LEGALIZE MARIJUANA?

tO my knowledge, no one in the Tea Party has advocated a position, pro or con, on the subject of legalization of marijuana.  The fiscal confusion and inconsistencies sucks all of the oxygen out of the room long before this subject comes up.  Perhaps this site may serve as a sounding board for questions and positions. 

There are several approaches to this issue, most of them addressing some moral bent or another.  To be different, we could deal with the totally practical elements. 

First, if marijuana were legalized, the weed could be grown on a healthier (weedwise) venue.  That is, it could be dealt with as an agricultural product and cultivated in a healthier (for them) situation, like on a farm.  There would be fewer strange looking young persons wandering in a forest and perhaps more actual farmers doing the farming.  Allowing our farmers to grow this product would produce a more consistent crop.  I suspect that there might be some benefit to the end user to be treated to a product grown by a real American farmer.

Speaking of farmers, cannabis could provide our country cousins with their first new cash crop since the soy bean.

We would lose a few narcs but we would gain a few thousand employees in the processing and packaging phases of this new product.  Recent crackdowns on cigarette smoking have resulted in a lower level of addiction and thus lower sales of this particular product.  We could balance this out by allowing our tobacco companies to grow, package and market a new product.  While we are looking for ways to increase the employment of U.S. citizens, we should note that it is unlikely that we would ever outsource the work required to get this product from seed to a smoke. 

We would also need to add employees for the quality control function.  The (probably) dimwitted end-users would necessarily need to forego the pleasure of describing their smoke as “Good S---, man“.  This particular vulgarity would lose its appeal if our quality control allowed that everyone’s S--- would be a good as everyone else’s, which I am sure is as the higher power intended our S--- to be.

Securing the farms growing the cannabis could be assigned to a few vicious, non-rabid canines with good lawyers.

The effect on our economy would be a series of wins.  More jobs, more taxes collected at various levels, fewer narcs and other enforcement personnel, empty jail cells, and you can add your own wins to this list.

And, we would have one less item for our new citizens to carry as they run across our border.

Recent reports make it clear that we are losing our battle to control this particular product and spending millions for the pleasure of losing.  A true bureaucracy will rue the fact that we may be missing out on a few thousand SEIU members and their glorious pensions, but this is a sacrifice that we may come to enjoy. 

Some have said that making pot legal will encourage our young people to become addicted to this and harder substances.  But, there is this; most people who acquire pot from a local source will find that this source has an extensive product line and would be happy to provide a one-stop operation.  If that is as true as it appears, then the person who buys his or her pot at a local drug store will be exposed to tooth paste, deodorant, condoms and other beneficial items.  Our tyro pothead will rarely have hard stuffed hawked at the local Walgreen’s.  As to the initial addiction, there is also a theory that young people like to pull your chain and will try anything that you prohibit merely because you do prohiblt.  But, this psycho-babble will lead us nowhere.

It is hard to tell whether we have more illegal border crossers because of our need for Mexican pot, or more Mexican pot because the border-crosser supply line is conveniently already there.  Chicken or the egg – take your choice.  It doesn’t matter.  If we eliminate our need for extra-legal, low-grade pot, we will have one less factor feeding the invasion.  This would be a win.

Will indulgence increase?  Yes and no.  Some will be tempted because it it is now ‘legal’, but others will lose their enthusiasm if they don’t get the feeling that they are living on the wild side.

As for the good v. evil debate, we should try to be logically consistent.

A.      This is a true story.  I recall sitting in a room with a number of politicians who were describing their undying opposition to legalization of this drug.  I saw what they could not.  I saw that each of them was smoking and each had a glass of scotch in his hand.

B.      Before we invest another nickel in drug law enforcement, let us look at what we have accomplished with anti alcohol and anti smoking laws, rules, regulations, etc in the past century.

This memo is not intended to advocate pro or con.  If it appears to be one-sided, this is simply because the ‘antis’ have had the moral high ground and thus control of the public forum.  We do not intend to challenge that high ground.  But we do believe that a logical discussion should have a place at the table.

Military Bases

Since WWII, we have stationed our military forces in so many foreign locations that it is very difficult to list them all.  Unfortunately, we have developed a habit of leaving them there.  Would you care to guess how many bases we have on foreign soil?  Don’t feel bad if your guess is off by a factor of 300 or so. 

The best number I could find is 720.  That’s right.  SEVEN HUNDRED AND TWENTY foreign bases and technically, we are not at war.  720 foreign bases to keep the peace.  Can we really expect foreign nations to believe that we are the peaceful ones when they can’t take a walk in the park without encountering our troops?  If anyone considers for a moment that this is a good idea and is needed to maintain the peace, I would ask the following question – “How is it working out so far?”

It is difficult to believe that the need for 700 foreign bases is worthy of debate, so let’s proceed directly to the remedy.  Begin to close a large number of them.  There are basically two ways to do this.

No. 1

Have the President state that certain bases will be closed within one year.  History tells us that, if the President does this, about eleven months from now he will receive a 400 page report detailing the many reasons that the bases can not be closed.  Remember Gitmo?  As an important part of his program, Obama promised to close Gitmo in one year.  Unfortunately, this President, this Congress and this Military could not figure out how to close ONE base.

No. 2

Have the President tell the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, “I want 100 bases closed in the next six months and ten per month after that until I tell you to stop.  By the way, if you can’t do it, I will fire both of you and replace you with someone who can follow orders.  Do you understand or do you resign right now?”  Now, what are the odds that some bases will get closed? 

If anyone argues that we actually need all of these bases, fire the S.O.B.  What can you possibly accomplish with 700 bases that you could not accomplish with 300 or 400?

If Congress wants to get involved and debate the issue until the next election, a leader may point out the following:

A.      Closing bases should save money. 

B.      Many of our troops will be moved out of harms way

C.      We could save money.

D.     Make our troops available for the “good wars”.  We often read about our troops being sent back to the Middle East for a second, third or fourth tour.  Meanwhile, other troops are sitting on an island in the South Pacific or in South Korea. 

E.      We could save money.

F.       If our troops are good enough to guard South Korea against the fearsome loons of North Korea, maybe they can do us some real good by guarding our southern border.  All we have to do is decide which place is more important to us, South Korea or Arizona?

G.     Did I mention, we could save money?

Perhaps, when we stop posing as the world’s police force, people will stop viewing us as their  police force.  Perhaps they will fight their little wars quietly and we can get back to watching important stuff on TV like news about how Charly Sheen is doing in rehab.

Seriously, it may be time for us to consider whether our presence has started more wars than it prevented.  George Bush Senior tried to teach us the right way to fight a war.  Properly planned and properly fought, his war lasted about 100 hours and we suffered fewer casualties than the Chicago Bears did the last time they played Green Bay. 

There was a time when we understood that being at war was a diversion and not a career.

We have reached the point where closing bases is as much a state of mind as it is a chore.  President Franklin Roosevelt, as enamored as he was with his position, never deluded himself to believing that he knew more than anybody about everything.  He knew that WWII was much too important to be left to an amateur like himself so he placed full confidence General George C. Marshall and, even sitting in his wheelchair, Roosevelt was a big enough man to admit that he slept much better knowing the Marshall was in Washington with him.

Many historians are surprised and disappointed when they are forced to admit that military men elected to the White House consistently perform above expectations while non-military types are consistent disappointments.  It has been (and is being) suggested that this anomaly may be credited to the fact that a true military person MUST MAKE DECISIONS and live with the consequences, while true politicians MUST MAKE PROMISES and move on before the bill comes due.  This leads to the ever-popular, ‘blame Mike Brown’ school of political management.  The world will little note nor long remember who was mayor of New Orleans or governor of Louisiana when Katrina hit their woefully unprepared Big Easy, but everyone remembers the scapegoat.  Point noted.

Back to our military base situation: Over 700 foreign bases.  This is a silly problem for a nation that is beyond being broke, sailing past insolvency and fast approaching bankruptcy.  It is time for someone to step up and make a decision.  Blaming the previous administrations for all of our problems may actually have some truth to it.  But, the people who sat in Congress and watched it happen should remember that, someday, they will be ‘the previous administration’ and will be expected to bear some responsibility. Base closing would seem to be something that many people would want to be blamed for.  Even Harry Truman knew when a plug needed to be pulled, and he pulled it.  Bless him, not necessarily for pulling that particular plug, but for being a stand-up guy.

Now, let’s close some bases.

Charity Nexus

WHY DOES GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTE TO CHARITIES?

OR, NEXUS RIDES AGAIN

It is a mistake, in many ways, for the U.S. government to contribute taxpayer money to some charity of their Congressmen’s choice.  Permit me to list a few ways in which this is problematic.

1.      The obvious one is that we are broke.  We have been borrowing money to donate.  While it is admirable to be so generous that we would borrow money to give it away, we should recognize that this is as irrational as it sounds. 

2.      How much and to whom is left to the discretion of several individuals who have no skin in the game.  It’s not their money which is being given away and it is not your favorite charity that is receiving it.  Does this make any sense to you?

3.      If you are not involved in the donation, you may actually have ‘your money’ be giving to someone who has totally different values. 

I could go on.  You could probably come up with a better list of donees than our bureaucrats do. 

If you think about the issue rationally, you will quickly see that all charity from our government to foreign nations, disaster victims and ongoing charities should be voluntary.  If someone believes that his or her gifts to charity should be made by a stranger, he or she doesn’t understand the meaning of the word charity.  It is no secret that our congressmen like to play Santa Claus with our money.  I hate to say this, but they can screw up a charitable donation.  To allow them to demonstrate this talent is a needless provocation.

Before we let them prove their versatility, let’s review a few (obvious) basics.  First, we have known for many years that Americans are the most charitable people in the world.  Did you see any Arab oilmen or Chinese capitalists in New Orleans when we needed help rebuilding?  We have always been at the center of most recovery efforts in any disaster in the universe.  So, we have nothing to prove.  We will continue to be charitable.  We just do not want some congressman screwing it up.  So, we do not need them to be involved and we do not want them to be involved and Congress’ involvement in our charity is damn sure not in any Constitution I ever read.

Of course, the best reason to include congress out is our favorite one word economics lesson---NEXUS.  If our charity is going to work, we must maintain the nexus.  The nexus in this case is the connection between the donor and the charity (representing the donee) and, it necessarily works both ways.  By this we mean that;

a.      We will have charitable giving in the spirit that we should demonstrate, which is a spirit of sharing the rewards of our labor with those who are not so fortunate, and

b.      The charities that we select will use or distribute our gifts in our stead and with the spirit of sharing and giving that we intended to convey.

c.       Also, the charities would be encouraged to report good deeds and good management in order to induce you to continue your support. 

d.      Obviously, the requirement to report good deeds and good management will encourage our charities to actually accomplish good deeds and good management. 

This nexus is only established when the charitable agencies are free to give as their lights dictate and such spirit is conveyed to the beneficiaries and to the donors.  The donees should understand that the donor is truly concerned with the donees plight and is sharing out of love for his fellow man and not out of some statutory obligation.  This feeling could be contagious and could lead to a more closely bound community.  Need we make a case for virtue? 

The donee just might feel a desire to do something, anything that will show appreciation.  I am reminded of the O. Henry story where two people with little but the spirit, each determined to give something to the other party.  Each gift represented a sacrifice that the other party could not have anticipated.  Gift of the Magi.  Read it and you will understand what giving is all about.  You should also understand that a committee of bureaucrats should never be allowed to interfere with this process.

If our Congressmen decide to kick in some of their own money, God bless them.  This still shouldn’t give them the right to sign their name to the check that we will be asked to pay.

We would prefer to limit this note to the positive side of true giving, but that would not be fair to anyone who has read this far.  The truth of the matter is that as long as congress controls large portions of our charitable giving, there will be a dirty underside.  The charities that congress chooses must now report only to congress.  In reality, this means that a charity receiving money from congress need not make an honest disclosure of the use of the money and this means that all a charity need do to receive money from our Congress is lie, cheat and steal.  It took me three minutes to find these two entries on the internet.

a.      “Candidate accused of profiting from charity:

b.      “Ex-Baltimore charity director charged with wire fraud.”

In each case, an official of the alleged charity had siphoned a six-figure amount of money from the U.S. treasury into their pockets.  I did not have the stomach to continue.  Feel free to check it out for yourself.  I am not saying that our politicians would steal from the collection plate on Sunday, but I will say, “Why give them the opportunity.”

Please, Congress, let us keep our private charities private.  If my charity steals from me, I will make the choice to go elsewhere or blindly continue.  Either way, it is my free choice.  Can charity work any other way?

By the way, many states have, included in their tax returns, a form making it possible for taxpayers to bundle their contributions with other like-minded citizens. 

A brief outline of a working procedure is:

1.      A charity applies to the IRS to be included on our Xmas list.  A citizen’s committee of notable donors reviews the list and reduces it to 20-30 worthy names.

2.      These names are listed on an IRS form, to be included in your tax return.

3.      When you file your return, you search the list of charities and enter the amount of money that you wish to donate next to their name.  This amount is added to the tax that you owe or deducted from the amount that you expect to have returned to you.

The entries are added by the IRS program and a report is issued listing the amount to be paid to each charity. 

This procedure is already in effect in several states.  See the Illinois State Income Tax return forms. 

If you don’t file a return, you may still get a copy of the list and make your donation directly. 

This procedure would have several side benefits, eg.

1.      The charities will no longer need to have an office in Washington where their lobbyist hangs out when he or she is sweet talking a Congressman into increasing the ‘donation’.

2.      The charities will no longer need to have the expense of banquets and golf outings where they ‘honor’ the Congressmen who are thanked for ‘their’ support.

I won’t say that what Congress is doing amounts to corruption.  It is more like pollution of the very concept of charitable giving.  And, the solution is so simple.  Why not do it?

Axis of Evil - The Civil Rights Industry

As we have noted, the Civil Rights Industry would prefer to be addressed as the Civil Rights Movement.  When reminded that their only movement in the most recent fifty years has been backwards, they have agreed to accept the title of Civil Rights Industry.

You may recall the time when American negroes had shorter life expectancies, less education, higher unemployment, more health problems, more members on welfare, significantly higher probability of going to jail for a major crime conviction, higher incidence of alcoholism and drug addiction and   Oh, wait a minute.  That was last week!

How is it that we have allowed this situation to obtain and to result, as it must, in a form of second hand citizenship.  I mean, slavery ended 150 years ago.  Schools were integrated 60 years ago.  The Civil Rights Bill, intended to cure all of our interracial woes, was enacted 50 years ago.  Great Society was foisted on us 50 years ago. 

During the most recent 50 years, we have opened our doors to racial group after racial group and allowed them to participate in our grand experiment.  People of a variety of colors, nationalities, religions and traditions have flocked to our shores and been accepted.  All of them have succeeded in one degree or another in obtaining educations, professions, jobs and careers that provide them with comfortable homes for themselves and their families. 

And then we have the American Blacks.  Unfortunately, they have been saddled with an incredible group of parasites known as Community Organizers.  The function of a community organizer in a black community is to show their black victims how to get something/anything without working for it.  The concept of effort and reward that has served the other members of society so well has been deliberately withheld from blacks.  Once they have been taught how to get something/anything for no work, guess what?  (please note, many of the comments noted herein are phrased for effect.  We know that they don’t apply to every black – But they do apply to such a high degree that they taint the entire race.)

The very essence of civilization is to make the most of your environment, primarily for the benefit and continuation of your family.  One of the obvious reasons that this does not work for blacks is that the civil rights industry has basically destroyed the black family.  We all know about the illegitimacy problem in the black population.  Did you ever wonder how this came to be?  That is, have you ever questioned why 70% of black babies are born to unwed mothers?  The euphemism of choice is ‘born into a one parent family’.  This situation has never before existed in the civilized world.  Whether you believe the Bible (Creationists) or the scientists (Evolutionists), it makes no difference.  Wherever we came from, we have always believed in the family.  The family has been the foremost building block in the story of civilization.  From family, to clan, to tribe, to nation. 

If you care, if you have any curiosity how and why this phenomenon occurred, you must first look at the time frame in which it occurred.  That is, when did black fathers stop marrying the mothers of their children and stop supporting those children?  If you did look, you would find that this occurred immediately as the Great Society was foisted upon us.  Don’t believe it? Look it up.  Since the early 1970s, we have seen sharp increases in illegitimacy among white and black Americans.  Fortunately for the whites, they leveled off at about 20%.  Unfortunately for the blacks, they continued to produce until they reached the 70%+ figure that we have seen so often. 

As an informative aside, illegitimacy among Asians has stayed in low single digits.  Not surprisingly, Asians have been consistent over-achievers academically and in employment.  This should satisfy most doubters who would prefer to blame whitey for all of the black mans’ problems.

We suggest that every ill that is experienced by black Americans is a result of politico-socio-onanism.  Very simply, they are doing it to themselves.  One last Beatitude – Blessed are those who saddle their fellow blacks with all of the indicia of failure, for they shall be called Community Organizers.

If this is as obvious as I describe it, why do the ‘leaders’ of the black community avoid even the mention of it?  There is no question that they are aware of the cause and effect of the collapse of the black family.  You may recall that during the recent campaign, someone noticed that candidate Obama had made or was going to make some reference to the issue of illegitimacy and the consequent breakdown of the black family.  Jesse Jackson was babbling near an open microphone and was recorded promising to, “cut his (Obama’s) nuts off” if he dared air their ‘dirty linen’.  Jackson obviously understands that the collapse of the black family is a self-inflicted tragedy.  To discuss it openly could lead to a revolt by the patsys who believe that we do not do enough for the poor blacks.

Poor blacks understand that white guilt is their friend.  Some recognize that they have two ways to go:

A.      They can admit that they are responsible for their own problems and vow to do whatever it takes to become more like their oriental neighbors (they would need to support their children, insist on better schools to educate their children and make a sincere effort to avoid welfare.

B.      Or, they can continue their indolent ways and lead us all into bankruptcy.

Enter the Civil Rights Industry.  Is there anyone among us who believes that Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton or any member of the Congressional Black Caucus has the backbone to stand up and tell the truth to American blacks?  Better question might be, “Is there anyone among us who believes that it is possible to bring black Americans into mainstream American life?”

To be continued.

QUESTION OF THE DAY

Two years ago, we elected a new PRESIDENT.   Last year, this young man wrote the huge Health Care Bill all by himself. Congress rubber-stamped it, of course.
This year the President has started to decide which laws are constitutional and which one are not .('President announces that the Defene of Marriage act will not be enforced because he has decided that it is unconstitutional'.)

Wow!  Now we don't need Congress and we don't need the Supreme Court.  We have a 'one man does all' form of government.  Aren't we lucky.

Now, the question for you is, What should we call a government where one man makes all the rules, decides which ones are proper, and enforces them at his convenience?

Axis of Evil - GIMME, GIMME, GIMME, Wisconsin Style

In their effort to bring down (or bankrupt) our government, the Wisconsin public employees rushed to prove that they are not useless; they can always serve as a bad example.

Your TV has allowed you to witness the witless, live and in color:

First, the school teachers decided to withhold their services by simply not going to work.  BUT, they agreed, or were ordered by their union, to call in ‘sick’.  This ploy has the illogical proviso that they will continue to be paid their full salary (your tax money) as they refuse to work to earn it.

Calling in ‘sick’ was a LIE and they knew it was a lie.  But, they did it to insure that they would be paid in a timely manner for refusing to work.  The Wisconsin law, as in most states, provides that taking money from your employer by deception (lying) is a CRIME.  So, let me see if I got this right: The Wisconsin teachers are demonstrating for our children (their students) that the proper way to get ahead in this political world is to lie and cheat, if not outright steal.  Hard work and sacrifice is for suckers.  Fairness is for suckers.  Consider this; the main issue behind this temper tantrum is the Governor’s suggestion that teachers and other public employees contribute to the cost of their own health care and pensions.  The teachers are refusing which simply means that they are insisting that someone else pay the cost of their pensions and health care for them.  A feeble effort by them to make a temporary agreement to pay part of their expense is a ploy to tide them over to the next election.  If they return the prostitutes to a majority in the State senate, They will insist on going back to their Gimme, Gimme, Gimme ways

Now, let me see what is happening here.  Are they working for us or are we working for them?  If they are working for us, what the hell are they doing in Madison?  There is a time and a place, under our democratic system, for employees and other citizens to make their views known to the government.  We have been through that phase.  You know, the first half of a democracy is to allow the citizens to elect their representatives.  Wisconsin has done that.  The second half of a democracy happens when individual citizens accept the will of the majority of those who voted and you accept it by obeying the laws enacted by the peoples’ representatives.  The public employees’ unions refuse to obey any laws that they don’t like. 

To disagree with the law is very normal.  We all disagree with some of the laws that our representatives enact.  To defy and/or refuse to obey the law is unacceptable conduct and must be resisted by everyone who understands and appreciates democracy.  If I choose not to obey then you have the same right to choose not to obey.  The obvious result of this action is anarchy and an end to democracy.  Melodramatic?  Sure!  If you think that some are overreacting, what do you suggest?  Should we wait until the protestors take to the streets and call for an end to the government?   Some of the signs displayed in Madison referred to the uprising in Egypt.  I don’t think they really want to go there.  In Egypt, street mobs, right or wrong, were hell bent on destroying their government.  Should they really be our role models?  Are we ready to take that step?  Down with the entire government?  You choose.

If you choose Yes, then go join the public employees unions and shut down the legislature.  If you are not ready for that step, then recognize what these unions are doing.  They are willing to shut down the government and resort to mob rule.  Hard to say that and hard to listen to it.  But, it happens to be accurate.  This is the ultimate sensate phase of the collapse of our way of life.  As Dante said, “Abandon hope, all ye who enter here.”  Do we really want to go there?  I understand that no one likes to hear this.  I do not like to say it.  I wish I could report that the public employees unions were stand up guys and would look you in the eye and say, “We are all in this together.  How can I help.”  Instead we hear, Gimme, Gimme, Gimme! 

If you have a spoiled child who was throwing a temper tantrum, you could do one of two things.  First, of course, you would review your ruling that precipitated tantrum.  If you are convinced that you made the right ruling, then it is decision time.  If you believe that you are right, then you must stand by your decision and require that the child conform his conduct to this and other societal norms.  Or, you can “kick the problem down the road” and simply let the child have his way hoping that you are not around for the next tantrum.  Be assured, if you yield to a tantrum, there will be another one and another until you reach the end of the road.  No more kicking.  Trillion dollar deficits – we are decision point.

As any intelligent, responsible parent knows, the best and the easiest way to deal with tantrums is to squelch them as early as possible.  The Wisconsin public employees unions have placed themselves outside of, or above, the law.  Does this make them evil?  Only if you let them get away with it when they are so clearly wrong.  We are back to that nasty little area that all of us cowards prefer to avoid.  That is, dealing with the issue of right and wrong.  By dealing with it we mean honestly deciding what is right and doing it at all costs.

It is ironic that this particular challenge to your moral convictions comes on the week-end of George Washington’s birthday.  We tend to forget the ‘small’ things the George did.  He led us through the eight year war and he personally willed us to victory.  Then, he provided his firm hand to the management of the Constitutional Convention.  When he finally went home, he promised himself that he would sit out the next problem, but when he was asked to be our first president, he said could not refuse.  Another eight years of service.  Incredible.  We are now being called upon to quietly stand up for the democratic process for which Washington gave twenty years of his life.  Please think of him when you decide whether or not you can sit idly by as street demonstrators tear another brick out of the wall between us and the unknown dark side.

So, do the selfish acts of a few cheeseheads qualify them for such a prominent spot in our Axis of Evil?  Maybe not.  But, they wandered in at the wrong time, with the wrong issue and they took the wrong approach to satiating their selfish compulsions.  I may be repeating myself, but let’s not lose sight of the issue that brought us to this point.  Some public employees were asked to contribute some of their own money to pay some of their own expenses.  They not only refused, insisting that you and I pay their bills for them (after paying them a pretty good salary), but they now are throwing a tantrum and are willing to deprive you of your functioning government if they don’t get their way.  This is so far beyond what we have a right to expect from people who have fed at the public teat for so long that they have surely forfeit any right to demand sympathy and thereby qualify for full membership in our ever-growing Axis of Evil.

Our Very Own Axis Of Evil

Early in his presidency, G.W.Bush referred to Iraq, Iran and North Korea as the Axis of Evil.  I suspect that they enjoyed the free advertising, even though they really don’t qualify.  To be a true AXIS of they should have a linear relationship and a common purpose.  These three do, or did, qualify as the gaggle of annoyance but that’s the best I will give them.

To see a true Axis of Evil, vis a vis the U.S of A., I suggest that we look at these three:

1.      The ACLU

2.      The Civil Rights Industry, and

3.      Public Employee Unions.

These three have not taken a pro-American breath in my recent memory, and I am part elephant.

I will give a brief over view of the three, in alphabetic order, and will elaborate on each one in separate blogs.

ACLU

Originally organized as a cell within the Communist Party of United States of America (CPUSA) these characters were given their marching orders early on.  The guiding lights of Communism predicted that the U.S. of A. would collapse from an excess of our own virtues.  The ACLU has attempted to make this prediction come true.  What are some of our virtues?  Our love of our religion?  Strong family ties?  Free Capitalist economy? Respect for the Law? Respect for Tradition?  Examine a list of the ACLU pet projects and you will find a sustained attack by the ACLU on each one.

The Civil Rights Industry

I suspect that they would rather be referred to as the Civil Rights Movement, but if you look at their ‘movement’ of the past 50 -60 years, it has been in reverse.  They are successful at raising money for themselves, but the progress by Black Americans in such areas as health, education, employment and crime has consistently been in a backward direction.  Visit Detroit, Camden, N.J., the South Side of Chicago, etc.  Let us know if you find one city that, after 60 years of Civil Rights activity, is the least bit better than it was in the 1960’s when even the Blacks wanted to burn them down.

Public Employee Unions

Do you really need an explanation of their Evil?  Several states are on the edge of an abyss known as bankruptcy.  The Unions believe that, when the states file for bankruptcy, which they must shortly do, the U.S. federal government will bail them out.  Just print some more money and mail it to the union members.  There are several states and many hard working Americans who will not let that happen. 

Recently, when the 2010 census was reviewed, the government was forced to recognize that many people are leaving union-dominated states and moving to Right to Work states.  They printed a map showing the states that gained population and the states that lost population.  All of the bankrupt, union states lost population.  This is called a referendum where the voters vote with their feet.  But, what struck me and many others, was how much the East half of the U.S. resembled the maps showing the Union States and the Confederate States in 1860.  Now, the tables are turned.  The ‘Confederate States’ are the wealthy, industrialized area while the Union States are all broke and being set upon by ravenous unions.

In the next several days, we will attempt to flesh out the ‘irresponsible’ statements appearing above and request that you spend a few minutes thinking on it.

Next (planned) – The ACLU

NEXUS, The Most Important Word In Economics

Nexus, from the Latin nectere, to bind. Came into the English as annex or connect (to join with or link to).

In economics, we used the principle, if not the word, when we developed the system of Capitalism.  Capitalism borrowed heavily from the human instinct to compete.  Amerinds developed a form of basketball; Orientals developed board games.  We all love to compete.  Capitalism links effort and reward.  In its application, effort is rewarded and extra effort receives extra reward.

The other guys (Communists, Socialists) have a different theory.  Where Capitalism likes to manage and grow businesses that harness and discipline Effort & Reward,  Leftists have a need to CONTROL PEOPLE.  You may have noticed that our Executive builds fines and penalties into their new programs.  Talk about control, the White House is developing a system of feeding our young; taxing and penalizing those who buy the wrong food.  They are even developing a program to tell you how and when to breast feed!  Isn’t this an area where we should say, “Hands off!”

The problem of the day which should cause us to focus on the theory of effort and reward is shaping up in Wisconsin.  What is billed as a labor dispute between Management (the State government) and Labor (public employee unions) is in effect the beginning of the death struggle between Capitalism and Communism.

Having given up on winning by revolution, the left has, for some time been building an army capable of taking control in a relatively peaceable manner.  The plan goes something like this:

1.      Create a permanent underclass where government handouts eliminate any need to rely on effort and reward.  Cradle to grave welfare programs have created cradle to grave indolence.  We are now in the 3^rd or 4^th generation of Great Society beneficiaries who have no memory or conception of working for a salary.  A nice, reliable voting block.

2.      Next, they hire more people to oversee the welfare programs that keep beneficiaries “on the plantation”.  We now need more and more bureaucrats at all levels who create no product but who do control the underclass.

3.      Continue to develop more and larger government programs, with unionized employees to recruit more and more beneficiaries.  Of course, all of the beneficiaries and all of the bureaucrats have a vested interest in the re-election of the leftists who created their own little Animal Farm.

As you can see, the left will attain critical mass which simply means the point at which the underclass and the bureaucrats who manage them plus many well-meaning sympathizers will become a majority voting bloc in our Democracy and they can then take control of the government in an honest election.

The Wisconsin State government is fighting an early, but truly important, skirmish for us.  They deserve the support of all who value Democracy.

American Exceptionalism

American Exceptionalism (AE) is a shorthand term used to describe our impressive record of success in the past 220+ years.  AE does not really exist.  Our past success has been the result of our willingness to rise to any challenge, until now.  It would behoove us to try to understand the various elements that fed our success so that we may have a chance to continue along the same path.  This plank is intended to provoke a discussion along those lines.

Several people have described one or another facet of human development (evolution, if you prefer).  Some examples;

A.      Challenge and Response – British historian, Sir Arnold Toynbee’s opus on the history of the many civilizations that have come and gone showed that the prior civilizations that have graced this planet grew and improved insofar as they responded successfully to various challenges.  As each of his civilizations reached a challenge to which they were incapable of responding, that civilization collapsed, faded away, and was cast into the dustbin of history only to be followed by another aspirant.

B.      Another version of Challenge and Response is the Survival of the Fittest.  This study appears to concentrate on the physical aspects of the evolution of one species or another and does not help us here as it reflects forced choices intra-species and not species v. species development competition.

C.      Economic systems – Humans have developed a variety of economic systems and has seen them compete for primacy.  The system chosen by our American forebears was and is Capitalism.  Effort results either in success or failure.  Success is rewarded and failure is, or should be, punished by exile (the dust bin).  We have heard the phrase or chant, “From each according to his ability and to each according to his need”.  This sounds good as long as you promise not to think about it.  As noted elsewhere, this system works in ant hills and bee hives.  It does not work with humans. 

A cynic might say that it is designed not to actually succeed, but rather to get a foot in the door.  After they are inside, the regulation begins.

Immigration (the old fashioned way) feeds into this and will appear later.

As can be seen, the antithesis of each of each of the above elements of success (Exceptionalism) is the far left celebration of mediocrity.  They don’t advertise it as such.  If you were told to celebrate failure, you might hesitate.  But, if you are told to celebrate non-success, as in celebrating diversity, you may just buy in.  What’s wrong with celebrating someone who wants to be celebrated?  The unspoken part of this seductive line is, any time, effort or other resource that you devote to celebrating something like diversity instead of something like success or personal achievement is time and talent taken away from supporting some manner of success that might benefit your civilization.  Which would you rather celebrate, the kid in your neighborhood who is trying to achieve success in school, athletics, etc., or a kid in your neighborhood who is ‘different’?  It would be nice if we could do both.  In the real world, you often must or should make a choice. 

Celebrating success runs like this;

a.      Approve of or pay the one who does something better or faster.

b.      People who want approval and pay will often work, study and train harder than the next person.

c.       Even if they do not win any prizes, those who train, work and study harder are better off because of it.

d.      The families, communities and employers of those who work, study or train harder are better off because of the effort.

e.      The result of all of the above is sometimes referred to American Exceptionalism. 

We are now faced with a well orchestrated effort designed to divert your attention from the efforts listed above to a celebration of unabashed mediocrity.  Will some of our diverse citizens also try to do something beneficial to the community?  Of course.  But why go through the diversity route and not reward efforts to succeed directly?

Our current age has been referred to as the "Gimme, Gimme, Gimme Generation".  Gimme simply means, “give me something for doing nothing”. 

It is hoped that we do not need to go into a long-winded explanation as to why "Gimme" works and where it leads.  Someone who needs an explanation probably would not understand it.  What we would like to do is open the eyes of those on the cusp and attempt to lure them back from the Dark Side of contented mediocrity back into the fast lane of American Exceptionalism. 

It has been said that many people miss golden opportunities because the best opportunities come described as hard work.  American Exceptionalism is just a bundle of challenges.  Are you up to a challenge?

5 Minute Course On Economics

a.      Capitalism = Democracy

b.      Communism (or its little brother, Socialism) = Totalitarian Gov’t

Anyone who has been conscious for any extended period during the most recent 50 years will recall that every left wing government followed the same game plan.

Step 1.  Change the name of your country to contain a collection of words including some or all of the following; People’s, Democratic, Socialist or Republic.  It didn’t take long for you clever readers to realize that any nation calling itself the People’s Democratic Socialist Republic was, in fact, none of the above, but rather a poorly disguised totalitarian (strong central) government.

Step 2.  Take control of the electoral process.  This could be done by killing off the opposition, control the voting process or simply by lowering control of the voting process and/or stationing loyal thugs at the polling places to make it clear that disloyalty to the Great Leader was frowned upon and potentially painful.

Why control the voting process?  Simple.  Rational people can not be counted on to vote against their interests forever.  And, most rational people understand that, while Socialism works beautifully in ant hills and bee hives, its record among the rational has been spotty.

As Oliver W. Holmes liked to say, “A page of history is worth a volume of logic.”  In this case, a paragraph of history will suffice.

Fortunately for us, our socialist friends made a big miscalculation after WWII.  They took control of Eastern Europe and gave us the Iron Curtain.  All socialists on one side and all capitalists on the other side.  Why was that a miscalculation?  Well, have you or anyone you know, ever purchased a car made in Eastern Europe?  Many of us look forward to the day we can afford a Jaguar or a Mercedes.  I don’t remember ever seeing a Yugo.  There is a similar wall between the two Koreas.  Have you ever purchased or seen an electronic appliance made in North Korea?  The idea of competition between socialists and capitalists is laughable.  The socialist prove to us every day that the only way they can win in any market place is control. 

That brings us back to our current central government.  It was recently reported that our feds were producing REGULATIONS at the rate of 375 pages per day.  Why do you suppose they do this?  The first reason that presents itself is this:

When a government produces 375 pages of regulations every day, you may safely assume that they are not in the business of governing; they are in the business of regulating.

Governing carries with it responsibility.  Regulating carries power.  Capitalists want to manage businesses.  Socialists want to control people, hence regulations.  And, if I can produce regulations faster than you can figure out what they mean, I win.  The theory is, the regs do not need to make sense.  The only thing that you need to know about their regs is that they are the regulators and you are the regulatees.  Get it?

And, what do the regulators regulate?  Everything and anything that you allow them to regulate.  One recent President described government regulations as harmful to our economy and insulting to our intelligence.  He had a passion for eliminating regulations.  Today, we appear to have a different mindset in the Executive branch.

You may have noticed that a pesky little word has necessarily crept into our discussion.  The word is ‘allow’.   At some point, you must allow them to apply their regulatory tether.  And, you must open your wallet, figuratively and literally.  Please understand, opening your wallet in front of a socialist regulator is like opening a vein in front of a vampire.  Contraindicated.

As bridge to the operative portion of this blog, allow me to introduce a new character. In literature, this character might be called the contagonist.  Simply here to advance the plot for good or ill, our contagonist is better known as the media.  In the past, the news media would merely serve as the conduit delivering news of the government to the governed.  They would satisfy their desire to be heard on the issues of the day merely by their choice of adjectives assigned to the various actors.  The Modern Media found this neutral role to be boring so they have padded their role and we now find them in the middle of the action, passing judgment or pushing their favorite back into the ring.  A recent example of the contagonist was the media reporting on the discussions of certain candidates trying to limit or end Earmarks.  One media contagonist noted dismissively that, “Even if you banned ALL earmarks, you would only save $10,000,000,000.00.”  Surely some readers silently wondered when ten billion dollars became eligible for the adjective, ‘only’.  Also, we are encouraged to note that, ‘Earmark spending is not criminal when a Congressman does it’.  Why does that sound familiar?

The purpose of this rambling narration is not to ramble for rambling’s sake, but rather to make several points in an objective manner.  Some believe that this is the appropriate way to present a platform.  One should avoid being a shill for one candidate or another when presenting an idea.  If you want to find out what this blog is promoting, you may have to read it.

NEXT:   AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM