Louis R. Avallone

Category: Immigration

Democrats and Denial – Not Just a River in Egypt

Psychologists call it “confirmation bias”, which is the tendency to search for, or otherwise interpret information in a way that confirms what you already believe, regardless of the facts. You may call it “rationalizing”. Others may call it “missing the forest for the trees”. I call it “denial”, and as the old saying goes, denial is not just a river in Egypt.

You see, almost 50% of Americans say the mid-term election results were a vote against the President’s policies. And almost every poll shows it too. At least 3 out of 4 of Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, not to mention that the President’s approval rating with the American people – and within the black community, as well – is at the lowest level of his presidency. In fact, black voter participation this year increased from the last midterm election, and yet Democrats now hold less elected offices, at both the federal and state level, than at any time since the 1920s.

Considering that the Obama administration has lost control of both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, Democrats are turning to a familiar, but worn out explanation: It’s not the President’s policies being rejected by the voters. It’s that white people don’t like having a black man in the White House.

Really? Yes, really. And be prepared to hear a lot of that in the next couple of years whenever Republicans stand in the way of the President’s agenda or oppose his executive orders, from immigration to gun control.

Nevermind that it was white voters, in a largely white nation, who elected a black man to its highest office in the land. In fact, it was Iowa – which is 95% white – that made him into a contender for 2008. Still, he stirs the pot by telling reporters earlier this year that, “There’s no doubt that there’s some folks who just really dislike me because they don’t like the idea of a black president.”

Seriously? Nevermind that folks might not really like the idea that their President told them, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your healthcare plan,” while, almost 100,000 Louisianans have had their health insurance policies cancelled this year. Nevermind that you deliberately allowed American guns to make their way illegally into Mexico, where they were used by drug cartels to kill dozens – including a U.S. Border Patrol Agent. Nevermind that you promised Americans an administration filled with “transparency and the rule of law”, even though you issue executive order after executive order, thereby escaping the glare of the legislative process, the need to debate the issues, or to humbly ask for support from the 319 million Americans in this country.

Race is just about the only song that the Democrats have left to sing now, but it will be completely out of key, though. You only need to look across the country to understand why. In Utah, they just elected young Republican Mia Love to the U.S. House of Representatives (she also happens to be black), and in South Carolina, Republican Tim Scott was elected as the first black U.S. Senator since reconstruction, and is the only black have also been elected to the U.S. House of Representatives.

Then here at home, there’s State Senator Elbert Guillory from Opelousas. He also happens to be black, and he switched to the Republican Party, after years of seeing the continued plight of blacks in America, who traditionally vote Democrat every time, without any measurable improvement to their communities. Or how about Rev. C.L. Bryant, former NAACP leader and host of America on the Edge radio show here in Shreveport, who says that there is no reason for blacks or Latinos to support this president, when you look at the economic numbers.

And he’s right. Since 2008, black poverty is up, and unemployment is down. 40% of black males are incarcerated, and 72% of black children are still being born to unmarried mothers. There are fewer blacks participating in the labor force and the unemployment rate among blacks is more than double than it is in among whites.

This is, in part, why black Republicans are being elected to so many statehouses, city halls, and to Congress. People are voting for these black Republican candidates because of what they believe, not because of the color of their skin. Go ahead Democrats, sing the race song, but the rest of America is humming a different tune these days.

Mary Landrieu, and Democrats everywhere, can rationalize both hers and the President’s diminishing popularity with the voters by saying that “(t)he South has not always been the friendliest place for African-Americans,” but the truth of the matter is that the South is no longer the friendliest place for empty suit politicians that leave any communities – black, white, or otherwise – with little more than empty hands.

Democrats have paddled minority communities up this river of denial one too many times. And the problem now for Democrats, more than ever before, is that an increasing number of folks in these communities are simply tired of being taken for a ride.

November 21, 2014
Original Ideas

By Louis Avallone
–
The trouble with too many elected officials is that there is no idea too stupid for them to subsidize with your money. After all, these bureaucrats have more of your money than they do any original ideas of their own. In fact, many of them would not recognize an original idea if it bit them on the butt.
[br]
Instead of leading, our elected officials prefer to be more chameleon-like, and simply be what others want them to be.
[br]
But that’s backwards, right? Authentic leaders don’t watch polls to win popularity contests, or calibrate their convictions to win elections. They do the hard work of first setting goals, and then taking initiative.
[br]
They spend money on projects that are for the public good, and not merely on projects that help them while they are in office. Genuine leaders are transparent and they cut costs first, instead of raising your taxes. They set examples of good behavior for us, instead of merely legislating what’s good for us. They don’t blame, and they take responsibility for their actions.
[br]
As long as government has more of our money than good ideas, this type of leader will become more nostalgic in today’s “modern” world – and increasingly rare among elected officials everywhere.
[br]
In fact, Margaret Thatcher once wrote, “Do you know that one of the great problems of our age is that we are governed by people who care more about feelings than they do about thoughts and ideas?” Maybe that’s why our federal government spent almost $600,000 to study where in a chimpanzee’s brain they get the idea to throw feces. Or why they spent $200 million to fund a reality television show in India to advertise U.S. cotton.
[br]
Or why Congress spent over $1 trillion in economic stimulus spending, when the results were record unemployment rates and the highest number ever of Americans collecting food stamps. Is there really any question that it was a good idea?
[br]
Or was it really a good idea for the President to propose a $1.5 trillion health care expansion and a $15 billion Medicaid bailout, when over 93,000 of our fellow Louisianans are still receiving cancellation notices for their health insurance, and premium costs are expected to rise, even for healthy citizens of our state, by an average of 266 percent this year?
[br]
Is there really any question that $3.7 billion in emergency spending on immigration is a good idea right now, when the current administration is encouraging the very activity that makes $3.7 billion in spending necessary in the first place? If this President won’t enforce immigration laws, aren’t we are only encouraging more illegal activity, and the billions in spending needed to deal with it?
[br]
These are all proof-positive examples of a system of government that has more of your money than they do good ideas. If the government spending more of your money was all that was needed to reduce the unemployment rate, pay down the federal debt, decrease the poverty rate, lower healthcare costs, and increase national security at our borders, wouldn’t we have achieved all of this long, long, long ago?
[br]
Especially in this election year, the leadership model for our elected officials, which currently measures leadership success by money and power, must be retired, and sent off to the scrap yard of history. We must elect leaders now who have more ideas – and not just more of our money – to solve our country’s most pressing problems.
[br]
Perhaps it is true that politics is the only profession for which no preparation is thought necessary. But if this remains the conventional wisdom, then how can we really be surprised with the results?

August 19, 2014
It’s Not My Party, It’s Some “Other Party”

By Louis Avallone
–
People of all ages are becoming less engaged with the political process. Unlike Thomas Edison’s adage that “genius is 99% perspiration, and 1% inspiration”, it seems nowadays that voter participation in the political process is wholly dependent on the reverse of that adage: it’s 1% perspiration and 99% inspiration. Here’s what I mean:

There are ample reasons why folks don’t feel “inspired” by our politicians. In fact, 1 in 5 Americans don’t trust either the Democrats or Republicans. There is such broad dissatisfaction with both parties in Congress, in fact, that nearly 7 out of 10 Americans say they are inclined to look around for someone new this fall to send to Washington.

That’s not a big surprise, though. For example, most Americans don’t want Democrats handling their healthcare, and fully 40% of Americans feel that neither the Democrats or the Republican parties are accountable enough to the people…or that either party has done enough to fix our immigration system…or reduce the national debt…or provide meaningful campaign finance reform…or decrease the partisanship in Washington, which they feel is now the biggest problem facing America.

And here in Louisiana, we’re seeing the same. The number of voters registering as “other party” is increasing – now 1 out of every 4 registered voters. And even though Republicans are winning major state elections here at home, The Advocate also reported recently that voters “registered as ‘other party’ or not registered with any political party, are climbing too, as voters distance themselves from either of the mainstream political parties”.

The problem here is that the data shows that “other party” voter turnout is historically lower, compared to those who are registered as Democrat or Republican. If this trend continues, both parties will likely continue to see their numbers decline, and we’ll have an electorate that will be even more detached from the political process than we do now.

So what is really going on here? Voter participation in the political process has decreased, but the number of folks registering as “other party” has increased, and yet Louisiana voters have still elected Republicans to every statewide office. What gives?

We could sit here and make a well-reasoned and analytical explanation, just to make sense of it all, of course. However, I think the migration trend of some voters to “other party” can be explained very simply: voters are not inspired.

Voters increasingly are less and less inspired to follow any political party, it seems. In his book, Start with Why, author Simon Sinek explains that people don’t buy “what” you do, but they buy “why” you do it. For example, how many voters know “why” the Democrat and Republican parties exist? Or “why” these parties should matter to anyone?

The answer may be fuzzy at first, but that’s the rub in all of this. You see, once a political party, or any organization for that matter, clearly communicates their “why” (their purpose, their cause, their belief), then (and only then) can they inspire others to follow.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, though, the increasing number of “other party” voters is not because these voters are seeking some agnostic middle ground, where there is neither right nor wrong. Instead, these “other party” voters seem to be growing because they don’t feel like either party “gets” them, or understands their purpose, their cause, or their belief. These voters abandoned party labels because they saw their party as moving too far from its core values and couldn’t trust the direction it was headed.

And that makes sense. It’s about trust for these “other party” voters. As in business, for example, when we choose one product, service or company over another, it’s because we feel we can trust them more. And when choosing a political party, the decision making process is exactly the same. But we must start with “why” if we are going to inspire others to action.

Our state is served well by individuals who get involved in party politics, and don’t merely check off a box on their voter registration card. These are the volunteers that are the lifeblood to our democratic process. They are the ones walking the neighborhoods, calling supporters, and who spend countless hours organizing party events, speakers, luncheons, and rallies.

They are the ones whose efforts are the least recognized, or appreciated, but perhaps are the most important. They do it because they believe the political process is meaningful and that their work makes a difference…they do it because they are inspired.

Although it was the ethos of hard work and sweat that built this nation, perhaps right now we need less perspiration, and a great deal more of inspiration, to get voters involved in the very democratic process that has nourished our republic now for almost 238 years – before we lose an entire generation to some “other party”.

May 23, 2014
Truth Be Told: ‘Honesty is Hardly Ever Heard’

By Louis Avallone
–
Americans average about 11 lies per week. There are major ones, and minor ones, of course. Maybe it’s an excuse on why you were late, or didn’t complete a task. Maybe it’s when a friend asks your opinion on a matter, and you wanted to be polite, more than you wanted to tell the truth.

Well, it turns out this may be impacting your health. Linda Stroh, a professor emeritus of organizational behavior at Loyola University in Chicago, said, “When you find that you don’t lie, you have less stress, and being very conflicted adds an inordinate amount of stress to your life.”

In fact, a recent study indicated that as individuals tell more lies, their physical and mental health declines. Conversely, as the number of lies decrease, their health improves.

Might this also be true for our nation’s health, as well? After all, are we lying to one another, instead of having an honest discussion about our national debt, the crippling costs of entitlement programs and the failures of our immigration system? We need to speak truthfully about why our schools are failing and why our healthcare costs are spiraling out of control, and about the deterioration of the family and the whitewashing of religion from our national consciousness? Don’t we just need to put it out on the table, and talk openly? We do.

But instead, we find ourselves almost always conflicted, as we are reading, watching and listening ad naseum to elected officials and news reporting that often are anything but truthful.

What honest person believes Hillary Clinton’s or President Obama’s explanation about Benghazi? Who really believes the administration’s claim that it’s a positive sign that the unemployment rate went down .03 percent last month, when there are 92 million people who have dropped out of the labor force altogether, and are not looking for work at all?

Who doesn’t feel they were bamboozled for months and months and months when Obama promised, “If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it.” And now four million Americans (so far) have now lost their healthcare plan, and it seems that the administration knew this would happen all along. Remember Nancy Pelosi’s pitch, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” Goodness.

But this administration started out straight enough, right? The President promised in 2009, for example, that “My administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in government.”

Who, in their right mind, believes this has happened? Maybe it’s because, as some say, we can’t handle the truth. After all, our nation is on the verge of bankruptcy, and yet still so many folks seem oblivious and continue supporting policies and candidates that increase government spending, and they do this, year and after year.

But some may say telling the truth is not all that it is cracked up to be, either. Remember Walter Mondale’s 1984 pledge to raise taxes? He said, “Let’s tell the truth … Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won’t tell you. I just did.” He lost in a landslide, of course, but you could also name many other reasons for that outcome, as well.

The bottom line is that honesty still means something in this world, and it’s not just an “American” thing, it’s a “human being” thing. And we remember it, or the lack of it, long after the details of its subject matter are long forgotten. Lyndon Johnson lied about Vietnam. Richard Nixon lied about Watergate. Bill Clinton lied about Monica Lewinsky.

Thinking back, it may be no coincidence that Billy Joel’s song, “Honesty” was nominated for “Song of the Year” at the Grammy Awards in 1980, right in the middle of that year’s presidential campaign. As the song goes, “Honesty is hardly ever heard. And mostly what I need from you. But if you look for truthfulness, you might just as well be blind.” Winston Churchill, although likely not a big Billy Joel fan, said it another way: “The truth is heavy, therefore few care to carry it.”

No, in the end, it’s not that the American people cannot handle the truth; it’s that they shouldn’t be expected to manage their lives in the absence of it.

April 17, 2014
Flawed

By Louis Avallone
–
Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” Oscar Wilde surmised that, “Whenever a man does a thoroughly stupid thing, it is always from the noblest motives.” And Murphy’s Law cautions, “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”

Regardless of whether you believe it is sincere ignorance, conscientious stupidity, noblest of motives, or malice, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find a mannerly way to express the sheer backwards, fruitless, and shortsightedness of this White House. In fact, if you’re like me, you’re just plain, worn-out, trying to make any sense of it all.

At the end of the day, after all of the economists have completed their examinations, after the political commentators have spun their stance, and after the academics have been argued, it may just boil down to this: Stupid is as stupid does.

To prove that point, the President issued an Executive Order, earlier this month, that his administration will stop deporting young, illegal immigrants who meet certain criteria: They have to have graduated from a U.S. high school or earned a GED or served in the military, have no criminal record, be younger than 30 and have been brought to the U.S. under the age of 16, “by no fault of their own”.

Supporters applauded the President, claiming this Executive Order will “make sure the best and brightest among us can remain with their families.” Critics, however, claim it is an unconstitutional power grab. After all, they argue, we are a nation of laws, not merely of men. And just because some folks feel the President did the “right thing” by issuing this Executive Order, those same folks ought to consider that they may not like the next one.

Nonetheless, Executive Orders are legally binding orders given by the President. They do not require Congressional approval to take effect, but they have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress.

Of course, constitutional scholars will debate the framers’ intent of the vaguely defined “executive power” provided in Article II, but Obama’s instruction this month to federal agencies to cease enforcement of current federal law can hardly be considered as ensuring that our country’s laws are “faithfully executed”. In fact, the President himself, in 2011, answering his critics who wanted amnesty for illegal immigrants, explained this: “With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed.”

I suppose times are different now for Obama, because this month he did what he said he couldn’t: suspend deportations. And while many folks want to talk about the flawed process by which this federal immigration policy was enacted, through Executive Order, little attention is being given to the flawed logistics of the policy itself, even if Congress had enacted it.

Here’s what I mean: There are 800,000 immigrants who will now have an opportunity to obtain work permits, which will give them legal status in the country, for up to two (2) years. How many companies will offer good paying jobs to illegal immigrants, with temporary work permits, knowing that next January, the legal status of these same immigrants could very well change? And if these companies did hire them now, and the next president rescinded Obama’s Executive Order, those same employers would be forced to terminate those immigrants, or be subjected to prosecution for employing illegal immigrants, right? Doesn’t make sense, does it?

Not only that, but the entire premise of the protection against deportation, offered by the Executive Order, is predicated upon an illegal immigrant coming forward and declaring officially that one (or both) of their parents entered the country illegally. How many illegal immigrants will come forward to claim such protection, when it is unknown how the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), the principal investigative arm of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), will use such information, under a different presidential administration? For example, would the parents then be targeted for deportation? Would the parents’ employer(s) then be notified of the parents’ ineligibility to work in the United States?

And even if an illegal immigrant is willing to jeopardize their parents’ livelihood and make their parents a bigger target for deportation, the deferral of deportation is only effective for two (2) years before the next re-evaluation. What happens if the deferral is granted, but the illegal immigrant turns age 30 before the end of the renewal date?

I mean, are you and I the only ones who see the flawed policy here? Is anyone still unsure about the motive of this self-serving, hollow, and ridiculous exhibition of political gamesmanship and shortsightedness, all at the unconscionable expense of these immigrants and their families?

And to add insult to injury, this “policy” is not even new. It’s the same policy from last August when Obama announced that 300,000 deportation cases would be reviewed and non-criminals, and those illegal immigrants who posed no public safety or national security threat, would likely have their cases put “on hold” indefinitely (and that was regardless of your age, education level, or meeting any other criteria).

No, this policy is not new. And unfortunately, neither is the politics, nor the persistent, moronic expectation of the White House that the country simply can’t tell the difference.

April 14, 2014
Justice for All

By Louis Avallone
–
Most Americans are just plain dizzy from the “spinning” of the issues that this White House has unashamedly engaged in for almost four years now: Deficit spending is an “investment”; a tax increase is considered “revenue;” and rising gasoline prices are blamed on foreign nations, all while we restrict access and delay permitting for oil and gas exploration right here at home. Policy failures? Well, from illegal immigration to historically high deficit spending, these are blamed on “obstructionist” Republicans, even though this White House had “supermajorities” in the House and Senate for its first two years and was able to pass anything they wanted without the need for a single Republican vote. Historically high unemployment and anemic economic growth even after $1 trillion in stimulus spending? This only persists because this administration “didn’t know how bad it was” when they came into office.

Didn’t you know also that extending unemployment benefits beyond 99 weeks is necessary because it “creates jobs” faster than practically any other program? Or that Congress needed to first pass the 2,700-page “Obamacare” bill affecting one-sixth of our nation’s economy in order to find out what was actually “in the bill” (instead of reading the bill first)? I could go on and on, but I’m pretty sure even Democrats understand the picture by now.

So last week, when the U.S. Supreme Court justices began hearing the administration’s legal arguments defending the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, I was inspired, encouraged, reassured about our nation of laws … and a sense of order. And why not? Article 3 of our glorious U.S. Constitution was engaged, alive and well. The actions of both the president and Congress were being checked for constitutionality, exactly as Article 3 of the Constitution intended and as our founding fathers envisioned. There was Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was inquiring about fundamental matters of liberty, specifically the notion of “changing the relationship of the individual to the government” through a mandate to purchase health insurance.

There was Chief Justice John Roberts, who inquired if Congress could mandate folks to purchase health insurance under its power to regulate interstate commerce and its call to solve national economic problems? Then could Congress also mandate folks to purchase mobile phones under that same power since having a mobile phone would improve your access to 911 emergency medical services?

Then there was Justice Antonin Scalia who wondered aloud if Congress can force you to buy health insurance, could Congress also require individuals to buy vegetables such as broccoli? And even though nearly two-thirds of Americans recently polled could not name even one member of the U.S. Supreme Court, we witnessed last week the miracle of our U.S. Constitution in action, perhaps during the Court’s most publicized hearings in preparation for perhaps one of its most sweeping decisions since it was first organized in 1790. As the arbiter of our nation’s most challenging legal matters, it was just refreshing to hear the audio comments from one of the three branches of our government, where a majority of the members therein were informed, prepared and presented well- reasoned comments and criticisms, thus effectively fulfilling its constitutional duty to provide a check on both the executive and legislative branches.

Dale Carnegie once said, “Neither you nor I nor Einstein nor the Supreme Court of the United States is brilliant enough to reach an intelligent decision on any problem without first getting the facts.” And the facts are plain enough to all of us reading here today: We’re possibly going to cede the health-care industry to the federal government. These are the same folks who are operating a Social Security trust fund that will go broke in 2041, a Medicare program that will be insolvent in 2020 and a bankrupt U.S. Post Office that lost $2 billion last year alone, not to mention the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And why do this? To address about 10 percent of all Americans who need financial assistance for health insurance. A recent poll indicated that 54 percent of uninsured Americans are between the ages of 18 and 34 and many of them voluntarily choose to forgo coverage. In fact, it has been estimated that nearly one-fifth of the uninsured population is able to afford insurance, while one- quarter is eligible for public coverage. Only the remaining 56 percent need financial assistance.

Of course, this administration may likely “win” politically for their intentions to affect health care, regardless of whether the Court decides the individual mandate in Obamacare is constitutional or not. “Perception is reality,” right? Or, in the words of Emerson, “People only see what they are prepared to see.” Still, last week’s hearings were a gloriously refreshing reprieve (however short-lived), from the predictably partisan, uninformed, divisive and misleading national debate that seemingly rewards short- sightedness and sacrifices liberty for the immediate, political gratification of today … even if such means “spinning” completely out of control.

April 14, 2014
Right Direction?

By Louis Avallone
–
Folks, we need to talk. Despite a U.S. economy that continues to stagnate, or declining consumer spending, or plummeting home prices, or record unemployment, or declining wages, not to mention the unraveling of national security resulting from illegal immigration to nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, there are still 1 in 3 of us, as likely U.S. voters, who believe the country is moving in the right direction, according to a recent poll. Seriously? I mean, by all objective, measurable standards, how can seemingly responsible and rational adults still muster the motivation to pretend that the country is moving in the right direction, even as the proverbial “wheels” are coming off?

Some might explain this by pointing out a lack of political awareness among Americans these days. For example, only 2 in 10 Americans know there are 100 Senators in the U.S. Senate, and only 4 in 10 of us know there are 3 branches of government (and also can name each of them). Plus 53% of Americans don’t know the name of the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court or, for that matter, can even name a single member of the highest court in the land. And a National Geographic poll revealed that 6 in 10 people, aged 18 to 24, could not find Iraq on a map.

But here we have one of the most critical, nation-altering elections upon us, just a little more than 7 months from now and, if the polling data is correct, nearly 1 in 3 likely U.S. voters seemingly want to double-down on this administration’s policies and programs, rooted in socialism, that empirically have failed, time after time, throughout history.

Maybe it’s true, in the words of George Bernard Shaw, perhaps “(d)emocracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve”. Well, my fellow Americans, we deserve better.

And it starts at home, around our kitchen tables with our families, and talking about the issues. Now, these are issues that aren’t glamorous to talk about and won’t necessarily make you the most popular guy or gal in the class. They probably won’t be subjects of conversation on Entertainment Tonight, but these are issues, for all Americans, to not merely talk about, but to understand.

After all, the next generation of Americans are in great need of our voices of reason, our common sense, knowledge of history, and they need our protection now, more than ever, from those whose vision for America includes less liberty, not more…from those who prefer government control and management of people’s lives, rather than the freedom to choose and a desire to be left alone. And yes, this is the slippery slope we’re on.

Do these folks (who think that the country is moving in the right direction) realize the historical evidence that governments will always find a need for the money they collect (or borrow, from future generations), and that collecting money from some people, in order to “do good” for another group of people, is the most inefficient method of spending money? Or that such spending may not “do good” at all?

And since you brought it up, I’ll give you an example. Deficit spending during the Obama administration has been nearly $5.17 trillion, including $787 billion in “stimulus” spending to “save” jobs. The results have been record unemployment, and those looking for a job for more than six months make up 40% of the unemployed (which is the highest level since 1948). If you include those who have simply stopped looking for work, this makes the actual unemployment rate almost 20%, despite trillions of “stimulus” spending.

And I’ll give you another example. Our nation will spend $953 billion on welfare programs this year (up by 42% since Obama took office). Still, we still have record levels of poverty—46 million are classified as living in poverty—the highest number since 1959.

And why is this? Why is more and more money, towards stimulating the economy, or moving people from welfare to work, failing? One reason is because, again, spending someone else’s money on someone else is the least efficient way to spend any money, for the value you receive. Yet, in 2012, local, state, and federal governments will spend $6.3 trillion dollars in this very way, on services and bureaucracy (and we wonder why our local and state governments are nearly bankrupt as well).

So do these folks (who like the direction our country is heading), understand that a society that puts equality before freedom will get neither? Or that fairness is not achieved by having someone else, or the government, decide for you, what is fair? Or that liberty means equality of opportunity, not equality of results?

We may be headed in the wrong direction, but in the words of Zig Ziglar, “There are no shortcuts to any place worth going.” So whether you’re Republican, Democrat, or none of the above, let history be our guide, and liberty light our path. In the words of Ronald Reagan: “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.” And that goes for the 1 out of 3 that still thinks we’re headed in the right direction. We should probably make them a copy of our map.

April 14, 2014
Insatiable

By Louis Avallone
–
Recently, the Vancouver Canucks lost Game 7 of the Stanley Cup finals to the Boston Bruins. Back home in Vancouver, their distraught fans rioted, with nearly 100 people arrested and almost 150 injured, while cars were burned and an estimated 50 businesses vandalized. The total damages are expected to run into the millions of dollars. Of course, sports rioting is not new, but the recent Vancouver riot was unusual because it is usually the winning team that riots.

The winning team riots, really? For example, when the Los Angeles Lakers captured the NBA title in 2000, its fans began vandalizing property, setting bonfires, and destroying vehicles, resulting in 11 arrests and 12 injuries. Same result occurred when the Lakers beat the Boston Celtics in the 2010 NBA finals. And after the Red Sox won the 2007 World Series, there were at least 37 arrests made as fans burned cars and threw bottles at police – and this was the winning team.

Ridiculous, right? But this isn’t much different than the modern-day Democrat Party. Their “team” won in 2008 and their “team captain” is in White House. Yet all they have done is complain since then. In fact, only 44% of these Democrats say that the U.S. is heading down the right track, and 69% of voters, who are not affiliated with either major political party, believe that the U.S. is heading down the wrong track.

Just this past March, for example, Democrat Sen. Joe Manchin said Obama had “failed to lead.” Just last week, former Vice President Al Gore sharply criticized Obama as lacking leadership on climate change. Hispanics too are unhappy with the President, as summarized by a Miami immigration activist who said, “Obama has the guts to deport our mothers, deport our fathers, deport our people and then come to us and say `I want your vote’? Please.”

Democrat Sen. Kent Conrad recently described Obama’s consideration of tax cuts, to stimulate our economy, as “just misdirected.” Last week, Democrat Sen. Frank Lautenberg, wrote a letter to the President, saying his administration “has not shown the leadership to combat gun violence.” Even House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi led Congressional Democrats last week, arguing that Obama’s timeline for bringing 33,000 U.S. troops home by next summer isn’t fast enough.

Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. And as if that wasn’t enough, Congressional Democrats in April called Obama’s budget compromise “irresponsible,” “dangerous” and “immoral.” When one’s morality offends liberals, you know you have crossed the proverbial “line in the sand”.

But for all of the criticism, remember that Democrats, and liberals alike, chose these policies and yet they appear miserable. There was the $787 billion government stimulus plan to start things off, followed-up by nationalized healthcare. There were opportunities to lower income taxes and reduce government regulations, as well as union controls, so that small businesses, in particular, would begin investing and hiring again. Instead, more Americans than forecast filed applications for first-time jobless benefits last week and new-home sales fell in May, as the jobless rate rose to 9.1 percent, which is the highest since December, up from 9 percent.

And instead of choosing policies that promoted energy independence, they chose moratoriums on offshore drilling in the U.S., which was predicted to reduce long-term U.S. oil production by 27%, while increasing long-term U.S. foreign oil imports by 19 percent, not to mention the thousands of jobs lost to Louisiana alone.

They chose redistribution of wealth policies that advertised “shovel ready” jobs, a term that the President now chuckles and grins about; as if my 5 year old just answered the question of “Did you eat all the cookies before dinner?” Still, Democrats got what they wanted, yet seem unhappy. What gives?

There is a school of thought that liberals are generally unhappy. And unhappy is not good. According to hundreds of surveys, happy people increase our prosperity and strengthen our communities.

According to a study by the Pew Institute, conservative Republicans are happier than conservative Democrats, and moderate/liberal Republicans are happier than liberal Democrats. In fact, there are several predictable conditions that are present in happier Americans: Faith, work, family, charity, and freedom, with the level of happiness being proportionate to the extent, which these conditions exist within us all.

But surprisingly, political elections have little effect on our happiness, which might partly explain why the Democrats can be so unhappy. Apparently, Democrat victories in elections do not translate into happiness for Democrats.

In fact, according to the Pew Institute study, going, as far back to 1972, conservatives are happier than liberals, even under Democrat Party control. The data indicates this to be overwhelmingly true during both the Clinton and Carter administrations. And not only that, but it turns out the age old wisdom of “money cannot buy happiness” is true here also. As it turns out, poor Republicans are happier than poor Democrats. And despite conventional wisdom that it is easier to be happier when you are wealthier, you should know that this happier Republican condition is shown to remain consistent throughout all income groups.

Of course, unhappiness may not cause Democrats to riot in the streets, or turn over cars, or shatter the storefronts of businesses along American main streets. But Democrat policies have wreaked havoc on our nation, turning the direction of our country away from those traditional, conservative values upon which we were founded, while shattering the lives of millions who are still unemployed because of small businesses who are crushed under the weight of higher taxes, increased government regulations, and the uncertainty of them both.

Maybe it’s just like Abraham Lincoln said: “People are just as happy as they make up their minds to be.” But then again, he was a Republican.

April 14, 2014