IvaBlogger

Ruling Class vs. Country Class

2010-08-21T09:47:00.000-07:00

I haven't read an article so insightful in a very long time. Sit back with a cup of coffee or beverage and make the time to digest the information presented in this article. Are you a part of the Country Class?

The American Spectator
America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution
By Angelo M. Codevilla from the July 2010 - August 2010 issue

As over-leveraged investment houses began to fail in September 2008, the leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties, of major corporations, and opinion leaders stretching from the National Review magazine (and the Wall Street Journal) on the right to the Nation magazine on the left, agreed that spending some $700 billion to buy the investors' "toxic assets" was the only alternative to the U.S. economy's "systemic collapse." In this, President George W. Bush and his would-be Republican successor John McCain agreed with the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. Many, if not most, people around them also agreed upon the eventual commitment of some 10 trillion nonexistent dollars in ways unprecedented in America. They explained neither the difference between the assets' nominal and real values, nor precisely why letting the market find the latter would collapse America. The public objected immediately, by margins of three or four to one.

When this majority discovered that virtually no one in a position of power in either party or with a national voice would take their objections seriously, that decisions about their money were being made in bipartisan backroom deals with interested parties, and that the laws on these matters were being voted by people who had not read them, the term "political class" came into use. Then, after those in power changed their plans from buying toxic assets to buying up equity in banks and major industries but refused to explain why, when they reasserted their right to decide ad hoc on these and so many other matters, supposing them to be beyond the general public's understanding, the American people started referring to those in and around government as the "ruling class." And in fact Republican and Democratic office holders and their retinues show a similar presumption to dominate and fewer differences in tastes, habits, opinions, and sources of income among one another than between both and the rest of the country. They think, look, and act as a class.

Although after the election of 2008 most Republican office holders argued against the Troubled Asset Relief Program, against the subsequent bailouts of the auto industry, against the several "stimulus" bills and further summary expansions of government power to benefit clients of government at the expense of ordinary citizens, the American people had every reason to believe that many Republican politicians were doing so simply by the logic of partisan opposition. After all, Republicans had been happy enough to approve of similar things under Republican administrations. Differences between Bushes, Clintons, and Obamas are of degree, not kind. Moreover, 2009-10 establishment Republicans sought only to modify the government's agenda while showing eagerness to join the Democrats in new grand schemes, if only they were allowed to. Sen. Orrin Hatch continued dreaming of being Ted Kennedy, while Lindsey Graham set aside what is true or false about "global warming" for the sake of getting on the right side of history. No prominent Republican challenged the ruling class's continued claim of superior insight, nor its denigration of the American people as irritable children who must learn their place. The Republican Party did not disparage the ruling class, because most of its officials are or would like to be part of it.

Never has there been so little diversity within America's upper crust. Always, in America as elsewhere, some people have been wealthier and more powerful than others. But until our own time America's upper crust was a mixture of people who had gained prominence in a variety of ways, who drew their money and status from different sources and were not predictably of one mind on any given matter. The Boston Brahmins, the New York financiers, the land barons of California, Texas, and Florida, the industrialists of Pittsburgh, the Southern aristocracy, and the hardscrabble politicians who made it big in Chicago or Memphis had little contact with one another. Few had much contact with government, and "bureaucrat" was a dirty word for all. So was "social engineering." Nor had the schools and universities that formed yesterday's upper crust imposed a single orthodoxy about the origins of man, about American history, and about how America should be governed. All that has changed.

Today's ruling class, from Boston to San Diego, was formed by an educational system that exposed them to the same ideas and gave them remarkably uniform guidance, as well as tastes and habits. These amount to a social canon of judgments about good and evil, complete with secular sacred history, sins (against minorities and the environment), and saints. Using the right words and avoiding the wrong ones when referring to such matters -- speaking the "in" language -- serves as a badge of identity. Regardless of what business or profession they are in, their road up included government channels and government money because, as government has grown, its boundary with the rest of American life has become indistinct. Many began their careers in government and leveraged their way into the private sector. Some, e.g., Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, never held a non-government job. Hence whether formally in government, out of it, or halfway, America's ruling class speaks the language and has the tastes, habits, and tools of bureaucrats. It rules uneasily over the majority of Americans not oriented to government.

The two classes have less in common culturally, dislike each other more, and embody ways of life more different from one another than did the 19th century's Northerners and Southerners -- nearly all of whom, as Lincoln reminded them, "prayed to the same God." By contrast, while most Americans pray to the God "who created and doth sustain us," our ruling class prays to itself as "saviors of the planet" and improvers of humanity. Our classes' clash is over "whose country" America is, over what way of life will prevail, over who is to defer to whom about what. The gravity of such divisions points us, as it did Lincoln, to Mark's Gospel: "if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand."

The Political Divide

Important as they are, our political divisions are the iceberg's tip. When pollsters ask the American people whether they are likely to vote Republican or Democrat in the next presidential election, Republicans win growing pluralities. But whenever pollsters add the preferences "undecided," "none of the above," or "tea party," these win handily, the Democrats come in second, and the Republicans trail far behind. That is because while most of the voters who call themselves Democrats say that Democratic officials represent them well, only a fourth of the voters who identify themselves as Republicans tell pollsters that Republican officeholders represent them well. Hence officeholders, Democrats and Republicans, gladden the hearts of some one-third of the electorate -- most Democratic voters, plus a few Republicans. This means that Democratic politicians are the ruling class's prime legitimate representatives and that because Republican politicians are supported by only a fourth of their voters while the rest vote for them reluctantly, most are aspirants for a junior role in the ruling class. In short, the ruling class has a party, the Democrats. But some two-thirds of Americans -- a few Democratic voters, most Republican voters, and all independents -- lack a vehicle in electoral politics.

Sooner or later, well or badly, that majority's demand for representation will be filled. Whereas in 1968 Governor George Wallace's taunt "there ain't a dime's worth of difference" between the Republican and Democratic parties resonated with only 13.5 percent of the American people, in 1992 Ross Perot became a serious contender for the presidency (at one point he was favored by 39 percent of Americans vs. 31 percent for G.H.W. Bush and 25 percent for Clinton) simply by speaking ill of the ruling class. Today, few speak well of the ruling class. Not only has it burgeoned in size and pretense, but it also has undertaken wars it has not won, presided over a declining economy and mushrooming debt, made life more expensive, raised taxes, and talked down to the American people. Americans' conviction that the ruling class is as hostile as it is incompetent has solidified. The polls tell us that only about a fifth of Americans trust the government to do the right thing. The rest expect that it will do more harm than good and are no longer afraid to say so.

While Europeans are accustomed to being ruled by presumed betters whom they distrust, the American people's realization of being ruled like Europeans shocked this country into well nigh revolutionary attitudes. But only the realization was new. The ruling class had sunk deep roots in America over decades before 2008. Machiavelli compares serious political diseases to the Aetolian fevers -- easy to treat early on while they are difficult to discern, but virtually untreatable by the time they become obvious.

Far from speculating how the political confrontation might develop between America's regime class -- relatively few people supported by no more than one-third of Americans -- and a country class comprising two-thirds of the country, our task here is to understand the divisions that underlie that confrontation's unpredictable future. More on politics below.

The Ruling Class

Who are these rulers, and by what right do they rule? How did America change from a place where people could expect to live without bowing to privileged classes to one in which, at best, they might have the chance to climb into them? What sets our ruling class apart from the rest of us?

The most widespread answers -- by such as the Times's Thomas Friedman and David Brooks -- are schlock sociology. Supposedly, modern society became so complex and productive, the technical skills to run it so rare, that it called forth a new class of highly educated officials and cooperators in an ever less private sector. Similarly fanciful is Edward Goldberg's notion that America is now ruled by a "newocracy": a "new aristocracy who are the true beneficiaries of globalization -- including the multinational manager, the technologist and the aspirational members of the meritocracy." In fact, our ruling class grew and set itself apart from the rest of us by its connection with ever bigger government, and above all by a certain attitude.

Other explanations are counterintuitive. Wealth? The heads of the class do live in our big cities' priciest enclaves and suburbs, from Montgomery County, Maryland, to Palo Alto, California, to Boston's Beacon Hill as well as in opulent university towns from Princeton to Boulder. But they are no wealthier than many Texas oilmen or California farmers, or than neighbors with whom they do not associate -- just as the social science and humanities class that rules universities seldom associates with physicians and physicists. Rather, regardless of where they live, their social-intellectual circle includes people in the lucrative "nonprofit" and "philanthropic" sectors and public policy. What really distinguishes these privileged people demographically is that, whether in government power directly or as officers in companies, their careers and fortunes depend on government. They vote Democrat more consistently than those who live on any of America's Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Streets. These socioeconomic opposites draw their money and orientation from the same sources as the millions of teachers, consultants, and government employees in the middle ranks who aspire to be the former and identify morally with what they suppose to be the latter's grievances.

Professional prominence or position will not secure a place in the class any more than mere money. In fact, it is possible to be an official of a major corporation or a member of the U.S. Supreme Court (just ask Justice Clarence Thomas), or even president (Ronald Reagan), and not be taken seriously by the ruling class. Like a fraternity, this class requires above all comity -- being in with the right people, giving the required signs that one is on the right side, and joining in despising the Outs. Once an official or professional shows that he shares the manners, the tastes, the interests of the class, gives lip service to its ideals and shibboleths, and is willing to accommodate the interests of its senior members, he can move profitably among our establishment's parts.

If, for example, you are Laurence Tribe in 1984, Harvard professor of law, leftist pillar of the establishment, you can "write" your magnum opus by using the products of your student assistant, Ron Klain. A decade later, after Klain admits to having written some parts of the book, and the other parts are found to be verbatim or paraphrases of a book published in 1974, you can claim (perhaps correctly) that your plagiarism was "inadvertent," and you can count on the Law School's dean, Elena Kagan, to appoint a committee including former and future Harvard president Derek Bok that issues a secret report that "closes" the incident. Incidentally, Kagan ends up a justice of the Supreme Court. Not one of these people did their jobs: the professor did not write the book himself, the assistant plagiarized instead of researching, the dean and the committee did not hold the professor accountable, and all ended up rewarded. By contrast, for example, learned papers and distinguished careers in climatology at MIT (Richard Lindzen) or UVA (S. Fred Singer) are not enough for their questions about "global warming" to be taken seriously. For our ruling class, identity always trumps.

Much less does membership in the ruling class depend on high academic achievement. To see something closer to an academic meritocracy consider France, where elected officials have little power, a vast bureaucracy explicitly controls details from how babies are raised to how to make cheese, and people get into and advance in that bureaucracy strictly by competitive exams. Hence for good or ill, France's ruling class are bright people -- certifiably. Not ours. But didn't ours go to Harvard and Princeton and Stanford? Didn't most of them get good grades? Yes. But while getting into the Ecole Nationale d'Administration or the Ecole Polytechnique or the dozens of other entry points to France's ruling class requires outperforming others in blindly graded exams, and graduating from such places requires passing exams that many fail, getting into America's "top schools" is less a matter of passing exams than of showing up with acceptable grades and an attractive social profile. American secondary schools are generous with their As. Since the 1970s, it has been virtually impossible to flunk out of American colleges. And it is an open secret that "the best" colleges require the least work and give out the highest grade point averages. No, our ruling class recruits and renews itself not through meritocracy but rather by taking into itself people whose most prominent feature is their commitment to fit in. The most successful neither write books and papers that stand up to criticism nor release their academic records. Thus does our ruling class stunt itself through negative selection. But the more it has dumbed itself down, the more it has defined itself by the presumption of intellectual superiority.

The Faith

Its attitude is key to understanding our bipartisan ruling class. Its first tenet is that "we" are the best and brightest while the rest of Americans are retrograde, racist, and dysfunctional unless properly constrained. How did this replace the Founding generation's paradigm that "all men are created equal"?

The notion of human equality was always a hard sell, because experience teaches us that we are so unequal in so many ways, and because making one's self superior is so tempting that Lincoln called it "the old serpent, you work I'll eat." But human equality made sense to our Founding generation because they believed that all men are made in the image and likeness of God, because they were yearning for equal treatment under British law, or because they had read John Locke.

It did not take long for their paradigm to be challenged by interest and by "science." By the 1820s, as J. C. Calhoun was reading in the best London journals that different breeds of animals and plants produce inferior or superior results, slave owners were citing the Negroes' deficiencies to argue that they should remain slaves indefinitely. Lots of others were reading Ludwig Feuerbach's rendition of Hegelian philosophy, according to which biblical injunctions reflect the fantasies of alienated human beings or, in the young Karl Marx's formulation, that ethical thought is "superstructural" to material reality. By 1853, when Sen. John Pettit of Ohio called "all men are created equal" "a self-evident lie," much of America's educated class had already absorbed the "scientific" notion (which Darwin only popularized) that man is the product of chance mutation and natural selection of the fittest. Accordingly, by nature, superior men subdue inferior ones as they subdue lower beings or try to improve them as they please. Hence while it pleased the abolitionists to believe in freeing Negroes and improving them, it also pleased them to believe that Southerners had to be punished and reconstructed by force. As the 19th century ended, the educated class's religious fervor turned to social reform: they were sure that because man is a mere part of evolutionary nature, man could be improved, and that they, the most highly evolved of all, were the improvers.

Thus began the Progressive Era. When Woodrow Wilson in 1914 was asked "can't you let anything alone?" he answered with, "I let everything alone that you can show me is not itself moving in the wrong direction, but I am not going to let those things alone that I see are going down-hill." Wilson spoke for the thousands of well-off Americans who patronized the spas at places like Chautauqua and Lake Mohonk. By such upper-middle-class waters, progressives who imagined themselves the world's examples and the world's reformers dreamt big dreams of establishing order, justice, and peace at home and abroad. Neither were they shy about their desire for power. Wilson was the first American statesman to argue that the Founders had done badly by depriving the U.S. government of the power to reshape American society. Nor was Wilson the last to invade a foreign country (Mexico) to "teach [them] to elect good men."

World War I and the chaos at home and abroad that followed it discredited the Progressives in the American people's eyes. Their international schemes had brought blood and promised more. Their domestic management had not improved Americans' lives, but given them a taste of arbitrary government, including Prohibition. The Progressives, for their part, found it fulfilling to attribute the failure of their schemes to the American people's backwardness, to something deeply wrong with America. The American people had failed them because democracy in its American form perpetuated the worst in humanity. Thus Progressives began to look down on the masses, to look on themselves as the vanguard, and to look abroad for examples to emulate.

The cultural divide between the "educated class" and the rest of the country opened in the interwar years. Some Progressives joined the "vanguard of the proletariat," the Communist Party. Many more were deeply sympathetic to Soviet Russia, as they were to Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. Not just the Nation, but also the New York Times and National Geographic found much to be imitated in these regimes because they promised energetically to transcend their peoples' ways and to build "the new man." Above all, our educated class was bitter about America. In 1925 the American Civil Liberties Union sponsored a legal challenge to a Tennessee law that required teaching the biblical account of creation. The ensuing trial, radio broadcast nationally, as well as the subsequent hit movie Inherit the Wind, were the occasion for what one might have called the Chautauqua class to drive home the point that Americans who believed in the Bible were willful ignoramuses. As World War II approached, some American Progressives supported the Soviet Union (and its ally, Nazi Germany) and others Great Britain and France. But Progressives agreed on one thing: the approaching war should be blamed on the majority of Americans, because they had refused to lead the League of Nations. Darryl Zanuck produced the critically acclaimed movie [Woodrow] Wilson featuring Cedric Hardwicke as Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, who allegedly brought on the war by appealing to American narrow-mindedness against Wilson's benevolent genius.

Franklin Roosevelt brought the Chautauqua class into his administration and began the process that turned them into rulers. FDR described America's problems in technocratic terms. America's problems would be fixed by a "brain trust" (picked by him). His New Deal's solutions -- the alphabet-soup "independent" agencies that have run America ever since -- turned many Progressives into powerful bureaucrats and then into lobbyists. As the saying goes, they came to Washington to do good, and stayed to do well.

As their number and sense of importance grew, so did their distaste for common Americans. Believing itself "scientific," this Progressive class sought to explain its differences from its neighbors in "scientific" terms. The most elaborate of these attempts was Theodor Adorno's widely acclaimed The Authoritarian Personality (1948). It invented a set of criteria by which to define personality traits, ranked these traits and their intensity in any given person on what it called the "F scale" (F for fascist), interviewed hundreds of Americans, and concluded that most who were not liberal Democrats were latent fascists. This way of thinking about non-Progressives filtered down to college curricula. In 1963-64 for example, I was assigned Herbert McCloskey's Conservatism and Personality (1958) at Rutgers's Eagleton Institute of Politics as a paradigm of methodological correctness. The author had defined conservatism in terms of answers to certain questions, had defined a number of personality disorders in terms of other questions, and run a survey that proved "scientifically" that conservatives were maladjusted ne'er-do-well ignoramuses. (My class project, titled "Liberalism and Personality," following the same methodology, proved just as scientifically that liberals suffered from the very same social diseases, and even more amusing ones.)

The point is this: though not one in a thousand of today's bipartisan ruling class ever heard of Adorno or McCloskey, much less can explain the Feuerbachian-Marxist notion that human judgments are "epiphenomenal" products of spiritual or material alienation, the notion that the common people's words are, like grunts, mere signs of pain, pleasure, and frustration, is now axiomatic among our ruling class. They absorbed it osmotically, second -- or thirdhand, from their education and from companions. Truly, after Barack Obama described his opponents' clinging to "God and guns" as a characteristic of inferior Americans, he justified himself by pointing out he had said "what everybody knows is true." Confident "knowledge" that "some of us, the ones who matter," have grasped truths that the common herd cannot, truths that direct us, truths the grasping of which entitles us to discount what the ruled say and to presume what they mean, made our Progressives into a class long before they took power.

The Agenda: Power

Our ruling class's agenda is power for itself. While it stakes its claim through intellectual-moral pretense, it holds power by one of the oldest and most prosaic of means: patronage and promises thereof. Like left-wing parties always and everywhere, it is a "machine," that is, based on providing tangible rewards to its members. Such parties often provide rank-and-file activists with modest livelihoods and enhance mightily the upper levels' wealth. Because this is so, whatever else such parties might accomplish, they must feed the machine by transferring money or jobs or privileges -- civic as well as economic -- to the party's clients, directly or indirectly. This, incidentally, is close to Aristotle's view of democracy. Hence our ruling class's standard approach to any and all matters, its solution to any and all problems, is to increase the power of the government -- meaning of those who run it, meaning themselves, to profit those who pay with political support for privileged jobs, contracts, etc. Hence more power for the ruling class has been our ruling class's solution not just for economic downturns and social ills but also for hurricanes and tornadoes, global cooling and global warming. A priori, one might wonder whether enriching and empowering individuals of a certain kind can make Americans kinder and gentler, much less control the weather. But there can be no doubt that such power and money makes Americans ever more dependent on those who wield it. Let us now look at what this means in our time.

Dependence Economics

By taxing and parceling out more than a third of what Americans produce, through regulations that reach deep into American life, our ruling class is making itself the arbiter of wealth and poverty. While the economic value of anything depends on sellers and buyers agreeing on that value as civil equals in the absence of force, modern government is about nothing if not tampering with civil equality. By endowing some in society with power to force others to sell cheaper than they would, and forcing others yet to buy at higher prices -- even to buy in the first place -- modern government makes valuable some things that are not, and devalues others that are. Thus if you are not among the favored guests at the table where officials make detailed lists of who is to receive what at whose expense, you are on the menu. Eventually, pretending forcibly that valueless things have value dilutes the currency's value for all.

Laws and regulations nowadays are longer than ever because length is needed to specify how people will be treated unequally. For example, the health care bill of 2010 takes more than 2,700 pages to make sure not just that some states will be treated differently from others because their senators offered key political support, but more importantly to codify bargains between the government and various parts of the health care industry, state governments, and large employers about who would receive what benefits (e.g., public employee unions and auto workers) and who would pass what indirect taxes onto the general public. The financial regulation bill of 2010, far from setting univocal rules for the entire financial industry in few words, spends some 3,000 pages (at this writing) tilting the field exquisitely toward some and away from others. Even more significantly, these and other products of Democratic and Republican administrations and Congresses empower countless boards and commissions arbitrarily to protect some persons and companies, while ruining others. Thus in 2008 the Republican administration first bailed out Bear Stearns, then let Lehman Brothers sink in the ensuing panic, but then rescued Goldman Sachs by infusing cash into its principal debtor, AIG. Then, its Democratic successor used similarly naked discretionary power (and money appropriated for another purpose) to give major stakes in the auto industry to labor unions that support it. Nowadays, the members of our ruling class admit that they do not read the laws. They don't have to. Because modern laws are primarily grants of discretion, all anybody has to know about them is whom they empower.

By making economic rules dependent on discretion, our bipartisan ruling class teaches that prosperity is to be bought with the coin of political support. Thus in the 1990s and 2000s, as Democrats and Republicans forced banks to make loans for houses to people and at rates they would not otherwise have considered, builders and investors had every reason to make as much money as they could from the ensuing inflation of housing prices. When the bubble burst, only those connected with the ruling class at the bottom and at the top were bailed out. Similarly, by taxing the use of carbon fuels and subsidizing "alternative energy," our ruling class created arguably the world's biggest opportunity for making money out of things that few if any would buy absent its intervention. The ethanol industry and its ensuing diversions of wealth exist exclusively because of subsidies. The prospect of legislation that would put a price on carbon emissions and allot certain amounts to certain companies set off a feeding frenzy among large companies to show support for a "green agenda," because such allotments would be worth tens of billions of dollars. That is why companies hired some 2,500 lobbyists in 2009 to deepen their involvement in "climate change." At the very least, such involvement profits them by making them into privileged collectors of carbon taxes. Any "green jobs" thus created are by definition creatures of subsidies -- that is, of privilege. What effect creating such privileges may have on "global warming" is debatable. But it surely increases the number of people dependent on the ruling class, and teaches Americans that satisfying that class is a surer way of making a living than producing goods and services that people want to buy.

Beyond patronage, picking economic winners and losers redirects the American people's energies to tasks that the political class deems more worthy than what Americans choose for themselves. John Kenneth Galbraith's characterization of America as "private wealth amidst public squalor" (The Affluent Society, 1958) has ever encapsulated our best and brightest's complaint: left to themselves, Americans use land inefficiently in suburbs and exurbs, making it necessary to use energy to transport them to jobs and shopping. Americans drive big cars, eat lots of meat as well as other unhealthy things, and go to the doctor whenever they feel like it. Americans think it justice to spend the money they earn to satisfy their private desires even though the ruling class knows that justice lies in improving the community and the planet. The ruling class knows that Americans must learn to live more densely and close to work, that they must drive smaller cars and change their lives to use less energy, that their dietary habits must improve, that they must accept limits in how much medical care they get, that they must divert more of their money to support people, cultural enterprises, and plans for the planet that the ruling class deems worthier. So, ever-greater taxes and intrusive regulations are the main wrenches by which the American people can be improved (and, yes, by which the ruling class feeds and grows).

The 2010 medical law is a template for the ruling class's economic modus operandi: the government taxes citizens to pay for medical care and requires citizens to purchase health insurance. The money thus taken and directed is money that the citizens themselves might have used to pay for medical care. In exchange for the money, the government promises to provide care through its "system." But then all the boards, commissions, guidelines, procedures, and "best practices" that constitute "the system" become the arbiters of what any citizen ends up getting. The citizen might end up dissatisfied with what "the system" offers. But when he gave up his money, he gave up the power to choose, and became dependent on all the boards and commissions that his money also pays for and that raise the cost of care. Similarly, in 2008 the House Ways and Means Committee began considering a plan to force citizens who own Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) to transfer those funds into government-run "guaranteed retirement accounts." If the government may force citizens to buy health insurance, by what logic can it not force them to trade private ownership and control of retirement money for a guarantee as sound as the government itself? Is it not clear that the government knows more about managing retirement income than individuals?

Who Depends on Whom?

In Congressional Government (1885) Woodrow Wilson left no doubt: the U.S. Constitution prevents the government from meeting the country's needs by enumerating rights that the government may not infringe. ("Congress shall make no law..." says the First Amendment, typically.) Our electoral system, based on single member districts, empowers individual voters at the expense of "responsible parties." Hence the ruling class's perpetual agenda has been to diminish the role of the citizenry's elected representatives, enhancing that of party leaders as well as of groups willing to partner in the government's plans, and to craft a "living" Constitution in which restrictions on government give way to "positive rights" -- meaning charters of government power.

Consider representation. Following Wilson, American Progressives have always wanted to turn the U.S. Congress from the role defined by James Madison's Federalist #10, "refine and enlarge the public's view," to something like the British Parliament, which ratifies government actions. Although Britain's electoral system -- like ours, single members elected in historic districts by plurality vote -- had made members of Parliament responsive to their constituents in ancient times, by Wilson's time the growing importance of parties made MPs beholden to party leaders. Hence whoever controls the majority party controls both Parliament and the government.

In America, the process by which party has become (almost) as important began with the Supreme Court's 1962 decision in Baker v. Carr which, by setting the single standard "one man, one vote" for congressional districts, ended up legalizing the practice of "gerrymandering," concentrating the opposition party's voters into as few districts as possible while placing one's own voters into as many as possible likely to yield victories. Republican and Democratic state legislatures have gerrymandered for a half century. That is why today's Congress consists more and more of persons who represent their respective party establishments -- not nearly as much as in Britain, but heading in that direction. Once districts are gerrymandered "safe" for one party or another, the voters therein count less because party leaders can count more on elected legislators to toe the party line.

To the extent party leaders do not have to worry about voters, they can choose privileged interlocutors, representing those in society whom they find most amenable. In America ever more since the 1930s -- elsewhere in the world this practice is ubiquitous and long-standing -- government has designated certain individuals, companies, and organizations within each of society's sectors as (junior) partners in elaborating laws and administrative rules for those sectors. The government empowers the persons it has chosen over those not chosen, deems them the sector's true representatives, and rewards them. They become part of the ruling class.

Thus in 2009-10 the American Medical Association (AMA) strongly supported the new medical care law, which the administration touted as having the support of "the doctors" even though the vast majority of America's 975,000 physicians opposed it. Those who run the AMA, however, have a government contract as exclusive providers of the codes by which physicians and hospitals bill the government for their services. The millions of dollars that flow thereby to the AMA's officers keep them in line, while the impracticality of doing without the billing codes tamps down rebellion in the doctor ranks. When the administration wanted to bolster its case that the state of Arizona's enforcement of federal immigration laws was offensive to Hispanics, the National Association of Chiefs of Police -- whose officials depend on the administration for their salaries -- issued a statement that the laws would endanger all Americans by raising Hispanics' animosity. This reflected conversations with the administration rather than a vote of the nation's police chiefs.

Similarly, modern labor unions are ever less bunches of workers banding together and ever more bundled under the aegis of an organization chosen jointly by employers and government. Prototypical is the Service Employees International Union, which grew spectacularly by persuading managers of government agencies as well as of publicly funded private entities that placing their employees in the SEIU would relieve them of responsibility. Not by being elected by workers' secret ballots did the SEIU conquer workplace after workplace, but rather by such deals, or by the union presenting what it claims are cards from workers approving of representation. The union gets 2 percent of the workers' pay, which it recycles as contributions to the Democratic Party, which it recycles in greater power over public employees. The union's leadership is part of the ruling class's beating heart.

The point is that a doctor, a building contractor, a janitor, or a schoolteacher counts in today's America insofar as he is part of the hierarchy of a sector organization affiliated with the ruling class. Less and less do such persons count as voters.

Ordinary people have also gone a long way toward losing equal treatment under law. The America described in civics books, in which no one could be convicted or fined except by a jury of his peers for having violated laws passed by elected representatives, started disappearing when the New Deal inaugurated today's administrative state -- in which bureaucrats make, enforce, and adjudicate nearly all the rules. Today's legal-administrative texts are incomprehensibly detailed and freighted with provisions crafted exquisitely to affect equal individuals unequally. The bureaucrats do not enforce the rules themselves so much as whatever "agency policy" they choose to draw from them in any given case. If you protest any "agency policy" you will be informed that it was formulated with input from "the public." But not from the likes of you.

Disregard for the text of laws -- for the dictionary meaning of words and the intentions of those who wrote them -- in favor of the decider's discretion has permeated our ruling class from the Supreme Court to the lowest local agency. Ever since Oliver Wendell Holmes argued in 1920 (Missouri v. Holland) that presidents, Congresses, and judges could not be bound by the U.S. Constitution regarding matters that the people who wrote and ratified it could not have foreseen, it has become conventional wisdom among our ruling class that they may transcend the Constitution while pretending allegiance to it. They began by stretching such constitutional terms as "interstate commerce" and "due process," then transmuting others, e.g., "search and seizure," into "privacy." Thus in 1973 the Supreme Court endowed its invention of "privacy" with a "penumbra" that it deemed "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." The court gave no other constitutional reasoning, period. Perfunctory to the point of mockery, this constitutional talk was to reassure the American people that the ruling class was acting within the Constitution's limitations. By the 1990s federal courts were invalidating amendments to state constitutions passed by referenda to secure the "positive rights" they invent, because these expressions of popular will were inconsistent with the constitution they themselves were construing.

By 2010 some in the ruling class felt confident enough to dispense with the charade. Asked what in the Constitution allows Congress and the president to force every American to purchase health insurance, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi replied: "Are you serious? Are you serious?" No surprise then that lower court judges and bureaucrats take liberties with laws, regulations, and contracts. That is why legal words that say you are in the right avail you less in today's America than being on the right side of the persons who decide what they want those words to mean.

As the discretionary powers of officeholders and of their informal entourages have grown, the importance of policy and of law itself is declining, citizenship is becoming vestigial, and the American people become ever more dependent.

Disaggregating and Dispiriting

The ruling class is keener to reform the American people's family and spiritual lives than their economic and civic ones. In no other areas is the ruling class's self-definition so definite, its contempt for opposition so patent, its Kulturkampf so open. It believes that the Christian family (and the Orthodox Jewish one too) is rooted in and perpetuates the ignorance commonly called religion, divisive social prejudices, and repressive gender roles, that it is the greatest barrier to human progress because it looks to its very particular interest -- often defined as mere coherence against outsiders who most often know better. Thus the family prevents its members from playing their proper roles in social reform. Worst of all, it reproduces itself.

Since marriage is the family's fertile seed, government at all levels, along with "mainstream" academics and media, have waged war on it. They legislate, regulate, and exhort in support not of "the family" -- meaning married parents raising children -- but rather of "families," meaning mostly households based on something other than marriage. The institution of no-fault divorce diminished the distinction between cohabitation and marriage -- except that husbands are held financially responsible for the children they father, while out-of-wedlock fathers are not. The tax code penalizes marriage and forces those married couples who raise their own children to subsidize "child care" for those who do not. Top Republicans and Democrats have also led society away from the very notion of marital fidelity by precept as well as by parading their affairs. For example, in 1997 the Democratic administration's secretary of defense and the Republican Senate's majority leader (joined by the New York Times et al.) condemned the military's practice of punishing officers who had extramarital affairs. While the military had assumed that honoring marital vows is as fundamental to the integrity of its units as it is to that of society, consensus at the top declared that insistence on fidelity is "contrary to societal norms." Not surprisingly, rates of marriage in America have decreased as out-of-wedlock births have increased. The biggest demographic consequence has been that about one in five of all households are women alone or with children, in which case they have about a four in 10 chance of living in poverty. Since unmarried mothers often are or expect to be clients of government services, it is not surprising that they are among the Democratic Party's most faithful voters.

While our ruling class teaches that relationships among men, women, and children are contingent, it also insists that the relationship between each of them and the state is fundamental. That is why such as Hillary Clinton have written law review articles and books advocating a direct relationship between the government and children, effectively abolishing the presumption of parental authority. Hence whereas within living memory school nurses could not administer an aspirin to a child without the parents' consent, the people who run America's schools nowadays administer pregnancy tests and ship girls off to abortion clinics without the parents' knowledge. Parents are not allowed to object to what their children are taught. But the government may and often does object to how parents raise children. The ruling class's assumption is that what it mandates for children is correct ipso facto, while what parents do is potentially abusive. It only takes an anonymous accusation of abuse for parents to be taken away in handcuffs until they prove their innocence. Only sheer political weight (and in California, just barely) has preserved parents' right to homeschool their children against the ruling class's desire to accomplish what Woodrow Wilson so yearned: "to make young gentlemen as unlike their fathers as possible."

At stake are the most important questions: What is the right way for human beings to live? By what standard is anything true or good? Who gets to decide what? Implicit in Wilson's words and explicit in our ruling class's actions is the dismissal, as the ways of outdated "fathers," of the answers that most Americans would give to these questions. This dismissal of the American people's intellectual, spiritual, and moral substance is the very heart of what our ruling class is about. Its principal article of faith, its claim to the right to decide for others, is precisely that it knows things and operates by standards beyond others' comprehension.

While the unenlightened ones believe that man is created in the image and likeness of God and that we are subject to His and to His nature's laws, the enlightened ones know that we are products of evolution, driven by chance, the environment, and the will to primacy. While the un-enlightened are stuck with the antiquated notion that ordinary human minds can reach objective judgments about good and evil, better and worse through reason, the enlightened ones know that all such judgments are subjective and that ordinary people can no more be trusted with reason than they can with guns. Because ordinary people will pervert reason with ideology, religion, or interest, science is "science" only in the "right" hands. Consensus among the right people is the only standard of truth. Facts and logic matter only insofar as proper authority acknowledges them.

That is why the ruling class is united and adamant about nothing so much as its right to pronounce definitive, "scientific" judgment on whatever it chooses. When the government declares, and its associated press echoes that "scientists say" this or that, ordinary people -- or for that matter scientists who "don't say," or are not part of the ruling class -- lose any right to see the information that went into what "scientists say." Thus when Virginia's attorney general subpoenaed the data by which Professor Michael Mann had concluded, while paid by the state of Virginia, that the earth's temperatures are rising "like a hockey stick" from millennial stability -- a conclusion on which billions of dollars' worth of decisions were made -- to investigate the possibility of fraud, the University of Virginia's faculty senate condemned any inquiry into "scientific endeavor that has satisfied peer review standards" claiming that demands for data "send a chilling message to scientists...and indeed scholars in any discipline." The Washington Post editorialized that the attorney general's demands for data amounted to "an assault on reason." The fact that the "hockey stick" conclusion stands discredited and Mann and associates are on record manipulating peer review, the fact that science-by-secret-data is an oxymoron, the very distinction between truth and error, all matter far less to the ruling class than the distinction between itself and those they rule.

By identifying science and reason with themselves, our rulers delegitimize opposition. Though they cannot prevent Americans from worshiping God, they can make it as socially disabling as smoking -- to be done furtively and with a bad social conscience. Though they cannot make Americans wish they were Europeans, they continue to press upon this nation of refugees from the rest of the world the notion that Americans ought to live by "world standards." Each day, the ruling class produces new "studies" that show that one or another of Americans' habits is in need of reform, and that those Americans most resistant to reform are pitiably, perhaps criminally, wrong. Thus does it go about disaggregating and dispiriting the ruled.

Meddling and Apologies

America's best and brightest believe themselves qualified and duty bound to direct the lives not only of Americans but of foreigners as well. George W. Bush's 2005 inaugural statement that America cannot be free until the whole world is free and hence that America must push and prod mankind to freedom was but an extrapolation of the sentiments of America's Progressive class, first articulated by such as Princeton's Woodrow Wilson and Columbia's Nicholas Murray Butler. But while the early Progressives expected the rest of the world to follow peacefully, today's ruling class makes decisions about war and peace at least as much forcibly to tinker with the innards of foreign bodies politic as to protect America. Indeed, they conflate the two purposes in the face of the American people's insistence to draw a bright line between war against our enemies and peace with non-enemies in whose affairs we do not interfere. That is why, from Wilson to Kissinger, the ruling class has complained that the American people oscillate between bellicosity and "isolationism."

Because our ruling class deems unsophisticated the American people's perennial preference for decisive military action or none, its default solution to international threats has been to commit blood and treasure to long-term, twilight efforts to reform the world's Vietnams, Somalias, Iraqs, and Afghanistans, believing that changing hearts and minds is the prerequisite of peace and that it knows how to change them. The apparently endless series of wars in which our ruling class has embroiled America, wars that have achieved nothing worthwhile at great cost in lives and treasure, has contributed to defining it, and to discrediting it -- but not in its own eyes.

Rather, even as our ruling class has lectured, cajoled, and sometimes intruded violently to reform foreign countries in its own image, it has apologized to them for America not having matched that image -- their private image. Woodrow Wilson began this double game in 1919, when he assured Europe's peoples that America had mandated him to demand their agreement to Article X of the peace treaty (the League of Nations) and then swore to the American people that Article X was the Europeans' non-negotiable demand. The fact that the U.S. government had seized control of transatlantic cable communications helped hide (for a while) that the League scheme was merely the American Progressives' private dream. In our time, this double game is quotidian on the evening news. Notably, President Obama apologized to Europe because "the United States has fallen short of meeting its responsibilities" to reduce carbon emissions by taxation. But the American people never assumed such responsibility, and oppose doing so. Hence President Obama was not apologizing for anything that he or anyone he respected had done, but rather blaming his fellow Americans for not doing what he thinks they should do while glossing over the fact that the Europeans had done the taxing but not the reducing. Wilson redux.

Similarly, Obama "apologized" to Europeans because some Americans -- not him and his friends -- had shown "arrogance and been dismissive" toward them, and to the world because President Truman had used the atom bomb to end World War II. So President Clinton apologized to Africans because some Americans held African slaves until 1865 and others were mean to Negroes thereafter -- not himself and his friends, of course. So assistant secretary of state Michael Posner apologized to Chinese diplomats for Arizona's law that directs police to check immigration status. Republicans engage in that sort of thing as well: former Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev tells us that in 1987 then vice president George H. W. Bush distanced himself from his own administration by telling him, "Reagan is a conservative, an extreme conservative. All the dummies and blockheads are with him..." This is all about a class of Americans distinguishing itself from its inferiors. It recalls the Pharisee in the Temple: "Lord, I thank thee that I am not like other men..."

In sum, our ruling class does not like the rest of America. Most of all does it dislike that so many Americans think America is substantially different from the rest of the world and like it that way. For our ruling class, however, America is a work in progress, just like the rest the world, and they are the engineers.

The Country Class

Describing America's country class is problematic because it is so heterogeneous. It has no privileged podiums, and speaks with many voices, often inharmonious. It shares above all the desire to be rid of rulers it regards inept and haughty. It defines itself practically in terms of reflexive reaction against the rulers' defining ideas and proclivities -- e.g., ever higher taxes and expanding government, subsidizing political favorites, social engineering, approval of abortion, etc. Many want to restore a way of life largely superseded. Demographically, the country class is the other side of the ruling class's coin: its most distinguishing characteristics are marriage, children, and religious practice. While the country class, like the ruling class, includes the professionally accomplished and the mediocre, geniuses and dolts, it is different because of its non-orientation to government and its members' yearning to rule themselves rather than be ruled by others.

Even when members of the country class happen to be government officials or officers of major corporations, their concerns are essentially private; in their view, government owes to its people equal treatment rather than action to correct what anyone perceives as imbalance or grievance. Hence they tend to oppose special treatment, whether for corporations or for social categories. Rather than gaming government regulations, they try to stay as far from them as possible. Thus the Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Kelo, which allows the private property of some to be taken by others with better connections to government, reminded the country class that government is not its friend.

Negative orientation to privilege distinguishes the corporate officer who tries to keep his company from joining the Business Council of large corporations who have close ties with government from the fellow in the next office. The first wants the company to grow by producing. The second wants it to grow by moving to the trough. It sets apart the schoolteacher who resents the union to which he is forced to belong for putting the union's interests above those of parents who want to choose their children's schools. In general, the country class includes all those in stations high and low who are aghast at how relatively little honest work yields, by comparison with what just a little connection with the right bureaucracy can get you. It includes those who take the side of outsiders against insiders, of small institutions against large ones, of local government against the state or federal. The country class is convinced that big business, big government, and big finance are linked as never before and that ordinary people are more unequal than ever.

Members of the country class who want to rise in their profession through sheer competence try at once to avoid the ruling class's rituals while guarding against infringing its prejudices. Averse to wheedling, they tend to think that exams should play a major role in getting or advancing in jobs, that records of performance -- including academic ones -- should be matters of public record, and that professional disputes should be settled by open argument. For such people, the Supreme Court's 2009 decision in Ricci, upholding the right of firefighters to be promoted according to the results of a professional exam, revived the hope that competence may sometimes still trump political connections.

Nothing has set the country class apart, defined it, made it conscious of itself, given it whatever coherence it has, so much as the ruling class's insistence that people other than themselves are intellectually and hence otherwise humanly inferior. Persons who were brought up to believe themselves as worthy as anyone, who manage their own lives to their own satisfaction, naturally resent politicians of both parties who say that the issues of modern life are too complex for any but themselves. Most are insulted by the ruling class's dismissal of opposition as mere "anger and frustration" -- an imputation of stupidity -- while others just scoff at the claim that the ruling class's bureaucratic language demonstrates superior intelligence. A few ask the fundamental question: Since when and by what right does intelligence trump human equality? Moreover, if the politicians are so smart, why have they made life worse?

The country class actually believes that America's ways are superior to the rest of the world's, and regards most of mankind as less free, less prosperous, and less virtuous. Thus while it delights in croissants and thinks Toyota's factory methods are worth imitating, it dislikes the idea of adhering to "world standards." This class also takes part in the U.S. armed forces body and soul: nearly all the enlisted, non-commissioned officers and officers under flag rank belong to this class in every measurable way. Few vote for the Democratic Party. You do not doubt that you are amidst the country class rather than with the ruling class when the American flag passes by or "God Bless America" is sung after seven innings of baseball, and most people show reverence. The same people wince at the National Football League's plaintive renditions of the "Star Spangled Banner."

Unlike the ruling class, the country class does not share a single intellectual orthodoxy, set of tastes, or ideal lifestyle. Its different sectors draw their notions of human equality from different sources: Christians and Jews believe it is God's law. Libertarians assert it from Hobbesian and Darwinist bases. Many consider equality the foundation of Americanism. Others just hate snobs. Some parts of the country class now follow the stars and the music out of Nashville, Tennessee, and Branson, Missouri -- entertainment complexes larger than Hollywood's -- because since the 1970s most of Hollywood's products have appealed more to the mores of the ruling class and its underclass clients than to those of large percentages of Americans. The same goes for "popular music" and television. For some in the country class Christian radio and TV are the lodestone of sociopolitical taste, while the very secular Fox News serves the same purpose for others. While symphonies and opera houses around the country, as well as the stations that broadcast them, are firmly in the ruling class's hands, a considerable part of the country class appreciates these things for their own sake. By that very token, the country class's characteristic cultural venture -- the homeschool movement -- stresses the classics across the board in science, literature, music, and history even as the ruling class abandons them.

Congruent Agendas?

Each of the country class's diverse parts has its own agenda, which flows from the peculiar ways in which the ruling class impacts its concerns. Independent businesspeople are naturally more sensitive to the growth of privileged relations between government and their competitors. Persons who would like to lead their community rue the advantages that Democratic and Republican party establishments are accruing. Parents of young children and young women anxious about marriage worry that cultural directives from on high are dispelling their dreams. The faithful to God sense persecution. All resent higher taxes and loss of freedom. More and more realize that their own agenda's advancement requires concerting resistance to the ruling class across the board.

Not being at the table when government makes the rules about how you must run your business, knowing that you will be required to pay more, work harder, and show deference for the privilege of making less money, is the independent businessman's nightmare. But what to do about it? In our time the interpenetration of government and business -- the network of subsidies, preferences, and regulations -- is so thick and deep, the people "at the table" receive and recycle into politics so much money, that independent businesspeople cannot hope to undo any given regulation or grant of privilege. Just as no manufacturer can hope to reduce the subsidies that raise his fuel costs, no set of doctors can shield themselves from the increased costs and bureaucracy resulting from government mandates. Hence independent business's agenda has been to resist the expansion of government in general, and of course to reduce taxes. Pursuit of this agenda with arguments about economic efficiency and job creation -- and through support of the Republican Party -- usually results in enough relief to discourage more vigorous remonstrance. Sometimes, however, the economic argument is framed in moral terms: "The sum of good government," said Thomas Jefferson, is not taking "from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned." For government to advantage some at others' expense, said he, "is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association." In our time, more and more independent businesspeople have come to think of their economic problems in moral terms. But few realize how revolutionary that is.

As bureaucrats and teachers' unions disempowered neighborhood school boards, while the governments of towns, counties, and states were becoming conduits for federal mandates, as the ruling class reduced the number and importance of things that American communities could decide for themselves, America's thirst for self-governance reawakened. The fact that public employees are almost always paid more and have more generous benefits than the private sector people whose taxes support them only sharpened the sense among many in the country class that they now work for public employees rather than the other way around. But how to reverse the roles? How can voters regain control of government? Restoring localities' traditional powers over schools, including standards, curriculum, and prayer, would take repudiating two generations of Supreme Court rulings. So would the restoration of traditional "police" powers over behavior in public places. Bringing public employee unions to heel is only incidentally a matter of cutting pay and benefits. As self-governance is crimped primarily by the powers of government personified in its employees, restoring it involves primarily deciding that any number of functions now performed and the professional specialties who perform them, e.g., social workers, are superfluous or worse. Explaining to one's self and neighbors why such functions and personnel do more harm than good, while the ruling class brings its powers to bear to discredit you, is a very revolutionary thing to do.

America's pro-family movement is a reaction to the ruling class's challenges: emptying marriage of legal sanction, promoting abortion, and progressively excluding parents from their children's education. Americans reacted to these challenges primarily by sorting themselves out. Close friendships and above all marriages became rarer between persons who think well of divorce, abortion, and government authority over children and those who do not. The homeschool movement, for which the Internet became the great facilitator, involves not only each family educating its own children, but also extensive and growing social, intellectual, and spiritual contact among like-minded persons. In short, the part of the country class that is most concerned with family matters has taken on something of a biological identity. Few in this part of the country class have any illusion, however, that simply retreating into private associations will long save their families from societal influences made to order to discredit their ways. But stopping the ruling class's intrusions would require discrediting its entire conception of man, of right and wrong, as well as of the role of courts in popular government. That revolutionary task would involve far more than legislation.

The ruling class's manifold efforts to discredit and drive worship of God out of public life -- not even the Soviet Union arrested students for wearing crosses or praying, or reading the Bible on school property, as some U.S. localities have done in response to Supreme Court rulings -- convinced many among the vast majority of Americans who believe and pray that today's regime is hostile to the most important things of all. Every December, they are reminded that the ruling class deems the very word "Christmas" to be offensive. Every time they try to manifest their religious identity in public affairs, they are deluged by accusations of being "American Taliban" trying to set up a "theocracy." Let members of the country class object to anything the ruling class says or does, and likely as not their objection will be characterized as "religious," that is to say irrational, that is to say not to be considered on a par with the "science" of which the ruling class is the sole legitimate interpreter. Because aggressive, intolerant secularism is the moral and intellectual basis of the ruling class's claim to rule, resistance to that rule, whether to the immorality of economic subsidies and privileges, or to the violation of the principle of equal treatment under equal law, or to its seizure of children's education, must deal with secularism's intellectual and moral core. This lies beyond the boundaries of politics as the term is commonly understood.

The Classes Clash

The ruling class's appetite for deference, power, and perks grows. The country class disrespects its rulers, wants to curtail their power and reduce their perks. The ruling class wears on its sleeve the view that the rest of Americans are racist, greedy, and above all stupid. The country class is ever more convinced that our rulers are corrupt, malevolent, and inept. The rulers want the ruled to shut up and obey. The ruled want self-governance. The clash between the two is about which side's vision of itself and of the other is right and which is wrong. Because each side -- especially the ruling class -- embodies its views on the issues, concessions by one side to another on any issue tend to discredit that side's view of itself. One side or the other will prevail. The clash is as sure and momentous as its outcome is unpredictable.

In this clash, the ruling class holds most of the cards: because it has established itself as the fount of authority, its primacy is based on habits of deference. Breaking them, establishing other founts of authority, other ways of doing things, would involve far more than electoral politics. Though the country class had long argued along with Edmund Burke against making revolutionary changes, it faces the uncomfortable question common to all who have had revolutionary changes imposed on them: are we now to accept what was done to us just because it was done? Sweeping away a half century's accretions of bad habits -- taking care to preserve the good among them -- is hard enough. Establishing, even reestablishing, a set of better institutions and habits is much harder, especially as the country class wholly lacks organization. By contrast, the ruling class holds strong defensive positions and is well represented by the Democratic Party. But a two to one numerical disadvantage augurs defeat, while victory would leave it in control of a people whose confidence it cannot regain.

Certainly the country class lacks its own political vehicle -- and perhaps the coherence to establish one. In the short term at least, the country class has no alternative but to channel its political efforts through the Republican Party, which is eager for its support. But the Republican Party does not live to represent the country class. For it to do so, it would have to become principles-based, as it has not been since the mid-1860s. The few who tried to make it so the party treated as rebels: Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. The party helped defeat Goldwater. When it failed to stop Reagan, it saddled his and subsequent Republican administrations with establishmentarians who, under the Bush family, repudiated Reagan's principles as much as they could. Barack Obama exaggerated in charging that Republicans had driven the country "into the ditch" all alone. But they had a hand in it. Few Republican voters, never mind the larger country class, have confidence that the party is on their side. Because, in the long run, the country class will not support a party as conflicted as today's Republicans, those Republican politicians who really want to represent it will either reform the party in an unmistakable manner, or start a new one as Whigs like Abraham Lincoln started the Republican Party in the 1850s.

The name of the party that will represent America's country class is far less important than what, precisely, it represents and how it goes about representing it because, for the foreseeable future, American politics will consist of confrontation between what we might call the Country Party and the ruling class. The Democratic Party having transformed itself into a unit with near-European discipline, challenging it would seem to require empowering a rival party at least as disciplined. What other antidote is there to government by one party but government by another party? Yet this logic, though all too familiar to most of the world, has always been foreign to America and naturally leads further in the direction toward which the ruling class has led. Any country party would have to be wise and skillful indeed not to become the Democrats' mirror image.

Yet to defend the country class, to break down the ruling class's presumptions, it has no choice but to imitate the Democrats, at least in some ways and for a while. Consider: The ruling class denies its opponents' legitimacy. Seldom does a Democratic official or member of the ruling class speak on public affairs without reiterating the litany of his class's claim to authority, contrasting it with opponents who are either uninformed, stupid, racist, shills for business, violent, fundamentalist, or all of the above. They do this in the hope that opponents, hearing no other characterizations of themselves and no authoritative voice discrediting the ruling class, will be dispirited. For the country class seriously to contend for self-governance, the political party that represents it will have to discredit not just such patent frauds as ethanol mandates, the pretense that taxes can control "climate change," and the outrage of banning God from public life. More important, such a serious party would have to attack the ruling class's fundamental claims to its superior intellect and morality in ways that dispirit the target and hearten one's own. The Democrats having set the rules of modern politics, opponents who want electoral success are obliged to follow them.

Suppose that the Country Party (whatever its name might be) were to capture Congress, the presidency, and most statehouses. What then would it do? Especially if its majority were slim, it would be tempted to follow the Democrats' plan of 2009-2010, namely to write its wish list of reforms into law regardless of the Constitution and enact them by partisan majorities supported by interest groups that gain from them, while continuing to vilify the other side. Whatever effect this might have, it surely would not be to make America safe for self-governance because by carrying out its own "revolution from above" to reverse the ruling class's previous "revolution from above," it would have made that ruinous practice standard in America. Moreover, a revolution designed at party headquarters would be antithetical to the country class's diversity as well as to the American Founders' legacy.

Achieving the country class's inherently revolutionary objectives in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with its own diversity would require the Country Party to use legislation primarily as a tool to remove obstacles, to instruct, to reintroduce into American life ways and habits that had been cast aside. Passing national legislation is easier than getting people to take up the responsibilities of citizens, fathers, and entrepreneurs.

Reducing the taxes that most Americans resent requires eliminating the network of subsidies to millions of other Americans that these taxes finance, and eliminating the jobs of government employees who administer them. Eliminating that network is practical, if at all, if done simultaneously, both because subsidies are morally wrong and economically counterproductive, and because the country cannot afford the practice in general. The electorate is likely to cut off millions of government clients, high and low, only if its choice is between no economic privilege for anyone and ratifying government's role as the arbiter of all our fortunes. The same goes for government grants to and contracts with so-called nonprofit institutions or non-governmental organizations. The case against all arrangements by which the government favors some groups of citizens is easier to make than that against any such arrangement. Without too much fuss, a few obviously burdensome bureaucracies, like the Department of Education, can be eliminated, while money can be cut off to partisan enterprises such as the National Endowments and public broadcasting. That sort of thing is as necessary to the American body politic as a weight reduction program is essential to restoring the health of any human body degraded by obesity and lack of exercise. Yet shedding fat is the easy part. Restoring atrophied muscles is harder. Reenabling the body to do elementary tasks takes yet more concentration.

The grandparents of today's Americans (132 million in 1940) had opportunities to serve on 117,000 school boards. To exercise responsibilities comparable to their grandparents', today's 310 million Americans would have radically to decentralize the mere 15,000 districts into which public school children are now concentrated. They would have to take responsibility for curriculum and administration away from credentialed experts, and they would have to explain why they know better. This would involve a level of political articulation of the body politic far beyond voting in elections every two years.

If self-governance means anything, it means that those who exercise government power must depend on elections. The shorter the electoral leash, the likelier an official to have his chain yanked by voters, the more truly republican the government is. Yet to subject the modern administrative state's agencies to electoral control would require ordinary citizens to take an interest in any number of technical matters. Law can require environmental regulators or insurance commissioners, or judges or auditors to be elected. But only citizens' discernment and vigilance could make these officials good. Only citizens' understanding of and commitment to law can possibly reverse the patent disregard for the Constitution and statutes that has permeated American life. Unfortunately, it is easier for anyone who dislikes a court's or an official's unlawful act to counter it with another unlawful one than to draw all parties back to the foundation of truth.

How, for example, to remind America of, and to drive home to the ruling class, Lincoln's lesson that trifling with the Constitution for the most heartfelt of motives destroys its protections for all? What if a country class majority in both houses of Congress were to co-sponsor a "Bill of Attainder to deprive Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and other persons of liberty and property without further process of law for having violated the following ex post facto law..." and larded this constitutional monstrosity with an Article III Section 2 exemption from federal court review? When the affected members of the ruling class asked where Congress gets the authority to pass a bill every word of which is contrary to the Constitution, they would be confronted, publicly, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's answer to a question on the Congress's constitutional authority to mandate individuals to purchase certain kinds of insurance: "Are you kidding? Are you kidding?" The point having been made, the Country Party could lead public discussions around the country on why even the noblest purposes (maybe even Title II of the Civil Rights Bill of 1964?) cannot be allowed to trump the Constitution.

How the country class and ruling class might clash on each item of their contrasting agendas is beyond my scope. Suffice it to say that the ruling class's greatest difficulty -- aside from being outnumbered -- will be to argue, against the grain of reality, that the revolution it continues to press upon America is sustainable. For its part, the country class's greatest difficulty will be to enable a revolution to take place without imposing it. America has been imposed on enough.

Editor's Note: This version corrects an error that appears the print edition of this article, which incorrectly lists Barack Obama as a research assistant to Laurence Tribe in 1984. He in fact was an assistant to Tribe in 1988-89. Update: The article has also been changed to correct a quote from Nancy Pelosi.

Red State Candidate Forum

2010-06-19T07:26:00.000-07:00

(Best button I saw last night at the Red State Candidate Forum...Is it 2012 yet? That brought a belly laugh straight to my soul.)

Ahhhhhhhhhh, the pleasure of sitting in a room full of hard core conservatives is as close to nirvana as I get. For me, it is like sitting in my church, feeling the waves of connection to our Creator. Like minds, like purpose, like direction.

As always, my hat goes off to those ladies who make things happen and the fellas who back them up with time, effort and expertise. The tables were full in the conference center last night, everything looked befittingly gorgeous and patriotly themed with flares of downright creative ingenuity.

And of course, I always look forward to the warm, rich voice of Jerry Anderson singing the heartfelt patriotic songs that seem to be slowly kicked to the curb these days of political correctness like the words of praise to our Creator during Invocation and Benediction so eloquently phrased last night by our very dear Bishop Milsap. Gulf War Veteran and Sheriff candidate Mike Foster led the Pledge of Allegiance, and as always, I got choked up. It is pretty sad when I feel like a "rebel" for praising patriotism and God in the same night. How is everyone liking that "Change" thing so far?!

Before the Forum began, I had the great pleasure of being endorsed by the Tennessee Federation of Republican Women. Federation President Susan Witcher gave a rousing speech that ended with the endorsement. I couldn't be more humbled yet proud by that honor. My SEC male counterpart Lynn Sebourn and I both gave quick speeches. Lynn is one of my favorite political braniac junkies who I respect and adore, it is a pleasure to work with him and hope we both end up with the SEC seat.

Esteemed SMTRLG Leader David James got the ball rolling, looking incredibly sharp might I add, and introduced the Forum moderator and my favorite warrior in the legislature Rep. Judd Matheny. I can remember his early days on the Hill when he would carry his gun EVERYWHERE including the House floor...until Speaker Naifeh got a little paranoid and asked him not to. Now THAT was funny.

Judd introduced our three Republican Governor Candidates via submitted bio. I always find it interesting what everyone puts in their intro bio, it tells alot about their priorities and their focus. I think alot of candidates miss the boat on their intro bio, they either don't put enough effort in tailoring it to the specific audience or the message gets way too watered down with alot of information. The Governor candidates definitely did a better job at this than the 4th District Congressional candidates. Fortunately for everyone on the podium last night, there was an eager and politically educated audience in attendance. We were there to make a decision and wanted as much information as they would give us...although I did see some eyes glaze over.

I didn't take notes, so I am going to refrain from making a detailed list of each candidates points nor do I specifically remember the questions asked except that they mostly dealt with education, jobs and budget priorities. I will just give you the "impressions" I got from the words being said.

Ron Ramsey took strong stances and never waivered, gave great analogies and down-to-earth explanations on why things work and don't work in Tennessee and what needs to happen to fix them. Bill Haslam had more measured responses, he was logical and gave educated answers. I couldn't disagree with pretty much anything he had to say. Zach Wamp cited past accomplishments and vision for the future. His final three minutes sounded more like the Zach Wamp I remember from years past. I don't mean to sound melancholy on that last note, but Zach was our Representative before redistricting so long ago. Back then he was a firebrand and extremely focused on being close to the people...even in Grundy County where he never won the majority. I haven't seen that Zach in a long time. Sometimes I really hate Washington....and that feeling grows deeper every day lately.

Next were the 4th District candidates. I really only knew Kent Greenough from his last run amd then from his involvement in Lincoln county politics and the Tea Party movement. Ron Harwell came to our June meeting in Grundy even though I told him that 99% of our residents were white and there was probably a reason for that. I kinda said it tongue in cheek, but he came anyway and that impressed me. Then he spoke and that impressed me even more. My dad loved him and that is REALLY saying something. I am a very hard core conservative for a reason. I didn't know Jack Bailey, but he was pretty polished amd you could tell he has worked in politics. I didn't know Scott Desjarlais even though he practices medicine in Jasper, just down the road from us. I have never seen him at a GOP meeting in Marion County...and I have kept a pretty good tab on them. All that being said, good for him for running. I just think he lacked a certain perspective gained from grassroots activism. I DEFINITELY don't remember the questions on this one, it was getting late and I was tired. But I do remember Ron Harwell stealing the show with his Libertarianesque answers.

Then there was the Straw Poll results.

Ron Ramsey won the Governor Poll. Ron Harwell won the 4th District Congressional Poll.

Why do I think they won? I think Ron Ramsey's years of visits to the area helping candidates paid off for him. His plain talk, his aggressive State's Rights attitude resonated well with this part of the state. I think the same could be said of Ron Harwell. He was quick, clean and precise with his strong statements. Both winners didn't pull any punches and the people liked it. I am not sure what the rest of the state will do, but for us, we were looking for warriors and that is how the people voted.

Is it 2012 yet?

Liberation

2010-04-15T07:34:00.000-07:00

I recently made a Facebook post about feeling "Liberated", and what would a conservative do to celebrate instead of burning my bra. It was obviously a tongue in cheek statement, but it had some pretty deep roots.

My hometown Monteagle, the town of my elders, the town that my namesake helped incorporate, had an election on Tuesday. Not just any election, it was an election that meant a possible end to 18 years of thug rule if the results went in our favor. Maybe I am exaggerating on 18 years, I want to give the man who was in office some due. I want to believe that he started out wanting to serve the public and do what was best for the town of Monteagle. But over the years, his interests became skewed and his ego took over. And along with his ego, came the breaking of laws and alot of political malfeasance.

Surely, how much harm can a person in charge of a little town of 1100 do? Unfortunately, quite a bit. Monteagle has been a well-known southern mountain vacation community since the late 1800's, it also has two exits right off the major interstate between Nashville and Chattanooga which means it is the financial gateway to many bedroom communities in the several counties surrounding it. Monteagle can help or hinder those communities. That is quite a bit of power to wield.

Over the years, there was also an unwritten rule that to do business in Monteagle, you had to hire the local plumber/electrician...yes, that would be the Mayor. Then, you had to deal with an uneven policy of zoning and water/sewer rights. If you made a deal thru the Mayor, the rest was approved. If you didn't play by those rules, you would pay...one way or another. Many a person has lost alot of money doing business in Monteagle.

Then you had just everyday rules and policies. If you paid homage to the powers that be, you wouldn't have to follow those policies. If you crossed hairs with the powers that be, then they found every law in the book to bring you to your knees. So if you live in a town of 1100, the long arm of the law could reach into every aspect of your life in a very short time with no recourse. For people like myself, this existence is like a prison. A beautiful prison, but still a prison.

So when I talk about the fear of our state and federal government overextending their powers "for our own good", I think about "who" will be carrying out those duties and how in a little town of 1100, hell on earth can happen when you give people the power of "the law".

The devil is always on our shoulder, he especially likes politicians and people in power. I prefer to take away his tools and let everyone deal with his/her own demons personally. Govt shouldn't be his playground.

Liberation? Yes, we won on Tuesday! With a little Divine guidance and sheer hard work, Monteagle, and all her residents have been Liberated! Time to start breaking down the prison walls and building up the life our Founding Fathers envisioned...it starts in small towns all across America folks. We all can make victories happen.

The Ballot is stronger than the Bullet.

My next installment? How a dead man won the Mayor seat in the town next to ours.

The Tyranny of the Minority

2010-04-03T08:31:00.000-07:00

One of my journalist friends had a post about a doctor (urologist) who wouldn't take any clients who voted for Obama. Of course, I responded in the positive. Good for him. Then one of his friends posted the opposite basically stating that anyone who had a doctors license HAD to treat EVERYONE.

And then my blood pressure took a head north.

Why do certain people always want to tell others how to live their life or run their business? Is it because we have evolved into a people who lack personal responsibility so others feel we need to be told what to do?

This is a bi-partisan issue. My GOP Brethren have been known to pass "nanny" legislation too.

But the majority of this legislation stems from a whiny minority of people who have decided they know what's best for the rest of the neighborhood. You know the ones and they come together on different issues. I was okay when the moms of my neighborhood got together and watched after us kids and kept us safe from outsiders, but then certain moms must have gotten a little bored with this and moved on to the next step...they decided that the icecream truck couldn't come into our neighborhood because little Johnny was getting too fat, so the rest of kids had to suffer the results of their meddling (little Johnny's mother should have taken care of that issue at home). Then a few other moms got together and decided that ten speed bikes were too dangerous so they coerced the rest of the moms to donate ours to the Salvation Army. After awhile, our neighborhood ceased to be one of exploration, fun and camaraderie, it was about whose mom was going to tell us what to do next. We all became afraid to play together or with certain kids. It became hell on earth.

Well folks, that is how our country currently works. We are at the mercy of the "moms" who feel they know what's best for us. I, for one, am really dang tired of it. Tyranny of the Minority...yes, it is time for change.

Sweet Victory

2010-01-20T07:56:00.000-08:00

Okay, the title was my moment of delirious happiness over Scott Brown's victory in yesterday's Massachusetts Senate election.

My liberal friends hate the giddiness exhibited by me and my brethren...and you know I take some perverse pleasure in that. I apologize. It has been a long year.

Now that I have that off my chest, the real happiness comes from the hope that the average citizen is finally awake and taking action. Why do I say "average citizen"? Because those of us in the inner political circle know that the passionate far right and far left are the people who traditionally win elections for candidates. For way too long, we have pushed the buttons of those people to win elections...it is just another example of political expediency that has bastardized the government process.

But who has been pushing the buttons of the "average citizen"? Aren't they the ones who usually get the short end of the stick after all the special interests get their hunk of meat when the elections are over and it's payback time?

I think Scott Brown may have the answer and the rest of our country may become better for it. The "average citizen" has their voice back, let's cherish and nurture it so that the bloom of freedom can be seen by all and let them truly behold what a vibrant and beautiful color it can be.

Healthcare Power Grab

2009-12-09T08:02:00.000-08:00

I am definitely not a quitter, but I am a realistic sort when it comes to federal politics. Don't get me wrong, I still have some type of idealistic hope for state and local politics...but the federal level people still want a big federal government, no matter what ideology they profess. Their policies are self-perpetuating and self-important. That kind of power is intoxicating and a hard one to give up....once again, that intoxication is on both sides of the fence.

So I guess I am resigned to the fact that some type of HR 3200 will pass the federal legislature and be signed into law by our callowly persistent (or deviously groomed) President. We have given that power to people who have the tenacity and perverse tactical warfare mentality to make it happen...at all costs and against the wishes of the majority of their constituents. When you pull that lever at election time, it does have its consequences.

So now what...

Although this will not be the final product, I have read over the initial HR3200 (all 1018 pages of it) and it took my breath away. I see beautiful, feel good prose with great big holes left for interpretation and power grabbing opportunities. As I have always said about legislation of any type, the devil is in the details. I have seen state entities take seemingly "good" legislation and use it for their own dynastic purposes. "Legally" they can do it because of how the legislation is written and let me tell you, process reversal is a hell of alot harder than you think. I guess that is why there are so many lawyers in office or in positions of power. The person who knows the most rules(or knows how to use the rules)wins.

I received an email yesterday from a doctor who took the time to review HR3200 as I did. This is how he perceived the legislative double-speak. And yes, I double checked the references and they are dead-on in the bill.

Whatever we Americans finally end up with in this Healthcare Power Grab debacle, I can bet the farm we will see similiar storylines emerge.

Is he right?

Page 22 of the HC Bill: Mandates that the Govt will audit books of all employers that self-insure!!

Page 30 Sec 123 of HC bill: THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get.

Page 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill: YOUR HEALTH CARE IS RATIONED!!!

Page 42 of HC Bill: The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC benefits for you. You have no choice!

Page 50 Section 152 in HC bill: HC will be provided to ALL non-US citizens, illegal or otherwise.

Page 58 HC Bill: Govt will have real-time access to individuals' finances & a 'National ID Health card' will be issued!

Page 59 HC Bill lines 21-24: Govt will have direct access to your bank accounts for elective funds transfer.

Page 65 Sec 164: Is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in unions & community organizations: (ACORN).

Page 84 Sec 203 HC bill: Govt mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the 'Exchange.'

Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans -- The Govt will ration your health care!

Page 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill: Govt mandates linguistic appropriate services. (Translation: illegal aliens.)

Page 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18: The Govt will use groups (i.e. ACORN & Americorps to sign up individuals for Govt HC plan.

Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans. (AARP members - your health care WILL be rationed!)
Page 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill: Medicaid eligible individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid.. (No choice.)

Page 12 4 lines 24-25 HC: No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Govt monopoly.

Page 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill: Doctors/ American Medical Association - The Govt will tell YOU what salary you can make.

Page 145 Line 15-17: An Employer MUST auto-enroll employees into public option plan. (NO choice!)

Page 126 Lines 22-25: Employers MUST pay for HC for part-time employees AND their families. (Employees shouldn't get excited about this as employers will be forced to reduce its work force, benefits, and wages/salaries to cover such a huge expense.)

Page 149 Lines 16-24: ANY Employer with payroll 401k & above who does not provide public option will pay 8% tax on all payroll! (See the last comment in parenthesis.)
Page 150 Lines 9-13: A business with payroll between $251K & $401K who doesn't provide public option will pay 2-6% tax on all payroll.

Page 167 Lines 18-23: ANY individual who doesn't have acceptable HC according to Govt will be taxed 2.5% of income.

Page 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill: Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay.)

Page 195 HC Bill: Officers & employees of the GOVT HC Admin.. will have access to ALL Americans' finances and personal records.

Page 203 Line 14-15 HC: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." (Yes, it really says that!)

Page 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill: Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid Seniors. (Low-income and the poor are affected.)

Page 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill: Doctors: It doesn't matter what specialty you have trained yourself in -- you will all be paid the same! (Just TRY to tell me that's not Socialism!)

Page 253 Line 10-18: The Govt sets the value of a doctor's time, profession, judgment, etc. (Literally-- the value of humans.)

Page 265 Sec 1131: The Govt mandates and controls productivity for "private" HC industries.

Page 268 Sec 1141: The federal Govt regulates the rental and purchase of power driven wheelchairs.

Page 272 SEC. 1145: TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!

Page 280 Sec 1151: The Govt will penalize hospitals for whatever the Govt deems preventable (i.e...re-admissions).

Page 298 Lines 9-11: Doctors: If you treat a patient during initial admission that results in a re-admission -- the Govt will penalize you.

Page 317 L 13-20: PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. (The Govt tells doctors what and how much they can own!)

Page 317-318 lines 21-25, 1-3: PROHIBITION on expansion. (The Govt is mandating that hospitals cannot expand.)
Page 321 2-13: Hospitals have the opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input is required. (Can you say ACORN?)

Page 335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339: The Govt mandates establishment of=2 outcome-based measures. (HC the way they want -- rationing.)
Page 341 Lines 3-9: The Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Advance Plans, HMOs, etc. (Forcing people into the Govt plan)

Page 354 Sec 1177: The Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of 'special needs people!' Unbelievable!

Page 379 Sec 1191: The Govt creates more bureaucracy via a "Tele-Health Advisory Committee." (Can you say HC by phone?)

Page 425 Lines 4-12: The Govt mandates "Advance-Care Planning Consult." (Think senior citizens end-of-life patients.)

Page 425 Lines 17-19: The Govt will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. (And it's mandatory!)

Page 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3: The Govt provides an "approved" list of end-of-life resources; guiding you in death. (Also called 'assisted suicide.')

Page 427 Lines 15-24: The Govt mandates a program for orders on "end-of-life." (The Govt has a say in how your life ends!)

Page 429 Lines 1-9: An "advanced-care planning consultant" will be used frequently as a patient's health deteriorates.

Page 429 Lines 10-12: An "advanced care consultation" may include an ORDER for end-of-life plans.. (AN ORDER TO DIE FROM THE GOVERNMENT?!?)

Page 429 Lines 13-25: The GOVT will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.. (I wouldn't want to stand before God after getting paid for THAT job!)

Page 430 Lines 11-15: The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end-of-life! (Again -- no choice!)

Page 469: Community-Based Home Medical Services = Non-Profit Organizations. (Hello? ACORN Medical Services here!?!)

Page 489 Sec 1308: The Govt will cover marriage and family therapy. (Which means Govt will insert itself into your marriage even.)

Page 494-498: Govt will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, and rationing those services.

Education vs Job Creation

2009-12-02T09:08:00.000-08:00

First and foremost, I truly believe an educated workforce is a top priority in our state and in our nation. But let's look at the mechanics of it a little more closely.

I am considering going back to school and pursue a law degree. Do we need more lawyers? Probably not. But in my field, the knowledge of law is a very important tool in the toolbelt. I repeat, knowledge is a very useful tool.

However, if this consideration becomes reality, I will use this knowledge to be a better entrepreneur. I truly think America's greatest gift to us is the ability to own our own business or be self-employed. In my opinion, that is the American Dream.

My concern then, on the political front, is the roadblocks that seem to be popping up and the direction our nation is moving.

This blog entry from Stacey Campfield sums it up pretty well.

Education and jobs or independence and growth?

George Korda does an interesting article on the need for education in being the lynch pin to get good paying jobs. While he makes many great points (As usual) I tend to see the need in areas bigger then education.

What? Impossible you say? Education is the end all be all for a good future and life. Right?

Well, lets do some math. In the article it talks about how 40,000 people had already applied for a job at the new VW plant. 100,000 were expected to try and fill the 2,000 positions. Probably the known stipulation that a two year diploma was required to get a job kept some away.

Fine. Lets just say at least half of them knew and fit the requirement going in. No, Lets make it even harder then that. Lets say only one in ten had the requirement. Even though Tennessee has a much higher college graduation rate then that (it is in the mid 20's) we still have at least 4,000 well educated and qualified people to fill 2,000 job openings and that is an absolute minimum. I would expect it is more like half to two thirds knew and have the education and qualifications to fit the bill. That is more like ten people trying to fill every position. If we double the number of college graduates or even tripled it, would that suddenly in and of itself produce more jobs? No. You would just have 8,000 or 12,000 qualified and educated people trying to fill those same 2,000 jobs. Lack of a good education is obviously not the only thing holding people back from a good future.

The problem is clearly more a lack of jobs no matter what the qualifications are. Not the lack for educated people to fill those positions. What are we competing against? places like India, China and Japan who have an innovative, educated workforce willing to work at the same type job for pennies on the dollar compared to US employees.

This leaves us a few alternatives. Raise barriers to foreign imports? If we do that a few things will happen. The world will do the same thing to some of our goods. We would loose the high end products we have been selling overseas but would gain back the low end textile product manufacturing we lost. A mixed bag.

Increase taxes on foreign owned companies or products sold in the U.S.? We would loose some of the foreign owned employers who employ large numbers of people such as VW, Toyota and others, but it would probably allow the US owned companies to bounce back a little. Expect the same thing to happen back to our world wide brands as well. a mixed bag.

Lower our standard of living, minimum wage and regulation to compete with the foreign factories over seas? (not something most politicos want to put on a mail piece for their next election) A mixed bag.

Lastly. The one many people seem to never talk about is creating or growing our own market and brands. America is full of independent, intelligent, hard working people. The problem is we have gotten into a mind set of thinking we need someone else to give us a job. That having a job in a big factory is the American dream. That is the ultimate goal now.

When did that happen? It used to be owning the factory, being the employer or the boss was the American dream!

I think all this talk about "Evil profits", class warfare and the "terrible big boss" have made us think that achievement is somehow bad. That, heaven forbid we ever start a company and succeed we might make money and have employees! What would the world think of us then? "Better not climb too high or dream too big. Might have people attack you and call you names. You'll get taxed and regulated more. Better just get an education and hope to get on at some factory job."

That kind of negative talk has to stop or we are in big trouble as a nation. What has to happen more then anything, is just like what happened when baseball became a battle of the "haves" and the "have nots". We need to look to starting up or reinvigorating our farm team system. We need to incentivize business ownership and entrepreneurship. Reward it. Let it profit, champion those who work, innovate, succeed and grow. Remove barriers and the stigma of starting businesses.

Education is great and yes, it is an important part. But if we do not start developing our own next generation of inventors or business people like Henry Ford (who they say couldn't print his own name) then no matter how educated we are, we will be in trouble. Our governors and presidents will forever be recruiting factories overseas. We will forever be begging for scraps off another mans table instead of dining at our own banquet of success.

I wish our guber candidates, instead of always talking about how with a new super educated student what a great foreign job recruiter they will suddenly be, would once in a while talk about how they will start motivating, incentivizing our own people and companies to start, expand and stay here.

Integrity vs Political Expediency

2009-11-18T08:45:00.000-08:00

Expediency - the doing or consideration of what is of selfish use or advantage rather than of what is right or just; self-interest.

Unless something goofy happens, we will not be electing a new TN house Speaker until January 2011. In the meantime, the debate whirls around letting current Speaker Kent Williams back into the Republican folds after his dastardly dash to the leadership position this past January. On Saturday, the GOP State Executive Committee will address the Williams reinstatement case.

The memory of the Speaker gamemanship maneuver still stings for some. Many of us political junkies were at the capitol that day for the historically significant vote. The GOP house majority had only been seen once in over a century. The message from the people had said "change"...and that included Tennessee as well. Thug rule had permeated the Tennessee legislature for way too long. The Tennessee Waltz was only a thumb in the dike. The people spoke loud and clear. And then the beast we call "politics" entered the room.

There were several of our brethren celebrating at Williams' victory party that night because they knew their chairmanships or other coveted appointments would be given by Williams. That is how the game is played.

To be fair, Williams didn't do a bad job as Speaker this past session, however, he did fragment a purpose...which I guess was the goal of the politicians all along. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. No matter what side of the aisle you sit on. It is always the people who lose when the devil gets his way.

So if I were sitting on that panel, I would have to go with Oscar Brock on this one. Integrity trumps expediency. I wish Jimmy Stewart's Mr. Smith would come to Nashville on Saturday.

GOP leadership seeks to block Williams from rejoining party

By: Andy Sher

NASHVILLE — Eighteen Tennessee Republican Party Executive Committee members are urging colleagues on the 63-member panel to reject any attempt to restore the GOP credentials of state House Speaker Kent Williams.

A letter to executive committee members dated Saturday warned that “the possibility exists that a motion to restore Kent Williams’ credentials as a bona-fide Republican will be raised at the next meeting of the State Executive Committee.” The panel meets Saturday.

“We pledge to uphold the decision of the State Executive Committee to bar Mr. Williams from appearing on the ballot as a Republican and ask for you to join our stand on principle in this matter,” said the letter from the group of 18, which includes Oscar Brock of Lookout Mountain and Dr. John Stanbery of Cleveland.

In January, Rep. Williams, of Elizabethton, voted with all 49 House Democrats to elect himself speaker over Republican Leader Jason Mumpower, of Bristol.

Then-Tennessee Republican Party Chairman Robin Smith, citing support from state executive committee members, later invoked her power to keep Rep. Williams from seeking re-election to the House as a Republican.

Since then Rep. Williams, who describes himself as a “Carter County Republican,” has sought to get himself reinstated. He supported Republican House members’ positions on a variety of issues this past legislative session and gave money to Republican Pat Marsh of Shelbyville, who ran in and won a special election.

A number of state House Republicans support his reinstatement.

Speaker Williams was not available for comment Monday.

Mrs. Smith gave up the chairmanship to run for Congress. Her successor, Chris Devaney, has said he is inclined to listen to executive committee members on the issue.

Mr. Brock said he’s standing on principle and doesn’t want to yield to “political expediency.”

“I think there’s times when honor and honesty and integrity matter, and this guy has displayed none,” Mr. Brock said.

“We think we have the vote to keep it (reinstatement) from happening, which I suspect and hope means the motion won’t be brought.”

9/11 - One Nation, Under God - Repost

2009-09-11T06:32:00.000-07:00

Thought I would repost an entry from 9/11 of last year...

One of my favorite bloggers (and fellow political junkie) Lynn Sebourn had an entry today about Todd Beamer and his role in Flight 93's "takeover" by the brave passengers. It reminded me of my own 9/11 story.

We all know Todd Beamer's famous phrase "Let's Roll" before the ultimate crash, but do we remember his other last words with the 911 Operator who stayed with him on the phone before the crash?

I was living in Wheaton Illinois on 9/11. I had just dropped off my children at their schools (both Christian based), and was in front of the building where my first meeting of the day was located when I heard the news on the radio. The next few minutes were a blur, I went to my meeting but we were all too numb to discuss anything...we just sat there listening to the radio.

I called my children's schools and they were prepared and wanted to keep the children all there together. So I went to the one place where I knew I would be around people who were like me, numb. The Wheaton Sport Center, my home away from home. We sat in the lounge watching the events unfold, glued to the screen and thankful we weren't alone, thankful we didn't have a family member on one of those planes or in the World Trade Center.

Then we watched the Flight 93 story unfold and listened to Todd Beamer, one of our own, as he said the Lord's Prayer to the 911 Operator and we knew God was with him.
We couldn't be prouder at that moment. You see he was a Wheaton College graduate, home of another famous alumnus, Billy Graham. This college was one that held it's students to a higher, Christian standard. Todd Beamer was truly one of God's warriors.

So people may say God doesn't have a place in today's society, I say thank God it does...and I hope that we always stay "One Nation, Under God". We certainly need more people like Todd Beamer, honed by a Faith that supercedes self.

Populism & Personal Responsibility

2009-08-29T10:13:00.000-07:00

Populism - A political ideology that emphasizes government's role as an agent of the common man, the worker, and the farmer, in struggles against concentrated wealth and power.

Personal Responsibility - Ones ability to take care of oneself by means of, keeping healthy, managing ones emotions, keeping a sound mind, treating yourself with respect, etc.

One of my dearest friends is a journalist by trade and by passion. By all measures, most people would put him in the usual, populist-leaning main stream media category. And I guess, in a way, they would be correct. But he also makes me think too. The other day we almost came to blows over a heated discussion on personal responsibility and healthcare. He made me feel like Attila the Hun for thinking that people have a personal responsibility in their lifestyle choices that ultimately lead to expensive healthcare solutions...he even suggested that I was not a real Christian for feeling this way. That hit a nerve.

In a perfect and loving world, I think that all people deserve healthcare, protection from harm, protection from pain and suffering and the ability to live happily ever after. Peace on earth is on that list too.

But the question of the day still remains...WHO/WHAT is going to give that to you and HOW are they going to do it...and at what COST. Let's explore this further.

WHO/WHAT - Today's Populists believe that the government should be taking care of all these needs. One-stop shopping of sorts. Okay, centralizing decision making can be a good thing. But WHO is making those decisions? People who are poor, underprivileged, farmers, common men? No, usually it is people in the wealth and power business who are doing what they THINK those segments of the society need. I think this is the total irony of the Populist movement. Have you ever been poor and had some well meaning rich person give you a microwave when you really just needed your electricity turned back on? Yep, that is the type of cluelessness we are talking about here. But heck, the fella got a microwave that he can sell on the streets for what he really needs...but there is probably a law (or will be) that will fine him or put him in jail for doing that. My bad.

HOW - Today's Populists believe the end justifies the means as long as we are helping the poor, underprivileged, farmers, commen men etc. We (read government) know what is best for you, so here are some more laws to make sure you follow them or go to jail/get fined...for your own good of course. Have you ever had a judge/policeman/govt official find some law to spank you with so that you completely understand what he/she thinks is good for you? Populist empowered legislators LOVE making rules and laws to make people behave, because everyone knows the poor/common man just can't be trusted to make the "right" decisions or they wouldn't be poor/common, now would they? I really would love to call some of these "do-gooders" out as a plantation owner one of these days.

COST - What cost are you going to pay for having all of your needs taken care of? Freedom....people telling you how to live your life, and making sure you do it that way. Money...people taking most of your paycheck to do what they think is the best use of it. Personal Initiative...why should you have a new thought, idea or self-help plan, everything is being done for you. Will we finally lose the humanity that we were trying to propagate in the first place?

I know I am starting to sound like Ayn Rand these days, but there are unintended consequences for every new law that is passed. Personal Responsibility must make its way back into our legislatures nationwide. I want all the things that the Populists want, I just disagree with the WHO/WHAT/HOW/COST factors involved. And yes, as a Christian, I feel that God is okay with that.

Uncle Sam's Plantation

2009-08-19T17:25:00.000-07:00

Star Parker wrote the book Uncle Sam's Plantation

I saw this gal in 2001 at a Dupage County woman's luncheon, I just love her perspective.

By Star Parker:

Six years ago I wrote a book called Uncle Sam's Plantation. I wrote the book to tell my own story of what I saw living inside the welfare state and my own transformation out of it.

I said in that book that indeed there are two Americas -- a poor America on socialism and a wealthy America on capitalism.

I talked about government programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS), Emergency Assistance to Needy Families with Children (EANF), Section 8 Housing, and Food Stamps.

A vast sea of perhaps well-intentioned government programs, all initially set into motion in the 1960s, that were going to lift the nation's poor out of poverty.

A benevolent Uncle Sam welcomed mostly poor black Americans onto the government plantation. Those who accepted the invitation switched mind sets from "How do I take care of myself?" to "What do I have to do to stay on the plantation?"

Instead of solving economic problems, government welfare socialism created monstrous moral and spiritual problems -- the kind of problems that are inevitable when individuals turn responsibility for their lives over to others.

The legacy of American socialism is our blighted inner cities, dysfunctional inner city schools, and broken black families.

Through God's grace, I found my way out. It was then that I understood what freedom meant and how great this country is.

I had the privilege of working on welfare reform in 1996, passed by a Republican Congress and signed 50 percent.

I thought we were on the road to moving socialism out of our poor black communities and replacing it with! wealth- producing American capitalism.

But, incredibly, we are going in the opposite direction.

Instead of poor America on socialism becoming more like rich American on capitalism, rich America on capitalism is becoming like poor America on socialism.

Uncle Sam has welcomed our banks onto the plantation and they have said, "Thank you, Suh."

Now, instead of thinking about what creative things need to be done to serve customers, they are thinking about what they have to tell Massah in order to get their cash.

There is some kind of irony that this is all happening under our first black president on the 200th anniversary of the birthday of Abraham Lincoln.

Worse, socialism seems to be the element of our new young president. And maybe even more troubling, our corporate executives seem happy to move onto the plantation.

In an op-ed on the opinion page of the Washington Post, Mr. Obama is clear that the goal of his trillion dollar spending plan is much more than short term economic stimulus.

"This plan is more than a prescription for short-term spending -- it's a strategy for America 's long-term growth and opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, healthcare, and education."

Perhaps more incredibly, Obama seems to think that government taking over an economy is a new idea. Or that massive growth in government can take place "with unprecedented transparency and accountability."

Yes, sir, we heard it from Jimmy Carter when he created the Department of Energy, the SynfuelsCorporation, and the Department of Education.

Or how about the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 -- The War on Poverty -- which President Johnson said "...does not merely expand old programs or improve what is already being done. It charts a new course. It strikes at the causes, not just the consequences of poverty."

Trillions of dollars later, black poverty is the same. But black families are not, with triple the incidence of single-parent homes and out-of-wedlock births.

It's not complicated. Americans can accept Barack Obama's invitation to move onto the plantation. Or they can choose personal responsibility and freedom.

Does anyone really need to think about what the choice should be?

"The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."

The Cost of "Free" - Part 2

2009-08-19T13:26:00.000-07:00

When I listen to the libs talk about the Public Option as the end all be all solution for the healthcare reform movement, I am reminded of all the reasons why I don't trust government to do the job...Unfortunately, I also don't trust big business for almost the same reasons.

From Wikipedia:

Lack of economic freedom explains 71% of corruption. Below is a list of examples of governmental activities that limit economic freedom, create opportunities for corruption (incentives for individuals and/or companies to buy privileges or favors worth of money, from politicians or officials) and have in recent economic history also lead to corruption:

Licenses, permits etc.

Foreign trade restrictions. Officials may then, e.g., sell import or export permits.

Credit bailouts.

State ownership of utilities and natural resources. 'In analyzing India's state-run irrigation system, professor Shyam Kamath - - wrote: Public-sector irrigation systems everywhere are typically plagued with cost and time overruns, endemic inefficiency, chronic excess demands, and widespread corruption and rent-seeking.'

Access to loans at below-market rates. In Chile, '$4.6 billion was awarded to government banks in direct subsidies through "soft" loans' between 1940 and 1973.

Size of public sector

It is a controversial issue whether the size of the public sector per se results in corruption. As mentioned above, low degree of economic freedom explains 71% of corruption. The actual share may be even greater, as also past regulation affects the current level of corruption due to the slowth of cultural changes (e.g., it takes time for corrupted officials to adjust to changes in economic freedom).[17] The size of public sector in terms of taxation is only one component of economic un-freedom, so the empirical studies on economic freedom do not directly answer this question.

Extensive and diverse public spending is, in itself, inherently at risk of cronyism, kickbacks and embezzlement. Complicated regulations and arbitrary, unsupervised official conduct exacerbate the problem. This is one argument for privatization and deregulation. Opponents of privatization see the argument as ideological. The argument that corruption necessarily follows from the opportunity is weakened by the existence of countries with low to non-existent corruption but large public sectors, like the Nordic countries.[18] However, these countries score high on the Ease of Doing Business Index, due to good and often simple regulations, and have rule of law firmly established. Therefore, due to their lack of corruption in the first place, they can run large public sectors without inducing political corruption.

Like other governmental economic activities, also privatization, such as in the sale of government-owned property, is particularly at the risk of cronyism. Privatizations in Russia, Latin America, and East Germany were accompanied by large scale corruption during the sale of the state owned companies. Those with political connections unfairly gained large wealth, which has discredited privatization in these regions. While media have reported widely the grand corruption that accompanied the sales, studies have argued that in addition to increased operating efficiency, daily petty corruption is, or would be, larger without privatization, and that corruption is more prevalent in non-privatized sectors. Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that extralegal and unofficial activities are more prevalent in countries that privatized less.

There is the counter point, however, that oligarchy industries can be quite corrupt ( "competition" like collusive price-fixing, pressuring dependent businesses, etc. ), and only by having a portion of the market owned by someone other than that oligarchy, i.e. public sector, can keep them in line ( if the public sector gas company is making money & selling gas for 1/2 of the price of the private sector companies... the private sector companies won't be able to simultaneously gouge to that degree & keep their customers: the competition keeps them in line ). Private sector corruption can increase the poverty/helplessness of the population, so it can affect government corruption, in the long-term.

In the European Union, the principle of subsidiarity is applied: a government service should be provided by the lowest, most local authority that can competently provide it. An effect is that distribution of funds into multiple instances discourages embezzlement, because even small sums missing will be noticed. In contrast, in a centralized authority, even minute proportions of public funds can be large sums of money.

The Cost of "Free" - Part 1

2009-08-18T10:30:00.000-07:00

Boy, I certainly didn't realize how long it has been since my last post. A trip to the coast and a temporary move to Chicagoland can certainly put a crimp in a person's schedule.

But no matter how little I have been able to follow news etc., you can't escape the Health Care Reform discussion (and boy do I love the Town hall clips!).

As I have mentioned previously, I am very fortunate to have some brilliant friends on both sides of the aisle. In fact, if this reform issue were hashed out in a think tank with all of them in the room...I would be confident in the results and would vote "yes" for their solutions. In a perfect world, I would imagine our President would have that same thought process.

Unfortunately, the flaw in this current administration's solution is the "government" factor. Government structure is like the human body. Most everything has a purpose, functions don't have options (and if you come up with one, it usually messes up something else) and when you add weight to it...everything starts going to hell.

Case in point. I just finished a two-day ordeal getting an $18 PO Box. I did the transaction online two months ago then called and asked them to give me a PO Box # so that I could forward appropriate mail (which it appears is not a normal option). Got into town, stopped in to get my key...didn't have the required paperwork. Came in the following day with what I thought was the right paperwork (it wasn't)...was sent away again. At this point, I walk outside and said to myself "to hell with it" and walked back in to ask for another box and deal with the refund later or eat it because of the paperwork involved with that process. Time is money and the insanity of the process wasn't worth my own sanity.

Folks, I was dealing with an $18 PO Box in a relatively small town in BHO's backyard. Why in the world would I want to deal with a government-run health care system when the stakes are higher?

So I guess those people who are advocating for "Free" healthcare are either used to people messing with their time and money, they color in the lines and never ask for "options" on anything or they have so much time and money that they don't worry about those silly little things.

Me, I have to earn a living and I have never colored inside the lines. "Free" doesn't work for me when the government is involved in the process. Let's start thinking of other solutions.

It Matters Who Governs - Monteagle

2009-07-18T08:02:00.000-07:00

Many of you have read previous posts where I have ranted about the ineptness of my local government...especially when it came to infrastructure issues. We have had a complete systemic failure in our sewer treatment functions, we have run out of water and we have had horrendous audit reports with issues that haven't been corrected in 20 years. Now if that isn't bad leadership, I really don't what is. But hey, we allowed it to happen. It does matter who governs folks.

Fast forward to the elections of 2008, one woman decided to run for city council. She wanted to make a difference in the community that she loved. She was elected in spite of some of the local naysayers. She was off-handedly given the task of getting grants for the town. What harm could she do there. They didn't know Marilyn Nixon.

Identifying needs, finding grant money, getting the paperwork done and taking the steps necessary to get those grants is an arduous task even for the most functional of local governments. But Marilyn doggedly pursued the courses of action to make it happen. She fortunately had two, sometimes three other votes on the council that saw the logic and the possibilities. It does matter who governs folks.

Yesterday, the state announced that Monteagle was #1 on the list for Clean Water Stimulus money in Tennessee. Our local government had failed so badly at providing vital services, that we beat out all the other deserving local governments in Tennessee for this top dog spot in Obama's "free" cash extravaganza.

But no matter how I feel politically about all this Stimulus bs, I say "Go Girl" to Marilyn Nixon. Sometimes it takes a woman to get the job done. It does matter who governs.

Tennessee is preparing to spend $77 million in stimulus money on clean water and drinking water projects, including several local ones.

Topping the state's priority list of more than 300 projects are eight Southeast Tennessee water improvement projects for which state officials are offering quick funding opportunities.

For drinking water funding, the Ocoee Utility District in Polk and Bradley counties, the Big Creek Utility District in Grundy County and South Pittsburg in Marion County have chances to get a total of a little more than $10 million.

For clean water projects, Monteagle, serving Grundy, Marion and Franklin counties; Ocoee Utility District; Benton in Polk County; plus Cleveland and Athens may receive more than $14.6 million.

Tisha Calabrese-Benton, spokeswoman for the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, said money is allocated through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. She said the money will be combined with state funds for low-interest loans and grants.

If local communities decline the money or can't make deadlines, other communities will be considered according to the state's priority list, Ms. Calabrese-Benton said.

The federal money -- $57 million for sewer facilities and more than $20 million for planning, design and construction of drinking water facilities -- must be obligated by Feb. 17, 2010, state officials said. Utilities, water authorities or communities must have a signed construction contract or must have begun construction by the same date.

Many area utility officials could not be reached for comment Thursday, but Ocoee Utility District Manager Tim Lawson said his district has decided to put on hold a plan to build a water treatment system. The $1.6 million in funding will go to another project.

"We are proceeding with the drinking water application," Mr. Lawson said.

Two planned extensions will serve several hundred homes in Polk and Bradley counties, he said.

"We just don't think it's feasible for us to be able to start the (sewer) work by February, which we would have to do," Mr. Lawson said.

The state also is set to receive $458,806 to implement water quality management planning projects, including grants to three Tennessee development districts to conduct green infrastructure needs analyses.

Racism

2009-07-11T07:40:00.000-07:00

Yes, I believe we have finally come full circle. Where the color of a person's skin dictates special privileges or extra derision. We also seem to be moving into class warfare as well. When times are tough, the devil himself comes out to play. God help us all to see things with love instead of hate.

I received this email recently from a very passionate libertarian, I thought it was an interesting perspective on racism, liberalism and capitalism.

Fellow Americans,

Please know: I am Black; I grew up in the segregated South. I did not
vote for Barack Obama; I wrote in Ron Paul's name as my choice for
president. Most importantly, I am not race conscious. I do not require a
Black president to know that I am a person of worth, and that life is
worth living. I do not require a Black president to love the ideal of
America .

I cannot join you in your celebration. I feel no elation. There is no
smile on my face. I am not jumping with joy. There are no tears of
triumph in my eyes. For such emotions and behavior to come from me, I
would have to deny all that I know about the requirements of human
flourishing and survival - all that I know about the history of the United
States of America , all that I know about American race relations, and
all that I know about Barack Obama as a politician. I would have to deny
the nature of the "change" that Obama asserts has come to America .

Most importantly, I would have to abnegate my certain understanding that
you have chosen to sprint down the road to serfdom that we have been on
for over a century. I would have to pretend that individual liberty has
no value for the success of a human life. I would have to evade your
rejection of the slender reed of capitalism on which your success and
mine depend. I would have to think it somehow rational that 94 percent of
the 12 million Blacks in this country voted for a man because he looks
like them (that Blacks are permitted to play the race card), and that
they were joined by self-declared "progressive" whites who voted for him
because he does n't look like them.

I would have to wipe my mind clean of all that I know about the kind of
people who have advised and taught Barack Obama and will fill posts in
his administration - political intellectuals like my former colleagues at
the Harvard University 's Kennedy School of Government.

I would have to believe that "fairness" is equivalent of justice. I would
have to believe that man who asks me to "go forward in a new spirit of
service, in a new service of sacrifice" is speaking in my interest.. I
would have to accept the premise of a man that economic prosperity comes
from the "bottom up," and who arrogantly believes that he can will it
into existence by the use of government force. I would have to admire a
man who thinks the standard of living of the masses can be improved by
destroying the most productive and the generators of wealth.

Finally, Americans, I would have to erase from my consciousness the
scene of 125,000 screaming, crying, cheering people in Grant Park,
Chicago irrationally chanting "Yes We Can!" Finally, I would have to wipe
all memory of all the times I have heard politicians, pundits,
journalists, editorialists, bloggers and intellectuals declare that
capitalism is dead - and no one, including especially Alan Greenspan,
objected to their assumption that the particular version of the
anti-capitalistic mentality that they want to replace with their own
version of anti-capitalism is anything remotely equivalent to capitalism.

So you have made history, Americans. You and your children have elected a
Black man to the office of the president of the United States , the
wounded giant of the world. The battle between John Wayne and Jane
Fonda is over - and that Fonda won. Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern
must be very happy men. Jimmie Carter, too... And the Kennedys have at
last gotten their Kennedy look-a-like. The self-righteous welfare
statists in the suburbs can feel warm moments of satisfaction for having
elected a Black person.

So, toast yourselves: 60s countercultural radicals, 80s yuppies and 90s
bourgeois bohemians. Toast yourselves, Black America . Shout your glee
Harvard, Princeton , Yale, Duke, Stanford, and Berkeley.. You have
elected not an individual who is qualified to be president, but a Black
man who, like the pragmatist Franklin Roosevelt, promises to - Do
Something! You now have someone who has picked up the baton of Lyndon
Johnson's Great Society. But you have also foolishly traded your
freedom and mine - what little there is left - for the chance to feel
good.
There is nothing in me that can share your happy obliviousness.

ANNE WORTHAM

Anne Wortham is Associate Professor of Sociology at IllinoisState
University and continuing Visiting Scholar at Stanford University 's
Hoover Institution. She is a member of the American Sociological
Association and the American Philosophical Association.

She has been a John M. Olin Foundation Faculty Fellow, and honored as a
Distinguished Alumni of the Year by the National Association for Equal
Opportunity in Higher Education.

In fall 1988 she was one of a select group of intellectuals who were
featured in Bill Moyer's television series, "A World of Ideas" The
transcript of her conversation with Moyers has been published in his
book, A World of Ideas.

Dr. Wortham is author of "The Other Side of Racism: A Philosophical
Study of Black Race Consciousness" which analyzes how race consciousness
is transformed into political strategies and policy issues.

She has published numerous articles on the implications of individual
rights for civil rights policy, and is currently writing a book on
theories of social and cultural marginality.

Recently, she has published articles on the significance of
multiculturalism and Afrocentricism in education, the politics of
victimization and the social and political impact of political correctne
ss. Shortly after an interview in 2004, she was awarded tenure.

Cap N Trade

2009-07-08T06:21:00.000-07:00

Wow. I got this little gem from one of my favorite political friends and now Coffee County GOP Chairman Lynn Sebourn. He is a braniac rocket scientist (really) who can crunch this information in no time flat. In fact, knowing him, he probably read the entire 1100 pages of the bill and can recite it verbatim.

What I gleaned from this Top 50 list is that the Cap N Trade bill is filled with the same bs that the left whined about...except this time it is big business (in bed with the Left), unions, EPA, ACORN and the federal government who gain. And the more government bureaucracy I see in all of these bills, the more I hyperventilate at the thought of it. Left, Right or Middle, the system is just plain broken. Period.

Have another cup of coffee and enjoy the read.

A Garden of Piggish Delights
Waxman-Markey is part power-grab, part enviro-fantasy. Here are 50 reasons to stop it.

By Stephen Spruiell & Kevin Williamson

The stimulus bill was the legislative equivalent of the famous cantina scene from Star Wars, an eye-popping collection of the freakish and exotic, gathered for dubious purposes. The Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, known as ACES (the American Clean Energy and Security Act), is more like the third panel in Hieronymus Bosch’s Garden of Earthly Delights — a hellscape that disturbs the sleep of anybody who contemplates it carefully.

Two main things to understand about Waxman-Markey: First, it will not reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, at least not at any point in the near future. The inclusion of carbon offsets, which can be manufactured out of thin air and political imagination, will eliminate most of the demands that the legislation puts on industry, though in doing so it will manage to drive up the prices consumers pay for every product that requires energy for its manufacture — which is to say, for everything. Second, it represents a worse abuse of the public trust and purse than the stimulus and the bailouts put together. Waxman-Markey creates a permanent new regime in which environmental romanticism and corporate welfare are mixed together to form political poison. From comic bureaucratic power grabs (check out the section of the bill on candelabras) to the creation of new welfare programs for Democratic constituencies to, above all, massive giveaways for every financial, industrial, and political lobby imaginable, this bill would permanently deform American politics and economic life.

The House of Representatives, famously, did not read this bill before passing it, which is testament to either Nancy Pelosi’s managerial incompetency or her political wile, or possibly both. If you take the time to read the legislation, you’ll discover four major themes: special-interest giveaways, regulatory mandates unrelated to climate change, fanciful technological programs worthy of The Jetsons, and assorted left-wing wish fulfillment. We cannot cover every swirl and brushstroke of this masterpiece of misgovernance, but here’s a breakdown of its 50 most outrageous features.

SPECIAL-INTEREST SOPS
1. The big doozy: Eighty-five percent of the carbon permits will not be sold at auction — they will be given away to utility companies, petroleum interests, refineries, and a coterie of politically connected businesses. If you’re wondering why Big Business supports cap-and-trade, that’s why. Free money for business, but higher energy prices for you.

2. The sale of carbon permits will enrich the Wall Street investment bankers whose money put Obama in the White House. Top of the list: Goldman Sachs, which is invested in carbon-offset development and carbon permissions. CNN reports:

Less than two weeks after the investment bank announced it would be laying off 10 percent of its staff, ***Goldman Sachs confirmed that it has taken a minority stake in Utah-based carbon offset project developer Blue Source LLC. . . . “Interest in the pre-compliance carbon market in the U.S. is growing rapidly,” said Leslie Biddle, Head of Commodity Sales at Goldman, “and we are excited to be able to offer our clients immediate access to a diverse selection of emission reductions to manage their carbon risk.”

3. With its rich menu of corporate subsidies and special set-asides for politically connected industries, Waxman-Markey has inspired a new corporate interest group, USCAP, the United States Climate Action Partnership — the group largely responsible for the fact that carbon permits are being given away like candy at Christmas rather than auctioned. And who is lined up to receive a piece of the massive wealth transfer that Waxman-Markey will mandate? Canada Free Press lists:

Alcoa, American International Group (AIG) which withdrew after accepting government bailout money, Boston Scientific Corporation, BP America Inc., Caterpillar Inc., Chrysler LLC (which continues to lobby with taxpayer dollars), ConocoPhillips, Deere & Company, The Dow Chemical Company, Duke Energy, DuPont, Environmental Defense, Exelon Corporation, Ford Motor Company, FPL Group, Inc., General Electric, General Motors Corp. (now owned by the Obama administration), Johnson & Johnson, Marsh, Inc., National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, The Nature Conservancy, NRG Energy, Inc., Pepsico, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, PG&E Corporation, PNM Resources, Rio Tinto, Shell, Siemens Corporation, World Resources Institute, Xerox Corporation.

One major group of recipients of the free money being given to industry in the form of carbon permits are the electric utilities, represented in Washington by the Edison Electric Institute. Along with the coal and steel businesses, the utilities are positioned to receive a huge portion of the carbon permits — some of which will be disguised as measures for consumers — and have become one of the nation’s highest-spending lobbies, working to ensure that their interests are served by cap-and-trade.

4. To the extent that the allowances actually generate government revenue, that money is going to be used for fraud-inviting projects of dubious environmental or economic value. Example: Some allowance money will be used to “build capacity to reduce deforestation in developing countries experiencing deforestation, including preparing developing countries to participate in international markets for international offset credits for reduced emissions from deforestation.” What are the chances of that being abused?

5. In addition to the permits, the bill also allows for the creation of “offsets” — the medieval-style indulgences of the carbon-footprint world. In fact, nearly all of Waxman-Markey’s carbon-reduction targets can be met with offsets alone through 2050, meaning decades before any actual reduction of greenhouse gases is required. That means huge new expenses for small businesses and consumers in return for basically zero environmental improvement. And how does one earn an offset to sell? Get a farm and cash in through such methods as, and we quote, “improved manure management,” “reduced tillage/no-tillage,” or “afforestation of marginal farmlands.” Translation: Plant some trees around the house and claim some extra credits on the land the government may already be paying you not to farm. And do a better job of handling your B.S. — but you’ll never do as good a job on that one as the authors of Waxman-Markey.

6. Because the cap-and-trade regime will disadvantage domestic refineries vis-à-vis foreign competitors, such as India’s powerhouse Reliance Industries, Waxman-Markey is attempting to buy them off with free permits — 2 percent of the national total will go to domestic refineries, at no cost.

7. Agribusiness is exempted from cap-and-trade controls, but the farm lobby will be given permits to sell and to profit from anyway. All carrot, no stick — precisely what this powerful industry lobby is accustomed to receiving from Washington.

8. Waxman-Markey strips the EPA of its oversight role when it comes to managing the offsets associated with American farms. At the behest of Cargill and other big players in the farm lobby, oversight will be entrusted to the USDA — basically a wholly owned subsidiary of the agriculture cartel, one of America’s most rapacious special-interest groups, which already is stuffed with subsidies and sops.

9. Waxman-Markey directs the EPA to ignore the real environmental impact of ethanol and other biofuels. The gigantic subsidies lavished on the farm lobby through the ethanol program encourage farmers to clear forest land to plant corn — a net environmental loss that the use of ethanol does nothing to offset. An earlier version of the legislation that would have accounted for land-use changes was altered at the farm lobby’s demand. Now, the EPA will be forbidden to rain the same pain on the ethanol gang that it’s going to rain on the rest of the economy — a minimum of five years’ (ahem) “study” is required before a ruling on whether ethanol should be treated the same as any other fuel, and the EPA, USDA, and Congress all must agree to act before Big Corn reaps what Waxman-Markey sows.

10. Rural electrical cooperatives are demanding that the offsets be awarded in proportion to historic emissions, and they probably will prevail. This means that high-polluting generators, such as the coal-fired plants typical of electric co-ops’ members, will be rewarded because they pollute more, while cleaner producers, such as those using nuclear and hydroelectric power, will be penalized.

11. The farm lobby will be rewarded for practices that do little or nothing to reduce greenhouse gases. One such practice is “no till” planting, in which farmers forgo plowing and plant seeds directly into the soil. Two peer-reviewed scientific papers suggest that no-till either does nothing to decrease carbon dioxide or actually increases the level of greenhouse-gas emissions by upping emissions of nitrous oxide — a much more powerful greenhouse gas. Now it’s not clear that no-till will reduce greenhouse gases, but the practice does make weed-control more difficult, meaning that it supports the market for herbicides such as Monsanto’s RoundUp. Guess who’s spending millions lobbying for no-till?

12. Waxman-Markey provides an excuse for trade protectionism. The bill will give the Obama administration broad new powers to enact tariffs on imports from jurisdictions that have not had the poor sense to enact similar legislation, meaning that it invites both politically driven trade protectionism and retaliatory measures from abroad in the service of an empty green dream. As the New York Times puts it:

A House committee working on sweeping energy legislation seems determined to make sure that the United States will tax China and other carbon polluters, potentially disrupting an already-sensitive climate change debate in Congress. The Ways and Means Committee’s proposed bill language would virtually require that the president impose an import tariff on any country that fails to clamp down on greenhouse gas emissions. Directed primarily at China, the United States’ biggest manufacturing competitor, the provisions aim to protect cement, steel and other energy-intensive industries that expect to face higher costs under a federal emissions cap.

13. Waxman-Markey channels billions of dollars into subsidies for “international clean technology deployment for emerging markets.” David H. McCormick of the Treasury Department recently gave a speech on the establishment of an $8 billion fund for that purpose; those who showed up to gets the specs on this new gravy train included Sequoia Capital, the United Steelworkers Union, the Clinton Climate Initiative, Ernst & Young, Duke Energy, SunPower, Honeywell, Shell, ConocoPhillips, Credit Suisse, Chrysalix Energy Venture Capital, and Goldman Sachs. If you’re wondering who’s going to make real money off of Waxman-Markey, this list would be a pretty good place to start.

14. Naturally, Big Labor gets its piece of the pie, too. Projects receiving grants and financing under Waxman-Markey provisions will be required to implement Davis-Bacon union-wage rules, making it hard for non-union firms to compete — and ensuring that these “investments” pay out inflated union wages. And it’s not just the big research-and-development contracts, since Waxman-Markey forces union-wage rules all the way down to the plumbing-repair and light-bulb-changing level.

NON-CAP MANDATES
15. The renewable electricity standard is the big one here. This would require utilities to supply 20 percent of their power from renewable energy sources (or “increased efficiency”) by 2020. The Senate was unable to pass a smaller mandate in 2007, because favored sources of renewable energy (wind power, for instance) just don’t work in certain regions of the country, and regional blocs can wield a great deal of power in the Senate. These blocs may be less powerful this time around, because the Democrats within them will be under a great deal of pressure to pass this bill. The renewable standard would force utilities to rely increasingly on expensive sources of energy like wind and solar — expensive because they are capital-intensive and must be located far away from urban areas, necessitating long transmission lines. You can thank Congress for adding yet another charge to your monthly utility bill.

16. The bill would create a system of renewable electricity credits similar to the carbon offsets mentioned above — utilities that cannot meet the standard could purchase credits from other utilities. One way or another, however, the cost is getting passed along to you.

17. The renewable standard excludes sources of power like nuclear and coal gasification, and perhaps that’s to be understood. Even though these sources are cleaner than traditional coal-burning plants, they violate a number of green taboos. What’s less understandable is the way “qualified hydropower” is narrowly defined to exclude hydropower from Canada. Again, the thing to remember is that Congress is less concerned with greening the environment and more concerned with greening the pockets of parochial interests.

18. The legislation calls for the establishment of a Carbon Storage Research Corporation (CSRC) to steer $1 billion annually into the development of carbon-capture technologies. The CSRC would be funded via assessments on utility companies. Hear that? It’s the sound of another charge being added to your bill. Evidence suggests that subsidizing research into carbon-capture technology is either futile (in the case of traditional coal-powered plants) or unnecessary (the technology for sequestering emissions from gasification plants already exists).

19. The promotion of carbon capture will require a host of new regulations — the bill calls on the EPA to create a permitting process for geologic sequestration (burying captured carbon emissions in the ground), regulations to keep the buried carbon from escaping into the air, and regulations to keep it from escaping into the water supply. All we need now are carbon guards to throw the carbon in solitary confinement if it gets too rowdy in the prison yard.

20. The bill imposes performance standards on new coal-fired power plants to encourage the adoption of carbon-capture technology. Ratepayers would pay more for electricity because of the efficiency losses associated with carbon capture.

21. The bill regulates every light fixture under the sun. Actually, the sun might be the only light source that isn’t regulated specifically in this legislation. There are rules governing fluorescent lamps, incandescent lamps, intermediate base lamps, candelabra base lamps, outdoor luminaires, portable light fixtures — you get the idea. The government actually started down this road by regulating light bulbs in the 2005 energy bill. This bill merely tightens the regulations, which means the unintended consequences produced by the 2005 bill — more expensive light bulbs that burn out quicker — will probably get worse.

22. The bill extends its reach to cover appliances as well. Clothes washers and dishwashers, portable electric spas, showerheads, faucets, televisions — all these and more are covered specifically in the bill. You thought we were kidding when we said this bill represents the federal government’s attempt to expand its regulatory reach to cover everything. We weren’t.

23. Appliances will be required to come with “carbon output” labels, and retailers will get bonus payments for marketing those that are certified “best-in-class.” The bill sets up a payment schedule to reward the manufacturers of these “best-in-class” products: $75 for each dishwasher, $250 for each clothes washer, and so on. So go out and splurge on that new super-energy-efficient refrigerator — under this bill, you already made a $200 down payment.

24. The bill requires the EPA to establish environmental standards for residences, meaning a federally dictated one-size-fits-all policy for greening every home in America. When you’re retrofitting your home according to EPA guidelines, it will come as little comfort to know that the government is reimbursing you for your troubles, especially if you’re doing the work around April 15.

25. The bill would affect commercial properties, too. In fact, all buildings would be governed by a “national energy efficiency building code” that would require 50 percent reductions in energy use in all buildings by 2018, followed by 5 percent reductions in energy use every three years after that through 2030. No one disputes that these changes will be costly, but Waxman-Markey supporters argue that they will pay for themselves through lower energy bills. This argument holds up only if we assume that energy prices will stay flat or fall over time. But the aforementioned carbon caps instituted elsewhere in this legislation make that prospect highly unlikely. Businesses and homeowners will pay twice — once to retrofit their roosts and again when the energy bill arrives.

26. The bill instructs the EPA to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from mobile sources such as cars, trucks, buses, dirt bikes, snowmobiles, boats, planes, and trains.

27. It instructs the EPA to cap and reduce greenhouse-gas emissions from non-mobile sources as well. These two items would be bigger news if the Supreme Court hadn’t already cleared the way for the EPA to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions. President Obama will probably move forward on this front even if Congress fails to pass the cap-and-trade bill. He has already announced a strict national fuel-efficiency standard for cars, and the implications for other sources of greenhouse-gas emissions are not good.

28. The bill calls on the EPA to establish a federal greenhouse-gas registry. Businesses would be required to collect and submit data on their emissions to the EPA, creating yet another compliance cost for them to pass on to their customers.

29. The bill undermines federalism by prohibiting states from creating their own cap-and-trade programs. Nearly half of all U.S. states have already taken some sort of action to cap greenhouse-gas emissions by forming regional compacts and implementing their own emission standards. Understandably, these states support a federal cap so that they are not at an economic disadvantage to states that do not cap emissions. If these states want to hamstring their own economies in the pursuit of green goals, that should be their business. States that don’t see any reason to do so should not be forced to share in their folly.

GREEN DREAMS
30. Utility companies are directed to start laying the groundwork for a glorious future in which everyone drives a plug-in car. The legislation directs them to start planning for the deployment of electrical charging stations along roadways, in parking garages, and at gas stations, as well as “such other elements as the State determines necessary to support plug-in electric drive vehicles.” (States are directed to consider whether the costs of planning or the implementation of these plans merit reimbursement. Either way, you wind up with the bill.)

31. The secretary of energy is required to establish a large-scale vehicle electrification program and to provide “such sums as may be necessary” for the manufacture of plug-in electric-drive vehicles, including another $25 billion for “advanced technology vehicle” loans. As if Detroit hadn’t gotten its hands on enough taxpayer money.

32. The bill directs the secretary of energy to promulgate regulations requiring that each automaker’s fleet be comprised of a minimum percentage of vehicles that run on ethanol or biodiesel.

33. It includes loan guarantees for the construction of ethanol pipelines. Nearly every energy bill in the last five years has included loan guarantees for the construction of ethanol pipelines. Apparently, would-be builders of this vital infrastructure are still having problems getting financing.

34. Congress passed (and Obama signed) a “cash for clunkers” program as part of the war appropriations bill this month. Under the program, you get a rebate for trading in a used car for one that gets slightly higher mileage. The Waxman-Markey bill takes this concept and applies it to appliances, electric motors — basically anything that can be traded in for a more energy-efficient version. These types of programs generally fail cost-benefit analyses spectacularly because more energy goes into the production of the new appliances than would have been used if the old ones had just run their course.

35. The bill includes $15 billion in grants and loans to encourage the manufacture of wind turbines, solar energy, biofuel production, and other sources of renewable energy that have benefited from decades of such largesse already. Another $15 billion is not going to make these energy sources cost-competitive. Only carbon rationing can achieve that. One suspects the Democrats know this; that’s why they are pushing a carbon-rationing bill. The $15 billion is just another sop to the green-energy lobby to help grease the skids.

36. The bill establishes within the EPA a SmartWay Transport Program, which would provide grants and loans to freight carriers that meet environmental goals.

37. The bill requires the secretary of energy to establish a program to make monetary awards to utilities that find innovative ways of using thermal energy, as if utilities needed an extra incentive to discover a new, cheap energy source.

38. It includes another $1.5 billion for the Hollings Manufacturing Partnership Program. This program pops up repeatedly in discussions of programs that both liberals and conservatives think should be eliminated. It is corporate welfare, pure and simple.

39. It includes $65 million for research into high-efficiency gas turbines, another gift to the corporate world with little environmental benefit.

40. It includes $7.5 million to establish a National Bioenergy Partnership to promote biofuels. Economic barriers to the commercial viability of biofuel as an energy source have proven to be so insurmountable that even with all of the federal mandates and subsidies already thrown their way, the ethanol companies lined up with everyone else for a federal bailout when the financial crisis hit. The last thing consumers need is another full-time, federally subsidized lobbying arm for that industry.

VARIOUS LEFT-WING WISH FULFILLMENT
41. One of Obama’s most reliable constituencies, college administrators, will be given billions of dollars to play with through the creation of eight “Clean Energy Innovation Centers,” university-based consortia charged with a mission to “leverage the expertise and resources of the university and private research communities, industry, venture capital, national laboratories, and other participants in energy innovation to support cross-disciplinary research and development in areas not being served by the private sector in order to develop and transfer innovative clean energy technologies into the marketplace.” Meaning that the famous business acumen of the federal government will be applied to the energy industry.

42. Another Obama constituency, the community-organizing gang — i.e., ACORN — will be eligible to receive billions in funding as the bill “authorizes the Secretary [of Energy] to make grants to community development organizations to provide financing to businesses and projects that improve energy efficiency.” Think federally subsidized consultants paid $55 an hour to tell businesses to turn down their AC in the summer.

43. Waxman-Markey also enables Obama to indulge his persistent desire to use the tax code to transfer wealth from people who pay taxes to people who don’t — i.e., from likely Republican voters to likely Obama voters. The bill “amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow certain low income taxpayers a refundable energy tax credit to compensate such taxpayers for reductions in their purchasing power, as identified and calculated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), resulting from regulation of GHGs (greenhouse gases).”

44. Not only will Waxman-Markey slip more redistribution into the tax code, it will establish a new monthly welfare check. It will create an “Energy Refund Program” that will “give low-income households a monthly cash energy refund equal to the estimated loss in purchasing power resulting from this Act.”

45. Another new class of government dependents will be created by Waxman-Markey: Americans put out of work by Waxman-Markey. The bill establishes a program to distribute “climate change adjustment assistance to adversely affected workers.”

46. Waxman-Markey will create yet another raft of government dependents, but of a different sort — bureaucrats. The bill creates: a new United States Global Change Research Program, a National Climate Change Adaptation Program, a National Climate Service, Natural Resources Climate Change Adaptation Strategy office at the White House, and an International Climate Change Adaptation Program at the State Department.

47. And since everybody else is getting a check, Bambi gets one, too, in the form of money for “domestic wildlife and natural resource adaptation.”

48. States also get in on the action. The legislation allows each state to set up a State Energy and Environment Development (SEED) account into which the federal government can deposit emission allowances. States can then sell these allowances and use the proceeds to support clean-energy programs. They must set aside a certain amount of the money to fund federal mandates, but they are given broad discretion to use the rest by making loans, grants, and other forms of support available to favored constituencies. It’s federalism, of a sort — the wrong sort.

49. And, of course, everything includes a health-care component, even cap-and-trade. Waxman-Markey requires the Department of Health and Human Services to develop a “strategic action plan to assist health professionals in preparing for and responding to the impacts of climate change.”

50. Waxman-Markey dumps money into questionable “partnerships” and grants to study “emerging careers” in “renewable energy, energy efficiency, and climate change mitigation.” The first career to emerge, of course, will be managing grants to study emerging careers.

That’s our Top 50. We could go on. And on.

When Nancy Pelosi was advising congressmen to back this beast, she said they should not worry about the words of the bill they had not read, but think about four others: “jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs.” The legislation offers Pelosi perverse vindication: Waxman-Markey will create a lot of jobs for Wall Street sharps, Big Business rent-seekers, ACORN hucksters, utility-company lobbyists, grant-writers at left-wing organizations, college administrators, light-bulb-policing bureaucrats, and an army of parasitic hangers-on. It’s up to the Senate to stop it.

In America, Really?

2009-07-06T06:33:00.000-07:00

I thought this article would be appropriate to pass on after our 4th celebrations.
M

"That Will Never Happen In America!"

Steve McCullough

June 17, 2009
1. What if I had told you in October 2008, before the last presidential election, that before Barack Obama’s first 100 days in office, the federal government would be in control of both the mortgage and the banking industries? That 19 of America’s largest banks would be forced to undergo “stress tests” by the federal government which would determine that they were “insufficiently capitalized” so they must be supervised by the government? Would you have said, “C’mon, that will never happen in America”?

2. What if I had told you that within Barack Obama’s first 100 days in office the federal government would be the largest shareholder in the US Big Three automakers – Ford, GM, and Chrysler? That the government would kick out the CEO’s of these companies and appoint hand-picked executives with zero experience in the auto industry and that executive compensation would be determined not by a Board of Directors but by the government? Would you have said, “C’mon, that will never happen in America”?

3. What if I had told you that Barack Obama would appoint 21 “Czars”, without congressional approval, accountable only to him – not to the voters – who would have control over a wide range of US policy decisions? That there would be a Stimulus Accountability Czar, an Urban Czar, a Compensation Czar, an Iran Czar, an Auto Industry Czar, a Cyber Security Czar, an Energy Czar, a Bank Bailout Czar, and more than a dozen other government bureaucrats with unchecked regulatory powers over US domestic and foreign policy? Would you have said, “C’mon, that will never happen in America”?

4. What if I had told you that the federal deficit would be $915 billion in the first six months of the Obama presidency - with a projected annual deficit of $1.75 trillion - triple the $454.8 billion in 2008, for which the previous administration was highly criticized by Obama and his fellow Democrats? That congress would pass Obama’s $3.53 trillion federal budget for fiscal 2010? That the projected deficit over the next ten years would be greater than $10 trillion? Would you have said, “C’mon, that will never happen in America”?

5. What if I had told you that the Obama Justice Department would order FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high-value detainees captured on the battlefield and held at US military detention facilities in Afghanistan? That Obama would order the closing of the Guantanamo detention facility with no plan for the disposition of the 200-plus individuals held there? That several of the suspected terrorists at Guantanamo would be sent to live in freedom in Bermuda at the expense of the US government? Would you have said, “C’mon, that will never happen in America”?

6. What if I had told you that the federal government would seek powers to seize key companies whose failures could “jeopardize the financial system”? That a new regulatory agency would be proposed by Obama to control loans, credit cards, mortgage-backed securities, and other financial products offered to the public? Would you have said, “C’mon, that will never happen in America”?

7. What if I had told you that Obama would travel to the Middle East, bow before the Saudi king, and repeatedly apologize for America’s past actions? That he would travel to Latin America where he would warmly greet Venezuela’s strongman Hugo Chavez and sit passively in the audience while Nicaraguan Marxist thug Daniel Ortega charged America with terrorist aggression in Central America? Would you have said, “C’mon, that will never happen in America”?

8. Okay, now what if I were to tell you that Obama wants to dismantle conservative talk radio through the imposition of a new “Fairness Doctrine”? That he wants to curtail the First Amendment rights of those who may disagree with his policies via internet blogs, cable news networks, or advocacy ads? Would you say, “C’mon, that will never happen in America”?

9. What if I were to tell you that the Obama Justice Department wants to limit your Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms? That the federal government wants to reinstate the so-called “assault weapons” ban which would prohibit the sale of any type of firearm that requires the shooter to pull the trigger every time a round is fired? That Obama’s Attorney General wants to eliminate the sale of virtually all handguns, which most citizens choose for self-defense? Would you say, “C’mon, that will never happen in America”?

10. What if I were to tell you that the Obama plan is to eliminate states’ rights guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment and give the federal government sweeping new powers over policies currently under the province of local and state governments and voted on by the people? That Obama plans to control the schools, energy production, the environment, health care, and the wealth of every US citizen? Would you say, “C’mon, that will never happen in America”?

11. What if I were to tell you that the president, the courts, and the federal government have ignored the US Constitution and have seized powers which the founders of our country fought to restrict? That our last presidential election may have been our last truly free election for some time to come? That our next presidential election may look similar to the one recently held in Iran? I know, I know what you say, “That will never happen in America”.

Hopeless Romantic

2009-06-25T10:11:00.000-07:00

Eliot Spitzer's indiscretions as Governor were tawdry, illegal and easy to disdain. Bill Clinton's indiscretions as President were sophmoric, shameless and filled with contemptible dishonesty. Mark Sanford's indiscretions, however, seem like something out of a romance novel. As a woman, and a hopeless romantic, I can't help but put Gov. Sanford in a whole different category. It is totally wrong for a logical person like myself to feel this way...he cheated on his wife, left his state without acceptable communication and possibly used state funds for personal fun...but man, the fellow has a heart and soul of a poet. If I was smitten before with his fiscal conservatism, I am definitely smitten now. Oh, it is just so wrong.

Posted on Thu, Jun. 25, 2009
Exclusive: Read e-mails between Sanford, woman
Sanford-Maria e-mails shed light on governor's affair

E-mails, obtained by The State newspaper in December, between Gov. Mark Sanford and Maria, a woman in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

At the time, efforts to authenticate the e-mails were unsuccessful. However, Sanford’s office Wednesday did not dispute their authenticity.

The State has removed the woman’s full name and other personal details, including her street address, e-mail address and children’s names.

McClatchy special correspondent Angeles Mase on Wednesday visited the 14-story apartment building in Buenos Aires where the woman lives, according to the e-mails, which included her address. A woman at the address answered to the name in the e-mails and, at first, agreed to speak to a visitor, but she declined after the visitor identified herself as a reporter.

Shown a photograph of Sanford, the doorman at the building said he did not recognize him. According to the doorman, the woman has two sons, one a teenager of driving age and the other younger. The e-mails refer to the woman’s two sons.

----------------------------------------------

From: Mark Sanford

To: Maria

Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 03:09:44 +0000

Dearest,

You are glorious and I hope you really understand that. You do not need a therapist to help you figure your place in the world. You are special and unique and fabulous in a whole host of ways that are worth a much longer conversation. To be continued ...

Have been having a few email problems as I am getting email through an aircard at the farm, where access to computer world is more than tough. Please let me know if you have gotten my last two eamils (sic) so I know it is working in getting to your part of the world ...

Another glorious day outside. Hope you are doing well, and am anxious to hear about your week. Know that I miss you. Unbeleivably (sic) hard to imagine it has been a week. Please also send your mailing address as I want to send you an insignificant something next week when I am back in civilization that I think you might find interesting given our conversation.

Want to write an indepth note with some thoughts on our visit when I know you are getting these emails. Hugs and much love. M

----------------------------------------------

From: Maria

Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 4:26 PM

To: Mark Sanford

Subject: RE:

My beloved, (hope you also change the dearest ...)

I’am (sic) reading your last two mails sitting outside with a great seaview here in Ilhabela, a beautiful island near Sao Paulo. Have been thinking of you while watching the beautiful blue sea (a) great part of my day and remembering with a great smile on my face, the time we had spent together. As I told you before, you brought happiness and love to my life and (I) will take you forever in my heart. I wasn’t aware till we met last week, the strong feelings I had for you, and believe me, I haven’t felt this since I was in my teen ages, when afterwards I got married. I do love you, I can feel it in my heart, and although I don’t know if we’ll ever be able to meet again this has been the best that has happened to me in a long time You made me realized (sic) how you feel when you realy (sic) love somebody and how much you want to be beside the beloved. Last Friday I would had stayed embrassing (sic) and kissing you forever.

Don’t know why you think you bore me with the description of your farm. I am an urban girl but that doesn’t inhibit me from loving other things, specially if they are the ones you love. I was able to imagine the place with every single detail you wrote and had trassmitted (sic) me the love you have for your farm. It sounds to be a great and peaceful place and loved you had shared it with me.

Thanks for your beautiful words, I don’t know if I do need or not therapy but I have to find my new place in this new stage of my life. Life has been very generous with me and I want to return at least a little bit of what I have been given. I have time and think helping others who haven’t been as lucky as me will do me fine.

My address is (deleted by The State). It will be great finding at home once I am back, whatever you send me, I’ll keep it near my bed so as to feel you nearer.

Miss you so much... love you from the deepest of my heart. Sweet kisses.

----------------------------------------------

From:

To:

Subject: RE:

Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 01:42:46 -0400

Beloved back to you...

Got back an hour ago to civilization and am now in Columbia after what was for me a glorious break from reality down at the farm. No phones ringing and tangible evidence of a day’s labors. Though I have started every day by 6 this morning woke at 4:30, I guess since my body knew it was the last day, and I went out and ran the excavator with lights until the sun came up. To me, and I suspect no one else on earth, there is something wonderful about listening to country music playing in the cab, air conditioner running, the hum of a huge diesel engine in the background, the tranquility that comes with being in a virtual wilderness of trees and marsh, the day breaking and vibrant pink coming alive in the morning clouds — and getting to build something with each scoop of dirt. It is admittedly weird but one of my more favorite ways of escaping the norms, constant phone calls and formalities that go with the office — and it probably fits with my weakness in doing rather than being — though you opened up a new chapter last week wherein I was happy and content just being. Last point worth further discussion. Afternoon projects had me outside and by days (sic) end I pretty much looked like a homeless person ... but in this case a very content one. Enough about my love of heavy equipment and woods at sunrise ...

While I was getting exhausted with one project after another at Coosaw work week, you were basking (I’m certain gloriously) on the beach..

Sounds great, hope to hear more about what sounds a great spot.

Will now finally get some sleep and write you a longer note with a few more profound thoughts tomorrow or Wednesday. In the meantime I send my love and hope you know I am thinking of you.. M

P.S. I do not want to raise expectations, when I say I will send something insignificant I promise I will do as I say! It wont (sic) be worthy of bedside placement ... was just going to find the movie the Holiday as we had spoken of it last Thursday. Its music was pleasant and made me think of you — its mood and the notion of a holiday (wrapped up in our case over two days) certainly fit as well ... (though our visit in some ways for me was as well less of a holiday than it was uncovering and realization of some things and feelings that again are worth longer conversation)

Had also hoped to find the cd of a song that played as I was flying home and also20made (sic) me think of you. Who knows if I can find the music ... so all you may be stuck with is a long released movie — and if you put it by your bed I really be worried! Love you, good night and kisses back to you ...

----------------------------------------------

From: Maria

Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 8:14 PM

To: Mark Sanford

Subject: RE:

My love,

I decided to rent a car and went by myself to the other side of the Island where it is located one of the best hotels. It’s name is DPNY Hotel and I find it quite interesting. I had lunch there in a restaurant on the beach with great seaview. I sat under a palm and ate a mixed green salad with grilled abacaxi (pineapple) and honey. in the afternoon I sunbathe and read on the beach. I ve started here “The age of turbulence” from Alan Greenspan which I highly recomend (sic) you. At five I left back to the small town had a coffee with pao de queijo (cheese bread which is something tipycal (sic) from Brazl (sic) and it’s delicious) read some magazines, walked around and finally back to meu Pousada that is hotel.

In the Island is taking place the sailing week and Rolex competition and this was the reason for choosing the place and also why luckily I am most of the time by my own. It may sound bad but it’s how I feel it. As I told you I shouldn’t have done this trip but I would have felt worst if I wouldn’t have come because it was too over the date, he is a very nice guy, great heart ... but unfortunately I am not in love with him ... You are my love ... something hard to believe even for myself as it’s also a kind of impossible love, not only because of distance but situation.

Sometimes you don’t choose things, they just happen ... I can’t redirect my feelings and I am very happy with mine towards you. Hope you have had a good day, guess with much work.

Send you all my love and goodnight kisses. Sweet dreams from down south. I’ll dream with you.

----------------------------------------------

From: Mark Sanford

To: Maria

Subject: RE:

Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:24:54 -0400

Sweetest,

It was indeed a long day. I am most jealous of your salad under the palm tree.

Three thoughts in one note now that I have a moment. One the travel schedule is about to get real busy (and this distresses me for the way it may well make it more difficult to get your notes over the next few weeks), two unfortunately all the feelings you describe are mutual, and three where do we go from here?

One, tomorrow leave at 5 am for New York and meetings. Will think about you on its streets and wish I was going to be there later in the month when you are there. Tomorrow night back to Philadelphia for the start of the National Governor’s Conference through the weekend. Back to Columbia for Tuesday and then on Wednesday, as I think I had told you, taking the family to China, Tibet, Nepal, India, Thailand and then back through Hong Kong on world wind tour. Few days home then to Bahamas for 5 days on a friends boat for the last break of the summer. The following weekend have been asked to spend it out in Aspen, Colorado with McCain — which has kicked up the whole VP talk all over again in the press back home.

Two, mutual feelings. I have been specializing in staying focused on decisions and actions of the head for a long time now — and you have my heart. You have oh so many attributes that pulls it in this direction. Do you really comprehend how beautiful your smile is? Have you been told lately how warm your eyes are and how they softly glow with the special nature of your soul. I remember Jenny, or someone close to me, once commenting that while my mom was pleasant and warm it was sad she had never accomplished anything of significance. I replied that they were wrong because she had the ultimate of all gifts — and that was the ability to love unconditionally. The rarest of all commodities in this world is love. It is that thing that we all yearn for at some level — to be simply loved unconditionally for nothing more than who we are — not what we can get, give or become. There are but 50 governors in my country and outside of the top spot, this is as high as you can go in the area I have invested the last 15 years of my life — my getting here came as no small measure because I had that foundation of love and support so critical to getting up in the morning and feeling you could give and risk because you already had a full tank of love in the emotional bank account. Since our first meeting there in a wind swept somewhat open air dance spot in Punta del Este, I felt that you had that same rare attribute. Above all else I love that inner beauty about you. That gift of yours is going to make a tremendous difference in (The State deleted sons’ names) life — and in anyone’s life who is blest to be touched by yours — you need to rest very comfortably in that fact. As I mentioned in our last visit, while I did not need love fifteen years ago — as the battle scars of life and aging and politics have worn on this has become a real need of mine. You have a particular grace and calm that I adore. You have a level of sophistication that is so fitting with your beauty. I could digress and say that you have the ability to give magnificently gentle kisses, or that I love your tan lines or that I love the curves of your hips, the erotic beauty of you holding yourself (or two magnificent parts of yourself) in the faded glow of night’s light — but hey, that would be going into the sexual details we spoke of at the steakhouse at dinner — and unlike you I would never do that!

Three and finally, while all the things above are all too true — at the same time we are in a hopelessly — or as you put it impossible — or how about combine and simply say hopelessly impossible situation of love. How in the world this lightening [sic] strike snuck up on us I am still not quite sure. As I have said to you before I certainly had a special feeling about you from the first time we met, but these feelings were contained and I genuinely enjoyed our special friendship and the comparing of all too many personal notes (and yes this is true even if you did occasionally tantalize me with sexual details over the years!) — but it was all safe. Where we are is not. I have thought about it and in some ways feel I let you down in letting these complications come into a friendship that I hope will last till death. In all my life I have lived by a code of honor and at a variety of levels know I have crossed lines I would have never imagined. I wish I could wish it away, but this soul-mate feel I alluded too is real and in that regard I sure don’t want to be the person complicating your life. I looked to where I often look for advice and counsel, and in I Corinthians 13 it simply says that, “ Love is patient and kind, love is not jealous or boastful, it is not arrogant or rude, Love does not insist on its own way, it is not irritable or resentful, it does not rejoice in the wrong, but rejoices in the right, Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things and endures all things”. In this regard it is action that goes well beyond the emotion of today or tomorrow and in this light I want to look for ways to show love in helping you to live a better — not more complicated life. I want to help (one of Maria’s sons) with film guys that might help his career, etc. I also don’t want you walking20away (sic) from some guy (I take it the younger guy you mentioned a t dinner) because of me — and what we both have to see as an impossible situation. I better stop now least this really sound like the Thornbirds — wherein I was always upset with Richard Chamberlain for not dropping his ambitions and running into Maggie’s arms. The bottom line is two fold, my heart wants me to get on a plane tonight and to be in your loving arms — my head is saying how do we put the Genie back in the bottle because I sure don’t want to be encumbering you, or your options or your life. Put differently, given I love you, I don’t want to be part of the reason you are having less than an ideal week in what sounds like a cool spot.

Lastly I also suspect I feel a little vulnerable because this is ground I have never certainly never covered before — so if you have pearls of wisdom on how we figure all this out please let me know ... In the meantime please sleep soundly knowing that despite the best efforts of my head my heart cries out for you, your voice, your body, the touch of your lips, the touch of your finger tips and an even deeper connection to your soul. I love you ... sleep tight. M

PS. I will make it a point in NY tomorrow to drop by a store and get that movie I promised to send your way ... I am encouraged to know you will not keep it beside the bed least we have tangible evidence of two pathetic figures missing each other far too much to live a few thousand miles apart!

----------------------------------------------

From: Maria

To: Mark Sanford

Subject: RE:

Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 23:22:29 +0000

You have not brought complication or are not bringing complication to my life, on the contrary you’ve fullfiled (sic) me with happiness and made me aware how you can feel when you love somebody. I can think with my head but only feel with my heart so I can’t avoid it even knowing is hopelessly impossible. The guy is the one I told you ,just three years younger than me, but I am not in love and won’t fall in love with time so I have to continue my way ... be alone for some time and if I am lucky enough will someday feel towards somebody, what I today feel for you. At least you made me realized it can happen.

I don’t know if I did understood (sic) well about what was unsafe or not safe. Before our mails use to have other contents ... if you want to go back to that and don’t write love things and so on because is not safe for you it’s ok with me, i (sic) love you and by no way would do something that can harm you, so please let me know.

I don’t know how we figure all this out and I am not interested in knowing. I prefer to think we’ll see each other again somewhere sometime in this life and in next. Will be missing you till then... . .

Have a great trip with the ones you love ... they are the kind of trips you will never forget and for your boys will be unworthable (sic) not only because of the places they will visit but for sharing all that time with you.

Send you millions of kisses that will last till we get in touch again. best wishes from the deepest of my heart.

P.S.: I don’t want to put the genius (sic) back in the bottle because I truly believe in freedom. I never gave you sexual details but now you don’t need to imagine you can close your eyes and just remember. I’ll do the same.

2009 TN Legislative Recap

2009-06-24T09:33:00.000-07:00

I have always been an appreciative follower of Rep. Stacey Campfield's blog, here is his take on the winners and losers of this past year's legislative fun.

www.lastcar.blogspot.com

Who won the battles in the legislature this year. This is my point of view on the issues. I will do people later.

Education

Slight edge Republicans

Dems keep an expanded failing pre K program, Republicans win on charter schools. Republicans would have lost charter schools as well if it wasn't for the easy stimulus money (100 million) Dems were in lock down and had it killed. When the media started to pick up on the money lost the story changed.

Judges
Democrats win in a landslide.

An all but complete collapse had many thinking a deal was cut for something else. That something else never materialized.

Illegal immigration and election reform

Democrats win

Holding the line and doing nothing was a victory. Stalemate is a win for them.

Guns

Wash.

You may say "What? Republicans won that hands down!" Yes and no. Republicans got the issues passed we have wanted to pass for years but many Democrats were sick and tired of being beat up by the gun owners election after election. That wont happen again. Those who hate the gun issue made a ton of noise to make Republicans look extreme and wont be hurt by the gun owners anyway.

Taxes

Wash. Possible Democrat victory.

Tax increases on small businesses unemployment, several fee increases and a lot of other business taxes get a bump. No broad tax increases so most people will not notice the tax increases immediately.

The budget.

Democrats in a landslide.

They got about everything they wanted. Republicans failed to hold a hard line on any big issue. Triggers making the governor cut when revenues don't make projections was the only possible victory but I can imagine what districts will get cut when it happens.

Staff

Republicans

Having the constitutional officers is a huge change we at least know what the numbers are in an honest way. Getting election coordinators slowly but surely will pay off big long term. Dems keep control of most of the rest of the staff thanks to Kent Williams.

Regulation

Dems in a shocker

I was expecting so much more on this issue. Republicans started out strong. Some deregulation occurred in the area of streams by just getting clear definition of what a stream is.

On other issues it looked like we were as bad or worse then our competition. We went with most of the regulation Obama wanted. Energy mandates and regulation on construction took huge jumps. Giving the government private health care information passed. Limits on who could run for offices serve as a volunteer firefighter or constable passed, losses on coal mining and other issues gave dems the clear edge by year end.

Reaganomics vs Obamanomics

2009-06-23T09:08:00.000-07:00

Gotta love Ann Coulter. In a recent email, she was plugging a book that is an investor "must read" but her preface is what caught my attention. It is just a matter-of-fact recap of the obvious. Bottom line, liberal economic/social policies have killed us thruout history. I know my braniac liberal leaning friends want to discount this theory because of social responsibility principles but "at what cost".

Me, personally...I just think government needs to get the hell out of the way.

Reaganomics vs. Obamanomics

Dear Fellow Conservative,

You know what really irritates me about liberals? (Besides the fact that they're spineless little girls in pretty dresses who can't play rough because it musses up their hair...)They always think liberalism fixes the problem -- even when it was liberalism that caused the problem in the first place!

Case in point, the Financial Meltdown of 2008 (and counting). To hear liberals tell it, it all goes back to Ronald Reagan -- who with his seductive "B-actor" charm fooled America into thinking that by slashing taxes, regulation, and government spending we could unleash free enterprise and create a new wave of prosperity.
Sure, liberals concede, that seemed to work for, oh, the better part of three decades, but now we're paying the price for all that "greed." The solution? A return to the pre-Reagan policies of Jimmy Carter, LBJ, FDR... Speaking of which, what will victory look like in the "War on Poverty"? When are they going to produce an "exit strategy" from that quagmire?

Unfortunately, the facts -- as always when you're talking about liberal theories -- tell a different story. A story in which all the major villains, it turns out, have one thing in common: government. That's right. From the "Community Reinvestment Act" that pressured banks into affirmative-action lending, to those "government-sponsored enterprises" Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- who bought up all the resulting subprime loans and repackaged them as "investment grade" securities -- the greasy thumb-prints of government were all over this fiasco from beginning to end.

But those, as I say, are facts. And facts have no place in the fantasy world of Democratic policy-makers. Nor does history -- true history, that is, as opposed to the public-school propaganda that teaches, for instance, that FDR's New Deal got us out of the Great Depression, when in reality it only deepened and prolonged it.
But the question remains: What can those of us in the fast-dwindling, Reality-Based Community do to survive financially as the Obamacrats prepare a "New New Deal" that threatens to outspend the original by about ten thousand to one?

Personally, I don't have a clue. But thank goodness I know of someone who does.
His name is Mark Skousen, Ph.D., editor of the investment newsletter Forecasts & Strategies -- and he just might be the smartest financial advisor working today.
Don't let that "Ph.D." fool you -- this is no pointy-headed leftist like Obama's economic team who seem to think that all the economy needs in order to flourish are more liberals running the economy.

Skousen, after all, launched his career by predicting during the 1980-82 recession -- and to the scornful laughter of nearly all the other so-called experts -- that "Reaganomics will work."

Boy, did he get that right. And boy, has he gotten it right ever since:

• Like when he issued a "sell everything" recommendation to his Forecasts & Strategies subscribers just 41 days before the stock market crash of 1987 -- then told them to get fully invested again several weeks later, just in time for the recovery.

• And when he called the Gulf War of 1990 "a turning point for U.S. stocks" -- and the Dow subsequently began a bull market that didn't end for nearly 10 years.
• And when he told his subscribers in 1995 that the NASDAQ would double, and then double again -- which is exactly what it did.

• And when, just weeks before the NASDAQ collapsed in 2000, he warned his subscribers that tech stocks were dangerously overvalued.

• And when, in 2006 -- more than two years before the financial meltdown -- he warned subscribers that "we clearly are headed for fiscal disaster," and showed them how to protect themselves.

What's Skousen's secret? I think it begins with understanding the real laws of economics -- not the warmed-over Marxism that passes for "new thinking" to Obama's media groupies.

And here's the best thing about Mark Skousen. He knows how to make you money no matter how bad things get in the financial markets and the economy overall.
After all, he points out, the late billionaire John Templeton -- whom Money magazine called "the greatest stock-picker of the 20th century" -- began to build his vast fortune in the depths of the Great Depression.

Maybe you're not looking to be a billionaire. Maybe you're just looking to keep your head above water while the Obamacrats do their best to sink the economy. Either way, Mark Skousen can help -- and I urge you to give his Forecasts & Strategies a try.
The cost? Less than the tip on a John Edwards haircut -- in today's dollars, that is. After Obama gets done driving down the value of the dollar it wouldn't be enough to buy Governor Rod Blogojevich a haircut.

Sincerely,

Ann Coulter

Wisdom

2009-06-19T07:28:00.000-07:00

As I get older, I appreciate the wisdom of my elders so much more than I did as a youth who knew it all. Thanks for sharing Jeanette!

Written By Regina Brett, 90 years old, of The Plain Dealer, Cleveland , Ohio

"To celebrate growing older, I once wrote the 45 lessons life taught me. It is the most-requested column I've ever written."

My odometer rolled over to 90 in August, so here is the column once more:

1. Life isn't fair, but it's still good.

2. When in doubt, just take the next small step.

3. Life is too short to waste time hating anyone.

4. Your job won't take care of you when you are sick. Your friends and parents will. Stay in touch.

5. Pay off your credit cards every month.

6. You don't have to win every argument. Agree to disagree.

7. Cry with someone. It's more healing than crying alone.

8. It's OK to get angry with God. He can take it.

9. Save for retirement starting with your first paycheck.

10. When it comes to chocolate, resistance is futile.

11. Make peace with your past so it won't screw up the present.

12. It's OK to let your children see you cry.

13. Don't compare your life to others. You have no idea what their journey is all about.

14. If a relationship has to be a secret, you shouldn't be in it.

15. Everything can change in the blink of an eye. But don't worry; God never blinks.

16. Take a deep breath. It calms the mind.

17.. Get rid of anything that isn't useful, beautiful or joyful.

18. Whatever doesn't kill you really does make you stronger.

19. It's never too late to have a happy childhood. But the second one is up to you and no one else.

20. When it comes to going after what you love in life, don't take no for an answer.

21. Burn the candles, use the nice sheets, wear the fancy lingerie. Don't save it for a special occasion. Today is special.

22. Over prepare, then go with the flow.

23. Be eccentric now. Don't wait for old age to wear purple.

24. The most important sex organ is the brain.

25. No one is in charge of your happiness but you.

26. Frame every so-called disaster with these words 'In five years, will this matter?'

27. Always choose life.

28. Forgive everyone everything.

29. What other people think of you is none of your business.

30. Time heals almost everything. Give time time.

31. However good or bad a situation is, it will change.

32. Don't take yourself so seriously. No one else does.

33. Believe in miracles.

34. God loves you because of who God is, not because of anything you did or didn't do.

35. Don't audit life. Show up and make the most of it now.

36. Growing old beats the alternative -- dying young.

37. Your children get only one childhood.

38. All that truly matters in the end is that you loved.

39. Get outside every day. Miracles are waiting everywhere.

40. If we all threw our problems in a pile and saw everyone else's,we'd grab ours back.

41. Envy is a waste of time. You already have all you need.

42.. The best is yet to come.

43. No matter how you feel, get up, dress up and show up.

44. Yield.

45. Life isn't tied with a bow, but it's still a gift."

Today's Funny

2009-06-18T10:59:00.000-07:00

I am in the middle of watching the death march that is our state's final legislation days...so I am thankful friends send me a little humor to brighten my day. This one particularly amused me because I know some elderly rascals who would do this...on either side of the aisle!

Parking Ticket

Working people frequently ask retired people what they do to make their days interesting. Well, for example, the other day my wife and I went into town and went into a shop. We were only in there for about 5 minutes. When we came out, there was a cop writing out a parking ticket...We went up to him and said, 'Come on man, how about giving a senior citizen a break?'

He ignored us and continued writing the ticket. I called him a Nazi turd. He glared at me and started writing another ticket for having worn tires.
So my wife called him a shit-head. He finished the second ticket and put it on the windshield with the first. Then he started writing a third ticket. This went on for about 20 minutes. The more we abused him, the more tickets he wrote.

Personally, we didn't care... We came into town by bus and the car had an Obama sticker. We try to have a little fun each day now that we're retired. It's important at our age.

Rural Divide

2009-06-17T08:42:00.000-07:00

Really, the whole political schematics come down to an "urban/rural" showdown. If we got rid of the electoral college then maybe the VAST rural landscape could be counted in the Presidential elections.

“We’re an urban country, and the White House reflects the majority of the constituency of the country,” he said. “This is the problem we have with everything. Folks don’t understand what we do.”

This quote from the article below says it all. Maybe the rural coalitions need to come together and explain it to everyone.

Rural Dems have beef with ObamaBy: Lisa Lerer and Jonathan Martin
June 17, 2009 04:28 AM EST

Angered by White House decisions on everything from greenhouse gases to car dealerships, congressional Democrats from rural districts are threatening to revolt against parts of President Barack Obama’s ambitious first-year agenda.

“They don’t get rural America,” said Rep. Dennis Cardoza, a Democrat who represents California’s agriculture-rich Central Valley. “They form their views of the world in large cities.”

Cardoza’s critique was aimed at Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency, but it echoes complaints rural-district Democrats have about a number of Obama administration decisions.

“I wouldn’t say it’s a complete strikeout, but they’ve just got a few more bases to it when it comes to the rural community,” said Louisiana Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu.

A rural revolt could hamper the administration’s ability to pass climate change and health care legislation before the August recess.

Democrats from farm states are some of the same moderate members Obama must win to get almost any piece of his agenda through the Senate: Landrieu and Sens. Max Baucus of Montana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor of Arkansas. Without their votes, Democrats can’t move legislation over Republican filibusters — such as the one sure to come if the health care plan that moves through the Senate includes a public option supported by the administration.

In the House, rural Democrats threaten to marshal nearly 50 votes against the climate and energy bill backed by the administration.

“For Obama, it’s a very tough high-wire act,” said Frank O’Donnell, executive director of the environmental group Clean Air Watch. “The farm states are among those that the Democrats desperately want to keep in the fold at the same time the farm states historically aren’t very good on environmental issues.”

Obama made inroads to rural areas during his presidential campaign, a result of pouring significant resources into rural counties in key battleground states. According to exit polls, Obama won 43 percent of the rural vote — a 4 percent increase from Democrat John Kerry in 2004.

But some Democrats complain that Obama hasn’t paid much attention to the rural states since he’s been in office.

“We’d love to see him out in rural America more,” Lincoln said.

The conflict with rural Democrats burst into the open at the Capitol last week, when rural and moderate Democrats revolted against the decision to close roughly 3,400 General Motors and Chrysler car dealerships. The White House Auto Task Force endorsed some of the cuts in its plans to revamp the companies.

In rural America, especially, the looming closures pose a dire threat. Car dealers are not only an economic linchpin of many county-seat towns but also offer support for institutions and a way of life that can’t be easily replaced.

“In rural jurisdictions, your dealerships are pretty big employers. If you knock out four dealerships, the ripple effects of that are substantial,” said Rep. Frank Kratovil (D-Md.), who represents a largely rural Eastern Shore district and is co-sponsoring a bill that could force the auto companies to honor their contracts with the rejected dealerships.

With GM and Chrysler forcing hundreds of local dealerships to close up shop, members of Congress are scrambling to save thousands of jobs and warning of severe political consequences that could come from shuttering what are often community pillars.

Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) questioned how independent owned and operated businesses have any financial impact on automakers.

“None of us can quite understand why they consider dealerships a drag when they are the ones that buy the cars, that take the financial risks. Many of the dealerships that are being closed are profitable.”

Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki said that “all decisions about specific dealerships are made solely by the car companies on the basis of what they believe is in the interests of the long-term health and survival of their business.”

But lawmakers say the car dealership closings are just the latest blow to rural areas since Obama took office. The first sign of a disconnect between the White House and rural voters came in the administration’s budget, which included a plan to slash direct payments to farms with annual gross receipts of more than $500,000. After an outcry from farm-state lawmakers, Congress dropped the cuts from the budget.

Since then, much of rural Democrats’ unhappiness with the new administration has focused on the EPA. While Bush administration political appointees in the agency were skeptical of stricter environmental laws, Obama’s EPA has moved forward quickly on a host of new regulations, including limits on greenhouse gas emissions that farm lobbyists say will raise costs on farmers.

“There is a different focus [at EPA] than under the Bush years,” said Rick Krause, senior director of congressional relations for the American Farm Bureau. “And there very well could be some political risk involved.”

Rep. Collin Peterson, the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, says the urban-rural disconnect under Obama is no worse than it was under his predecessors.

“We’re an urban country, and the White House reflects the majority of the constituency of the country,” he said. “This is the problem we have with everything. Folks don’t understand what we do.”

Still, Peterson wants the Department of Agriculture — rather than the EPA — to oversee what kinds of agricultural activities will qualify as “offsets” that benefit the climate under the climate change bill. The bill allows businesses to meet their emissions caps by paying farmers to cut emissions, a process that could result in big agricultural profits.

“A lot of us on the committee don’t want the EPA anywhere near our farmers,” Peterson said last week during a committee hearing.

A draft decision by the agency ruling that “indirect land use” issues must be considered when calculating the carbon footprint of corn-based ethanol also angered many in the farming and renewable fuels community.

While these issues play out most dramatically in farm states, they could have an impact that spreads much further. Forcing rural Democrats to vote for climate change legislation could create problems for the Democrats nationally in 2010 and 2012.

“If Collin Peterson and these rural and conservative Democrats in the House are unable to work out some arrangement with [Henry] Waxman and [Ed] Markey, it could resonate beyond the Beltway,” said Al Cross, director of the Institute for Rural Journalism and Community Issues and a veteran Kentucky political reporter.

Cross noted that 80 percent of the electricity that rural cooperatives generate comes from coal-fired power plants — the same ones that would take a hit under the current legislation.

And many of these regions that run on coal also happen to be electoral swing states, leaving Republicans licking their chops.

“It will cost every North Carolinian somewhere in the neighborhood of $2,400 to $3,000 a year in just the electrical surcharge,” said Sen. Richard Burr, a Republican who hails from a state Obama carried last year and would like to win again. “That’s a surcharge larger than their annual electric bill.”

A White House official said the administration is committed to alleviating any disproportionate burden on rural states. “The president has been clear that if there is a disparate impact on certain regions during the transition period, families and businesses should be compensated — the Waxman-Markey legislation includes provisions that do just that,” the official said.

Health - Personal Responsibility

2009-06-01T06:50:00.000-07:00

Star Parker is usually dead-on with her assessments. I respect her opinion even more because she has pulled herself up by her bootstraps and has seen both sides of the spectrum. She is a black woman who tells it straight.

Want to know what troubles our American health care system?
by Star Parker

Consider the thoughts of psychiatrist and Nazi death camp survivor Viktor Frankl.

After spending time in our country as a visiting professor, he saw the looming dangers of freedom without responsibility. He observed: "Freedom is in danger of degenerating into mere arbitrariness unless it is lived in terms of responsibleness. That is why I recommend that the Statue of Liberty on the East Coast be supplemented by a Statue of Responsibility on the West Coast."

We as Americans accept that health care is an individual right, even if someone else is paying for it. The truth that every personal right must have an accompanying personal responsibility is now lost in our self-absorbed materialistic culture. We have only rights, entitlements if you will. Few have any idea what the costs are of the health care they receive. Many get it tax subsidized through their employer, many get it through Medicare in a now bankrupt Ponzi scheme in which those working pay taxes to pay for care of those retired, and more than sixty million Americans do not pay at all through Medicaid and SCHIP programs.

Hundreds of millions receive health care the costs of which have little or nothing to do with their own personal realities and then we wonder why those costs are out of control.

Now Ted Kennedy has introduced his solution to all of this, which also captures the thinking of our president. Set up a new government health care plan, subsidized of course by taxes, and call this choice because you are not forced to take it (although you are forced to pay taxes for it).

As Senator Kennedy announces more free health care -- meaning one group of Americans will get what another group of Americans will pay for -- the disconnect between who gets health care services and who pays for them will grow even greater.

Costs will be controlled, according to Senator Kennedy, by setting up a new army of bureaucrats who will get rid of proverbial "fraud and abuse," will decide for doctors how to treat their patients, and will decide for us how we should behave by dictating the preventative measures we must take for our own good.

To put on a show for what this all might look like, a few weeks ago President Obama "invited" representatives from the major sectors of the health care business -- doctors, insurers, hospitals, pharmaceutical firms, medical device manufacturers -- to the White House to tell us all how much they would commit to lowering costs.

The result was a supposed commitment by these groups to cut costs by 1.5 percent per year.

Aside from the fact that shortly after the White House announcement, industry representatives began issuing statements denying that they made any such commitment, let's assume it's accurate. That these groups do not know how to run their own businesses and that they can deliver the same products and services annually for 1.5 percent less if the president threatens them.

At our annual health care bill of about $2.5 trillion dollars, savings of 1.5 percent would be about $40 billion.

Let's consider how much of our $2.5 trillion health care bill are costs resulting from behavior that individuals choose.

Googling around and totaling up, I come up with about $240 billion, about ten percent of our total health care bill. This is roughly the total reported health care costs associated with obesity, drug and alcohol abuse, sexually transmitted diseases, HIV/AIDS and sedentary life styles.

Worth noting is that these occur disproportionately in low income groups who get their health care free. More than half our spending on HIV/AIDS, for example, is out of Medicaid. Can it be accidental that the huge health care costs related to lifestyle issues are most pronounced where individuals do not personally bear the costs of how they behave?

How can our health care problems be solved by more entitlements and bureaucrats when this is what is causing the problem to begin with?

Viktor Frankl had it right. At the heart of the solution for our health care crisis is personal responsibility. This means more freedom and more markets.

Healthcare - Intro

2009-05-27T08:12:00.000-07:00

Besides Nukes and SCOTUS, Healthcare seems to be the topic du jour. I am going to stay away from the first two topics for the time being because I would probably be labeled a militant constitutionalist...and then the discussion would devolve from there.

But Healthcare is a topic that can be rationally discussed these days because noone really has the answer...and I think even the most radical left or right thinkers will admit that premise.

Fortunately, I have some very dear friends and family members who come from different sides of the equation. They hold learned viewpoints from the private, public, political and educational sectors. I look forward to future discussions with all of them as well as hearing the viewpoints of those who are on the ground dealing with these issues either personally or professionally.

Three points I am going to make upfront:

I believe that personal responsibility is the cornerstone for any successful program that we adopt. It is not mine nor my neighbors responsibility to fund your unhealthy lifestyle choices.

A total government run program is not an option. Government has NEVER run anything successfully. Accessibilty, Quality and Affordability will be out the door before the game starts.

Throwing money at anything just doesn't work. We (TN) threw $61 million dollars at a state-of-the-art Switchgrass program in 2007 with nothing to show for it. Government LOVES throwing money at things. Businesses want results. Somewhere the two shall meet.

Now that we have gotten the ground rules out of the way, let's talk.

BTW, thanks Eric, Damian and Richard for getting the topic going in my head. You know I am OCD!

Profound Statements

2009-05-25T07:45:00.000-07:00

I was cleaning out my "inbox" this morning of all the things I kept for future reference (thank goodness it is paperless), and happened on this little nugget. I especially like the older quotes and #13.

As we remember our American warriors and the sacrifices they gave to protect our way of life, let's not forget that way of life was a dream given to us by our forefathers...after careful consideration of all the pitfalls that doomed previous civilizations and the innate nature of man.

Profound Statements

1. In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm and three or more is a congress.

-- John Adams

2. If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed.

-- Mark Twain

3. Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But then I repeat myself.

-- Mark Twain

4 . I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.

-- Winston Churchill

5. A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.

-- George Bernard Shaw

6. A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money.

-- G. Gordon Liddy

7. Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

-- James Bovard, Civil Libertarian (1994)

8. Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer of money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.

-- Douglas Casey, Classmate of Bill Clinton at Georgetown University

9. Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.

-- P.J. O'Rourke, Civil Libertarian

10. Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.

-- Frederic Bastiat, French Economist (1801-1850)

11. Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

-- Ronald Reagan (1986)

12. I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts.

-- Will Rogers

13. If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free!

-- P.J. O'Rourke

14. In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other.

-- Voltaire (1764)

15. Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you!

-- Pericles (430 B.C.)

16. No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session.

-- Mark Twain (1866)

Redneck Values

2009-05-18T06:59:00.000-07:00

As I was perusing my morning reading material, I happened on a few items that connected in a strange way. A.C.K. had a commentary on the Gibbons vs Haslam message and then I received an email from my local militant friend that I am posting below.

As the party searches their souls to redefine what it means to be a Republican, I can't help but appreciate what makes life in small town America so appealing.

YOU MIGHT BE A REDNECK:

You might be a redneck if: It never occurred to you to be offended by the phrase, 'One nation, under God.'

You might be a redneck if: You've never protested about seeing the 10 Commandments posted in public places.

You might be a redneck if: You still say ' Christmas' instead of 'Winter Festival.'

You might be a redneck if: You bow your head when someone prays.

You might be a redneck if: You stand and place your hand over your heart when they play the National Anthem.

You might be a redneck if: You treat our armed forces veterans with great respect, and always have.

You might be a redneck if: You've never burned an American flag, nor intend to.

You might be a redneck if: You know what you believe and you aren't afraid to say so, no matter who is listening.

You might be a redneck if: You respect your elders and raised your kids to do the same.

You might be a redneck if: You'd give your last dollar to a friend.

If you got this email from me, it is because I believe that you, like me, have just enough Red Neck in you to have the same beliefs as those talked about in this email.

God Bless the USA !

Tennessee & John Jay Hooker

2009-05-09T06:44:00.000-07:00

One of my personal and professional fascinations is researching the reasons behind why laws were originally passed. It is kind of like CSI for the political junkie mind. I did the same thing when I tried to understand the art world, but I decided to stick with politics after I learned of the sordid story between Gauguin and Van Gogh and the real reason Van Gogh cut off his ear...the art mind is just way too out there for my conservative leanings. Now, I just prefer to appreciate the beauty of art. Hmmm...I guess I can translate that thought process to other people's feelings on politics. Egads!

Oh well, back to politics. Personally, I think we need to start repealing laws right and left because each law that is passed seems to shackle somebody to something. A few laws that get passed are truly done in this vein of thought, those laws are sometimes called "enabling legislation" (and yes, we have gotten much more of these this year). However, it seems the majority of laws that get passed each year are not enabling legislation at all but just more legislative slavery. The less nefarious ones are passed because of knee jerk reactions to tragedy or intentional malfeasance, they are sometimes called "public welfare legislation". The darker ones invariably get passed to benefit somebody in power under the GUISE of public welfare legislation because that is the only way they can get passed. It is a very, very old game. I see alot of it in organizational behavior, and unless you know how the game is played, many "good-intent" players don't realize the repercussions of the maneuvering until the deal is done. Machiavelli still has many dedicated and passionate disciples among us.

The best defense to this legislative slavery and abuse of power is an informed citizenry...and a demand for less government control. Our founding fathers knew what we were in for when our country was birthed. They were the parents who risked their own lives for their children's future. And like any good parent, they did their best to put the tools in our hands to keep us free from the tyranny they themselves had fought against...but they did warn us that without moral fortitude in the public arena, man's sinful nature would take over.

Sometimes I wonder if we haven't pawned off many of those cherished tools to Guido the killer loan shark for a spring break trip to Daytona Beach...but I digress.

Today, I was perusing my usual news sources and found this video gem. I can't remember a better 20 minutes of oratory than what John Jay Hooker gave last week in committee. It speaks to me on so many levels. And this man's command of Tennessee history and the art of old school oratory is breathtaking. Thanks SC for this one. You were dead on.

As Rosa Parks once said..."Not all laws are just laws". And John Jay Hooker confirms why and how a constitutionally flawed law came to be. Definitely a Wizard of Oz unveiling after my own heart.

Click on the link below for this amazing moment of political clarity.

http://dailydocket.blogspot.com/2009/05/john-jay-hooker-against-retention.html

Auto Restructuring Plan

2009-05-06T07:08:00.000-07:00

Being in the political arena is a double edge sword if you have a conscious. Too often you have to translate political prose into bottom line reality and then somehow have to convince your own people what that means to them because the political prose is so dang pretty and deceptive...the snake in Eden concept.

It is kinda like a joke being told by a group of tuxedo clad people at a cocktail party, and the only people who don't get it are the people at the end of the punch line.

The facts of this restructuring represent that kind of joke.

Chrysler Restructuring Plan a Power Grab
By Robert Robb

The proposed end games for General Motors and particularly Chrysler illustrate why government shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place.

It's worthwhile to begin with the broader picture. Americans used to buy about 17 million new cars and trucks a year. Now, we're buying less than 10 million. That, of course, puts considerable stress on manufacturers with weaker products or financial structures.

How many new cars Americans will want to purchase in the future is unknown. But there can be a high degree of confidence in this: however many it is, someone will sell them to us.

Moreover, they are likely to be produced in the United States. A majority of cars sold by foreign manufacturers in the U.S. are actually built here.

So, why should the federal government care who it is that sells us our cars? There are two rationales offered. First, to preserve an "American" auto industry. Second, to preserve "American" jobs.

The proposed Chrysler restructuring gives the lie to both rationales.

Under the Obama administration's proposal, Chrysler would, in essence, be given to Fiat, an Italian company, to operate.

So, how is an Italian car manufacturer operating in Michigan any more "American" than a Japanese manufacturer operating in Kentucky?

And why should the federal government give a market preference - through taxpayer financing and warrantee guarantees - to Italian cars produced by American workers in Michigan over Japanese cars produced by American workers in Kentucky?

The Obama administration's proposed restructuring is more than just unjustified, however. It dangerously undermines the rule of law, as explicated so beneficially by Friedrich Hayek in his classic, "The Road to Serfdom."

The essence of the rule of law, according to Hayek, is that what the government will do is known to all economic actors in advance. That government will not act arbitrarily in specific circumstances to favor some economic actors over others.

Chrysler has $6.9 billion in secured debt. Under the law, secured lenders have the first claim on the assets of the debtor in the event of non-payment.

The Obama administration is attempting to muscle past this law. Under its proposal, the health care trust of the auto workers' union, an unsecured creditor, would forgive 57 percent of what Chrysler owes it, and receive 55 percent of the company's equity in exchange. The federal government would forgive about a third of what it would loan Chrysler and receive 8 percent of the company's equity. Fiat would pay nothing for its 20 percent initial ownership.

The secured creditors, with the first claim on Chrysler's assets, were asked to forgive 70 percent of what they are owed and receive nothing in equity. When they refused and forced the company into bankruptcy, they were excoriated by Obama - a shameful act by a president who pledged to uphold the law, not make it up as he went along.

The proposed GM restructuring is equally lopsided. The union trust would forgive half of what it is owed and receive 39 percent of the company. The government would forgive half of what it is owed and receive 50 percent of the company. The other private lenders, in this case unsecured, would forgive 100 percent of what they are owed and receive just 10 percent of the company.

In his recent press conference, Obama said he had no interest in owning or operating car companies. Until this point, I was willing to accept Obama at his word, while fundamentally disagreeing with his economic policies.

Given his actions, however, it's hard to credit his disclaimer in this instance.

These proposed restructurings are power grabs, pure and simple. The positions of lenders are eviscerated to give control to the union trust and the government. The emergent companies are given market preference through taxpayer financing and government warrantee guarantees. All to serve no true national purpose.

Education

2009-05-04T06:16:00.000-07:00

Since the legislative session is winding down and my OHV bills had a 1/3 success ratio with time to spare before next year's battle, my philosophical focus has now shifted to the education conundrum. A huge issue in my neck of the woods and one that could, in my opinion, be easily changed if we all put our thinking caps on and be willing to get over "status quo" issues and think about solutions.

Personally, I think the solution to any problem is education of the mind and expanding our world view. Since adults usually close off the most porous of these brain cells (unwillingly, willingly or just by attrition), my intentional focus will be the children and figuring out how to help them be the best that they can be in life...whatever that path may be. I think we spend way too much time telling them what they should be instead of focusing on their own unique skillsets. God has given us each our own set.

I decided to have my own children later in life (although I was one of the first of my dear college friends to do so). When I made that decision, my entire life revolved around expanding their minds and souls. Yes, I even did the Vivaldi in the womb thing.

When it was time for school, I jumped in and became that involved parent. By second grade, my eldest was evolving faster then her teachers could keep up with educationally. Unfortunately, the school resources were being spent teaching English as a Second Language and not challenging the above average student(our little suburb had a huge influx that they were not prepared for).

As PTA President, I did what I could, but the education system is not one you can "fix" overnight. So after third grade, I pulled her from public school and placed her in a Christian private school that fit my preferred educational qualifications. I had one shot at this parenthood thing and education was a huge component.

Sometimes life gets in the way with all of our best laid plans, but so far, my children are still expanding their minds (they are 12 and 17 with 4.0's). So I know this education thing has some merit. In fact, opening up their world views early in life probably helped them get thru some of the hardest of personal times a child can have in life. I am thankful every day for that miracle.

I don't have all the answers, but I welcome an open discussion on the matter...and maybe just maybe, we can put our thoughtful discourse into practical application. It is time to think out of the box on this issue. Let the fun begin!

God and the World Theatre

2009-05-03T10:43:00.000-07:00

Ron Paul has a point. We really need to stop telling the world how to run their lives. I know it ticks me off beyond belief to have my own government trying to run my life, can you imagine how it would feel to have another country try to do it? I think Jihad (as-sayf type) would be a calm movement compared to what some of my local brethren would do if such a situation happened here.

In bible study today, we took an entire class period to discuss God's will in history. Are the prophets writing it as it happens or are they recounting it after the fact? I know when things happen in the world today, it takes a great deal of thought and prayer to find the hand of God in it. If I wrote about it several years later, I might be able to find the lesson and the message. It certainly does make a difference in perspective.

When we as a nation get involved in other world conflicts, is it because we are trying to be good Christians or are we doing it to further our own interests (which goes back to my issues with the lamentation of Tyre in Ezekiel)? We think about Hitler when we think about moral "intervention" but Genocide is not a new concept in world history. Who are we to say that we know best? Inflicting our own morality into world politics is a slippery slope. Where do we draw the line. I think it is our job as Christians to give others the ability to choose a better way of life, but it is not the government's job to do so...nor it is the government's (or Christians) right to force it on them.

So if we were writing recent history from a God's will point of view...what do you think it would say?

Choices

2009-04-28T05:52:00.000-07:00

As you probably have realized, I don't discuss personal relationships in my blog. I like to keep my private life, well, private, and the insanity of everything else seems so much more fascinating to review.

Today's entry is going to be an exception. I can't think of anything else. I am in mourning for the end of a relationship and it really hurts.

You never know how or why people enter your life, but you do know that they add something to the fabric of who you are and they leave an indelible imprint. Sometimes, the timing is just wrong for a relationship to bloom to its full potential. Sometimes happiness is an elusive butterfly, just beyond your reach but so beautiful to behold.

As a person of faith, I try not to dwell on what could be, because I know there is a reason for this path. Pain in life is inevitable, for me it means that my heart is open again where it has been closed for so many years. That is truly a gift from God.

Life is also about choices, I will take today and embrace the pain. Tomorrow I will consider butterflies.

John is the kind of guy you love to hate. He is always in a good mood and always has something positive to say. When someone would ask him how he was doing, he would reply, "If I were any better, I would be twins!"
He was a natural motivator.

If an employee was having a bad day, John was there telling the employee how to look on the positive side of the situation.

Seeing this style really made me curious, so one day I went up and asked him, "I don't get it! You can't be a positive person all of the time. How do you do it?"

He replied, "Each morning I wake up and say to myself, you have two choices today. You can choose to be in a good mood or...you can choose to be in a bad mood. I choose to be in a good mood.

Each time something bad happens, I can choose to be a victim or...I can choose to learn from it. I choose to learn from it.

Every time someone comes to me complaining, I can choose to accept their complaining or....I can point out the positive side of life. I choose the positive side of life."

"Yeah, right, it's not that easy," I protested.

"Yes, it is," he said. "Life is all about choices. When you cut away all the junk, every situation is a choice. You choose how you react to situations. You choose how people affect your mood.

You choose to be in a good mood or bad mood. The bottom line: It's your choice how you live your life."

I reflected on what he said. Soon thereafter, I left the Tower Industry to start my own business. We lost touch, but I often thought about him when I made a choice about life instead of reacting to it.

Several years later, I heard that he was involved in a serious accident, falling some 60 feet from a communications tower.

After 18 hours of surgery and weeks of intensive care, he was released from the hospital with rods placed in his back.

I saw him about six months after the accident.

When I asked him how he was, he replied, "If I were any better, I'd be twins...Wanna see my scars?"

I declined to see his wounds, but I did ask him what had gone through his mind as the accident took place.

"The first thing that went through my mind was the well-being of my soon-to-be born daughter," he replied. "Then, as I lay on the ground, I remembered that I had two choices: I could choose to live or...I could choose to die. I chose to live."

"Weren't you scared? Did you lose consciousness?" I asked.

He continued, "...the paramedics were great. They kept telling me I was going to be fine. But when they wheeled me into the ER and I saw the expressions on the faces of the doctors and nurses, I got really scared. In their eyes, I read 'he's a dead man'. I knew I needed to take action."

"What did you do?" I asked.

"Well, there was a big burly nurse shouting questions at me," said John. "She asked if I was allergic to anything. 'Yes', I replied. The doctors and nurses stopped working as they waited for my reply. I took a deep breath and yelled, 'Gravity!'"

Over their laughter, I told them, "I am choosing to live. Operate on me as if I am alive, not dead."

He lived, thanks to the skill of his doctors, but also because of his amazing attitude....I learned from him that every day we have the choice to live fully.

Attitude, after all, is everything.

"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself.. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Matthew 6:34.

Communication 101

2009-04-27T06:33:00.000-07:00

Being in the Communication business, I come across way too many "failure of purpose" instances due to poor communication. They are not failing at what they are doing, they are failing at communicating their actions to their primary audience. Big difference.

I have a dear friend who has ventured into local politics because she wanted to make a difference. She is having to work extremely long (unpaid) hours at it because the municipality is in such dire straights due to long standing mismanagement. There are more dynamic figures in the game who outshine this individual, however, she is the one who is guiding the work with new solutions to old problems. She is a fresh, intelligent voice in this mix and her efforts should pay off for the long-term stability of our city.

But what happens when it comes time for reelection or election to higher positions? For those who know the behind the scenes story, it is a no-brainer. She is one of the most capable and energetic individuals on the ballot...but does the rest of her target audience know that? How should she go about communicating that on a regular basis not just at election time? I have my own solutions, but I will share them with her in private.

For the rest of you, don't ever think that because you do good work means you will get that promotion or the recognition you deserve. Effective communications, my friends, is the magic bullet. And these days, we need all the help we can get to keep our jobs.

By Schatzie Brunner • April 27, 2009 * Tennessean

Have you just landed a new role or different job in your organization? With any shift in responsibilities there are new communication issues to face.

According to executive coach Scott Eblin in his book, The Next Level, executives spend most of their time producing and dealing in ideas. "For those ideas to be of any value, they have to be well communicated to the right audience at the right time," Eblin says.

How many times have you heard the catch phrase "Know your audience"? But one of the biggest pitfalls is learning how to define "audience."

Is your message going to the entire organization, or to your boss or peers? Keep in mind that the way you craft a message has to be based on the specific person or people receiving it.

For instance, if you want to reach your boss, craft a message in terms of his or her interests. What drives the boss — is it overhead costs, ego or something else?

Those drivers will no doubt be very different from those of your peers or the team you may manage.

Start by defining those drivers and asking yourself why your message should matter to the audience. No matter what level you occupy, you are always onstage. And so is each recipient.

The more deliberate you become in your communications style, the more impact you can have each time you communicate.

Keep the energy up
Energy is such a key component to communicating a message — and yet it's easy to forget to stay engaged.

Knowing how you come across to others, whether in a written or spoken message, is critical information. One exercise I use with clients — and in keynote addresses — is to take a pen and paper and make two lists.

One is all the things, people, places and activities that give me energy, and the other is a list of what saps energy away. It's a great way to evaluate yourself so that you know when and where you are engaged, interested or attentive.

I've found in coaching hundreds of folks that self-perception and reality are never congruent; you may think you sound like a ball
of fire when someone else may experience you as less than dynamic.

The trick is to get to know yourself and your style better. Don't leave it to chance.

Even when you feel you don't have the energy to put one foot in front of the other, realize that no one else cares about your level of fatigue as you try to communicate in business.

So, even if you have to "fake it until you make it," do so in order to come across as the dynamo
you want others to believe you are.

Unemployed?

2009-04-25T07:33:00.000-07:00

The other day, I was listening to the laments of my 80+ Grandma Nell about her morning paper delivery being canceled (The Tennessean, bad move on their part btw on totally canceling Franklin County delivery). For someone who has gotten the morning paper for 50+ years, this was a huge big deal in her quality of life. If Grandpa Mose were still alive, there would have been hell to pay.

Being the ever-thinking entrepreneur, I immediately thought that situation was a prime opportunity for someone to come in an offer paper delivery for a fee. You have a captive, established market who was already paying for the service, you have the product ready to deliver, the only thing you needed to do was set-up the mechanisms to make it happen. Kinda brainless actually. If I didn't already have 5 jobs, I would do it.

There is always a way to make a living in any economy. You just have to get out there and find opportunities and make it happen. Surely, we haven't lost that much of our good ole American ingenuity.

Here is a great article for those thinking about jumping into the self-employed genre (willingly or unwillingly).

I accepted a severance package from my employer because I've always wanted to be self-employed. My problem is I'm not sure if the work I did for the past 30 years translates to private enterprise. With the economy the way it is, is this a bad time to start a business? In what industry will I find the greatest profits?

It depends on what your interests and skills are. What do you enjoy doing? Would anyone pay you to do that? What does the marketplace need right now, and how does that relate to what you're passionate about?

Keep these five tips in mind:

1. Remember, baby boomers are the largest generation on the planet, and they have money. They are at the prime of their lives and do not anticipate sitting in a rocking chair. Although the present economic decline may affect their portfolios, this means only that they may postpone retirement. However, they remain more affluent than past generations at their age. They need financial planning, health care and help traveling. Consider providing it.

2. Because many boomers will continue to work as long as possible, they also need help caring for their aging parents. At the same time, more elderly citizens want to remain at home. Senior services companies offer clients help such as making medical appointments, providing transportation, shopping for groceries, and taking care of banking and other financial needs.

3. Going green is hip, smart and part of a $209 billion-a-year industry. Marketing and installing solar panels is one way to tap into that trend and earn a living on your own.

4. If gadgets or electronics are your strong suits, consider a second life as a technology consultant. All businesses have computers and need someone to help keep them humming. So, why not earn money from those technical talents?

5. Finally, a sector that has gotten a boost from the federal stimulus bill is construction. Tennessee is scheduled to get millions of dollars, much of which will go to private industry to create construction jobs. An additional $150 billion is in the bill to repair or replace states' crumbling infrastructure, which includes bridges, highways, roads, public transportation and water projects. Private enterprise will play a role. Maybe you could, too.

Rules of Engagement

2009-04-22T06:07:00.000-07:00

I am sure alot of you have seen this email as it has made the rounds among the conservative ranks. Snopes currently says the validity is "Undetermined". Although I really try to give our President the benefit of the doubt (it is hard, but I do try), this Somali pirate scenario is certainly plausible and likely all considering.

I have recently read the "Lone Survivor" book by Marcus Luttrell who was the lone survivor of a SEALS mission over in Afghanistan in 2005. The Rules of Engagement (ROE) is a major issue in the military and even more so with these mighty warriors who are solely trained for mission success against all odds.

If recent news stories are any indication, I think the way our military "does business" will be challenged and possibly changed forever. Are we really ready for that kind of "Change"?

If you are interested in what really happened in the piracy hostage standoff this week, read the following from a friend with a lifetime in national security-related operations. I have erased the name of his personal SEAL contact as he is still on active duty and I would not want to risk career damage to him for his truthfulness. FYI, ROE= rules of engagement, BHO=our esteemed president.

Here is a note a SEAL friend sent me.

Having spoken to some SEAL pals here in Virginia Beach yesterday and asking why this thing dragged out for 4 days, I got the following:

1. BHO wouldn't authorize the SEAL teams to the scene for 36 hours, going against OSC (on scene commander) recommendation.

2. Once they arrived, BHO imposed restrictions that they couldn't do anything unless the hostage's life was in "imminent" danger.

3. The first time the hostage jumped, the SEALS had the raggies all sighted in, but could not fire due to ROE.

4. When the navy RIB came under fire as it approached with supplies, no fire was returned due to ROE. As the raggies were shooting at the RIB, they were exposed and the SEALS had them all dialed in.

5. BHO specifically denied two rescue plans developed by the Bainbridge CPN and SEAL teams

6. Bainbridge CPN and SEAL team CDR finally decide they have the OpArea and OSC authority to solely determine risk to hostage. 4 hours later, 3 dead raggies

7. BHO immediately claims credit for his "daring and decisive" behaviour. As usual with him, it's BS.

So per our last email thread, I'm downgrading Obama's performace to D-. Only reason it's not an F is that the hostage survived.

Read the following accurate account:

Philips’ first leap into the Indian Ocean hadn’t worked out well. With the Bainbridge in range and a rescue by his country’s Navy possible, Phili ps threw himself off of his lifeboat prison, enabling Navy shooters onboard the destroyer a clear shot at his captors — but none was taken.

Guidance from National Command Authority — president Barack Obama — had been clear: a peaceful solution was the only acceptable outcome to this standoff, unless the hostage’s life was in clear danger.

The next day, a small Navy boat was fired on by the Somali pirates — and again no fire was returned. This was again due to the cautious stance assumed, thanks to a mandate from the commander in chief’s staff not to act until Obama, a man with no background dealing with such issues, decided that an outcome other than a “peaceful solution” would be acceptable.

After taking fire from the Somali kidnappers again Saturday night, the on-scene-commander decided he’d had enough.

Keeping his authority to act in the case of a clear danger to the hostage’s life and having heard nothing from Washington since yet another request to mount a rescue operation had been denied the day before, the Navy officer — unnamed in all media reports to date — decided the AK47 leveled at Philips’ back was a threat to the hostage’s life and ordered the NSWC team to take their shots.

Three rounds and all three brigands became enemy KIA and Philips was safe.

There is an upside, a downside, and a spinside to the series of events over the last week .

Almost immediately following word of the rescue, the Obama administration claimed victory and declared that the dramatic end to the standoff put paid to questions of the inexperienced president’s toughness and decisiveness.

Despite the Obama administration’s attempt to spin yesterday’s success as a result of bold, decisive leadership by the president, the reality is nothing of the sort.

What should have lasted only hours — as long as it took the USS Bainbridge to steam to the location — became an embarrassing four day standoff between a ragtag handful of criminals with rifles and a U.S. Navy warship.

Economics 101

2009-04-20T11:11:00.000-07:00

Found these wonderful quotes today and thought I would share...

"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." -- Author unknown

"Every time you take a rich man down, you take a 100 poor men with him."

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." -- Benjamin Franklin

"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand." -- Milton Friedman

"I am favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it's possible." -- Milton Friedman

"When the United States was formed in 1776, it took 19 people on the farm to produce enough food for 20 people. So most of the people had to spend their time and efforts on growing food. Today, it's down to 1% or 2% to produce that food. Now just consider the vast amount of supposed unemployment that was produced by that. But there wasn't really any unemployment produced. What happened was that people who had formerly been tied up working in agriculture were freed by technological developments and improvements to do something else. That enabled us to have a better standard of living and a more extensive range of products." -- Milton Friedman

"Nobody spends somebody else's money as carefully as he spends his own. Nobody uses somebody else's resources as carefully as he uses his own. So if you want efficiency and effectiveness, if you want knowledge to be properly utilized, you have to do it through the means of private property." -- Milton Friedman

"When everybody owns something, nobody owns it, and nobody has a direct interest in maintaining or improving its condition. That is why buildings in the Soviet Union -- like public housing in the United States -- look decrepit within a year or two if their construction..." -- Milton Friedman

"(T)he supporters of tariffs treat it as self-evident that the creation of jobs is a desirable end, in and of itself, regardless of what the persons employed do. That is clearly wrong. If all we want are jobs, we can create any number -- for example, have people dig holes and then fill them up again, or perform other useless tasks. Work is sometimes its own reward. Mostly, however, it is the price we pay to get the things we want. Our real objective is not just jobs but productive jobs -- jobs that will mean more goods and services to consume." -- Milton Friedman

"There is all the difference in the world, however, between two kinds of assistance through government that seem superficially similar: first, 90 percent of us agreeing to impose taxes on ourselves in order to help the bottom 10 percent, and second, 80 percent voting to impose taxes on the top 10 percent to help the bottom 10 percent -- William Graham Sumner's famous example of B and C decided what D shall do for A. The first may be wise or unwise, an effective or ineffective way to help the disadvantaged -- but it is consistent with belief in both equality of opportunity and liberty. The second seeks equality of outcome and is entirely antithetical to liberty." -- Milton Friedman

"The great danger to the consumer is the monopoly -- whether private or governmental. His most effective protection is free competition at home and free trade throughout the world. The consumer is protected from being exploited by one seller by the existence of another seller from whom he can buy and who is eager to sell to him. Alternative sources of supply protect the consumer far more effectively than all the Ralph Naders of the world." -- Milton Friedman

"Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread." -- Thomas Jefferson

"A rising tide (in the economy) lifts all boats" -- John Kennedy

"The record of economic success during the 1980's is clear: 18.6 million new jobs were created, increasing U.S. civilian employment by 20 percent. Only 12 percent of these jobs were in low-paid restaurant and retail areas, while 82 percent were in high-paid technical, managerial and professional areas. Once Reagan's tax cuts kicked in (fiscal year 1982), the country experienced 92 months of economic growth without a recession. This represented the longest period of sustained peacetime economic growth in American history. America's most successful achievers do pay a higher share of the total tax burden. The top one percent income earners paid 18 percent of the total tax burden in 1981, and paid 25 percent in 1991. The bottom 50 percent of income earners paid only 8 percent of the total tax burden, and paid only 5 percent in 1991. History shows that tax cuts have always resulted in improved economic growth producing more tax revenue in the treasury." -- Rush Limbaugh

"What pays under capitalism is satisfying the common man, the customer. The more people you satisfy, the better for you." -- Ludwig Von Mises

"Don't knock the rich. When did a poor person ever give you a job?" -- Laurence J. Peter

"We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much." -- Ronald Reagan

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." -- Adam Smith

"It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family, never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy...What is prudence in the conduct of every private family, can scarce be folly in that of a great kingdom. If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry, employed in a way in which we have some advantage." -- Adam Smith

"Sellers in general maintain the quality of their products and services for fear of losing customers otherwise. But, when price controls create a situation where the amount demanded is greater than the amount supplied -- a shortage -- fear of losing customers is no longer as strong an incentive. For example, landlords typically reduce painting and repairs when there is rent control, because there is no need to fear vacancies when there are more tenants looking for apartments than there are apartments available." -- Thomas Sowell

"Tariffs that save jobs in the steel industry mean higher steel prices, which in turn means fewer sales of American steel products around the world and losses of far more jobs than are saved." -- Thomas Sowell

"Four things have almost invariably followed the imposition of controls to keep prices below the level they would reach under supply and demand in a free market: (1) increased use of the product or service whose price is controlled, (2) Reduced supply of the same product or service, (3) quality deterioration, (4) black markets." -- Thomas Sowell

"Politics offers attractive solutions but economics can offer only trade-offs. For example, when laws are proposed to restrict the height of apartment buildings in a community, politics presents the issue in terms of whether we prefer tall buildings or buildings of a more modest height in our town. Economics asks what you are prepared to trade off in order to keep the height of buildings below some specified level. In places where land costs may equal or even exceed the cost of the apartment buildings themselves, the difference between allowing ten-story buildings to be built and allowing a maximum of five stories may be that rents will be twice as high in the shorter buildings. The question then is not simply whether you prefer shorter buildings but how much do you prefer shorter buildings and what price are you prepared to pay to mandate height restrictions in your community. A doubling of rents and three additional highway fatalities per yet? A tripling of rents and six additional highway fatalities per year? Economics cannot answer such questions. It can only make you aware of a need to ask them." -- Thomas Sowell

"In a small town, an idiot breaks a shop window. He's called a vandal, until someone points out that a window installer now must be paid to replace the window. The window installer then will have enough money to buy a new suit. A tailor will then be able to buy a new desk. And so on. The whole town apparently gains from the economic activity generated by the broken window. Of course, if this made sense, cities should hire people to run though town, breaking windows.

But it doesn't make sense. It's a fallacy because the circulating money is seen; what is not seen is what would have been done with the money if the window were still whole. The shopkeeper, instead of paying the window installer, might have expanded his business, or bought a new suit or a new desk. The town is worse off because of a broken window." -- John Stossel

"Minimum prices in general tend to discriminate against the lesser skilled person or the less preferred item. Let's say ten workers show up and you only can hire five. Well, you can't discriminate based on price because you have to pay them all eight dollars an hour. So you may hire according to what you like. So if you prefer Catholics to Jews or whites to blacks, you'll have a tendency to indulge your preferences. You can apply that phenomena to anything. If we made a law, let's call it a "minimum steak law", that is, fillet mignon and chuck steak both sell for $10. Well, the cost of discriminating against chuck steak would be zero, because you have to pay $10 anyway. The way that less preferred things compete with more preferred things is by having a lower price. Even though people prefer filet mignon to chuck steak, chuck steak doesn't have any problems selling at all." -- Walter Williams

"We might think of dollars as being "certificates of performance." The better I serve my fellow man, and the higher the value he places on that service, the more certificates of performance he gives me. The more certificates I earn, the greater my claim on the goods my fellow man produces. That's the morality of the market. In order for one to have a claim on what his fellow man produces, he must first serve him." -- Walter Williams

"(Tariffs) help some steel workers keep their jobs, but it turns out to be a losing proposition on balance. The reason why steel workers and their companies want tariffs on foreign steel is so they can raise the price of steel produced by US companies. So, it will save some jobs in the steel industry, but one has to look at the "steel using industry." The companies in the US that buy steel to produce their products are hurt by the tariffs. You find unemployment in those areas because of the higher costs of their inputs, which makes them less competitive on world markets. So what one has to look at is not the seen, but the unseen. Yes, you can see as a result of tariffs that more jobs are saved in the steel industry. What goes unseen are the jobs lost elsewhere because of the steel tariffs. Tariffs save some jobs at the expense of many, many, other jobs."

"Suppose I hire you to repair my computer. The job is worth $200 to me and doing the job is worth $200 to you. The transaction will occur because we have a meeting of the mind. Now suppose there's the imposition of a 30 percent income tax on you. That means you won't receive $200 but instead $140. You might say the heck with working for me -- spending the day with your family is worth more than $140. You might then offer that you'll do the job if I pay you $285. That way your after-tax earnings will be $200 -- what the job was worth to you. There's a problem. The repair job was worth $200 to me, not $285. So it's my turn to say the heck with it. This simple example demonstrates that one effect of taxes is that of eliminating transactions, and hence jobs." -- Walter Williams

"How many times have we heard "free tuition," "free health care," and free you-name-it? If a particular good or service is truly free, we can have as much of it as we want without the sacrifice of other goods or services. Take a "free" library; is it really free? The answer is no. Had the library not been built, that $50 million could have purchased something else. That something else sacrificed is the cost of the library. While users of the library might pay a zero price, zero price and free are not one and the same. So when politicians talk about providing something free, ask them to identify the beneficent Santa Claus or tooth fairy." -- Walter Williams

"Here's Williams' roadmap out of poverty: Complete high school; get a job, any kind of a job; get married before having children; and be a law-abiding citizen. Among both black and white Americans so described, the poverty rate is in the single digits." -- Walter Williams

Tea Parties

2009-04-15T19:16:00.000-07:00

Wow, where do I begin.

Started the day in Monteagle where we had a Tea Party at Noon. A local business owner had asked me to host one because he was so darn fed up with everything. Of course, I couldn't say no. Direction was quickly given by the TN event organizers, I was VERY impressed with both Ken and Judson's immediate feedback and action plan.

Signs went up Saturday and the invite was pretty much word of mouth. I was thinking 15 people showing up would classify it as a success considering we live in such a small town with alot of apathy. People started arriving at 11:30am, I was a little shocked, but I didn't want to get my hopes up. 11:45am the parking lot was almost full and we were having traffic control issues. Noon, it was full-blown. I have not seen anything like it in all my days here. Some say 65, some say closer to 100, I really was too busy to get a head count.

Music by Sarah Mallory, Pledge, Prayer, National Anthem and then audience participation. So many great, heartfelt words...so many cheers of approval. All ages, all walks of life. It was beautiful. Food and drink were donated, war stories were shared afterwards. I feel hope again.

Made a quick dash to Sewanee for the T.Boone Pickens book signing (line too long, gave friend Andy my book to sign).

Then off to Tullahoma where dear friend Lynn Sebourn was on the organizing team. He had asked me several weeks ago to be on the speaker list and I was happy to comply. I pulled in about 4:45pm and the South Jackson Civic Center front lawn was covered up with people and signs. I was in awe. Jerry Anderson was emceeing and he was certainly in his element. Glib, charming and gently jabbing. Rep. Matheny kicked off the speakers, always my hero, he had just gotten in from a long day on the hill and he looked exhausted...but he nailed it as usual. Lynn Sebourn was brilliant as always, Steve Heath was rocking, Kent Greenough was rocking too, Greg Sandlin made his points so very deftly, my fellow revolutionary Chip Ramsey was passionate and inspiring. I got in there after Kent and since everyone was making such great points, I thought I would go in a slightly different direction and talk about guns and anarchy. I guess I hit a nerve, the response was pleasantly surprising.

As I sit here exhausted from so many discussions over the day, I can honestly say that what happened today was almost a miracle in my book. Can this be the beginning...?

17 Things to Love

2009-04-12T06:37:00.001-07:00

Happy Easter everyone! The sun is shining, the birds are singing and Jesus has risen! The power of the resurrection always gives me hope for a better tomorrow and rejuvenates my spirit and soul for the upcoming year.

Maybe that is why I was amused today at this little web diddy.

1. In the South, the word "bulls*it" has three syllables and serves as a verb, noun, adjective and, occasionally, a nickname. (There is alot of b.s. here and we call it like we see it.)

2. In fact, people down south often have charming nicknames- for example- I had three aunts: Chicken, Goat and Pig. (Roundhead, mush, bug eye, turkey...)

Sadly, only Aunt Chicken is left.

3. Down south, everything looks better in camouflage print. (Oh yea!)

4. In the state of North Carolina, it is illegal to use an elephant to plow a field. Couples staying in a hotel must have a room with double beds and they must be at least two feet apart. (Glad I don't live in North Carolina.)

5. For the Southerner, any dish can be improved with a slab of pork. Pork in your greens, pork in your green beans, pork in your Rice Krispies...(The great flavor secret.)

6. Southerners take church very seriously- a Southern church service can easily last five hours- without air-conditioning. We rate the sermons as "rare", "medium" and "well done". (We have evolved...there is airconditioning.)

7. Every part of the pig is edible. Every.Single.Part. The hog foot, the hog tail, the hog maw, the hog grammaw...(I wouldn't call it edible, but we eat it.)

8. The Southern lady is schooled in the art of hairdressing, make-up application, Christian virtue and the loading of various fire-arms. (Absolutely!)

9. Most Southerners scoff at the idea of healthy eating- they eat just what the Lord Jesus himself ate- neckbones and biscuits. (Didn't he?)

10.In Tennesse you can't shoot any game from a moving vehicle- except whales. In Tennessee. Where.there.is.no.ocean.... (Details, details)

11. The Georgia legislature once considered making it illegal for a restaurant to not serve sweet iced tea. (Was that an ethics issue?)

12. I love the way people from Louisiana talk. Can't understand what they're saying, but I love that they're saying it...(A smooth southern drawl can melt any heart.)

13. Tennessee Williams, William Faulkner, Zora Neal Hurston were all southerners. Yankees ain't the only ones what can read and write...(And boy, can they write!)

14. In the state of Georgia, it is illegal to keep a donkey in a bathtub. (But how do you wash him?)

15. In the state of Arkansas, a man may beat his wife, but not more than once a month. (Wouldn't want to spoil her you know.)

16. In Mississippi, it is illegal for a man to be sexually aroused in public. (Are there enough jails in Mississippi to handle this one?)

17. Every Sunday is an occasion for a big dinner, usually consisting of fried chicken, white rice, gravy, collard greens, sweet potatoes, cranberry sauce, green beans, fresh corn, cabbage, potato salad, fatback, fried green tomatoes, macaroni and cheese, cole slaw, hush puppies, fried catfish, biscuits, corn bread, deer meat, tomato preserves, homemade pork rinds- and hey where y'all goin' don't you want no dessert? (Yep, and it just doesn't get any better than that, love Easter dinner down home!)

Conservative Manifesto

2009-04-04T05:40:00.000-07:00

Reading this book is on my "to do" list. Finally a Manifesto to believe in.

Conservatives' 'Manifesto' DestinyKathryn Lopez
Saturday, April 04, 2009

Standing between liberty and tyranny is you.

That's one of many essential lessons found in a powerful and necessary new book, Mark Levin's "Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto" (Threshold, 2009).

Levin's tome sounds a call to arms for conservatives, urging every last one to realize the stakes and engage in public affairs to the best of their ability. Understanding that it's not always the first instinct of the conservative to take on Washington, he urges more focus on our nation's capital, whether by going there, running for office closer to home, or educating those in your living room. Doing your job and living your life are important contributions, Levin writes, but "it is no longer enough." America needs more from its concerned citizens.

When the actions of a Republican president set the scene for the current commander in chief's CEO-firing, it's time for a new level of attention from all Americans. In Levin's words we need "a new generation of conservative activists, larger in number, shrewder and more articulate than before, who seek to blunt the Statist's counterrevolution -- not to imitate it -- and gradually and steadily reverse course. More conservatives than before will need to seek elective and appointed office, fill the ranks of the administrative state, hold teaching positions in public schools and universities, and find positions in Hollywood and the media where they can make a difference in infinite ways."

We appear to be living in a paradigm shift, during which the government is taking over in unprecedented ways. If you're uncomfortable with what you're seeing, get to work.

There are countless historical examples of American citizens with concerns similar to Levin's who went into politics. One of Levin's contemporary favorites, as anyone who regularly listens to his syndicated radio show knows, is Michele Bachmann. She's a congresswoman from Minnesota who the left loves to hate -- she almost lost her seat last year under threat from a loony liberal barrage.

After one of her foster children (she and her husband have taken care of 23 such kids over the years, in addition to five children of their own) came home from high school with an assignment for math homework that centered on coloring, she realized there was something wrong with the public-school standards area, and started working to change things. Her efforts would eventually take her to the state senate and now the U.S. Congress. Ask her about her experiences and you'll have the sense of a woman who does not have an office in mind, but a country.

Talk to Bachmann about politics and the future, and it is clear that she has "liberty and tyranny" on her mind (both literally -- she cited the book on Sean Hannity's show -- and more foundationally). Her high-minded conversation seems to be stemming not from political ambition but from those initial concerns that spurred her into politics. She views herself as a backbencher with an opportunity and a responsibility during a crucial time in American history. She's a former federal tax litigation attorney who now sits on the Financial Services Committee. A small-business owner and an educational entrepreneur (she helped found one of the first charter schools in the country, which is still running) Bachmann brings a breadth and depth of experience to Washington tables to which "gotcha" sound bites do not do justice.

On Levin's show late last year, Bachmann was open about her amazement that anyone would want to subject themselves to the harrowing rigors and painful exposure of the political process. There's little question that she's felt that way since, as her every word continues to be parsed and highlighted by the liberal media and its legion of faultfinders and scandalmongers. Bachmann was doing more than her part before she ran for Congress, before she ran for state office, before she and her husband welcomed a gaggle of foster children into their home. But she, like Levin, knows America needs all hands on deck. Consider it the real, substantive, bipartisan "yes we can" message. It's the message of the citizen-politicians of America's founding era.

In his best seller, Levin prescribes a way to combat "the ascent of a soft tyranny" rampant in the United States today. Rather than ask the government to fix everything, we must "return to founding principles," which involve "a free people living in a civil society, working in self-interested cooperation." This is what Bachmann gets up every morning and starts doing. We can't all be members of Congress, but we each have a sphere of influence upon which we ought to be full and informed participants. That doesn't just mean a vote and a letter to the editor now and then. We need to teach our children that which is worth preserving. We need to engage with our friends in a smart and respectful way. The future of liberty depends on it -- on us.

Utopia

2009-04-04T04:54:00.000-07:00

When I lived in the high-end suburbs of Chicago, cocktail conversation usually revolved around money and politics with 90% of it being Republican politics. Democrat was a dirty word because it represented the dysfunctional thug politics found in Chicago...just 35 miles away. Everyone did charity work, were involved in school activities, went to church and joined social organizations or clubs. It was a very close, interpersonal community relationship with grievances usually taken care of quickly and efficiently...mostly to everyone's satisfaction. Government was rarely involved in our lives. They made sure we were safe and had adequate infrastructure, petty politics was involved among a select few who I personally think enjoyed that kind of thing.

When it was time to revitalize our historic downtown district, people rolled up their sleeves and got to work. The 100+ year old Chamber of Commerce worked with the local city government on an economic development plan and put it into action. We all got on committees and put our different skillsets to work. It was poetry in motion...it got done.

Major projects like a downtown parking garage and high-end condo development on top of it provided the much needed pedestrian traffic to incentize new retail establishments to invest in renovating the old vacant storefronts. We had an architectural review board and vision plan in place so that new merchants were on the same page as we were when they made their decision to come onboard.

Our historic downtown, once old and worn (and vacant) just a few years earlier became the thriving, charming hometown where families walked the sidewalks to ice cream shops, young people had their choice of parks, sweets and coffee shops, retail shops sprung up with destination quality products, restaurants became destination quality too. We had car shows on Friday nights, music on the square, our historic movie theatre was saved from the wrecking ball, a new train station was built, our library expanded.

The funny thing was...we just had the vision, everything else happened because we had a plan. The best part about all this "change"? The government didn't do it, we did it, the private sector. The local government just got out of the way and enabled and encouraged it to happen. They were partners in the process.

So when people tell me I live in a fantasy land because I think that same process could happen here in Monteagle...I just shake my head and smile. Being a true Republican means never having to say you are sorry. We just get the job done.

TWRA Holding OHV Community Hostage

2009-04-01T09:48:00.000-07:00

For Immediate Release: Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Iva Michelle Russell, iva@ivamichellerussell.com

TWRA Holding OHV Community Hostage

Nashville, TN – Legislative negotiations broke down Tuesday as the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) continues to hold the Tennessee Off-Highway Vehicle community hostage over federal funding expenditures.

“I just can’t believe a governmental agency could be allowed to callously disregard the mandates of an Act that was passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor of this state” comments Iva Michelle Russell, Legislative Chairman for the Tennessee Off-Highway Vehicle Association (TOHVA) and Executive Director of OHV4TN. “The last time I checked, the needs of the people of this state were more important than governmental primacy”.

The legislative negotiations revolve around the 2004 Tennessee Off-Highway Vehicle Act, sponsored by now Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey which started as a Governor’s initiative in the late 1990’s. The Act created an Off-Highway Vehicle program in the state of Tennessee that mandated a statewide system of environmentally sustainable trails as well as adult and youth safety education.

TWRA, the OHV program’s current agency home, began receiving OHV federal grant money in 2004. TWRA has been exclusively using the funds at their Royal Blue facility in East Tennessee while also taking in OHV permit fees that have risen steadily over the years to over $64,000 in 2007. Discounted Hunting/OHV permits are not included in this figure. There is still $1.1 million in unused grant funds to date. The TWRA Commission has voted each year not to create further trail systems across the state nor create the adult and youth safety education programs stipulated in the Act.

The 2009 OHV legislative agenda (SB280, HB365) would transfer the OHV program from TWRA to the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), allow TWRA to keep their Royal Blue facility, and mandate an equal distribution of federal funding between each grand division of the state. “TDEC is in the trail building business and we certainly don’t want to be with an agency that has no desire to do anything with our program except take our money. There are over 880,000 OHV users in our state that are not currently being served and that is ridiculous.” states Russell.

In the Tennessee Governor’s 2002 Off-Highway Vehicle Study, OHV recreation had an estimated statewide economic impact of $3.4 Billion. Neighboring states have created trail systems that have successfully aided local rural economies as well as tax revenue. In a recent study, West Virginia saw an increase of $622,752 in state and local tax revenue, direct income of $2.7 million and 146 new jobs from their Hatfield-McCoy Trail System located in 8 WV rural counties.

-end-

TWRA - Government Gone Wild

2009-03-31T14:20:00.000-07:00

What do you do when a quasi-governmental agency totally disregards reason and accountability in the face of a mandate by both the legislature and the governor that also affects over 880,000 Tennesseans?

I have been kind and I have been patient in the pursuit of an equitable resolve to this ridiculous situation...but Okay, now I am ticked. It takes alot to push me over the edge, but I am there ready to jump in doing a swan dive.

TWRA is the star of this week's episode of GOVERNMENT GONE WILD!

Joke of the Day

2009-03-22T11:53:00.000-07:00

My brain is awash with sinus issues today, but this oldie but goodie brought a smile to my face. Thanks for sharing EH.

SOCIALISM You have 2 cows. You give one to your neighbor.

COMMUNISM You have 2 cows. The State takes both and gives you some milk.

FASCISM You have 2 cows. The State takes both and sells you some milk.

NAZISM You have 2 cows. The State takes both and shoots you.

BUREAUCRATISM You have 2 cows. The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then throws the milk away...

TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows. You sell them and retire on the income.

SURREALISM You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons

AN AMERICAN CORPORATION You have two cows. You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. Later, you hire a consultant to analyze why the cow has dropped dead.

ENRON VENTURE CAPITALISM You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows.

The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company.

The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States , leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the release. The public then buys your bull.

A FRENCH CORPORATION You have two cows. You go on strike, organize a riot, and block the roads, because you want three cows.

A JAPANESE CORPORATION You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. You then create a clever cow cartoon image called 'Cowkimon' and market it worldwide.

A GERMAN CORPORATION You have two cows. You re-engineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves.

AN ITALIAN CORPORATION You have two cows, but you don't know where they are. You decide to have lunch.

A RUSSIAN CORPORATION You have two cows. You count them and learn you have five cows. You count them again and learn you have 42 cows. You count them again and learn you have 2 cows. You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.

A SWISS CORPORATION You have 5000 cows. None of them belong to you. You charge the owners for storing them.

A CHINESE CORPORATION You have two cows. You have 300 people milking them. You claim that you have full employment, and high bovine productivity. You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.

AN INDIAN CORPORATION You have two cows. You worship them.

A BRITISH CORPORATION You have two cows. Both are mad.

AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION You have two cows. Business seems pretty good. You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.

Another Monteagle Disaster

2009-03-17T07:50:00.000-07:00

Bad government rears its ugly head again as Monteagle suffers another PR blow. Poor management seems like a callous disregard for public safety to me. When are we going to learn that IT DOES MATTER WHO GOVERNS!

Monteagle Sewage Spills Into Creek

March 16, 2009 - 9:55 PM

A massive rupture at Monteagle's Sewer Treatment Plant sends a hundred thousand gallons of raw sewage into a local creek. City leaders say the water supply of a number of residents who live at the base of Monteagle Mountain could be impacted by the spill.
Monteagle's Mayor says he has no idea what caused this spill right now but he tells us all of that sewage spilled into a creek behind the plant. That creek goes into the ground about half a mile down from the plant and the Mayor says because of that they have no idea where the spilled sewage went or who could be affected.
Cold water flows from the pump in Robert Myers' yard today, but Myers tells us he won't be drinking that water anytime soon.
"Well yeah you know I don't want to be drinking sewage," Myers says with a chuckle.
Over 100,000 gallons of sewage poured into the Juanita Creek yesterday after an equalization tank ruptured at Monteagle's Sewer Treatment Plant #1.
"Well I heard it bursted the tank up there," Myers says.
"The westside of the tank completely laid down on the ground," Monteagle Mayor Charles Rollins says.
Rollins says they have since bypassed the collapsed tank and put chlorine into the creek, but he says they have no idea what the spilled sewage's affect on the community might be.
We managed to get behind the sewage plant and could see several workers on the scene trying to fix this problem. Their biggest concern is that the sewage that leaked out got into creek, flowed downstream, and then got into the wells on people's property.
The Mayor says that's around twenty-eight wells that could be impacted, including the well in Myers' backyard.
Myers lives in the Pelham Valley which is directly down stream from the spill. Myers says Police Officers and the Mayor stopped by to warn him about the rupture.
"He said it would be okay to shower and wash clothes, but he just said don't drink it," Myers says.
And while Myers says he'll continue to let his dog drink water from the well...
"I don't think it will really affect him," Myers says.
He says he won't take the risk of going to the well one too many times.
"They furnished me bottle water," Myers says. "Long as it's safe that's all I care."
The Mayor says Monteagle residents will not be affected by this spill. He says it could only be the people who live in the Pelham Valley and even then only people who have wells on their property.
The Mayor says they notified the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation and also says they'll be testing over the next week to see how much damage the spill really caused.

Sack Lunch for a Soldier

2009-03-16T16:55:00.000-07:00

This past Saturday I saw a large group of newly graduated recruits at Wildwood exit 169, making a stop for junk food and beverages. They were heading to Missouri for final training before being stationed somewhere far away (probably Afghanistan according to one soldier). I made a point of thanking them as I try to always do when I see someone in soldier gear. They deserve it.

I don't know how they usually get received, but on Saturday, the smiles on the customers faces were contagious as they watched the shopping scene unfold. It seemed like we were all so very proud and thankful for these brave men and women and wanted to do all we could to help. Someone brought a 2 for 1 beverage to an unsuspecting soldier, another stepped out of line to help a soldier with an armful of goodies. It was a pretty darn cool moment in time. There is just something about living in the South that does that to people. I love it here. I almost felt like we needed a group hug!

On a similiar note, this story came thru my inbox today and made me shed a grateful tear, I thought I would pass it on.

I put my carry-on in the luggage compartment and sat down
in my assigned seat. It was going to be a long flight.
'I'm glad I have a good book to read. Perhaps I will
get a short nap,' I thought.

Just before take-off, a line of soldiers came down the
aisle and filled all the vacant seats, totally surrounding
me. I decided to start a conversation.. 'Where are
you headed?' I asked the soldier seated nearest to me.
'Petawawa. We'll be there for two weeks for special
training, and then we're being deployed to Afghanistan

After flying for about an hour, an announcement was made
that sack lunches were available for five dollars. It
would be several hours before we reached the east, and I
quickly decided a lunch would help pass the time.

As I reached for my wallet, I overheard soldier ask his
buddy if he planned to buy lunch.

'No, that seems like a lot of money for just a sack
lunch. Probably wouldn't be worth five bucks. I'll
wait till we get to base'

His friend agreed.

I looked around at the other soldiers. None were buying
lunch. I walked to the back of the plane and handed the
flight attendant a fifty dollar bill. 'Take a lunch to
all those soldiers.' She grabbed my arms and squeezed
tightly. Her eyes wet with tears, she thanked me. 'My
son was a soldier in Iraq ; it's almost like you are
doing it for him.'

Picking up ten sacks, she headed up the aisle to where the
soldiers were seated. She stopped at my seat and asked,
'Which do you like best - beef or chicken?'

'Chicken,' I replied, wondering why she asked.
She turned and went to the front of plane, returning a
minute later with a dinner plate from first class.
'This is your thanks.'

After we finished eating, I went again to the back of the
plane, heading for the rest room. A man stopped me.
'I saw what you did. I want to be part of it. Here,
take this.' He handed me twenty-five dollars.

Soon after I returned to my seat, I saw the Flight Captain
coming down the aisle, looking at the aisle numbers as he
walked, I hoped he was not looking for me, but noticed he
was looking at the numbers only on my side of the plane.
When he got to my row he stopped, smiled, held out his hand,
an said, 'I want to shake your hand..'

Quickly unfastening my seatbelt I stood and took the
Captain's hand. With a booming voice he said, 'I was
a soldier and I was a military pilot. Once, someone bought
me a lunch. It was an act of kindness I never
forgot.' I was embarrassed when applause was heard
from all of the passengers.

Later I walked to the front of the plane so I could stretch
my legs. A man who was seated about six rows in front of me
reached out his hand, wanting to shake mine. He left
another twenty-five dollars in my palm.

When we landed I gathered my belongings and started to
deplane. Waiting just inside the airplane door was a man who
stopped me, put something in my shirt pocket, turned, and
walked away without saying a word. Another twenty-five
dollars!

Upon entering the terminal, I saw the soldiers gathering
for their trip to the base. I walked over to them and
handed them seventy-five dollars. 'It will take you some
time to reach the base. It will be about time for a
sandwich. God Bless You.'

Ten young men left that flight feeling the love and respect
of their fellow travelers. As I walked briskly to my car,
I whispered a prayer for their safe return. These soldiers
were giving their all for our country. I could only give
them a couple of meals.

It seemed so little...

A veteran is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a
blank check made payable to ' United States of
America ' for an amount of 'up to and including my
life.'

That is Honor, and there are way too many people in this
country who no longer understand it.'

May God give you the strength and courage to pass this
along to friends on your email buddy list....

I JUST DID

912 Project

2009-03-14T06:16:00.000-07:00

Yes, I watched Glenn Beck last night. Yes, I watched him get emotional and yes, I watched all the hyperbole associated. But all that being said...I agree with the guy. We need to get back to basics here in America and that means we have to inspire our neighbors to sit up and get involved in the process. Complacency is the enemy of all free societies. It was also kinda eerie seeing the author of the book I am currently reading "Lone Survivor" at the table with Glenn. Signposts folks!

So when Glenn's website quits being overloaded, I am going to review the gameplan and see what I can do to help. www.the912project.com

On another note, I like the TN GOP Legislative Agenda proposed by my favorite rabble rouser on the Hill, Rep. Campfield.

Republican agenda

Lots of talk is going around about a Democrat agenda (Or consistent complete lack their of) as well as a Republican agenda. Although I am only speaking for myself on this I think a few good ideas would be

1. Second amendment rights

Remove finger print rules for permit. Constitutional rights should not have such a high bar (we don't do that for free speech), Stop mass public printing of names of permit holders for profit (In newspapers) for the safety and privacy of public citizens, Allow second amendment protections in parks, government supported property and where not posted to allow legal permitted gun owners to protect themselves.

2. Illegal immigration

Pass e verify check previous to any public employment to ensure the employment system and discourage illegal immigration, Pass photo ID (Made available for free to indigent citizens) previous to voting to secure the voting process, Strengthen enforcement against people who employee illegals to make sure legal citizens get first opportunity at jobs, Put the drivers licence test in English only for safety on our roads, No services (other then emergency or mandated by federal law) given to non citizens to save the state money and discourage illegal immigration.

3. Taxes

Clarify Copeland cap so we have no funny business of a few years ago, Remove sales tax on food to help families struggling with tight budgets, Oppose income tax as the constitution says, Remove the Hall income tax to encourage investment and savings, Oppose unfunded long term federal mandates to stop a federal government run wild interfering in state business.

Education

Pass Education first so education can become funded properly instead of just a battle cry for more taxes, Pass local option for election of school superintendents to give locals more power and input in fixing their education system, Allow school choice at least for students in failing schools to help get kids a first class education, Remove teacher tenure putting teachers under civil service protection so teachers can be held accountable and principals can fix failing schools, allow merit pay for teachers who work in failing schools or improve standardized test scores of children to reward success and achievement, Allow home school students to play sports in schools their family pay taxes on.

4. Higher ed, Lottery

Lower standards to keep lottery scholarships in difficult or needed majors and give more scholarship funding to students in these majors to encourage people to enter the sciences, math, nursing, teaching majors. Add in loan forgiveness for students in these fields if they stay and work in state.

5. Life

Pass SJR127 to allow reasonable regulation again.

6. Government and Justice:

Allow popularly Elected judges as mandated by constitution, Put caps on punitive damages to stop "lottery" lawsuits, Pass looser pays on civil suits to stop lawsuits filed to settle, Pass term limits of 12 consecutive years in each body for the legislature to get in fresh ideas, Put government spending on line for all major purchases for government transparency, Oppose card check for union voting to keep people from being harassed and intimidated into a unionization.

7. Property rights

Mandate voting by elected representatives previous to taking of property (on a case by case basis) by eminent domain to have accountability, Get a clear consistent definition of blight previous to taking of property through eminent domain to stop abuse under current definition, Make property taken through eminent domain be at least 95% public or quasi governmental use and or remain in public hands for 5 years to stop public ED for private use.

Amazing Grace

2009-03-10T07:24:00.000-07:00

William Wilberforce: It's God. I have 10,000 engagements of state today but I would prefer to spend the day out here getting a wet arse, studying dandelions and marveling at... bloody spider's webs.

That quote came from one of my favorite movies that I was able to enjoy seeing again this past weekend. William Wilberforce was one of God's warriors, and his journey was a long one.

As I sit here on my back porch reworking today's schedule, I find myself drifting away from my extensive to-do list and "marveling at bloody spider's webs" on the rocking chair, listening to the melodious wind chimes, the birds singing in the trees and all the other little Spring harmonizing that occurs after a long winter sleep. God is good.

My primary Bill just got rolled for two weeks so today's trip to Nashville is out, I have pushed everything else out to the rest of the week...what do I do with the gift of time?

God's Amazing Grace, I get the hint.

American Dream

2009-03-04T11:07:00.000-08:00

As I sit here juggling 7 different projects in 5 different fields of expertise, I start to scratch my head and laugh. Living in paradise has its complications.

I live pretty simply, but there are things in my life that need to be funded. When I moved to the mountains, I traded a "normal" life for one that required a great deal of creativity to survive financially. There are not that many jobs locally that need a great PR gal (or can afford one), so I started finding other opportunities that could capitalize on my unique skillsets. My current resume reads like a person with ADD. It is all over the board.

The common denominator is an entrepreneurial spirit. I totally understand the hardships associated with being out on your own. Insurance, taxes, liability, employees, liability, taxes, insurance, economy, overhead, taxes, liability, insurance. Each start-up business has its demons, but the benefits to making your own way by your own expertise is truly a thrilling and fulfilling endeavor...in fact, second only to being a parent. Owning your own business is truly the great American Dream.

So as we try to figure this economy thing out, I am thinking some of the greatest businesses were started during the worst of times. We are Americans and that is what we do best. That stimulus money should be stimulating us.

Entrepreneurs are best stimulus for the economy
Posted by Carl J. Schramm/ NJ Voices Guest Blogger March 04, 2009

The day after the House of Representatives voted on the stimulus package, I met with a Democratic member of Congress.

He told me, "I know the package won't begin to create enough jobs and certainly not now when we need them." Worse, he worried, "The voters will be on to this by the 4th of July and they won't support more spending then because they don't support it now.

"How," he asked, "do we get out?"

Those in charge in Washington think they know the answer: take a pledge from the Keynesian playbook. Spend (and borrow) massively and hope that government will spur demand and revive the economy.

The congressman knows better. This bill had everything to do with necessary political theater, and nothing to do with basic economics. Anecdotal experience and observation have taught him what drives growth: individual activity in thriving communities.

But what drives that activity is the "animal spirits" of entrepreneurs. And no one understood that better than another long-dead economist - one whose work is vastly more sound than John Maynard Keynes' and directly applicable to current times.

Joseph Schumpeter is best known for the concept of "creative destruction," which asserts that economies flourish only to the extent that entrepreneurs disturb the status quo. Entrepreneurs are job creators. More entrepreneurs mean more growth and more prosperity for all. Or, to put the equation in terms fit for our times, E=R: entrepreneurship equals recovery.

Only private enterprise -- in particular high-growth start-ups -- will create the jobs and the wealth to right America's listing economy. That is, if we let them.

What our economy most needs is another outbreak of entrepreneurial energy. It is waiting to happen all around us. As people face layoffs, many take with them wonderful ideas for entirely new products and services. Layoffs are tough, but they need not spell doom. The average age of those who found high-tech companies in this country is 39. In fact, twice as many founders are older than 50 as are younger than 25. The end of one career can be the beginning of another.

Some people getting pink slips might have ideas that could become entire new industries. Indeed, some of America's largest and most successful firms were started in recessions or bear markets or both -- including General Electric (founded in the wake of the Panic of 1873), IBM (started in the last year of the recession that followed the Panic of 1893), United Technologies (same year as the 1929 crash), Microsoft (1975 depth of "stagflation") and Guess (1981, worst post-World War II recession to date).

If Schumpeter were available to take a 3 a.m. call from a nervous president unsure if his stimulus policy will stimulate, he would say that the most important thing government can do is step out of the way and let the talented next generation of entrepreneurs do their work unhindered. But he might also recommend certain modest steps -- most of them not incorporated into the stimulus bill -- to help entrepreneurs work their magic.

First, encourage risk-taking through tax policy: exempt entrepreneurs from payroll taxes. In fact, a year-long moratorium on payroll taxes could have the economy back up inside of a year.

Second, exempt entrepreneurial businesses from capital gains taxes. The president promised as much during the campaign. Somehow, the Congressional scribes forget to get it into the stimulus package. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) tried to reinsert it as an amendment, but was blocked by members of the president's own party. Perhaps the president could prevail on the Congressional leadership to reintroduce this provision as a separate bill.

Third, focus on the needs of new businesses for affordable health coverage by telling insurance companies they can compete across state lines with a bare bones "entrepreneurs' policy."

Fourth, encourage the world's brightest students to come here, study, and become entrepreneurs. Over 40 percent of the growth of the Silicon Valley in the 1990s came at the hands of foreign-born entrepreneurs.

Finally, put some government spending into research and development for defense. We need more sophisticated protections against biologics and tactical terrorist weaponry, including cyber-assaults. Spending in these areas would bring forth thousands of new companies whose innovations and new jobs would be of great benefit to our economy, while helping America focus on the one place in modern society where seeking order is well-advised, namely, world affairs.

This is the way out. Over half of Americans aspire to start a business. In other words, the people who will save our economy are not mysterious: they are you and me. President Obama promised, "Yes we can!" American entrepreneurs are ready. They just need a little help. Schumpeter, not Keynes, shows the way.
Carl J. Schramm is president and CEO of the Kauffman Foundation and coauthor of Good Capitalism, Bad Capitalism.

Dave Ramsey

2009-03-02T06:37:00.000-08:00

I started taking Dave Ramsey's Financial Peace University classes at my church. I thought it would be very informative both personally and professionally. So far, I concur on both levels and I am just on week 3 of 13.

Personally, I now realize how much money I spend on frivilous crap every week. Don't get me wrong, I have become very frugal in my old age, but I still found many holes in my methods once I put a microscope to it. Dave's approach is very straight forward and very logical...eerily so.

Professionally, the whole Dave Ramsey money logic is a paradigm shift in most Conventional Wisdom business theories. Which of course got me thinking about our current economic situation and how politics affect the before and after solutions.

What got me thinking about this was the Leased car discussion yesterday. I will be the first person to admit that I rely on professional advice for things I am not well versed on. I remember back in the day when my company was Leasing cars instead of purchasing them because of "tax benefits". So did that mean that the government was incentivizing companies to make bad money decisions? Because let me tell you, after Dave Ramsey's class yesterday, Leasing a car is the LAST thing you should be doing.

So now I start extrapolating. What other policies are being passed that incentivize companies to make bad money decisions? Is that where the debt-is-good business lobby comes in? Can't you see a well connected and convincing lobbyist telling a harried group of politicians that their product HELPS people, we just need this one little clause to make that happen. Sounds relatively innocent and then Voila, another layer of hell added to the broken system. I guess that is why I get freaked out when our legislators are "at work". I always think "How many more layers are we adding this year". No wonder I fear more government in our lives.

I don't have the answers, but I do know that Dave Ramsey's message speaks to me on many levels. It reminds me that we need to get back to basics, both personally and professionally. We need a paradigm shift.

Dave Ramsey for President!

Smart Growth

2009-02-27T06:26:00.000-08:00

As I have mentioned in earlier posts, I live in paradise. For me, paradise not only includes natural wonders but intellectual wonders as well. Our University attracts world class minds, creatives and eccentrics who all find peace and acceptance here on this mountain. Of course, we all sometimes disagree about politics because many of those minds believe in utopias and group think. I am a realist when it comes to these things, I also don't think government involvement is the answer so we butt heads on process all the time. But they also make me think.

Last night I attended a meeting for a group organized to deal with growth on our plateau. Born in the boom times only a year or so back in response to a proposed massive development that would double the size of my little town of 1100, this organization provided a wealth of information to the people who attended the meetings. Greed was everywhere back then, developers were popping up right and left with no regard to infrastructure or process. Our zoning laws were pliable and the public officials were malleable, especially if the right carrot was dangled.

Thankfully, God took care of the issue when we experienced a long drought and Monteagle ran out of water. At the same time, infrastructure mismanagement reared its head and everyone became aware of the sleeping giant called wastewater treatment...or the lack of it. TDEC stepped in with broad and sweeping motions. This was one time I was happy to see them.

One of the biggest problems in the psyche of my locals is the "don't tell me what to do, I am going do whatever the hell I want to" attitude. Let me tell you, I understand and appreciate the sentiment, but unfortunately that attitude has led to some very bad decisions by our public officials and land owners which in turn affects all of us because we pay the price with higher utility rates and pretty major quality of life issues.

Back to the meeting in question. The speaker was Robin Gottfried, a brilliant economics professor at Sewanee. The information he presented wasn't new, I had a crash course in it last year, but his solutions were new to me. Robin put a new spin on government's role in guiding smart growth. The carrot not the hammer theory. Of course, our local government entities have to buy into the smart growth, land use, cluster development premise that have been meticulously and logicaly researched by our University neighbors...but if we can make that happen, the tools that Robin mentioned are wonderfully simple. They incentivize GOOD behavior. Wow, what a concept! Everyone gets what they want thru personal choices. Wow, want a concept!

Hmmmm, sounds to me like I need to get some progressive, fiscally conservative souls elected to local office.

Personal Responsibility

2009-02-26T07:55:00.000-08:00

A friend of mine suggested that I attend a local Lent service last night because he thought it fit perfectly into my personal spiritual quest. Being intrigued, I decided to attend. He was right, it was a very moving experience which led me to do a little more research on the practices of Lent and the meaning behind them since I am relatively new to the organized program. My church handles Lent differently than the church I went to, but the premise is really still the same. A personal, thoughtful and giving journey before the Easter celebration. There is also alot of personal sacrifice involved in the journey. That hit home.

Well you know I will find a way to relate politics in pretty much everything that I do. It is a worldview I can't seem to escape. As a conservative, I feel personal sacrifice and personal responsibility are the cornerstones of my political convictions. Government is not the answer, it is up to each and every one of us to step up to the plate. During this economic downturn, we are all going to have to cinch our belts, quit whining and remember what is important in life. Lent is just a great reminder to do so.

Chuck's mom and my Grandma Nell are two peas in a pod.

An 87-Year-Old's Economic Survival Guide
by Chuck Norris
Posted 02/24/2009 ET
Updated 02/24/2009 ET

An old Spanish proverb says, "An ounce of mother is worth a pound of clergy." I believe that value holds, in or out of a recession. And seeing as my 87-year-old mother lived through the Great Depression, I think her value (and that of those like her) will increase through these tough economic times because her insider wisdom can help us all.

Mother was about 10 years old when her eight-member family endured the thick of those recessive days in rural Wilson, Okla., which only has a population of 1,600 today. The recurring droughts across the heartland during that period dried up the job market, making it worse in the Midwest than it even was in the rest of the country. Over the years, my grandpa worked multiple jobs, from the oil fields to the cotton fields, and he was even a night watchman. The family members did what they could to contribute, but most of them were simply too young to play a major part.

In 1933, when President Franklin Roosevelt took office, his administration, through the Works Project Administration, brought about the employment of millions in civil construction projects, from bridges to dams to airports to roads. My grandfather traveled about 90 miles for a day's work to help build the Lake Murray dam. But with a far smaller ratio of jobs to potential laborers, if Grandpa worked five days a month (at $1.80 a day), it was a good month.

Like most families, my mother's family didn't have running water or electricity. And Granny did her best to keep the outhouse clean, with Grandpa helping by regularly depositing lye to control the odors. (You can imagine how the hot, humid Oklahoma summers turned that outside commode into one smelly closet-sized sauna.) A "scavenger wagon" came by once a week and cleaned out the hole, which had a small chairlike contraption over it with the center punched out. (They once had a two-seater in there, which allowed for two people to enjoy each other's company and conversation. Mom told me that she always felt a little upper-class when she sat with someone else!) By the way, and I'm not trying to be crude, toilet tissue wasn't around, so they used pages from Montgomery Ward catalogs (and you wondered why the catalogs were so thick). No joke -- they preferred the non-glossy pages. I'll let you figure out why.

Got the picture? With that in mind, I turn to a recent conversation I had with my mother. I asked her, "How would you encourage the average American to weather the economic storms of today?"

Here's her advice, in her words:

-- "Get back to the basics. Simplify your life. Live within your means. People have got to be willing to downsize and be OK with it. We must quit borrowing and cut spending. Be grateful for what you have, especially your health and loved ones. Be content with what you have, and remember the stuff will never make you happy. Never. Back then, we didn't have one-hundredth of what people do today, and yet we seemed happier than most today, even during the Great Depression.

-- "Be humble and willing to work. Back then, any work was good work. We picked cotton, picked up cans, scrap metal, whatever it took to get by. Where's that work ethic today? If someone's not being paid $10 an hour today, they're whining and unwilling to work, even if they don't have a job. The message from yesteryear is don't be too proud to do whatever it takes to meet the financial needs of your family.

-- "Be rich in love. We didn't have much. In fact, we had nothing at all, compared to people today, but we had each other. We were poor, but rich in love. We've lost the value of family and friends today, and we've got to gain it back if we're ever to get back on track. If we lose all our stuff and still have one another and our health, what have we really lost?

-- "Be a part of a community. Today people are much more alone, much more isolated. We used to be close with our neighbors. If one person had a bigger or better garden or orchard, they shared the vegetables and fruits with others in need. Society has shifted from caring for one another to being dependent upon government aid and welfare. That is why so many today trust in government to deliver them. They've forgotten an America that used to rally around one another in smaller clusters, called neighborhoods and communities. We must rekindle those local communal fires and relearn the power of that age-old commandment, 'Love thy neighbor.'

-- "Help someone else. We never quit helping others back then. Today too many people are consumed with their own problems and only helping themselves. 'What's in it for me?' is the question most are asking. But back then, it was, 'What can I do to help my neighbor, too?' I love Rick Warren's book The Purpose Driven Life, and especially his thought, 'We were created for community, designed to be a blessing to others.' Most of all, helping others gets our minds off of our problems and puts things into better perspective.

-- "Lean upon God for help and strength. We didn't just have each other to lean on, but we had God, too. We all attended church and belonged to a faith community. Church was the hub of society, the community core and rallying point. Today people turn to government the way we used to turn to churches. It's been that way ever since Herbert Hoover's alleged promise of a 'chicken in every pot' and President Roosevelt's New Deal. Too many have abandoned faith and community. We trust in money more than God. And maybe that's a reason why we're in this economic pickle."

Now that's conventional wisdom that should be shouted and posted in every corridor of government, every community across America, and every blog on the Internet.

Call me overly pragmatic, but I think a little practical wisdom and encouragement is what we all need about now. Mom always was good for that. She still is.

Bobby Jindal

2009-02-23T09:28:00.000-08:00

Bold moves have just been made by potential 2012 GOP Presidential Candidate Bobby Jindal. Alot of our GOP state Governors and Legislatures have been grumbling about the implications of our new stimulus package now that the details are coming to light. I was in a philosophical dilemma about it as well. I really think this is where "the devil is in the details" saying really hits home.

Any lawyer or legislator knows that clauses or even words in a document can change the entire purpose of any legal directive or legislative initiative. I am currently dealing with legislation that was written beautifully, passed and became an Act in Tennessee. There was one word switch during an amendment process, "May" instead of "Shall", that changed everything. 5 years later, over 880,000 constituents in Tennessee are still dealing with the repercussions. And let me tell you, changing ANYTHING in Nashville, once it is in place, is a daunting process to say the least.

Bobby Jindal knows that about his own home state legislative process and has responded accordingly. That took some major political cajones. I like that.

The strings attached to the current Administration's money purse may be too far reaching for our more conservative state leaders. Now let's see what everyone does now that this hand has been played.

Jindal catches flak for rejecting federal cash
February 22, 2009 By Robert Travis ScottCapital bureau

BATON ROUGE -- After becoming the first governor in the nation to reject a piece of President Barack Obama's economic stimulus package, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal defended his stance Saturday amid an outcry from the lieutenant governor and several state lawmakers who disagree with him.

The debate about Jindal's position on the stimulus plan coincides with a key moment in his continuing rise to national prominence, including his role as the Republican Party's pick to respond on national TV to Obama's address to Congress on Tuesday night.

Jindal traveled Saturday to Washington, D.C., to attend the National Governors Association conference, meet with the president and appear today on NBC's "Meet the Press."

His position on the stimulus already has earned him national media attention at a time when many other governors attending the same conference are seeking the limelight.

"It has always been very complicated to be a spokesperson for the nation and a spokesperson for the state at the same time, because those interests do not always line up," said Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu, a Democrat and brother of Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., one of the architects of the federal stimulus bill passed last week.

Mitch Landrieu, three state senators and Rep. Karen Carter-Peterson, D-New Orleans, held a conference call with reporters Saturday afternoon to say that Louisiana should fully embrace the federal stimulus money. They said Jindal's statements are sending the wrong message to Washington.

Agriculture Commissioner Mike Strain also joined the call to praise the stimulus bill's assistance to farmers.

Jindal is prepared to accept nearly all of the roughly $3.8 billion in financing and tax cuts that Louisiana is in line to receive under the stimulus bill, with much of the money available to help close a looming state budget gap of about $1.75 billion.

But the governor said Friday he would refuse $98 million for federal unemployment assistance because he said it comes with strings that would obligate the state to make permanent, costly changes in its law and would mean higher taxes and more administrative headaches for businesses.

The unemployment money, which would run out in about two years, would significantly broaden the conditions for drawing jobless compensation, with benefits available to people who have held a job for as little as three months before becoming unemployed, nine months less than the current standard.

The $98 million would not count toward closing the state's budget shortfall.

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a Republican, also has expressed reservations about taking the unemployment money, and Jindal said several other states are taking a close look at it.

"I don't think you're going to find this is an issue unique to Louisiana," Jindal said. "If you read the stimulus law, it actually requires permanent changes in state law. I don't think that's responsible. It's not good policy."

Speaking to reporters Saturday before departing for Washington, Jindal said his administration is looking at the stimulus bill "line by line, program by program" to see whether other programs in it should be rejected. In particular, he said, he is looking closely at the strings attached to the federal money for welfare assistance.

"Just philosophically, if I were altering the welfare provisions, I would have done it differently," Jindal said.

But no decision has made on whether to accept the welfare money, he said.

By scrutinizing the expansion of unemployment and welfare benefits, Jindal is focusing attention on two policy areas that often have separated Democrats from Republicans.

He said that although he found some of the provisions for jobless benefits in the stimulus bill "objectionable," his main reason for refusing the federal money was the potential future cost in business taxes.

Mitch Landrieu said Jindal's rhetoric and decisions could hurt the state directly because of the lost stimulus money and indirectly because the state is seeking other federal recovery and grant money.

"Instead of getting reluctant about receiving it, we should be aggressive about getting as much as we can," Landrieu said.

Sen. Robert Adley, R-Benton, who joined Landrieu on the media call, said, "We should never put ourselves in a position where we say we don't want it."

Adley said he does not think the unemployment benefits need to tie the state permanently to the program and that the Legislature could control the program's impact in later years.

. . . . . . .

Lt.Gov Ron Ramsey

2009-02-18T08:19:00.000-08:00

My day on the Hill yesterday revolved around my meeting with our Lt.Gov. The rest was just fun filler which I will describe later.

I say this alot lately, but it does matter who governs. Sitting in our Lt.Gov's office reminded me of that. Ron Ramsey has a style of governing that is reflective of his constituency. He is down-to-earth and honest with his assessments. It is about people and policy, not policy and more policy. He sees the genuine absurdity of bad policy, that is refreshing, and he offers solutions thru people not more policy. Once again, even more refreshing.

When you delve into politics on this level, there is alot of absurdity in policy.
The absurdity factor is why I will always be a champion for LESS government.

I would also be remiss if I didn't thank Sen. Eric Stewart for attending the meeting and sponsoring our bills in the Senate. We may be on opposite sides of the fence, but I actually like him alot. He was the only Democrat I have ever knowingly worked with and that was only because he was county commissioner at the time. He is a fiscal conservative and has strong family values. We may not agree on everything, but I can usually trust where his head is at when it comes to serving his constituents.

Observations from a window seat at the legislature cafeteria:

Lots of women in tight skirts and very high heels.
Lots of gray haired lions.
Lots of harried soldiers.
Lots of people with big red hand signs that said "Hands Off of our Civil Rights" or something like that.
Lots of young people in suits (I thought that was cool).

Overheard at a PTA meeting in House Chambers (Speaker was TEA rep):

Bills on Charter schools are bad.
Bills on Home Schooling are bad.
Bills on Virtual education are bad.
Tenure is good.
The new House committee structure makes us nervous (I think he was referring to the Republicans).

Attending the Consumer and Employee Affairs Committee meeting:

I was thrilled to see my dear friend Rep. Judd Matheny chairing his first full Committee. It has been a long road since 2002 and he has fought battle after battle against the absurdity that seems to permeate state government. I am sooo very proud to have him on our team and I know his constituents think so too.

The first committee meeting presentation was a meaty one. Unemployment resources and gameplan updates. I couldn't stay. It was good to see Rep. Eric Swafford, Rep. Brian Kelsey and my favorite Rep. Stacey Campfield on the committee. Like Judd, the left just loves to pick on them. That makes me like them even better.

Yep, as I reread this, my new favorite word for bad government is "absurdity". Funny how things stick it your mind like that. I must be reading too much stimulus propaganda.

Friday Humor

2009-02-13T06:17:00.000-08:00

I love my friends. I know who they are and I love and appreciate them anyway. They do the same for me. Some are old friends, some are relatively new friends. What we all seem to share is a love of life, a sense of truth and a personal honesty that reflects a soul comfortable in their own skin...or at least one working in that direction.

Of course I had to preface this blog with nice comments, because some of my closest friends have a wild sense of humor.

Here is one I just received from my fun-loving, eccentric college friend Maureen. She is a hoot!

This is an actual letter from an Austin woman sent to
American company Proctor and Gamble regarding their feminine
products. She really gets rolling after the first paragraph.
It's PC Magazine's 2007 editors' choice for best
webmail-award-winning letter.

Dear Mr. Thatcher,

I have been a loyal user of your
'Always' maxi pads for over 20 years and I
appreciate many of their features. Why, without the
LeakGuard Core or Dri-Weave absorbency, I'd probably
never go horseback riding or salsa dancing, and I'd
certainly steer clear of running up and down the beach in
tight, white shorts. But my favorite feature has to be your
revolutionary Flexi-Wings. Kudos on being the only company
smart enough to realize how crucial it is that maxi pads be
aerodynamic. I can't tell you how safe and secure I feel
each month knowing there's a little F-16 in my pants.

Have you ever had a menstrual period, Mr.
Thatcher? Ever suffered from the curse'? I'm
guessing you haven't. Well, my time of the month is
starting right now. As I type, I can already feel hormonal
forces violently surging through my body. Just a few minutes
from now, my body will adjust and I'll be transformed
into what my husband likes to call 'an inbred hillbilly
with knife skills.' Isn't the human body amazing?

As Brand Manager in the Feminine-Hygiene
Division, you've no doubt seen quite a bit of research
on what exactly happens during your customer's monthly
visits from 'Aunt Flo'. Therefore, you must know
about the bloating, puffiness, and cramping we endure, and
about our intense mood swings, crying jags, and
out-of-control behaviour. You surely realize it's a
tough time for most women. In fact, only last week, my
friend Jennifer fought the violent urge to shove her
boyfriend's testicles into a George Foreman Grill just
because he told her he thought Grey's Anatomy was
written by drunken chimps. Crazy!

The point is, sir, you of all people must
realize that America is just crawling with homicidal maniacs
in Capri pants... Which brings me to the reason for my
letter. Last month, while in the throes of cramping so
painful I wanted to reach inside my body and yank out my
uterus, I opened an Always maxi-pad, and there, printed on
the adhesive backing, were these words: 'Have a Happy
Period.'

Are you f------ kidding me? What I mean is, does
any part of your tiny middle-manager brain really think
happiness - actual smiling, laughing happiness, is possible
during a menstrual period? Did anything mentioned above
sound the least bit pleasurable? Well, did it, James? FYI,
unless you're some kind of sick S&M freak, there
will never be anything 'happy' about a day in which
you have to jack yourself up on Motrin and Kahlua and lock
yourself in your house just so you don't march down to
the local Walgreen's armed with a hunting rifle and a
sketchy plan to end your life in a blaze of glory.

For the love of God, pull your head out, man!
If you have to slap a moronic message on a maxi pad,
wouldn't it make more sense to say something that's
actually pertinent, like 'Put down the Hammer' or
'Vehicular Manslaughter is Wrong', or are you just
picking on us?

Sir, please inform your Accounting Department
that, effective immediately, there will be an $8 drop in
monthly profits, for I have chosen to take my maxi-pad
business elsewhere. And though I will certainly miss your
Flex-Wings, I will not for one minute miss your brand of
condescending bullshit. And that's a promise I will
keep.
Always. . .

Best,
Wendi Aarons
Austin , TX

Stimulus Today

2009-02-12T07:56:00.000-08:00

I haven't seen the final outcome of what is packed in the several hundred page document, but if it reflects any of these statements, I will probably lose my mind...again.

Here’s how The Associated Press explained it: “Undocumented immigrants who are not eligible for a Social Security number can file tax returns with an alternative number. A House-passed version of the economic recovery bill, and one making its way through the Senate, would allow anyone with such a number, called an individual taxpayer identification number (TIN), to qualify for the tax credits.”
In case you didn’t know it, any illegal can get a TIN number from Social Security, no questions asked.
This means illegals who broke the law to get here will be eligible immediately for federal cash — up to $1,000!
It gets worse. Let me detail for you some facts from the “stimulus”:
• More than $4 billion is earmarked for "neighborhood stabilization activities" — money that will go to groups like ACORN, which worked closely with the Obama campaign, the same group accused of massive voter fraud.
• Almost half of the proposed spending will directly benefit the Service Employees International Union, federal, state, and municipal employee unions, or other Democratic-controlled unions, according to writer Ben Stein.
• $600 million goes for news cars for top government bureaucrats.
• Obama promised major infrastructure projects — yet only 5 percent of all the money goes for this.
• $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts.
• $75 million to fund anti-smoking programs.
• $650 million for the switch from analog television to digital.
• $335 million to help prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
• $600 million for “climate change” research programs.
This is just a small part of the long laundry list of trivial, weird, and simply outrageous programs being funded in the Obama stimulus bill, which goes on for 680 pages — so long no one in the House was believed to have read it before voting for it!
Just to show you the tremendous waste, there is so much money appropriated in this bill you could give every unemployed person in the nation a check for $75,000 for the amount being spent.

He and his Democratic allies are simply wasting hundreds of billions of our money in a clear “payoff” to Democratic Party interest groups and unions that backed him and the Democrats in Congress during the last election.
Tom DeLay put it best when he said Obama’s program is “just complete, out-and-out writing of checks to people that don’t pay taxes. These are welfare checks that are called tax cuts.”
Scary?
You better believe it. The Democrats are making Freddy Krueger look like a reasonable fellow.

Happy Birthday Abe

2009-02-12T05:22:00.000-08:00

"The Republican Party, on the contrary [to the Democrats], holds that this government was instituted to secure the blessings of freedom, and that slavery is an unqualified evil. Republicans will oppose in all its length and breadth the modern Democratic idea that slavery is as good as freedom." - Abraham Lincoln

I wonder what Abe would think now as we travel down the road to our own government slavery...

Guns

2009-02-11T06:37:00.000-08:00

It is no secret that I am an avid advocate for our second amendment rights. Here are 25 great reasons why...thanks for the reminder Holt.

Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.'

~ Thomas Jefferson

FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE

1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

3. Colt: The original point and click interface.

4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.

5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?

6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.

7. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

8. If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.

10. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.

11. What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?

12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.

13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

14. Guns only have two enemies; rust and politicians.

15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.

16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

17. 911: Government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.

18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

19. Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer.

20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.

21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

22. You have only the rights you are willing to fight for.

23. Enforce the gun control laws we ALREADY have; don't make more.

24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

Conspiracy Theory?

2009-02-10T09:50:00.000-08:00

I think this topic was covered in an earlier post during election season, but it begs repeating since we just passed a bill that brings us one step further into government control. Thanks for sharing Ed.

Gang, in case you haven't noticed the Senate just voted in the scamulous bill, 61 to 37. We're getting screwed by the very people we voted into office. This is the most expensive government spending program in the history of the planet, and even worse the Congress/President in less than a month are about to push our country over a slippery slope to Socialism/Communism from which we may never recover. What's ridiculous is that Arlen Spector (one of 3 Republicans supporting this in the Senate) was on Fox News this morning being questioned about some of the healthcare provisions which he admitted he had no idea were in the bill. As a matter of fact, it was evident that he hadn't even read the bill.

Don't think that all of this was something that was just dreamed up since Obama was elected. I, for one, think what's happening is a more sinister plan the Democrats (and some Republicans) have been planning for years. All they needed was a Democratic President, control of the House and Senate, and an economic crisis (which they created while the Republicans were asleep at the wheel with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) to get 'er done. Well guess what? Why do you think they say this has to be done NOW, it CANT WAIT. That's because they're pushing this through without open debate and hope to keep the details as much as possible under the radar of the general public.

So, it's done. What you're witnessing is a hostile takeover of every aspect of YOUR life by the government. It's a "coupe de tat", which is often called a "coup" defined as the sudden unconstitutional overthrow of a government by a (typically small) part of the state establishment (usually the military bt not in this case-yet) to replace the branch of the stricken government, either with another civil government or with a military government. All done very peacefully without a shot fired.

There's nothing you or I can do about it until the next time we vote for members of the House and Senate; however, the President in the past day or two has just changed how the next Census will be managed (instead of going through the Commerce Department it will now be managed directly out of the office of the President) so the Democrats can reapportion how the districts are laid out, assuring them they will maintain a majority position in the government.

In case you've never read the 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto per Karl Marx (as shown in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto) here they are:
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public
purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank
with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the
State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the
bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil
generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially
for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of
the distinction between town and country, by a more equal distribution of the
population over the country.
10.Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's
factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial
production.[6]

According to the Communist Manifesto, all these were prior conditions for a transition from capitalism to communism.
Any of these look familiar? Did you see the front page of the Newsweek magazine yesterday? "Whether we like it or not—or even whether many people have thought much about it or not—the numbers clearly suggest that we are headed in a more European (aka Socialist) direction." http://www.newsweek.com/id/183663

If you really want to get scared go google "End Game" or "Civilian Inmate Detention Camp" or look at http://blog.puppetgov.com/wp-content/2008/11/r210_35.pdf

Surprise Gift

2009-02-10T08:42:00.000-08:00

After my Kiwanis meeting last night I had a surprise gift waiting for me on my windshield.

Whomever left the rockin' 2009 Sarah Palin Calender, Thank you!

I Love Facebook

2009-02-10T06:23:00.000-08:00

I love Facebook, not only do I learn things quickly but I get to experience some very funny commentary...here is one that got a hearty laugh today.

"I am feeling particularly anarchistic today, with a side order of nihilism. The last time I felt like this I got confused and felt anachronistic. Sat around all damn day in a powdered wig and knee breeches."

Thanks Richard!

God's Little Nudges

2009-02-08T10:43:00.000-08:00

As mentioned in previous posts, I am a newly "surrendered" Christian (Jan. 13 08). My path towards awareness of His plan for me since then has been a very enlightening one. What this surrender has done for me is to make me sit back quietly and listen. It is getting easier and easier to do so. And usually, He makes His point in the must subtle of ways because He doesn't need a hammer on my head anymore to get my attention. It's kinda cool.

Today, was one of those days. Every Sunday during the service, our children's ministry leader will lead the children in a "life lesson for the day" segment before they head off to Sunday School. We get to listen. Usually, Linda will tell a personal story from her week's events and weave it into a life lesson point. Today she gave me a life lesson point.

Yesterday, I was cruising around on a beautiful day, feeling alive and full of good spirit. On every corner around town were the Shriners. Typically, I begrudgingly give to these efforts but I truly hate the concept of "highway robbery". Yesterday was one of those days that I just didn't give. I even made a point of avoiding them. What do they really do for our people here in the community. Yes, I thought that and said that out loud to my friend riding with me.

Yep, wouldn't you know it, Linda's lesson to the kids today wove in her story of giving to Shriners and other "parking lot" type efforts even if you question their motives (she went even further with the story and talked about helping others in so many little ways). She remembered when her nephew was born with a club foot and the Shriners helped his family with the surgery because they didn't have the money to do so. He is 17 now and will be joining the military as soon as he turns 18 so that he can proudly serve his country. No hammer necessary here, but boy it felt like one.

Yes God, I am listening. Thanks for the nudge.

Newsweek

2009-02-08T06:45:00.001-08:00

Our home boy Jon Meacham has a new edition of Newsweek out that I have got to actually buy. It puts into words a reality that fueled the passion that drove me this past election. Socialism is a word that inspires visions of the depths of hell in my political worldview.

From Politico Playbook:

THE BIG IDEA – Newsweek editor Jon Meacham: '[W]ithout a great deal of fanfare, the America of 2009 has become a more socialist country ... Harvard economist Ken Rogoff predicts the United States will move toward 'a more centralized, redistributional health-care system, as Europe already has,' with a greater emphasis on the environment, higher regulation and increased protectionism. Rogoff's conclusion: 'I take the 2008 U.S. elections as marking a turn toward continental Europe.'

Meacham and Evan Thomas, in their 'violin' introducing the cover package: 'History has a sense of humor, for the man who laid the foundations for the world Obama now rules is George W. Bush, who moved to bail out the financial sector last autumn with $700 billion. Bush brought the Age of Reagan to a close; now Obama has gone further, reversing Bill Clinton's end of big government.'

Music

2009-02-06T08:36:00.000-08:00

Music has always been a way for me to feel the emotion of the moment, the season or a more subtle texture of life. When I opened a music club in 2004, I felt like a kid in a candy store. So much beautiful music graced my stage and my soul. When I am in Church, the music is always the thing that fills my heart with joy and celebration.

Today, I have Spring Fever. I can remember back in my college days when us girls would cruise around on a beautiful spring day with my t-tops off (I know, how 80's) and the music blaring. In Wisconsin, the winters were long and brutal and when a whiff of Spring hit us, all bets were off.

For whatever reason, this song begs to be played in my car today. Forget the lyrics, this beat gets me revved and happy. I thought it was funny that I found it with a video of Lara Croft, my personal kick butt gal hero.

Reagan Quotes - Repeat

2009-02-05T09:17:00.002-08:00

I don't know, I am feeling very Reagan today...

'Here's my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose.'- Ronald Reagan

'The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' - Ronald Reagan

'The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.' - Ronald Reagan

'Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong.'
- Ronald Reagan

'I have wondered at times about what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the U.S. Congress.' - Ronald Reagan

'The taxpayer: That's someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination.'
- Ronald Reagan

'Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.'
- Ronald Reagan

'The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program.' - Ronald Reagan

'It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.' - Ronald Reagan

'Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.' - Ronald Reagan

'Politic s is not a bad profession. If you succeed, there are many rewards; if you disgrace yourself, you can always write a book.' - Ronald Reagan

'No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.'- Ronald Reagan

'If we ever forget that we're one nation under God , then we will be a nation gone under.'
- Ronald Reagan

Intestinal Fortitude

2009-02-04T10:40:00.000-08:00

Wow. This one got me thinking. However much I hate all the bailouts, would I actually agree to putting my money where my mouth is?

This concept definitely requires a gut check.

Should Tennessee refuse bailout funds earmarked for the state?February 3, 2009 by Ken Marrero
What a difference an hour or two can make.

This morning I attended two meetings. The first featured WTN talk show host Ralph Bristol from Nashville’s Morning News and the second featured Jason Mumpower, the GOP Majority Leader for the TN House. The bailout and the Government’s role in influencing the lives of citizens via dispensing cash was a topic at both meetings.

In the first meeting, Bristol addressed Mitch McConnell’s plans to impact the US mortgage market. Linking to the Fox News story, Bristol noted,

McConnell on Monday demanded an amendment to President Obama’s “economic stimulus” package to give government-backed, 4% loans to homeowners – any credit-worthy borrower, including those who are seeking to refinance their loans. McConnell estimates it will save the average homeowner $466 a month — $5,600 a year, or – over the life of a 30-year mortgage — $167, 760.

He went on to say even though he stood to personally benefit from such a proposal he opposed it on principle because it was wrong for Government to be involved in the mortgage industry in such a fashion. It was little more than an appeal to voters to support him and his party because they were promising to impact citizen’s lives in ways the Constitution did not allow for. He added that until those who did not stand to benefit from a measure could vote for it and those who stood to benefit from a measure could vote against it - both votes on principle as opposed to personal benefit - the country would be at the mercy of whichever politician or political party promised the most. It was the general consensus of the meeting that sort of governance was currently the norm and there was little confidence, human nature being what it is, such tactics by Government could be stopped.

In the second meeting, Leader Mumpower mentioned Federal Bailout money in the context of how it might impact Tennessee’s state budget. Mumpower said he had some concerns about bailouts and noted Governor Bredesen might delay releasing his budget proposal until after it was clear how much money Tennessee was scheduled to receive. During the Q&A session, I asked Leader Mumpower what discussion the GOP caucus might have had about simply refusing to accept bailout money; sending it back instead on general principle. Mumpower responded the GOP Caucus had not had substantive discussions on the matter and that budget conversations would be upcoming but that there were those in the caucus who shared that sentiment.

After the meeting broke up a reporter for the Memphis Commercial Appeal approached me and asked me what my thoughts on the idea of refusing bailout money were. I responded that until people were willing to do the right thing regardless of personal cost, few substantive accomplishments would be realized. Those people who believe bailouts and faux Stimulus Packages are wrong have an obligation to back up their words with their actions or their words could rightly be questioned. The reporter noted that he had asked two elected representatives, also in attendance, to comment on the idea of refusing the money. He noted one simply laughed and walked away while another said if constituents found out that sort of money had been turned down when it could have been used to improve their district there would be trouble. These were Republican lawmakers. One would guess of the more conservative bent.

It’s not an outrageous proposition. Haley Barbour is considering it for Mississippi. So is Mark Sanford in South Carolina. Predictably, there has been a knee jerk reaction against the idea, with no discussion of the idea’s merit. Hopefully, the issue will get a fair consideration and airing both in the public square and in Legislative Plaza. It’s time to stand up for what we believe. If bailouts are bad, then so is taking bailout money. If bailouts are a good thing, then let’s have bailouts for everyone and not just a few. I’m curious to see what discussion this will bring to the Hill. Stay tuned …

Government Gone Wild

2009-02-04T09:14:00.000-08:00

In 2006 I made a campaign promise to help the OHV (Off-Highway Vehicle) industry in Tennessee. Being a political junkie, I took on the cause with great relish. How hard could it be?! Three years later, I am still amazed at how hard it really is but dang it has been fun.

Unfortunately, I have also learned that Logic doesn't seem to play a part in most politics.

Here is another edition of Government Gone Wild.

Some frustrated with lead mandates
Libraries, bike shops scramble to comply with new requirements
by Jimmy Myers
Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Minimal amounts of lead in aluminum casting have caused some to be concerned about motorcycles such as this one made for young children.

With Congress saying “get the lead out,” local retailers and librarians are wondering if common sense gets chucked along with it.

The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, which goes into effect Feb. 10, is meant to protect children from lead-laden products. But when the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission gave libraries two options, get rid of all your children’s books or ban anyone under 12 from entering the library, librarians across the country waited for the punch line. But it never came.

“I was speechless,” said Mary Beth Revels, director of the St. Joseph Public Library. “To know it wasn’t a joke and those were our choices.”

After discussing the situation with the library board, she deduced that they would not pack away the library’s 70,000 children’s books and they weren’t going to close the library doors to children.

“We felt that if libraries didn’t comply with this across the country, that we would be taking a stand of continuing to connect children with books,” Ms. Revels said.

The publishing industry has tested the lead content in books, Ms. Revels said, and the levels are within legal limits. But the commission won’t recognize those tests because they weren’t carried out in a “certified lab.”

“But there are no certified labs,” she said incredulously.

And though librarians can’t give an estimate of how many of their children’s books end up in the mouths of readers, Ms. Revels said they’ve never had to replace a book destroyed by an orally fixated patron.

Luckily, libraries have received a reprieve that will last one year, and the commission will consider which products should be exempt from the law.

But local motorcycle shops that sell kid bikes aren’t so lucky. They will not be allowed to sell motorcycles to children as of Feb. 10.

Motorcycles contain lead parts on the batteries and various other areas of the engine.

“It’s so stupid,” said Mike McBride, owner of McBride’s Yamaha on the Belt Highway. “You’d have to suck on an engine case for hours a day to get any lead out of it.”

He’s got about 10 motorcycles that he’ll have to pull off the showroom floor on the 10th if he doesn’t sell them first, which he said won’t happen.

With fines up to $150,000, Mr. McBride said he’s not going to risk keeping them on the floor. Instead, he’ll pay interest on them until “it gets resolved.”

“I think everybody thought (the commission) would have a flash of common sense, but that didn’t happen,” he said.

Jimmy Myers can be reached at jimmym@npgco.com.