And the Band Played On

[Editorial Notes: What you're about to read is scary. It's meant to be. It's not a movie, its real life. This is happening and some of the outcomes are inevitable. If you're scared at the end of this piece, good. Do something about it. Get involved and tell your representatives to start building lifeboats.]

On Monday, the financial world (cue the eye-rolling "not again" reactions) was stunned by the announcement from ratings giant Standard and Poor's that it has downgraded the financial outlook of the United States.

Most people on the street metaphorically shrugged their shoulders and said, "So?" I'm going to answer that question by continuing an allegory that I'm using with the people I meet.

Last November, I likened the U.S. economy to the Titanic. I spoke about the QE2, "Quantitative Easing", as being akin to applying full power to the economic ship while headed straight for the iceberg. Extending that metaphor, yesterday's announcement was that we've not only hit the iceberg, but, as Titanic's builder Thomas Andrews told Captain Smith, "We have about two hours," -- the ship of the United States is sinking and the outcome is a foregone conclusion.

You see, what this means is the Wall Street -- Thomas Andrews -- is finally acknowledging what analysts -- Frederick Fleet, the lookout -- have been warning of for years: there's an iceberg looming and we're going to hit it. In fact, we have hit it. And now we're "down by the bow."

For years, Captain Smith (successive administrations) and J. Bruce Ismay (Congress) have been blithely ignoring the ice warnings issued by numerous other ships (Greece, Spain, Portugal and the E.U.) have issued and have instead confidently sailed directly into ice fields with "full steam ahead." And yet, as I noted above, they are "stunned" when the ship hits an iceberg.

In the case of the Titanic, Captain Smith was, by many reports, so distraught and unbelieving that he was almost, at times, catatonic and paralyzed into inaction. And our leaders, and Wall Street, are now having the exact same reaction.

On the Titanic, Captain Smith told his officers not to "panic the passengers" by telling them to muster on the boat decks. In the United States, the Obama administration and a compliant media is focusing on so-called "recovery stories" and partisan wrangling.

But they're not the only ones. In our own state of Wisconsin, which like the Federal Government, is bankrupt (yes, that's right, both have no money - literally, not figuratively), the Unions and state workers are scrambling over each other to scream about their "rights". As the ships of state sink out from under their feet, they're only concern is, like those first class ladies on the doomed Titanic, that they are "properly dressed for the occasion."

In hindsight, its easy to see the series of miscalculations, mistakes and accidents that lead to the sinking of the grand ship. Its easy for us to shake our heads and make the judgement, "Couldn't they see they didn't have enough lifeboats? How stupid!" And yet our governments have done the exact same thing.

The British Board of Trade regulations in 1912 required only that one have lifeboats according to the tonnage of the ship, regardless of the number of actual passengers. It was an outdated and outmoded way of thinking with disasterous consequences.

Likewise, our governments have been following the Keynesian model of economics which prescribes that governments spend money to stimulate the economy. It is an outdated and outmoded way of thinking with disasterous consequences.

Even China, often touted as the superpower of this century that will eclipse the United States, has subscribed to this discredited economic theory and is soon to face its own massive financial crisis.

On the evening of April 12, 1912, there were no ships (save the Californian, whose radio was off) close enough to Titanic to affect a rescue. Likewise, given the current state of affairs in Europe and the impending Chinese meltdown, there is no one to save the United States. Its up to the passengers, each and every citizen, to make the officers, our legislators, take immediate action to save as many as possible.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have hit the iceberg. We are sinking. The builder Mr. Andrews has admitted that we are going down. The question now isn't "how do we save the ship", the question is, will we have enough lifeboats for everyone. And given that our government plans as well as J. Bruce Ismay, the answer isn't encouraging. It is up to each of us, regardless if First Class or Steerage, white collar or Unions, to take our fiscal lives and those of our fellow passengers in our own hands. We are all in the same sinking boat.

I am sending this column to my legislators at both the state and Federal level. I am going to hound them about priorities and building life rafts. And I'm making sure my own life jacket (my financial "house") is secure. What are YOU doing?

Reminder: If you're getting this via RSS or Email, check the Blog at http://wethepeoplegovern.blogspot.com for embedded links that may be omitted.

The Tax System - Explained With Beer

Special thanks to Mike N. for sending me this column:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

• The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
• The fifth would pay $1.
• The sixth would pay $3.
• The seventh would pay $7.
• The eighth would pay $12.
• The ninth would pay $18.
• The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."

Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men -- the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

• The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
• The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings) .
• The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings) .
• The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 ( 25% savings).
• The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
• The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up any more. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Reminder: If you're getting this via RSS or Email, check the Blog at http://wethepeoplegovern.blogspot.com for embedded links that may be omitted.

It's Gotta Work Sometime

You have to wonder, sometimes, about how sly some of these despots really are. President Obama received a letter from Qaddaffi begging him to stop bombing Libya. Ok, nothing new there... but just read the letter (new window) (here's the beginning):

Our son, Excellency,

President Obama

U.S.A

We have been hurt more morally that physically because of what had happened against us in both deeds and words by you. Despite all this you will always remain our son whatever happened. We still pray that you continue to be president of the U.S.A. We Endeavour and hope that you will gain victory in the new election campaigne.

I gotta say, it reminded me of this (new window):

From: Pastor Kothapalli Prabhakara Rao
Subject: fellowship
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 11:14:57 +0000 (GMT)

Dear in Christ,
I greet you in the precious name of Jesus. I praise God that He has
privileged me to send this email to you for your kind co-operation to
spread the Gospel and save the perishing soul.
You do not know me, but it has happened for me to find your e-mail
address on the internet. Please for give me for my intrusion like this. I
am Pastor. K.Prabhakara Rao.

Now give Qaddafi some credit. Obama's giving everyone else money, why not him??

Reminder: If you're getting this via RSS or Email, check the Blog at http://wethepeoplegovern.blogspot.com for embedded links that may be omitted.

My Job is Your Job is Our Job

The local, state and even national media spent quite a bit of time this winter on the budget battle in the state of Wisconsin. In a very short time, the 60's wanna-be's drummed up sit-ins, walk-outs, websites, chain letters and all of the other hallmarks of "activism". Hours of airtime and reams of pages were devoted to the small but vocal groups of protesters and their antics. They shouted their vitriolic rhetoric from every possible venue. They even went so far as to attempt to blackmail businesses into supporting them. And yet the majority remained silent (although, thankfully, in some instances effective).

What conservatives need to do is to take some lessons from the "symbolism over substance" left and heed the warnings. We can and must learn if we're to save the progress that was made this last November:

Cult of Personality
The left is all about "feelings", not logic. They are about "rights", not responsibilities. They peg their hopes and dreams on an anointed saviour who can do no wrong and then defend that person regardless of their glaring mistakes. Look at Marion Barry, Gordon Hintz, Bill Clinton and now President Obama.

Last fall, Conservatives stunned the liberal demagogues at the polls. People like Scott Walker were swept into office with a mandate from the people to cut spending. Scott Walker is not the messiah. He does not walk on water. And he can't do this by himself. The liberals are pulling out all the stops, using the state's courts to legislate from the bench. Like the liberals, the conservatives must "stand by their man". But unlike the liberals, conservatives cannot assume that now that "their man" is in, its all up to "him".

Government of the People
The liberals like to claim that they are for "the people". They claim to represent the downtrodden masses and the "little guy". They believe that they are right, no matter what the majority might say and that its their duty to make sure that their views are pushed through. When their views are challenged, they resort to tactics like legislation from the bench.

Conservatives believe in a government of the people, by the people and for the people. They believe in democracy and the will of the people. Conservatives showed the will of the people last November. But its not a single, one-time, isolated instance. The will of the people must be proven time and time again in each election and for each issue. That's the essence of a government of, by and for the people. Every election is a referendum on that principle. Like the liberals, conservatives must muster for every election and continue to show the will of the people.

Representative Government
Liberals believe that the masses are sheep who need to be lead. They elect leaders to make decisions for them. They believe in being governed, not in being represented.

Conservatives believe in self-government. Self-government means exactly that - you govern yourself. You elect people to represent your views, your will. Like the liberals, conservatives need leaders. But those leaders need continuing support and feedback. Without that, they are no longer representatives of the people.

To paraphase Ronald Reagan, from his "A Time for Choosing" speech:
"We will keep in mind and remember that Scott Walker has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny."

April 5th is another state election in Wisconsin. According to poll watchers, turnout is likely to be very low. People look at these spring elections as "why bother?" In the past, many patriots would have responded with words like "civic duty", but this time, there's a deeper reason. It's about grass-roots activism and continuing what's been started. Conservatives can do this, but, let's face it, liberals have a much longer track record with it. That's why the Tea Party movement has so confounded the left. The right just doesn't have the record of continuing grass-roots activism.

April 5th's election is more than just another judicial seat-filling exercise. It is a referendum on Conservatism. It is a rebuttal to the voiciferous left. It is a repudiation of legislation from the bench. It is a support for the continuation of the principles that were expounded last November. If you remain silent on the 5th, Conservatives, don't wake up on the 6th and wonder "what the hell happened?"

Government isn't just Scott Walker's job. It's the people's job. Every day. Every election. Every issue. Unlike the Runaway Fourteen, on the 5th I'll be doing my job. What will YOU be doing?

Reminder: If you're getting this via RSS or Email, check the Blog at http://wethepeoplegovern.blogspot.com for embedded links that may be omitted.

Unbiased Media? That Un-possible!

A big "thanks" to one of my loyal readers for forwarding this very insightful list that highlights the bias of the media. Where's the outrage comparable to Bush and Reagan?

• If any other of our presidents had doubled the National debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would You have approved? (compare to the outrage over Bush adding $4T to the debt)
  
• If any other of our presidents had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?
• If any other of our presidents had criticized a state law that he admitted he never even read, would you think that he is just an ignorant hot head?
  
• If any other of our presidents joined the country of Mexico and sued a state in the United States to force that state to continue to allow illegal Immigration, would you question his patriotism and wonder who's side he was on?
  
• If any other of our presidents had pronounced the Marine Corps like Marine Corpse, would you think him an idiot? (compare to the chortling over Bush's mispronounciation of nuclear or Dan Quayle's gaffe with potato)
  
• If any other of our presidents had put 87,000 workers out of work by arbitrarily placing a moratorium on offshore oil drilling on companies that have one of the best safety records of any industry because one foreign company had an accident, would you have agreed?
• If any other of our presidents had used a forged document as the basis of the moratorium that would render 87000 American workers unemployed would you support him? (compare to the indignation over Reagan firing the PATCO strikers)
  
• If any other of our Presidents had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes? (compare to the "furor" over Reagan allegedly having Alzheimer's in office)
  
• If any other of our presidents had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take his First Lady to a play in NYC, would you have approved?
• If any other of our presidents had reduced your retirement plan holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?
• If any other of our presidents had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?
  
• If any other of our presidents had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
• If any other of our presidents had given the Queen of England an IPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought it a proud moment for America ?
• If any other of our presidents had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved? (compare to Regan's Bittberg visit)
  
• If any other of our presidents had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed It off as a minor slip?
  
• If any other of our presidents had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?
• If any other of our presidents had stated that there were 57 states In the United States, wouldn't you have had second thoughts about his capabilities?
• If any other of our presidents would have flown all the way to Denmark to make a five minute speech about how the Olympics would benefit him walking out his front door in his home town, would you not have thought he was a self important, conceited, egotistical jerk.
• If any other of our presidents had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Quattro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, wouldn't you have winced in embarrassment?
• If any other of our presidents had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?
• If any other of our presidents' administrations had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?
• If any other of our presidents had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence? (compare to Bush's handling of Katrina)
  
• If any other of our presidents had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what Is happening in America , would you have ever approved.
• If any other of our presidents had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive?

Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in his first 24 months -- so you have that much time to come up with an answer.

Every statement and action in this email is factual and directly attributable to Barrack Hussein Obama. Every bumble is a matter of record and completely verifiable. For those of you reading this via RSS or email, check the blog... I have researched and put in links, including to the "comparative outrages".

Reminder: If you're getting this via RSS or Email, check the Blog at http://wethepeoplegovern.blogspot.com for embedded links that may be omitted.

The Wrong End of the Stick

No politician is perfect. No person is perfect. I can disagree with someone while supporting them. Thus, upon hearing the news, today, that Speaker Boehner is actively seeking to block the proposal that the body of last WWI Veteran Frank Buckles lay in state in the Capitol, I went to his website and wrote the following. I urge everyone to do so, as well.

Speaker Boehner,

I am a Reagan Conservative who was very glad to see the turnaround in power during the last election. I am, like President Reagan "strong" on national defense.

I am also the son of a highly decorated WWII veteran and a member of the National Order of Battlefield Commissioned Officers "Ponies" organization.

I was, to use the words of a colleague, "stunned and amazed" at the news, today, that you are actively opposing the proposal to have the body of America's last WWI veteran, Frank Buckles, lay in state in the Capitol.

I do not understand at all your objections to this honour.

If anyone outside of a former President deserves this honour, it is Mr. Buckles. Take away the fact that he was our last living link with the conflict that marked not only the shift from colonialism to the birth of superpowers, the conflict that set the stage for the Century of America. Take away the fact that he not only enlisted under-age but went on to serve with distinction. Take away the fact that he was captured and survived a notorious Japanese prison camp in World War II. Take all that away and you still are left with the fact that this man absolutely typified, in his life, his outlook, his patriotism the very soul of what made the United States the world's only surviving superpower.

This honour has indeed been bestowed upon non-legislative and non-executive citizens in the past. Most notably, the Unknown Soldiers of World War I, World War II and Vietnam. Those men were laid in state not only to honour their sacrifice and service, but to service as a reminder of those to the entirety of the United States and to honour as well those who continue to put place themselves in harm's way for their countrymen.

It is, therefore, completely fitting that Mr. Buckles be so honoured and is inconceivable and indefensible to deny, either actively or passively, such a proposal.

I urge you, sir, to reconsider your position which is, I may say, more expected out of the anti-military elements of some of your brethren across the aisle. It is not in keeping with the tenets and philosophies of the Republican Party nor, indeed, any patriotic American to so wholly disrespect those to whom our freedom is daily owed.

If nothing else, I would hope that you would explain yourself in some logical, rational way. But moreover, I would hope and expect that you would comport yourself as an American legislator and see fit to instead wholeheartedly support this proposal.

In the words of Charles Michael Province, "It is the Soldier, not the politician / Who has given us the right to vote."

Respect those who have given us the power to put you in power.

Jeffery L. Vogt
Son of Lt. Col Roland H. Vogt, US Army
NOBC

Reminder: If you're getting this via RSS or Email, check the Blog at http://wethepeoplegovern.blogspot.com for embedded links that may be omitted.

What I Don't Get Is...

The debates in Wisconsin are, of course, the topic du jour. During this, WTMJ talk host Charlie Sykes has, several times, had a popular segment entitled "What I Don't Get Is..." I'm constantly amazed at the callers who express surprise (not necessarily outrage, but surprise nonetheless) at the protests, the reaction of the Unions, the 14 AWOL Senators, and the rest of the circus in Madison and across the state. Since I don't get a chance to call in and since Charlie's program is so popular that I can't get through, I'll answer that question here.

What I don't get is why they don't get it.

The plain truth is that the reactions of the protestors, the Unions and the far left did not have spring up overnight. They have evolved over the last decade or more. It is the manifestation of the mantra of "symbolism over substance". In a word, it is hypocrisy.

Now let's be fair - there are hypocrits of every stripe. But the modern Democratic Party has made this a core principle. I say "modern" to distinguish this from the party of Kennedy (who, fiscally and on defense, was more Republican than Regan) and Roosevelt (who said what he was going to do, then did it -- like Scott Walker). And this has been evolving for more than a decade.

Take the Political Correctness movement of the 90's beyond. In specific, "free speech" versus "hate speech". Recently, that maven of the media Oprah called for "respect" for President Obama, saying, “even if you’re not in support of his policies, there needs to be a certain level of respect.” And yet, it was perfectly acceptable for Oprah, The View, Jon Stewart and others to not criticize, but engage in ad hominem attacks on President Bush. Remember when it was "patriotic to speak out against your government"? Ah, but not when its our guy.

And staying with public figures, let's talk about our Flee-Baggers. During the Doyle administration, with a Democratic-controlled state House and Senate, the Republicans drew repeated fire for their use of the filibuster. Last night, the House Democrats acted outraged when a procedural motion was used to end over 80 hours of a Democratic filibuster (far longer than any that has ever been staged before). Let me not hesitate to point out that a filibuster requires that the politicians in question actually are on the job, not hiding out like fugitives in a sympathetic neighboring state.

And then there are the protestors themselves. The Union Line is that of Helen Lovejoy, screaming, "Won't someone think of the children!?!?" They try to tie the modest increase (5.6% for pension and 12.8% for healthcare) to a collapse of the educational system when, in point of fact, those increases are less than private sector workers pay for those benefits. When this is pointed out, they cite the "anti-Union" portions, stating that its taking away workers "rights and freedoms". And yet, that conveniently ignores the fact that this bill gives back freedoms -- the freedom to choose if one wants to pay $1000 per year in Union dues and be forced to accept whatever health care plan the Union wants (one that is, ironically enough, owned by the Union). So, drawing the line from point A to point B, this isn't about the finances of their members and it isn't about the freedoms and rights of their members, its about Union dues, Union-administered and owned health funds and Union power.

And the "rights" that are "stripped" (a favorite word of the pablum-fed media)? Turns out that "unions still could represent workers in wage negotiations, but they can’t seek pay increases above those pegged to the Consumer Price Index unless the hikes are approved in a public referendum". So this isn't about "rights", this is about the Union not wanting to "chance" the public turning down such a referendum. It's about Union power.

The protesters themselves are on the forefront of hypocrisy. Their leader, President Obama, recently called for "a more civil and honest public discourse" in the wake of the Arizona shootings. And yet the protesters, the vanguard of the "political correctness" movement, are making direct "hate speech" attacks on Governor Walker -- even so far as to putting "crosshairs" over his picture and calling for "reloading". Scant weeks before, these people were screaming about Sarah Palin's "crosshairs". Shame, shame if it's Palin, but huzzah if its the left!

Then there's the blogger (not journalist) Ian Murphy who scammed (not pranked, that word is too 'lighthearted' for his misrepresentation) his way onto a phone call with the Governor. In a recent interview by a real journalist, Murphy, a virulent shock-blogger, admitted that he is not a journalist. He's akin to the guy who breaks the jewelry-store window and then the passerby (the responsible journalists) who would never do it themselves, happily take the stolen goods.

Yet the same people who are holding this self-described "troublemaker" as a paragon of investigative reporting are the same ones who cry "foul" at conservative (and degreed) journalists like Fox News, Drudge and Breitbart. They constantly harp on how "biased and slanted" those legitimate news outlets are while at the same time espousing people like Murphy (who ranted "F*** THE TROOPS" in one of his virulent blogs) as the standard of virtue.

Additionally, there's the selective short-term memory of the protesters, bloggers and leftists when it comes to "responsibility". They love to blame Republican administrations for all the world's ills, but are mysteriously silent about the fact that it was a Democratic Governor, State House and Senate that used short-term budget "fixes" and Federal monies to paper over the serious fiscal situation while simultaneously passing larger and larger budget deficits to future administrations.

So now we're faced with the reality of a massive budget shortfall. And some of the people who swept Walker and others into office under the banner of "fixing the fiscal mess" are committing the largest hypocrisy of them all -- fix it, but don't take away MY perks!

As I said at the beginning, none of this is new. It's been brewing for a long time. You could see it in the lawsuits of the 2000 Presidential election versus the so-called "mandate" of the 2008 Presidential election. What is new is the blatant way in which it is shown in public. The left has taken off the mask of principle and sincerity in the last decade and now they are the ones asking "What I don't get is..." when the hard-working private sector no longer buys into their hollow rhetoric. They are left wondering why they are, despite doing all the things that people have "bought" for a decade, now being laughed at, vilified by the majority, and no longer in power.

What I don't get is... why they don't get it.

Reminder: If you're getting this via RSS or Email, check the Blog at http://wethepeoplegovern.blogspot.com for embedded links that may be omitted.

Remedial Math

I was in the state capitol, Madison, yesterday, for a technology seminar. The seminar started late because a couple of the presenters couldn't make it around the Capitol Building due to the protesters. Who were these people and what were they protesting? They were WEAC and state workers protesting Governor Scott Walker's proposed state budget.

Governor Walker has to contend with a budget that does not balance. His proposal includes eliminating or cutting some (not all) benefits from some (not all) state workers. Why? In his own words, benefit cuts are better than job cuts.

Now, I realize that WEAC doesn't really care about teaching. I mean, let's face it, its a Union. If they're honest, themselves, they would admit that what they care about is their power, not the quality or content of the jobs those members perform (I'm not being flippant, here, I'm being serious -- ask yourself, "what's the mission of a Union").

So, in deference to this fact, I thought I'd take it upon myself to explain a little remedial mathematics in the form of a story problem. I'll even make it easier by making it "multiple guess".

Scotty has six friends and four apples. Each friend wants an apple. How many apples should Scotty give each friend?
A) 2/3 of an apple
B) 0, he should keep them all
C) Get rid of two friends and give each of the remaining four a whole apple

Hmmm. Well, let's show our work, for the benefit of the WEAC folks scratching their heads.

4 apples divided among 6 people = 4 / 6 = 2 / 3

So the answer is "A". But wait, that means no one gets a whole apple! Doesn't matter to WEAC and the Unions. All they care about is a whole apple. They don't care that Scotty can't get any more apples. Its immaterial that with the mathematically correct answer everyone stays a friend and everyone at least gets something. What matters to them is that no one's getting an entire apple! An apple they fought for and deserve, dammit! An apple they have a full right to!

But as they say, "follow the money". What's the meat of Governor Walker's proposal? It's actually not to take away benefits but to limit the Unions' negotiating power to salaries only. And that's what rankles the Union bosses, which brings us back to my point about the purpose of Unions. They don't care about the jobs that are performed, they care about the benefits. They don't care about the number of workers employed, they care that the workers that are employed get as much as they possibly can.

Once again, the Unions show where their sympathies lie -- with their power. They don't really care about their members and they don't care about their member's salaries. All they care about is keeping themselves in power by appearing to "fight" for things that can't be provided without bankrupting the state. Which, of course, they don't care about (despite several states already going bankrupt).

Back when I was in grade school, there was a local teacher's strike that garnered attention in the national media. The teachers said that they were striking for higher pay because "taxes are so high." Now, I was only in grade school, but I looked at my parents and asked, "But if they get higher pay, won't taxes go up again to pay for it?"

I know the math here is a bit difficult for those who grew up on "new math" and geography classes that taught how to balance a checkbook (true story), but maybe some of the students of WEAC's members can explain it to them.

Unfortunately, I doubt it.

Reminder: If you're getting this via RSS or Email, check the Blog at http://wethepeoplegovern.blogspot.com for embedded links that may be omitted.

What the Left Will Never Get

An article in The Daily Beast today reads, in part, thus:

"President Obama’s 2012 budget, set for release on Monday, projects a $1.65 trillion deficit this year—the largest on record.
[snip]
Before you buy Republicans’ complaints about the deficit, however, keep this in mind: The main reason this year’s deficit is larger than expected is the deal to extend the Bush tax cuts, which the GOP pushed for."

Now, the Daily Beast is not known for being a paragon of unbiased reporting. Just last week, they crowed, in an article entitled "The Myth of Obama's Big Spending":

"Obama has slashed one tax dollar for every dollar he’s spent on government programs."

The Left, as well as the media elite, love to deride the Tea Party, calling them all sorts of names and portraying them alternatively as know-nothing rednecks or gun-toting domestic terrorists. It has been intuitively obvious that those who engage in these one-dimensional characterisations have no idea what the Tea Party movement was or is all about, nor have any idea of the reasons for the failure of so many incumbents (Democrats and Republicans) in last fall's elections. They miss the point, entirely.

The point of the Tea Party movement was and remains to hold Congress to the same standards that each one of us is held to; to hold them responsible for their spending; to hold them accountable for their actions and their promises. It is a rejection of "business as usual". It is not Left, it is not Right, it is not Liberal, it is not Conservative. It is a movement of, by and for the People to enforce their control -- their Constitutionally-guaranteed control -- of their Government.

So as budget time looms, those who lost power are, as predicted, trying every tactic to slander and change the facts. They are deliberately missing the point that lowering taxes is only one half of the equation. Without cutting spending significantly, we will continue to be in a status quo.

Think of it this way -- if you're getting paid $50,000 per year and your expenses are $60,000 per year, how much does it help to get a raise of $3,000 per year if you don't cut your spending? You're still in the hole and sinking, just not as fast! Ah, but you say, "Ok, I'll cut a dollar of spending for every dollar of my raise!" So now, you're cutting your spending to $57,000 per year and you've increased your income to $53,000 per year. Um.... you're still sinking!!!

Congress and the administration must be held accountable. We all have to learn to live within our means or we go broke. Government is the only entity that has been held exempt from that, and they're the ones who gave the exemption! They force everyone else to be solvent, but not themselves.

The People spoke, last November. They sent a message to their elected officials -- play by the rules we have to play by or be replaced, regardless of your party affiliation. We were and are sick of "business as usual" of the last two decades of Congress.

As I said when I started this blog, "There is one and only one thing that strikes fear into the heart of any politician - that is We the People." And a scared animal lashes out.

So take heart; the entrenched power elite are running scared. That sound of hoofbeats? It's We the People.

Reminder: If you're getting this via RSS or Email, check the Blog at http://wethepeoplegovern.blogspot.com for embedded links that may be omitted.

Cause and Effect

In the December 11, 2010 Appleton Post-Crescent, Caroline Seidl of Appleton comments in the phone editorial:

"Congratulations go out to Plexus for adding two overseas sites while hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens are out of work and losing their homes. Thank you, big business, for sticking it to us once again."

What a wonderful case-in-point of the "dumbing down" of America -- people like Caroline who can't see from Point A to Point B. The saddest part is that these people do not, nor ever will understand that our Universe is one where effect inevitably follows cause.

The Administration has, over the last two years, levied huge taxes and fees on the "evil corporations". People like Caroline cheered this, because they are getting "something for nothing." And yet, when those "evil corporations" decide, in the interest of staying afloat, to move operations overseas, these same people like Caroline scream about how the jobs are leaving the U.S.

By Caroline's thinking, "profit is evil" and yet when profit (and therefore the corporation) is eliminated, that's evil as well. You can't have it both ways, Caroline. Punish the corporations, add more burden, and those jobs will go away as the corporations fight for their lives.

People like Caroline are no different than those who who lined up for "Obama money" -- they don't know or care where it's coming from because they can't draw the straight line from point A, Cause, to point B, Effect. You'd hope that some basic courses in Logic would help, but that's a false hope. Because the positions of the left are predicated on "feelings", not thought.

To paraphrase the old saw, "Liberalism wasn't reasoned in, so it can't be reasoned out."

Reminder: If you're getting this via RSS or Email, check the Blog at http://wethepeoplegovern.blogspot.com for embedded links that may be omitted.

No Special Day

The 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month. No special day at all. "What the hell do you mean," I hear you scream?! Just that. But before the lynch mob approaches with tar, feathers and rope, allow me to explain.

Today is Veteran's Day. The airwaves, ether and mass media are saturated with people exhorting you to "thank a vet." I find that sentiment, on this particular day, rings hollow. Why? Because every day we live in freedom, the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution, including the right to be selfish and irresponsible, is due to one and only one person - the Veteran.

Our founding fathers understood this. They understood that the further one got from the realities of what it takes not only to secure but to maintain those freedoms, one would grow less understanding and appreciative of them. John Adams summed up this evolution in his famous quote: "I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain."

We, as a country and as a world have lived in relative peace for the last three-quarters of a century. That's three generations. As in Adam's quotation, the third generation is so distanced from this last period of world war that they believe that any war is "unnecessary". They believe, instead, that it is the government -- politicians, special interest groups, intellectuals -- who "provide" the freedoms they enjoy.

My father, a veteran of World War II, of the first wave on Omaha Beach, a recipient of the Silver Star, twice the Bronze Star, a Battlefield Commission (instead of the offered Medal of Honor), knew what it was to secure those freedoms. Like Lance Corporal Edwin Kraft, he believed that "For those that will fight for it, freedom has a flavor the protected shall never know."

I had occasion to ask him what he thought of the anti-war protesters in the 70's, 80's and 90's. He told me, "I'm glad they're free to protest."

I'm not disregarding the efforts of the artists, politicians, students, teachers, businessmen, farmers, and the rest of us who make up this nation. I am, however, stating that it is due to the men and women "on that wall" that those people are and remain free to pursue their lives.

Charles Michael Province, US Army Veteran, wrote the now-famous lines, summing up this daily, ongoing sacrifice:

It is the Soldier, not the minister
Who has given us freedom of religion.

It is the Soldier, not the reporter
Who has given us freedom of the press.

It is the Soldier, not the poet
Who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the Soldier, not the campus organizer
Who has given us freedom to protest.

It is the Soldier, not the lawyer
Who has given us the right to a fair trial.

It is the Soldier, not the politician
Who has given us the right to vote.

It is the Soldier who salutes the flag,
Who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin is draped by the flag,
Who allows the protester to burn the flag.

I was brought up understanding this, eventhough it was never put into words. Instead, my own curiousity lead me to read more and more about the history of our country and our world. And the more I learned, the more I realized that it was the soliders insured that the political philosophies of our Founding Fathers would be secured for all citizens.

After coaxing out my father's stories and those of his remaining comrades, I began to understand. And so, every time, regardless of what day of the year it is, that I see a soldier or veteran, I thank them "for their service" -- because I realize that they have served so that I don't have to.

So today, Veteran's Day, yes, thank a vet. But do so every day, every opportunity. Thank those who guarantee the freedoms you and I, in our blissful ignorance, enjoy every day. Including the freedom to call those very Veterans "baby killers". It's due to them that you can do that without going to a concentration camp.

Or, as a bumper sticker put it, "If war wasn't the answer we'd be speaking German."

Reminder: If you're getting this via RSS or Email, check the Blog at http://wethepeoplegovern.blogspot.com for embedded links that may be omitted.

The Launch of the Titanic

Oh, God, not another "financial" piece... but please, bear with me.

On May 31st, 1911, the Titanic slid down the greased rails at the Harland & Wolff shipyard in Belfast. That day, it was impossible for anyone to envision the fate that awaited it, less than a year later. On November 3rd, 2010, the QE2 slid down the rails of the Federal Reserve, greased by the incompetence of Benjamin Bernake, the fiduciary misconduct of the Obama administration and the criminal complicity of Congress. This time, it's possible -- no, it's unmistakeable -- to see the iceberg "right ahead".

The QE2 in this case is the second round of so-called "Quantitative Easing". What this boils down to is that the Federal Reserve has decided to "print" more money in what they believe is a move that will "promote financial growth". In essence, the Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernake, decided to print up more money on the theory that this will spread more money around and therefore stimulate the economy. Sounds good on the surface, right? "But wait," as they say, "there's more!"

What Bernake and the Fed are trying to do is Keynesian economics. They are trying to spend their way out of debt. This doesn't, as I've explained before, work at all. The idea is completely discredited. It's made even worse because the value of "a dollar" does not have any intrinsic value -- it is not tied to a commodity. Instead, it represents the "good faith" of the United States.

These days, that "good faith" is sorely lacking. The economy of the U.S. is in the dumper and printing more money, as anyone with a fifth grade education (excepting, of course, those who teach at Princeton) can deduce, simply devalues every dollar even further.

There are two major problems, here: illiquidity and insolvency. I don't intend this to be an Econ 101 course (if it were, I'd invite Mr. Bernake) but I'll give a quick explanation for the layman (me!):

• Illiquidity is when you don't have "cash on hand". Think of this as when you own a car (without a loan) or a washer and dryer, but you don't have cash to buy groceries.
• Insolvency is bankruptcy. It's when you owe even on your car and washer/dryer. You don't own anything, anymore. Your debt is greater than your total worth.

Thanks to the policies of the Obama administration and a Congress of accomplices, the United States has a debt that has exploded. The candidates made promises in 2008 to anyone who would listen. They promised "money for nothing". They promised "the government will take care of you." All you had to do was vote for them, then sit back and collect your "Obama Money." Plenty of people, inculcated by over a half-century of burgeoning federal nannyship bought this hook, line and sinker.

While fiscal conservatives warned that there would be a day of reckoning, shouting "ICEBERG! RIGHT AHEAD!", the liberal intelligencia and administration "Goebbels" did their best impression of Captain Smith, increasing speed into the ice field and rearranging the deck chairs. They started handing out money (as my father would say, and keeping in the theme of this piece) like a pack of drunken sailors, increasing the debt from $869 billion in 2007 to $2.2 trillion! Just to put this in perspective, the QE2 ("our" QE2 in this story) is $850 billion.... that's nearly the ENTIRE debt from 2007!

So here's the issue - you can solve illiquidity (at least in the short term) by converting something to cash. The Federal Reserve does this not by pawning real goods, but by printing more money. But this "solution" supposes that you'll have the cash coming in to replace it so you can get your goods out of hock. It flat out does not work if you are insolvent nor does it fix insolvency.

If you don't own anything yourself then you can't hock it; and in the case of the United States, we are insolvent. So printing more money (pawning goods) does nothing! It simply causes us to owe even more and go further into debt.

To put it very simply in our analogy, Bernake is applying full power to the engines with the iceberg looming.

But we do have a chance, yet, to get the ship of state out of harm's way. A new Congress has been elected. It's up to us, the passengers, the voters who put them there, to hold their feet to the fire. It's not good enough to "compromise" -- "we'll just turn the wheel a little and we'll slow down a few knots" -- instead what's needed is full rudder and all astern on the engines. That's what we sent these people to Congress to do and its up to us to make sure they do it.

If we don't, then we may as well start singing "Nearer, My God, to Thee" because there aren't enough lifeboats to go around.

Reminder: If you're getting this via RSS or Email, check the Blog at http://wethepeoplegovern.blogspot.com for embedded links that may be omitted.

The Day After

Reaction

Much wailing and gnashing of teeth." I see so many of my liberal relatives crying "waily, waily, waily" this morning. What they fail to see, what they, in their myopia, cannot believe is that this is a repudiation of "business as usual". Their much vaunted Saviour of the People has betrayed those very people who pu...t him in power. Don't believe me? Just look at the map with overlays -- areas that went big for Obama in '08 swung back the other way.

This is an acknowledgement of three things:

1. That when people feel that their mandate has been misused, that the promises made to them have been ignored, they will fight back;
2. That people are sick to death of career politicians;
3. That despite what the intelligencia would believe and, through their media try to portray, the great silent majority will not remain silent and "take" what is "good for them" in other's eyes.

A Prediction

In the coming days, the liberal intelligencia will be giving their spin on last night's election. They will be saying that this was a triumph of the uneducated. They will be wringing their hands and saying that the "rednecks", "hayseeds" and "ignorant masses" were the victors.

What they will be missing, utterly, in their myopic elitism is that this is a message. We live in a Representative Democracy. We do not elect our representatives to govern us, but to represent us. If those officials do not represent us, they can and will be removed.

The John Stewarts and Stephen Colberts will pander this skewed vision. They will ridicule the victors and their supporters as idiots and morons (of course, all in humour). They will, as one of my relatives did yesterday, take refuge in the last act of those unable to mount a substantive argument -- the ad hominem attack.

They will utterly fail to see that the selfsame people who wanted a change in 2008 decided that the promises made, despite predictions of this very fact, could not be kept. And that those people want another change.

Their leadership, beginning with the White House Press Conference today, will claim that they were not given enough time. They will completely ignore the fact that they, themselves, claimed that a single administration is capable of effecting change - for better or worse. And then they will fall back to the only recourse left to them - Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.

They will claim that this sea change endangers "everything they worked for" these last two years while simultaneous unable to see that this is exactly the point of the message that was sent. The people do not want the work of the last two years. And, subtly by insinuating that the people have "betrayed themselves", they will reinforce their core belief -- that the people do not know what's good for them, but only the liberal elite do.

In doing so, they will echo these words, "they betray me. They do not deserve to live. They are not worthy of me."

And they will not heed the words of Abram Lincoln, "We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts - not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution."

Reminder: If you're getting this via RSS or Email, check the Blog at http://wethepeoplegovern.blogspot.com for embedded links that may be omitted.

Here it is, November.

I've been idle on the blog for several months, but not in real life. I've been following through on my plan and I look forward to that plan bearing fruit, tomorrow.

As a last "shot across the bow" of this particular administration (though I don't plan on stopping the blog, despite what it may seem), I was pointed to this editorial from Sunday in our local paper and asked to respond by one of my colleagues. Below, I present that response:

"Whatever you think is wrong in Washington, you can be sure of two things," the first is that the Post Crescent does not understand the fundamental arguments and dissatisfaction with the current administration and the second is that, as a part of the entrenched political structure, Russ Feingold not only represents but is the epitome of what is wrong in Washington.

To say that the October 31st editorial is filled with more half-truths than can be definitively refuted in the few words allowed for rebuttal is an understatement. So instead, we'll examine just a two of the more glaring errors that underscore your and Mr. Feingold's myopia.

At one point, you say that Mr. Feingold believes that "if you spend more, you have to find cuts to go with it." And yet, he voted for the $800 billion stimulus bill. You attempt to defuse that argument by noting that this immensely expensive debacle "saved several million jobs" and that "many economists say the recession would have been much worse without" it.

How do you defined "saved"? No reputable economist (or, for that matter anyone who does not engage in hyperoble) would make such an unverifiable claim. In point of fact, as reported by CNN on September 30, all this stimulus bill did for jobs was to delay the jobless numbers release until after the election. And the economists that would state something so rash (and, again, unverifiable) as "would have been worse without" it are nothing more than adherents to the largely discredited school of Keynesian economics. One does not "spend" themselves out of debt or recession. This has been proven time and time again throughout the twentieth century.

Nancy Pelosi, in her 2007 inaugural address, stated that there would be "no new deficit spending." And yet, since that time (a time which coincides with Mr. Feingold's tenure) the national debt has increased BY (not "to") $5 Trillion. How is this "fiscally responsible"?

Then you try and defend his record on health care reform. You say that he said the "people very much wanted us to do something." Yes, we did. However the people also made it abundantly clear that this particular "something" was not what they wanted. They protested, they wrote letters, they made calls, and the great, silent majority made it clear they would be silent no longer. The mainstream media has tried to play this off as "radicals", "extremists" and "rednecks". They have done so unsuccessfully.

You assert that Mr. Feingold is "a paragon of responsible governing." Mr. Feingold is a Senator, not a Governor. He is elected by the people of the State of Wisconsin not to govern them, but to represent them and their wishes. The people of Wisconsin, through their letters, through the public forums and through their activism have made their feelings clear. But, as you point out by citing Mr. Feingold's record on even these two issues, he has ignored the will of the people. He has decided that he, alone, knows what is best for the people of this state. He has taken up the banner of Senator Rockafeller, who said, "We're going to push through health care reform regardless of the views of the American people."

In a last-ditch effort to save Mr. Feingold and the Titanic that is this administration, you have invoked the trinity of desperation -- fear,uncertainty and doubt. You have no substantive ability to attack the positions of Mr. Johnson, who is simply responding to the groundswell of backlash against the entrenched politicians. So instead you offer the obvious whitewash of "the devil you know."

Russ Feingold is an entrenched politico. He represents everything that the people of this state and of the Union itself have come to loathe, the professional politician. As Ronald Regan once said, "The one thing our Founding Fathers could not foresee -- they were farmers, professional men, businessmen giving of their time and effort to an idea that became a country -- was a nation governed by professional politicians who had an interest in getting re-elected. They probably
envisioned a fellow serving a couple of hitches and then eagerly looking forward to getting back to the farm." It's time to send Mr. Feingold back to the farm instead of living off the people of the state of Wisconsin.

Reminder: If you're getting this via RSS or Email, check the Blog at http://wethepeoplegovern.blogspot.com for embedded links that may be omitted.

Dogma

As long as I've decided to blog about one "taboo" subject (politics), I will blog about the other... religion.

Now bear with me, here for a moment. One of my prime missions in life is to find and eliminate hypocricy in my life. And so I expect others to point it out to me as I point it out in others (the "mote in your brother's eye" style of thing).

One of the conclusions I've come to is that no one is so hypocritical as the dogmatic. This applies to all areas of life, whether it be ones personal opinions ("I'm right, because I'm never wrong"), politics ("No party, no matter what"), culture ("You can't use the n-word, only we can use it") or, of course, religion.

To be dogmatic is to be unthinking, to not use one's brain and make one's own decisions. This is, in the "religious debates" something that the atheists declaim as being one of their primary criticisms of believers. And yet many of those self-same people who ridicule belief hold their own views so tightly that they have created for themselves a system of belief every bit as dogmatic as any religion.

Consider, for example, the case of Christopher Hitchens, the self-professed "new athiest". Recently, he was diagnosed with oesophogeal cancer. A catholic priest commented on CNN on Tuesday that people should pray for Mr. Hitchens. Predictably, this has outraged athiests.

Why do I say "predictably"? Because, like the most vocal elements of any group, the extremists in the athiest community are so convinced of their own beliefs (or non-beliefs) that that cannot tolerate anyone who disagrees with them. That is, they feel that religion is being "shoved down their throat". And yet they can't see that their "morally superior" attitude of outrage is shoving their opinion down people's throats.

Let's look at this rationally. A priest has given his opinion; an opinion that, if adopted and acted on by others would have zero effect on Mr. Hitchens rights. In fact if, as his supporters believe, there is no God, then it would have zero effect on Mr. Hitchens in any way. Where is the violation of rights, then? Where is anything in any way, shape or form being "forced" upon Mr. Hitchens? If one even stretches the point to say that this is being done "without Mr. Hitchen's permission" it begs the question of the things that are done by the Freedom From Religion foundation against the permission of believers.

The point is simple and is being missed, as Maxwell Smart would have said, "by that much" -- the athiests "up in arms" about this are being as intransigent and dogmatic about their beliefs as those whom they deride. In a word, hypocritical.

Science and faith are not incompatible. Even Stephen Hawking has averred this. Why are they not incompatible? Because they are apples and oranges.

Science, by definition, is a system by which the mechanics of life, the universe and everything can be explained. Faith is a system which explains the unexplainable. Science is a system by which hypothesis are testable and provable. Faith is a system by which there is nothing provable but "taken on faith".

It is just as erroneous and disingenuous to try to "prove" with science, logic or rationalism that God does not exist as it as to attempt to inject religion into biology, cosmology or any other scientific realm. Forget, for a moment, that its a logical fallacy to prove a negative ("God does not exist") -- something that many atheists seem to forget, meanwhile touting logic. Even if such a thing were possible, by definition that would not invalidate religion because religion does not account for proof, only for belief.

Galileo said, "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." Religious zealots who deny science would be well served to remember this.

But equally, the radical, or as I call them, "agressive athiests" must realise that, as Shakespeare put it and science continually confirms, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." (William Shakespeare, Hamlet Act 1 Scene V). Humans are not the pinnacle of the Universe. What hubris to believe that all of the Universe has culminated and came into being for the purpose of creating any one person and that any person knows everything there is to know about and in the Universe.

But that's what dogma stems from and feeds on - pride.

Jack McDevitt's book "Odessy" is a wonderful scifi adventure that touches on this dichotomy as an intergal part of the plot. This section puts the entire problem of dogma in perspective where either extreme is concered:

"We can create the appearance of knowledge, the illusion of knowing how to grapple with a problem. Far too many educational systems have done exactly that. The result is generations of mouthpieces who can pour forth approved responses to programmed stimuli that contribute nothing to rational discussion. Dogma is for those who wish only to be comfortable. Catechiems are for cowards; commandments, for control freaks who have so little respect for their species that they are driven to appeal to a higher power to keep everyone in line. If indeed we have a Maker, I suspect He is proudest of us when we ask the hard questions. And listen for answers."

But he sums it up, a bit later, most eloquently:

"This must have been what it was like in Tennessee three centuries earlier during the Scopes trial. He retreated to his hotel and listened to the crowd thumping and banging in the streets. The counterdemonstrators, unfortunately, were just as fanatical. They were at the moment trying to shout down the organist and his choir. MacAllister looked around hopelessly. His supporters were every bit as deranged as those arrayed on the other side. The real enemy, he thought, was fanaticism."

Amen.

Reminder: If you're getting this via RSS or Email, check the Blog at http://wethepeoplegovern.blogspot.com for embedded links that may be omitted.

It's been far too long since I've posted. It's not for lack of material, simply a lack of time. Unlike many of my media compatriots, I don't have the luxury of sitting around commenting on life, but actually experience it.

However, a discussion today was too good to pass up. I was talking with a colleague/friend and he brought up a list of the "best Presidents" according to several sources. This morphed into a list (thanks, Cracked.COM) of the "most badass Presidents".

I was amazed because Ronald Regan wasn't on the list. But this got me to thinking about some of the memorable quotations of our esteemed Commanders in Chief. How would they be "spun" by our current administration? To paraphrase the genius comedian Bob Newhart, "I think they would go something like this:"

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." - Ronald W. Regan
"Mr. Gorbachev, I apologise for antagonizing the peaceful people of Soviet Union and for the shameful things America has done to cause you to have to create this wall."

"Ich Bein Ein Berliner." - John F. Kennedy
"Ich Bein Ein African-American who sympathizes with the plight of oppressed people everywhere realizing that every one of them has a right to their views and that all their sentiments are equally valid."

"It is hard to fail, but it is worse never to have tried to succeed. In this life we get nothing save by effort." - Theodore Roosevelt
"It is hard to fail, but it is worse never to have been given a level playing field. In this life, only my administration can insure fairness."

"We believe that all men are created equal because they are created in the image of God." - Harry S. Truman
"I believe that all persons are equal, created or not as you may believe, and that those who have more should be made to be equal with those who have less."

"The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself." - Franklin D. Roosevelt
"The only thing my people have to fear is those who have more than they or don't believe in the policies and positions for which I stand."

"And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your county." - John F. Kennedy
"And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what you can do for your country, ask what my administration can do to ease your pain and suffering and to undo the policies of previous administrations."

"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it." - Abraham Lincoln
"Those who have denied freedom to others, no matter their offenses against this Country, deserve it not for themselves; and, under whatever faith you think is appropriate, can not long retain it unless they are members of my Administration and are doing it to further my policies."

"The buck stops here." - Harry S. Truman
"The buck stops with the previous administration or the big business."

The hubris and contempt for his own country that this President and his administration has and continues to show are nothing if not obvious. All these paraphrasing do is to underscore them and provide food for thought. It is evident that this administration is built on ego, socialism, apologies for its country's greatness, and egregious appeasement that would cause even this party's own predecessors and scions revulsion.

Is this who you want representing you to the world? It's not who I want. So I'm continuing to work for change. What are you doing?

Reminder: If you're getting this via RSS or Email, check the Blog at http://wethepeoplegovern.blogspot.com for embedded links that may be omitted.

The Price of Liberty

"It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived." - Gen. George S. Patton

I was having a discussion the other day with someone who was asking me why we had two holidays for veterans, Memorial Day and Veteran's Day. The latter, I explained, was originally the observation of the end of World War I (the Great War, the War to End War) at "the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month".

I noted that while Memorial Day is a day to honor those who've fallen in service to our country, Veteran's Day is a day to honor any who've served in our armed forces. But it occurs to me that this is wrong.

We live in a nation that is free. We enjoy liberties that no other nation on earth possesses (regardless of what people like Michael Moore would like to portray). And yet those freedoms come at a price. In the words of John P. Curran (often misattributed to Thomas Jefferson), "The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance." People popularily paraphrase this as "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

And while the attributions and direct quotation may not be wholly correct, the idea remains. But the oft-overlooked part of this statement, or at the very least misunderstood, is the word "eternal". Our military stands a watch over us and our freedoms. That watch is constant and eternal. As the misguided Col. Jessup in "A Few Good Men" nevertheless correctly exclaimed, "Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns."

This is a 24 by 7, 365 job. Our forefathers not only said this numerous times, they were prescient enough to acknowledge that what is guarded against is not always from without when they included in the military and civilian governmental oath, "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." They and their successors reaffirmed the necessity of being on guard against threats both military and political:

"God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it." - Daniel Webster

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - George Orwell

"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

The fact is that the securing of liberties of which the Declaration of Independence speaks is a neverending task. And those who are charged with it deserve to be thanked and acknowledged not just one, not just two nor even three days a year but every single moment of every single day. They stand on that wall so that we, the protected, don't have to.

"For those that will fight for it, freedom has a flavor the protected shall never know." - L/Cpl Edwin L."Tim"Craft, B Co 3rd AT's Khe Sahn Combat Base, February 1968

When I see a vet, any vet, I walk up to them and thank them for their service not on our country's behalf, but on my behalf. Their job, their choice, their sacrifices enable me to live and remain free. This means not just our military, but those who serve our government. I may not always agree with them, but I appreciate that and honor their choice of career ever day. I take their role in our nation as seriously as I take my own.

As a citizen of the United States, though I've never formally taken the oath, it is my duty as well to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

This is what I do. What do you do?

Reminder: If you're getting this via RSS or Email, check the Blog at http://wethepeoplegovern.blogspot.com for embedded links that may be omitted.

The Cost of Reality

Oh, God, another "money" posting. Quick, get my No-Doze! I'll try, at least, to keep this a little interesting.

In an unobtrusively placed segment, ABC News has noted that, according to the Treasury Department, the National Debt has now hit $13 Trillion. *Yawn* So? Who cares, it's just government money, they can print more, right? The debt's always getting worse, right? We're no different than any other country, right?

Wrong, Wrong and..... wait for it... RIGHT (and that last one's the scariest). So let's take these one at a time:

"It's just government money, they can print more"

Government money. Is that like that "Obama Cash"? Ladies and gentlemen, this is your money. You gave it to the government on April 15. There is no such thing as "government money". The government does not have some secret stash somewhere that it somehow 'earns' itself. It pays for its services, programs, givebacks, and bailouts with taxes. Period, end of sentence. In the words of John Coleman, "The point to remember is that what the government gives it must first take away."

And yes, it can print more. But our money has no actual value except that which is placed in faith in the government itself. There is no gold or other tangible asset that backs our currency. It is simply the faith that the U.S. Government is "good for it." And the more it prints and less faith other countries have in us, the less each dollar is worth. This, for those born after 1980, is something called "inflation" and it was considered the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

You see, our government -- the administration and the yes-men in Congress -- are "giving away" more and more. They are raising taxes and, even faster than that, increasing spending. They are trying the eminently unsuccessful and discredited Keynesian practice of "spending your way out of recession". In order to do that and not infuriate the citizens even further, they print more and more money. This devalues the money, meaning that have to print even more and it becomes a downward spiral. Analysts have been warning since this current government took office that we are destined for a crash even worse than that of the 70's that will make the current economic crisis look like a mere blip on the radar.


"The debt's always getting worse."

Once again, not so much. Some governments (notably, the Clinton administration) have decreased the National Debt. Now let's think about that. How was that accomplished? Under a Democratic President? Yes. Because it's not the President alone who sets policy. It's Congress. And if you'll look at the graphs supplied by a Clinton apologist, you'll note that it was only after the "Contract with America" which resulted in a conservative anti-tax-and-spend backlash that the National Debt decreased under that administration. At the beginning, it kept increasing. You see, Congress must approve budgets and therefore is complicit in anything that occurs with regards to taxation and spending.


"We're no different than any other county."

That's correct -- and scary. All one has to do is to turn on the news to look at what's happening in Europe. Nations, like ours, that tax and spend continuously, are failing and falling like dominoes. The most recent example, of course, is Greece, but there are rumblings that the underpinnings of other socialist economies are shaking as well. All because their citizens have bought into the idea that their government "owes" them anything beyond "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

But our government's smarter than that, right? Consider Obamacare. It proponents promised that this would be $900 billion and "no more than that." Now, however, the Congressional Budget Office is predicting $1.15 Trillion and some are projecting it to top $2 Trillion.

Who's responsible for this impending fiscal trainwreck? Certainly the current administration shoulders responsibility for laying the track and putting the engine on it. But those who are supposed to be watching out for our best interests and responding to our will, Congress, have put a fire to the boilers and stuck the throttle on "full speed ahead" towards the bridge that's out (ok, I stretched that metaphor as far as I could... or maybe not).

Congress spends, as my father would've said, faster than a drunken sailor. They are blithly partying in the egineroom as we, the nation, rush headlong toward the abyss. They do this because they've lost touch with reality. And they are all to blame, all complicit in the ensuing tragedy. So how do we avoid it? By kicking out the engineer and hiring a new one who will hit the breaks before we plummet off the end of the bridge (ok, I'm done now with the metaphor).

I'm just as committed to sound fiscal policy as I am to compassionate and social liberty. I want the government out of my pocket and out of my moral and personal decisions. And I am committed to replacing my "representatives", who don't represent me, with ones who do.

This is what I'm doing. What are you doing?

Reminder: If you're getting this via RSS or Email, check the Blog at http://wethepeoplegovern.blogspot.com for embedded links that may be omitted.