What Can We Do?

One of the questions many of us are asking, is what can I do to express my support or my opposition to what is going on in Washington D.C. now.  I found a site that lists all upcoming legislation, gives an unbiased summary of the proposed legislation and a simple way to let your Congressman or Senator know your position on the bills.  It will also give an up to date poll of what other users are supporting or opposing, by congressional district, state, or nationwide.  I was shocked at all the gun control legislation already being proposed.  This is only a few of them.

Popvox  is an interesting site.  I had no idea so much legislation was already being proposed.  This gives us all the  opportunity to easily educate ourselves and make our opinions known to our elected officials.  It also tells us how often our representatives and senators voted for and against our wishes.  Clicking on any of these buttons will take you directly to the site's page where you can learn about specific bills and contact your representative.

Anyone Recognize This?

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I realize that education in our government controlled public school system today fails miserably in teaching everything but government dependence.  Therefore reading comprehension is not exactly a strong suit anymore, but the one sentence above is fairly simple and straightforward.  There is absolutely nothing, not a single word, about hunting deer.  In fact, I do believe the only animal mentioned in the Second Amendment is a bear.  Upon further inspection, the word "bear" in the Amendment is not the noun, but rather a verb meaning to hold, own or possess.  There is nothing in the single sentence comprising the Second Amendment that protects citizens' right to own a firearm in order to hunt deer, ducks, elk, moose, or even bears.  There is not a single word about owning a handgun or any type of firearm in order to protect yourself or your family from a meth-crazed maniac or a post-Apocalypse zombie.  

Break the single sentence down into its two components; "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." is the first key.  A well-regulated militia is a well-equipped, i.e. well-armed, population of civilians, not federal troops, civilians.  Why do we need a well-armed population?  It's necessary to the security of a free state.  That's pretty easy to understand, right?  The founding fathers believed that having a well-armed civilian population was necessary not only for hunting or protecting individuals, their homes, their property.  A well-armed civilian population was necessary for the security of a free state.  Why did our founders believe that it was necessary?   

First of all, an armed population was necessary to protect itself against attack from Native Americans and other aggressors trying to take property from citizens of the newly created nation.  If you think that personal private property is no longer susceptible to attack from forces hostile to the United States, do an internet search for stories about citizens of the United States protecting their property and lives and begging the federal government for assistance in protecting their property and their lives along the southern border.  Citizens along the southern border are under attack daily by invaders from a foreign country.  If you really want an eye opener do a little research about terrorists from overseas and their ability to invade our borders, northern and southern.  

Most importantly our founders included the Second Amendment as a counterbalance to the power they were granting the federal government.  They had just fought a bloody and costly war to win their independence from a central government that they considered tyrannical and power hungry.  When our government today passes healthcare legislation that will impact the lives of 100% of the population and is supported by approximately 45% of that population; when our government sues a state for enforcing federal immigration laws that the federal government refuses to enforce; when our government takes, through threat of force,  more and more of the money its citizens work for and earn, then passes that money on to organizations like Planned Parenthood and whatever name ACORN is operating under today; when our government is racking up annual deficits of over $1,000,000,000,000 a year, money that will somehow have to be paid by our children and grandchildren; it's pretty easy to see the dangers of a power hungry federal government.  When our newly re-elected president proposes 23 executive actions in direct violation of the Constitution, specifically the Second Amendment, specifically because these actions would never survive the process required to change the Constitution, it's easy to see the seeds of tyranny.  Exactly the reasons the founders included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights.  

Another common argument against the Second Amendment is that, even with the evil assault weapons in the hands of otherwise law-abiding citizens, an army of civilians, a "well-regulated Militia," would stand no chance against the most powerful military in history.  In general those who favor this argument would also point out the failure of that same most powerful military in Korea, Vietnam, and today in Afghanistan against an army of civilians.  So it should be obvious that a well-regulated militia, a well-armed civilian army, is as necessary today as it was in 1789.

The second component of the single sentence Second Amendment is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  First of all, keeping and bearing arms is a right.  In the view of the founders, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, a right is granted by God or Nature's god.  The right to protect yourself, your property, and your State, your country, your beliefs is granted by God or Nature's god.  It is not a power granted to the federal government to limit the citizen's ability to protect these things.  The founders, in the Supreme law of our country, the very foundation of our country, stated that the right to "keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  I don't know how much more clear the founders could be short of using the phrase popularized by Moses Charlton Heston, "you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands."  I recognize the Second Amendment.  I recognize the wisdom of our founding fathers in including it in the Constitution.  I recognize the necessity of the Second Amendment, today and in 1789.  When well-educated, I'm assuming well-intentioned, people do not recognize the absolute lunacy of our modern power hungry, borderline tyrannical federal government attempting to illegally circumvent the supreme law of our nation, I'm not sure I recognize "us" anymore.  

No Longer Self-Evident?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.  They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.  That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it and to institute new Government......

--The Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America

July 4, 1776

  

It wasn't that long ago that the truths mentioned by our founding fathers were self-evident.  They weren't up for debate.  We knew that we were endowed by our Creator with these rights.  The  government worked for us, not vice versa.  Somewhere along the way we lost sight of these truths.  We have allowed the government to grant us our rights.  The problem with the government granting rights?  The government can also rescind the same rights.  The government no longer derives its power from the consent of the governed (us).  The government   creates power for itself, if not through legislation, through regulation.  And we, the people, are allowing it and in many cases, even encouraging it.  

If our form of government is destructive to the people's unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property), and it is our right to alter or abolish that government, how we do we achieve that alteration or abolition?  That is where the first two amendments to our Constitution come into play.  

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Without the right to peaceably assemble, speak freely, and petition the  government; and the right of the people to bear arms,  it would be impossible to secure a free state or ensure the other rights granted by our Creator and guaranteed in the Constitution.  Without free speech or an armed populace, how can the people control the government as it grants itself more and more power?  We can't.  When we lose the rights guaranteed in the first two amendments, all other rights are granted at the whim of the government.  I don't think anyone, right, left, Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian are prepared for that eventuality.  Yet that's where we are heading at a breakneck speed now.  

When guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns.

--Edward Abbey

Choice. Use It or Lose It.

Other than football or Davy Crockett, my favorite topic seems to be choice.  Choice is one of those topics that conservatives or Republicans have done a horrible job of presenting their case.  Choice is not only about the abortion issue.  But because Democrats claim to be the party of choice in the case of allowing a baby to live, they have claimed the mantle of the party of choice.  I would really like to see an instance of Democrats or Progressives actually favoring choice on any issue.  As of last January, they are taking away your choice of health care insurance.  Like it or not, you are going to be paying for Obamacare.  Does your local school district teach your child as well as you would like?  Would you prefer for the money you pay to support public schools to go toward your child's education at a private school or even better toward materials and programs to help you home school your child?  Thanks to your Progressive Democratic party, that's not an option.  In spite of the public support of a voucher system, all of your tax dollars allocated to education goes straight to teacher's unions through your local public school.  If you want to put your child in a private school, or home school your child, you'll be paying extra for that.

Do you want your tax dollars bailing out banks like J.P. Morgan Chase?  Your money being flooded into General Motors and Chrysler?  Do you believe that abortion is not a form of birth control, but is immoral?  Do you want your money going to Planned Parenthood, who in spite of the repeated lies by the president does NOT provide any type of cancer screening?  They are primarily an abortion provider.  Not just primarily, almost exclusively, an abortion provider.  Want your tax dollars going to them, so they can perform an act that you find immoral?  Do you want to invest in solar panel manufacturers with a very questionable chance of success, such as Solyndra?  Would you prefer to invest your hard earned money in proven oil, natural gas, or coal exploration and research?  Well, unfortunately you have absolutely no choice in any of those matters.  If you pay federal income tax, a portion of your money goes to teacher's unions, General Motors, Chrysler, and Planned Parenthood.

Whether you like it or not, your money went to green energy companies like Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt, Solyndra, Beacon Power, Ener1, Abound Solar, A123 Systems, Willard & Kelsey Solar, Raser Technologies, and more.  This is just a portion of the list of companies that received YOUR money and later declared bankruptcy.  Here's a complete list of companies that received taxpayer money, including those now bankrupt.    These companies received a total of $80 billion of your money.  Companies that are no longer in business received $8 billion of that total.  Was that your idea?  Did you support that decision?

How about the federal regulations proposed solely by the appointed, not elected, EPA that severely limits the ability of oil companies to provide proven relatively inexpensive sources of energy for you everyday?  Want to eliminate the coal industry entirely?  Your president does.  He's doing it through the Environmental Protection Agency.  You vote for anyone in that agency?  Nope.  You couldn't.  It's staffed by presidential appointees.  Doesn't matter whether you approve or not.  There's absolutely nothing you can do about their actions.

If you think all these decisions that affect you everyday of your life are frustrating, just wait until Obamacare is fully implemented.  The federal government makes all these decisions on your behalf with really no justification.  Some, like many of the investments in green energy, were payback to donors to the president's campaign.  Some, like the bailout of General Motors and Chrysler were payback to unions for their support.  What do you think the federal government will do to your individual choice, your freedom, your bank account, using the cost of healthcare as justification?  Think Mayor Bloomberg in New York City has been heavy-handed by outlawing sugary drinks of more than 16 ounces?

Imagine that policy on a national level.  Think it will end there?  Or do you think that's just the start?  Is it more likely that, first sizes, then the availability altogether of candy, energy drinks, alcohol, fast food, snack food will be limited?  What about other things on the Progressive wish list that can be even remotely linked to healthcare costs?  Except for their own personal use (ever see how Al Gore gets to any of those climate change conferences?), Progressives absolutely hate big SUV's.  They emit too much CO2, right?  That's bad for your health.  If you must drive, your only choice will be to pay $40,000 for a Volt.  Do you own a gun?  It is a right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, but how long will it take to make it a right regulated by healthcare policies?  The government could eliminate hunting accidents by eliminating firearms, right?  If you really don't think that's not only a possibility, but a likely outcome just find a single instance in the past century  where the federal government exercised a newly gained power responsibly.  No, history shows that with power and the government, not just ours, but any government, the phrase "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" is actually an understatement.

I believe this sense of helplessly watching the federal government taking more and more of our choices away is the basis of the secession craze that took hold after the reelection of President Obama.  One positive of the past two election cycles is the return to office of Republican governors, even in traditional Democratic strongholds like Wisconsin and Ohio.  Governors and states need to find a backbone and stand up to the federal government as it grabs all this power.  Out of all the programs I have mentioned, how many are a power given to the federal government in our Constitution?  I'll give you a minute to do a little research.  You back yet?  Still looking?  I'll give you a hint how many.  The answer rhymes with "hero."  Or "done."  That's right zero.  None.  Zip.  Nada.  The federal government, mainly over the past 100 years, has just taken these programs upon themselves.  The programs, if they are to be implemented at all, are the right or responsibility of the individual states to implement.  Article I Section 8 of the Constitution lists 18 powers that We the People granted to our federal government.  By design, this is a short list.  The 10th Amendment to the Constitution reserves any other power, not part of this list of 18, to either the people or the states.

The states are supposed to be, as Mitt Romney said in one of the debates, the "laboratories of ideas."  Massachusetts can try a state run healthcare.  If it's successful, other states will follow suit.  If it's not, citizens of Massachusetts will have a choice, either end the experiment or move to a state without the policy.  Same with green energy projects, environmental regulations, land use restrictions, public education.  These policies should be state mandated.  Allow the citizens of the United States to vote with their feet.  They will move to a state that is successful, has jobs available, has affordable housing, and good schools.  Voters in other states will elect state officials that will bring successful policies to their state.  Even in times like now where the federal government has taken control and mandated so many of these failed policies nationally, there examples of states succeeding with their own policies.  See the gas boom in South Dakota for an obvious example.  Unemployment is almost non-existent in the state, the housing industry is booming, the  state is bringing in record amounts of tax revenue, not by raising tax rates, but because the citizens are prospering.  So if it is spent wisely, their education will improve and they will be a model for other states to look toward.

But as is usually the case, the federal government rarely celebrates success by an individual or a state.  Rather they seek to punish it.  Watch for the EPA's report on fracking, a main component of the success of the gas industry in South Dakota.  If past behavior is a predictor of future actions, the EPA will crack down on the practice.  States have been negligent in standing up to the federal government's power grabs.  I think that whether consciously or just intuitively, we the people, know these powers have been granted to us by our Creator, by Nature, or Nature's god as stated in the Declaration of Independence.  We failed to push our states to stand up to the federal government as it took more and more of our choices away.  The deep divisions in our society that seem to become so prominent in the past 10 years are a result of our choices being eliminated.  The current secession phenomenon is the latest consequence.  I hope our states push their Constitution-granted rights and that the Supreme Court is still responsible enough to uphold the Constitution. If not the next step is up to the we the people and our choices are becoming more limited by the day.

We Lost, but When?

I wrote over a year ago about how history is being changed.  Even as a kid, I realized it was happening with the history of Davy Crockett.  What many of us don't realize is how important our history is.  What we learn of our history basically provides the lens through which we see ourselves.  While so many of us were slow to realize the importance of history, others have known for years.  They planned to change history to fit their world view.  They haven't been very secretive in their plans, it's just that we don't pay attention, or don't take them seriously.  The Obama campaign in 2008 told us that they planned to change history.  Listen toMichelle Obama on the campaign trail, she doesn't speak of making history, she speaks of changing history.  That's not a mistake, that is exactly what they have planned.


So maybe the revision of the Davy Crockett story was a test run?  Just to see if we would buy it?  Well, our education system sure did.  Now, they are going big.  They are going after our founding fathers.  I have felt that Texas is one of our last hopes of regaining our country and our past.  But did you know that right now, today, the Boston Tea Party is being taught in Texas as an example of terrorism.  Now, reading the curriculum, it is possible that this lesson is being taught to teach students to reason, to read the information and see it from multiple angles.  From the British perspective at the time, the Boston Tea Party was terrorism.  Only through reading the causes of the revolution will a student learn that the American Revolution was justified.  But is it being taught that way?  Frankly I doubt it.  If it were, why are parents being denied access to the lessons?  The "Parent's Portal" to the online lesson plans offers information that differs greatly from the lesson plans being presented in class. If this is happening in Texas, what is happening in California?  In New York?  In Oregon?

Take a look at what is happening, and has been happening for over a decade with our knowledge of Thomas Jefferson.  Jefferson did own slaves.  That is known.  It has been taught since the textbooks published in the 1880's.  What was taught before, but is no longer being taught is that he spent most of his life trying to abolish slavery.  The Virginia Constitution made it illegal for a slave owner to free his slaves.  After George Washington freed his slaves upon his death, Virginia even closed that loophole.  It was illegal for a citizen of Virginia to free his slaves.  Jefferson worked tirelessly to change that.  Unfortunately that was one of the few instances that Jefferson failed.  For a true view of Thomas Jefferson, through his own words and the words of people who actually knew him, who actually lived in Jefferson's time, read The Jefferson Lies, by David Barton.   Barton uses Jefferson's own words, the original documents to clear up the lies being told about him.  The interesting thing has been the response to the book.  David Barton has been attacked from every directions by scholars pointing out the "inaccuracies" in his book.  Their evidence of his inaccuracies comes from scholars writing more than 100 years after Jefferson's death.  These scholars use each other as references, completely ignoring the primary sources - Jefferson himself and his contemporaries.  One interesting chapter in Barton's book deals with Jefferson's supposed love child with his slave, Sally Hemings.  Remember in the late 1990's when a DNA test was done using genetic material from one of Hemings' known descendants that "proved" Jefferson's affair with his slave.  Interestingly enough this report came out just as the current president, William Jefferson Clinton was being impeached for lying about his affair with Monica Lewinsky, making the point that infidelity in the White House was nothing new.  Coincidentally, a retraction was released a few weeks after the initial report that the DNA tests actually concluded that with a 97% certainty, Hemings' child was NOT Thomas Jefferson's.  The retraction did not receive the front page of Newsweek treatment that the original, erroneous report did.

Thanksgiving is a couple of days away.  While the Thanksgiving story that children from my generation were taught is a little simple and doesn't give the complete story of the Pilgrims and the first Thanksgiving, students are more likely today to learn the perspective of MSNBC commentator, Melissa Harris Perry who says that "European settlers brought violence, disease, and land theft to the indigenous peoples who were already in this land before it was discovered."
 
So why is it important to the president's backers to smear the reputation of our country's founders?  Their view of the United States is that it was founded by rich white men who were only interested in making themselves more wealthy.  The system is set up to benefit the rich white men.  It is stacked against black Americans, immigrants(whether legal or illegal), women, Native Americans, against anyone not white and rich.  The president himself says that rugged individualism, self reliance, and small government is "part of our DNA" obviously in reference to our founding principles.  But then he goes on, "but it doesn't work, it has never worked" to the applause of his audience.


That is why it is so important, in the president's view,  to change history.  It has worked.  When applied as our founders intended and as they stated in our Constitution, it always works.

We did lose the election earlier this month.  But that defeat actually started when we lost the battle of truth about our history.  To get back, we have to make truth matter again, and make history matter again.

Pro Choice

Ever notice that the only choice the progressives/liberals/Democrats are actually in favor of, is the woman's choice whether or not to let her baby live long enough to be born?  It is their body after all.  I plan to write in the next few days about the choices being taken away from us.  Yes, I know it has been nine months since my last post.  I've been busy, ok?  Actually, I think I fell victim to the Bill Belichick strategy being employed by our government.  When every day brings a new assault on our Constitution and our rights as individuals, just as the St. Louis Rams learned in the Super Bowl, eventually the officials (conservative Americans in this case) get overwhelmed.  Like I wrote about before, I need to square my shoulders and get back in the game.   So I am going to focus for a few posts on the choices we are losing.


First of all, unless you have been living in a cave, you know that this is an election year.  From the first few days of Obama's Constitutional assault, excuse me, administration, Republicans have sworn that they would nominate a true conservative.  They would not allow the media to force another Obama-lite candidate like John McCain on the party.  We would be given a true choice.  The 2008 primaries exposed Mitt Romney as only a couple of degrees more conservative than Barack Hussein Obama.  The Tea Party Revolution of 2010 gave us hope that the Republican Party would offer choice, a real alternative to the president.  Beginning almost immediately after the 2010 Republican landslide fueled by the Tea Party, the media began pushing Romney as the only electable Republican.  All other candidates were radical, too far right.  They would never win the independent vote.  


So even with polls showing that the majority of Americans describe themselves as conservative, only Romney was viewed by the media as mainstream enough to challenge the president in 2012.  Early straw polls in Iowa showed a true conservative, Michelle Bachmann having the most support in the Republican primary.  The media pulls out its favorite attack on conservatives - she's stupid.  In one speech, she mentioned Davenport, Iowa as the hometown of the American icon and symbol of self-reliance, John Wayne.  What an idiot!  John Wayne was not born in Davenport.  His family moved from Davenport shortly before his birth.  How embarrassing!   You would've thought this moron didn't even know how many states are in the United States.  Or how to pronounce corpsman.  She may even speak about asthmatics needing a breathalyzer!  How could such an intellectual lightweight match up against President Obama, who is quite possibly the most intelligent community organizer to ever walk the earth?  Only Romney is intelligent enough to have a chance!  After all, he is from Massachusetts and isn't his hair perfect?  


Republicans allowed themselves to be scared away from a truly principled conservative who actually has a voting record that supports her claims to small government Constitutional beliefs.  Next to take the lead in the pre-Iowa polls was Texas governor, Rick Perry.  Perry has a very strong record as governor of Texas.  He has even published a book detailing government reforms he would favor to return Washington D.C. to it's Constitutionally mandated size, giving more power to the states, and thus returning choice to citizens.  But the media was quick to point out that Perry signed into law a Texas bill allowing children whose parents are in the United States illegally to go to college in Texas, paying in-state tuition.  This was a huge problem for Tea Party conservatives.  In spite of Perry's defense that the bill received only two dissenting votes in the Texas House and Senate, and would be easily overridden if he had vetoed it.  He chose to accept the loss and move on, and even explained his signature that way at the time he signed the bill into law.  But the media explained to the ignorant Tea Party conservatives that Perry would soon have the country overrun and speaking Spanish only on college campuses.  Better to choose Mitt Romney, the true conservative who supports the Dream Act which is basically a national version of the Texas law.  Oh, and it would provide a fast track to full citizenship for immigrants who had chosen to ignore the law up to this point.  Well, at least if they hadn't committed any felonies while they were in the country.  Well, not all felonies, just not any violence-related felonies.  Yeah, that Romney would be a much better choice than Rick Perry.  And the whole stupid thing again.  Perry has a Texas accent, Romney's Massachusetts accent is so much more intelligent.  I mean just compare the economy of Romney's Massachusetts to Perry's Texas.  No.  Better not do that!  Just trust the media.  Perry's stupid and will open the borders to basically invite everyone to cross the Rio Grande anytime they choose.  So shortly after the Iowa caucus, Bachmann's out, followed a short time later by Perry.  


Next up for the Tea Party, successful businessman, Herman Cain.  Once he was able to pull the microphone away from Romney and Perry, he actually came away from the debates with a lot of support, especially for his 9-9-9 plan for tax reform.  Cain presented a huge problem for the liberal media.  Their fallback attack on conservatives, their lack of intelligence, might be seen as racist.  Cain is black, just like Obama!  How can the media claim the only reason Republicans oppose the president's socialist agenda is because they're hood-wearing, cross-burning racists, if they nominate a black man for president?  All right, Cain has no government experience.  He actually ran successful businesses and can not only discuss economic theory, but point to his own experience and success.  WITH NO GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE!!  That's not even possible in Obama's world.  That would overwhelm President Obama's tenure in the Illinois senate and in the U.S. Senate where he was noted for zero legislation and numerous "present" votes.  So the media was unable to take the intelligence, race, and experience roads to attacking Cain.  What to do?  What to do?  Conservatives stand on family values.  Let's find something in Cain's past personal life.  Soon there is a parade of women claiming either affairs or harassment.   Cain denied the charges, offered to take a lie detector test, challenged his accusers to take the same lie detector tests (they all declined).  Eventually Cain decided the strain on his family was too much and "suspended" his candidacy.  Coincidentally, all his accusers and even more mysteriously, their high dollar legal representation quickly and completely disappeared.   As an added bonus for the liberal media, they were able to once again accuse the Republicans and especially the Tea Party of racism.  How could they drop their support for Cain following a few unsubstantiated accusations?  By white women!  That's why.  Brings back all the old stereotypes of the black man that just can't control his animal urges around white women!  They were able to disguise their racism for a little while, but eventually it rose to the surface.  Better put your support behind Mitt Romney.  He's white.  If it came down to a choice between two black men, most Republicans and Tea Party members would just stay home, guaranteeing four more years of Obama.  Or at least that's what the media would have us believe.


Next in line for the conservatives?  Well, they are desperate.  True conservative candidates, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain are gone.  Good lord, we don't want Romney!  Who is left?  Newt Gingrich!!!  Newt's smart.  He debates very well.  Even the liberal media will admit that Newt would more than hold his own against President Obama in any debate.  And without a teleprompter.  Another plus for Gingrich?  He knows the media's game and will call them out on it.   In an intellectual fight, Newt is definitely the candidate to take on the media and the president.  In debates, he turned the attack to the president and also to the media.  To the conservatives accustomed to the "above the mudslinging" style of George Bush and George W. Bush and the "reach across the aisle" style of John McCain, this aggressive style was very attractive.  Newt's only problem?  Anyone who took a close look at his record or his words would quickly realize that he is definitely not "small government."  His  favorite presidents or role models for a Gingrich presidency?  Not George Washington.   Not Abraham Lincoln.  Not Dwight Eisenhower.  Not Ronald Reagan.  Not even either of the Bushes.  Newt's choice?  How about Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, or Franklin D. Roosevelt!  You can't spell big government progressive without Wilson, Teddy, or FDR.  Then there's his Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae connections.  And his support of cap and trade legislation.  He only appeared in the commercial sitting on a couch and agreeing with that Tea Party favorite, Nancy Pelosi.  And finally Newt's worst enemy is Newt.    He debates well and takes the fight to the media well because he is quick thinking.  Unfortunately this means that he has a creative memory, such as claiming in one interview that he supported Goldwater, showing his true conservative roots.  Small problem, he actually supported the progressive Republican Nelson Rockefeller.  But that was long enough in the past no one could really claim otherwise, right?  Well, it would be tough to prove, except for the fact that Gingrich was actually precinct captain for Rockefeller!  Conservatives who want a choice did their own homework and learned the facts about Gingrich and, so far at least, seem to have chosen to eliminate Gingrich.  If you have any doubts about Newt's real principles, click on the links in this paragraph for videos of Gingrich stating his beliefs.  


That leaves Republicans and real conservatives a choice.  The electable, almost liberal Mitt Romney (probably more big government liberal in his policies than Democratic icon, John F. Kennedy) and Ron Paul.  Paul could be dangerous for for the liberals if the election and the presidency were all about economics and domestic policy.  Ron Paul is the candidate of choice when it comes to shrinking the government and actually enforcing the United States Constitution.  Unfortunately, he is a naive extremely dangerous candidate when it comes to foreign policy.  Although he has brought Federal Reserve policies into the public debate and actually seems to have stoked a libertarian revival among young people, he is unelectable.  Good thing for the future of the country there is one more candidate.  Rick Santorum.  The former senator from Pennsylvania has a couple of questionable actions on record - namely his support  of earmarks for his state when he served in the senate.  Overall he is head and shoulders over Romney when you compare their records.  Problem is the media is trying to convince the Republican voters that only Romney is electable.  He has too much support.  The race is over, right?  Except that Republican voters took responsibility and informed themselves without listening to the media.  Iowa voters surprised everyone and chose Santorum.  New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida did what was expected and chose Romney.  So the race is over, with only four of the fifty states (or is it 57? or 59, Mr. President?) actually voting.  Or at least that's what the media is trying to convince us.  Then last weekend, Santorum swept Missouri, Minnesota, and surprisingly, Colorado.  The media quickly starts the spin that very few delegates were actually committed in those three races and Missouri's is not even a binding caucus.  So yesterday when Romney won Maine, well, now it's all over again.  Romney just proved that he is the only one who can beat Obama.  


Don't listen to the media again.  Don't let them take away our choice.  Again.  

America, we've got a problem. Really, we do this time.

In arson investigations, at least on TV, one of the first suspects is the person who reported the fire.  And then the people who help put out the fire, or who rescue the victims.  A few years ago, a huge wildfire burned thousands of acres in Arizona.  The fire, or actually a series of fires, was started by a firefighter.  He wanted the opportunity to be the hero who put out the fire.  About the same time, there was a similiar case in Colorado.  It's even more common in housing arson.  A firefighter, or more likely a firefighter wannabe,  creates a crisis in the hopes of coming to the rescue and becoming the hero.  And in the process gaining a job, a promotion, money, or at least publicity.

Next time we have a crisis in Washington D.C., we need to take a close look to see if it is a real crisis, and if it is, how was it created?  The perfect example is the housing crisis that brought about the current economic mess.  First of all, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank were part of a Democratic congressional majority that forced banks to make high risk loans to people who could not qualify for housing loans, as part of the Fair Housing Act.  (As an aside, take a REALLLLLLLLY close look any bill that includes the word Fair and doesn't involve ferris wheels and corn dogs).  The promise to the banks was that the loans would be backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  While CSpan will generally result in a full-on slobbering nap, maybe we should all be making that network the top rated cable channel.  Here's an enlightening video from 2004.



So, they created the crisis, ignored the warnings about crisis, and then took billions, soon to be trillions, to fix the crisis.  And oh, yeah, blame the people who were sounding the warnings for the crisis!

Another example, how about the $854 billion dollars to create jobs to keep unemployment from going over 8% at the beginning of Obama's presidency.  Using their own numbers, which are very questionable if not outright lies, they created or saved 3.5 million jobs.  That means the federal government spent $244,400 for every job saved or created.  And unemployment still went to almost 10%, or 14.4% if you include those who became discouraged and just stopped looking or were unemployed for so long that they were no longer eligible to be counted.

And don't even get started on Global Warming, Climate Change, Man Caused Global Climate Disruption.  I've written about that DC Caused crisis several times, so I won't get into it again.  Here are three links.
Obama and Gore to profit from Cap and Trade  Why no media outrage about cap and trade?  Rednecks and global warming

How about financial reform?  Was that even on your radar?  Now, with the solution that passed in a 2000+ page law this summer, every one of your financial transactions is subject to scrutiny by the the government.  Student loan crisis?  Fixed, as part of the 2000+ healthcare law.  Yes, part of the HEALTHCARE law!  The healthcare law that 60% of Americans want repealed.  The healthcare law that 68% of Americans did not want passed.  Now, for a Golden Oldie, victims of rape and incest do not have access to abortion.  Was that really such a pervasive problem that the government needed to get involved?  I'd like to see some stats, but now, less than 30 years later, abortion is an accepted form of birth control.  Or in the words of this British pundit, "getting rid of a couple of cells."



With the election this November, we had better take steps to handle our own problems before the "firefighters" in DC burn down our whole country.

Budget Cutting for Idiots, i.e. Congress

Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government. Public servants at such a distance and from under the eye of their constituents . . . will invite the public agents to corruption, plunder, and waste. . . . What an augmentation of  the field for jobbing, speculating, plundering, office-building, and office-hunting would be produced by an assumption of all the state powers into the hands of the federal government!
                                                         ---Thomas Jefferson

Did you know that  representative Shaddegg from Arizona has introduced the Enumerated Powers Act each year that he has been in the House of Representatives.  The Act would require congress to define exactly which of the 18 enumerated powers the Constitution gives the federal government justifies any law passed.  If nothing else, the act would force congressmen to study the Constitution.  Even after being introduced 15 times, each year since 1995, the Act has yet to make it out of committee.  I'll pause while you get up off the floor.  I know you are shocked.


Hopefully you are recovered now.  Another Texas representative has introduced a resolution that on September 17, Constitution Day; when every school receiving federal funds is required to spend at least part of the day studying the Constitution, Congress do the same.  To repeat, on September 17, all schools receiving federal funds are required to spend at least part of the day studying the Constitution.  Representative Conaway is suggesting that Congress also study the document, you know the one they swore to uphold and defend, on that one day as well.  His committee chairman said that was "the stupidest idea I've ever heard."  And do you know of any school that observes Constitution Day?  Or even knows of its existence?  It's been around since Robert Byrd (Democrat) introduced it in 2004 and it was passed as part of the Omnibus Spending Bill.  


Article I Section 8 of the Constitution lists the 18 enumerated powers.  The 10th Amendment states:  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

There's the easiest way to cut the federal budget.  Each line of the budget should have a reference to which of the Enumerated Powers justifies the spending.  No Enumerated Power, no funds.  Pretty simple.

Potato e????

Anyone old enough to remember Dan Quayle remembers his spelling mistake.  A student spells p-o-t-a-t-o.  Quayle says "don't you need an e? P-o-t-a-t-o-e?"  The media ran with that tape.  It ran over and over and over and over.  What an idiot!  Can't even spell as well as a 4th grader!  And the republicans picked him to be vice-president.  Hope President Bush is healthy!

Our current vice-president, Joe Biden asked a congressman at a rally to stand and be recognized.  Problem was the congressman, supposedly a "longtime friend," was in a wheelchair.  Last week, he told a story about another "close friend's" mother, "God rest her soul."  What?  She's still alive.  Well, God bless her!  Then at a big healthcare conference, with C-Span cameras rolling, Biden tells a fellow senator that he has the easiest job in the world.  Don't have to do anything.  "Kind of like being the grandparent instead of the parent."  And of course at the press conference announcing the passage of the healthcare takeover.  Biden again forgets about the open microphone, and says to President Obama, "this is a big f____ing deal!"

Remember the stories about Sarah Palin saying that she could see Russia from her front porch in Alaska?  How stupid!  Only problem, she never said it.  Tina Fey said it in a comedy skit where she portrayed Governor Palin.   Or the NBC morning hostess making fun of Sarah Palin for saying that George Washington was her favorite founding father.  The hostess chose to move Abraham Lincoln back almost 100 years and make him her favorite "founder."

Now we have Rep Steven Cohen from Tennessee saying that the Tea Party is only missing their hoods and robes, and are "followers of George Wallace."  Coincidentally Wallace, like Cohen, was a democrat.  How about congressman Phil Hare a democrat from Illinois?  He is on video saying that he "doesn't care about the Constitution."  He then quotes the Constitution.  Oops, that's the Declaration of Independence.   Then he claims to have read the healthcare law three times.  A total of 8,100 pages!  And he can't answer a specific question about the law.  Still waiting to see that one on the news.  

Former democratic presidential candidate, congressman, and Democratic National Party chairman, Howard Dean stated in an interview, that "of course, the president's agenda is a socialist agenda."  And his advisor/supporter Al Sharpton, says that America "voted overwhelmingly for socialism when they voted for Obama."


But will anyone ever top congressman Johnson from Georgia, yeah, he's a democrat too.  8,000 marines and their families might cause Guam to tip over and capsize!  That's just too easy.  A friend suggested that we import thousands of elephants to the Texas panhandle.  That much weight would tip the state up and make it easy to just scoop up all that oil.  No environmental concerns there!  

I think maybe the president himself topped the list when he claimed that one of the biggest benefits of the campaign was the opportunity to visit "57 states so far."  And he wasn't going to be able to get to Alaska or Hawaii.   Just "one left to go."





And he's the "smartest man in the room???"  Only when he's in a room full of democrats.

Are We at a Tipping Point? Congressman thinks Guam is!!

Tipping point has been a hot phrase for several years now.  It is basically the point of no return.  Global Warming activists have claimed for the past five years or more that our climate was at a tipping point.  If the melting of the ice caps continued for even another year, the flood of warming water would push our climate over the edge and we were doomed.  Then it was actually reported that temperatures have been cooling for the past five years.  Oops.

Some folks take the phrase literally.  Like the good congressman from the great state of Georgia.  Take a look at this video from yesterday, where he was grilling an admiral about plans to increase the number of marines on the island territory of Guam.  The first 1:46 is painful to watch as Congressman Johnson struggles with the concept of length and width.  If you can't take it anymore, fast forward to about 1:40 in the video, where the good congressman makes us all proud to be Americans.


My first thought was, April Fools!!! Then I looked at other videos featuring the congressman. He is an everyday fool, April 1 has nothing to do with it. At a townhall meeting this past fall, he actually argues that the Preamble to the Constitution mandates the federal government to provide welfare for the citizens. "To promote the general welfare" is open to interpretation, I guess. Then after Congressman Wilson's "you lie" outburst during one of President Obama's speeches, Congressman Johnson makes the brilliant observation that Americans will soon be donning their "white robes and hoods."

With morons like this in positions of responsibility, I believe we are at a tipping point in America. How much damage can we allow them to do before we get to a point where we are unable to recover? When I managed a department store, we gave all applicants a 5th grade level math test to qualify them to work in the store. Only about 70% of the applicants passed, but that's for another post. Maybe we need a very basic knowledge test for all applicants for public office. And we definitely need one for voters who put these idiots into office. I'm not sure who should be more embarrassed, Congressman Johnson or the voters of the 3rd district of Georgia who thought he was the best choice to represent them!

Now I have a new worry. With the masses leaving the cesspool that voters and government have made of California, will the U.S. start to tip? I heard that many Californians are moving to Texas. Will the extra weight cause the country to tip south and east? It must be all this tipping because I'm getting nauseous. Stock tip of the day - buy McNeil-PPC, makers of Dramamine. We're all going to be dizzy before these guys are done.

Sing Along!

Cathy did some babysitting today.  My friend, Mike, left his little girl with us for the morning.  Taylor is not a year old yet, but she already has a favorite television show.  Her favorite is Yo Gabba Gabba.  When the music came on, her face lit up and she started leaning to the side to see the tv.  Mike said she has favorite episodes already.  This was not one of them.  The robot and fuzzy monsters started singing a song about not playing in the street.  Like Mike said, if adult humans told a kid not to play in traffic, they would just ignore the advice.  But a big fuzzy monster sings a song about the street being "for trucks, cars, buses, and other dangerous things" and it's gospel to a kid.  Cathy suggested that all lessons in school should be set to music.

That made me start thinking about what my generation learned from music, especially music on television.  How about Coke teaching "the world to sing in perfect harmony?"  Or McDonald's telling us that we "deserve a break today."  Tab letting us know that it's "a beautiful drink for beautiful people."  My favorite, "aye, aye, aye, I am the Frito Bandito!"  "You're in good hands with Allstate."  And "like a good neighbor, State Farm is there."  And finally, "when you say Budweiser, you've said it all."

Saturday morning cartoons had Schoolhouse Rocks public service ads.  They taught grammar with Conjunction Junction.  One taught that breakfast is the most important meal and that "a peanut butter and jelly sandwich any time of day, is a treat."  The one that needs to be brought out of retirement is How a Bill Becomes a Law. 

Our congressmen missed out on the first part of the video where "the whole process starts with ... the folks back home decided they wanted a law passed."  The idea doesn't start with the president, unions, or radicals from Columbia University.  It starts with "folks back home." 

I'm sure the song was edited to fit into its allotted time.  Because it never mentions giving billions of dollars in deals to the senators from Nebraska, Louisiana (sorry, it wasn't put in for only Louisiana.  Any state that suffered a major natural disaster in 2005 would be eligible.  At least as long as their state capitol rhymed with patton luge), and Connecticut.  Then let's turn on the water for a couple of drought-stricken California districts to get their votes.  Still not enough to pass.  Okay, tell the representatives that don't believe we should pay to kill babies that we'll take that part out later.  Really, we promise.  I think all that was in the original version of the song.  It just had to be edited out.

The best part though?  The animated version of the bill was a one page document rolled like a scroll.  That, of course, is just for television though.  The bill that created medicare was 28 pages, the one that created the interstate highway system was two pages, and the Constitution was four pages, six if you count the letter of transmittal and the Bill of Rights.  That many pages wouldn't look good on television.  It might look fishy, like they were trying to sneak something in.  Like maybe a takeover of something important, oh, say the student loan program for grins.  So how suspicious would a 2,700 page pile on the steps of the capitol look?  What could you possibly sneak into a 2,700 page mess?  Pretty much anything you wanted.  Just to be fair, post it on the internet three days before the vote, so congressmen, the media, and the public have a chance to read it and respond. 

Sing along, I'm just a bill, I'm only a bill...    

Thank God for Texas!!

When we moved to Arizona in 1993, it was the first time in my life that I lived outside of Texas.  When we were renting our house, the lady we were renting from told us where all the county offices were in Prescott.  She said we should get an Arizona license plate as soon as possible.  She said if we did not, expect to get stopped a lot by the local police.  They don't like people from out of state, but especially not those from Texas.  We kind of laughed it off, but did get new plates fairly quickly.  Didn't want to tempt fate or the local police department.  We were in Arizona for a few years before moving back to Texas - Amarillo.  No one recommended that we change our Arizona plates quickly.  We moved back to Arizona in 2005.  I started work on Monday.  Thursday afternoon when I went outside for a break, I found a note on my windshield from the local sheriff's department.  It detailed the local requirements for updating your vehicle registration within 30 days after moving and told the fines possible if you did not.  I did not see it as an anti-Texas practice, just a revenue enhancer for the county.  My belief was justified when another new hire came on from Oklahoma and received the same note within a week.  And no one resents Okies.

Then I moved to Colorado and what a difference!  I heard the usual jokes and good-naturedly took them.  It's easy to take the jokes about your perceived natural superiority when you know that you really are superior!  The first comment that was not good-natured joking came from a local hunter when I was selling him a hunting license.  A license for the first elk hunting season came to about $175 and he started complaining about those *@! Texans making the price of licenses go up.  Well, the same license for a non-resident cost almost $500!  And the state is using money from out of state hunters to actually keep the cost down for in-state hunters.  Not to mention the sales tax I collected from them on the ammo, sleeping bags, tents, firewood, propane, gasoline, coats, orange hunting vests, gloves - what exactly did they bring with them???  I probably threw a little fuel on his fire when I mentioned that our little town was actually part of Texas at one time.  Along with Denver and Cheyenne and everything in between.  He just lived in the part of the country that original Texans decided they had no use for.

Next came negative comments from Raelynn's 5th grade teacher about Texans in front of her class.  Raelynn was upset, so Cathy let the teacher know that Raelynn lived in Texas and still has a lot of family in Texas and she should be careful who she is ridiculing in front of the class.  The comments stopped, but so did any other conversation or interaction with the teacher.

We moved to Gunnison, which is a friendlier area.  It has to be, since it gets a huge chunk of revenue from out of state skiers, summer vacationers, and students at Western State.  Like most prejudices, they are softened with exposure to people from a different background.

I started seeing news stories a couple of weeks ago about conservative views being re-introduced into school curriculums in Texas.  Since Texas is the largest non-California market, what is taught in Texas is rolled out to the rest of the country since publishers go for the biggest market.  And California is so far off the chart that no one will follow them.  According to the news stories, the conservatives were successful in rolling back almost all the progressive changes, especially to history, that occurred beginning in the early 1970's.  So the media and progressive educators started sniping.  An editorial cartoon in this Sunday's Denver Post (yes, I am one of the 156 people that still read the newspaper) showed a copy of the Constitution with sticky notes saying things like "mention the 2nd amendment here," "can't we work Reagan in here somewhere," "talk about capitalism here," etc.  Like requiring students to memorize and recite the preamble to the Constitution is a bad thing!  And the 2nd amendment is in there!  And Reagan was a president!  And Texas and United States has actually featured English-speaking white men!  It's Texas history!  We won the Texas revolution.  Don't really care why Santa Ana decided it was necessary to kill everyone at the Alamo.  Just that he did and he got his butt kicked at San Jacinto.  And Sam Houston did not have all his gun-toting rednecks kill all the Mexicans.  He let them live and go back home to Mexico.  He didn't even decide to go conquer more territory.  Same with the American revolution, WWI and II, the Cold War, capitalism vs. communism/socialism/fascism.  We won.  Get over it.  America is blessed and exceptional.  Our kids need to be taught about the good things their country has done and is doing.  It is not necessary to go around bowing to foreign despots and apologizing for our success.

Years ago when I had the book store, I noticed a paperbook published in the early 1970's or maybe even the late 1960's, called The Super-Americans.  Its premise was that the reason other Americans dislike Texans is the same reason that people in other countries don't like Americans.  We know we are right, and don't really care to hear what you think about it.  As Emmitt Smith told Kevin Greene of the Pittsburgh Steelers in Super Bowl XXX, "look at the scoreboard."  That's all that matters.  Deal with it.  

First the education reforms, then being one of the first states to say they will challenge the health care takeover in court, to being one of the few states whose economy is not in complete freefall.  Now, take a look at this nightmare of a news story from Washington.  It's just unbelieveable how far we have fallen as a country.  About half the comments say that the mother in the story is wrong.  She should have no say in the matter.  What the school did was legal.  In 1995, Texas repealed the law that would allow the schools to do this in Texas.  So maybe California, Illinois, Louisiana, New York, Washington, Colorado, and D.C. should just close their mouths and take a look at the scoreboard.  Follow the example of a successful state.       

Dumping Money On the Ground

When I worked for Avis, we were required to take a class on responding to fuel spills.  The district manager said that since I had worked in and been around the oilfield when I was younger, I probably didn't need to take the class.  I told him that unless the proper response to a spill was to throw some dirt on it, I'd better take the class.

When I visited my grandparents for the summer when I was about 7, I went to work with my Grandpa Tom in the oilfield.  When the tanks are full, he would have to hire a truck to come out and haul all the oil to his buyer.  Since the cost of having the truck come out is the same no matter how much oil they haul, you would of course want to have as much oil as possible be taken in a trip.  A tank could be full, but still have a lot of saltwater in with the oil.  Oil sits on top of the saltwater (think oil spill in the Gulf, the oil stays on top). So, there was a valve on the bottom of the tank.  Grandpa would open this valve and let the saltwater spray out onto the ground.  It was my job to sit beside this spraying valve and watch for the saltwater to turn into oil.  Grandpa would go do his maintenance on the pumpjack or whatever else he needed to do.  I didn't want to let any oil spray out, that would be just like throwing away money.  So I sat staring at the brownish saltwater spraying, waiting it for it to change from coffee with cream color to coffee with no cream color.  When oil started spraying out, I would yell for Grandpa and he would close the valve to let the well produce for a couple of more days to maximize the truck's load of oil.  It was a great practice economically, but probably not so great environmentally.  Oily saltwater leaves an ugly mess on the ground.  

I think even the most environmentally insensitive oilman sees this as a bad practice today.  So, to a degree regulations were needed.  But, as is usually the case with government involvement, they went too far the other direction.  And if the federal government is involved, they will go waaaaaaaaaaaay too far.  And then go further.  And take a minute's break and go a little further.  Eventually they go so far that the producers do not make enough money to stay in business.  The Democrat/Progressive side seems to forget that the reason oil companies exist is to make a profit.  And in most cases, they will do it the right way, both for their profit margin and for the environment.  

Eighteen governors, two of them Democrats, have asked Congress to clamp down on the EPA.  They say that the EPA doesn't take the economic impact of their rulings into consideration when they impose new restrictions.  They have reached the point in some cases, where it is no longer profitable to stay in business.  As I mentioned in yesterday's post about the Grand Junction area, trickle down works in both directions.  When business is booming for the oil company, it is booming for the construction industry, the fast food industry, grocery stores, retailers, and yes, the government through sales, income, and property taxes.  Ever notice all the new schools, libraries, and jails get built during the boom years?  Then the EPA steps in with new regulations, and end the boom.  For everyone.  Including the government.  

I don't know if the current Congress has the spine, or even the inclination to stand up to the President and his anti-business policies.  But it is nice to see that the states are starting to push back.  Over the past 100 plus years, the states have let the federal government take too many of the powers the Constitution relegated to the states.  It will be very hard to get those powers back.  But it sure is good to see the process start.  Not only in the case of the EPA, but Utah has filed suit to prevent the federal government from taking more land and to try to take back the area that President Clinton took by executive action in his last days in office (southern Utah, rich with uranium, imagine that).  Montana, Texas, and others have filed or threatened to file suit over federal gun control laws.  Texas, Virginia, and others have started the process of challenging federal takeover of healthcare.  And with the recent verbal jabs by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts at the president, I think the Supreme Court is signaling that it is ready to reign in some of the federal power grabs.  

Maybe the Supreme Court is that seven year old watching money spray out onto the ground.  It's time to shut off the valve. 

Change the Past Control the Future

In college, I think it was freshman literature, I read a science fiction collection called Last Defender of Camelot, by Roger Zelazny.  My favorite short story in the book was A Game of Blood and Dust.  In the story, intelligent beings play a game where they are each able to change three events in  history.  Then they let history play out and see if human life on earth continues, blood wins, or if mankind eliminates itself, dust wins.  For example, in one of the scenarios, the blood player makes John Wilkes Boothe successful in his attempt to assassinate President Lincoln (implying that originally Lincoln survived).  Anyway, the theme is that with only a few minor changes the course of events is altered.

Our politicians have learned that lesson.  But since they are unable to actually change past events, they are changing how they are reported or recorded or, most importantly, taught.  For example, what do you think of when President Grant is mentioned?  Of course, the first thing I think of is his victory as general of the Union army in the Civil War.  But I was also taught that he was a drunken butcher that only won because the Union had superior numbers and resources.  I seem to remember being taught that he graduated last in his class at West Point.  As President, his reputation was even worse.  Again, he was a drunken executive that overlooked rampant corruption that almost destroyed the recently saved Union.  Take a look at Ulysses S. Grant: His Life and Character for a more accurate view of the great general and President.  While in office, he would get daily visits from his former Union soldiers, coming by to thank him for leading them through the terrible war.  Sound like a drunken commander who forced his men through a meatgrinder at the unnecessary cost of thousands of lives?  Hardly.  As President, he advocated a peaceful integration of Native Americans into white man's culture.  He worried that the only alternative was "a war of extermination."  Again, not exactly what you would expect from a blood-thirsty warrior.  After leaving office, he was greatly respected by most Americans, ranking only behind Washington and Lincoln in esteem.  

So, why the change in the public's perception?  It's not like he did anything after office to change our view.  Could it possibly be that while in office, he constantly supported the position of the individual states over the federal government?  You know, like the Constitution requires.  The Constitution that he and all other Presidents take an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend."  After President Theodore Roosevelt's term, only 24 years after Grant, the focus was on the powers of the federal government.  And since then, with the exception of President Reagan's two terms, the federal government has been slowly and at times, not so slowly, grabbing more and more power.  So, by the time FDR comes into office and begins to accelerate the power grab, Grant is being portrayed as a drunken fool.  

With me, almost everything has a sports, or more likely, a Dallas Cowboy analogy.  When Drew Pearson played for the Cowboys in the 1970's and early 1980's, he was a perennial All-Pro.  Along with Steve Largent, he was seen as the league's top receiver.  And with his big plays at crucial times, no receiver was more "clutch" than Drew Pearson.  Yet, he has never even made it to the final ballot of Hall of Fame voting.  Why not?  Receivers like Lynn Swann and John Stallworth, who have similiar stats but at least in Stallworth's case, nowhere near the longevity or the clutch plays are in the Hall.  Pearson was the victim of some politics by some voters.  Tackle Rayfield Wright finally overcame the same issues just a couple of years ago.  More than twenty years after he last played a game.  To see the true greatness of a player, look at how they were perceived when they actually played.  Don't let years of revision cloud your perception. 

Grant has suffered from this kind of biased revision.  On the flip side, FDR has enjoyed a complete historical makeover.  Historians and economists have quietly said for years that Roosevelt's policies did nothing to end the Great Depression, and actually may have made it worse and more lengthy.  Yet, we are taught in school that Roosevelt was one of our greatest Presidents and was so beloved by Americans that he was elected to office four times!  He was so beloved that only six years after he died, Americans ratified the 22nd Amendment, guaranteeing that no one would ever hold the office more than eight years.  Just to compare, the Equal Rights Amendment was first proposed in 1923, and today, only 87 years later, it still has not been ratified!  Sounds like Roosevelt was truly loved and respected by all.  Or at least all progressive historians.

I'll continue this tomorrow, I've gone kind of long here!

Rednecks, Global Warming and President Obama

I'm almost starting to feel sorry for the global warming guys.  Not only are real scientists backpedaling faster than Deion Sanders, but now it's snowing in Texas!  My cousin posted photos on Facebook of his redneck snow skis. 

For those of you with more education than imagination, redneck snow skis consist of old cowboy boots, a couple of 1x8's, a few nails, and plenty of duct tape (he may have used bailing wire).  Now plenty of people would make the skis, take a couple of pictures, post them and get a few good laughs.  But that's the difference between posers and real rednecks.  A real redneck has to actually put his creation to use.  And my cousin is a real redneck!  Very few people go snow skiing in north Texas.  And for good reason.  It's pretty flat.  So how to use the skis?  Duh, that's why God made ATV's!

Now you know what purpose redneck kids serve?  If you are driving the ATV, who's going to ski behind it?  Your kids of course!  They heal quicker, just in case there's a design flaw.  

It looks like they had lots of fun and without any injuries.  And that's what really matters.  You're probably wondering if there are any redneck moms?  Of course there are.  Who do you think took the pictures?


I know that a snowstorm in Texas, or two, or three don't mean that global warming is not a problem.  Or that a year or two years, or fifteen years of cooling temperatures don't mean that we are in a cooling trend. They already fell for that one back in the mid-1970's.  Scientists lose a little credibility when they alternate their panic over global cooling (1968-1978) with panic over global warming (1996-now).  They finally wised up and changed the name to Climate Change.  That should cover all the bases now.

People like President Obama and former vice-president, internet creator, and global warming climate change guru, Al Gore don't understand rednecks.  They mistake a redneck's humor, creativity, and common sense for ignorance.  At least in my experience, the redneck is closer to the average U.S. citizen than our President thinks.  The redneck is your neighbor that comes to help you cut up the tree that the storm knocked over in your driveway.  Sure, any excuse to get the chainsaw out, but he also wants to help.  The redneck is the one that drags the 2.5 ton jack out of the back of his truck (yes, it's got a hemi) to help you change the flat on your Prius.  The redneck mom is the one who brings you peanut butter cookies when you move into a new neighborhood, and offers to watch your kids anytime you need.  The redneck is the one who helps you put a new commode in your bathroom so you don't have to hire a plumber.  And the redneck wife recycles it.  I doubt Al Gore replaces his own commode.  And I will guarantee that if he did, Tipper would NOT use it for a flower planter on the front lawn.

While campaigning, candidate Obama said that in tough times, some Americans "cling to their guns and their religion."  For once he was right.  Where he was wrong was in thinking that that was a bad thing.  He and many others in politics, the media, and education underestimate the "redneckedness" of the average American.  We do cling to our guns and religion,in addition to our other rights granted by our Creator, and guaranteed by our Constitution.  That is what the Tea Party movement has been about.  Hopefully some real redneck leaders will come to the front and our country will get out of the mess we are in.  In the meantime, let's go skiing.