I agree.

Did you know that the Republicans in Congress have put forth a proposal that would deny child tax credits to illegal immigrants? These tax credits amount to an average $1,800 refund check per family. The proposal would require families receiving such tax credits to have social security numbers. It would cut federal spending by an estimated $10 billion over a decade. Let's see -- isn't there a bleeding heart argument that illegals aren't a drain on the taxpayer? This kind of shoots that one out of the water, doesn't it?

I agree with the Republicans who say it's crazy to even be having a debate over the issue of giving money to people who sneak into the country illegally.

"GOP plan seeks to deny child tax credit, refund to illegal immigrants." The Dallas Morning News; February 9, 2012; p. 6A.

And what if . . .?

What if a film crew asked permission to film on county property? And what if they were told permission would be granted only if they employed white people? "Why, that's illegal," people would shout.

John Wiley Price has demanded that Electric Sky Productions, a British film company, provide records on how many black people they employ before he will grant permission for them to film a documentary inside the county jails. Evidently, that's not illegal. What was that MLK said again? Something about not judging by the color of a man's skin?

"Price wants race info from film crews." The Dallas Morning News; February 8, 2012; p. 2B.

What if . . .?

What if Marcus Phillips, a white convicted felon, went into a convenience store owned by a black man and grabbed the cash register? And what if the black clerk at the convenience store grabbed a shotgun and chased him out of the store? And what if Marcus fought with the clerk and the clerk ended up shooting him in the chest and killing him?

And what if white people started protesting six days a week in front of the convenience store? And what if they claimed in their protests that the black businessman charged unreasonable prices and was disrespectful to white people? And what if the white protestors actually stopped customers at the driveway and told them, "You cannot cross this picket line. This is an official protest. This man does price-gouging. He killed a man. We need you to move on"?

And what if the protestors said, in effect, that white people were too stupid to realize that the black business owner was taking advantage of them? And what if the leader of the protest was a member of the KKK and said the black business had to go, and in fact, all black businesses in white neighborhoods had to go? And what if one of the white City Council members targeted the business, ordering numerous inspections and scrutiny from city boards?

Do you think the news media and liberals would be outraged? Do you think Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would show up to denounce such reprehensible behavior?

Now let's switch the races and see what actually is going on. Marcus is a black man. The store owner and his clerk are Korean-American. The protestors are black, and they have actually said that Koreans are not welcome in their neighborhood. They are actually blocking this man's business and intimidating his customers. Yet we haven't heard even one outcry of "Discrimination" or "Racism" against the protestors. The newspaper article doesn't include one word in condemnation of the protestors. Where are the liberals? Where is the MLK philosophy of not judging a man by the color of his skin? I guess that only applies if the man is black.

"Race issues spark gas station protest." The Dallas Morning News; February 6, 2012; p. 1A.

What do we call you now?

Remember when "colored" was the polite term for a Negro? Then they decided that was offensive, and we changed to "black." Then Jesse Jackson decided that was offensive and we changed to "African-American." Now we must tread those eggshells again -- "African-American" is no longer pc. What is? They don't know. "Today, 24 years after Jackson popularized African-American, it's unclear what term is preferred by the community." 

Clarence Page, the black (OOPS!) columnist, says, "That's the most fundamental right any human being has, over what other people call you." Personally, I don't care what other people call me, as long as they call me for supper.

"Younger generation embraces the term 'black.'" The Dallas Morning News: February 5, 2012; p. 8A.

I'm Number 2!

Shelby Spaniel is unhappy. She is a senior at Ennis High School. She's known since she was a freshman that she was ranked second in her class academically. She says that spot is hers.


Alas, she is no longer ranked number two. In January 2011, Ennis got a new coach, and he brought his teenage son with him. The son's GPA is higher than Shelby's. According to Ennis ISD policy, a student must be in attendance three consecutive semesters to qualify for the honor of valedictorian or salutatorian. The new student qualifies -- spring semester 2011, fall semester 2011, spring semester 2012.


Shelby's parents have hired attorneys and spent hundreds of dollars to contest the rival's ranking. They say the student must attend three complete semesters . . . which the policy does not state. Carol Spaniel, Shelby's mother, says, "The policy is clear. It's right there in black and white." Yes, it is, Carol. It says "in attendance three consecutive semesters" . . . not "three complete consecutive semesters."  According to the policy, if he attended even one day in that first semester, he qualifies, because he was "in attendance" in that semester.


The Shelby's have exerted a lot of effort into preserving what they consider they are entitled to. There was another way to handle this. What if Shelby had said, "Wow, I have somebody nipping at my heels for that number two spot. I better start studying really hard and get better grades than he does for the next three semesters." Or better yet, what if Shelby had said, "You know what? Number two is not good enough for me. I'm going to buckle down and move up to number one." And what about the boy? Should he be deprived of what he has earned because Shelby considers a top spot her due?


No, Shelby, you are not "entitled" to a ranking just because you once held it. You better learn that before you join the workforce.

Let's be tolerant of gays -- but not of those with Christian morals.

Carolyn Hax writes a syndicated advice column. I was curious as to what qualifies her to give "expert" advice to other people, so I looked her up. I didn't find anything that would particularly make her more of an expert than anyone else, but I did find this little tidbit on Wikipedia: "In 2003, Hax received scrutiny as an advice columnist when – over a two year period – she divorced her first husband, cartoonist Nick Galifianakis, and married childhood friend Ken Ackerman – while pregnant with twins."

But I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and say that she is much better at dispensing advice than taking care of her own business. What got me started on her in the first place was a recent column in which a teenager sought her counsel for a complicated family situation.

The teenager's brother is gay. The mother has essentially disowned him and asked him not to come to family gatherings. The brother refuses to honor his mother's request and shows up anyway. Not only does he show up, but he brings his "partner" with him. When his mother asks him to leave, "he just smiles, tells Mom he loves her and then ignores her." 

The teenager wants to defend her brother, but she is afraid her mother will disown her as well if she does. Her friends call her a coward for not defending him.

My take on this is that the brother is intentionally antagonizing his mother. Bringing his "partner" to family gatherings is a slap in the face to her. Ignoring her belies his smarmy "I love you." If he really loved her, he wouldn't place her in such uncomfortable circumstances. If he wants to gather his family around him, he can invite them over to his place.

But the wise Ms. Hax finds the brother to be "an impressive human being . . . true to himself, firm but loving . . . all without being punitive toward the mother who rejects him for who he is." The brother, according to Ms. Hax, is a "person of obvious courage." The mom, she seems to think, is a fool . . . "your mom hasn't succeeded in kicking anyone out of anything, though maybe she just hasn't figured out how yet." Her advice is to pretty much just keep ignoring her.

I'm no expert advice columnist, but I do have a bit of wisdom for Ms. Hax, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" And that comes from a much wiser source than I.

"When a mother rejects gay son." The Dallas Morning News; January 13, 2012; p. 1E.

"Do as I say, not as I do." Barack Obama.

Barack Obama has had it with universities "jacking up tuition" every year. He has announced that schools that are doing that will have their federal aid taken away and instead given to schools showing "restraint and value." This comes from the President who has "restrained" himself to "jacking up" our national debt by approximately $6 trillion since he took office 3 years ago.

What does that really mean? At the end of George Bush's term, the share of the national debt apportioned to each person in America was about $34,000. Now, it is about $48,000. That's roughly a 43% increase. At the same time, average tuition and fees at public colleges rose roughly 8% per year or around 25%. I don't think we can afford 4 more years of Obama's "restraint and value."

"Obama tells schools to rein in costs or risk loss of aid." The Dallas Morning News; January 28, 2012; p. 13A.