From The Furnace

ANOTHER BRIEF RESPITE

2015-02-23T06:55:00.001-05:00

I know, I'm slacking off again and not adding my unique perspective to the national conversation. But it's time to put aside my 33 years of public service, and that means looking for work. I've posted my resume, and am sorting through various interviews and offers ... and that means I really don't have the time or inclination to write much these days.

But rest assured, I'll be back on the Information Superhighway soon enough ... or at least as soon as I have employment and don't have to worry about writing work applications in place of my musing about politics and popular culture ... TTFN

WHEN THE SHOE FITS

2014-11-16T09:03:00.001-05:00

Little dust has settled since Mark Gruber, one of the Obamacare architects, was caught on video calling the American electorate, “stupid”. According to him, the strategy used to pass the Affordable Health Care Act followed two prongs in its approach. The first was to write a bill that was so onerous and confusing that no lawmaker in the nation could make heads-nor-tails of what it meant. And the second was that the majority of voters were so unaware of economics – and dare I add civics – that they would embrace its entitlement and never oppose it.

The initial comments that came to light via YouTube were made during the 24th Annual Health Economics Conference hosted by the University of Pennsylvania. But since then, his other rants have also made their way to the viral video stage, and he is on record numerous times saying that their intention was to hoodwink the people. Knowing that careful and rational scrutiny of the bill would reveal its true intent to grab control of the entire health care system, they were counting on our naiveté regarding all things political and economic to sneak it into law.

The problem, as the media and general public see it, is that he openly stated the American voters were, “stupid!” People are all up-in-arms because they feel insulted by his statement. Surely, we’re not political morons, are we? Well, let’s test that theory. In 2004, we elected Obama as President. He said he was going to “fundamentally change the American system.” Based on “hope and change”, we found ourselves with a declining economy, rising unemployment, overwhelming national debt, loss of strategic control in the Middle East and race relations that harken back to 1964. So how did we fix that? We elected Obama for a second term!

What is really telling is that all the time Obamacare was being unveiled to the public, the President kept promising that we could keep our own doctors, that our insurance plans would be untouched and that health costs would come down. Anyone with an ounce of economic understanding could easily have seen through this. Our experience with government controlled medicine, primarily Medicare and Medicaid, gave plenty of evidence that droves of medical professionals have been streaming from the profession. The rebates for procedures under government oversight made it unfeasible for many doctors to retain their entitled patients. Both programs were slighted for severe cuts due to their overburdening costs and the growing barrage of red tape. Combined with vanishing reimbursements, this all leads to a decline in the supply of service providers.

As for insurance, the new requirements pressed insurers to up the amount and types of services, with a mandate to include those who had pre-existing illnesses. No sick person was to be left behind, and such things as trans-gender surgery, rehab for addictions and every form of prophylaxis were in the bucket for anyone and everyone. And if you didn’t feel you needed such services, so what! Everyone had to have insurance or face the fed’s wrath on April 15^th. This meant that the number of insured would shoot through the roof, leading to premium hikes as the insurance industry desperately sought to recoup the costs for providing the increased coverage. Of course, once everyone had insurance, the demand for healthcare was poised to skyrocket.

Now, here’s a little concept for you to consider. When supply decreases and demand rises … which way do prices go? I remember learning this principle in sixth grade, and so far in nearly a half-century since, that economic law hasn't changed. But when the President said prices would go down, the people believed him.

With cost spikes and policy cancellations flowing like a tidal wave, we’re getting a good economics lesson now!

So was Professor Gruber right in what he said? Frankly, it was a very valid strategy. They hoped that nobody would catch onto what they were doing, and sure enough, their wager paid off. It went so well that not only did the bill pass, but even now when people are losing their insurance right and left and the costs are enough to give you a heart attack, there are still those who swear that Obamacare is our most dire need. The policy makers placed their chips on the hope that the average voter wasn't smart enough to know how they were being duped, and when the whole house of cards was served up, the voters went right along and filled it in with entitlement concrete. In the end, it proved that the concept was not only valid, but useful.

Of course, we’re a lot smarter now. We can see how we've been duped by dishonest politicians, and we’re surely not going to fall for that sort of stupidity again, are we? In fact, we have our eyes on them, and they had better not attempt to pull any wool on us, for surely we’ll stop them dead.

Oh, and have you heard? Mary Landrieu, a staunch Obama clone in the senate, announced last week that she was putting a bill forward to kick the ball rolling on the Keystone pipeline. By Heaven, she’s all for this conservative job creator, and she’s going to personally ensure that it gets the attention it needs to pass in congress and make its way to the President’s desk. Of course, Harry Reid will have to allow the bill to come up for a vote, but he’s already given his complete and unconditional approval.

Wait, aren't they Democrats?

Hasn’t Reid and the rest of his party vehemently opposed it in the past?

So why are the two of them so hot and heavy to get rolling on energy independence?

In case you didn’t know, in Louisiana, when you run for a U.S. Senate seat, you have to win more than 50% of the vote or the election has to go to a run-off before you can claim your victory. Landrieu not only won less than half the vote, but only held a little more than 1% lead over her Republican opponent Bill Cassidy in the final tally. There had been a third party challenger, but with him out of the way that lead evaporated, showing Cassidy ahead by as much as 5% in some of the more recent polls. With a run-off set for December 6^th, Landrieu looks to position herself as far right as possible to sway enough voters to win the election. And that’s where we’ll see if Mr. Gruber is still correct. Will Ms. Landrieu’s blustering over Keystone make the more conservative hearts flutter her direction? Actually, if you look at her bill, it’s not really about the whole pipeline, but just the part that traverses Louisiana on its way to Texas. So it’s an ineffectual bill, at best, but at least has “Keystone” in the title, so that all the voters can see her true dedication to job creation and economic growth … in place of her pandering for Obama’s every whim, earning her the title of “The Louisiana Purchase” during the Obamacare vote.

By-the-way, Landrieu and Reid both know full well that Obama won’t sign it anyway, so they’re safe by supporting a bill they secretly expect to go nowhere.

Enter Mr. Gruber’s enlightenment of our shiny new health care legislation. He spilled the beans on how Democrats enact their ever-widening rule, while Nancy Pelosi denies that Mark Gruber even exists. And all the while the White House Press Secretary, Josh Earnest, declared that the whole debacle is really the republican’s fault … “HUH?”

Yes, Mr. Gruber, you nailed it!

AMERICA'S HIGH NOON

2014-11-11T08:54:00.000-05:00

As the sun blazes above a dusty street, four lone figures face each other with hands twitching nervously, just waiting for someone to flinch. Two on each side, they all, with beady cold stares, sneer at one another throwing polite insults across the expanse between them. Each try to goad their counterparts into making a fatal mistake, and the clock on the ole’ town hall clicks dangerously toward the climax, as the crowd surrounding them hold their breath. Unwilling to back down, all of them know that in just a moment guns will blaze leaving bodies slumped in the aftermath. One-by-one the bells sound and soon one side or the other must stand up to the showdown or step aside in shameful cowardice.

An old-time western? Nah, it’s tomorrow’s opening session of congress!

The President has made it very clear that he’s not going to back down on any of his agenda. He will either have his way, or he will abuse his executive powers to get it. And as for compromise, it's doubtful his ego could ever endure it. So, while the American people have voiced their desired direction – which curiously hints at sending this administration out the back door on a rail – the new congress doesn't take office until the first part of January, leaving a long few weeks for Reid and Obama to stir up mischief.

Of course, this still depends on the Republicans resolve to resist, and that’s something ever lacking when balanced against offending the public’s tender sensibilities. So for the sake of staving off any offense to the uninformed, they usually cave on anything smacking of populism. And you must admit, the Democrats do spin a popular message. Just hold out your hand, and they’ll give you a handout … trying desperately to hide the fact that at some point, somebody has to pay for it. Recently the rising costs of Obama’s policies have shown clearly who’s going to pony-up, and that’s exactly why the electoral wave crashed as it did.

None-the-less, if the Republicans do clarify their message and calcify their vertebrae, it may have a rather interesting effect on congress as a whole. Nobody, except possibly Bob Beckel, Juan Williams and the entire MSNBC (pseudo) news corps, is oblivious to the message sent last week. The public is not amused with Washington, and the balance of power was decidedly set into more rubicund hands. Thus, any who dare to hang with the President may well hang again in November of 2016! And that premonition alone could sway congress during this lame duck session. Granted, there are those who have already been ousted, and as Dick Morris pointed out in a recent editorial, have nothing to lose by voting from the far left. But even then, if they wish to return home with any sort of political future, they will still have to temper their ideals, or explain themselves to their rather unsympathetic constituents.

So Obama may not have full support toward pulling off his threats, with the hope that the whole oligarchy has taken careful note of what we expect, and that it’s high-time to remove the uber-left’s grasp on the nation’s jugular. While there are plenty of us who wish the political winds would suddenly surge from the far right, the truth is, most Americans prefer a gentle breeze down the center. Either way, what they don’t want is the gale-force blue typhoon to which we've been subjected for the past six years.

Generally Americans are not extremists. They will tolerate strong opinions about who’s on target for the Super Bowl or whether “blade runner” Pistorious got off to easy, but still want politics and religion to stay quietly underscored. And while they love the idea of helping the disadvantaged, they won’t accept becoming disadvantaged to do it. Obamacare, alien amnesty, IRS bullies, ACORN offshoots and a laundry list of scandalous civil servants have infuriated them to the point where they really are throwing out anyone connected with the President. Which calls to the Democrats remaining in office, “Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin!” Loosely translated, if they choose to give Obama and Reid that last gasp of power prior to the new congress, during the next election cycle they will likely join the most recent flock of unemployed legislators.

Of course, that too depends upon if the Republicans heed the call. If they don’t stand firm and stay in this proverbial Hadleyville, We the People will toss them aside too for more purposeful legislators. Either way, it won’t be too long before we figure out whether John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are any measure of Gary Cooper.

THE DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS

2014-11-06T19:41:00.001-05:00

It seems that the outcome of last Tuesday’s elections is clear; Obama the First has been handed his version of the Magna Cara Libertatum. He stated all over the media that the 2014 mid-term would be a vote regarding his policies. Well, the people have spoken in overwhelming rejection, and the Republicans are back in charge … or are they?

It was interesting that in the past few days, the present American ruler has put it to his opponents that if they don't, “send me a bill that I can sign,” he will simply dictate by executive order whatever whim meets his fancy. And so, the showdown begins. Today, on Fox News, the “I-word” was used in regards to amnesty. If King Barack decides to unilaterally declare all illegals legal, some in Congress are ready to step in and escort him to the proverbial Bastille for his political execution. And I say more power to them.

That is, if the Republicans have the same gumption the Bolshevik’s showed during their Red October!

And therein lies the problem. Obama has been a master at calling their bluffs. Along with his minion in the Senate, the two have ensured that nothing of note would make it to the floor for a vote. Many a House bill sits smoldering in Harry Reid’s desk, awaiting our expectation that Mitch McConnell will actually bring them to the quorum. Thus far, McConnell has promised to do so, and the hope is that he will make good on that promise.

But the Republicans have had opportunities to take up arms and storm the castle before, yet have shown little stomach for the fight. They much prefer gentleman’s rules over the guerrilla tactics foisted upon them from the left. It’s just not polite, and above all, Republicans are polite. We can’t make the voters mad at us, especially if they're voters of color or are foot soldiers in the bogus war on women.

What they may want to consider is that many of us remember the great revolution of 2000. Newt Gingrich became Speaker, and the Republican Party was set to go. They had the reins of power and with the help of a new Republican president, they lavished in the opportunity to undo all that President Clinton’s administration had botched up in the previous years. The problem is, they didn't do much of that at all. In fact, they outspent and out-legislated the Democrats on an amazing scale, and showed themselves to be true politicians with little to no regard for conservatism.

Shortly after, the newly born Tea Party and all of us conservatives were told to sit back, shut-up and color. Our voices were subversive in the eyes of the Blue Bloods, and we found as much opposition within the party as was within the ranks of the Democrats. Of course, nothing has changed in that regard whatsoever, thus far.

So the question arises, with all of the bluster from you fresh faces on the way to Washington, will you do what you say, or abandon your principles once enter the ivory halls of government? If ever there was a mandate, you clearly have one now, no matter what Rachel Madcow has to say!

Liberalism has all but destroyed this nation, and like it or not, our fine dictator-in-chief has actually effectuated much of the change he sought to heap onto the American system. There is likely little the new congress can do to straighten all of the mess this administration has stirred up. But they're tasked to try!

I just hope they're wise enough to understand that we didn't hire them to get along. Sure, Americans get jumpy when there’s gridlock. Nobody likes an argument. But that’s the way the U.S. system works, and so far, just going along to get along has brought us Obama Care, plenty of bankrupt green industries, lots of projects that should have been shoveled under and an employment rate where they had to stop counting the permanently out of work just so the numbers didn't cause revolt in the streets.

Will they take up the task upon which we've sent them? We'll see! But be advised Republicans, you were only able to hold power for twelve years after the 2000 election because you showed little opposition to the left wing progression to which we were vehemently opposed. Instead you embraced it, and without a clear difference, nobody saw any reason to keep you over those who at least admit they're liberals.

As they say, those who don’t learn from history … well … we'll see how much you've learned.

IT’S ONLY A GAME, ISN'T IT?

2014-10-05T08:20:00.000-04:00

While I don’t follow sports to any degree, I will stop on a channel that’s offering up either Boise State or the Seahawks. I like football, but am certainly not a devote’. But lately, whether or not you’re into the NFL, all you get is Rodger Goodell, who is snagging more air time than any of the local candidates for the upcoming mid-terms. And he’s neither publicly elected, nor has nearly the effect on our daily lives as do those we’re about to send to congress.

So why all of the fuss? Oh yea, one of the players, Ray Rice of the Baltimore Ravens, displayed a little bad behavior while riding in an elevator. (How’s that for understatement?) It seems that he and his then fiancé’ were having a bit of a discussion – to include her spitting on him – when he took matters into hand and decked her cold. Worse yet, he then tried to drag her like an unboxed ragdoll out of the elevator, and when approached by one of the hotel staff, told the man that she had just passed out from being drunk. The video showed otherwise!

Whether Rodger Goodell either did or didn't view the video that he either did or didn’t get was the question of the hour as the story came to light. He had the chance to come forward and make known what he should have surely figured would be bandied about by the media. But instead, he chose silence over common sense, either due to a strong desire to protect his sport or a misguided need to minimize the predictable hailstorm of criticism. Either way, he did the wrong thing, and so we've been hearing all about it above the fold for days on end.

Now, not only is Mr. Rice worthy of prison and other sanctions fitting for those who partake in domestic violence, but we also have to wonder about his now wife’s judgment for not tossing back his ring and running for the first exit out of the relationship. (Just a little hint here Janay, if he’ll lay you out once, he’s probably going to do it again in the future!) These sorts of things are often a dance between victim and abuser, with both battling their internal dragons that eventually manifest in severe bodily injury or even death.

Anyway, regardless of the status of their marital issues, this whole mess has wound up in Mr. Goodell’s lap, and the going bet is on a laborious media trial, where good ole’ Rodger has to make copious public apologies, eventually stepping aside to prove that the NFL is gentle and caring. All the while, the ratings won’t suffer a bit … even though Ray McDonald, Greg Hardy, A.J. Jefferson, Robert Reynolds, Dez Bryant, and who knows how many others have been charged with the same.

Worse yet, there’s Ike Turner, Bobby Brown, James Brown, Ozzy Osborne, Pamela Anderson, Tommy Lee, and Sean Penn … oops … wait … they aren't in the NFL, they’re entertainers! Well then, I want either Bob Iger or the head of Warner Brothers to step forward and give us some big apologies, to include a clear and concise domestic violence policy for Hollywood.

That’s ridiculous, you say?

Look, here’s the chase. Domestic abuse is horrible, no matter who commits it. From the good ole’ boy in a “wife beater” on cops, to Hope Solo, the goalie for the U.S. Women’s Soccer Team. If you batter your significant other – or even insignificant ones as well – you should spend some time with some real abusers in the local pokey. There’s no place for this sort of behavior, and it’s irrelevant as to your status in the world of sports or entertainment.

But is it the responsibility of the venue to police their own? The answer there is a definitive, “Yes!”

Is it a private matter between the police, the victim and the offender? Again, yes!

Does any of this matter in regards to the ratings? Here, the answer is essentially “No”. When it comes to entertainment, being entertaining is far more important than being a reasonable human being.

Our culture values celebrity, and if you can make the team or the “A-List”, behaving badly only grows your popularity while your publicist grows older quickly. Anymore, it seems as if scandal is a resume’ enhancer, and even if you do get caught with a house full of bloody pit bulls, you’ll only have to serve a little jail time, winding up back in the limelight as Quarterback for the Jets.

Oh, and just a side-note here, while we were watching the drama of Ray Rice, did anybody notice that Putin has still not recalled his troops from the Ukraine? I suspect there’s much greater consequences in that battle than the one over whether Condi will get her chance to replace Goodell.

Somewhere along the way of tearing crosses off of both public and private edifices, we seem to have missed the point that there really is a need for morality in today’s culture. It’s not that we should politically espouse any given religious doctrines. I’m all for the basic separation of church and state. But the Constitution has been so warped that, “shall make no law respecting an establishment,” has become outright abolishment in regards to God, and we’re now reaping the consequences of this obliteration by winding up with a culture devoid of even so much as public decency. Without collective morality, really, what’s wrong with what Mr. Rice or any of his cronies did? According to situational ethics, it suited his purpose and surely stopped her from continuing the argument … or consciousness, for that matter!

It’s the proverbial slick incline, and once you start supplanting what’s right for what’s entertaining, you get the unscripted cast of Cops on your doorstep. Gone is the baby, bathwater, tub, bathroom, and presently so much as the plumbing in the whole darned house! Progressivism keeps telling us that sanctioning gay “marriage”, abortion on demand, rampant ongoing welfare, and any other aspect of what once was considered shameful, will make us feel good about ourselves for being so inclusive. Thus, by moving or erasing the lines of descent behavior, we now have no boundaries by which to keep our citizens from handing out a “KO” to their supposed loved ones.

Then again, maybe if we started bringing morality back into our schools, our homes, and most of all, our personal lives, we wouldn't need to demand that sports leagues fire their offenders. They would already accept the moray that real men don’t hit women! I’m not necessarily advocating prayer in schools, but the Pledge of Allegiance might be a good start. We could then teach our children that self-expression must be subjugated to self-control, and we could even hang the wooden paddle back above the chalkboard, with the hope there’s an even bigger one waiting at home. If we want our fellow Americans to act civilized, we might just begin by teaching civilization instead of indoctrinating our youth with a common core of pseudo self-actualization.

Of course, according to the ACLU, NARL, NOW, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and all of the other acronymic activists, my sort of antiquated thinking is just plain barbaric, and certainly not progressive.

Yup, in the end, Rodger will likely keep his job, and personally, I will continue to watch my Seahawks whenever I have a free afternoon. I’ll certainly vote in this upcoming election, hoping but doubting it will make a difference, and the atheists will surely have another tablet of commandments expunged from public view in fly-over country.

And sometime soon, a young man, likely with a new wife and infant child, will give up his life on some God-forsaken battlefield in a faraway land; all so that you and I can keep watching the NFL. Heck, it’s just entertainment anyway, isn't it?

AMERICA ANSWERS THE CALL, “911, PLEASE HOLD!”

2014-09-29T08:41:00.004-04:00

There’s an interesting historical fact regarding America’s military prowess of which few have really taken notice. While we consider World War II to have been a single global conflict, it was actually two complete wars, one in Europe and the other in the Pacific. That’s why we celebrate “VE Day”, the date of Germany’s surrender, on May 8^th and “VJ Day”, when Japan tossed in the towel, on the 14^th of August. We were not only fighting in both theaters, but were sending goods, equipment, and armament to our allies as well.

In a sense, it was America that made it possible for defeating the Axis powers, and winning two wars at the same time was something no other nation had ever done or accomplished since. While there were shades of anti-war sentiment, our Presidents at that time committed us to winning the conflict and bringing everyone home in victorious peace. America became not only the land of the free and home of the brave, but also the protector of freedom throughout the world.

Today … not so much!

In this post-Korea\post-Viet Nam era, we’re not into “winning” wars, as much as negotiating them. We’ve lost that edge, and because of it, our allies have suffered from our wavering inability to commit ourselves to victory. Much of this is due to the ebb and flow of election cycles, and here we are today, embroiled in world conflicts with a seeming dove at the helm.

Recently President Obama was criticized for holding a Styrofoam cup in his hand while trying to salute the Marines attending his helicopter. His distain and disrespect for the military is well documented. He’s also been under fire for the delay in the Bengasi, his impotence in dealing with Putin, North Korea’s missiles, Iran’s rampant centrifuged aggression, and a total loss of control in the Middle East. Add to this the growing concern that his “lead from behind” approach to the crisis of ISIS will actually lead to terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, and what begins to emerge is a growing concern that our Commander-In-Chief is frankly either not capable or not concerned.

There’s no question that his guiding principle in world affairs is to avoid war at all costs. Even when faced with direct threats to the U.S. by gun toting thugs in Iraq, he had to be dragged kicking and screaming into directing air attacks on a clear enemy. And how does he expect to meet this present danger? He has vowed to throw bombs from above, but has no intention of sending in ground forces to support an invasion to clean out the rats nest. Of course, world events often override philosophical desires, and we not only have committed ground troops, but will add more to the mix over time. It’s the only way historically to defeat an enemy … that is, if the nation’s Commander-in-Chief is willing to admit there’s a problem. Sadly ours holds a philosophy of which the likes of Wilson and Chamberlain would overflow with admiration.

One has to ask why he’s following this path, and the easy answer is that he’s a pacifist who finds even the concept of war distasteful … unless it’s in Libya, I suppose. But the truth may be even more insidious than just a slight philosophical bend. Let’s get right down to the meat of the issue … he’s a liberal with a capital “L”!

So there you have it, the real concern is with liberalism in general. But why? Aren’t liberals nice enough people? I mean, all they want is for the world to get along.

Basically, it’s a utopian concept where all the world’s people are essentially good and just want better lives for themselves. Isn’t that why we should get rid of the borders, so that all the poor huddled masses can come to our shores and live fulfilling lives … scrubbing toilets and picking vegetables of course? I mean, no ordinary American would want those jobs anyway, and we are, after all, the land of opportunity. And the only reason those poor Middle Eastern peoples hate us is because we’re meddling in their affair of trying to exterminate each other while eliminating Israel. Who are we to tell them who to, or not to, car bomb or rocket attack? Heaven’s, dictatorship may not be fun, but freedom’s far too messy to leave to the masses to decide for themselves. In the liberal eye, we’re the aggressor; we’re the threat to universal peace. If only we would be more tolerant.

The problem is, people don’t generally act in a utopic manner. And while the liberal longs to usher in an era of gentle harmony into the waiting world, it’s just not something to which many more aggressive national leaders will agree. Oh, and let’s not forget about religious tolerance, where the growing militant Islamic tide has vowed their lives to world domination. These are the truths that underpin our present condition, and their acts of aggression are presently more effective than that of which we stand accused. They hate us because of our freedom and tolerance toward others; thus, the very things that progressives want to extend toward them in friendship are the same aspects for which they are beheading journalists as of late.

Remember, my liberal friends, “Utopia” was a work of fiction!

Traditionally, in the last century, we took on the job of world policeman. We didn’t do it because of nationalistic imperialism; we did so out of self-preservation. We have both the industrial and military might to overpower aggressors, and we have used that to ensure that we and our allies have remained free. That is, until we started counting the cost. It’s an expensive proposition to lend our supplies and youthful American blood for countless years to struggling peoples in faraway lands. And since The Big Bang is more important to the electorate than exploding Russian missiles, nobody seems to be noticing that the world is slowly devolving into the pit of totalitarianism; either socialist, communist, or Islamic.

And who’s to stop them?

It used to be us, and like it or not, that’s our place in international relations. We are the big dog in the yard; we are the one factor that keeps peace amongst nations because we wield the biggest nuclear-tipped stick and aren’t, or at least weren’t, afraid to threaten using it to enforce good. We kept the peace by threatening those who sought to disturb it with a whole lot of military hardware and personnel.

But that’s dwindling too. There have been massive drawdowns to the point where our arsenal and troop levels are lower than they were prior to the Second World War. Our generals have been hamstrung to only using air power, which any military strategist will tell you is incapable of succeeding, and our only weapon has been sanctions, which Cuba alone has proven is feeble at best. And because of all of this, our allies have grown to distrust us. More than once in recent years, we’ve committed to their protection, only to walk away before that security is secured.

And it’s all due to the leftist philosophy that “Might doesn’t make right!”

In truth, however, being the dominant nation is not wrong. It’s actually rather necessary if you look at things from the standpoint of balancing power. Granted, this nation started in the imperialist wave of the early 1800’s, but that ended long before our entry into WWI. Throughout the 20^th, and now into the 21^st, Century of all of the land we’ve conquered, we’ve given back, save enough to give us that strategic advantage that keeps Teddy’s “big stick” in our benevolent hands.

But being a progressive means you can’t make that jump in logic. Any violence is bad, and war is hell even without the bumper stickers. “We’ve won the war, and now we must win the peace,” they tell us, and our government is boldly dedicated to not going boldly anywhere we might make waves. And so, by dropping that stick, the world is now in disarray, and those with nefarious intent have availed themselves of the golden opportunity to wreak havoc across the globe. There is far greater conflict on the planet, with much higher stakes, than has been since the 1940’s. Back then, it was just Germany, Italy, and Japan. Now, it’s Russia, North Korea, Libya, Bengasi, Yemen, Palestine, Iran, and anywhere you can find Al-Qaeda, ISIL, Hamas, or any of the Islamic Brotherhood.

So what will we do? Whether we ran for sheriff or not, we are the world’s policeman and we can slow the tide of growing aggression if we’re willing to put off the throws of pacifism. Yes, it will take another generation of our young fighting men and women to make that change. But because we are reluctant to ascend to the role, things have been left to rot to the point where there’s now no easy fix for this situation. So the question resounds, are we willing to step up to the office or not?

And that means more than just forcing the hand of the Dove-In Chief. It means electing leaders who understand the nature of world conflict and are willing to respond as necessary to abate it. That’s where the issue truly lies, as congress has had plenty of opportunity to make the appropriate declarations and address these thugs by either threatening or using good ole’ fashioned American might. This is the year of the mid-terms, and there are those who do understand this reality who are running for office and must be given the chance to set the nation in its proper place; that of walking our beat and holding the “bad guys” at bay. And that means closing our own borders to the most recent illegal – yes, they’re not just “undocumented” – invasion.

As you enter the ballot box month after next, it’s time to ask yourself how much longer will it be before our own national security is lost in the process of appeasement, avoidance and political correctness? Personally, I believe it’s already in jeopardy! And that’s just in the matter of national defense. Throw in the rest of the leftist agenda, and how much longer before we’ve lost our very soul? There are at least a few dozen school shooting victims and one and a quarter million extinguished fetal voices that can answer that question easily enough.

BACK FROM THE DEAD

2014-09-22T23:34:00.001-04:00

Wow, it’s been more than four years since I posted my last post to this blog. If you ever followed it, you've likely wondered where I’ve been … soooooooooo, here’s an update. And if not … well then, you can surely read the archives and figure out if it’s worthy of your attention.

In the past four years, I started taking a more serious stance regarding my writing. For a while I had a column in The Dog Press. Called “Show Me the Bite”, I covered various aspects of the pure bred dog sport. It was fun to write, and was on a subject in which I had a good background. (Yes, I do know something more than politics.)

Along with the column, which I produced on a bi-weekly basis for about a year, I then found myself inspired to complete one of my manuscripts and self-published my first book. It was quite the endeavor, and I found that in writing such a work, I really didn’t have much time for anything else. There’s so much organization and other grunt work in just getting things formatted in a reasonable manner that you spend about half of your time just making sure the words you write are readable. Oh, and let’s not forget actually writing each chapter. I never let a piece go without at least two or three drafts, and in a publication of that length, just the editing took longer than I could have imagined. But in the end, it was done and on Amazon.com, and I could add the moniker, “Published Author” to my repertoire. (Here's the link to “How Much Is That Doggie in the Window”, by David J. Arthur.)

After spending about six months getting things completed and into print, I felt as if I was due a good break. So I sat around for a few months before the itch returned and the next manuscript started to come forward.

Books are a bit like Lay’s Potato Chips, and you certainly can’t have just one. And so, I wrote another. The first work was all about choosing the right puppy. The second was a work on Christian faith. Another year or so went by, and in the end, “Anatomy of a MustardSeed” also wound its way onto Amazon.com. With a second book completed, I’m starting to itch again, and I’m not sure whether to return to either religion or the dog sport, or to delve into the political arena for the next one … but I’m sure I’ll let you know when I decide.

And so, with all of this writing going on, I really didn’t want to spend time … well … writing. I also had another little glitch that gave me reason to back away from my political rants. You see, I have been working for the government for the past few years. As a GS-11 in the bowels of the military, I’m actually prohibited from criticizing the government. I guess they don’t want us spilling the beans on how things really work there … but I digress …

Anyway, I was starting to feel a bit uncomfortable in speaking out about the administration because of that requirement, and chose to pack-up the blog until I was safely retired. Which I am in the process of doing!

After 34 years of military and 22 of civil service, I will step out the door sometime around May, a free man and able to share my deepest conservative opinions. And so, it’s time to resurrect the blog. It’s good practice for my writing skills, and even more so, a good way to voice the conservative point of view … something MSNBC is completely incapable of doing.

Therefore, if you’re interested in politics, religion, modern culture, or anything canine, this is the place. I won’t promise to give you copy every week, but I’ll try. And if you like what you read, by all means, subscribe. And if not … you’re probably a liberal!

As they used to say in the 1940’s … “See ya’ in the funny papers!”

AMERICA IN THE LIGHT OF ISLAM

2010-08-23T07:59:00.001-04:00

I finally got a moment to sit and read some of my lingering e-mail. In it was a rather long note from a friend dissecting an article regarding the public’s opinion of the president’s religion. An overwhelming majority believes that Obama is Muslim and not the Christian he professes to be.

Personally, I have no concern over any president’s personal religious convictions, as long as those convictions do not become institutionalized as policy for America as a whole. Granted, while one faith may well suit the nation’s direction and another may not, the office of President is not, according to the Constitution, the only game in town. The Administrative branch is to be limited and balanced by the other two. The problem arises when the policies of the president are also shared by congress and the courts. With the most recent appointment of Justice Elaina Kagen, the political trifecta of the left is nearly complete. At present, they hold well enough seats in congress and the courts to where the president’s personal philosophies become hyper-critical.

Where I have my greatest concern is in the concept that he is not committed to America, which is extremely apparent in his devotion not just to Islam, but to some form of radical socialism never seen at this level of political office. While there have been lone congressional and judicial leaders in the past who shared his views, they were then seen as rather comical figures, given little regard within the general public. Today, however, with the help of an extremely complicit media, these individuals are now the mainstream, and the culture has begun shifting over the past two or three decades to where we no longer value freedom, and the General Welfare clause of the constitution is being reinterpreted to support a general welfare state at large.

Worse yet, there still seems to be this ongoing discussion of America adopting some form of sharia law. I don’t know, but I believe the First Amendment has yet to be repealed, and that embodies the establishment clause. So here we are as a nation debating whether the president’s religion is Islam, without ever noticing that we are on the edge of codifying it into law. To become “sharia compliant”, means the establishment of Islam, and that is a direct and clear violation of the First Amendment. Should even one conservative justice leave the court, and we could easily see the constitution upended in this regard.

Now enter national security in the light of Iran’s ascension to nuclear status, and we have far more critical issues to deal with than just the building of a mosque near Ground Zero. While I doubt seriously they would assemble a bomb there within their upcoming victory tower – it’s far more useful as a propaganda monument than as a misguided secret weapon – I do see Iran as an extremely dangerous threat to world peace and our ongoing national existence. Remember, my friends, Russia is assisting them in their efforts toward gaining the bomb, and Russia also has inter-continental ballistic missile technology. Why assemble it here when the Russians can win what’s left of the Cold War through an arms sale to Iran? There will be no port inspections in Tehran.

But let’s say they do intend to build a bomb here within the U.S. Why use such a public venue? It would be far more useful to simply rent office space within the financial district, drawing as little attention to their plot as possible. Remember, it’s not just about an advantage in weaponry, but also in propaganda. Use the mosque to blow up New York, and they damage the name of Islam. Use the center to celebrate their victory on 9/11, and they could post recruitment posters all over the world to bring untold numbers of murderous terrorists right to our doorstep. I have no doubt these Islamists are up to no good. But it will be far more subtle, and thus have a certain degree of public support, of which they presently seem to enjoy to the tune of around thirty percent of the general public.

When you combine all of this in one caldron, what boils over the edge is that the president’s religious affiliation is absolutely critical! If he sees himself as Muslim, then one can’t rule out that his personal sense of affiliation and duty will draw him toward favoring jihad rather than resisting it. Throw in that though he may well have been born in Hawaii, his upbringing and early education was in Indonesia in a madrassa. His books, words, familial ties, and social affiliations prove he’s no friend to freedom and the America our founders built. And because he has support in congress, his personal religious convictions may well affect each and every one of us.

This November we will have the chance to stop this juggernaut. That is, if Americans will stop watching American Idol and pay more attention to Fox News. The alternative is bleak, and I personally don’t hold out much hope. Remember, this is the same electorate that put Obama into office in the first place . . . !

For further insight into what’s happening in America, here’s a link to an interview on “Uncommon Knowledge” with Dr. Thomas Sowell.

The Dismantling of America

A MOMENTARY PAUSE

2010-03-01T17:12:00.001-05:00

For those who are wondering where I’ve been, let me suffice to say that while politics is still a primary concern of my heart, finishing a manuscript for immanent publication is the more pressing matter.

As you know, if you know me well at all, my passion is for the dog sport. Within that, I’m a breeder, exhibitor, and a UKC conformation judge.
So if you’re wondering about the subject of my work, it involves what I know best . . . dogs!

I’ll announce it when it’s published. But for now, I’ll need to continue this short respite until that day.

Thank you for understanding.

2014 UPDATE: How Much is that Doggie in the Window, is now available on Amazon.com. Go check it out ... [Click Here]

NEWS FLASH: COAKLEY WINS IN MA

2010-01-18T11:37:00.001-05:00

I’m sure you’re aware that tomorrow there will be an election in Massachusetts for the Late Teddy Kennedy’s old senate seat. Martha Coakley (D) will be taking on Scott Brown (R) during a special election.

At the moment, Brown holds a narrow lead over Coakley, however, that’s not enough to win an election against a Democrat. Being ahead in the polls means nothing in such situations.

Now, you probably think that having more votes at the end of the day will put you into office. But didn't you learn anything from the elections in WA and MN? There's no way Scott Brown can win.

Why, you ask? He's a Republican, and will follow the rules. Coakley doesn't have the same restraint as Brown, nor does any of the Democrat party. And they have one single rule . . . "Keep counting until the Democrat wins!"

I predict that if the race is as close as it's shaping up to be, Brown may well come out ahead in the polls on the 19th. But by the 29th, he will be behind by at least 200 to 300 votes.

How, you ask? There will be precincts that just happen to show up in the trunks of cars, the absentee ballots will start flooding in from all sorts of out-of-state locations, and who knows, there may even be a few chads, "hanging" around.
While we all hope that we would see a clean election, when it comes to the deciding seat in the health care debate, one can’t believe for a moment the left will play fair. There's just too much at stake.

As late as Friday, some news outlets reported that the busses were already leaving for Massachusetts. Of course, they surely were filled with registered legitimate voters, right? There’s no reason to expect that this election will be any different than any of the others of late. Wisconsin proves that being more than 200 votes ahead can easily leave you more than 200 votes behind in a matter of weeks.

And Democrats can't count well anyway. Look how many of them still decry Gore's loss . . . even after nine counts where Gore lost in every one of them.
And what if Brown were to pull out a victory? Senator Reid has already put out the concept that it may take them some time in getting around to certifying the election and seating him as a US Senator.

I wonder how that works, when the Democrats found it possible to certify and seat Al Franken (D-MN) even before the courts had decided that Norm Coleman lost. Suddenly now, Sen Reid sees it necessary to delay Brown’s confirmation for as long as possible, if he should pull off a victory.

And this is the “open” and “ethical” government that the Democrats have promised us since 2006?

So, we may as well resign ourselves to a Coakley win, regardless of the vote count. Heck, we could even send Carter up there to monitor the proceedings. He's good at overseeing rigged elections.

2014 UPDATE: Well, not only didn't Coakly win, but Brown didn't matter. We got Obamacare by Biden's tiebreaker. And as for election fraud, a study came out this last summer whereby when they removed all of the obvious election fraud from the last presidential skirmish ... Romney actually won. But you know how well those Democrats count, and how little the honest electorate matters ... !

CHRISTMAS WITH A SPIN

2009-12-21T18:44:00.007-05:00

I just thought I would put a little contemporary spin on some old Christmas carols in the light of last night’s health care vote. I figure our Democrat friends will need a little holiday cheer to warm them while they commit political suicide.
Enjoy, and please feel free to pass the link to these along to everyone you know. Who knows, maybe we can get Congress to sing a different tune next year . . . after all . . . it will soon be election time again!
David Arthur

OH CONGRESSMAN
(Sung to the tune of Oh Tannenbaum)

Oh Congressman, Oh Congressman, I don’t think you are listening.
Oh Congressman, Oh Congressman, Your recent votes are blistering.
About health care, we’ve told you “no”, but you decided we can go . . .
Oh Congressman, Oh Congressman, in twenty-ten you’re history!

SENATORS
(Sung to the tune of Jingle Bells)

Senators, senators, lined up in a row,
Taking money for their votes, acting just like hoe-oh’s
Senators, senators, lies on every breath,
Telling us it’s for our good, they’re spending us to death.

SILENT NIGHT
(Congressional Version)

Silent Night, what a sight,
The Senate works to solve their plight,
Reid’s round minions are voting his way,
While conservatives can’t get a say,
Sixty votes and it’s over,
The young and the aged are screwed!

THE TWELVE DAYS IN CONGRESS
(Sung to the tune of The Twelve Days of Christmas)

On the last day in session the Congress gave to me,
Five tax increases,
Four clunker autos,
Three dead banks,
Two waning wars,
And a bill that our children can’t pay!

PLEASE REST YOU SCARY GENTLEMEN
(Sung to God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen)

Please rest you scary gentlemen you’re causing me dismay,
For you are spending trillions to steal my means away,
The President says share the wealth, and congress does his bid,
Oh hiding behind the last admin, so you say,
Oh hiding behind the Bush admin.

OH HOLY COW
(Sung to Oh Holy Night)

Oh holy cow, my money you are spending,
It’s not your right to ignore our request.
We said vote “no”, but pride is never ending,
And now you’ve gone and sold us down the stream,
Once health care’s won, your days in power are numbered,
In twenty-ten, we’ll vote you on your way,
So fall on your knees, and pray that you survive it,
Or go-oh,
With the polls,
Turn around,
Before you’re gone,
Or please resign,
Oh please, please resign!

OH LITTLE TOWN OF WASHINGTON
(Sung to Oh Little Town of Bethlehem)

Oh little town of Washington how long we’ve see thee lie,
With what you’ve done most recently, there’s little question why,
By ruining our health care, you prove just who you are,
With bribes and payoffs by the score,
Next year we’ll say goodbye!

OFF TO THE SENATE
(Sung to Up On the Rooftop)

Off to the Senate, quick, quick, quick,
Congress thinks they are Saint Nick,
Giving to those who they need for power,
They steal from the rich with every hour.
Hoe, Hoe, Hoe, we all know
Hoe, Hoe, Hoe, They all gotta go-oh,
Off to the hilltop oh so slick,
The way they vote it makes you sick!

I’M DREAMING OF A SLIGHT CHRISTMAS
(Sung to White Christmas)

I’m dreaming of a slight Christmas,
Not like the ones I used to know.
Where I once had money, and things were sunny,
But after April I don’t know.
I’m dreaming of a slight Christmas,
With every quarterly I send.
With my reps not listening or care,
Looks like my whole Christmas will be bare.

HERE COMES THE PRESIDENT
(Sung to Here Comes Santa Claus)

Here comes Santa Claus, looks like the President, coming from Washington,
He’s got money from my wallet, will this ever end?
There’s no reason for this thievery, except to make him king.
It’s all for power and his glory, while we’re all suffering!

I WONDER AS I WANDER
(The carol to Fannie and Freddie)

I wonder as I wander through what’s left of my home,
It’s deep in foreclosure and I’m all alone,
The President promised no mortgage for me,
But my bank and my lender they all disagree!
Was it not that the rich folk were all there to pay,
As the rest of us squander in usual ways,
But most rich are leaving and the rest become poor,
No wonder the economy has sunk through the floor!

JOY TO THE OBAMA WORLD
(Sung to Joy to the World)

Joy to the world, Obama has come,
And said, “It’s all ok,”
The banks are bleeding,
And GDP receding,
But the wonders of his name,
In a teleprompted fame,
Do nothing, oh nothing,
To bring us gain.

“Merry Christmas to all, and to all a . . . ‘Good Heavens!’”

IN CELEBRATION OF THE FALL HARVEST

2009-11-26T10:46:00.001-05:00

It’s funny how stories change over the years. Take Thanksgiving, for example. The present story tells of a terrible winter where the Pilgrims barely came through with their lives. In fact, were it not for the hospitality of the local native American tribes – who gave the new settlers the knowledge of native flora and fauna – that early colony would have starved out and died in the wilderness of the New World. And so, to thank Squanto and his tribe, the Pilgrims gave a great feast we now call “Thanksgiving”.

What a lovely story to pass on to the generations . . . or should I say what a lovely PC story to shove down their throats!

In the PC version, there’s no mention of God, nor that the Pilgrims came to America to escape sever persecution because they were not willing to bend to the state religion of their European homeland. There’s no mention of the reason why the Pilgrims found it so hard to survive, or why and how the Indians came to their aid.

The true story of the Pilgrims begins in 1609, in Holland. As a religious separatist movement, they found that their homeland, England, no longer tolerated their beliefs. And so, they immigrated to the Dutch city of Lieden.
But even in the broadminded Dutch culture, persecution continued to follow them, and as Holland came closer to war with Spain, it became apparent that the Pilgrims would have to move once again. This time, it would be to a new world, a place where they could practice their beliefs without molestation.

The European continent was a place for neither religious nor political free thinking. In 17^th Century society, if you didn't go along with the King and his administration, you were likely to find yourself on the wrong end of an inquisition. While the church and state vied equally for ultimate power, it was often a blending of the two that ravaged the masses. Between Anglicanism and Catholicism, you had little choice as to what you were to believe, and even then, geography dictated your flavor of choice.

And so, in 1620, they set out for a new land, where they could believe as they chose, and practice as they wished.

They took what stores they could to weather the first year in America, though their holdings were meager at best. It was a hard journey, and an even rougher landing on the new continent. Luck had lost them long before they began, and by the time they arrived on the shores of Plymouth, they were all but shipwrecked and heading into winter. Their original intent was to immigrate to the colony of Virginia, which extended at that time to the Hudson River. But both the weather and lack of supplies conspired to leave them in the port of Cape Cod.

Because their original charter was to settle in Virginia, they had to reorganize as a New England colony. And thus, they entered into an agreement – the Mayflower Compact – that set forth the original political framework for their society. They would follow the biblical practice of the early Christians recorded in the book of Acts. However, it also set forth some very important concepts that we now hold sacred within our own political climate; that of religious freedom, separation of church and state, and equal justice under the law.

It was the winter of 1620 that nearly eradicated the Pilgrims. By the spring of 1621, nearly half of their party perished from the cold barren New England climate. But they managed to survive, gaining a foothold in America. When the Mayflower returned to England, it did so without a single Pilgrim. This spirited group had the opportunity to return to their homeland, yet they chose to remain in the New World. Over the following decade, others joined with them and immigrated to America.

The Abrnaki Indian Samoset was the first to welcome the new settlers in the spring of 1621, and not Squanto, whose native name was Tisquantum. Squanto, of the Wampanoag tribe, had been taken to Spain as a captive in 1614, but found his way back to the shores of New England by the time the Pilgrims landed in Cape Cod. The Wampanoags were the people who had lived in that area. Sadly, when he returned to his home, Patuxet, it had been completely wiped out by disease. Though the first meetings between European explorers and trappers, and American aboriginals were relatively peaceful, that contact carried biologic invaders the Indians were not able to withstand.

Inadvertently, the downfall of the original Native American population began in illness and not by war.

Regardless, the Indian’s first welcome was offered in mutual respect, and was also one of political significance to the Wampanoag. Massasoit, a Wampanoag chief, needed the support of the colonists to keep stability between his tribe and that of the Narragansett, another powerful nation in the region. Disease had tipped the balance of power in favor of the Narragansett, and the Wampanoag were certainly willing to welcome anyone who was helpful to their security.
The Pilgrims also needed support and protection. As a very small community, they easily could have been vanquished and eradicated by the native peoples living in that part of the world. While Europeans had a clear technological advantage, that benefit extended only so far as the European continent. In the wilderness, the new colonists were extremely vulnerable.

And so, the first contact between the new European settlers and the aboriginal peoples of America were elementally political and resulted in a treaty of mutual support between them.

The first celebration was a three day feast in honor of the fall harvest. It wasn’t a religious holiday, and was an observance that was brought to America, not originating here. It was a few years later in 1623 that the first religious day of thanksgiving was celebrated in response to a much needed torrential rainfall. Over time, the two fused into one observance, which in 1863 was commemorated through a national holiday.

The purpose of that first Thanksgiving was to thank the Creator for the annual harvest, and to honor the treaty of mutual support between the Indians and the colonists. While not a religious event, they were a religious people. And while the Indians did bring necessary knowledge to the settlers, the colonists too brought political stability to the Indians. And thus, the celebration has taken on many meanings aside from its original intent, that being an acknowledgement of providence on the part of God for a good and full harvest.

So what can we take from this time of celebration, aside from the fact that while the Pilgrims were legal immigrants, as chartered by England, their immigration eventually spelled the demise of the native peoples? As Europeans continued to colonize the continent, the Indians eventually found they had been conquered. Had they realized what was in store for their nations, they would likely have not been so symbiotic on that day in 1621.

As time passed, friction grew between the Pilgrims and the Indians. There were skirmishes and wars that broke out from time to time, and eventually the native peoples were subdued. As in most conflicts, this was not nearly as black and white an issue as it seems. There were native people who wanted to coalesce with the settlers, and some even went to war on their side. Thus, not all Europeans were intent on displacing the local tribes, nor were all of the indigenous people adverse to accepting European ways and traditions.

It was a culture clash, something that today we view as a negative.

Regardless, this early meeting of the two societies was one of mutual peace and support. The Pilgrims gave as much to Massasoit’s cause, as he gave toward their survival. It was in a spirit of mutuality that both gained in the process. And as for the religious connotation, we cannot forget that the Pilgrim’s whole intention was to establish a state whereby they could practice religious freedom.

It was in recognition of Europe’s tight grasp on the church that they set out on a path of separation between church and state. They had been victimized by the results of established religion, and so, they were very careful to keep the two aspects of society distinct. They did not, however, fear the civic observance of faith. In fact, they celebrated it openly. They simply drew the line between the secular and sacred at the point where one would dictate policy to the other. The two were blended, equal, but not conjoined.

This is the guiding principle the founding fathers used to pen our own Constitution.

And as for the early attempt at socialism, they tried the experiment we’re now toying with, and they found that it brought them to destruction rather than benefit. Within only a few years, they realized that some were working hard for the good of the community, and others were willing to sit back and share in the communal good. It wasn't long before the colonists became good capitalists, and their wares were the envy not only of the Old World, but are still valued as collectible today.

As for the Native Americans, people throughout the ages conquered one another, and will do so in the future as well. Were it not for that European invasion, you wouldn't likely be reading this, as Microsoft wouldn’t likely exist. Even the Indians conquered one another, as have the English, Spanish, Huns, Romans, Mongols, Greeks, Israelites, Babylonians, Egyptians, and others throughout time.
The world has never lacked for dictators, emperors, and potentates.

But for one brief moment in history, two worlds came together to share in celebration. In peaceful mutuality, they gave thanks to their respective gods for a bountiful harvest to carry them through the winter. That’s the point of Thanksgiving. In our war torn world today, maybe, just for one day, we can put aside our overburdening concern with melanin content and observe a day of mutual support. Who knows, maybe we’ll end up starting a new tradition?

(Special appreciation is given to the Pilgrim Hall Museum, whereby most of the information for this blog was gleaned.)

SLIP SLIDING AWAY

2009-11-17T05:56:00.001-05:00

Saturday the first of the funerals began for the fallen Killeen thirteen. They were laid to rest because of a brutal attack on the part of an Islamic jihadist who – though born a U.S. citizen, raised in the borders of our country, and commissioned by the U.S. Army – felt a greater allegiance to Islam than to the oath he freely took as a military officer.

According to the words of our President and his willing accomplices in the media, Major Hasan is not an Islamic terrorist, but a lone gunman who acted on his own behalf.

Also, this last week, our military leaders brought four plans outlining victory in Afghanistan to our President. The basic concept was to increase the troop strength in a surge much like what was done in Iraq. He summarily dismissed all four plans, citing that Karl Eikenberry, our ambassador to the country, was uncomfortable with raising force strength in the light of the instability of Afghanistan’s political climate.

The President feels that their country needs greater political strength before committing more combat troops to complete the task we started.

Then, it was announced on Friday that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, along with four of his co-conspirators, will be tried in the civil court system and not under a military tribunal. This will take place in New York, and as for the rest of the Al Qaeda combatants we’ve gathered over the years at “Gitmo”, they are likely going to be moved to a maximum security prison in Illinois. It is further assumed that they too will be tried in the civil courts, all being granted the same rights as any red-blooded American citizen.

The problem is, these individuals were collected during battle, are not citizens, were never detained on U.S. soil, nor were they apprehended due to a breach of American criminal law.

In all of this, the truth is, there is one common theme. According to the White House, the whole of the 911 attack was a criminal offense and not an act of war. Our President seems oddly uneasy with the concept that we are truly in a direct confrontation with Islamic extremists, not even allowing the term “terrorists” to be applied to them.

This is why it is essential to President Obama to push this into the courts. By doing so, the whole of 911 becomes a criminal matter, changing the prosecution over to the Justice Department and out of the hands of Defense. Like most liberals, he is very uncomfortable with the operations of the military, and thus, proves this further by his waffling on the subject of Afghanistan. By committing troops, he then must admit that we are still engaged in a military conflict, and not the pursuit of criminal justice.

Where does this leave the military? If the President is successful, then the only alternative will be to leave Iraq and Afghanistan, which would then appease the left, though it will outrage our allies in the region. When we withdraw, which is where I assume he’s going with all of this, it will pull the only support these fledgling democracies have to keep them afloat. From there, the pattern looks peculiarly similar to the path of implosion seen in Saigon during the mid 1970’s.

Wars should never be run out of the White House, which is the one aspect of Bush’s presidency that he truly got right. Of course, Both GW and his father were veterans, fighter pilots, and men who understood the dynamics of warfare. President Obama has never served in the armed forces, and also carries that certain disdain for them found in common with nearly all leftists.

Worse yet, he is not alone. This disease of mistaking the Jihadists call to war for stand-alone criminal activity seems to infect nearly all of the Democrat party. Listening to Fox News, to a person, every Democrat lawmaker sided with the Administration. Both Reid and Pelosi are on record in line with the Justice Department’s actions, and the whole lot of them together is bent on twisting the public’s perception of the conflict to meet their own political ends.

If there is no “war”, then Bush’s administration was not only acting unjustly, but was doing so illegally, as the methods they employed were those reserved for military conflict, and would be deemed unlawful in a police action. Therefore, the left would be justified in pursuing investigations and eventual show trials for anyone they deemed a political adversary out the previous administration.

And so, the witch hunt continues. Their intention is to vilify the prior presidency, and to lay at Bush’s feet any failures that arise from leaving the battle before its conclusion. In fact, as has been seen in our economic situation, this is a very common ploy they are using. Nearly everything that has gone wrong over the past year is deemed to be inherited. This plays even further into the scapegoat affect whereby none of the recent catastrophes can be pinned to Obama, regardless of whether they either happened or worsened due to his leadership, policies, or lack thereof.

Part of the reason Obama is so hesitant to move on Afghanistan with the same surge as Bush did in Iraq is that it very likely would be successful, and that gives the distinct possibility of victory, something with witch Obama has already stated his uneasiness. In the liberal world, “winning” is simply a concept they cannot abide. Our schools are beginning to teach our children how to play games without keeping score, so as not to offend anyone or hurt their feelings. To be honest, the Taliban and Al Qaeda are keeping score!

Moreover, it also is increasingly obvious that these foreign conflicts are a distraction from Obama’s intended goal of grasping further power by federalizing our health care system. He has already imposed the will of government on the banks, two major auto manufacturers, the education system through student loans, and by shoving his hand into the pockets of even modest wage earners by proposing extremely excessive taxation.

And yet, he is caught on video bowing to the Japanese Emperor, all after giving his grand world apology tour this last summer; even bowing to a Saudi king.

But in all of this, there may well be a backlash. Reverend Wright may have uttered an unwitting prophecy. America’s – or should we say, Obama’s – chickens are coming home to roost. North Korea clashed with South Korean naval forces on Friday, Iran stated that they have no intentions of bending to the U.N.’s nuclear restrictions, and Palestine recently decided to make its bid for nation status.

Obviously Obama’s standing within the international community is not what he believes it to be. Much of the inroads Bush built by refusing unilateral talks, insisting instead on all negotiations being multilateral, is fading as the world’s rogue leaders snub Obama. Bush also was readily willing to back U.S. assertions with military force, if necessary. Obama is openly apologizing for our nation’s strength, and is actively undermining our recent military operations. This would be little more than laughing stock, were it not for the fact that a major nuclear arms agreement with Russia will expire this December.

How will a man who disdains the military, has no experience on the foreign stage, refuses to see Jihad as war, and is all but willing to roll over and show his belly to every world leader he meets, going to be able to hold the line on U.S. sovereignty and security in arms limitation?

Remember, he’s the one who vowed to disarm America’s nuclear arsenal . . . first!

Maybe he should take notes from Israel’s Prime Minister before heading to Moscow. "There is no substitute for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians," Netanyahu said. "Any unilateral action would only unravel the framework of agreements between us and can only lead to one-sided steps on the part of Israel."

At least the world hasn't run out of leaders yet. Only America has, for the moment. Then again, the elections in 2010 are just around the corner and less than a year away. Hopefully Americans will see how our country is slipping away from us and will bring some real “hope and change” by sweeping Obama’s support from Congress.

Maybe then we can get back to fighting and winning our conflicts, relieving the people from their tax burden, instilling pride in our young, and elevate the U.S. to her former position as “leader” of the free world. I must admit, it’s an awful big, “we’ll see”. In years past, Americans have had short memories and an all too forgiving heart. Let’s hope we’re not seeing the last days of a once great empire, because though the President is uncomfortable with victory, the terrorists are not. And they are the ones who declared war on us.

Haven’t we seen this situation before, where some European countries were queasy about conflict and didn't want to confront a rogue nation, choosing appeasement in place of strength? Of course, that was a long time ago in the 1930’s and 40’s, and surely couldn't happen again . . . could it?

VETERAN'S DAY

2009-11-12T19:47:00.001-05:00

I just can’t resist responding to an e-mail sent to me shortly after the most recent observation of Veteran’s Day.

I’m sitting here, still in uniform, after a normal duty day as a full-time member of the reserve forces. My boss, a F-16 fighter pilot, should be returning from the Gulf in the next week or so, while the young Master Sergeant who works for me isn't due home until sometime in February. I will likely do a tour next year.

I’m an older vet, having spent a little over 30 years of my adult life both on active duty and in the reserves. I've seen times when it wasn't cool to wear this uniform, and sometimes people would spit on or assault us in one way or another. I've seen more recent days when folks would cross the street just to come over to shake my hand and to thank me for my service. Both extremes have left me oddly uncomfortable, yet lately humbled.

So why do I do what I do? I suppose it’s a job, much like other jobs. But there’s an odd satisfaction in being the guardian of a cause. When they say that, “Freedom isn't free,” the words are quite personal to me. I know that were it not for my oath, joined with that of my brothers and sisters who serve with me, we most certainly would not have this benefit of freedom. For the price of our independence is paid in blood, inasmuch as it is also in time, sweat, pain, and the endless moments that alternate between extreme anxiety and unfettered boredom.

But this experience has been so much more than a job, and I am not unaffected. There once was a time when the Pledge of Allegiance and National Anthem were little more to me than the lead in to the morning’s scholastic announcements. Three decades later, those same words often bring a lump to my throat, as I truly believe that each are nothing less than a sacred vow, reminding us, military and civilian, of the benefits our benefactors fought to secure.

I’ll doff this garb before too long, taking my place amongst the ranks of the retired. I’ll sit with my friends and tell glorious stories of Cold War antics, trade Gulf War anecdotes, and lie with the best of them about, “There I was.” But more than that, I shall continue to give reverence to the founding fathers, and will stand, with pride, in the knowledge that I too lived in honor of my pledge. And all without any requirement for anyone’s appreciation. We do this because it’s right; to appease our own sense of honor; to carry out that sacred trust laid upon us by you. And while your gratitude means more to us than gold – and believe me, it is never unnoticed nor unappreciated – my reasons for serving are a matter of conviction, more personal than I can ever explain.

For those who oppose or disregard us, though they are few, even in their disrespect, they prove the value of our cause. For it is with our lives, we grant them the privilege. That right of opposition is written in the epitaphs carved in granite, or marble, or bronze. For opposition is the prize of freedom, and in its exercise, the true value of our sacrifice shines. We feel no shame, for we stand watch for all, regardless of your viewpoint.

So, if you feel the desire to thank a vet, let me simply state, “You are most welcome.” And there is one gift you can give that proves our lives are not lived in vain. With every election, you choose those who dictate our fates. I only ask that you choose well. For a thank you from the lips, means far less than giving us the leadership to guide us through these perilous times and to ensure the security of our cause. True appreciation is to support us by exercising the power of choice toward those leaders who, in pledge, in deeds, and in heart-felt sincerity, take their position as a hallowed trust. Our lives quite literally depend upon it.

By doing so, you will protect and keep us well. Though we shall offer ourselves without question in trade for the freedoms of this promised land, it is a gift not given lightly. Honor us by your ballots. Give us the leaders who will ensure the purity of our cause, respecting this nation as it was intended, and upon the principles of which its foundation was forged. By doing this, you will defend all of our liberty, so we may continue – one nation – forever onward as the, “The land of the free, and the home of the brave”.

OFF-YEAR, ON-POINT!

2009-11-02T18:03:00.002-05:00

I ran into one of my good friends yesterday who asked me about the blog. “When’s the next update?” Well, I apologize for being missing, and my explanation is found at my website. I never realized how complicated one can get, and have spent the last three weeks working up my corner of the web.

There is so much to say regarding the power grab being foisted on the American people, along with all of the liberties that we’re in danger of giving over to the oligarchy, that I could write for pages and never run dry. But I’m sure you have been watching the news and can clearly see that our nation is about to step into the pit of socialistic doom, with a mighty shove by both the White House and Congress.

So, instead, I shall give you a very simple cure.

Can we stave off the slide into oblivion? Cane we as common Americans, with such a limited voice in opposition to the tirade of the present political tyrants, be heard with loud clarity?

The answer is a resounding, “Yes!”

You see, tomorrow we have the power and opportunity to let the administration know that we, as conservative Americans, still have one power we have retained within the political system. We have both the opportunity and responsibility to vote.

There are a few elections, such as the governorships of New Jersey and Virginia that will be pivotal. But they are not a stand alone message. With every issue in play throughout the nation, we have a singularly unique opportunity in time to tell the politicians that we will no longer be willing participants in the downfall of our nation.

The turnout is not expected to be much at all. It never is during an off-year election. These are the cycles where communities pass their tax levies, the local dog warden gets a new truck, the school board picks up new membership, and a few initiatives make their way either onto the law books or out of consideration until the next cycle.

Not much business takes place during the off-years. Except, this year the eyes of the nation are watching.

The left is counting on you to stay home. If you do, they will see the lack of interest, and interpret it as your tacit approval for all they’re doing in congress at the moment.

However, if the governorships and various elected seats throughout the nation go conservative, it will send an entirely different message. There are those who know that their seats in congress lie in how the public perceives them, and if a conservative message is sent, then conservative they shall become.

One shouldn’t expect that tomorrow will completely erase the votes cast last year. As Rush Limbaugh says, “Elections have consequences!” And there are always those who really don’t care what their constituents think of them.
Still, there are a lot of those we call “Blue Dogs”, who know full well that their path of following the liberal leadership, is likely to be their path back to the private sector.

And so, it is essential you make time tomorrow to go to the polls. It will take only a few moments of your time, but may set the outcome of American politics for decades to come.

While I urge you to vote conservative, I also believe in the American ideal of conscience. Do what your heart tells you is right.

Regardless, take time and vote. Just by being a part of the numbers and showing an increase in action, we can send the message that Americans are both active and watching. And our voice will be heard, regardless of how it is reported by the mainstream media.

Who knows. By this one small act of personal patriotism, you may just be part of the sleeping giant that awakens to make real change, and to offer real hope. Those are two things we’re sorely in need of, but have yet to even begin to realize . . . especially under the present administration!

IN MEMORIUM

2009-09-23T22:59:00.001-04:00

Yesterday, my wife and I attended the funeral of her best friend’s mother. It was a simple ceremony, and in dignity and solemnity, she was commended to the eternal, putting down the struggles of ordinary life.

Afterward, we chose to drive through the cemetery and we pondered at the inscriptions chiseled into the cold stone markers. Each represented a real once living person, with friends and family, and a life lived to the fullest extent each was capable.

As in most memorial gardens, there lie the dead from our nation’s wars, interred after realizing the ultimate price of their pledge. Some dating back almost to the revolution, they rested in the hope that we should hold their sacrifice sacred, and to give notice of that for which they died.

It was a moment for reflection, not lost on those of us living, who in the hush of a mid-day’s breeze, could hear the breath of patriots calling to us, urging our hearts to enjoin with their cause. Of life, of liberty, and with a generosity only those born into freedom can muster, they endowed us with prosperity, and the gift of opportunity.

It also was the first day of fall, the season where the year hints of its impending demise, and that the hush of winter would soon be upon the landscape. The leaves have gone golden and will progress into crimson. The sun hangs lower and for far less of the day than before. And as for the breath of autumn, the words aren't clear any longer as to what our ancestors promised.

Looking back, we saw spring blossom one July afternoon, whereby a nation arose from the tyrannical ashes of a people whose homeland had misused and forgotten. In the name of God’s sovereign bestowment to all humanity, brave men banded to pledge their lives, their liberty, and their sacred honor. They took to arms and put off the yoke of a king, for the sake of their children, and of all generations to follow.

Others, in later years, gave homage to that pledge by leaving the shores of home to secure the freedom of others. They conquered distant lands, only to return the soil soaked with their own blood, to the people for whom they came to save. They reserved only enough land in which to lay to rest the bravest amongst them.

It was as summertime then, and from invention to investment, from fashion to frivolity, in all ways of culture, science, philosophy, medicine, and machinery, the liberty bought in the blood of our youth, paid the dividends only freedom can grant. But the reason for their success is because imagination is only incited when it is set free, and with the jewel of capitalism, shining like a distant star upon which to navigate, our people put their hands and shoulders to their industry and showed the globe what it meant to be powerful and secure.
And occasionally, in the quite moments of our memorials, we stopped to remember to whom we owe such gratitude. Patriots all, they fought to ensure our people would have the opportunity to peruse that idyllic goal promised by the founders.

But in time, seasons pass. The passion that flourishes in youth, dims with age and follows its course from vigor, through lust, to confidence, and into forgetfulness. We scarcely recall the reason for their graves, and the struggle for autonomy no longer gives rise to contemplation.

Thus, here we are. The leaves are turning, the colors fading, and the warmth in which we basked for so very long has cooled. It was only a moment’s time in the great scheme of humanity that we were strong and agile, and able to stand proud in self-definition. But apathy does its cruelty, and people forget as years progress. All too comfortable in what they have, they never realize that in a twinkling, it could be lost, stolen, or simply given away.

Diligence is all too necessary now. The season is passing more quickly than before, and we seem to be heading headlong into winter. As our independence weakens, and oppressive civic paternalism grows, we seem to be running full-tilt into the deep chill where “We the People” are no more. Winter’s wind may well be a gasp, the fears of our founders realized.

For you see, today the President stood before the world and decried the inhumanity and desperate imperialism of America. Aligned with the top terrorists of the world, he spoke out against a small and desolate country, our staunchest cohort and most steadfast international friend. He paid homage to dictators, and pledged our support in tearing down the prowess of a nation that once held high the principles of liberty and democracy.

In one speech, he tore down the foundational beliefs that fueled manifest destiny, and gave aim to the bullets of those who rally to fight against our homeland. In his oration, it was America whose sin was in daring to profit by making the world prosperous.

But such was to be expected, as his aim is one of national degeneration and a tacit alignment with globalism. And though it means the empowerment of our enemies, while inciting the reproach of our allies, his concern is for his own legacy, even if that story is written in the further blood of patriots, who serve and die at his leisure, all for an illusive dream that may well pass without reawakening.

And so, with further reflection, the lives of those – the brave – call to us. From the tomb they ask only that we give ear to their cause. For it was in freedom they were born, and it is for liberty that they died. Only in active opposition to this corruption of our Constitution may we find the redemption of their dignity.

For the time being, we can little avoid the fading of fall into winter. But how severe will be this season is yet to be told. By the almanac of politics, brace well, my friend. For unless we are able to turn from this present malignant direction, the embrace of such an early frost, will give way to an icy dungeon, built with every wayward house resolution and senate vote.

DO YOU HAVE THE RIGHT?

2009-09-05T23:20:00.001-04:00

There is nothing more personal as one’s health. No amount of wealth, power, or prestige can overcome the loss of it, and thus, there lately seems to be no end to the clamor concerning health care reform. Today’s banner issue is whether people have a “right” to affordable health care.

The dictionary defines a “right” as, “a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral . . . that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.”

Thus the argument is that people should have the just claim or moral guarantee they are able to receive medical treatment if they fall ill. Everyone should have the “right” to good health, right? The conjecture is that our present free market heath care system somehow abridges this concept.

Are we not presently free to buy health insurance, avail ourselves of emergency services, and to seek out any form or fashion of health care we choose? Granted, we can’t all afford the same level of care or quality, but that imposition is not on the part of government, but rather is a limitation brought to us by our own economic choices.

And what is “freedom”? According to the dictionary, it is “Exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.; the power to determine action without restraint.”

Again, no right is denied or abandoned on the part of any societal or governmental infringement . . . that is, at least for now.

While we have the freedom to exercise our rights within the American framework, we are often either unaware of or completely overlook the fact that freedoms and rights are not sacrosanct. They exist only as long as the one who wishes to exercise them is also willing to adhere to and maintain them.
Both freedom and rights can be lost, or rather, forsaken. It’s all in the tenacity of a society in guarding them, and once we become apathetic in that regard, we open the door to tyranny or at least to oppression by those who wish, regardless of intent, to set limits, boundaries, and controls.

According to the Declaration of Independence all men are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” Reading further, it is the purpose of government to “secure these rights”. But the ultimate point is that God endows, and the only function of government is to ensure that this endowment is never supplanted.

Moreover, our very Declaration of Independence claims that, “To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” In the eyes of our forefathers, government was solely to secure and protect liberty, and only to act with our consent.

The reason government cannot grant rights, is because it is only a servant of the people, and not in equality to God. According to the founders, the endowment of rights was to be left to the Creator. No human institution was to interfere with, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Of course, reason injects that there must be some order to society, and part of securing liberty for all means that some freedoms must be subjugated to the public good. Obviously, by abusing freedom, such abuse infringes on the rights of others. For example, killing another individual may celebrate your liberty, but it also deprives your victim of their right to life. And so it follows that mankind needs some form of administration to ensure the operation of justice and freedom, and that liberty not lead to oppression.

The founders sought a balance between the responsibility of the state to keep the peace, and the freedom of the individual to seek the fruits of their own labor.

But with liberty, there also comes responsibility. In the early summer of 1776, and later in September of 1787, the great men who wrought our republic hammered out the guiding documents that set us on the road to becoming the nation we are. This wasn’t done by chiseling out a narrow pathway in which the country, as if on rails, would continue forward without regard to growth or change. They gave us the power of freedom, which was the very nature of why they revolted against their sovereign in the first place. But in doing so, they also gave us the ability to evolve, whereby we are no longer the nation they originally envisioned.

In regards to liberty, their aim was boundless. In regards to responsibility, they saw it fit that the government was to protect the borders, ensure equal trade between the states, enter into international treaties on behalf of the people, and to create just laws and uphold them through an unbiased judiciary. And so government was to serve the cause of promoting the general welfare by fostering the opportunity for her citizens to pursue happiness, without any requirement to grant it.

By “equality”, they simply meant that all men, being equal in generalized nature, were unfettered, or free, to seek whatever fortune their own ability in choice would lead them toward. There never was a mandate for public charity, and in fact, many of the forefathers warned against it.

In the words of Thomas Jefferson, “To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." (Letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816)[1]

Some who have held the office of President, such as Roosevelt, Johnson, and now Obama, in their war on poverty, are in direct opposition to the concept held by the very man who penned the Declaration of Independence. While all men have the right to live well, and as they are given protection of their liberty to exercise such, there are, however, no guarantees they will meet with success. It was never envisioned that we should have equality of outcome, but rather, that all men were set free to seek their own destiny, by a path of their own choosing, and through their own good judgment and dedicated industry.

This is an essential concept within American political doctrine, as it also betrays the caldron from which the poison of tyranny is brewed. We must return to the Declaration to understand that the boundary of government is set at whatever line to which the governed are content to draw. As the first words of the Constitution announce, “We the People . . . do ordain and establish.”

While the rights of the citizenry can never be usurped, they can, however, be forsaken. And that’s the heart of why it is so essential that liberty be our first cause, and only when one person’s freedom is abridged by another, should any laws or legislation exist. That was the founders’ intent. They sought to create a nation whereby people had the complete freedom to act, gather, speak, work, trade, and essentially live, without the infringement of government. But, in the words of Thomas Paine, "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it." (The American Crisis, No.4, September 17, 1777)

Because living in a free society is arduous, liberty can be abandoned and rights lost. You see, because government can only grant privileges, once the authority to rule is conveyed to it, the individual risks losing the right of self-determination. For example, anyone has the “right” to own a car. All you need is the economic means to purchase a motor vehicle. You do not, however, have the “right” to drive it once you own it.

When automobiles were first invented, anyone who wanted one could have one and use it at will. You simply bought the car, started the engine, and off you went along your merry way. But not everyone was responsible in their driving habits, and over time the people determined that in the name of safety, the operator must have a permit. Consequently we have the driver’s license, and the “right” to drive was abridged by the consent of the people.

Therefore, we have established that regardless of the Constitution, the people are able to abdicate their place as free citizens and take on constraint. Rights are lost and freedom compressed because the will of the people have vacated them.

It is, after all, the character of government to govern, and much the same as nature abhors a vacuum, so government will fill the void left behind by an indifferent or unmindful electorate.

But why is this erosion occurring in a country that was born from the act of throwing off the yoke of oppression? In a word, apathy comes to mind. Ignorance too has beset the very people who select their representation based on the most arbitrary traits, such as personality and physical appearance. History is full of finely dressed men who spoke well, yet acted surreptitiously once handed the reins of power. And yet, we never seem to learn from history.
To ensure the security of their office, in the manner of potentates throughout the centuries, our representatives found it quite useful to buy the indulgence of certain people with the revenue collected from the public at large. Much like any ponzi scheme, politicians are good at fleecing the flock, then handing out the booty to those who will continue them in power. And so, the word “right” has further morphed into “entitlement”.

The latest cry of the “disadvantaged” is that everyone should have a “right” to “affordable” health care. Do we have the right to treatment for injury or illness? Of course we do! But to say we have the right for it to be affordable, as Jefferson outlined, makes a mockery of liberty. To engage in determining affordability is to hamper the exercise of free commerce, and is then an affront to those whose enterprise it is to provide such services. If philanthropists are so inclined, let them donate toward the health care of others, as they surely have that freedom. There is no hindrance thereto. But to demand that all be willing to give up their industry for the sake of charity is a usurpation of the very nature of our founding documents.

No man is entitled to the fruit of another man’s labor!

To codify such action is to, in a sense, nullify the laws against theft. Were you or I to take from a wealthy man In order to, as spoken by our President, “share the wealth”, we would find ourselves in front of a magistrate just prior to conviction. And yet, the people of our once free nation no longer see this as an issue. Welfare is generally accepted, and we further confuse charity with pillage.

Worse yet, once established, these actions are nearly impossible to reverse. As people come to rely on state or federal programs for their daily sustenance, they quickly become unable to care for themselves. In the loss of liberty, they also lose industry, and a once proud and productive working class, devolves into dependence, taking the whole of our nation with them into decline.

We are now in the process of writing the “Declaration of Dependence”, whereby we the people are reduced to “We, Some of the People”, all because we continue to choose representatives that are only willing to represent special interest for the sake of their own desire for power. Thus, we are truly lost. They will pass health care reform that has no reforms at the behest of Big Pharma. They will continue to buy other people nice vehicles with the money we entrusted to them for education and our infrastructure. They will set rules and regulations that protect the delta smelt at the cost of our country’s bread basket, and they will pour countless $millions into foreign banking interests to protect their nest of campaign donations.

It’s time to awaken America! Robin Hood was, in truth, a thief, and no amount of injustice to one class of men will ever create equity for another. Should we not heed the words of Benjamin Franklyn who stated, “I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means; I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it."

If we truly want health care to be affordable, then shouldn’t we foster full employment, and remove the present government shackles from the free enterprise of medical delivery, research, and insurance? Could we not contain malpractice, and ease the tax burden of our citizens through medical savings accounts and expanding various deductions? Otherwise, as is presently proposed, we will place our “right” of quality health care into the hands of an incompetent, for government surely is unable to grapple with the complexity that the free market has well shouldered for ages.

Do we really want to give over our “right” in replacement for “permission”?
That which the government controls, is that to which the people no longer have a right. So if the state determines that a given procedure or medication is either impractical or too expensive, they may nullify such care at will, and you, therefore, have lost the permission for your desired wellbeing. You are at the mercy of the state, and no longer have a just claim or entitlement for your treatment.

If you fear not having the right to quality health care, should you not more intensely fear Washington’s plans for its arrogation?

Or are you deaf to the calling of our second President, John Adams, "Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

At least, for the moment, you have the “right”. The question is can you keep it? I guess that’s all answered in how we choose to be governed, and we’ll know soon enough. 2010 is right around the corner, and it’s time once again to give our consent.

David J. Arthur
Patriot
Defender of Freedom

Writer’s Note: As with all of my works, you are more than welcome, and in fact, I encourage you, to copy and send them forward to all who need to hear these lessons on liberty. This message is far too vital to ignore. I only ask you give credit where credit is due and post my name along with my words. Comments below are welcome.

[1] In appreciation to the work of Dr. Walter Williams, this, as well as other quotes, was taken from his website, http://economics.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/wisdom.html, of which I strongly recommend all to read and reflect!

AMERICA, ONCE BEAUTIFUL

2009-08-31T20:34:00.003-04:00

I can’t say exactly when things changed in America, but in my lifetime it seems the nation in which I was born, is no longer the one in which I live. As a child, I was taught the blessings of liberty and the responsibility of citizenship. Such concepts were common then. Today, they seem outdated as we enter the age of government dependency.

Security is an evil temptress. She intoxicates with the promise of peace and leisure, but instead delivers only enslavement. Throughout history people have sought security, and in that search, obligated themselves to servitude in subjection to kings, dictators, and potentates of all sorts and political arrangement.

One would think that the desire for liberty would stir men’s hearts into action against such tyranny, yet as each oligarchy ruled, the masses bent to their will with little resistance. Most of the time, the hierarchy held sway because they had the power of force to do so. Even if one had the resources or courage to challenge them, those who dared were often relatively alone and met with execution as their reward!

From Spartacus to William Wallace, heros would arise and fall. But the sword couldn’t overcome them all. Ultimately the desire for freedom stirred deep enough within the hearts of men that even open warfare couldn’t quell it.

Such was the case in the 1770’s. Europe was awash in social and political friction. The people had thrown off the yoke of Roman oppression hundreds of years earlier. Yet the more interesting aspect of that subjugation was that Rome was a democracy.

The Roman state sprang from nationalistic and democratic ideals. But over time her people gave over their republic to unscrupulous politicians. The once great empire slowly morphed into an apathetic society dedicated to little more than leisure, and their indulgences were financed through extortion of the rest of the world. That oppression led to revolt, and revolt to liberation. From a once great empire’s crumbling, the world fell into the Dark Ages, but from the darkness grew the Age of Discovery.

Human nature is none-the-less insurmountable, and over time, men returned to their natural state of servitude. Somewhere along the way, the feudal system was born, and the weight of oppression again crushed the people. Thus, by 1776, Europe was no less enslaved than they were under the gauntlet of Cesar.

As is said, history repeats itself and again freedom stirred.

Bit by bit, from 1492 until the American Revolution, a slow trickle of misfits and malcontents made their way to our shores. Many were disillusioned by the repression of their day, and sought refuge in the new land. And with them came the hope of liberty, to worship at will, to engage in commerce without the fetters of a king, and to live peaceful and secure lives.

What most history books neglect to mention, is that the early settlers were loyal subjects of their sovereign. In much the same manner as Martin Luther loved Catholicism, they too cherished their homeland and saw no real reason not to be governed by a king. But such leadership often led to oppression, and without a way to dissent, they found their only option was to declare their independence and to build a new nation from the dregs of the old.

Thus, America was born. She was a new experiment in the history of men; a true representative republic, where the people were governed by and at the will of themselves. Government would instead be the servant of the people, and freedom her lifeblood.

Granted, human nature surfaced momentarily as George Washington was first approached by the Continental Congress to be our nation’s first king. Instead, in his wisdom, he chose to give us the reigns of our own destiny and not to build the house of Washington.

Our nation grew from those humble beginnings. Through the concept of Manifest Destiny, she reached her arms from shore to shore, drawing her borders carefully in blood to both the north and the south. Over time she drove out those who sought to lay claim to that which now belongs to her, and secured the blessing of peace by withstanding the tests of many wars.

She also conquered indigenous peoples and rose through the sting of slavery.

So it was not without sin that our lady of state took her place amongst the nations. There was blood on her hands, which is common in such a crucible. But she also grew in those times of realization where the fields of Wounded Knee and Gettysburg became hallowed. Eventually she came to welcome and enfold those who were once oppressed.

And so the great tide of humanity came from across the seas to seek that illusive treasure only liberty can provide. Some came to America to make a name for themselves, and they did so with the sweat of their brow and the strength of their own character. Granted, it wasn’t always done fairly, but nothing in liberty is guaranteed to be fair. Great or small, they heeded that enigmatic voice from within that whispered the call of opportunity.

Many of those same greedy industrialists are the ones who hammered a transcontinental ribbon of rails, refined iron into steel, constructed great concrete metropolises, wove textiles of every shape and color, and grew an abundance of produce and livestock that was and is the envy of the world. They set in motion the industrial and agricultural prowess we to this day still enjoy. Thus in the fervor of rugged individualism, the name “America” began to mean something. We became the land where the streets were figuratively paved with gold.

Racially and culturally diverse, penniless millions swarmed through Ellis Island and into “the Great Melting Pot”, where they understood that the prospect of success was all they would receive. The Constitution offered freedom of life and liberty, but it also entrusted each individual to take upon him or herself to pursue happiness. Nothing was guaranteed, and if a man wanted to succeed, then he had to make sound decisions and to work hard. And even then, there were no promises. But at least each man had an equal chance to excel.

This was all done by limiting the scope and reach of government, interfering as little as necessary, and always reserving rule to the people. As each grasped for prosperity, they made of this nation the industrial and cultural powerhouse that won the world’s wars, assured the blessings of peace, and at the same time brought so many others back from the brink of starvation and disaster.

But with affluence comes apathy.

With the historically immense economic and social growth we experienced coming out of the 1940’s and 50’s, we also gained the luxury to ponder the imponderable. Compassion is a wonderful thing, but even Jesus in his time said, “The poor will be with you always.”[i] Our hearts went out to those in need. However, philanthropy wasn’t entirely the intent of our leadership. By their generosity, and while using the public treasury for their gains, they also ensured their place in power for the generations to come by supplanting private charity with the open hand of government.

With all good intent, the people went along, and slowly, somewhere in the middle of the last century, the dependent began to confuse the terms “opportunity” and “entitlement”. Some began to supplant pursuit with an expectation of sustenance. After all, the Constitution did promise to “promote the general welfare”.

Worse yet, the very leaders we hired to protect our freedoms found power by promising gifts from the public trust.

After the internal strife of the 1960’s, through hyphenation, faux philanthropy, and a misinformed abandonment of historical context, America grew weary of liberty. One must admit that it’s hard work to plan for the future while making a temporal way for one’s self. So as Uncle Sam held out his hand, there was no shortage of takers, some of whom sentenced generations of their offspring to public dependency. And thus, the size and scale of government grew, and the citizenry became all the more apathetic.

Today, “In God we trust”, has evolved into a tacit demand that the government provide us with manna.

Rivet by rivet, we’re pulling down Lady Liberty. We’re rolling up the gold from the streets, to give away to the tired, poor, huddled masses that come across our freshly opened borders to enjoy the bread and circuses. We enter wars of liberation, then halfway through the battle, we turn upon ourselves and abandon those we hope to save to the very oppressors we sought to evict. And our great attempt at creating social and economic equality has instead created the scourge of reverse discrimination. The blood of our patriot forefathers has turned cold, and no longer surges through our veins.

We’re killing ourselves with the good intentions that pave the road toward the new American concept of civil liberties.

Because of this, our cities run wild with gang violence and drug abuse beats down our young. While fending off attacks from abroad, we are more at war with ourselves than we seem to be with our true enemies. We no longer educate our children to value success and enlightenment, instead opting for indoctrination in societal conformation and public self flagellation over imagined civic wrongs.

Success is evil and profit is likened to greed. We no longer strive to, “Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”. Rugged individualism is lost to phlegmatic collectivism. Looking in the mirror, America has become unrecognizable to herself. She has lost the luster only independence can instill.

And so we prepare her eulogy. Here lie the remains of a once great nation formerly dedicated to freedom, liberty, and that never-ending pursuit. She is now abandoned by the apathetic into the hands of self-appointed kings and nobles.

We can only hope that tomorrow brings a return of patriotism. With the rise of socialism and the banishment of the capitalistic system that brought us our affluence, that itch for freedom seems to be stirring once again in the form of the Tea Party movement. And like a faint heartbeat, only time will tell if our patient survives.

“America, America, God mend thine ev’ry flaw. Confirm thy soul in self control, thy liberty in law.”

The words of that song once echoed through the school halls. I only pray we’ve now not forgotten the tune!

David Arthur
Patriot
Devote’ of Freedom

P.S.: In conclusion, let me coin a new phrase, “Fauxlantrhopy”. (“foe-lan-thro-pee”) This is where well-meaning people are duped into surrendering their liberty to a ne’er-do-well oligarchy poised for oppression!

[i] Mark 14:7

HEALTH SCARE

2009-08-22T17:15:00.016-04:00

Trying to follow the health care debate has been dizzying at best. Instead of the usual skirmishes between Republicans and Democrats, this battle seems to be more of a civil war within the Democrat party.

With the 2010 elections looming and public opinion decidedly against many of the provisions within the proposed health care reform, red state Democrats are more than nervous about how this bill will affect their political futures. However, the administration and congressional leadership are decidedly backing the plan, to the point where they are willing to take drastic measures to ram the legislation through congress without the public’s approval or any form of bipartisanship.

This, of course, flies in the face of “representative government”.

Much of the furor is over the inclusion of a “public option”, whereby the government would own the insurance aspect and hold an ironclad grasp on the rest of the American health care system. Instead of the patient making their own decisions with the assistance of their personal physician, instead, the government would dictate what care is allowable for a doctor to provide.

The plan has come under fire from all sides, both conservative and liberal as it is either too restrictive and removes guaranteed constitutional freedoms in the eyes of the former, or does not go far enough in assuring societal control as viewed by the latter. The bill even includes provisions for state funded abortion, and the elimination of the "conscience clause", whereby those who find such action to be morally and socially reprehensible would have no recourse financially, and health care providers would have no protection to object professionally.

And so the intensity of the debate has reached a near fever pitch whereby senators and representatives are being openly and angrily challenged at town hall meetings held during their August break. There have even been instances of violence, as the union organizers and other proponents of the plan press to quell any negative discussion.

Last Sunday, at the peak of the tumult, President Obama let it slip that the “government option” was not a critical component to health care reform, and that there may be consideration of “insurance co-op’s”. This outraged his proponents on the left, as this is the kingpin in moving toward a single-payer system.

Immediately seeing he was losing their support, by the following day he flatly retracted his statement, returning to the government option as the only option for reform. This drew fire from the conservatives, and caused those who were fairly undecided to question their trust of both the plan and the President.

There are also questions about the solvency of his proposal. With a $multi-trillion deficit, the matter arises regarding how we’re going to afford such a huge endeavor. During his campaign, President Obama promised his programs would never affect anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

After calculating the costs involved in administering the proposed system, the Government Accounting Office (GAO), which is responsible to rate all bills proposed by congress in a non-partisan manner, came forward with the conclusion that with present revenues there is no possible way to pay for it. That leaves only two choices; tax hikes and rationing.

From a taxation standpoint, the top 1% of American taxpayers only account for around 20% of the nation’s combined income. Yet those same folks shoulder more than 40% of the present tax burden. Take 100% of their paychecks and those same folks don’t earn enough to pay for what’s being proposed. Thus, the administration let it slip a month or so ago that we shouldn't expect that there wouldn't be some rise in taxation, regardless of income.

This soon to be broken promise has since increased the President’s credibility gap with moderates.

His explanation outlined that some of the monetary offset will be done through major cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. Here the President has been very clear. In a system that is already seriously overspent,there will be cutbacks. Following this logic, it seems that any savings being attributed back into health insurance reform is really nothing more than a reduction in the rate of deficit already being spent on the other two programs. So where's the savings?

According to the President, the plan will become self-sustaining and will encompass a much greater share of the health care market than Medicare and Medicaid, both of which are nearly insolvent. Thus, the proposal will outspend the previous two programs, yet somehow will save money while dong so. One can only assume this must be part of the fiscal policy outlined by our Vice President, Joe Biden, who recently stated, “We have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt.”

With the present demand alone, there’s no other way to keep the prices down. It’s a matter of supply and demand, and by throwing the door open for “free” health care, the inflow increases exponentially. Add in the potential that the new legislation would cover illegal aliens; the demand has just blown straight through the ceiling.

Simple economics says that when you can't increase income, then the only other way to reduce cost is cut expenses by restricting access to the supply. But the President said there would be no rationing. Of course, the President also has no private sector experience trying to meet the delicate balance of a profit margin. And so, at the rate of expenditure predicted within the plan, rationing is as much a fate of health care as was the Titanic’s demise after meeting mister iceberg.

And the ultimate result? One example is the British system, where because of rationing, 20% of the patients who are deemed curable when they enter their system are beyond help by the time they receive treatment.

As the former governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, stated in her August 7th Statement On The Current Health Care Debate, “The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost.”

And so the concept of “Death Panels” entered the debate.

While the President was quite emphatic that there is no death panel in the legislation, the inevitability of rationing leads down no other road. In fact, from the first page, in the bill’s preamble, the whole purpose is to reduce health care costs. This obviously begs the question of how the plan intends to deal with maintaining the elderly or those with chronic illness, both of which are overtly expensive.

Pages 425 through 430 of the House plan outline a calculation whereby a person’s remaining quality of life is compared with the medical costs involved in treating a given illness or condition. The older and/or sicker you are, the less years of “useful” quality of life you have left. And so it follows, is it worth spending great amounts of money on those who have fewer remaining quality years? At the moment, the individual decides if their life is worth spending that extra money to sustain. If this legislation passes, a bureaucrat somewhere in Washington will make that decision for you!

How will such a calculation affect American patients? In just one example, a comparison between U.S. and European women being treated for breast cancer, 63% of women under our present health care system successfully complete treatment. Under European single-payer systems, only 56% of women with similar cancer survive.

To offset the obvious implication that government will be the only one making the determination, money will be available to employ and train specific health care providers to counsel those who don’t meet the quality of life criteria on “end of life” care to assist you in your transition.

This, of course, is nothing new to the government. They already have a Veteran’s Administration pamphlet – “Your Life, Your Choices” – that deals with these considerations. In one of its checklists, the pamphlet asks, “What makes your life worth living?” This document is given to every VA patient undergoing government health care, and the obvious intent is not lost on them.

Thus, if you’re over the age of sixty, you may find it a bit more difficult to get that hip replacement or necessary knee operation. Instead, you may be offered a sedative or a wheelchair, along with any necessary medication to ease your pain without actually treating your condition.

As for advanced cancer treatment, in both the Canadian and British systems, as well as the Oregon State Health Plan, treatment is not an option, and you are simply made comfortable for what time remains.

So much for aging gracefully!

For those who do meet the calculated cutoff, the President made it emphatically clear in recent speeches that his reform would increase access to doctors and higher quality health care. In fact, he said that you will still be able to chose your own doctor and get whatever care you need.

The House plan has provisions scattered throughout that will cut training for medical students aspiring to enter a specialty. Instead, education money is focused on general practitioners, reducing the number of specialists in lieu of generalists. Specialized health care is expensive, and to save cost, the emphasis is directed toward more generalized care. That means there will be fewer physicians practicing specialties, causing less availability to specialized care, which, in turn, relates to higher mortality rates.

So while the President claims our health care system will continue to grow and improve, added emphasis away from specialization will dramatically drop quality. Thus, his concept of “improvement” seems to follow the same logic as the Vice President's understanding of economics.

And what happens when a condition lingers, or a patient relapses during a chronic illness. If you have to be re-admitted after being released from hospitalization, pages 136 through 142 explain how the doctor and/or hospital can be fined by the government for doing so. What chance do you have of getting that follow-on treatment, if the government is going to punish your doctor?

It hasn't taken long before reasonable people began to peer through the presidential promises to see that what is being promoted is not what will eventually be delivered. There is no way the government can provide a “free” single-payer system that will meet everyone’s needs, and do so with more efficiency and less expense than the free market. It has been tried throughout the world, and to date, it has not worked for any population nearing the size of America.

Clearly tort reform and changes to the present government restrictions on health insurance, such as portability and grouping beyond state boundaries, would ease cost and bring about real reform. Yet none of this is proposed.

And what if you don’t like this new and improved health insurance system? The President says that under his proposal, you can keep your present health insurance if you like it. Of course, on page 16 of the House version of the bill, you may only keep it if you have a plan in place prior to the date the legislation passes, and if there are any changes in your plan after that date, you’re automatically swept into the government program. This will be automatic and done without your consent.

Also, the government is not in the business of business. Because it is not profit motivated, and all revenues collected must be spent annually, waste is actually a boon to the government. Thus, with no requirement for profit, they can cut the price of the new “insurance” program to well below the premiums of private companies. This will undercut the present providers and drive them out of the market. All the government need do is shift the economic burden within the treasury, and they can effectually offer their plan for free. Of course it is not free at all, and the cost of a single-payer system is shouldered by massive taxation, which will not be related to the premium so as to keep it off of the people’s radar.

When was the last time you looked at the present Medicare deduction on your pay stub?

In no time at all, there will be no private insurance to be had, and many are concerned that taking this course is an incremental way of introducing socialized medicine. In the guise of a national health insurance program, we would transition from our present free enterprise system into a single-payer program owned and operated by the government.

Just the other day the President assured us that he has never suggested, nor envisioned, nor would he support and sign legislation introducing a single-payer plan. But he’s also on tape saying exactly the opposite to a room full of union members just a few years ago. He clearly stated that though it would take in upwards of fifteen years, he strongly supports moving to a single-payer system.

And so the battle rages on. Throughout all of it, false information is being spread around about the President’s proposal. To counter this, there’s a new website available; healthreform.gov. It was instituted by the Whitehouse to counter all of the lies and misinformation regarding Congress’ new health care plan . . . or is that health insurance reform . . . or whatever their focus group polling tells them to call it this week.

Yet lately, it's the President who seems to be making statements counter to what the proposed legislation actually contains.

And to make sure all of this misinformation doesn’t spin out of control, the Whitehouse also set up an e-mail address – flag@whitehouse.gov – so you can report your friends, family, neighbors, co-workers, and others who spread these vicious lies.

Didn’t the Hitler Youth also reward young Arian children for reporting their parents to the government?

Anyway, none of this is really addressing the heart of the issue at stake. Again, our politicians have drawn another line in the sand regarding the limits of American freedom. We are about to lose another major chunk of our liberty, as well as up to one fifth of the U.S. economy, all in the name of providing health insurance to - when all of the calculations are done - little more than 1% of our population who actually can't get it. Everyone else is either already covered or doesn't intend to get health insurance at the moment.

By the way, don’t think about going without health insurance under the Obama plan. If you do, you will receive a penalty of 7% of your income on your next tax return. That goes for businesses who don’t offer insurance to their employees as well. And that’s above and beyond the tax hikes slated to pay for the program in the first place.

Best of all, the evil truth is that in this legislation, no real improvements or reforms are even proposed. It is all about control, and not about reform.

This seems to be the most recent trend in Washington. Americans aren’t driving the right kind of cars, so the administration offers “Cash for Clunkers”. Under this program, you can get up to $4,500 cash for trading in your gas guzzling clunker for a nice shiny new fuel efficient automobile. Of course, they decide what sort of cars you may buy, and your trade-in must be destroyed, never to drive again.

The program ends this upcoming Monday after spending almost two $billion out of our pockets. The trade-ins that could have gone to people who can’t afford a new car are destined for scrap, dealerships across the nation are not receiving the promised government payments and are out of pocket the $4,500 per vehicle, and a majority of the vehicles that were purchased were foreign models.

Very little of the Cash for Clunkers program actually stimulated the American economy, and it was all done with your and my money. And that doesn't include the mountains of regulatory red tape and paperwork that so far has slogged the whole system to near paralysis. Didn't they do enough damage when they bought up General Motors and fired a slew of healthy dealerships?

Another shining example of how the government runs things, just as they will health care, if given the chance.

We once valued rugged individualism. Now, everything seems to revolve around civic entitlements. And even worse is the takeover of our economy through the semi-nationalization of various private companies, such as GM, and the banking system. Once they own the medical industry, there’s little else they can’t grab.

This is why this fight is so fierce. It’s not that people don’t want to help others. Philanthropy goes well beyond individuals, whereby the big, evil, profiteering, pharmaceutical companies even give out free medication to those who truly need but can’t afford it. And as for being denied health care, people already show up at their local emergency room, whereby they cannot, by law, be refused care, even if they obviously can’t pay.

So what are the politicians really after?

It may be summed up in one word . . . “power”!

There are a lot of perks that go along with being a senator or congressman, and if they can’t buy that power with your money through a “free” health plan, they now seem quite comfortable in sending either ACORN or the Unions to ensure any opposition is silenced.

Of course, most of the media seems unable to report such involvement, attributing disruption at various town hall meetings to the grass-roots movement afoot to stop this juggernaut. The only humor in all of it is in listening to the left dissent against itself. There are plenty of Democrat senators and congressmen whose conservative districts will surely ease them back into the private sector should they pass such a monstrosity.

And as for the President, considering that there are plenty of recordings of him speaking on both sides of this issue, I think we should really take him up on his offer to report the one spreading lies to his special website. Of course, it all depends on if he’s for or against any provision that he proposes, or never proposed, or never will propose, or already did propose . . . or . . . or . . .

I'm all for "Change you can believe in". I say in 2010, we change the power structure in congress and vote these power hungry lunatics back into private society! And that leaves only one answer for that old saying, “I’m with the government and I’m here to help you.”

In this case, not on your life!

David J. Arthur
Conservative Thinker
Private Citizen
Public Nuisance
And Devote of Constitutional Patriotic Liberty

(Note: I surely invite you to send this blog to any and all you wish. Just remember to leave in the byline, or better yet, link to this blog, where there’s plenty more political irreverence to ponder. Oh, and don't forget to report me to the President's "snich site".)

GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WHERE ARE YOU?

2009-07-30T17:45:00.002-04:00

Much like the song City of New Orleans, Saturday, July 18th, was another dreaded travel day. Like the proverbial downstream salmon, I shuffled off on business to sunny California, via what seemed like the other forty-nine! But the one good thing about multiple stops is that it gives one time to think.

Of course, that also seems to be the one thing lacking in American society today. People have simply lost their curiosity. We never seem to ask why about stuff, and just take what the media gives us at face value, even when the facts at hand don’t align to a logical truth.

Such is the state of the union today. We’re being given all sorts of things to wonder about. For example, our fine Vice President told us that we’re going bankrupt. The nation is out of money. We can’t pay our bills, and so we must avail ourselves of the single most effective method toward solvency. Spend more!

Huh?

Ok, putting that small incongruity aside, how about the line that the economy is getting better. Things are looking up. No more need to worry about our jobs, our mortgages, or our pension plans. Why, everything is safe and secure. Of course the news says unemployment is topping 11%, home foreclosures are nearly at an all-time high, and the stock market hovers around 9,000.

Wait a minute!

And what do we hear lately? Everyone who feels a little under the weather will no longer have to await the ravages of our evil industrialist health care system. Our good President and fine congress is coming to save the day. Nationalized health insurance will be cheap, easy, and with unlimited access. Drugs will cost less and there will be no more long lines in the emergency room. So don’t sweat life; just kick back and take it easy and you’re soon to be all better. Of course, under the proposed plan winding through the House, in order to make ends meet, you also will see rationing and a loss of benefits, especially if you’re closer to 90 than 30.

You mean someone has to pay for that?

As I was traveling through the terminals, I saw the Transportation Safety Authority (TSA) doing their best to keep the traveling public safe. They stand guard over the nation’s airways, and do their level best to make sure that nothing dangerous – you know, things like nail clippers and knitting needles – gets past their hedge.

Yet in studies over the years, the truth is, the TSA does no better at stopping contraband, than the airlines did for ages previous. Beyond better gadgetry, we really have no greater security than we did pre-911. But there has been a strong increase in one area of airline security. Because of the government take-over, it sure costs one heck of a lot more!

The principle is clear. Anything the government manages, they also manage to screw up. They come in, capture, reorganize, bloat the costs, hire and promote the least able of their kind, and in the end, they wind up doing more harm than good. Such is the impending fate of General Motors.

But why is this so? Why does the government have such a hard time making ends meet? When I was in college, I had the opportunity to study the secret art of public financing. I learned that there’s one small aspect of the government that clearly separates it from the likes of industry. The government is not allowed to make a profit!

Profit drives efficiency, and while a company must remain in the black to survive, should a civic entity do the same, it is seen as a problem. Having too much money remaining at the end of the fiscal year puts federal agencies in line to lose that same amount during the next year’s budget cycle. This is why frivolously spending “end of year” funds is a most cherished federal tradition.

Also, the government is service based, and produces extremely little that is marketable. Money flows in via taxation, and nothing of market value flows out into the economy. Granted, there are some paybacks in the form of arms and technology sales. But even those goods are provided by private contractors, and the government itself receives only a pittance in return. This is part of the reason why the great stimulus package of 2009 did nothing toward easing the recession. Small business, not the government, creates prosperity in a capitalist system, which, like it or not, is the very economic structure upon which the foundation of our nation was laid.

And as for accounts receivable, other than the IRS, the only other revenue generating sources are the various fees, fines, and penalties imposed by regulatory agencies like the EPA. Heck, since carbon dioxide is now a pollutant, there must be a way for the feds to make a buck with every breath, right?

Thus the whole process is geared toward losing – not making – money. And when they speak of “efficiency” within an agency, they’re actually only talking about ways to lose less over a longer period of time. Essentially, spending is the rule.

Thus, the idea that putting any form of private industry under government control to somehow make it more efficient, is much the same as saying you’re going to Seattle by boarding a train for New York. The rails just aren’t designed to take you to your desired destination, and the only thing you can control is the time at which you arrive where you don’t intend to be.

As I boarded my plane from Chicago to Denver, I found myself sitting next to a couple heading off on a relaxing excursion. We spoke of the man’s time as a soldier in Viet Nam, of their family, and other incidentals. But it wasn’t long before the topic evolved into politics. And as the discussion settled on health care, he suddenly came to the observation, “But wait, who’s going to pay for all of this?”

His words could not be truer. Who is going to pay for all of the health care, the automotive warranties, Social Security, the deteriorating infrastructure, and who knows what else will be grabbed in the near future. It’s all happening so fast, nobody thought to check the checkbook.

Worse yet, there is also the aspect of control. As we relinquish our freedom to choose our own health care, what sort of vehicle to drive, to own or carry a weapon, or even whether or not to dry our own laundry in our own back yards[i], we eventually will subjugate ourselves to the very entities we entrusted to protect us from subjugation.

Through excessive taxation and overt regulation, these “leaders” we elected to protect our freedoms have instead, bowed to the will of special interest and are hedging in the population, constricting individual choices to modify public behavior. Why else would congress propose a “fat tax”? Is it not my choice as to whether I decide on a Big Mack over a granola bar for lunch? According to the most recent discussions on Capitol Hill, the answer is “no”, and I can only have that choice if I’m willing to be punished through my wallet.

So here we are, one hundred forty three years after abolishing slavery, intent on indentured servitude.

Maybe the real question isn’t, “Who’s going to pay for all of this,” but rather, “What are they buying with our money?” After all, the real issues aren’t ones of reforming the health care system or providing greater opportunities for the “less fortunate”. The real question is will America remain as “the land of the free”?

Already, we are seeing congress buy the loyalty of voters with entitlements, and are twisting the system to the point where being more than 200 votes ahead in an election is only valid for liberals. Otherwise, keep counting until the conservative opponent falls more than 200 votes short, and all with the aid of ACORN. You know them; they’re the ones with over seventeen indictments for voter fraud, yet were invited by the President to help count the next census.

Won’t that effect re-districting in the next election?

And as I landed in Ontario California, I wondered, is this still the “home of the brave”? Will anyone – especially those few conservatives remaining in congress – stand up for our liberties? Is there anyone left to defend the essence of capitalism in American culture and society? The irony was not lost on me. The great Eden of the West Coast is exactly the way our leaders want to shape the nation. But there’s one small hole in their concept.

Utopia is broke!

=================================================================
[i] http://www.laundrylist.org/index.php/advocacy/76-the-right-to-dry-campaign

PRAISE THE LORD AND PASS THE AMMUNITION

2009-07-13T15:37:00.002-04:00

In the forth chapter of Genesis, we’re given the story of two brothers. One was a good and God fearing man, and the other evil and jealous. You know the story. One brother rose up against the other and struck him down, and so went the first homicide.

As the Bible attests, murder is nothing new to mankind. People have been finding ways to kill one another with increasing frequency and in some very creative ways.

· On the 4th of July in Des Moines IA, a 19 year old man killed two women while he was trying to escape from a fight[i].

· July 7, 2009, a NY woman was murdered as part of an extortion attempt[ii].

· A Pittsburgh man was convicted of third degree murder on July 8th for killing a woman with whom he was a house guest[iii].

While the circumstances of each differ, all three examples do have one thing in common. In each case, none of the weapons of choice were firearms!

While the left is working diligently to restrict gun ownership, the murder rate continues to rise. And while guns are implicated in the majority of homicides, the act of murder is not nearly related with gun ownership, registration, and/or restriction as the left would have you believe. The heart of the issue is a problem with morality, not guns.

Law abiding citizens generally don’t shoot one another. Primarily, the folks doin’ the shootin’ are criminals! So the more usable corollary is to relate the murder rate with criminals, and not just their weapons. Of course that would lead to profiling which is even more heinous to the left than the crimes criminals commit. So the upstanding go unarmed, and the murderous still get guns; which they don’t bother to register, by the way.

There are also crimes of passion, where gun registration and a waiting period may actually have some beneficial effect. It may not stop the murder, but at least having a waiting period may incite the perpetrator to use a knife, club, or piano wire in place of a firearm.

My point is, you can ban firearms altogether and criminals will still get them, and those who can’t will use alternative methods.

Thus, the problem isn’t one of abundant supply, but is rather an issue of morality. Where gun bans have been implemented, crime rates rise. This is because criminals really don’t want to faceoff with armed victims, and when firearms are removed from the general population, the law abiding are then unable to defend themselves.

One of the primary examples of this principle exists in Kennesaw Georgia. This community has a requirement for gun ownership[iv]. With a few exceptions, every head of household is required to own and maintain a firearm. What’s the effect? Their crime rate continues to hover around zero, and the last gun-related homicide was in 1986.

And the population of their city is growing steadily because of how safe it is to live in Kennesaw.

You see, a criminal with or without a gun is still a criminal and still dangerous. A gun without a criminal, if kept and maintained properly, is perfectly safe. But the left loves to find excuses for bad behavior, and they never seem to come to the basic conclusion that the problems mankind encounters generally stem from the actions of individuals.

I’m sure you’ve noticed that in every capital murder case, a human being is on trial, and not the gun, knife, lead pipe, SUV, or other inanimate object used to commit the crime. The problem is murderers, not firearms.

Do guns become more dangerous when times grow harder? Apparently so when you consider that as the economy has tightened, more murders are being committed[v]. So maybe we should register the stock market and have twenty four hour waiting periods before firing employees.

Why does that seem ridiculous, when that’s exactly the way we deal with guns? We don’t require a background check to purchase kitchen knives from a local WalMart. Yet in Santa Cruz California last Thursday, a 37 year old man was convicted of stabbing his girlfriend to death[vi]. Aren’t knives a lethal tool?

As the old NRA saw says, “Guns don’t kill people, people do!”

And let’s not forget that it’s not only criminals that love the unarmed. So do politicians! With the police powers of the state, an unarmed public is much easier to control than folks who can swarm to uprising and have the means to carry out an overthrow. It’s the very reason those who aspire to dictatorship do everything in their power to remove the public’s ability to resist, and that beings with banning guns.

Now I’m not going to say that all liberals want to take our guns because they fear armed conflict. I really do believe that some are sincerely working to reduce crime. But banning guns is the emotional response to the problem and not a cognitive one. They’re trying to treat the symptom and not the problem. They believe that if you take away firearms, human nature suddenly becomes peaceful.

Cain used neither a gun nor a knife on his brother, proving that human nature is dangerously selfish, regardless of the instrument of his demise.

I will say that most gun bans are purposely aimed at disarming the public to quell any possibility of revolt. If you look carefully at the news, we’re seeing an unbelievably strong hand of federal control descending on the American way of life. It’s more than just the takeover of private industries and the financial community. Just Thursday morning, it was announced that the House just passed a bill that allows the FDA to reach into your child’s school lunchroom to determine if they will be allowed to eat junk food or not.

I thought it was the parent’s responsibility to determine what was best for their children? How is it now that the state is involved?

Using the concept of safety and security, the present administration will make the argument that if there was no gun ownership, nobody would have to worry about being shot. Of course, they won’t even begin to touch immigration, except to pave the way for more criminals to enter the U.S. borders, probably bringing their guns with them. This was evidenced Monday, July 6th, by an arrest made in Murfeesboro California. There, an “undocumented immigrant” killed a police officer who was answering a domestic assault complaint[vii]. And the best part is that the perpetrator didn’t even use a gun. He used a SUV, another dangerous weapon that commits high crimes against the environment.

Maybe if we had tighter immigration policies, let alone actually enforcing the present laws, we would have one more police officer alive and able to give us real security. Instead, we’re working hard to protect the “rights” of illegal aliens. And so we become the great nation of compassion, without an ounce of empathy for our own citizens. We bless the criminals and damn those who dare to fight back.

Of course, there’s always another way to look at things. They say that the best gun control is to use both hands. Personally, I couldn’t agree more!

=================================================================
Footnotes:
[i] http://wcco.com/wireapnewsia/Chicago.man.charged.2.1072614.html
[ii] http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/07/08/2009-07-08_extort_plot_eyed_in_bklyn_immigs_slaying.html
[iii] http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09189/982439-53.stm
[iv] http://wcco.com/wireapnewsia/Chicago.man.charged.2.1072614.html
[v] http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=aJp2H_Axtn68
[vi] http://www.mercurynews.com/centralcoast/ci_12787965
[vii] http://www.murfreesboropost.com/news.php?viewStory=17710

IN GOD WE TRUST?

2009-07-02T15:52:00.003-04:00

The present incarnation of church and state separation can be chocked up to either a misunderstanding of, or an outright assault on, the Constitution. To understand the founder’s actual viewpoint on the balance of religion and government, one must have at least a partial knowledge of history, a subject sorely abandoned by our fine American educational system.

The “Establishment Clause” originated from the social situation in England during our nation’s formation. At that time, politics and religion were rather indistinguishable, and the church both dictated to, and was established by, the state. The king was the head of the church, and if a citizen did not take part in the state religion, their allegiance to the nation was questioned as well.

During that time the people were not free to decide how they would worship, nor were they free to follow any form of morality apart from that which the church codified in law.

So it was with good reason our framers feared theocracy, and with reasoned intent they fought to ensure it would not be part of the new republic. Freedom and feudal monarchy are not synonymous, and to avoid the same from happening here, our forefathers wrote a prohibition directly into our Constitution.

The actual text states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” What this means is that the government may not create a “Church of the U.S.” Congress may not pass laws requiring religious activity, nor may they require religious affiliation. The law was to be apart from codified clerical doctrine.

In the same regard, the text clearly states that the government may not infringe on personal or corporate veneration either. Congress may not pass laws restricting religious worship, nor may they abolish religion altogether. They recognized every person’s complete freedom to worship by whatever means he or she wishes. And as well, one may choose no worship at all. It is a matter of personal freedom and the point was to restrict government from enacting laws in that regard.

Remember, the whole point of the Constitution was to limit the actions of government, and not to infringe on the freedom of the governed.

However, the courts have somehow bent the interpretation into meaning that there can be no connection between religion and the state whatsoever. This is absurd! The founders were mostly religious men – as was most of the population of the time – and they brought that religious fervor into their debates and discussions concerning our nation’s founding. In recognition of freedom, they celebrated the free thoughts of the citizenry. To this day, religious men and women serve in government and continue to bring that influence into their actions and decisions as public servants. Overlap is unavoidable, and certainly not undesirable.

The Constitution simply states there may be no “laws” enacting religious “establishment”. It says nothing about civic recognition, such as the religious symbolics printed on our currency.

Nowhere does the Constitution consider public acknowledgement of faith to be an abridgement of the establishment clause. If that were so, it would contain specific Prohibitions, and documents such as the Declaration of Independence would have noted a different entity as the one bestowing “unalienable rights”.

Along with this, the question arises as to whether such acknowledgement actually equates to “establishment”. Does the act of hanging a copy of the Ten Commandments in a post office embody an endorsement of Christianity? Let’s widen the context a bit. If the President rids in a Cadillac, is that an endorsement of General Motors? (Seeing as our president is now the defacto CEO of GM, this very well could be, however . . .)

The White House is painted with white paint. Could this be an establishment of white as our federal color? Let the race riots begin at the foot of Capital Hill.

President Obama now owns a Portages Water Dog. Should those of us who breed Standard Poodles be concerned that this is the establishment of PWD’s, and discrimination will now descend on all other breeds?

It’s just as absurd to state that because something is funded with public resources or resides on civic property, Congress is somehow granting establishment!

If you visit the monuments in Washington DC, you’ll run across the Jefferson Memorial. Though Jefferson is noted for being a secular thinker, after reading his words inscribed on the walls of his memorial, you can’t escape that he held some degree of personal faith. So what should we do? Should we grab up the stone chisels and start dissecting out all references to God?

If there had been a clear intent to distance our nation from Heaven, those words would have never made it onto the memorial in the first place!

Obviously the other founders, as well as civic leaders in ages hence, were comfortable with the state recognizing religion. They were quite expressive of their faith in both their personal as well as their public writings. What they wanted to avoid was the “establishment” of any particular religion. Granted, they came from a Judeo-Christian viewpoint and expressed that specific direction. But there’s little doubt that if some of them were steeped in Shintoism, that too would have surfaced. You see, ultimately it wasn’t about religion. The true heart of the establishment clause is a point of freedom.

Later, during the construction of the Supreme Court building, religion was clearly recognized. On the Frieze adorning the south wall, we see a sculpture depicting Moses receiving the law. You can’t get much more religious than Moses. But in that same sculpture, we also see Muhammad holding the Qur’an. So that means Islam is the religion of the court, right?

Before you answer, note that Hammurabi, the ancient King of Babylon is there also, receiving the law from the Babylonian Sun God. And you thought only California had sun worshipers. Even Napoleon can be found amongst the characters on the north wall. He only thought himself equal to God.

The sculpture depicts lawgivers and philosophers, of which there are a few religious icons scattered here and there. But the intent is not to establish a religion, but only to point out a correlation between the building and its purpose; reverence for the law.

Thus, the symbols found throughout the country’s architecture is not a defacto establishment of, or prohibition against, any form of worship. In America, we are (at least we’re supposed to be) free to worship as we see fit, and the government is to take no position, for or against any or all of it. And if a community wishes to heft a Star of David atop their courthouse during the depth of our annual winter holiday season, then so be it. There’s no need for offense, nor is there any concern that we all are being surreptitiously proselytized into Judaism.

More than their zeal for God, our founders were passionate about freedom!

That’s the real point. The left has a very twisted concept of freedom, and while they decry their victimization by it, they work diligently to stifle it according to their will. They seem seriously concerned that we on the right will impose morality upon them, and so they use the establishment clause as a defense.

Because morality is nearly always aligned with religious thought, the establishment clause is religiously applied to keep Christianity at bay. The very essence that was granted to give us our freedom is now being used to curtail it.

As for any success toward establishment, if it were the intent of the Christians, they should be sorely disappointed in their lack of accomplishment. In America our laws are built upon English Common Law, and that upon the concepts laid by ancient Rome and Greece. So the initial basis of our law is secular.

When you consider that our laws are aimed at achieving justice, and that morality is but a byproduct of legislation, then the law can never establish religion. Thus, the state will always remain secular, even when morality plays into the Establishment of the state. God-fearing men will always bring their morality into generating laws, yet the state may never codify morality and demand faith from the people.

What’s even more interesting is that according to the concept outlined in the Establishment clause, a man is equally as free to act morally as he is to be immoral. Yet when weighed by the law, his actions are assessed according to the law alone. A person can act justly, yet live immorally. These are two separate concepts.

Thus the state may be just, without regard to moral standing. This is because morality is not a secular concept. Morality involves a sense of “right and wrong”, not just a system of legal justifications. Morality is also relative. Would you be willing to invite someone to your home, and while serving them dinner, take a carving knife from the kitchen and thrust it into their body? Then, once dead, would you be willing to cook their carcass, portion them into tasty morsels, and serve them to the rest of your dinner guests? In times past in certain parts of the world, that was not only “moral”, but you would be honored according to the greater degree of treachery used to secure your victim. We obviously don’t see that as moral behavior, but why? It’s because of the Judeo-Christian foundation to our society.

Much of our law is based on Judeo-Christian philosophy. For example, bigamy is practiced in many parts of the world. It is also against Christian doctrine. We have laws prohibiting bigamy. So upon what are those laws based?

Obviously we can neither ignore nor deny that the foundation of our morality stems from Christian beliefs.

The movie “Time Changer” explores the concept of isolating morality from Christianity. Now I admit the movie’s message is strongly slanted toward the Christian community. Regardless, it is an interesting concept to consider, in that once you remove religion from morality, you wind up with moral relativism. This is the idea that basically states, “What’s right for me is good for me, and what’s right for you is not my concern.”

This is the pit in which we seem to be descending. Everyone does what is right in his own eyes these days. And strangely enough, it has caused considerable injustice by denying protection to a few in an attempt to create some convoluted moral equity for others. An office worker is “offended” by an angel atop a Christmas tree, and the heavy hand of justice has the whole office cleared of holiday decorations.

Where’s the freedom in that?

The fear that brought about the establishment clause originated from the various Inquisitions. Again, in the centuries leading up to 1776, the church and the state were essentially one. Men of power used God as their scepter, and ordained themselves as near deity in the process. That’s the issue the founders were seeking to curb.

Today, we have the opposite. In modern times, the inquisitions are led by the ACLU (aka: The Anti Christian League of the Unholy), are removed to the courtroom from the abbey, and our high priests are civil magistrates. It’s somewhat ironic that the God-fearing men who established the nation, in their dread of theocratic tyranny, gave us the establishment clause, which is the very tool atheists use to nullify and uproot religious freedom.

Modern society denigrates faith, and somehow our laws have mutated into coercion on the part of the state to eradicate all – or at least Judeo-Christian – religious thought from American society. We are no longer free to express our faith in any public fashion, which, in a sense, violates the establishment clause because it prohibits the “free exercise” thereof.

Through legal “justice”, our unalienable right of free expression is curtailed, and God has been banished from the public square. He’s now just a quaint antiquation.

And what are the results of such tyranny? Crime rates are soaring out of control, substance abuse abounds, and our children are no longer safe to play contently in their own neighborhoods. Just the other day, a woman awoke with a headache while enjoying the afternoon in her own backyard. The source of the pain was later identified as a bullet fired from over a mile away during a street squabble.

Unsafe even in our own homes, we are becoming prisoners through our desire to escape moral confinement.

In ages past, religious expression was common. People didn’t fear teachers bringing the Bible into the classroom, nor were they concerned about the Ten Commandments hanging on the walls of City Hall. They realized that such things were a reminder of our obligations to morality and not that there was an iron-fisted subjugation to God.

Our communities were safe because we believed in the concepts of “right” and “wrong”. People did what was “right”, not because the church demanded it of them; they did “right” because not doing so was “wrong”. And they held these beliefs without any regard to the state whatsoever.

Today, who’s to say? "Right" and "wrong" are outdated concepts that are far to constrictive in the light of progressive thought. In our modern cultural frame, a felon can escape the bounds of prison, tear up a local community, commit new acts of mayhem and violence, and in the end, when apprehended by an armed citizen, is given the right to sue for damages, and collect $millions based on his fractured childhood in a broken home. And the average law-aiding citizen who stopped him, goes to county jail for aiming his legally permitted concealed weapon at the unruly felon. Our laws say that’s “justice”. Our hearts know such things are immoral.

But that’s the way liberals like it. Steal away our right of religious expression and all the bindings of morality go with it. All you’re left with is relative justice through what’s left of the law. And that too becomes perverted as our freedoms evaporate under the weight of civic oppression.

I would love to point out that the Apostle Paul states clearly in the book of Romans that no one is ever justified by the law. We’re saved through faith in God. And through Him, we are enticed into morality. But depending on where that point is made, it’s probably not allowed.

These days, that would be considered “establishment”, and Heaven knows God is not welcome there.

IN RESPONSE TO A LIBERAL

2009-05-15T07:41:00.002-04:00

To my readers, I apologize for being “MIA” for a couple of weeks. Things here have been well beyond busy. But I have returned to the pages of the internet to grace you with the maniacal thoughts of a rabid conservative, and hope that you will forgive me for my absence and not abandon my blog.

In the mean time . . .

I am the administrator for an e-mail discussion list. We have about 500 members, and we do not overtly discuss politics. So the discussion below ensued off-line between another list member and me.

While it began regarding the rights of pet ownership and the regulation of puppy mills, it evolved into something much greater. And thus, here is my answer to her private e-mail.

For the record, this person was extremely polite, and I believe truly speaking from her heart. While I won’t share her private post to me, I will give my answer publicly. Thus, it has been a very good discussion and one I hope you’ll find interesting.

Enjoy . . .

Dear Ms. Doe, (No, that’s not her real name . . . but you know the drill!)

I always welcome political discussion because I honestly believe that when people put aside their assumptions about our Constitution and its protections and guarantees, they realize that the present day impression of it is flawed at best. Most people haven’t even read the document, and have little to no idea what concepts it actually embodies.

I’m not a constitutional scholar, but I have been reading it along with the Federalist Papers. When placed in a historical context, I believe there are a lot of issues that people misunderstand, as well as some erroneous assumptions made concerning this nation’s foundation.

But for now, let’s start with the bigger philosophical aspect.

For the record, I agree with you completely and I honestly believe that our country – and the world in general – would be a truly wonderful place if we had free health care. Along with that, I believe that people would have happier lives if they didn’t have to worry about hunger, poverty, or housing, and that everyone should be able to work as hard or little as they desire, yet never have to face the ravages of disadvantage.

What’s wrong with reaching for a Utopia? In a sense, I would join you in that search. Nobody can argue that life would be so much easier were we able to just walk out the back door and grab $100 bills off of a personal money tree. Now I know you’re thinking I’m being absurd, and I am to a degree, but humor me for just a moment and let’s fantasize that such a thing were possible. It would be wonderful, wouldn’t it?

The key point is, even if it were possible, would it be beneficial?

Obviously, money doesn’t grow on trees, and I’m fairly sure that in the last paragraph you might have felt a bit disgusted and wondered why I would be so insincere and use such a foolish argument. But I am sincere in this and ask that you stay with me for a moment and see where it leads.

The concept of organically producing cash is absurd because it denies reality. But if you take a much closer look, so do a lot of things being proposed from “progressives” lately. There are certain economic and social laws that, like gravity, cannot be violated. So while it would be wonderful to have that money tree in the back yard, the truth is, if it could be grown and would blossom, suddenly $100 bills would be worthless. Everybody could just walk out and grab a handful, and prices would inflate to the point where goods and services were equal to the speed those bills could sprout. Aside from the natural laws that restrict such blossoms, the economic law is clear. Nothing comes from nothing, and if it were that easy to get money, money would have no value.

This is why there are such strong penalties against counterfeiting. Just increasing the supply of bills devaluates their monetary worth, and is also why our nation’s present financial crisis poses such a mounting danger. But let’s hold that discussion for a bit later on.

For now, let’s continue down the simplistic concept of a money tree. Even with such an amazing plant, you soon run into problems. Some people’s trees would produce more than others, and other people would make choices, such as the size of the containers they used to hold their money and whether to fertilize their trees or not. Some would plant more trees, and others would cut theirs down for fire wood to stay warm during cold spells. Because of the nature of freedom and choice, even if you could retain the value of money, some people would still have more and other people less based on how they nurtured their tree.

Even in this goofy example, you can’t escape the fact that economic equality is just not possible. Even Jesus said, “The poor will be with you always.” People throughout time have been the victims or beneficiaries of their decisions. And that leads me to the next concept you proposed, that of the fairness and justice in law.

Our laws do try to be just. They are not always “fair”, but they are “just”. The reason for this is that the concepts of fairness and justice are similar, but divergent. In “fairness”, if you’re passing out cookies, everybody gets one cookie. But what if one person is diabetic and another is starving? “Justice” says the former should have no cookie, and the latter two. And what if one had to work for their cookie? Is it fair or just for the sluggard to get a cookie while the industrious may only have one? Fairness holds the concept of temporal equality, yet justice relates to a higher form of equality that considers individual circumstance and action.

I agree that it’s not fair that some people are born into economically depressed circumstances while others are born to wealth. But life is not fair. Justice says we offer relatively equal opportunity to both, and if the poor choose the right path, they have the right to become wealthy. And let’s not forget that if the rich don’t attend to their riches, they also have the perfect right to become destitute. But is it fair or just for the poor to trade places with the rich without effort only because of the station to which they were born?

Turning to the Bible, which I’m sure we both would agree is a book regarding moral consequence regardless of its religious aspects, there are two interesting stories pertaining to “rich” men. In the first, a rich young man came to Jesus and asked what he could do to enter the kingdom of Heaven. Jesus told him to sell everything he had and give it away to the poor. The young man went away sad because he was extremely wealthy and simply could not make that sacrifice.

The second man was also quite wealthy, a tax collector named Zacheus. Upon seeing Jesus and without provocation, he spontaneously and voluntarily offered to give a great amount of his riches to the poor, and to return anything he had taken unfairly in a double portion. Christ welcomed him warmly.

What was the difference; was it all about the money each spent on the poor? To keep this from becoming a Bible study, let’s limit ourselves to one very basic principle. One man was rejected and the other welcomed based on their choices. There was no guaranteed outcome, only similar opportunity, and what each man chose determined their fate.

Having worked with the homeless in the past, I found that nearly all were there due to substance abuse. Some had truly fallen on hard times, but once there, they had just given up on life. Others were there because it took less work to live under a bridge than it did to support a more affluent lifestyle. It was just easier to live homeless than to keep up with the “rat race”. But when questioned about their life and circumstances, nearly all of them were in that situation because of their individual string of personal choices.

What was really odd was that most chose to remain in their circumstances. For the few who did come to realize they could live a different way, they were greeted with success, and they progressed from homelessness to self sufficiency. But none escaped without hard work.

Sadly, most of the homeless chose to rely on government assistance and handouts from the church, thus remaining in their pit of poverty.

While the vast majority of those whom the left anoints as disadvantaged continually proclaim that society has let them down, the truth is, our Constitution only promises opportunity. It doesn’t guarantee outcomes. And between being rich or poor, who’s to say which state is better? I have met some very poor people who were profoundly satisfied with the richness of their lives. Conversely, I’ve seen some with extensive wealth languish to the point of suicide. Ultimately, I suppose, there is a form of universal justice in this.

So in a sense, we can have fairness and justice for all people. But it comes in the form of freedom and not from regulation.

We are all at the mercy of our choices. Personally, at fifty years old, I clearly see why I’m not a millionaire. I had the opportunity to enter the field of radio back in 1980. It’s a long story of which I’ll not bore you, but I was a young GI overseas looking for something to do in my free time. So I got involved in helping the military radio station there, and was all set to host an on-air program. But being young, I lost interest and drifted away from it. Here we are decades later, and conservative talk radio is one of the hottest formats in the AM range. Had I stayed with that direction, I might have found the talk show venue and beaten the tide to the punch. But I made the easier choice back then, and here I am now, just an average middle class American.

I had the opportunity, but passed on it, not seeing the ultimate outcome had I been willing to invest the effort.

Now there’s no guarantees that I would or would not have been successful, nor that any venture a person takes will come to fruition. But by choosing the road I did, I guaranteed that I would wind up here where I am today. It certainly wouldn’t be fair or just to take Rush Limbaugh’s or Sean Hannity’s programs away from them to give to me. I had the opportunity to be where they are, and I didn’t choose to take that direction. So here I am, responsible for choosing my fate, ending up as I have, just a lowly blogger.

Everyone has opportunity, and if they make the right choices, along with any requisite personal sacrifice, they too can attain the highest of outcomes. Most aren’t willing to suffer the hard decisions or sacrifice anything of too much personal value. We, as a species, tend to be more like the rich young fool, rather than take upon us the yoke of Zacheus.

So maybe what is fair and just is to ensure that opportunity is prevalent and not try to guarantee the end result. Frankly, you can’t make such guarantees anyway. There are plenty of pathways that lead to success, and the proof of this is in the shrinking middle class. Demographics are shifting, and the numbers of people with incomes between $32,000 per year up to $100,000 annually, are shrinking.

But to where are the middle class moving? Over time, the pool of those making below $32,000 per annum is stagnant. The percentage of people living below the poverty line today is basically the same as there has been in ages past. Instead, the increase is in those making more than $100,000. In other words, not only are the rich getting richer, but so are the middle class. And all of this while the number of lower class remains unchanged.

Thus, there is a shrinking middle class. However, the shift is upward and not downward.

If you consider that there are already educational incentives, small business loans/grants, minority development opportunities, and a plethora of social programs available to all, there’s no reason for people to stay in the lowest strata. And from a minority standpoint, affirmative action has secured a strong advantage for obtaining these opportunities. So why are those in the lower class still there?

It’s not because of “institutional racism” or the rich getting richer. It’s because they have been told they can’t succeed, and frankly, they believe it! Lulled by promises from the left, they have thus become unable to choose a better way.

Now that’s not fair!

The message of many liberal leaders is that the poor aren’t capable of climbing up, and therefore must be cared for. And that care has become the responsibility of the “rich”. You know the drill, “They can afford it.” But when you return to economic and social principles, the well-to-do are already affording it without regard to excessive taxation by providing the opportunities of which the poor either are unaware of, or outright refuse to grasp.

When Bill Gates builds onto his estate, there are jobs for construction workers. When Donald Trump goes to a local restaurant, someone has to cook the food, wait on the table, and wash the dishes when he’s finished. When Oprah airs a TV program, there are dozens of technicians, producers, makeup artists, hair stylists, and other sundry of hired help to make the magic happen.

One of the more interesting aspects of homelessness is that many, when offered legitimate jobs, will either refuse them outright, or will work for a short while and then quit. Work takes more effort than being homelessness, so which is the easier choice?

Bill Cosby summed it up well a few years ago at a speech he gave in Cincinnati. He advised his audience to stop blaming their circumstances on the white man’s oppression, and to start paying attention in school, work to take advantage of every opportunity, and start giving themselves over to a stable home life.

With the help of the willing media, the crowd rode him out of town on a rail!

He was trying to tell them about ultimate justice and fairness, the truth that they were the masters of their destiny, and that they didn’t need the charity of strangers, but only the strength of their own character. That segment of our population didn’t want to hear that. They preferred the message of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and others, like Jeremiah Wright, who continually feed them ethnically-based excuses and lead them into abject poverty.

And the situation isn’t just divided along racial lines. At the homeless shelters where I used to volunteer, the ethnic makeup was relatively diverse. Poverty has no color, though the present tide of radicalism would have you believe otherwise.

Because of the “kindness” of socialists, this segment of our population is truly convinced that the system is slighted against them and that they can’t succeed and will always be poor. Since Franklyn Roosevelt, the leadership they have listened too for generations has told them they can’t make it, and they believed the lie instead of embracing what we conservatives understand so well. You are the master of your own destiny, and nobody needs to give you anything when you can reach out and make it happen on your own. It worked for one former welfare recipient, Star Parker, and it can work for anyone who is willing to make the effort and pay their ethereal dues.

And that’s with the present laws and programs already in place. We don’t need further socialization. Opportunity already exists, and has existed for more than 200 years.

(Stay tuned at the same bat time to the same bat channel for tomorrow's episode, the separation of Church and State.)

CHANGE, YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT

2009-04-20T13:47:00.002-04:00

In the first week of April, Wallgreens stocked their stores with the newest Chia pet, the Chia-Obama. By the second week, they nervously pulled them off their shelves. It seems political correctness gutted the product release and triggered a huge corporate apology.

This would be just another humorous footnote in the history of race relations, were it not for the fact that it betrays a change in American culture. Mr. T was immortalized by his own Chia effigy, and nobody said a word about it. But suddenly the meaning of things has changed. If we don’t properly take note of the President’s ethnicity, we are suddenly racist and our opinions are potentially a detriment to national security.

It seems these days, that any view of the President that is not warm and inviting – especially as it relates to his policies – is suddenly bigotry. And so, to avoid the label, people are beginning to speak about him in hushed tones, or at least out of site of anyone who supports him.

And discussing him at all with someone of color feels oddly uncomfortable. If you vary at all with Obama’s edicts, the concern immediately arises that you’re somehow suspect in their mind. It’s as if ethnicity is the only issue, while the truth is that we should be discussing everything regarding this man. We did so with Bush and all 42 of his other predecessors. Why should Obama’s policies be any different? But criticize this President, and you’re a racist, regardless of whether color even enters the discussion.

So maybe there’s a deeper issue; one that the media is helping to obfuscate.

Viewed from his recent speeches, our President is obviously ashamed of America. During the campaign, he made it clear that he wasn’t happy with our capitalistic system and he continues to apologize for our past sins, whatever the rest of the world thinks they should be. And as for our economy, he wants us to evolve toward a global version of the EU.

While his gaffe list is growing, even the press, at times, can’t help but note his seeming ineptitude. In the first few weeks after taking office, the term “amateur hour” was applied to his administration. Some have called him inexperienced, while others say he’s just naive. Not at all! While the public’s lack of political astuteness hides his real intent, he’s quickly beginning to accomplish precisely what he promised. It’s as if he’s basing policy on NASCAR; “Just step on the gas and keep turning left!”

So what exactly is this “change you can believe in”?

When the public heard the word “change”, many interpreted it to mean that he was going to clean up corruption. Others thought that he was going to increase social benefits. Granted, he is expanding the welfare state to a gargantuan size. But as for corruption, it seems the only way to get a position in his cabinet is to stop paying your taxes or have managed fraudulent mortgage funds. Both his personal friends and his tenure working with ACORN seem to have taught him well the ways of shady politics, leaving him relatively at ease with the “business as usual” atmosphere inside the Beltway.

Of course, most of those who elected him never got past the color of his skin. Due to either national guilt or kindred identification, being black was enough to pacify their political curiosity and gain their vote. And, of course, some just went along for the ride. It was a historic event, and these folks would have voted for anyone with a melodic chant and loads of media hype.

Considering that the average person is basically ignorant about politics, they didn’t understand what he meant by “change”. In this man’s dictionary, the word involves completely restructuring America. Barack Obama, it seems, is not a capitalist. We have just elected our first true socialist President, and “change” means to tear down the fabric of what made our nation great, to remake it in the image of France; possibly that of the former Soviet Union.

Does this sound outlandish?

First of all, we know he is a globalist. President Obama’s view is clearly shown in a most recent statement, where he announced, “To face our economic crisis, it is not necessary to debate whether it is better to have a rigid, government-managed economy or an unfettered capitalism with no regulations; it is necessary to take pragmatic and responsible measures that promote our common prosperity.”

By “common prosperity”, can we thus assume that his desire is to create a middle ground in world economics and to anchor America’s standard of living to it? Our national policy has always been to do exactly the opposite and force the debate over competing economic systems, arguing that reasonably “unfettered capitalism” is what drives affluence. Converse to globalism, aren’t we supposed to be the light on the hill that beckons the world onward to bigger and greater heights?

And what is meant by “pragmatic and reasonable measures”? Didn’t we elect him to increase America’s abundance in a time when our nation’s wealth looks more like Haiti’s, than to worry about finding some quasi equity with the rest of the planet?

This may come as a shock, but the U.S. workforce isn’t really interested in finding “common prosperity” if it means making $9 per day, the average pay of laborers in Mexican factories.

Still, Obama seems to believe that America’s future is best folded into globalism, and that by blending our economy with that of the world, we will attain some sort of nebular piety. According to him, that can’t be done by “unfettered capitalism”, which leaves only the alternative, “a rigid, government-managed economy”.

But how can he do it; how can he force us to change from free markets to fascism?

Ram Emanuel, his White House Chief Of Staff, made the news stating, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” The comment was not lost on our President. It seems he understands well that to reorder our society, he has to completely annihilate the existing one.

So far, in less than 100 days, he has used the bailouts to begin nationalizing both our banking structure as well as industry. He has started reducing various military systems and weakened our national defense. He tied the hands of our intelligence community by eliminating necessary investigative tools through the release of the “Torture Memos”. He heightened empowerment of the EPA to start mandating an extreme environmental agenda, and even went so far as to begin normalization with Cuba and held out a hand to the dictator of Venezuela.

Some have suggested he’s a Manchurian Candidate, with the likes of George Soros pulling his strings. It’s very possible. Or is he a committed socialist who intends to bend America into a “rigid, government-managed economy”?

There is no question he intends, with the full backing and urging of many in congress, to usurp industry. The White House has already become the boardroom of General Motors, Wall Street is on the auction block, there’s at least one congressman calling for wage controls, and it’s only a matter of time before we all start registering for socialized health benefits. What’s next, a national identification card? From the direction set already, that too is likely only a matter of time.

And you can kiss off the present concept of legal immigration.

Worse yet, any opposition to these directions are decidedly being stifled. With the aid of an eager and willing press, it’s no longer acceptable to speak anything but praise for our new leader. Dissension equals racism, and nobody wants to wear that brand. In a recent U.S. Department of Homeland Security report, anyone holding any conservative leanings is suddenly suspect for domestic terrorism. Owning a gun, being a member of a militia, or worse yet, attending a peaceful protest over Congress’ out of control spending, are all examples of “rightwing extremist activates”.

In other words, you’re only a good citizen if you agree. If you’re one of those evil, mean-spirited, subversive, wild-eyed, hare-brained, nutcase conservatives, you’re obviously out of touch with America’s new “progressive” direction. You now bear watching, since you are more likely to bomb an abortion clinic than to seek tax hikes for spreading the wealth to the less fortunate.

Sadly, most Americans don’t realize that when political discourse is restricted or denied, there is then an impending danger of a de facto dictatorship. This is exactly why we have the first Amendment. The problem is, thanks to government run schools and a serious lack of critical thinking, our citizens see this intercourse as divisive, and are no longer capable of even having the discussion in the first place.

Opposition is demonized, and conservative grass-roots efforts, such as the Tax Day Tea Parties, are held up as social mayhem instead of reasoned and peaceful protests against bad fiscal policy. And God forbid you write a letter to your local newspaper or post your demonic right-wing musings in a blog. In the context of modern political discourse, you’re now a racist and a fanatical right-wing terrorist, regardless of content and especially if you’ve honorably served our country as a member of the armed forces.

We are truly in danger of losing the passions of Adams, Madison, and Jay, to the political philosophies of Marx.

As James Madison wrote, “The freemen of America will remember, that it is very easy to change a free government into an arbitrary, despotic, or military one: but it is very difficult, almost impossible to reverse the matter ― very difficult to regain freedom once lost.” (Published in the Philadelphia Freeman’s Journal, March 15, 1788)

He understood what was meant by “change”. And he warned us severely about it!

America is not yet lost, though it seems his warning has become more prophetic than historic. Under the so-called leadership of this president, we are forsaking our responsibility as citizens to resist the forces that steal from us our rights as free men. Weren’t we to safeguard our legacy of free markets and the right to choose our own destiny without the interference of government?

Instead, we are changing. We no longer value liberty, and would seemingly rather have dependency, a road that will never lead to prosperity!

On September 18, 1787, as Benjamin Franklyn was leaving Liberty Hall at the finish of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, a woman asked him, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"

Franklin replied, "A republic, if you can keep it."

I must say, it’s not looking good for the republic, but we sure have change . . . though not of the sort we can believe in!

RUGGED COLLECTIVISM

2009-04-11T07:44:00.004-04:00

In America, there seems to be a serious lack of education in civics. When a recent poll noted that only 53% of the population believes that capitalism is the best economic system, it’s a good hunch there’s something desperately wrong.

At one time, in the U.S., every child was taught about the principles upon which the nation was founded. As late as the 1970’s, the concept of “rugged individualism” was part of the typical elementary curriculum.

Today, children learn about the blessings of European socialism, and how autocratic our country has been in the world neighborhood. Gosh, what were we thinking when we went to wage imperialistic war on foreign soil over the past generations? We liberated millions, but that’s no excuse for toppling dictatorships.

And as for our own homeland, where’s the government when you need it? There are so many poor and homeless; why how can we bear even the weight of the unemployed? When did America become so uncompassionate?

Our precious and delicate self-esteem could be damaged over such things!

Certainly we can’t ignore the rising tide of support for socialized medicine – except from those who have experienced it elsewhere in the world – and our President is set to act, sending legislation to congress to hang the initial underpinnings of a national health care system.

We need this, right?

The carbon tax and other regulatory controls that will be ushered in with Cap-and-Trade are designed to keep the skies clear and the earth safe from global climate change. We have even agreed to pay a world tax to the United Nations to help those impoverished third-world countries become mighty and prosperous like us.

My, isn’t that incredibly responsible and globally magnanimous?

Oh, and let’s not forget that since President Obama successfully stepped into management of a major corporation – by having the former CEO of General Motors run out on a rail – the national government now promises to become the guarantor of your new car’s warranty. Under the guise of ensuring the stability of a “critical national asset”, our head of state became the de facto head of one of the nation’s top three automakers.

And all it’s going to cost you is your freedom!

While our nation’s leaders seem to be seeking more and more control over every aspect of American life, it seems a good civics lesson is sorely needed. It may be summed up into one single question.

Do you know the purpose of the U.S. Constitution?

It can be answered in one sentence, but before I do, let me take you on a little journey in time. Let’s go back shortly before 1776, and before the Declaration of Independence. It would be to another continent, and to a very different view of how government should operate.

While representative systems had been tried before in ancient Greece and Rome, it wasn’t followed to the extent or in quite the manner we have today. Especially in the 16th Century, nearly the entire world was caught up in various forms of monarchy, oligarchy, and outright despotism.

So the founding fathers were born as subjects to, and grew up under the thumb of a king. They knew firsthand what it was like to have a sovereign decide how heavily they would be taxed, with what groups they could associate, if they could carry weapons for protection, and even if they dared speak out against oppression. It went so far as to be a life or death matter if you didn’t hold the same religious leanings as did your ruler.

Freedom only meant that you were allowed to decide what shoes to wear that day, or maybe what you could throw in the cooking pot, if you could afford to own one. You had to keep your thoughts and beliefs to yourself, and if you didn’t like the way your leaders were running things, you surely didn’t dare to make those thoughts known. People were executed for such arrogance.

There was no First Amendment, and that would have been treason, where it was off to the Tower and off with your head!

So, to escape political oppression, they came to the shores of a new land, and they brought new concepts of liberty with them. The common man would rule here, and each individual would decide for themselves what life they chose, and they were guaranteed the right to seek it.

In America, this ideal was embodied in the reverence for, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

To those first patriots, it sounded like a good idea, but there was a concern. The founders worried that in setting up a new social order, they also would open the door for a new tyranny. Because the prevailing thought at that time was that only a monarch had the God given right and responsibility to rule the masses, they feared the people would soon return to submission to a king.

And so they made it very clear that God Himself was the grantor of unalienable freedom, and that no ruler had the authority to steal away such a grant. Liberty is the heritage of all people, and the purpose of government is to serve, and not to rule.

Thus, the answer to the question; they wrote the U.S. Constitution in order to limit government, not to empower it.

And so they built a representative republic, where every man was completely free to advance their wellbeing, however they saw fit, and excepting whatever fortune or misfortune met them along the way. Their future and prosperity was completely within their own hands.

They had seen the failure of other political experiments. For example, under the original Mayflower Compact, the Pilgrims agreed to, “solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid.”

The compact went so far as to avow , “And by Virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.”

In this covenant, the people bound themselves in social contract to the preservation and furtherance of the colony, but not to their individual benefit. Each worked for the good of the whole, and all drew their necessities from the common stores.

Some worked hard to produce much, while others rested on the production of the former. So over time, the productive realized they were being rewarded with no greater benefit than the non-productive, and the latter had no great enticement to change their ways.

In short order, the colony began to collapse.

The true story of Thanksgiving is one of socialist failure, not aboriginal generosity, and the people’s ultimate survival came in the form of dumping socialism to embrace individualism and a capitalistic view.

You see, when there is no incentive to produce, there is no reason either. People are just not that philanthropic, nor should they be. If there is no return for a man’s sweat, then why should he labor? And why should another receive gain when they are unwilling to reciprocate?

And so, the advancement of mankind is squarely anchored to the benefits each innovator gains through their inspiration empowered by wholesome perspiration. It is the multi-million dollar drug conglomerates that find the cures for what commonly ails us. While NASA takes credit for landing a man on the moon, the vehicles that took them there were drawn from the minds at Lockheed, Boeing, Jet Propulsion Labs, Grumman, and other aerospace contractors.

I assure you, they weren’t working for a GS wage scale!

Even the computers used to serve up this article are all part of the great capitalist extravaganza that powers the internet and drives the engines of more than just our own economy.

Where there is no gain, there frankly, is no point! And so, as we slowly vote away the freedom our forefathers sought at the risk and loss of their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, our ship of state slowly sinks below the waterline of reconstituted tyranny.

Though our founders resisted the urge to produce a Bill of Rights, we now find ourselves strangely in need of one as government stealthily entangles us in its growing web of dependency. Fooled into believing that we need to be ruled, the average American seems oblivious to the fact that under those precious civil documents penned more than 200 years ago, it was our responsibility to rule government instead.

The only guarantees within the Constitution are those of individual liberty, and not of national succor. And that further presses us to reverse this present tide of socialism, primarily because of the intended relationship between our constitution and her people.

Instead, recent headlines tell how the House of Representatives passed legislation to cap the wages of executives and employees of any company that accepts federal assistance. Did we really vote to have congress tell our employers what we are worth?

It sounds more as if our elected “representatives” are now becoming our masters. With intrusions into health care, banking, automotive manufacturing, and even – in California – whether citizens can own big-screen TV’s or not, are we not becoming enslaved by those who were charged by Jefferson, Adams, Franklyn, and the rest of that first Constitutional Congress to fight such despotism?

I’m sure the “less fortunate” do need assistance. I’m not against lending a helping hand. But that was a mandate – by the Creator mentioned in our very Constitution – upon the church, not the government. Let us revise faith-based initiatives, and support charities with our charity, not with our taxes!

But most of all let the government get out of the way of industry and the free market. No bailouts should be offered, and no control given. It is the job of our nation’s leadership to serve us by making the borders secure and keeping the trains running on time. We’ll take care of rest, and we’ll do so at a profit.

Instead, each day “big brother” not only digs a little deeper into our pockets, but now seems to be moving into the guest bedroom. And all the while, the provision for the national defense seems to mean reducing military programs during a time of war, and nuclear disarmament while rogue nations obtain the bomb.

We used to be the “land of the free and the home of the brave”. America was the strongest superpower on the planet, fed the world from our surplus, and our dollar was the envy of every civilized society.

Today, our youth are ashamed of that record, and our own president makes apologies for our “arrogance” overseas.

How did we ever evolve into “the land of the dependant and the home of the politically correct”? Could it be for a lack of civics lessons?

Such is the epitaph inscribed on the headstone of what once was a great nation!