Archive for December, 2010

From the Heavens

Echoing from the heavens I continue to hear:

“I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people (our 10th Amendment). To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible to any definition.” –Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Madison, and the rest, are not resting easy these days. In fact almost daily I can picture them ranting and raving over the way their sacrifice, their brilliance, their legacy is being trampled upon and ignored.

To say that the judicial, the legislative, and the executive branch of our government has taken liberties with the Constitution is a little like saying sugar is sweet, lemons are sour, and politicians rapidly become full of themselves…it all goes without saying.

Two hundred and twenty-three years ago the Constitution was submitted for ratification. I believe if there was ever a more perfect document in regards to the affairs of man, it’s buried in the sands of time. And my limited study of history has never revealed it. The proof of the pudding, as is so often said, is in the eating, and the proof of the Constitution is in the fact the United States of America, which so long conducted it’s affairs under fairly strict adherence to the document, became the most powerful, most prosperous, most generous, most sought country the world had ever known.

And I worry about my use of “became,” rather than “has become.” Are we still what we became? Will we remain even remotely powerful? Or are we already falling to the wayside because all three branches of our government seem to care little about a strict interpretation of the Constitution, rather declare it, for their own purposes, to be a “living” document. A “living” document is a euphemism for flexible, changeable,…written on jello; rather than a document cast in concrete from those with an infinite knowledge of history, and sealed with the sweat, tears, and blood of our forefathers. Dried blood, never meant to be erased.

Do you actually think the brilliance of those who constructed the Constitution can be ignored as it is by those currently in power? That brilliance is no better illustrated than the gentleman quoted above who wrote not only the greatest statement of man’s basic nature and will, the Declaration of Independence, but contributed such profound notions to the founding of the country as the statement above.

James Madison, another brilliant mind and thought to be the father of the Constitution, said in the Federalist papers:

…because men are not angels, they need government, but government must be contained and controlled for the same reason.

We see far too often that those we send to congress are not angels, in fact many wouldn’t aspire to be as they don’t believe in the concept of a heavenly host. And one adage, one bit of historical wisdom is as sure as the moon pulling the tides: power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Even the most elementary student of history will see that proven time and time again. Even the most elementary student of contemporary politics will see that proven time and time again.

One of the basic precepts of the Declaration of Independence is that we may only be governed with our consent. Somehow I don’t remember being asked much by my congressmen and senators, even though I offer much advice, I wonder, I worry, that they’re paying way too much attention to the power they’ve obtained and not enough attention to those of us out here in the pea patch. I think they’ve mostly forgotten it was power granted…by the people. Maybe the corruption of power makes one hard of hearing? Maybe it makes one not want to hear? The good news is we still have the vote, and even if they become hard of hearing while in office, or their ears become filled with the platitudes of those wanting to buy their votes, we can elect another to take their place, maybe sending someone with a better hearing aid, or a less greedy nature.

Now comes before congress another 1,924 page bill, reminiscent of a recent health bill over 2,000 pages.

Again I’ll look back into our history for some guidance, and to James Madison, who said:

It will be little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined by a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known and less fixed?

I wonder if Madison would think a 2,000 page bill followed closely by a 1,924 page bill “voluminous?” Can it be read…or understood? Particularly when the speaker of the house says “let’s pass it now and we’ll read it later.” Or something equally ignorant and inane.

Jefferson and Madison and the rest of our brilliant forefathers went to war over much less.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=L._J._Martin

From the Kitchen, my buddy, Neil….

From my exceptionally literate friend, Neil:

Politically correct amnesty-pro journalists now argue that describing one’s immigration status as “illegal” is irresponsible in that such a sour reference promotes fear, violence and divisiveness. When describing  an “immigrant” that chose to make entry into our country in violation of our laws, these scribes insist the more sensitive, less offensive,  adjective “undocumented” replace the mean, disparaging, commonly used adjective “illegal”. The term “alien” has for some time now been cast into the politically incorrect waste-pile in favor of the now left-wing approved term “immigrant”. Perhaps these loony-bird liberal journalists will next insist that when a burglar breaks into a home, for example,  it is draconian to describe such an entry as illegal. After all, use of such a harsh, insensitive, adjective could be hurtful to the burglar. Moreover, it could even impinge upon his civil  rights. Perhaps we would all feel better about ourselves if we were more compassionate and politically correct when choosing a proper adjective to describe an entry made in violation of our laws. “Unwelcome” entry strikes me as being touchy-feely when compared  with “illegal” or “unlawful” entry. However,  while softer in tone, the term “unwelcome” may be offensive to burglars,  illegal immigrants, and some journalist loons.

In recognition of the sensitivity associated with the term “illegal”,  I will hence forth refrain from describing wet backs as “illegal” wet backs. I will instead use the term “undocumented” wet backs. However, any compassion I nest towards burglars and loony-bird  liberal journalists shall remain a work in progress.

Kitch

Here’s a way to get the new year started right!

Something to give you thought about the right way to start a new year….

A lesson in Econ 101…

This has been around a long time on the internet, but a friend just sent it to me again, and it makes as much good common sense as it ever did, so I’m posting it:

A lesson in Econ 101

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If, instead of each man paying for the beer he drinks, they would pay 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 would 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 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 paid $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 I got”

“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 back 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, ladies and gentlemen, 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 anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.

Professor of Economics

University of Georgia

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

I’m not alone….

These are a couple of the responses to my post of yesterday, and I think reflect the thoughts of most the hard working folks who’ve helped make this country great:

First response:

JL jr.: well, enough is enough, i am tired of slaving my life away and not being able to bring home enough while other sit on their asses collecting more in handouts than i make in a month. i for one am sick of people being able to eat good and drive new cars all on the sweat of my back while i barely scratch out a survival!

That is the reason people on welfare wont work, welfare pays far more than most jobs. i know of people in perfect health that do not work because the government hand them out more than they can make working. wanna fix that? i say give them no more than minimum wage or a bit less than what a minimum wage paying job would give them each month AFTER taxes of course, then i bet those lazy bums will get off their asses and off the government tit! alot more people around here would sure as hell get out and find work if they did not get so much in government handouts each month!

Second response:

Mr Martin and Mr L You are 100% right. I was in supervision for over 35 years prior to my retirement in the meat industry. We started people out at 50 cents over minimum with the chance of a 25 to 50 cent raise in 2 weeks plus a lot of overtime if they wanted it. They could work up within a year and be grossing$800 per week. We still had close to a 90% turn over of new hires. Most reason given because they could work at fast food joints and collect enough hand outs and they would not have to work hard. It really irked me to see people at the check out buying food better then we felt we could afford and paying with food stamps, T-bone steaks, tv dinners, etc. They should only be able to buy staples on food stamps not eat better then the people helping support them.

Thank You Mr.Martin for the job You do!

Senator John C. Danforth

“I have never seen more senators express discontent with their jobs. … I 
think the major cause is that, deep down in our hearts, we have been 
accomplices to doing something terrible and unforgivable to this wonderful 
country. Deep down in our hearts, we know that we have bankrupted America and 
that we have given our children a legacy of bankruptcy. … We have defrauded 
our country to get ourselves elected.”
– John C. Danforth

US Senator (MO-R)
Source: in an interview in The Arizona Republic on April 22, 1992 
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/John.Danforth.Quote.B25E

The Missing Link in the Evolution of Barack Obama

Sometimes an article or essay comes along that is so powerful, so logical, that it should be spread and repeated and repeated.  The conclusion is just too important for America and our way of life not to do so.  Here, just as I received it, is an article by Selwyn Duke, that I believe to be such a powerful and insightful look at Barack Obama that it must be spread.

This from americanthinker.com:

December 28, 2010

The Missing Link in the Evolution of Barack Obama

By Selwyn Duke

One of the problems with the idea of “American exceptionalism” is that it exacerbates a kind of complacency common to man.  This is the phenomenon whereby people often view themselves as exceptions — saying, after some tragedy, for instance, something such as “I never thought it could happen to me.”

On a national level — and this especially plagues great nations — this manifests itself in the notion that “it” could never happen here.  Oh, the “it” could be descent into tyranny, domination by a foreign power, or dissolution.  Or maybe it could be the election of a leader who is a Manchurian candidate, a traitor within, someone bent on destroying the nation that gave him everything.  That…”it”…couldn’t happen here.  In fact, the idea is so preposterous to many Americans that if such a threat loomed, they would never see it coming.  And they would call a person who warned of it a nut.

So I want to present you with a hypothetical.  Let’s say a leader were elected who had, during his childhood, been mentored by an avowed Nazi.  Let us further say that his guardians had chosen this mentor for him, indicating that they were likely sympathetic to the man’s beliefs.  Now, let us say that upon reaching college, this future leader gravitated toward Nazi professors.  Moreover, we then find out that a man who knew the leader as an undergraduate and was, at the time, a Nazi himself, said that the leader was “in 100-percent total agreement” with his Nazi professors and was a flat-out Nazi who believed in old-style Brownshirt tactics.

Okay, we’re almost done.  After graduating, the leader-to-be spends twenty years sitting in a white-power church, has an alliance with a self-proclaimed Nazi and ex-terrorist, and, apparently, becomes a member of a National Socialist party for a while.  And then, upon being elected, he appoints an avowed Nazi to his administration and also a woman who cites Adolf Hitler as one of her two favorite philosophers.  Now here’s the million-depreciated-dollar question:

What would be nuttier: to claim that this man was a Nazi or to claim that such an assertion is out-of-bounds?

Furthermore, if people appeared unconcerned about the leader’s radical past, what would be the most likely explanation?

A. They’re sympathetic to Nazism.

B. They’re ignorant of his personal history.

C. They’re rationalizing away a frightening reality.

D. Some combination of the above.

Let’s now transition to the actual.  Here is a fact: If you took the above description of my hypothetical leader and replaced “Nazi” with “communist,” “flat-out Nazi” with “flat-out Marxist-Leninist,” “Brownshirt tactics” with “communist revolution,” “white-power” with “black-power,” “National Socialist” with “socialist,” and “Adolf Hitler” “with Mao Tse-tung,” you would have an accurate description of a leader in power today.

His name is Barack Obama.

We’ll start from the top.  Obama’s childhood mentor was chosen by his guardians, his grandparents, and was avowed communist Frank Marshall Davis.  Obama did in fact gravitate toward communist professors in college; moreover, we now know about ex-communist John Drew, a contemporary of Obama’s at Occidental College who verifies that Obama was “in 100-percent total agreement” with his communist professors and was a flat-out “Marxist-Leninist” who believed in old-style communist revolution.

We also know that upon graduating, Obama spent twenty years in a black-power church, Trinity United of Reverend Jeremiah Wright fame, and had an alliance with self-proclaimed communist and ex-terrorist Bill Ayers.  It also appears — and I have yet to see anyone address and disprove this association — that Obama was a member of the socialist New Party in Chicago in the 1990s.  Then, upon being elected, Obama appointed avowed communist Van Jones to his administration and also Anita Dunn, who cited mass-murderer Mao Tse-tung as one of her two favorite philosophers.  There’s more, too, but greater detail is hardly necessary.

It also shouldn’t be necessary to ask the question, but I will:

What is nuttier: to claim that this man is a communist or to claim that such an assertion is out-of-bounds?

What is the obvious conclusion?

Now, some may say that a person can change markedly over a thirty-year period.  This is true.  Yet not only do we have the recent evidence of Obama’s radical communist appointments, but there’s something else as well.  It hit me just the other night.

Just as we would demand that our leaders completely reject Nazi ideas, all good Americans should agree that complete rejection of communist ideas is a moral imperative.  Losing a little youthful zeal or adding a dose of pragmatism just isn’t enough.  A pragmatic communist, in fact, could be more dangerous than an old-guard type.

Yet a transition from flat-out “Marxist-Leninist” to someone who rejects the red menace is a pretty big change, don’t you think?  In fact, wouldn’t such a personal evolution — some might say revolution — be a kind of conversion?  I think so.

Now, many people do experience conversions.  I think here of erstwhile radical-leftist David Horowitz; ex-liberals Michael Savage and Robin of Berkeley; and President George W. Bush, who accepted Christ as an adult.  And then there’s me: I was never a liberal, but I did transition from being a scoffer at religion and an agnostic to a devout Catholic.

There’s an interesting thing, however, about conversions.

You hear about them.

You see, a conversion is a sea change, a rebirth, a turning point in your existence.  You may become, as Christians say, a new creation, and you’re at least a reformed old one.  And you reflect your new state of being and often want to voice it.

And those around you will know about it.

As for this writer, everyone who knows me would say that my religious conversion was a seminal point in my life.  Horowitz has spoken of his rejection of the “loony left,” Bush’s conversion is well known, Savage has talked about his on the radio, and Robin of Berkeley can’t stop talking about hers.  A conversion becomes part of your life narrative.

Now consider something.  Barack Obama is one of the most famous, most discussed individuals on the planet.

But we have not heard about any soul-changing conversion in his life.

Not a whisper.

Nothing.

Nothing that could reconcile the flat-out Marxist-Leninist Obama was in his college days with the man he supposedly is today.  There’s no one who says, “Yeah, he was a radical guy in his youth, and I just couldn’t believe how he became disenchanted with his old ideas.”  There are no stories about a great epiphany, an overseas trip that opened his eyes, or a personal tragedy that inspired growth.  There’s nothing to explain how a radical Marxist became a reasonable politician.  And if there is such an explanation, it’s the most elusive of missing links.

So could “it” happen here?  And is it really nutty to ask if, just maybe, it already has