Intents And Purposes: The Constitution

It has been said and written many times that people should not engage in discussions about religion and politics, especially at work. Even with this knowledge so well ingrained in our minds, there is usually someone who occasionally will make a light (or not so light) comment that will easily reveal their ideological and philosophical beliefs.

I try to refrain from responding. As a father (and grandfather) who has raised teens, I am well-conditioned at ignoring things.

One day at work, I was talking with a nice lady (who has made such subtle self-revealing comments in the past) made a statement that left just enough of an opening where I thought it to be profitable, in shutting down future invitations of such discussions.

I was able to communicate something similar to what I have said here many times.

I am a person who is guided by deeply held principles. I respect all people's rights to believe anyway they wish as long as they do not try to force what they believe onto to me (and this is especially true, when they use their belief system as an excuse to want to kill me....only because I disagree with them). I then said something to the effect of, I am not one to praise or extol the virtues of government because they have not not looked out after any of my interests....but only their own.

I could tell she disagreed with me, but remember I said she was nice. And she is. So she remained courteous in her response, by saying something that has led me to this post. She said that she believes the government is us, the people. She added that it is a dynamic force that changes because we are the ones who can change it. It must change, as we change.

It was at that point where I chose to change, the subject, because I knew that where she was coming from wasn't quite where I sat. But she wasn't entirely wrong.

It is our responsibility to vote personnel in or out, based on what we the people think needs to be done, at any given point in time. But I certainly did not want to tell her that the Constitution is not what I believe to be a dynamic, living document that changes with the whims and impulses of people. Somehow, I knew how she would feel about this, so there was no need to extend the discussion any further.

I did, however, think about this quote--which has widely been attributed to a person who was once considered a radical in some circles, in his day:

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."~Patrick Henry

Today's debate about whether or not the Constitution is a living document will often rest on what people think the founding fathers thought, or what they meant when they wrote it. The words contained within are words that are parsed over and  often distorted to justify government taking more control over people's lives.

With this in mind, it is not surprising to learn that there are even debates over whether Henry actually said this. Many people dispute this being attributed to him, because he was at first a staunch opponent of the Constitution in it's initial phases. The reason was, he feared the Federalists would take it down a path that would leave susceptible  to becoming another monarchy. That's where they just came from and it's all they knew. He was afraid that we would eventually replace one form of tyranny with another.

Like all good statesmen who find themselves on the losing end of an argument, he acquiesced and accepted the outcome.

When he learned of the brutal outcome the nation of France was made to endure, after its bloody revolution, he did come to an understanding that there needed to be some kind of a reasonable blueprint for a union to prevent an out of control mob, from taking control of this new experiment he had worked so hard to initiate. It had to be one that provided for the rights of the states and protected the rights of the citizens of the new nation.

He knew that by working through the system, he could make the Constitution better by adding protections to the states and citizens, who could someday become victims of an out of control federal government. He was an instrumental force for the adoption of the amendments known as the Bill Of Rights.

Once these safeguards were in place, he became a staunch supporter and defender of the Constitution. So with this knowledge, it is not so unreasonable to think that he could have made this statement in some forum or another. But in the big picture, it is not important whether he said it or not (for it does not negate the fact that it is a true statement).

If we fast forward to today, we see that Henry and many other skeptics of his day were wrong about, as far as, the federal government becoming a monarchy that would become an imposing force upon the people. It didn't. But it did become an oligarchy, which has become an imposing force that is strongly influenced (and in many cases controlled) by out of control special interests.

These are interests that do not care about the rights of the citizens, but only what is best for them.

As free thinking intelligent people, we know this did not come to be overnight. It had to evolve over time.

The metamorphosis was slow, gradual, and insidious in nature. The sad part is that it was tolerated by the people along the way. Based on handouts to states, corporations, and individuals who failed develop a strong functional understanding of the Constitution and it's original purpose, the people let their guards down.

In short, they traded safety, security, and comfort for the present time, for loss of rights in the future.They became addicts to big government.

When states, corporations, and/or individuals ran into trouble along the way, the federal government would give them handouts to help them recover. They did it with the full knowledge there were strings attached to that help. Rather than help them with no stipulations, the federal government would use it as bribery, to get the entity being helped to do things that the federal government thought was best.

These things were not in the best interests of the entities accepting the help. however as you can imagine, they were certainly in the best interests of the federal government. These were things wrested from the entities in question and were absorbed into the national responsibility, coming further under the grip of an ever-increasing beast that we see today.

We are now many generations removed from the one that carved out the blueprint for our beloved republic. We now find ourselves in a state of dependency, which is about as far from the original vision as we can get. We can see the federal oligarchy dictating to states, what they must do with money they receive. We see the same with corporations and individuals too. It's especially disheartening, when we realize that we are the ones paying for this.

So now, we see a movement within the nation that desperately wants to reverse the current course of certain destruction. It is comprised of an informed and enlightened citizenry who are not fooled by what has been transpiring over the many decades of foolish actions. But the individuals of this movement are not well-received by the beast we have created, or those who are dependent on its handouts.

In fact, they are often demonized by those who have become accustomed to the free flow of taxpayer money and cannot learn to live without it. They are corporations, both private and public. They are individuals who would rather sit idly by and be parasites of host organisms--who are out in the world making things happen. They know that by cutting off the gravy train, many of them will have to produce something of value to survive, and they know they are not capable of doing so.

So, what do they do? They make those of us who are tired of this massive injustice out to be the villains. They carry signs, they shut down governments. They do it a variety of ways. They are refusing to acquiesce and resign themselves. While clearly being in the minority, they try to bully, threaten, and manipulate events to get their way--because they are too afraid to accept they are losing the argument.

They are not going to win.

Not as long as there is a real working class made up of strong individuals who have made their names and reputations by by hard work and dedication to their duties they committed themselves to perform. Not as long as they realize they want their children and grandchildren to have the same opportunities they did, when given the chance. Certainly not as long as there is breath in my aging body, will I resign myself to accepting the fact that this is a nation of weak and pathetic leeches who want to destroy what we have worked so hard to build and preserve.

Do I speak for you? Or against you?

You must make that decision. But if we are to survive this onslaught from the beast we have created, we must make a stand now. So....for all intents and purposes, I must once again quote the man that I spoke of earlier in this essay:

Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

He used it in a literal context, but I use it metaphorically. Because there is no war acceptable in this struggle, except at the ballot box. I condone no shedding of blood for this, only working hard from within the system as Henry once did in his later life.

I have made my choice.

Have you?

Another Blast From the Past

Ten days until Fat Tuesday, so you know it's getting cranked up in NOLA. Here's one of the city's favorite sons and a real jazz legend:



Enjoy.

Friday Funnies

Liberal Reasoning 101:



On second thought, maybe that's an oxymoron.

She Lives On Dream Street

 Obama hack, Candy Crowley with Donald Rumsfeld:



No burning of Obama in effigy? Candy doesn't do her homework before she makes a fool of herself:



The streets look different? This was in 2009.

Islamists who want Qadaffi out of power blame America. Qadaffi blames America because of the uprising. I'd say it really not that much different than when Bush was in power. But Candy can have her delusions, if she wants.

The Market For Unions Is Crashing

Unions and their Left-Wing supporters are demonizing the efforts of governors and legislators, whose only offense is they want to make paying union dues voluntary.

The Teamsters are fed up and not going to take it any more. At least that is what they are saying in essence as they oppose what they call Wisconsin Governor Scot Walker’s “job-killing budget.”

"Wisconsin needs three things right now: jobs, jobs and more jobs," said Gegare. "We do not need a budget that destroys jobs and lowers the standard of living for everyone in the state.

"Walker's budget plan is a partisan, job-killing proposal aimed at punishing his political enemies and rewarding his political backers. Walker claims to be the original Tea Party in Wisconsin."

The argument being used here is, without unions having the ability to forcibly extract union dues from workers, the result will be a loss of jobs. The argument for implementing this is, it will keep the government solvent and save jobs.

To analyze and evaluate these opposing view points, I think we must look at the law of supply and demand. To properly do this, we must examine the most basic principle of microeconomics. When supply is high and demand is low, we know that prices go down. The opposite is true when demand is high and supply is low.

Labor is something we can use in the equation.

When there are a number of workers in a given area that outnumber the number of jobs available, wages go down. Companies figure that because unemployment is high, workers will work for less. And they will, if the government isn't handing out limitless unemployment benefits.

When there are more jobs available than there are workers available to work, wages go up. Workers have more choices based on this scenario. The reason for this is because, if they do not like their jobs they can usually find others fairly quickly. That's why we see a lot of job-hoppers in a booming economy.

So if we look closely at the union position in these cases, we are being told that by compelling workers to pay union dues, this will magically create more jobs and raise the standard of living in these areas. They make these weak and faulty claims in face of looming layoffs that will most certainly be necessary to accommodate union jobs. These are jobs that the employers are forced to pay for, under the duress.

When there is only so much money in a labor budget, it's all a company or government can use and still remain solvent. You only have X amount of dollars to use and if the unions are demanding more, this means a certain amount of people will need to be let go to accommodate the union workers' and their demands.

When people are let go, the union will often blame the company or government when it is in fact the union that caused it. Pointing fingers is little consolation for the one who lost his/her job. The result is more workers looking for work while there are less jobs for them, thus bringing down wages on the whole.

If states have "right to work" laws on the books, it can be used as a tool to attract more businesses to the state. The more businesses in the state mean more opportunities for workers who are looking for work. When this gets to the point where there are more jobs, very often there will be a bidding war between companies for labor and wages will rise. Companies will also do more to retain good workers who show up every day and give it their all.

The only losers in this scenario are the union leaders who have made themselves rich by using agitation and coercion, as a middleman in all of this. Worker sell their time to companies, so companies can make money. If the company makes money, the workers' jobs are secure--unless a worker misbehaves and is terminated for it.

This serves as incentive to do the job, a worker has been hired to do. But under union domination, we have created an environment where tenure and seniority rules. The man or woman who has the most seniority can and often does get away with things, because they are safe from layoffs and the union makes it much harder for the company to shed the dead weight.

Maybe it's time someone makes a stand against this fraud that unions have created in many workplaces, in America. I certainly believe it's time for union leadership to be on the job market, and experience the frustration that comes with losing a job. My guess is the only thing they will qualify for is a position as a petty street thug, who is hired by a mob boss to shake down store owners for protection money.

Advocacy

From Dictionary.Com, here is the definition of the verb, advocate:

-to speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument; recommend publicly: He advocated higher salaries for teachers.

The word, by its very definition, suggests there are opposing stances that must be reconciled in some way. This also suggests that there are two interested parties with two different viewpoints, on how to find a solution to a problem.

Many times the relationship of the two parties is not an equal one, meaning one side has power and control while the other side must adhere to the one in authority. The one that must submit will sometimes, seek a more egalitarian approach to the relationship. If the side that has power relents and cedes some of it to the other, it often leads to the desire of the weaker one to obtain more. If this is done enough times, they may eventually seek to completely subvert the one in authority and assert themselves into complete control.

This principle can be applied to many different situations and issues.

Let's look at one issue, which is one being followed closely right now....the standoff at the state capitol building in Madison, Wisconsin. But first let's look at a little history.

The 2010 Wisconsin Gubernatorial Race was won by the Republican Scott Walker with 52% of the vote, over the Democratic candidate Tom Barrett with 46%. Walker was the Milwaukee County Executive and Barrett is the Mayor of the city of Milwaukee.

I am not well informed on the fine details of this race, because I do not live in Wisconsin. But I do know that the state has historically been a hotbed of progressive ideology due to strong union activity and the influence of University of Wisconsin-Madison. I also know that it is also the home state of an early 20th century progressive leader, Robert LaFollette Sr, who was originally a Republican but later helped form the 1924 version of the Progressive Party.

So it's easy to see why progressivism is deeply embedded into the psyches of many people in this state. In fact, I think it can be safely said that it is a cultural tradition, passed on from generation to generation. For this reason alone, the location is quite symbolic.

Now here comes Scott Walker--campaigning on fiscal responsibility, spending cuts, and mathematical realities. Like many others doing the same thing in other states, he wins the election. Then, he looks at the books he has inherited from an unpopular Democratic governor (Jim Doyle) who was once a teacher and later a trial lawyer. Both professions have a very strong symbiotic affinity for unions. So as you may guess, for the eight years he was in office he let the union write its own ticket.

At one time many years ago, some unions had purpose. They were advocates for people who badly needed them. They were once a necessary entity back when child labor laws were sorely needed, when corporate interests were served by heavy exploitation of workers. Ten year old boys were working in coal mines under dangerous conditions, because the parents couldn't make a living wage otherwise. Families were dependent on their children's incomes so much so that they were compelled to risk their safety, while the corporate fat cats were living well and educating their children.

But now, the unions have become parasites. They only exist to make their leadership rich. They do it by making workers believe that they are not getting their fair share of the pie, and deserve more. They do this in a time when, we have labor laws and minimum wages.

Auto workers and steel workers are but two examples of unions laborers who have secured great wages and benefits over the years. They make living wages better than or equal to some educated professionals. Historically, the UAW and USW are two powerful unions that have used coercion and strong-armed tactics over the years to secure those perks. And they have used the same tactics to usurp much of the authority from management and ownership.

But while these unions are as rough as any Gambino mobster, they do not wreak nearly as much havoc and cause nearly as much damage to our society as the public service unions do. One example is the teachers union. It is directly responsible for the dumbing down of America, it is directly responsible for educating the masses to believe that unions are there for the workers. They have taught multiple generations that without the unions, workers were without advocacy.

The other unions I mentioned are those who fight their battles within the realm of the private sector. The result of their greed and thuggery is pricing American products right out of the market. Why else would the bulk of textiles now come from overseas? Who wants to pay $200 for a pair of jeans and $60 for a tee-shirt to wear with them?

But public service unions like the NEA and the AFT suck their blood directly off of the taxpayers. And when politicians are in bed with these leeches, those unions use classical conditioning to make their members believe that they need union representation to protect them from the greedy taxpayers, many of whom are barely making it in this poor economy. This only serves to create a sense of entitlement among the teachers, they feel as if they are owed this because the union tells them this.

Keep in mind that these are educated professionals, many of them with Masters Degrees. They are not GED forklift operators we are talking about, they are people we have entrusted to educate our children and grandchildren. And they act like we owe them the world.

The bottom line here is simple.

Unions are dying off and the leaderships of these organizations know it. They know that if they make the kind of concessions Gov. Walker and the GOP-led legislature are proposing, they will be weaker than they have already become.

They want the public to believe that it will be grievous for teachers and other public service employees to contribute to their own healthcare and retirement, like we all must do. They want us all to believe that they are the only advocates capable of defending the jobs and reputations, of these civil servants.

But I say they aren't advocating for them at all. Because if they were, they'd be trying to save the jobs of those will most certainly be laid off, if these concessions are not agreed to in this proposal.

The state is broke and headed for a California and Illinois kind of fiscal meltdown, if something doesn't give. The Governor is not trying to bust the union, he is trying to save jobs of people who will not have them next month, or next school year.

If it were me, I would bust them up. Because I do not think union bosses (who produce nothing of any real marketable value) should be getting taxpayer money, for any reason at all. But out of the kindness of Gov. Walker's heart, he is only asking that the benefits be exempt from collective bargaining. They will still be allowed to (ahem) "advocate" for the workers on salaries and wages.

So be ye not deceived here. They are going to lie endlessly to persuade the dumb masses, into believing that they are there for those who cannot (ahem) "advocate" for themselves. But I say, the best advocate for a worker is the worker. If he/she shows up everyday and commits himself/herself to doing a good job for those who sign the paychecks, he/she becomes an asset to the company or whatever entity they work for.

Management has a responsibility too. If they have workers who they see are valuable assets to the organization, it would be wise to work hard to retain those people by keeping them happy. Too many times in a down economy, we hear employers tell workers they should be thankful they have jobs, so get to work and shut up.

Management and labor need each other, so it is wise to have the ability to work towards the best interests of the organization as a whole. When that happens, everyone wins. In tough times, however, all sides must be willing to sacrifice something to maintain stability and solvency.

In the case of the Wisconsin public service unions, they are not advocating anything of the sort. They would rather see jobs lost, they would rather have taxes raised on the private sector citizens, than give one little inch for the greater good of the citizenry.

Another Blast From the Past

This week's musical selection comes with some political commentary.

The Progressive thugs are at their moment of truth, as we plainly see in Wisconsin. This is where the test of true grit and mettle is being played out before our very eyes.

They are desperate. They are weaker now than they were before the new Congress was sworn in... and they know it. So be ye not surprised at all this, because it's likely to get ugly before it's over. They cannot accept the fact that the majority of the people in the nation have rejected their message.

So they are pulling out all of the stops in Madison, by shipping in union thugs from all around the country to make this look like a huge show of discontent among the citizens of Wisconsin. But if we can withstand this last blast, if we can outlast this last ditch Hail Mary and "expend all ammo" strategy being employed by the Leftist unions, we can be heroes---even if it's just for one day:



Enjoy the music.

And stand firm for the Constitution. Stand for the rights of hard-working taxpaying citizens, everywhere. Stand firm for our democratically elected republic and the will of the people who make it strong, not the blood-sucking parasitical union thugs who produce nothing.....nothing but agitation and division. Stand tall and stand fast.

If not now, when?

Friday Funnies

For your overall household fiscal and financial well-being, please note the following diagram:

For your overall household happiness and emotional well-being, please note the following graph:

Study this material well, as you will tested on it in the future.

No Time For Talk

Time is short this week, so I am sorry for the absence.

But here is a short video put out by the Heritage Foundation that I think many of you will find interesting.



I think all of it made sense, but two comments stood out the most.

1. Did you note what Rep. Allen West (R-FL) said at the 0:47 mark?

It takes five miles to turn an aircraft carrier. So if we want this thing turned around, we have to start sometime. We have to do it now. Nancy Pelosi and her band of bitter screechers will just have to scream how unfair it is. We have to turn it around or it's going to sink. We have no choice.

2. Did you note what Rep. James Lankford (R-OK) said at the 1:27 mark?

Every generation I have been acquainted with in my time on this earth has worked hard to make things better for their children and grandchildren. My parents did it for me, their parents did it for them.

Take heart folks, because this is no game. It used to be funny, jokes about politicians spending money have always been around and have been quite entertaining at times. But not anymore. now it's going to take men and women with guts to make tough decisions.

Time to suck it up folks. Time to see who gives a damn and who doesn't.

Meet Gov. Mitch Daniels

For those of you who do not know my governor, I hope you will make some time and watch this speech given by Mitch Daniels at the CPAC. It's a little over a half hour. First you will need to bear through the short introduction by George Will. Those who know George will know that he is not the most animated speaker you will ever encounter, but he says much in a very short passage.

Although he's more lively than Will, Gov. Daniels is not an oratorical scientist either. He does not use a speech to incite by emotion like our current President did on his way to the White House. There are no rhymes, no abundance of tone fluctuations. What you will find, however, is that he uses intelligent and reasoned statements to inspire and provoke deep and careful thoughts. He uses the power of persuasion to convince, and does it through a deep sense of conviction.

The Governor is not without some fault. As is the case with every human being drawing breath on this earth, he is not perfect.

If he gets serious about a run for the WH, it is certain that the left will dig up something insignificant from his formative years, which is a time when we all were susceptible to poor decisions now and then. And as we all know, the MSM will run with it like he knocked off a gas station and shot a clerk. Those people are despicable and will stop and nothing to distract us from the here and now, and it will be no different with Mr. Daniels.

In the matters of policy, there may be some things he says that may not be agreeable to every conservative--maybe not in this speech, but in another down the road. He may not be as socially conservative as some people will prefer, which means you may not hear him get overly involved in some issues of conscience. But that doesn't mean he is oblivious to them.

The point is, if you listen to this speech carefully, without bias and prejudice, you may discover that this a man who is both qualified capable to lead this nation in the direction it so desperately needs to be led. And to answer the more important questions in your mind, he can beat Barack Obama and he can raise the money it will take to do it.

I am not writing this to sing his praises because he is my Governor. I am presenting this to my readers, in the hopes that they will listen to the speech. I am hoping that it will give cause for many to think about the choice they will face in the 2012 GOP nomination process. Daniels hasn't declared his candidacy yet, but we can still hear what he is saying and use it to make the best informed choice we can... based on everything that is important, not related to pure emotion.

It will not be easy an easy choice to make, when the time comes. By the time it all gets going, there will be a lot being said and the words will be flying everywhere. My hope is that this speech will give you a good overview of who Mitch Daniels is and what he has done for the state of Indiana. And if he ends up being a candidate, you can put him on your short list.

He is down to earth, he rides a Harley, and has spent a lot of time listening to the common citizens of this state. He has executive experience in the private sector, as well as several advisory roles in government going back to the Reagan Administration. And more than anything else, he has not been afraid to do what he thinks is right despite the horrible things the Democrats have said about him, along the way. And the harsh words have been many.

The result of this immeasurable courage has been a solvent state that is in the black, while every state that surrounds it is sinking in a sea of red ink. There are problems here in Indiana, just like anywhere else. The economy has created suffering here too. But it is nowhere near the levels we see in other parts of the country--places where government promotes government solutions, over those of private enterprise.

Here is the full text to read if you choose, with or without the backdrop of the sound. I listened to it twice to make sure I didn't miss something while I was thnking deeply about something he said.

I truly hope you take the opportunity to listen and digest what he is saying.