Island Richards

Kathy Gilbert’s editorial last week scolding the various candidates for not taking advantage of the free publicity offered by the Green River Star couldn’t help but to remind me of a scene from last year’s horror/comedy, “Jennifer’s Body,” starring Megan Fox as Jennifer and Amanda Seyfried as Needy.

Needy: Why do you need him? You can have anybody that you want, Jennifer. So why Chip? Just to tick me off? or is it because you’re just really that insecure?

Jennifer: I am not “insecure,” Needy. God! Wh–? That’s a joke! How could I ever be insecure? I was the Snowflake Queen!

Needy: Pffft. Yeah. Two years ago — when you were socially relevant —

Jennifer: I … am … still … socially relevant.

In her editorial, Kathy did little more than cry out to the world, “Don’t ignore us! We are still socially relevant!” But really, are they? The so-called in-depth reporting that the Green River Star provides to their readers is little more than a stenographer service, used to retype and relay the press releases handed out by the candidates. That would be fine, if they even did that right.

A quick look at the front page of the same issue that contained her editorial shows the real cost of depending on the local newspaper as a reliable information source. By misquoting Mr. Burnside, in a bold-faced aside of all places, The Green River Star was able to completely change Mr. Burnside’s message just by leaving out one word. It is no wonder so many candidates turn to alternative media in order to frame their message accurately and without fear of mishandling by an uninterested staff typist.

Kathy makes the claim that 80% of American voters read newspapers, but data from Scarborough Research (2009) shows that only 43% of Americans read a newspaper on any given day, and that readership by every demographic and age group is declining. Blind self importance is part of the reason main stream media outlets all over the country are slowly dying.

I have to question Kathy’s “wonder” about the seriousness of the candidates who haven’t yet responded to the Green River Star’s information request. I have spoken to at least a few candidates who have never been contacted by the Green River Star at all since they filed. Also, I wonder why, if the Green River Star is so intent on being a relevant part of the upcoming elections, they chose not to attend the forum hosted by the White Mountain Library for the four year commission candidates. Newsprint is hardly the media powerhouse that it once was, but the one meaningful foothold they have managed to keep is in local news. Even so, with eleven of the fourteen primary candidates there to answer questions from the public, the Green River Star couldn’t be bothered to attend.

It make one wonder how serious The Green River Star really is about being a relevant news source in Sweetwater County.

A mentor once told me, speaking of the Republican Party, “This isn’t a religion for me. I’m a Republican because it’s the party that I believe is best suited to promote my values and my vision. If it stops being that party, I’ll find another one.” The abandonment of Dede Scozzafava by the conservative voters in her district is that threat put into action. If the Republican Party has moved so far away from its conservative base that it has turned to promoting liberals like Scozzafava over real conservatives, simply because they think they have a better chance of winning an election, then it is time for a change.

One of the fundamental issues that I have with today’s Republican Party is that we allow ourselves to be defined by liberals and the liberal press rather than defining ourselves. As a former county party chairman, I had to live with county and state by-laws that forbade party officials from endorsing candidates in the primaries. It never happened in my county, but the fact that I might have one day been forced to officially support a liberal candidate always festered in the back of my mind.

The problem is that the National Republican Party, together with state and local parties, spend more time, money and effort trying to include everyone in the “big tent” than they do standing by the core conservative values that should be guiding them. I can understand how easy it is to fall into the trap of believing the goal is to elect people with R’s at the end of their names. Obviously, without enough R’s the party loses majority control of government, but this ignores the reality that control by Republicans isn’t the real goal. The real goal is holding our nation true to the conservative principles by which it was created.

Talk Radio personality Andrew Wilkow likes to say, “Individual Patriot first. Conservative second. Republican third.” What he means is that it is our first duty to be individuals who support our country, that we can do that best by living and promoting our conservative principles, and that the Republican Party is the currently the best tool that we have to do it with. If the Republican Party ceases to be the best tool for that job, then we are left with a couple choices. We can throw out the tool and get a new one, or we can refurbish our current tool and make it work how it’s supposed to.

Throwing out the tool would mean abandoning the Republican Party altogether and forming or joining a third party. This is a difficult course to follow, but it isn’t unheard of. There have been several ruling political parties throughout our history including Democrat-Republicans (one party, not the same as todays), Federalists, Whigs, Democrats, Republicans and dozens of smaller parties that exist in smaller numbers around the nation. It might be rare in our national history for a new party to come out of obscurity and take power at the federal level, and it is a difficult proposition, but it’s not impossible.

Refurbishing the current tool is the more likely scenario and would mean bringing the Republican Party back into line with its historical conservative principles. In order to forward those principles, we need to elect conservative Republicans. Not liberal Republicans. Not moderate Republicans. Conservative Republicans. Conservatives must retake control of the Party at all levels — from local precincts, to the statewide parties, to the National Republican Party. To succeed, we will have to make a stand against mediocrity, and so called moderates, and refuse to vote for or fund candidates that don’t truly represent us, regardless of whether or not they registered as Republicans. The first battle we face is to get conservative candidates nominated in the primaries, and only then can we carry those candidates through to victory in the general elections. We have to make our voices be heard loud and clear, and not allow the biased liberal press agencies decide which candidates are going to win our support.

I think that conservatives will benefit most by using third parties to force change in the Republican Party. By selectively abandoning the Republican Party, conservatives can bring about enough pressure on party leaders to force them to rethink which candidates they will endorse and support in the future. By supporting independent and third party candidates that more accurately represent our conservative values and principles, as the people of New York’s 23rd Congressional district have done, we can send the GOP a message about what kind of candidates we will accept. Give us a real conservative candidate to support, and we will. Send us a wishy-washy liberal like Dede Scozzafava? We’re gone. If we do it consistently, each and every time, the Republican Party will figure out that they should only send us candidates that share our values. Anything else will be a waste of our time, their money, and an erosion of their power base.

By regaining control of our party, and only supporting candidates that we want to support, we can define the Republican Party ourselves instead of letting the liberals and the liberal press define it for us. If the Republican Party continues to allow the likes of Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe to carry our endorsement, then there is no reason for us to continue to be Republicans. We can throw our support behind a third party like New York’s State Conservative Party, or start a new one. If the Republican Party can retool, however, and show us that they can send us honest-to-goodness, conservative candidates, then we can continue to be part of the Grand Old Party. If we lose a few races in order to cement that position, then so be it. I would rather have a Democrat in office that we can challenge straight up in the next election than a sponge like Arlen Specter who sucks the party coffers dry, while voting with the Democrats anyway, and keeping the party from endorsing a real conservative candidate.

Conservatives are going to regain control of this country’s future and hold our country true to its conservative roots, regardless of the tools we use. The Republican Party just needs to decide whether it’s going to be the best tool for that job, or just a tool.

President Obama recently commented that the reason American K-12 education is falling behind other industrialized nations is because kids don’t spend enough time in school. His plan to save our education system from its slow death spiral is simple: on a national basis we should make school days longer and extend the average school year into more of the summer months. Really? The answer to returning our school systems to their once greater glory is to force our children to sit through even more hours upon hours of the liberal indoctrinal drivel that has displaced real teaching in our nations schools? Give me a break. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: The spine of our public education system is broken, and no amount of Federal intervention is ever going to fix it. Why? Because it is the full weight of the U.S. Department of Education riding our education system pony style that broke it in the first place. Want to know how to fix it? Read on.

Primary school in open air. Teacher (priest) with class from the outskirts of Bucharest, around 1842.

Before we do anything, we as parents must step back and take stock of the fact that it is our individual responsibility to provide a quality education to our children, not the responsibility of the government. School districts were formed as tools to allow communities to pool their resources in order to assist parents in meeting that responsibility. The current system, which is governed by federal regulations and union contracts, has perverted that original purpose and replaced it with a behemoth of a machine whose goals have more to do with societization than education. The very school systems that we created to assist us have now usurped us, and dictate to us how our children should be taught instead of the other way around. The education of our children is our own individual responsibility. It easy to ignore that fact, but until we face it again as a people our education system is doomed.

What do we do about it? Simple. We take it back.

First of all, the U.S. Department of Education as it exists today needs to be abandoned. The federal government has no place in our public education system, and the very existence of this bloated, rotting bureaucracy is a slap in the face of every student, parent, teacher, administrator and locally elected school board member in America. Our school boards are elected by us to manage a school system that is owned by us, and they need to act that way. When the federal government decides that they are in charge, the elected members of our school boards have to stand resolute and do what they were elected to do. Represent us. If they won’t, they must be replaced. The U.S. Department of Education won’t go away on its own, but if communities across the nation turn their backs on them, and ignore them, they will become functionally impotent, with no more hold on our schools.

Part of the reason the U.S. Department of Education has gained such a stranglehold on our failing school system is that we became lazy. It’s too easy to sit at home, complaining that the system is a mess, and wondering when the government is going to fix it. As parents we have to hold our schools accountable again, and not to some federal agency, to us. We entrust our children to the school system because we believe that the specially trained teachers employed there are better able to teach our children, but how do we know? What do these people actually teach our kids? Reading? Writing? Math? Arguable considering the trending test results. Volunteerism? Activism? Socialism? Those seem to be common themes, but again, how do we know?

It is time that we demand an accurate accounting of everything that our educators are teaching our children. Every teacher must be required to inform every parent of what they intend to teach our children in their classrooms. Their syllabuses and talking points should be posted publicly, and be subject to parental review. If a teacher plans to spend their hour teaching my child how to solve simple algebraic equations, then the pre-class report will be nice and simple. A copy of the worksheet can be posted online on that class’s web page. If a teacher plans to explain to my child why a single payer health care system is preferable to a free market system, then they can post those talking points to the website as well. If the teacher plans to spend their hour teaching the proper construction of a functional irrigation system and instead the conversation turns to the effects of federal endangered species regulations on the local economy, that can be posted to the online class notes, too. These online class notes can be preserved year to year and be a tool for parents to decide what kind of a person they want teaching their kids. If we read them and find that a particular teacher manages to turn daily discussions of Shakespearean literature into daily discussions about the benefits of strong labor unions, we will be able to make educated decisions as parents as to whether or not this is the kind of person we want educating our children.

I know…you teachers out there are reading this and are up-in-arms right now screaming at me that we have no right to hold your occupation under a microscope. Too bad. You chose a profession where your actions will have a profound effect on the direction of the lives of our children. My children. And I want a say in how that education is provided. If putting your occupation under a microscope is the only way to do that, then so be it.

These are simple but important things that we can do to return our education system to its greater glory. Take back control of our childrens’ education from the federal government. Require adequate representation from the school board members that we elect to steward our schools. Demand accountability and transparency from our teachers. Not so tough, right?

Remember, your child’s education is your responsibility, and the school system is nothing more than a tool to help you provide your child the best education that you can. We can sharpen that tool, we can throw the tool out and get a new one, or we can throw the tool out for good and teach our kids at home. In the end, it’s our call. Either way, arbitrarily lengthening school days and school years on a national basis is just face makeup and yet another ploy to keep the power out of our hands and keep it in the hands of government.  That’s what got us into this educational conundrum in the first place.

Update September 11, 2009:  This is a story I wrote last year in remembrance of the tragedy of September 11, 2001. It’s now been 8 years since that fateful day, but the memory of it is still vivid in my mind, as are the emotions that this day brings back. We will always remember the 2819 people lost their lives that day, and that many of those were people who stepped up and became heroes. We will always remember the 343 firefighters and 60 police officers who gave their lives in selfless service to others. We will always remember those brave souls who rose up and fought the terrorists on Flight 93. We will always remember.

National Park Service 9-11 Statue of Liberty and WTC Fire

Today marks the 7th anniversary of a day our country will never forget. I don’t have to explain it to you. If I needed to, you would never understand anyway.

On that morning, I was scheduled to work the morning shift at one of our family businesses, and I was on my way to work at about 5:15am (Mountain Time) listening to the morning news when the newscaster mentioned something about a prominent leader and promoter of democracy in Afghanistan having been assassinated that morning. I didn’t give it much thought until later that morning.

A while later, during a break in customers, I caught the first report that some type of plane had crashed into one of the towers. Wow, I thought, that’s horrible. I wasn’t very good at taking care of my customers for the rest of that morning. Sure, I went through the motions, rang up their stuff, and took their money, but my ears and attention were on the radio that I had turned up to full blast. I listened intently as they reported the second plane had crashed into the second tower. Oh, God! I, along with every commentater, was sure now that this was a terrorist attack. I wondered at the time if it was related to the assassination report that I had heard that morning, but any further news of that was lost in the chaos that was unfolding in New York City.

I listened with horror as they described the collapse of the first tower, and was numb with the realization that possibly thousands of people were dying at that very moment. I had made a few calls home and to other family members throughout the morning, but I felt the need right then to talk to my wife again, so I ignored the customers that were in the store and called home. I don’t remember what we said to each other, but it was enough to comfort one another and keep us moving through the morning.

When the second tower fell, so did my heart. I listened as they described the loss of the firefighters who had entered the towers to save strangers, and the sadness compounded. I was glued to the radio or the television for the rest of the day.

For some reason, I had to be out of town that night, and my whole family spent it in a hotel a couple hundred miles from home. We had all been numb all day. We tried to explain to our three children, who were between 6 and 11 at the time, what had happened. They were too young to truly understand, thankfully, but I know that we were all struggling with what was happening. Later that night, probably after midnight, my wife and children were all asleep in the room, but I was still glued to the television, enthralled by what was happening to those people 2000 miles away, but so close to my heart.

At one point during the coverage, journalists were interviewing people from around the world and recording their reactions to the tragedy that had just befallen the people of New York. Most made the obvious and expected statements — that it was horrible, that their hearts go out, etc. But one person was different. She said something that will stick with me until the day I die. She was a middle aged French woman on the streets of Paris, and when the reporter asked her thoughts on what had happened that day, she said, “Today, we all suffer together. Today, we all cry together. Today, we are all Americans.”

That is when I cried. With my wife and children sleeping quietly all around me, I cried.

I was having a cordial political discussion with some people today and, as is often the case, someone made the comment that there will be new elections in 2010, and we will be able to take back America. This is a democracy after all. But is it? Is what we live in really a democracy? Sure, we all get to vote, but how are we casting our votes? For who? And why?

A democracy is a system of government in which power is vested in the people, who rule either directly or through freely elected representatives, and as such, it is the common people who are considered as the primary source of political power. A democracy also assumes the existence and practice of the principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

Does that accurately describe the country we live in now? Have you ever looked at the people around you at work — who are complaining about overtime and wondering if the boss will figure out that they weren’t really sick on Friday — and told yourself, “These people, together with myself, rule this country,” without laughing at yourself afterword? Have you ever spent a moment at the local saloon — where the “common people” are hanging out, drinking, laughing, groping each other and spilling beer on their shoes — and thought solemnly, “Right here, in this room, is where the primary source of political power in our nation grows from,” and kept a straight face? Have you ever just looked in the mirror and said, “This is my country. I am a respected individual, and this nation recognizes my social equality,” and didn’t fall over on the floor laughing uncontrollably? I didn’t think so.

So, what happened? If the founding fathers were so careful to set up a government that would always represent “We the people,” how did it all go so wrong? Simple. We sold the farm.

Picture this:

Farmer George Augere has been tilling his fields for 50 years. The Augere Farm usually made enough money to support his immediate family, and he also provided jobs for many of his extended family members. On the day of his retirement, the farm supported George, his wife, three of their five children, six of their eleven grandchildren, two siblings, two cousins, three nephews, an uncle, and Mr. Davis, who had worked for George since he was young.

Sure, there had been rough times. The three years of drought back in the late nineties almost bankrupted them, but they survived. Then, when Aunt Irma got sick a few years back, they couldn’t afford a nursing home, but everyone chipped in and made her as comfortable as possible during her last months. Yes, George had been forced to borrow money sometimes to keep the farm going, but when he did he worked tirelessly to pay off the loans.

The days were long, and the work was hard, but like the generations of farmers before him, George was proud of the fact that he has been able to provide a future for his children and grandchildren, and given them the opportunity to build upon his success. He hoped that they would have the same chances to excel in their lives that his father and grandfather had given him.

When George decided to retire, he left it up to the family to decide who would inherit the reins of the Augere Farm. He left each family member an equal share of the farm with the only caveat being that every year a new election would be held to determine who would run the farm for the next 12 months. George’s nephew Barry was a great guy, and everyone liked him. He always knew just what to say, and he always knew just the right time to flash his pearly smile. He had the ability to make almost everyone in the family follow his lead, no matter where he thought to lead them, and it was no surprise when they voted to make him the new leader of the farm.

Right away he went to work making changes. He convinced them that they needed to trade in that old John Deere — it may have been twenty years old, but it had still run just fine — for a brand new Jinma tractor. Yes, it was $30,000 for a smaller tractor, but the new one was better for the environment, and of course Barry was good friends with the sales representative. He talked them into laying off Mr. Davis, who had worked for them for over thirty years, and replaced him with a couple of illegal immigrants, who worked for less money. Later, he switched to a hybrid seed stock. Sure, it was much more expensive, but Barry explained to the family that these new plants were better for the environment, and used less natural resources to grow.

Barry made all kinds of promises to his family as he led the farm into new directions. “We won’t have to work as hard for what we want,” he said. “Everyone who works on the farm should be equal,” he beamed. “Every family member and employee who works for this farm will make as much as he needs to live, but will only have to work as hard they are able,” he boomed!  Over the next few years, he promised and gave them more and more, and every year they re-elected him. Under Barry’s leadership, most of the family got new cars, and built new houses, and were able to go on vacations that they had only dreamed of before. He even convinced them to let the two illegal immigrants participate in future elections and gave them enough money to build new houses and buy new cars of their own. When Uncle Charlie, who was nearly 90 now, fell ill, Barry convinced the family to fund his stay in the best nursing home money could buy. Nothing was too good for a member of the farm. Barry’s family cheered him and told him that they wanted him to be in charge of the farm forever.

Barry’s cousin John, however, wasn’t as enamored with Barry as the rest of the family. John wasn’t as good as Barry at rallying the family behind him as Barry was, but he understood simple math. He eyed the family’s finances warily, and wondered how the family could afford such extravagance with the modest income of the Augere Farm. He asked, “Where is all this money coming from, Barry?”

“Everyone knows that you have to spend money to make money,” Barry answered.

“But where is it all coming from,” John persisted.

“Well, I took out a mortgage on the farm,” Barry told him, “but don’t worry, we won’t have to pay it off for decades.”

John asked fearfully, “How are we going to make payments on it?”

“Easy,” Barry answered, “Uncle Bill, and Cousin Warren both work extra jobs and have a lot more money than the rest of the family. They are just going to have to chip in a little extra to pay the interest on the loan.”

John was beside himself. He went to the rest of the family and explained to them that Barry’s plan would bankrupt the Augere Farm. His protests fell on deaf ears however, and the rest of the family thought John was just a troublemaker. Even Bill and Warren thought that Barry was doing a great job, and wouldn’t hear of replacing him in the next election. “He’s so smart, and so caring,” they said, “we don’t mind paying a little extra.”

After a while though, as Barry spent more and more money keeping his family happy, and now the families of his immigrant workers, the size of the mortgage against the farm grew. Soon, Bill and Warren were told that they would have to work a little harder at their second jobs and contribute a little bit more to the family’s finances. Cousin Brad and Nephew Mike were also told that they would have to start working a little harder and contributing more. “From each according to their ability, guys,” Barry told them. “You have a responsibility to take care of your family.” Over time, more members of the family were asked to contribute a little bit more the benefit of the others. Brad and Mike were asked to contribute even more, and Bill and Warren were asked to give up almost all of their income from their second jobs to support the farm.

Later that year, hardly anyone noticed when when Uncle Bill stopped showing up for work at the farm. Barry noticed when Bill’s check didn’t get deposited in the bank that month, though, and went looking for him. He found Bill’s house empty and his car gone. After a little investigation he learned that Bill had quit his second job and moved out of the state where he had started his own farm with Mr. Davis as a partner. Then Warren lost his second job due to budget cuts and was no longer able to contribute extra money to the farm every month. Brad broke his leg in an accident and could no longer work at all. Mike was told that he would have to work even harder.

Over time, one by one, several more of the hardest working members of the family resigned and moved away. The Augere Farm began to suffer, and its income began to shrink.

“I told you,” John cried. “You can’t keep spending money like this and expect the farm to survive.”

“Nonsense,” Barry answered, “I’ll just borrow a little more money. We’ll get through this.”

And that’s what he did. He took out another mortgage on the farm, and took out loans against the homes his family had built during the last several years. “Don’t worry,” he told them, “we won’t have to pay these loans off for years to come.”

The next few years were a little tougher. More of the hardest working family members gave up and moved away, and with each one that left the farm produced less and less. The family who remained, though, demanded more and more from Barry. He sold off the harvester to pay the interest on the loans, and then borrowed a little more to buy a new car for his daughter. During the following fall harvest he had to rent a harvester, and sold the tractor in order to pay for it. It became a never ending downward spiral. Realizing that he was in trouble, Barry started looking for a solution.

He found that solution in Mr. Yen, who agreed to take on some of the Augere Farm’s debt in exchange for the land. “You can stay there and work the land,” he told Barry, “nothing will change, other than how the land is titled. Instead of paying all that interest on the loans, you’ll just have to pay rent. Besides, I’ll pay you a little under the table so you’ll have some money in your pocket when all is said and done.”

“But what about my family?” Barry asked.

“I can’t give you enough to pay off all of their debts,” Mr. Yen told him, “and I can’t employ them all. I run a tight ship. But you’ll be taken care of, my friend.”

“Okay,” Barry relented, “let’s do it.”

And just like that, Barry sold the farm.

What happened to George’s farm is exactly what is happening to our country. The votes of our electorate are being bought with promises of extravagant benefits to the “common people.” The problem is of course, that all of these benefits have to be paid for someday, by someone. The crime wasn’t Barry selling the farm to Mr. Yen, the crime was committed when the family sold the farm to Barry for a few material promises and a pretty smile. The crime was selling out the future for a little extra stuff today.

The Obama administration is telling us that only the rich will have to pay more so everyone else can have free health care. Only the rich corporations will have to fund the new environmental revolution. He tells us that all of the common people deserve economic justice and equality. In short, the government is buying the votes of the American people, and it has destroyed our democracy. Our president, our congress, and our supreme court have all thrown their hats into the bidding circle, looking to buy the farm, and then sell it down the river.

These are lies that they tell us for one purpose, and one purpose only. To stay in power. And in order to keep that power, they are willing to buy our votes with our very own souls. In the end, all it will cost us is our freedom.

2010? Maybe we can take back our country, but I’m not optimistic. We still have too much wealth in this country for Obama and his lackeys to buy votes with. They’ll bankrupt us eventually, though. Even Vice President Biden said so. When that happens, maybe real democracy can make a comeback.

Until then, welcome to augereocracy, where control of the government goes to the highest bidder.

augereocracy

au·ger·e·oc·ra·cy [aw-jeer-ee-ok-ruh-see]
-noun, plural -cies.

1. a puppet republic where the members of the supposedly democratically elected government received the majority of the votes by promising the most benefits (ie. kickbacks, bribes) to the voters
2. a government that provides increasingly greater benefits to its electorate in order keep power.
3. a state or society characterized by a formal relinquishing of rights in exchange for perceived financial benefits.
4. political or social inequality resulting from class warfare and wealth redistribution.
5. majority rule, where such majority is purchased through the promise of personal benefit.
6. a system of government in which the power, which used to be vested in the people, who ruled either directly or through free elected representatives, is now solidly controlled by a select few who have purchased that power from the people by promising ever increasing benefits from the treasury.
   

Origin:
2009; [root: augere (Latin, present infinitive) - 1. increase, augment; 2. enlarge, spread; 3. lengthen; 4. exaggerate; 5. honor, enrich; 6. (figuratively) exalt, praise. - rel. auction]

Related words or phrases for : augereocracy
socialism, communism, progressivism, voter auction, bribery, influence peddling

example: “The people in this country have forsaken their democracy and sold their votes and control of our government to the highest bidder in exchange for free healthcare and rent controlled housing. We are now an augereocracy.”

We’ve all seen it. In our schools, our children’s schools, public meetings, television shows, leadership seminars, political speeches, and even in legislation supported by the President, the message is clear: we should all be doing community service. The fact is that the call to service is greater now than at any time in our country’s past, and the pressure to provide it even greater.

The pressure to conform to the growing demand to volunteer your self, in body and bankbook, can be daunting. When confronted with a group of peers, all telling you how much you are needed, it can be difficult to resist. When your child’s teacher tells you how important it is that you volunteer for the school bake sale, how can you say no? When your Mayor asks you to volunteer your time for the citywide cleanup, how can you refuse? And when the girl scout who lives next door asks you to buy cookies, or the soccer player who lives down the street asks you to buy raffle tickets, how can you not open your wallet and hand them the money?

Simple. Say “no.” Unless, that is, you want to do it, and can.

First of all, it’s not so much “community service” that I have a problem with. Serving your community has plenty of merit, and everyone should do it, provided of course that you are willing, and just as important, able. The problem arises when you are expected to give your time and your money to a cause that you don’t want to support. And more problems arise when you are expected to give your time and your money to a cause when you can’t afford it.

None of that matters to the people who are asking for you services, though. It doesn’t matter to them that your boss has cut back on your overtime and money is scarce, and it doesn’t matter to them that you took a second job to cover the bills, making your time even more scarce. What matters to them is their cause. You see, to the people who are promoting them, causes are just like children. Everyone thinks theirs is the most important, and anyone who thinks differently be damned. It doesn’t matter how much time or money you’ve given to any cause, even theirs, in the past, if you don’t see how important their baby is today, you’re dirt. Even if you can’t afford it, they expect your support, and they expect it now.

The important part of this is that giving your time and money to a cause when you can’t afford either hurts everyone in the long run. It hurts you, it hurts your family, and ultimately it even hurts the cause. If you give money that you can’t afford to support your local food bank, it impairs your ability to put food on your own table, and that of your family. If you sacrifice time you can’t spare, whether it’s time you could be working to pay your bills, or time you should have spent playing baseball with your son, to participate in the latest jail and bail fundraiser, you risk putting a strain on your budget, or on your family. Both situations threaten your future security, your attitude, and your willingness and ability to participate in community service in the future.

It is quite common these days to pressure our children to “give back” to their communities, provide volunteer service, and even sign pledges to provide even more service in the future. From their classrooms to their football practices to their leadership conferences, they are bombarded at every turn with the message that it is the responsibility of every able bodied youth to serve their communities. They are told that service will make them better people, and that their duty is to their fellow man. More disturbing, it has become a trend lately to begin making this expectation of service into a requirement.

President Obama’s official transitional website stated that “Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year.”

Congress followed suit with HR 1388 that authorized a committee to study “Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented…” When the language was stripped out of the final version of that bill, it was resurrected again as the still living HR 1444. It seems that our federal government is determined to make “volunteers” out of all our children.

The problem with this, aside from the fact that the 13th amendment of the Constitution clearly prohibits “indentured servitude,” is that if you take our youth, in the prime of their life, and put them on a mandated course of community service, you rob the community of it’s greatest potential producers, both physical and mental.

Can you imagine how different the world would be right now if a young college student named Bill Gates had been cutting weeds in the Boston National Historic Park instead of exploring the operations of computers and developing a BASIC interpreter for MITS? Gates built a fortune after that initial foray, which he later used to enable him to funnel billions of dollars into charitable organizations. He has now retired from the corporate world and donates all of his time to community service. Would the world be a better place if he had been doing community service while he was in college instead? Would have 100 hours of service to his fellow man when he was 20 been a good trade for the tens of billions of dollars that he has been able to raise for charity in his post corporate life?

If two college students, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, had been serving dinners at the Palo Alto Opportunity Center instead of spending their evenings writing the code that would later power Google.com, they would have never had a billion dollars to fund the charitable wing of their company, Google.org, which works to fight global poverty, among other causes. Would the world have been better served by them providing community service while they were in school rather than later when they were successful entrepreneurs and wanted to make a difference in the world?

In reality, Americans are the most generous charitable givers in the world. In 2006, Americans donated a record $295 billion to charitable organizations, the vast majority of which came from individuals. That is in addition to the 61 million Americans who donated time and labor to charitable organizations during that same year.

By allowing and encouraging our budding youth to provide for themselves and their families first, and by empowering them to become responsible and productive members of society, we also put a down payment on their future ability to give back to society when they are more able, ready and willing to do so. Someone who is forced to “donate” their time or money to causes they may not support will likely become bitter and much less likely to support any cause in the future. Additionally, a person who gives willingly, and to causes or charities they believe in, will always give more. If our government moves forward with their plan to require mandatory service from every American, and dictates to what causes that service is given, they will likely guarantee that will be the only community service that person ever provides again.

The underlying motive here is that these people don’t want you to volunteer your time and your money, because that means you are in control. They want to decide how your time and money is used to benefit society as they see fit. They want to decide which charities are worthy of your time and they want to decide which charities are worthy of your money. They don’t care if you miss a day of work, or if you have a hard time paying your bills, and they don’t care that your kids could be spending their afternoons developing cold fusion in the basement lab instead of planting grass on a reclaimed garbage dump, because in the end all they want is control.

How do we fight back? How do we make sure that our time and money is dedicated to causes and charities that we believe in? How do we make sure that our families, and ourselves, don’t go without to provide for charities that we might not believe in? And how do we make sure that our children are given the opportunity to become successful in their own right before they are expected to “give back” to their “fellow man?”

The answer is still simple. Say “no.” Unless, that is, you want to do it, and can.

In the 25+ years since the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) was signed into law by President Nixon it has been used like a shock collar to keep individual States from wandering too far away from the herd. I’s initial purpose was noble, but in the quarter century since its inception the ESA has been corrupted to such an extent that it is completely unrecognizable as a successful, manageable, or even Constitutional piece of legislation. Instead of allowing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, along with dozens of environmental groups, to continually erode each States individual sovereignty, the States need to stand up to Washington and challenge their authority to impose this failed policy.

The purpose of the ESA is to protect species that are identified as threatened or endangered and the ecosystems that they depend on. There are some examples of success among the plants and animals listed as threatened or endangered in the United States. The most notable is the American Bald Eagle, whose population of just 417 pairs in 1963 increased to an extraordinary 11,040 pairs when is was delisted in 2007. Another is the Ursus arctos horribilis, also known as the good old Grizzly Bear, whose population in the Yellowstone area more than doubled from a measely 271 bears in 1975 to more than 580 in 2005. He was also delisted in 2007. In fact, there have been 19 success stories in the nearly three decades of protection given by the ESA to 1,891 species of plants and animals around the world. Yes, you read that correctly. There have been only 19 species removed from the endangered species list because their populations have recovered. That is a success rate of about 1%. For all of the taxpayer money that has been spent on 589 distinct recovery plans, and for all of the private property owners and businesses that have been bankrupted in the name of habitat protection and restoration, there have been only 19 success stories to come out of the Endangered Species Act. It is one of the most wildly unsuccessful government programs in history.

Species can be added to the list as threatened or endangered in one of two ways under the ESA. First, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), can directly list species through their candidate assessment programs. The second is by petition. Any individual or organization can petition the USFWS or the NOAA to list a species. Both processes are long, drawn out, and nearly impossible to accomplish. Did I say that there were only two ways? I forgot one didn’t I? The ESA only lists two, but our liberal federal courts have created another, and as a result, the new and preferred way to get a species listed is to file a lawsuit. The federal courts are clogged with lawsuits against the federal government, demanding that they list one species or another.

The listing process, however, is not nearly as long and drawn out as the process of delisting, and so far, only 45 species have ever been delisted. Presently, there are only six reasons that a species can be delisted. The first is extinction. Obviously, once an animal is extinct they don’t need federal protection anymore. Thankfully, only two species are known to have gone extinct while they were listed (7 went extinct before they were listed). The second way is when new populations are discovered that increase known population levels to a number that warrants delisting. That has happened five times. The third is taxonomic reclassification, which has happened ten times (I’m not even going to try to explain what that means, because I have no idea). The fourth is because of a listing rule violation, which has happened once and the fifth is by an act of Congress, which has happened once. The last is as a result of recovery, which has happened only 19 times in the history of the ESA (as we discussed earlier).

I have to admit though, that the number 19 is probably not really indicative of the number of species that have actually recovered. Realistically many more species probably should be delisted, but lawsuits have also become the new preferred way of making sure that no species ever gets taken off the list. It doesn’t matter if the species meets the population goals set by the biologists charged with their recovery, and it doesn’t matter if their habitat size expands to reach the goals set by their recovery plans. Either way, the conservation and the environmental groups that feed off the broken legislation file lawsuit upon lawsuit, blocking the delisting of even species that have recovered beyond even the most liberal benchmarks. The constant meddling by the courts in these matters have made the ESA almost completely unmanageable, and utterly useless as a tool protect endangered wildlife.

Ultimately though, the biggest problem with the Endangered Species Act is that it has no Constitutional foundation. The United States Constitution gives the federal government very specific powers, and nowhere among their number is the power to manage wildlife. The power to raise armies and declare war? Check. The power to mint coins and print money? Check. The power to protect interstate commerce? Check. The power to bankrupt a farmer and take the private land that his family has cultivated for six generations in order to create a viable habitat for the Southeastern Dismal Swamp Shrew and force its host state to spend millions of dollars on politically motivated, non-scientifically contrived, court ordered and unattainable recovery plans? Hold the check! Since the Tenth Amendment guarantees to the States any powers not specifically granted to the federal government, the individual States are Constitutionally empowered to manage their own wildlife without interference from Washington!

The reintroduction of wolves into the greater Yellowstone area by the USFWS, and the subsequent lawsuits that have prevented their delisting in Wyoming but allowing their delisting in Idaho and Montana, on completely political instead of scientific reasons, has presented fertile ground for a challenge by the States of this unsuccessful and unmanageable legislation. This is an opportunity for the individual States to reclaim control of their own jurisdictions, and put the out of control U.S. Congressional and Executive Branches back in their places. The Governors and Legislatures of each State should direct their Attorney Generals to immediately file suit against the federal government and to challenge the constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act on the grounds that it violates the Tenth Amendment and infringes on the sovereignty of the individual States. This is a battle that should be taken all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary.

It’s time to take off the leash that the federal government has put on our States, and retake control of our lands, our wildlife, and our rights. The Endangered Species Act, as it currently exists, needs to be made extinct. Individual States, who are much more qualified to manage their own wildlife populations, must retake the command they once held over their own jurisdictions, kick the Washington bureaucrats out of our forests, our swamps,  our deserts, our rivers and our lakes, and send them scurrying back to D.C. where they belong.

In a recent discussion, term limits came up as a topic, and as usual, I took a side. Personally, I am against Congressional term limits, and I said so. I believe they are nothing more than an attempt by one group of people to dictate to another group of people who they can, or more accurately in this case, can’t vote for. As is often the case when I defend my position against Congressional term limits, it was pointed out in the discussion that the President is limited to two terms. I was asked, as an opponent of Congressional term limits, if I also opposed Presidential term limits. The answer is, no, I don’t.  On the surface, the dichotomy between my two perspectives on term limits for the separate branches of federal government may look hypocritical at best, but to understand my viewpoint, a more in depth discussion about the nature of the elected offices is necessary.

First, as we all know, the members of the House of Representatives are considered to be the closest representatives to the people. This is evidenced by both the fact that they are subject to election every two years, and the fact that they typically represent more specific groups of people (districts). They are meant to be close and well known to those they represent.  As much as Nancy Pelosi makes me cringe, she is sadly quite illustrative of the people she represents in her home district (San Francisco, CA). I am more concerned that Democrats representing all the other districts in the nation would see fit to elect her their leader and put her in line for Presidential ascension. Term limits won’t protect us from that kind of stupidity, especially since her power has more to do with her success at getting supporters elected to key seats around the nation — thereby taking majority control of the House, and majority control of the House Democratic Caucus at the same time — than any power that comes from longtime entrenchment. As a result of this direct representation, I stand by my position against term limits on members of the House.

The Senate started a little differently. They began as appointed representatives of the states, chosen by each state’s legislature, and not by popular vote. It wasn’t until the 17th amendment was ratified in 1917 that Senators were elected by popular vote of the people, and became a body directly representative of the people. I won’t into detail about the corruption that spurred the change (just think of Governor Blagojevich and his attempt to sell Illinois’ open Senate seat multiplied by 96), but the 17th amendment clarifies their role as direct representatives of the people of their respective states. Their six year terms are meant to give them a little more insulation from mob rule, and create a little bit of stability in the government, even when the tides of populist opinion shift quickly. Since Senators are also direct representatives of the people, I stand by my position against term limits on their elections, also.

The President, however, is a different animal. The Constitution specifically creates a process of election for the President that removes him from a position of being a direct representative of the people. The Constitution clearly defines his role as that of The President of the United States. As much as we often like to think of him as such, he is not The President of the People of the United States. It might seem inconsequential, but it is an important distinction. Like Senators had been until 1917, the President is not elected by the people, but by representatives of the individual states, as determined by their respective legislatures. Until Franklin Delano Roosevelt, U.S. Presidents had always abided by George Washington’s unwritten rule that no President should serve more than two terms. FDR’s successful bid for four terms was enough to spur the adoption of the 22nd amendment, which limited future Presidents to just two terms. There were many underlying reasons for the amendment, but primary among them was to protect the nation from the future possibility that one man could hold the Presidency for so long that his individual power would grow to supersede that of the balanced government as a whole. Examples of the dangers of such power building at the executive level are abundant throughout the world. Since the President, as dictated by the Constitution, is not a direct representative of the people, and since the danger of allowing one man to stay in a such a unique position of power for too long is all to real, I support the term limits placed on the office by the 22nd amendment.

The framers of the Constitution weren’t perfect and they obviously didn’t think of everything. This is evidenced by the fact that we have 17 amendments beyond the Bill of Rights. But they outlined rules in the Constitution that allowed the members of each house to set rules for their members and punish the members who break those rules. There are systems in place to prevent corruption among our directly elected representatives. They are subject to both the rules of membership of their respective houses, and the laws of the land that are enforced by the executive branch and under the jurisdiction of the courts. It is not a perfect system but, when used correctly, it is an effective system.  The voters and citizens of the United States are best served by making sure that our elected representatives follow the rules already set forth, and most of all by making sure that the most qualified representatives are sent to Washington every two and six years. Term limits for those representatives would merely hobble the voters ability to make those decisions.

The other thing term limits won’t do is protect the rest of the nation from representatives from districts like San Francisco, and states like Nevada. Pelosi and Reid are quite illustrative of the people they represent. If they were forced out by term limits, the voters from those districts would send someone with another face, with another name, but with the same radical ideologies to serve in their place.

We don’t have a right to be protected from the will of an individual district or state, except as already outlined by the Constitution, and we don’t have the right to tell the people of other districts and states who they can and can’t have as their elected representatives. It is much more important, if you ask me, that we find a way to protect the rights of individual states from the will of the federal government. That is where the real battle is.

Back on November 7, 2008, when President Obama was still President Elect Obama, the official website of his presidential transition was www.change.gov. When the site was first posted, on the page labeled “America Serves,” Obama outlined his plan that would require that students perform a certain number of hours of community service.

change.gov>americaserves -- November 7, 2008

Within hours of the website going live, the blogosphere was abuzz with reports of the suprising content of the page, such as aye chihuaha’s post on Flopping Aces (which is the source of the above screenshot). The official transition website stated:

“Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year.” (emphasis added)

As the outrage rippled through the web, Obama’s transition team got wary of the impending backlash and within hours amended the site.

change.gov>americaserves - March 17, 2009

The new language in question, still available on the site, now reads:

Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free. (emphasis added)

Now, this might seem innocuous, until you read House Bill 1388, introduced on March 9, 2009, that “reauthorize(s) and reform(s) the national service laws” and creates a congressional committee that will analyze “whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed.”

HR 1388 IH
111th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1388
To reauthorize and reform the national service laws.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 9, 2009
Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York (for herself, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr. SESTAK, Mr. HARE, Mr. ANDREWS, Mr. TONKO, Mr. POLIS of Colorado, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. SABLAN, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. HINOJOSA, and Mr. COURTNEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor
A BILL
To reauthorize and reform the national service laws.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
…
TITLE VI–CONGRESSIONAL COMMISSION ON CIVIC SERVICE
…
SEC. 6104. DUTIES
…
(b) Specific Topics- In carrying out its general purpose under subsection (a), the Commission shall address and analyze the following specific topics:
…
(6) Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds. (emphasis added)(truncated)

It is clear now, that the Obama Administration, together with the Democrat controlled congress, intends to institute a sort of civil service “draft” that would force America’s youth into compulsive community service. It is also a clear violation of the United States Constitution, which reads:

Amendment 13 – Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865.

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. (emphasis added)

There is no doubt anymore as to the direction President Obama wants to take our country. He has quite effectively taken Saul Alinsky’s rules for radicals and applied them to running (ruining?) our country. His administration has broken all traditions and attacked the previous administration at every turn. In addition, his guard dogs have publicly and systematically attacked every commentator that has dared challenge his agenda. Together with the far left wing of the Democratic Party, he has used the current “economic crisis” as a launching pad to take control of our country and justify an expansion of the federal government that is unmatched in history.

In the name of protecting our economy, he has spent our nation into a deficit that is twice as large as any in the history of our country and threatened the very tenets of the economic system that allowed our country to become the superpower that it is today. This plan to further radicalize our youth by forcing them into involuntary servitude is just another stake in the heart of our nations freedom, and it cannot be allowed!

The main stream media is completely ignoring the direction that the underlying current of Obama’s administration is taking our country in, while at the same time ballyhooing his every individual action, and then spending countless hours on the television, on the radio, and in the print lionizing, idolizing, and exalting President Obama in ways that are eerily reminiscent of the fervent, compulsory praise given to previous and existing leaders such as Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Chavez, Pol Pot, and Castro. It is ironic that in the past incarnations of this obviously socialist leaning economic direction, which our main stream press seemingly wants and supports, one of the first sacrifices of individual rights that are made in the name of that economic “good” is the freedom of speech. At the same time that so called journalists are heralding the destruction of free market principles, and personal economic freedom, they are also beating the death knell of their own beloved freedom of the press.

Very soon, sooner than we might think, the people of this nation are going to have to choose between continuing down an almost irreversible path to Marxist socialism, and standing up for the country that we know and love, and turn the tide against the mutiny in our political system that threatens to hijack the American way of life we know. Obama’s view of socioeconomics is so startlingly similar to those of freedom’s greatest enemies that it makes me cringe, and he is using their lessons to mold our country into a new socialist mecca! He will systematically dismantle our current form of government and economic system and replace them with his own warped vision of a new United Socialist States of America.

And how will he enforce these new policies and agendas?

“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. -Barack Obama

It all starts with the youth. It begins by rallying them to an innocuous common cause and then using the bonds created in the pursuit of that cause to hold them together, and bind them into a malleable force. Then, when they have become a large, powerful force, they can be pointed in any direction and pushed. Then, with very little effort, the energy of that force can expound into a terrible tsunami that can destroy anything in its path!

This is scary beyond belief, and hearkens back to the Nazi Party’s “Hitler-Jugend.” As every youth in Nazi Germany was required to join “Hitler-Jugend” (Hitler Youth), soon, every youth in America will be required to join “Obama Ujana” (Obama Youth), where he will be able to rally, bind, mold and aim them into a social weapon that conservative America will be powerless to defend against.

Hitler Youth recruitment poster. The wording translates to: "Youth serves the leader. All ten year-olds into the Hitler Youth."

Not only is this a thinly veiled attempt to indoctrinate our youth into a left-wing dominated mindset, it is a carefully conceived plan to galvanize Obama’s permanent campaign and cement him as an enduring iconic power in American life.

“I begin with the young. We older ones are used up. We are rotten to the marrow. We are cowardly and sentimental. We are bearing the burden of a humiliating past, and have in our blood the dull recollection of serfdom and servility. But my magnificent youngsters! Are there any finer ones in the world? Look at these young men and boys! What material! With them, I can make a new world. This is the heroic stage of youth. Out of it will come the creative man, the man-god.

“When an opponent declares, ‘I will not come over to your side,’ I say calmly, ‘Your child belongs to us already…What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing but this new community’.” – Adolf Hitler

Look very closely at your children. Picture them, standing at attention in their one piece powder blue uniform wearing a navy blue beret and red armband adorned with the now universally known symbol of the permanent Obama campaign, chanting in cadence:

Obama Ujana!

Obama Ujana!

Obama Ujana!

Obama Ujana!

Obama Ujana!

Obama Ujana!

If this idea sickens and scares you as much as it does me, start contacting your Representatives and Senators now! Call them, write them, and don’t stop there. Tell them that our children are not their social labor force, and they are not fodder to promote their radical social agendas. Contact President Obama and tell him that your children are YOUR children, and that you will not allow them to be indoctrinated into his civilian national security force and become his own “Obama-Jugend”.

-Wisdom

Isn’t our leader in great company?

“You say, away with you Communists; we say, away with you imperialists.” – Mao Zedong

“I want you to know that everything I did, I did for my country.” – Pol Pot

“I have said it already, I am convinced that the way to build a new and better world is not capitalism. Capitalism leads us straight to hell.” – Hugo Chavez

“I am not a communist and neither is the revolutionary movement.” – Fidel Castro

“If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.” – Joseph Stalin

“Revolutionary Social-Democracy has always included the struggle for reforms as part of its activities. But it utilises “economic” agitation for the purpose of presenting to the government, not only demands for all sorts of measures, but also (and primarily) the demand that it cease to be an autocratic government.” – Lenin

“All great movements are popular movements. They are the volcanic eruptions of human passions and emotions, stirred into activity by the ruthless Goddess of Distress or by the torch of the spoken word cast into the midst of the people.” – Adolf Hitler

“How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don’t think.” – Adolf Hitler

“It’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” – Barack Obama

Graph by MikesAmerica

According to President Obama’s 2010 budget blueprint, the Federal Deficit for the 2009 fiscal year will increase to $1.75 TRILLION! Written out, that’s $1,750,000,000,000. 175 with TEN ZEROES behind it!

A quick look at the graph will show that during the Bush administration, deficits had increased in the war time years directly after the 9/11 attacks, but steadily decreased during 2005, 2006, and 2007. In  fiscal 2008, however, the first fiscal year to begin after the Democrats took over both houses of congress in 2007, you can see a marked increase in deficit spending. In fact, 2008 was the largest deficit in U.S. history. This year’s deficit projection of $1.75 Trillion is more than double that!

To put that in perspective, with that money the federal government could purchase 9,716,824 homes at the median home value level from the fourth quarter of 2008. Since home values are dropping fast, it is safe to project that by the end of this year, our deficit spending could buy 10 MILLION homes!

Another way of looking at it is that the deficit could pay the annual wages of 34,836,657 Americans! Now say that to yourself out loud — the annual wages of thirty-four million, eight hundred and thirty-six thousand, six hundred and fifty-seven Americans! That is almost a quarter of the American workforce!

The spending bills that are coming out of Congress like ticker tape amount to a threat to the security and stability of the United States of America the likes of which we have never seen. Now we have a president who not only won’t try to curb congress’s outrageous spending, we now have a president who won’t miss an opportunity to add to it.

On January 23, 1996, President Bill Clinton announced to our country, “The era of big government is over.” With Obama’s budget blueprint,  that he calls, “A New Era of Responsibility”, what he is actually saying is, “The era of big government is back!”