The new "flip-flop"

In 2004, there wasn't a practicing Democrat on the face of the planet that didn't hate and resent the term "flip-flop". Not because it was slanderous, or inflammatory, or inaccurate... but because it WAS accurate. It summed up in one hyphenated word exactly what Kerry was doing on key points of issue and debate. One minute he was for something, the next he was against it.

Today, many of those same Dems are using the term to describe McCain. According to them, it is evident from his change of attitude regarding such topics as amnesty for illegal immigrants and off-shore oil drilling in restricted areas.

Shockingly enough, I find this accusation juvenile in the extreme, and completely inaccurate.

All the fluff and glitter aside, if one reads the proposals that McCain has offered, he isn't changing his mind on whether or not we should drill (he may think we should, but his opinion isn't included in the proposal)... he is changing his mind on WHO should determine if and when we drill. He hasn't changed his mind on whether or not amnesty is the right path to take when dealing with the tens of millions of illegals in this nation... he has changed his mind on WHO will determine how we deal with these illegals.

In both cases, he has advocated that it is the STATES that should determine IF, WHEN, HOW and WHERE these issues will be addressed. If there is to be drilling in ANWAR, then Alaska will determine when and how. If there is to be drilling of the Florida coast, the Florida will say how and when. If California determines that it wants to grant an amnesty to illegal immigrants, than California can do that... as long as California can pay the cost. If California can't, then the Feds will determine how best to prosecute those within the State because the Feds won't foot the bill for illegals gaining access to health and welfare services anymore. Only California will.

I picked California specifically because they seem to enjoy the spotlight so much. They flaunt themselves as the "trend-setting" state in the Union. The toughest emission laws, the toughest environmental laws, the loosest immigration laws, the first with state-wide bans on smoking tobacco, the first to "legalize" marijuana, the highest taxes, and the lowest income-to-jobs ratio in the country... even with an artificially high minimum wage in place for more than 22 years.

Cut California off from the Federal welfare system. Stop all Federal dollars going to state highway funds. End subsidies to California power companies that cannot build new plants due to stringent State regulations (resulting in the now infamous "rolling blackouts" of the late '90s). Then let California marry all the gays they want. Let them sell pot on the street corners. See how long California makes it as the 7th largest economy on the face of the earth WITOUT the SUPPORT of the rest of this country, let alone the Feds.

Then let them watch Alaska. Here is a State the KNOWS the value of "environmentalism" in a free-market system. Here is a state that generates so much revenue from the SAFE and CLEAN extraction of oil and coal that each and every citizen of the State receives a REFUND check for as much as $2000 per person! And guess what the second largest source of State revenue is in Alaska? Mining. Everything from gold to lead are mined in Alaska, successfully and safely, which generates more income for Alaska than California gains from it's own mineral exploitation revenues. This is IMPORTANT: where do you suppose it is more EXPENSIVE, technically speaking, to mine... California or Alaska? Me, I'd guess Alaska. WRONG. It is more expensive to mine in California (a state famous for its gold mines!) because of state fees, fines and expenses than it is in Alaska.

Here's a bit of trivia for you: Alaska is pretty sparsely populated when compared to California. In fact, Cali has 54 times the population that Alaska has. It has 75% more law enforcement per capita than Alaska does... yet California has 32% more murders per year than Alaska does. Alaska has a per capita violent crime rate of .002% of the population, while California has a .005% rate. WHY? Because more than 81% of the population of Alaska own firearms and leep them in their homes and vehicles.

So, compared to California, Alaska is a richer, more productive, more successful and SAFER state than California. Take that Nancy Pelosi!