Who provokes sympathy more than a child with cancer? Your heart is moved to do something for this 'poor little thing'. And what does Don Imus do for them? He puts them to work shoveling manure, and makes them do risky things on horseback. They round up Texas Longhorns, herd and feed sheep, buffalo, chickens, goats and donkeys.

Radio personality Don Imus and his wife Deirdre run the 4,000-acre Imus Cattle Ranch for Kids with Cancer in Ribera, New Mexico.

I've never been a fan of Imus on the radio, but after reading a New York Times story about his 'charity', I'm thinking of sponsoring President Barack Obama for a week at Imus' ranch. If my fundraiser goes well, I'll send Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and more than a few Republicans with him.

At the ranch, I think the president and his colleagues on Capitol Hill could learn a lot about how to 'help' the people he considers to be victims.

Read this statement about the philosophy of this altruistic endeavor:

It is extremely important that all parents and children understand the fundamental philosophy of the ranch: it is not a camp! It is a working cattle ranch. Our objectives for the kids are to encourage in them a sense of achievement, responsibility and self-esteem through hard work and fun, while restoring their pride and dignity. Many have become convinced that because they are sick they are not normal. At The Imus Ranch they quickly discover they can do anything any other kid can do. Each child who visits the ranch is treated as a typical kid. Our policy forbids any mention of illness by ranch employees.

Let's eavesdrop on Imus inspecting a teenager's work.

“This is not a good job,” Mr. Imus told Cory just after breakfast, as he stood over the boy’s freshly made bed. “See how your sheet is down to the floor? It needs to be tucked in.”

Soon after, Mr. Imus instructed Javier Rivera, 12, of New Jersey, on the proper way to wear his blue jeans. “Pull up your pants, Javier, or I swear I’m going to put you on the next plane back to Newark,” Mr. Imus said.

Why does this grumpy old man treat these pitiable victims so insensitively?

Because he loves them.

The sole purpose of the Imus ranch "is to provide the experience of the great American cowboy" to people who spend their lives on the receiving end of well-meaning altruism and genuine sympathy.

Here in Allentown, Pa., Camp Compass Academy takes inner city children outdoors, where they get to hunt, fish, shoot arrows and take part in other adventures. But they only get to go to the woods or stream if they meet the stringent academic and attendance requirements of the program. John Annoni, the program's director, commands respect and his young participants give it.

Don Imus and John Annoni understand something that our well-intentioned elected officials and their sponsors in the news media need to learn if they truly want to see victims become victors...

Pamper a man with pathos and he feels pathetic. Challenge him with obstacles and opportunity, and he rises up to find dignity.

---

Scott Ott is a columnist for the Washington Examiner, co-host of Trifecta on PJTV.com, and candidate for Lehigh County Executive.

The Washington Post calls it "arguably the most ambitious social experiment to alleviate poverty of our time."

It seemed a benign (almost self-evident) statement when I posted it at Facebook: "Government should be limited, effective, frugal and totally focused on the customer."

A friend responded: "How do you measure effectiveness? Government does not run on profit or return. Measurement of life, liberty and happiness is subjective."

It's a great question, but perhaps the premise is flawed, and we'll have to go back a few years to deal with that.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable rights with which we are endowed by our Creator, as all know who have read the Declaration of Independence. Governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed in order to secure these rights, not to provide rights or blessings (because God has already provided them).

In other words, government protects each of us from others who would violate our God-given rights. "Others" include those in government, which is why the Declaration says the power comes from those who are governed. It is not inherent within the governors.

So, to determine the effectiveness of government, one need not measure output of life, liberty or happiness, but rather one should measure infringements on those rights, and seek to diminish those, because they are offenses to both the men who receive rights and to God who grants rights.

The government most effective is the one that treads least on the natural rights of men, and that reliably punishes others who impinge upon or trample those rights. This sends a clear signal that here, in America, people are free and responsible.

Let's bring this up to the local level. (Yes "up". The smaller the unit of government, the closer to the people, the higher it ranks in order of significance.)

Lehigh County (Pa.) government administers courts, jail, district attorney and public defender, sheriff, coroner, and public records (wills, deeds, voter registration), among other things. In addition, the county government runs a vast 'human services' operation, that is for the most part mandated by, and largely funded through, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the federal government. The county also maintains 46 bridges -- no roads, just bridges.

The 897-page Lehigh County budget contains no fewer than 60 separate "funds" -- from mental health, to liquid fuels, to gaming, to composting -- most of which represent local efforts to comply with the demands of remote politicians and bureaucrats in Harrisburg and Washington D.C..

Even a cursory glance at the size and scope of this $405 million per year, 2,197-employee operation, makes one wonder how the word "effectiveness" could barge into the conversation.

Government is not a free enterprise business, but that doesn't mean that sensible, effective business practices and processes do not apply. In fact, there's much that government can learn from successful and unsuccessful businesses.

To stretch the analogy, Lehigh County government is a conglomerate, or a holding company, for a wide-range of enterprises, each bearing the Lehigh County brand, but often having little obvious relation to each other beyond that. Sensible managers of conglomerates look for natural links among business units -- resource sharing, pooled purchasing, networking, etc. -- but such leaders must also allow a level of independent operation for each business unit, so that they're not hindered in the execution of their particular missions by the bureaucratic weight of the whole.

Yes, the image of herding cats comes to mind. And while a pack of cats can't easily be chased, they can be led. The job of leadership is to set the expectations in broad terms for fiscal prudence, performance excellence, and customer service...and then, in conjunction with the leaders of each unit, to develop benchmarks for what effectiveness looks like in each realm, and then to hold them accountable to those measures.

Effective courts swiftly and justly administer the law. How fast? The leaders must determine not just what's possible, but what constitutes fairness to the aggrieved and the accused alike.

Humans services units deliver state-mandated aid to needy "clients" in a way that equips them, if possible, to function without such aid. Effectiveness measurement here might consist not so much of 'hours spent' or 'funds disbursed', but of clients released, who have become independent of government assistance. Another measure might be how much human services work can be transferred back to the private sector in order to increase accountability, results and the administration of genuine love, mercy and compassion.

Of course, a wise leader of a conglomerate also knows when to spin off a division for the good of that unit and of the whole. Government should do what government must do with excellence. But much of what government now does would be better handled in the private sector.

To sum up, each unit of government must develop its own set of effectiveness measures, keeping in mind that government secures God-given rights, it does not confer them. This may require what will seem to many in government like a radical re-imagining of their roles.

And that is just what is needed, as long as it is done within the confines of our Founders' stated vision for this great nation.

What might happen if each government employee asked himself at the close of each day: "Today, how did I secure the blessings of liberty on behalf of the people of Lehigh County?"

Better yet, what might happen if that person had both empirical (objective) and anecdotal (subjective) standards by which to answer that question.

---

Scott Ott is candidate for Lehigh County Executive.

Today's Washington Post refers to "...the daunting challenge of remaking a health system that consumes $1 out of every $6 spent in the country..."

Did you ever wonder why journalists don't refer to other side of the balance sheet when it comes to the health care industry? Of course, they're just mouthing platitudes put out by politicians and their special-interest supporters, but it doesn't take an accounting genius to consider that across the ledger from "expense" is the word "revenue". By repeated exposure to that '1-in-6' figure, you might get the sense that the health care industry is a net drain on the U.S. economy.

Can you imagine a journalist reporting that $1 out of every $6 spent in this country is "consumed" by the media?

For the sake of this discussion, let's set aside aside the health-related outcomes of the medical business, and strictly consider the financial output.

The $1 that the "health system" allegedly "consumes" doesn't just vanish into the ether. In addition to providing tangible, often-measurable benefits to the customer, the dollar also produces the following...

• personal income to support families (including little children) of everyone from insurance agents, to scientists, to medical equipment engineers and manufacturers, nurses, doctors, janitors, food service staff, ambulance drivers and the attorneys who chase them, construction workers, architects and many others;
• tax revenues (real estate, income, sales, corporate, etc.) paid to local, state and federal governments, including politicians who sometimes make factually-inaccurate or misleading statements about the impact of the health care system on the economy;
• tuition and student loan payments for degrees, from community colleges to med schools and a range of educational institutions in between;
• contributions to charities, faith communities, public TV & radio, universities from which health care workers earn degrees, and even to incumbent politicians who send out news releases with skewed information about health care and the economy;
• sales of unrelated goods and services to people who draw their income from health care industry employment: homes, cars, fuel, vacations, clothing, food, even newspapers and cable TV that pay journalists who sometimes report one-sided information about crucial economic issues;
• investment income to advance medical science, as makers of drugs and medical gear do R&D to increase the effectiveness of their products;
• retirement income for people who have invested in the stock of medical firms;
• investment income for medical firm stockholders that then gets spent on luxury goods, commodities and everything in between.

This is not an argument for the current pricing structure (already overly-influenced by government's regulation, price fixing and subsidies). It's an effort to bring balance to the discussion, or at least discussion of the balance sheet.

A dollar "consumed" by anything but government, generally produces a dollar, more or less, in value, as well as a ripple effect through the economy that generates benefits for people in all socioeconomic strata. The one sure way to louse up this beneficent cycle of blessing is to increase control by politicians and bureaucrats who have understanding of neither health care, nor basic economics.

As you travel your community today, look at the homes, the cars, the stores, the people, the medical offices, the hospital and realize that $1 out of every $6 spent in this country supports a quality of life unsurpassed in world history, for you, your family and your neighbors, thanks to the health care industry.

There now, that should make you feel better.

---

Author, speaker, and Washington Examiner columnist Scott Ott, is candidate for Lehigh County Executive in Eastern Pennsylvania.

PRES. OBAMA: "...we must lower the health-care costs that are driving us into debt, create the jobs of the future within our borders, give our workers the skills and training they need to compete for those jobs, and make the tough choices necessary to bring down our deficit in the long run." -- Op-Ed in Washington Post

---

Do you remember the Sesame Street game "One of these things is not like the others"? You see a grouping of four objects and have to decide which one is different before the song ends.

Look at the president's list above. Can you tell which thing doesn't belong?

Song Over: The only actual federal government responsibility among the four items the president lists is to bring down the deficit. (Unless he's talking about cutting health-care costs for federal employees, or giving federal workers job skills training.) So far, his plan for bringing down the deficit seems to be to spend as much borrowed taxpayer money as possible. Under this plan, the only hope for "deficit reduction" is to alter the definition of one, or both, of those terms.

The president, who has no previous executive experience, seems to think he got elected CEO of USA, Inc. and that every part of your life is a government program over which he exercises control. In the course of his aggressive effort to run your life, he neglects (or perhaps rejects) the job he swore to do: "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Perhaps one could argue that, technically, he is upholding his oath to "execute the office of President of the United States". After all, that verb does have more than one meaning.

---

Author, speaker, and Washington Examiner columnist Scott Ott, is candidate for Lehigh County Executive in Eastern Pennsylvania.

EXCERPT FROM PRES. OBAMA SPEECH: Critics “say we are trying to do too much, that we are moving too quickly, and that we all ought to just take a deep breath and scale back our goals,” he said. “These naysayers have short memories. We did not get here by doing what was easy. That is not how a cluster of 13 colonies became the United States of America.”  -- Obama Says American ‘Spirit’ Can Confront, Resolve Challenges, Bloomberg News.


Mr. President, critics don't say that. Your supporter Colin Powell says that.

Critics say, not that you're doing "too much", but that you're doing the wrong things. Critics say that you're ...
--  interfering in free markets in a way that jeopardizes shareholder value, usurps individual rights and compromises the structural integrity of capitalism.

Critics say that you're ...
-- spending money we don't have in amounts we can never repay, thereby
-- devaluing the currency and setting up a swirling downward vortex from which there is no known economic model for escape.

Critics say that you're ...
-- pushing a government-run, taxpayer-funded, single-payer health insurance program under the guise of merely offering a public option (another scheme for which there is no known successful analog).

Critics say that you're ...
-- devastating the petroleum-based economy that has fostered the most prosperous nation in history,
-- ignoring atomic energy despite its limitless capacity to offer clean power, and
-- forcing taxpayers to gamble on so-called 'green' technologies which, despite years of research and billions of dollars of investment, still consume more energy than they generate.

Critics say that you're ...
--  compromising our national security by snuggling up to evil people who are committed to our destruction, and
--  apologizing for our history each time you step onto a foreign shore.

Critics say that you're ...
-- blaming all negatives on your predecessor while claiming credit for positives that have yet to happen, and
-- slamming anyone who disagrees with you as a narrow-minded naysayer with a short memory.

Finally, Mr. President, the 13 colonies did not become free and independent states by confiscating wealth from the productive sector of society and doling it out to the unproductive sector in a way that guarantees the perpetual enslavement of both.

This new nation, conceived in liberty, was brought forth by people who said 'Enough' to a tyrant who capriciously ruled from afar -- people who were willing to risk their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor that succeeding generations might live the freedom they bought with blood.

Mr. President when you compare your socialized insurance program, your speculative wealth confiscation program or your Niagara Falls of spending with the endeavors of those bold patriots, you trivialize their sacrifice while you crown yourself with the Styrofoam diadem of a clown.

---

Author, speaker, and Washington Examiner columnist Scott Ott, is candidate for Lehigh County Executive in Eastern Pennsylvania.

As the ink dries on President Barack Obama's order to close the U.S. terrorist detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, America stands to lose her most effective correctional institution.

While the president and his aides figure out what to do with the remaining enemy combatants residing in the P.O.W. camp affectionately known as 'Gitmo', one startling statistic has received little notice in the mainstream media -- the recidivism rate.

Recidivism, the repeated criminal acts of released convicts, has been the shame of the U.S. "correctional" system for years. Keep in mind that, thanks to progressive thinking in criminal justice, the purpose of prison is no longer to punish and shame the criminal and to keep him off the streets as a public service. No, our prisons exist to help a criminal to come to grips with his emotional challenges and to re-integrate him into society as rapidly as possible...usually before the expiration of his sentence.

According to a 15-year study by the Bureau of Justice, the statistical arm of the Justice Department, two out of every three released convicts get re-arrested within three years of leaving the big house. For violent criminals, 61.7 percent get caught again, and about 40 percent re-convicted. Of course, others likely commit crimes but don't get caught.

Supporters of keeping Gitmo open have noted that as many as 61 former Guantanamo detainees, after release, have returned to the fight, rejoining the network of Islamic jihadists. While this is an alarming fact, and our nation needs a P.O.W. facility to keep these men from returning to their old line of work, allow me to commend the correctional efforts of the staff at Gitmo and to recognize their success in rehabilitating men who had previously devoted themselves to destroying Western civilization.

Only an estimated 11 percent of the 520 detainees thus far released have returned to the fight. This means that Gitmo has a recidivism rate one-sixth the national average. It ought to be the envy of all in the stateside "correctional" industry, whose wardens should be paying $5,000 each for day-long seminars to learn 'The Gitmo Way'.

How do they do it?

What happens at Gitmo to pacify and rehabilitate these men, who have been trained in al Qaeda camps and captured on the battlefield, or while plotting horrific attacks? What techniques account for the fact that nearly nine in 10 of them have apparently not resumed their jihad?

While cold statistics don't answer the question, let's take a moment (how about a national holiday?) to express our gratitude to the staff at the detention center for this roaring success.

Then, let's bring them back to the states so they can run our "correctional" facilities ... Gitmo-style!

---

Scott Ott, editor-in-chief of the leading family-friendly daily news satire source, ScrappleFace.com, and anchor of SNN, writes periodic non-satirical pieces like this one for Townhall.com. He's also contributing author of "The New Media Frontier", Crossway, 2008, and a dynamic public speaker available through Premiere Speakers Bureau.

After George W. Bush defeated Al Gore, and later John Kerry, for the presidency, countless Democrat-owned cars bore bumper stickers with clever phrases like 'Not My President' or 'Don't Blame Me I Voted for Kerry'.

As a conservative evangelical Christian who voted for McCain-Palin, and for every other Republican on the ballot yesterday, let me say for the record: Barack Obama is my president.

I stayed up past midnight to watch his victory speech. I wept (a little less than Jesse Jackson) because the moment stirred me with gratitude for how God has thus far corrected America's most crippling birth defect -- racist discrimination.

I take my president-elect at his word when he says to those who didn't vote for him: "I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your president too."

Mr. President, the best thing you can do for us is to lead a new generation to live out the American dream as you have. In other words, President Obama, I pray that your example will serve to create a wave of citizens whose lives follow your own storyline.

This would produce an America comprised of people who...

• can choose where to school their children (as your Mom chose private school for you),
• work hard to achieve their goals,
• dedicate themselves to lifelong learning,
• marry persons of the opposite sex and remain faithful to them,
• bear living children and bring them up in a two-parent home,
• take advantage of free markets and their own skills to earn money,
• negotiate their own compensation,
  
• manage that money responsibly,
• demonstrate a willingness to serve our nation.

Mr. President, while your official policy statements envision a nation very different from the one that produced your extraordinary success story, I know that you're still relatively new to civic life and you seem willing to learn. You strike me as a quick study, who can really make a difference when he sets his mind to it.

Leaders tend to attract people who are like them, and to inspire people to emulate them. Sometimes it's hard to recognize the factors that have shaped our own existence. Take a moment to consider how your life exemplifies the principles that have made this nation great.

What we need now is not policies to implement your stated ideology. We need for you to recognize the true power behind your own inspiring story.

---

Scott Ott, contributing author of The New Media Frontier, is a writer, public speaker and creator of the world's leading family-friendly news satire source, ScrappleFace.com. His columns at Townhall.com are not satirical.

The so-called Troopergate investigation report, released Friday by a panel in Alaska, is the best thing to happen to the McCain-Palin campaign since the Arizona maverick chose the Alaskan hockey Mom as his running mate.

Republicans should embrace it as a way of telling the story of why government must be reformed. It is the perfect picture of how government bureaucracies shield the incompetent and immoral among them, and waste taxpayer dollars trying to nail concerned citizens who cry 'foul'.

The investigation, dubbed Troopergate in the same imaginative way that every scandal since Watergate has been appended with a 'gate', ostensibly had nothing to do with a State Trooper, but with a member of Gov. Palin's cabinet whom she tried to re-assign to other duties after he refused to get on board with her administration's agenda.

In addition to his budget differences with the Palin administration Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan inexplicably failed to fire state trooper Mike Wooten who had Tasered a 10-year-old boy, drank beer in his squad car and illegally gunned down a moose. Mr. Wooten happens to be the former brother-in-law of Gov. Palin. The investigator, Stephen Branchflower, who earned a $100,000 for his probing, found that the governor failed to restrain her husband from pushing for the trooper's dismissal. This inaction on her part Mr. Branchflower labeled "abuse of power" although his report acknowledged she did nothing wrong in dismissing Mr. Monegan.

Trooper Wooten, by the way, is still Trooper Wooten.

Now, the normal way to handle such a non-scandal in politics would be for McCain-Palin to claim that Gov. Palin was exonerated of wrongdoing in the removal of Mr. Monegan, and to brand the probe as political shenanigans. This, of course, is what the campaign as thus far done.

However, if I were whispering in Sen. McCain's ear, I'd tell him to grab this bull by the horns and give it a shake.

Trooper Wooten's continued presence on the force illustrates the near-impossibility of removing bad apples from government. Even the governor can't get a guy fired who has violated the law and his obligation to uphold it. Think about this: a cop Tasered his own stepson...and he's still a cop.

Sarah and Todd Palin knew of Mr. Wooten's character since they had first-hand knowledge of his divorce from her sister -- a proceeding the media passively and euphemistically calls 'messy'. The media storyline is that the governor and the 'First Dude', blinded by familial love, tried to bring down Mr. Wooten to get revenge for the pain he caused their sister. The hunting violation, the drinking violation and the electrocution of the child get mentioned in passing, as if these were expected behaviors of law enforcement officials and not significant factors in Mr. Wooten's ongoing qualifications to protect and serve.

Frankly, Trooper Wooten's behavior gives a black eye to the entire Alaska state police force. After all, if such a man is allowed to keep his badge, what other kinds of criminals daily strap on a state-issued sidearm to enforce the law at which they personally scoff. If you were Sarah or Todd Palin, would you not do everything in your power to get this guy fired?

But instead of confiscating his gun and his badge, the state embarks on an investigation of the whistleblowers -- the Palins. The state spends $100,000 (at least) of taxpayer money to hire an investigator to probe whether the governor abused her power.

Abused her power? Sounds to me like Alaska's chief executive has no power. She can't re-assign a member of her own cabinet without sparking an investigation. She can't even get a low-level state employee fired who has violated his code of conduct and the law at least three times.

And this is just a snapshot of the kind of mediocrity and malfeasance that government fosters and perpetuates.

Anyone with an ordinary sense of justice would conclude that Trooper Wooten should have been removed from the force long ago.

"My friends," Sen. McCain should say, "Sarah Palin and I are going to Washington to end the culture of inside dealing, empire building, incompetence and corruption that takes money from your pocket and makes a mockery of the rule of law. We're not just going to pluck out a few obvious bad apples, we're going to upset the apple cart."

Then Sen. McCain should overtly draw a connection between this case and the current global financial quagmire.

It's this kind of capital crime culture -- infesting capitol buildings from Juneau to Washington D.C. -- that makes it possible for Congress to cause an economic crisis, and then to spend your money on phony investigations in an effort to blame someone else. Meanwhile, the real criminals continue to drive around in tax-funded cars drawing tax-funded paychecks. This, my friends, is abuse of power, and somebody has to stop it before it undermines the foundations of our Constitutional Republic.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Scott Ott is a writer and dynamic public speaker available through Premiere Speakers Bureau.

About 18 months ago, I announced that I was pretending to run for the presidency. Frankly, the day-to-day responsibilities of work, church and family have prevented me from taking a very active part in my own faux campaign.

However, I did manage to participate in last night's televised debate, moderated by former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw. This morning, I reviewed the video and published transcripts on the internet and found that most, if not all, of my contribution to this civic forum had been mysteriously deleted. So, as a public service, I here provide a transcript of the questions and my answers to help you make a well-informed decision at the polls on November 4.

Tom Brokaw: We're going to have our first question from over here in Section A from Allen Shaffer. Allen?

Shaffer: With the economy on the downturn and retired and older citizens and workers losing their incomes, what's the fastest, most positive solution to bail these people out of the economic ruin?

Scott Ott: Lock all the doors on Capitol Hill. Let the phrase “do-nothing Congress” become a rallying cry, and a positive thing, by preventing the passage of new laws, bailouts, rescues or other attempts to restrict or direct the movement of free markets.

Brokaw: Obviously the powers of the treasury secretary have been greatly expanded. The most powerful officer in the cabinet now. Hank Paulson says he won't stay on. Who do you have in mind to appoint to that very important post?

Scott Ott: That’s a ridiculous question. Next.

Brokaw: The next question comes from Oliver Clark, who is over here in section F. Oliver?

Clark: Through this economic crisis, most of the people that I know have had a difficult time. And through this bailout package, I was wondering what it is that's going to actually help those people out.

Brokaw: Are you saying to Mr. Clark, and to the other members of the American television audience that the American economy is going to get much worse before it gets better and they ought to be prepared for that?

Scott Ott: Mr. Brokaw, I speak English like many people in this country still do, so don’t bother translating and reinterpreting the questions for me.

Mr. Clark, what will help these people is to restore our trust and commitment to free market capitalism. The sooner we can get Congress and its agents to stop trying to manipulate the economy, the sooner the healing can begin. Economies run in cycles. They always have. Government intervention caused a false boom and now the markets, like water, are seeking their own level. If we allow that to happen, we can begin to grow again. But if we step in, then we will succeed only in propping up a facade which caused these troubles in the first place. Mr. Clark, as you know, life is sometimes difficult. But wrestling with, and overcoming, difficulties is what makes us men. People struggling to overcome challenges have built this great nation and they will rebuild our financial system now.

Brokaw: In all candor, do you think the economy is going to get worse before it gets better?

Scott Ott: Of course. What a silly question. Look up the definition of 'cycle' when you get a chance.

Brokaw: Thank you. We're going to continue over in Section F, as it turns out. This is a question from Teresa Finch. Teresa?

Finch: How can we trust any of you with our money when both parties got -- got us into this global economic crisis?

Scott Ott: You can’t trust us with your money. That’s why you should keep as much of it for yourself as possible. Demand lower taxes. Demand that the government stops trying to run things that aren’t required of it in the Constitution. Vote the bums out who have been picking your pockets since the last election day.

Brokaw: There are new economic realities out there that everyone in this hall and across this country understands that there are going to have to be some choices made. Health policies, energy policies, and entitlement reform, what are going to be your priorities in what order? Which of those will be your highest priority your first year in office and which will follow in sequence?

Scott Ott: 1) Cut taxes -- corporate, individual and nuisance taxes. Eliminate the death tax. 2) Eliminate government departments and programs not mandated in the Constitution. Department of Education goes first.  3) Privatize almost everything but national defense.
Mr. Brokaw, my energy policy is this: Get out of the way and let the energy markets function. My health care policy is this: Get the government completely out of the health care business. My entitlement reform proposal is this: If you’re an American citizen your entitlements are outlined in the Constitution. Nothing else is guaranteed.

Brokaw: We have our first question from the Internet tonight. A child of the Depression, 78-year-old Fiorra from Chicago.
Since World War II, we have never been asked to sacrifice anything to help our country, except the blood of our heroic men and women. As president, what sacrifices -- sacrifices will you ask every American to make to help restore the American dream and to get out of the economic morass that we're now in?

Scott Ott: Fiorra, I’m going to ask some Americans to sacrifice their dream of having a Sugar Daddy who bails them out any time they get into a rough patch. I’m going to ask many of you to sacrifice your member of Congress by voting him or her out of office at the mid-term election. I’m going to ask you to sacrifice the false security of government control and to exchange it for the real potential that comes from personal initiative and hard work.

Brokaw: President Bush, you'll remember, last summer, said that "Wall Street got drunk." A lot of people now look back and think the federal government got drunk and, in fact, the American consumers got drunk. How would you, as president, try to break those bad habits of too much debt and too much easy credit, specifically, across the board, for this country, not just at the federal level, but as a model for the rest of the country, as well?

Scott Ott: My administration would set an example of fiscal rigor by trimming expenses, cutting whole departments, and not buying anything for which we cannot pay cash. In addition, we would spur economic growth by slashing taxes, and reducing government regulations that exist solely to produce politically-correct social outcomes. We’ll put a stop to decades of efforts to use the tax code to overcome human nature and to create a collectivist Utopia.

Brokaw: We have another question from the Internet. We have a question from Langdon in Ballston Spa, New York, and that's about huge unfunded obligations for Social Security, Medicare, and other entitlement programs that will soon eat up all of the revenue that's in place and then go into a deficit position.

Since the rules are pretty loose here, I'm going to add my own [thoughts] to this one. Would you give Congress a date certain to reform Social Security and Medicare within two years after you take office? Because in a bipartisan way, everyone agrees, that's a big ticking time bomb that will eat us up maybe even more than the mortgage crisis.

Scott Ott:  Langdon’s question made more sense than yours, Mr. Brokaw. So, I’m going to answer his while trying not to laugh at yours.

Langdon, you’re absolutely right. We have made promises that we can’t keep based on current revenue projections. What’s worse is that, if we don’t do something, Congress will continue to expand the size and influence of these programs so that the ultimate price will grow much greater. The only solution involves pain, but here it is.
1) Cap program benefits at their current levels. Don’t even allow cost of living increases.
2) Cut taxes to spur revenue growth.
3) Create free market options so younger Americans can opt out of Social Security, Medicare and the like.
This is called planned obsolescence, and the sooner we start, the better.

Brokaw: The next question comes from Section C over here, and it's from Ingrid Jackson. Ingrid?

Jackson: Sen. McCain, I want to know, we saw that Congress moved pretty fast in the face of an economic crisis. I want to know what you would do within the first two years to make sure that Congress moves fast as far as environmental issues, like climate change and green jobs?


Scott Ott: Ms. Jackson, I’ll move as fast as climate change does. I’ll sign a global warming bill that will jack up your taxes and louse up the free market just as soon my Oval Office carpet gets damp with salt water from the rising Atlantic Ocean.

Brokaw: Should we fund a Manhattan-like project that develops a nuclear bomb to deal with global energy and alternative energy or should we fund 100,000 garages across America, the kind of industry and innovation that developed Silicon Valley?

Scott Ott: Neither. We should stop trying to interfere with the American people’s dreams.  Innovation doesn’t come from Washington, it springs up from among the people. It doesn’t need fertilizer to sprout. It just needs Congress to stop spraying it with poison.

Brokaw: Next question comes from the E section over here and it's from Lindsey Trella. Lindsey?

Trella: Selling health care coverage in America as a marketable commodity has become a very profitable industry. Do you believe health care should be treated as a commodity?

Brokaw: Quick discussion. Is health care in America a privilege, a right, or a responsibility?

Scott Ott: Responsibility of the individual. The United States has the greatest medical care system in the world. Free markets got us here, and free markets will continue to improve the products and services that suit an ever-expanding range of customer preferences, needs and price ranges.

Brokaw: We want to move on now. If we'd come back to the hall here, we're going to shift gears here a little bit and we're going to go to foreign policy and international matters, if we can...Phil Elliott is over here in this section, and Phil Elliott has a question. Phil?

Elliott: How will all the recent economic stress affect our nation's ability to act as a peacemaker in the world?

Scott Ott: The money that we waste trying to rescue businesses and individuals from their own decisions could be going to project American strength through military power to those who mean us harm throughout the world. The greatest force for peace in world history is the mighty and ever-ready U.S. military. They form a deterrent wall against opportunistic aggression. Overcoming the economic challenges through the means I have already mentioned will also free up revenue to increase our espionage efforts worldwide. Our intelligence community provides the invisible fence to keep our enemies at bay.

Brokaw: Let's see if we can establish tonight the Scott Ott doctrine for the use of United States combat forces in situations where there's a humanitarian crisis, but it does not affect our national security. Take the Congo, where 4.5 million people have died since 1998, or take Rwanda in the earlier dreadful days, or Somalia. What is the Scott Ott doctrine for use of force that the United States would send when we don't have national security issues at stake?

Scott Ott: Your question assumes that we have no national security interest in Africa. Why, do you suppose, these genocidal wars are happening there? Are they just tribal skirmishes or local conflicts? Do you actually believe that the United States can be isolated from such slaughter? With porous borders, the territorial and political aspirations of China, Iran, Venezuela, Russia and others, and the never-ending desire of radical Islam to dominate the globe, no cranny of civilization lacks national security implications for the United States. That said, we have to weigh our options in the moment, and do the best we can with what we have, without compromising our principles. Ultimately, we have to take the long-term view that the world is going to become more democratic, and our national calling is to be forever at the forefront of the battle for freedom.  

Brokaw: Next question comes from the F section and is from Katie Hamm. Katie?

Hamm: Should the United States respect Pakistani sovereignty and not pursue al Qaeda terrorists who maintain bases there, or should we ignore their borders and pursue our enemies like we did in Cambodia during the Vietnam War?

Scott Ott: Ms. Hamm, I plan to be the President of the United States in a few months. When I am, I will receive daily security briefings and frequent bulletins at times of heightened activity. It is then, and not now, that I will make the tough decisions about the appropriate response to targets of opportunity. I’m sure you understand why any credible candidate for president would not dare to discuss such issues in a public forum.

Brokaw: The senior British military commander, who is now leading [in Afghanistan] for a second tour, and their senior diplomatic presence there, Sherard Cowper-Coles, who is well known as an expert in the area, both have said that we're failing in Afghanistan. The commander said we cannot win there. We've got to get it down to a low level insurgency, let the Afghans take it over. Cowper-Coles said what we need is an acceptable dictator. If either of you becomes president, as one of you will, how do you reorganize Afghanistan's strategy or do you? Briefly, if you can.

Scott Ott: First of all, I would consult with American military commanders and let them work out coordination with allied commanders in theater. Secondly, our strategic interest in Afghanistan is to foster the natural inclination of the people to have freedom. Public discussions about whether we’re winning, or speculation about whether we can win, will do nothing but shake the confidence of the local people in the future of their hopes and dreams. In other words, shut up and fight.

Brokaw: This question is from the Internet. It's from Alden in Hewitt, Texas. How can we apply pressure to Russia for humanitarian issues in an effective manner without starting another Cold War?

Scott Ott: I’m not sure what you mean by humanitarian issues. If you mean the Soviet-style invasion of Georgia executed by Russia earlier this year, then we stand with our allies and send a clear signal to Moscow that we won’t tolerate a revival of Stalinist imperialism.

Brokaw:  This requires only a yes or a no. Ronald Reagan famously said that the Soviet Union was the evil empire. Do you think that Russia under Vladimir Putin is an evil empire?

Scott Ott: Ronald Reagan said what he said, when he said it, for a specific strategic purpose. He wasn’t just playing rhetorical games with a retired news anchor who’s still fishing for a controversial sound bite. Next question.

Brokaw: All right. Over in section A, Terry Shirey -- do I have that right, Terry?

Shirey: As a retired Navy chief, my thoughts are often with those who serve our country. I know both candidates, both of you, expressed support for Israel. If, despite your best diplomatic efforts, Iran attacks Israel, would you be willing to commit U.S. troops in support and defense of Israel? Or would you wait on approval from the U.N. Security Council?

Scott Ott: That’s two questions. #1: Yes. #2: No.

Brokaw: All right, we've come to the last question. It's from Peggy in Amherst, New Hampshire. And it has a certain Zen-like quality, I'll give you a fair warning. She says, "What don't you know and how will you learn it?"

Scott Ott: I don’t know the limits of what God can do with a nation that’s fully devoted to Him. I hope to learn by devoting myself.

Brokaw: Thank you very much, Mr. Ott.

Imagine the post-Usama world -- that Utopian realm which emerges after President Barack Obama orders the Pentagon to rupture U.S. relations with Pakistan, and sends planes and troops into the lawless tribal borderlands of Waziristan, easily snatching al Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden from his subterranean condo and putting him on trial at The Hague.

Now what happens?

Sen. Obama has campaigned for president under the assumption that for the past seven years the Pentagon and the CIA have barely, or rarely, attempted to capture the world's most-wanted man. Of course, our military and intel community have all been distracted by Iraq and by spying on innocent Americans at home, so we lacked the resources to go after Usama. Sen. Obama believes that once we bring the troops home from Iraq, nabbing the terror mastermind will be a cinch, and peace will be upon us.

Let's say he's right, and we get Usama. Is that the end of al Qaeda?

Does Sen. Obama believe that Usama is the only jihadist smart enough to lead the decentralized terror network? Once he's safely in prison (no doubt serving 20-years to life) will our nation will again be safe?

What if there's another leader, or dozens of others? What if we get Usama but the terror attacks don't stop? Senator, do you know the definition of the word 'decentralized'?

Presumably, he would go after the new leader of al Qaeda, put him in jail, then pursue his replacement, and so on.

Sen. Obama's Usama-centric view of jihad fails to comprehend that radical Islam is not a personality, it's an ideology, a worldview, a movement. As a Muslim martyr in suicide sportswear prepares to trigger his package, distributing his entrails and hot shrapnel over a crowded marketplace, he doesn't shout "Usama Akbar!" He shouts the name of his bloodthirsty God, proclaiming Allah's greatness in the slaughter of the innocents. Capturing or killing Usama won't stop this terror.

Sen. Obama utterly fails to comprehend what we're fighting -- a "nation" without borders, a kingdom without a king, and a fighting force without medics whose best "soldiers" almost invariably die the first time they do battle.

We should, and eventually will, get Usama. But that's not a plan for fighting jihad. It's a tactic in an overall strategy...a strategy which Sen. Obama has failed to develop or reveal.

During a CNN.com panel Thursday at the Republican National Convention, the discussion turned to Gov. Sarah Palin's use of sarcasm to attack the Democrat duo facing off against her and John McCain. As a member of the panel, I was asked if Gov. Palin's speech was too mean to reflect a "Christian attitude".

My colleague on the panel, Asma Hasan, author of "Why I Am a Muslim," is a self-described "religious person," recently-registered Republican and Hillary supporter, who noted, "I did think she [Palin] was a little mean."

Upon further reflection, away from the glare of TV lights, I'm wondering if a better question might be: Is Sarah Palin meaner than Jesus?

In chapter 23 of Matthew's gospel, Jesus goes off on a rant against those who "exalt themselves."

Speaking directly to his adversaries he accuses them of hypocrisy for running around proclaiming rules for others to live by, and boasting of their own good behavior, while they slam the door in the face of those others. He says they work hard to make converts to their way, and then they make their followers "twice as much a child of hell" as they are. (v. 15)

That's not a very "Christian" thing to say, Jesus, is it?

But Jesus isn't done yet. He accuses his opponents of focusing on small matters while ignoring what's really important -- "straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!" (v. 24)

If I didn't know it was Jesus talking, I'd think that was sarcasm. I wonder if he's like that because he was homeschooled?

But wait, there's more. He nails them for putting on appearances that don't match their inner character: "you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence." (v. 25)

He calls them "blind guides"and says "you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness." (v. 27)

That's not very nice either. It's kind of "unappealing," don't you think?

His diatribe reaches a crescendo with this ultimate smack down: "You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?" (v. 33)

Jesus, of course, is not trying to destroy them, he's trying to teach them the error of their ways and to win some of them over to his way. He could have just stopped at verse 12: "Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted."

But to do surgery, you usually need a scalpel. Sarah Palin's gentle jabs at Barack Obama pale in comparison to the way Jesus "owned" the scribes and Pharisees. That's not to say that Gov. Palin never has, or never will step over the line and wind up on Mean Street. But let's put to rest this idea that you can't express brutal truth, even with sarcasm, and still be a follower of Jesus.

(St. Paul, Minnesota) -- From my Everestine perch 123 yards above the floor of the Xcel Energy Center, John McCain appeared roughly the size of an Oompa Loompa. His voice, far from the measured cadences of Barack Obama, often got lost among the shouts and cheers.

Sen. McCain speaks near a stage whisper at times. It's the kind of voice that gets you to lean in.

The world of the mainstream media will little note what he said here, but history will remember what he did here. John McCain redefined what it means to be a septuagenarian.

It struck me about halfway through the speech that most elderly people that I know cling to the past, reminisce about "the way it was" and look with bemusement or disgust at the many changes which have transformed our world.

This old man comes from a different breed of fogey. His speech was replete with calls for specific change in the way government operates...from killing pork barrel projects, to transforming our energy policy, to equipping a new generation of workers for the technologies that have reshaped our lives.

He's not the codger who scoffs at cell phones, internets and iPods. He's the sage who sees in these technologies the jobs of the future, and the betterment of our lives.

Rather than getting stuck in his ways, Sen. McCain seems willing to re-invent everything but his principles.

Rick Warren, the pastor of Saddleback Church where Sen. McCain turned the tide and kindled the passion of the base, is known for saying, "Methods are many, principles are few. Methods always change, principles never do."

Thursday night in St. Paul, Americans saw a whispering warrior with principles like still waters that run deep, who has lived enough to realize life is a river that never stands still.