I ran out on a short errand today during which was listening to Boortz lambaste Rick Santorum about abortion and contraception. I believe I heard Neal say (and I am paraphrasing) that, if elected, Rick would prosecute docters that perform abortions, make the day after pill unavailable and deny contraception to the poor. Say what?

First of all, Rick Santorum can do none of those things if elected. Roe v. Wade is a Supreme Court decision and the use of contraceptives is protected by law. There is nothing Rick could do unless he decided to act as lawlessly as the current administration. The president can neither make law or decide the constitutionality of a law, so you claims are patently false.

Secondly, say Santorum did stop providing “free” (as in government provided) contraceptives or abortions. That would not make either unavailable. They just wouldn’t be government provided.

For someone who professes to be against government interference in our lives, Mr Boortz is all for government subsidies for the things he believes in. My question is why should the government decide who to subsidize for anything in the first place. It should either be available to all or none. To fall into the trap of thinking it’s OK for the government to decide what it can subsidize or not is a essentially being snookered into a soft tyranny. You can’t have it both ways based on your whims and claim to be consistent.

Lastly, if you want to be intellectually honest Mr Boortz, play or read the actual quotes from Santorum. It’s just hearsay on your part with your strong opinion inserted. In the mean time, I suggest you make up your mind about whether you are for or against government assistance of any kind. Otherwise, some people might start to think you are hypocrite.

I happened to catch Debbie “the conservative teacher from Cincinnati” on Hannity today.  (I agree with Hannity she was probably a “seminar” caller)  You see, she is a teacher and thinks SB5 was bad for teachers, firemen and police, and, of course, she wants Issue 2 repealed.  Personally, I don’t believe her reasoning is sound; however, I know a lot of people voting no on Issue 2 and you cannot discuss the facts with them.  (Vote no to repeal, yes keeps the law on the books.)

Debbie’s reasons were: 1. I might lose my job.  2. All teachers will take a big pay cut. 3. It’s not fair.  Her plea to Hannity was that in passing SB5, Kasich has turned Ohio back into a blue state.  I don’t know if that is true, but I do think SB5 being on the ballot may have repercussions in this off year election.

As far as her points, I think she is way off base.  If SB5 is repealed, I believe that teachers, police and firefighters are more likely to lose their jobs.  SB5 has allowed communities to get budgets back under control.  Repeal will increase costs, forcing more tax levies. Since people are pretty much taxed out anyway, in most communities the levies will fail.  When that happens, the aforementioned will see job cuts.

Debbie was also worried that without the protection of the union, she would have to live in fear of her job being eliminated.  Hey, welcome to my world.  Most of us go through our adult lives working without a safety net.  If she really is the good teacher she said she was, in a competitive job market, she should flourish.

Then there was the “my salary will be cut in half” comment.  Really?  Show me the proof.

Unfortunately, I know a lot of people who think like Debbie.  These people claim to be conservatives until it affects them.  Also, Ohio used to be heavily unionized state.  There are a lot of former auto workers (union members) who are sympathetic to other union members.  It does not matter to these people that these are public sector unions and that they have to pay for them with their tax dollars.  My mother-in-law is like that.  She drove a school bus (teamsters) and there is no discussing it with her.  Kasich’s bad, he’s a lier, damn the facts, she won’t hear it.

The problem with issue 2 is the affect it may have on other issues on the ballot.  Issue 2 may negatively affect issue 3, the national health care referendum.  I believe Issue 2 may have enough people revved up to vote against it.  This may help democrats get out the vote to repeal it.  Since off year elections are truly about turnout, this could mean that issue 3 goes down to defeat also.  If people see repeal as a referendum on Kasich and the republicans, it could have more ramifications down the road.

There is little time left, and these are big issues.  There have been little to no adds supporting Issue 2 or Issue 3.  Conservative Ohioans should be concerned.  Turnout is going to really matter in this one.

After reading Greg Lewis’ article, Did We Elect a Beta Male?, and agreeing with his analogies and conclusions, it got me to thinking about what might that mean for America and our future.  I’ve also been reading some of Dave Grossman’s works, and frankly, the synthesis of these two ideas is rather disturbing.

First of all, I would argue that Obama is not the first Beta Male as President in my life time.  I would argue that Jimmy Carter was one too.  His handling of the Iranian Hostage Crisis and his active direction of the failed hostage rescue attempt are just 2 of many examples.  Those of use who were around back then know how that turned out.  Carter was a very weak president and the country suffered greatly.  Now Obama is setting us up all over again.

Lately, I’ve been reading some of Dave Grossman’s works and I think that it’s given me a little more understanding into the psyche of the Beta Male.  Basically, Grossman believes there are 3 kinds of people in the world: wolves (predators), sheepdogs (Protectors) and sheep.  I contend Beta Males fall into the sheep category.  Sheep are people who are constantly in denial about the true state of the world around them.  They believe people can live together in peace and harmony because there is no evil in the world.  Actually, deep down, they know better; however, remember, they are in denial.

Sheepdogs know there is evil in the world and they have made the conscious decision to be prepared to take on the wolves of the world and protect the sheep.  Since the sheep are in denial and the sheep dogs look similar to wolves, the sheep, in times of little or no trouble, believe they can live without the sheepdogs.  That is, until the wolf strikes.  Then the sheep’s world is crushed because the sheep is in denial.

On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs
(From the book, On Combat, by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman)
http://www.killology.com/sheep_dog.htm

Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: You didn’t bring your gun; you didn’t train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by fear, helplessness, horror and shame at your moment of truth.

The part I find really disturbing is that I think Obama is a sheep surrounded by wolves.  William Ayers, Rev. Wright, Tony Rezco, etc.  These wolves have guided Obama to where he is today and, in essence, they are using him to feed on flocks of sheep.  However, there are other wolves in the world today that are far more dangerous.  I believe Obama is in denial of this fact and that if and when those wolves strike, I fear greatly what Obama’s reaction might be.

We have a sheep as president.  The sheepdogs better be prepared.