  

Roe v. Wade:  A construct of the Constitution created by liberal minds on the Supreme Court that holds the Constitution provides a woman with the right to kill her baby because it has committed the unfortunate "crime" of being inconvenient.  The same liberal minds that created that fantasy also created the construct that the death penalty for one convicted of murder is unconstitutional because it is cruel and unusual punishment.  The dichotomy between the two positions is ever so stark. Even worse, in this case, is that Obama is on record as being in favor of partial birth abortions.  You know, the kind allegedly practiced by the now infamous Dr. Kermit Gosnell in Philadelphia.  (See:  http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/19/philadelphia-abortion-doctor-charged-counts-murder/ )  The reality of the situation is that in the world of liberals you can be killed for being inconvenient, but not for being a multiple murderer or a treasonous traitor.

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, I find it amazing that the people who are most loudly in favor of abortion are those that have already been born and those who are most in need of protection by the judges and justices, but are denied that protection, are those innocents who can't yet speak in their own behalf.  I can only take heart in the fact that those who approve of and promote this type of infanticide will face judgement in the afterlife.  

I think I'll go find t-shirts for all my children that read:  "I SURVIVED ROE V. WADE!"

Follow the link for the story.

Media Myth Busted: 'Americans View Palin as More Sincere and Believable After Watching Speech'

Will she run?  And if she does, can she appeal to the Great Middle--the Independents--of the political spectrum.  

As I write this I still see the chattering class on TV trying to dissect Sarah Palin's video.  It amazes me that they--both on the right and on the left--still struggle mightily to find ways to discredit Palin and maintain their air of superiority in all things pertaining to man.

It is unbelievable that the chattering class would have such a totally different view from the Americans polled as reported in the linked article but it is clear that they do.  I suppose, as part of the elite, they do know better than everyone else.  I actually kind of like Sarah Palin partially because of the low-lifes who have been attacking her the last few years--just check-out the photo-shopped photos of her on the net to see how imbecilic the ad hominem attacks have been--and partially because what she says in her speeches and in the video does resonate.  I don't know about her for President but, considering the current occupant, she looks good to me.  However, that she looks good to me is not important.  It is how she looks to Independents that matters because the party that can secure the Independent vote will secure the White House.

Follow the link and make up your minds for yourselves.

Call for Bipartisan Seating at the State of the Union

Let's have everybody sit together so it's not so obvious how much support our dear leader has lost.  We wouldn't want him to begin to doubt himself, now would we?  Well, would we?  

Once again Michelle Malkin's blog highlights a move by liberals and RINOs that is designed to weaken opposition to President Obama during and after his upcoming State of the Union Address.  Republicans who sign on to this proposal might as well form their own "Lapdog Caucus" because they are playing right into the Community-Organizer-in-Chief's hands.

Think about it.  This will be the first State of the Union since the Democrat's were so soundly repudiated last November.  Obama is politically weakened by the defeat but in order for him to regain the initiative he must water down the appearance of defeat when he appears before Congress.  Last year with the Democrats in control more than half the chamber was giving him standing ovations when he laid waste to Republican opposition and insulted the Supreme Court.  He is desperate to not look weakened during this year's speech so he and his Regime have come up with the novel let-us-all-sit-together-to-show-unity idea on the heals of Tucson and some overly sensitive RINOs have already signed on.  They might as well join the Democrats in a chorus of Kumbaya as they roll-over to have their tummy's scratched.

The impact of having the Republican-side of the aisle clearly and purposely sit on it's hands during those parts of the State of the Union that are clearly written to promote Obama's agenda is not only necessary, but required by the electorate.  The Republican majority came about not because we wanted everyone in Washington to just be friends and cooperate in what heretofore has been a program of bankrupting our nation to promote an agenda that is abhorrent to an increasing majority of We the People.  We the People want Obama to look out at his shrinking support, see the reality seated before him and realize that his ideas have been wrong and that he needs to reverse course.  The proposed interspersed seating dilutes the impact of November's election and gives the appearance that the victory by the Republican's was not a statement by the electorate that Washington is taking seriously.  It says that Obama is still as politically strong as he was last year when nothing could be further from the truth.  Most importantly for Obama, however, it preserves his ego and allows him to deceive himself as to the correctness of his actions during his first two years in office.

And if those Republicans who have already signed on to this idea don't get it, they should remember that they will again come up for election and this time the electorate will be really upset.

Follow the link for more.

OTL: Veteran's Golf

Sometimes we need to step back a little to realize just how blessed we are. Even if you don't play golf you'll like this short video about golf on one very special golf course played by some very special heroes. Jack Nicklaus is part of the story and shows the class that not only made him a great champion, but a great man as well.

May God bless and keep these men, heroes all.