Lame Ducks and Dead Ducks

We all know that a “lame duck president,” or now, a “lame duck Congress,” refers to that period between the election of the “new” and the inauguration of the “new.” It is that period in which the “old” still govern, but from a much weaker or “lame” position. The upcoming special session of Congress is, therefore, a “lame duck” session.

Recently, I coined a term to describe the Chief Executive of the United States as a “dead duck” President, defining a President whose party suffers such a horrendous defeat in the mid-term election that they lose an enormous power such that the President is mortally weakened and potentially unelectable for a second term. By my appellation, Barack Obama is now a “dead duck” President. (You can see the actual term and definition at the online Urban Dictionary, if you like.)

GOP Tidal Wave

I watched as former Democrat vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferrarro opined that the Republican victory was not the big wave that had been predicted. WHAT?

This was about as huge of a repudiation and annihilation that a party can suffer. The Democrats lost control of the house with one of the biggest political party gainsin modern American history. Not only were the crop of new recruits that got the Dems the House in 2006 decimated, but a lot of “old bulls” and powerful chairmen were knocked off as well.

Also, keep in mind that it is the House from which all budget and appropriation bills must originate, and while Nancy Pelosi was re-elected, she is effectively gone. I would even go so far as to say that she ranks below an incoming freshman in terms of influence, even in her own party.

While the GOP did not take control of the Senate due to the fact that only one-third of its members had to face this year’s angry electorate, when you consider that the GOP already held some of those seats and some were beyond hope for a takeover, the Republicans had to win 10 out of 12 – a daunting task.

Picking up more than half a dozen seats, however, is very significant since it shifts the center of gravity in the Senate and makes stopping filibusters impossible. Not taking the Senate also means that Obama cannot run against the Congress as Harry Truman did in 1948.

The Democrat loss of governorships across the board – especially the big states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio – have huge ramifications for the redistricting year. The Republicans are poised to redistrict themselves into an even greater majority in the U.S. House and the various state legislatures.

Also, having a friendly governor in a state is an important asset for any presidential campaign. The advantage now leans toward to the GOP in key states – imperiling Obama’s second term.

The Tea Party, which is now bonded to the GOP, was a huge factor – not only in their own winning candidates, but the grassroots energy they generated throughout the nation. Some pundits see the defeats of Christine O’Donnell and Sharron Angle as some sort of indication of Tea Party weakness. No one should have expected that all Tea Party candidates would win, and the weaker ones did lose. To fully judge the Tea Party impact, you need to see their wins in the Republican primaries, their wins in the general election and their undoubted influence as the foundation for the broad range of GOP victories.

Ironically, I see the victory of Harry Reid, in Nevada, as the gift that keeps on giving. Had he lost, New York’s Chuck Schumer or Illinois’ Dick Durbin would be taking the helm in the Senate. They would not have the same negative national image and propensity to say stupid things as does Reid. Reid’s pugnacious victory speech gives the American people the personification of their angst against Washington, and is an albatross around the neck of the President.

I THINK … Blago wins big, but only temporarily.

I will now indulge in a moment of “I told you so.” While most pundits and joe blows were calling Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich a nut cake for his high visibility public antics, I suggested that he might just be the shrewdest of the shrewd.

Most folks, and virtually all lawyers, think he should have kept his mouth shut – let his calm and cool attorneys handle public inquires. That’s what all those other indicted politicians did. Oh wait! All those other indicted politicians eventually got convicted and went to jail. Rod dodged 23 bullets and his brother, Robert, all four of the charges against him.

I proffered the opinion that as humiliating some of his pants dropping shticks were, they just might give him a few jurors – at least one – who will hold out for a guy they have come to know “more personally.” As of yet, I have not heard why that one juror was a hold out, but she kept Blago and brother from looking at some serious hard time – at least for the moment.

Trying to influence the jury pool is not invented genius. Former Governor George Ryan tried the same thing with his release of the death row prisoners – which got him a couple of Nobel Peace Prize nominations while he was awaiting trial. Apparently neither the Nobel jury nor the Federal Court jury was impressed. He did not get the Nobel Prize, but he did get six years in the slammer. Ryan was also hoping to get a friendly African-American on the panel since almost all the commuted prisoners were black.

Blago did not fall for any of that. He understood that winning the bleeding hearts of European liberals and the small cadre of domestic capital punishment opponents was not good enough. Maybe he knew that blacks tend to make tough jurors, and if the gambit didn’t work for a pompous white Republican politician, it was not likely to work just because he was a pompous white Democrat politician.

No. No. No. Blago knew that his best chance was to appeal to the Jerry Springer fans. Methinks, Donald Trump did not recognize Blago’s abilities when he booted him off the Assistant show much too soon.

Now, I know the ex-Governor did get convicted on one-half of one count – lying to the FBI – and is now officially a felon. But, after the feds threw everything they had at him and ginned up 24 real criminal counts with hundreds of years of jail time, you have to give the victory to Blago and his equally outrageous father and son defense team for staving off twenty-three and a half counts.

His only conviction was for fibbing to the FBI, not on any of the really serious criminal offenses. Personally, I think that is a pretty cheesy charge, and a five year penalty is a bit extreme. It is what they hung Dick Cheney’s guy, Scooter Libby and Martha Stewart after they could not convict them on the larger charges.

Since anyone under extensive interrogation from the FBI is likely to spin, fib a bit or simply misstate the truth, it is almost impossible not to be convicted. It is a “crime” that never would have been committed if the person was not indicted on real criminal charges.

It seems the prosecutors are determined to re-try the Blagojevich brothers. Why? Because they can. The deck is stacked against defendants to such an extent that convictions are almost unavoidable. THAT is what is so impressive about the jury action. The Blagojevich brothers beat some incredibly long odds – but unfortunately for them, the game is not over. If nothing else, the re-trial will provide some more great politics-as-entertainment for the reality television viewers.

My guess is that the re-trial will make Blago a bit of a folk hero. I know he was not acquitted on any of the charges. But, some seem to feel that enough is enough. The feds used their unlimited resources, but could not convince all 12 members of the jury. In the process they have destroyed the lives and reputations of two people. The humiliated the then Governor by arresting him in front of his family in order to stop what they allege was a rampant crime spree – which apparently the jury did not see. They got Blago booted from office without any presumption of innocence. They have bankrupted two families with children. In our system, prosecution IS punishment.

Okay. So much for the sympathy. I think Blago is as guilty as sin – and I think it is not likely he will pull the same rabbit out of the hat a second time. He may get off on some charges, but I am betting he gets found guilty on at least half. Blago has only survived to fight another day.

I THINK … the Ground Zero is the wrong place for the mosque, and Obama has failed to show leadership.

Many times, public policy is not as complicated as the political leadership would have you believe. The proposed mosque within a stone’s throw from Ground Zero – which many now consider hallowed ground.

There are two important consideration on the side of the decision-making scale that favors the proposed masque site.

First: It would be wrong to suggest that the attack on the World Trade Towers by Muslim extremists indicts all Muslims and justifies the suspension of their Constitutional rights. We have to always guard against diminishing the power of the Constitution over a narrow or momentary issue.

The second thing that supports the advocates of the project is the law, it would seem. There is nothing in the plans for the project that runs counter to legal requirements.

Just because the law is on their side, however, does not mean the mosque should be built so close to Ground Zero (see ariel view). In fact, these two seemingly formidable arguments are outweighed by obvioius wrongness of the plan. The problem stems from the fact that the overwhelming reasons NOT to build on that site are emotional and moral, while the arguments in favor or technical and legal.

The most disturbing part of the public debate is that the Muslim community, under the leadership of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, knows full well that the location is contentious. They know that it is an unnecessarily painful tribute to those who lost loved ones, and the millions more who sympathize with the bereaved.

In recent days, it was announced that Imam Rauf will be travelling as a goodwill ambassador of the United States to the Middle East courtesy of our own State Department. According to Department spokespersons, the Imam is a voice bridging any schism between Muslims and non-Muslims.

At the same time, others report some of Imam’s more provocative rhetoric and allege that he is a supporter or at least sympathizer of radical Muslimism. His supporters say that the Imam must maintain a balance in order to be effective. This is nonsense. If he cannot speak out against the wrongness of the murderous terrorists in every instance, he served no benefit as a conciliator. Rather, he only serves as an apologist for our enemies.

There is also the history of Muslims building mosques at the sites of great victories. So, is the determination to build this house of worship in the missing shadow of the Trade Towers an opportunity for conciliation and understanding – a bridge, if you will -- or is it some cultural celebration and symbol of victory to be telegraphed to the Muslim world.

The fact that the motivation is controversial suggest that the project should be relocated. Failure to do so gives credence to the more sinister motivation. If the local Muslims want to produce goodwill, it is obvious that respectfully changing the site would have the most positive impact. If they persist in pursuing the Ground Zero site despite the public reaction, it is obvious that they are not seeking to establish goodwill but to force their own will for their own parochial purposes.

I am at a loss to understand why New York Michael Bloomberg gave the mosque his full support and endorsement. Governor David Paterson was more correct in proposing an alternative site, which he would help to secure.

But what about the President.

Obama stuck with the technical legal position in saying the Muslims have a right to build the mosque at the chosen site. He deferred in expressing any opinion on the wisdom or morality of the decision. In ducking the most important issue, the President missed an opportunity for leadership. If he can call in a cop and a professor to the White House to settle a minor confrontation, certainly he could have called in the Imam and expressed his presidential displeasure with the current plan. He could have cancelled the Imam’s taxpayer paid trip to Mecca.

Obama’s call for tolerance and understanding for the Imam and his mosque begs the questions why the American president chose to side with international Muslimism over the suffering of the American victims, their families and the majority of the President’s constituents.

If Obama, Paterson and Bloomberg had joined together to negotiate an alternative site, I feel quite confident that the issue would have been resolved early on. Why they didn’t is the lingering question. Minimally, it is a shortsighted lack of leadership. More disturbingly, it was the obvious new found influence the Muslim world enjoys with the Obama administration.

I THINK … WikiLeaks and its founder need to be shut down.

It is reported that WikiLeaks is about to release another 15,000 top secret government documents to undermine the American war effort in Afghanistan and Iraq. Of course the White House is chagrinned, calling the action “irresponsible.”

My son not doing his chores before going to the beach – that is irresponsible. Giving out military secrets in war time, to aid the enemy and cause the deaths of American combatants and undercover operatives, is waaaay beyond “irresponsible.” It is treachery. It is treason.

WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange (pictured), has made himself an “enemy operative” – a terrorist by proxy. His actions will result in unnecessary allied deaths. No doubt about it.

As readers may know, I am not a fan of capital punishment. I am one of those seamless cloth pro-life types. However … my conscience does not ache over deaths of evil people that result from acts of self defense, whether it is stopping a home invader or in defense of the nation.

With that being said, we should declare Assange and his organization an active enemy and take him out. He is no more a journalist than Tokyo Rose was a legitimate news analyst. Shooting him is not my first choice, of course, but not off the list of possibilities. How about arrested. Kidnapped. Sent to CIA obedience school. If eliminating enemies is not a “responsible” role for our military or CIA, I am not sure what they are supposed to be doing.

One of the problems with NOT taking Assange out of action is that it gives license to others. I think if Assange and his cohorts were to be brought to justice, or even suddenly “disappear,” we would have a lot fewer copycats.

The “professional left” as White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs dubs them, will be outraged at my suggestion. Since they are nothing more than the cheering squad for American failure in the Middle East (and anywhere else on earth), I could care less. The sooner we render the radical left … oh, I mean the professional left … irrelevant to American policy, the sooner we can again become a great nation.

For those who wince at my suggestion, let me hear what you would do in this situation. I hope it is more than wagging a scolding finger as if Assange’s actions are nothing more serious than a high school prank. He is not an irresponsible bad boy. He is a dangerous anti-American operative.

I am not sure exactly when the media secured the expanded “right” to reveal American secrets. There is a distinct difference between a legitimate whistleblower uncovering wrong doing on the part of government officials and a traitor. Whistle blowing is quite different from stealing and revealing top secret strategic and tactical information that can harm our position in world affairs, undermine our ability to wage war and literally take the lives of those who serve this nation with honor and courage.

I THINK … Robert Gibbs reveals the truth about White House ambitions, perhaps unwittingly.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has stepped into the political doo-doo if you follow the reports of the mostly leftish press.

What most of my political colleagues call the “radical left,” Gibbs more politely calls the “professional left.” I actually like his term better. “Radical left” is a tautology – meaning that the adjective is unnecessary because both words mean pretty much the same thing. Now, “professional left” expands the understanding. Not only are the lefties “radical” America bashers, but they are “professional” – it is the self employed occupation -- or should I say preoccupation – that drives them rise up in opposition to America .

Gibbs went on to say that these professional lefties would never be satisfied unless kooky anti-war Congressman Dennis Kucinich was made Secretary of Defense and the White House imposed a Canadian-style health system. In his lament, Gibbs, perhaps inadvertently, mocks the anti war movement and all but confesses that the Canadian health system is not suitable for free market Americans. Further, he slaps down the folks who thought Barack Obama was their guy – the radical left or progressives, as they euphemistically call themselves.

The pundits on the left argue that Gibbs is tone deaf for attacking the President’s base. This is how out of touch they really are. The professional left (I like the sound of that) is no more Obama’s base than the John Birch Society is the base of the GOP. The radical left, loud as they may be, is still the fringe.

Entirely too much public debate centers around the level of Obama’s socialism – or fascism, as I prefer. This diverts attention from the real issue – the real concern. The Obama forces are “autonomatrons” – and by that I mean they seek autonomous power. They lean left, because that is the more traditional road to the consolidation of power. What the Obama White House is seeking is the rigging of the structure to ensure permanent empowerment by the liberal wing of the Democrat Party – or, to put it another way, themselves.

Never forget that Washington is now being ruled with Chicago style governance. If Chicago was a nation, it would be a fascist banana republic. The government model is not dissimilar to that of China, where one party rules with leaders chosen by an elite bureaucracy.

The Chicago crowd has the White House, with Obama as the figure head. The power behind the throne rests with a troika of David Axelrod, Rahm Emmanuel and Valerie Jarrett. All three of them (and I have known them all personally to some degree) see the acquisition of power as the primary rule of politics.

Over in the Senate, you have the significant influence of another take-no-prisoners partisan Democrat right out of the Chicago Machine – Senator Dick Durbin. If Senate President Harry Reid is defeated and the Dems hold onto the Senate majority, Durbin will likely take over that extremely powerful position.

If Nancy Pelosi retains the speakership, two branches of government will be in the hands of those who think – to paraphrase Civil War General Philip Sheridan -- the only good Republican is a dead Republican. Though not from Chicago, she comes out of a similar power-based political environment.

The point is that ideology and philosophy are not what drives these folks. They manipulate for power. What the Gibbs’ comments reflect is the White House’s recognition that the loony left is not only not their base, but largely irrelevant to their ambitions.

Under the marquee of liberal doctrine, the Chicago folks are carefully crafting policies of permanent empowerment. The White House programs should not be measured and debated on the liberal/conservative scale, but on the individual freedom/oppression gauge.

I THINK … our government is getting scary with seizure of children based on politics

Here is the situation. There is an illiterate couple in New Jersey who had the poor judgment to give their kids, ages 4, 3 and 2, offensive Nazi names. When the oldest turned 4, they went to a local bakery to get a decorated cake … “Happy Birthday Hitler.” The bakery refused and the story spread across the Internet and news media. Adolf eventually was provided a birthday cake, but just before the nannies of government removed him and his siblings from the family home.

Now, the government has announced that they will not return the kids to the parents, but rather are putting them in foster care – almost guaranteeing them severe trauma and lifelong “issues.” Of course, being named Adolf Hitler Campbell, Joycelynn Aryan Nation Campbell and Honzlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell could also create “issues” for them. So, it seems, the kids will have “issues” one way or the other.

I think the biggest problem is the birthday boy, A. H. Campbell. He gets the full name of the Antichrist. Apart from a formal name change (which seems inevitable for these kids), maybe he can soften it by not using the middle name (a common practice), or by becoming Al Campbell. Joycelynn can simply not use the middle names, which makes Joycelynn Campbell a rather fetching name. If you are unfamiliar with the Nazi-esque Honzlynn Hinler, you are not alone. Some think it is an off-the-mark reference to Heinrich Luitpold Himmler. That would be akin to my parents naming me Larry Patrick as a reference to a Chinese dynasty. But after Adolf Hitler and Arian Nation, you can see the basis for the assumption.

As stupid, offensive and inconsiderate as the names may be, does that justify making them wards of the state? Given this Hobson’s Choice, I still think taking the kids is the worse of two bad options. If I were in the middle of this, I would give the kids back to their parents and maybe counsel them into changing the names for the benefit of the kids. I think that is doable.

After all, one can see how giving children unpopular names can damage them for life -- limit their potential. (Why did the name Barack Hussein Obama suddenly jump into my head?)

Now the plot thickens.

Authorities now claim they are not returning the kids because of family violence. They refer to a letter the mother gave a friend in which she accused her husband of being a dangerous person. She has since recanted the accusations, and now claims Mr. Campbell is quite the ideal hubby and daddy.

The fact that the government rationale came AFTER the authorities took the kids is chilling. They exceeded their authority, both legal and moral, in the first place. Instead of issuing an apology, the authorities are trying to belatedly justify their actions. That is a classic abuse of government. Does it strike you as ironic that in revulsion to the children’s names, the New Jersey authorities are acting like … oh … Gestapo?

In my modest investigation, I could not find any previous problems with the parents or the kids. The latter seem rather healthy and happy – obviously too young to know their names are time bombs set to go off in the high school years. (Imagine some young Jewish princess announcing to her parents that she is going to the prom with Adolf Hitler.)

When you see how many truly endangered kids are NOT taken away by the state – often with tragic and fatal results – it is hard to imagine the justification for the removal of the Campbell kids. Show me kids in serious danger, and I will be the first to take them away from the parents, but not over matters of political opinion or stupidity – whichever defines the Campbell situation.

I say, give the kids back to the parents.

Footnote: This idea that kids should be removed from parents for political reasons is not new. You will recall the case of Elian Gonzalez, the young Cuban boy that created a national controversy when Florida relatives wanted him to stay in American even though he had a father, his only parent, in Cuba. After a lot of debate, we did the right thing. We sent the boy home to be with his father. A lot of my conservative friends got cranky because I joined the side of Elian’s dad. As a father, I have a very strong belief that family ties trump politics – even offensive politics.

I THINK ... the death of Dan Rostenkowski takes away one of the great political characters.

With the death of Dan Rostenkowski, or Rosty, as many of us knew him, a giant of a man has left the political stage. That can be said both figuratively and literally. The six foot, four inch former chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee towered over most members of congress in stature and in power. He was known around the congressional campus only as “Mr. Chairman” of “THE Chairman.” Even though there are scores of members of Congress with that title, anyone who was anyone knew who “Mr. Chairman” was. That’s power.

I have known Rosty long before he was called by title only. But even in his pre-Ways and Means chairmanship days, he was a formidable member of congress. Lots of congressmen get into fights over legislation, but Rosty was one of the few that could step in and settle them.

He was an old style Chicago Machine politician, as was his father. He had a gruff ward heeler demeaner at home, but could hold his own with any President or head-of-state passing through Washington. He was a laborite, but with scores of CEO buddies.

Thought more than a 40 year association with him, there are two periods that stand out.

In the early 1980s, as Executive Director of the City Club of Chicago, I was leading a long and seemingly hopeless effort to save the Chicago Theatre from the wrecking ball. On the eve of the successful conclusion of that fight, things when off track. The developers, led by attorney and political insider, Marshall Holleb, needed an Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG). These were being held up by the Reagan Administration, specifically by then-Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Sam Pierce.

Since he was already a supporter of my effort – politically and financially -- I traveled to Washington to seek Rosty’s help with the UDAG, After I explained the situation, Rosty asked his secretary to get Vice President George Bush on the line. Rosty made the case for the UDAG, then closed with this memorable line: “And tell the President, if he can’t give me this piddley UDAG to save the Chicago Theatre, he’ll have one pissed off chairman during the next round of tax reforms.”

The UDAG was granted, the Chicago Theatre was saved – and as a bonus I got the Vice President Bush as the headliner for my next City Club annual dinner.

A decade later, I was on opposite side of the partisan divide from Rosty, handling the congressional campaign of little-known Michael Flanagan. Mike was the David taking on the political Goliath. Even though Rosty was hammered by a serious of indictments for misusing public funds and public employees, he was considered a shoo-in. On the eve of the election, Associated Press lead off with a headline that Rosty was in a “cake walk” election. I told former WLS-TV political reporter Andy Shaw that we would take it by 10 points. No one took me serious. Flanagan won by ten.

Rosty’s defeat also exposed a bit of the unholy bipartisan central power structure in Illinois. On the morning after the election, Governor Jim Edgar hosted is traditional Republican victors breakfast. With Flanagan behind him on the stage, the Guv lamented the defeat of his “good friend” Dan Rostenkowski. But why not? Edgar was openly supporting Rosty throughout the campaign. Edgar would eventually aid and abet the return of that seat to the Democrats in the person of Rod Blagojevich, followed by Rahm Emmanual.

To the surprise of many, even after his election defeat, Rosty was as friendly to me as ever. That would seem impossible in today’s politics-as-blood-sport culture. In those days, partisanship was more like a boxing match. You were expected to fight hard to win partisan battles, but when the bell rang, the dukes were dropped and civility resumed. Rosty understand that culture, and he lived it.

For good or bad, Rostenkowski was the personification of the Chicago Machine. He was partisan. He loved “pork.” He was tough. He didn’t always play by the rules.

No matter if you were working with him, or against him, you had to love the guy. He will be missed.

I THINK … killing people because of alleged racism is … racism.

If you believe the spin, Omar Thornton killed 8 white co-workers at a beer distributorship in California because he was subjected to prolonged racism from his employer and colleagues. He left a recorded message to that effect, but failed to cite examples – just random ranting.

In fact, the most heinous act of racism was perpetrated by Thornton, himself. He killed 8 people because of their race … period. There were pattern of racism evident in the company, and no complaints from his African-American co-workers.

Oh! And what led to his termination? Video recordings and other evidence that he was stealing beer and reselling it privately. I suppose that was his way to bring justice to a honky society.

Balderdash!

You can argue that Thornton was insane, or you can argue that he was a malicious mass killer. What is beyond debate in a civilized society is that he is the guiltiest of all. His excuses, and those offered up by his girl friend and family, should not be taken seriously.

Black, white or green, Thornton was a killer, a psychopath and ablight on society. His only modicum of decency was to serve as judge, jury and executioner in ending his own life – saving society the trouble and expense of prosecution.

On the larger scale, it is about time that the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world stop placing their need for publicity above common sense and common decency. They enlarge the racism by pandering to paranoid sentiment and give post mortem license to the actions of people like Thornon. To give credence to Thornton’s excuse, they widen the racial divide the purport to rue.

The Jackson/Sharpton brand of racism was seen in the aftermath of the wrong verdict on O.J. Simpson, the controversy surrounding the Tawana Brawley “rape” case (pictured with Sharpton), the defense of racist Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and their statements in support of the provocative behavior of Harvard Professor Louis Gates, Jr. that led to his arrest. These two “ministers” will find and promote racism whenever there is personal advantage.

We will know when we have arrived at a post-racial America when the likes of Jackson and Sharpton have no more appeal and no more relevancy -- and I believe we are closer to that day than the fawning media yet knows.

I THINK … Elmwood Park, Illinois is taking a page from the Communist manifesto.

Sometimes the largely unnoticed issues are the most telling. Take the recent events in the middle American Chicago suburb of Elmwood Park (where my parents lived out the last years of their lives).

As a preface, you need to recall how public criticism of the old Soviet and pre-Nixon China was treated. Expressions of displeasure with the government would result in arrest or commitment to mental institutions. Anyone speaking out against the “wise leaders” -- even for the most modest of reasons – was punished as a malcontent, a nut or a criminal.

Now consider this.

An Elmwood Park city council committee chairman, Stephen Hipskind, recently ejected Darlene Heslop because she “rolled her eyes” in as a sign of disgust over the hiring of a $30,000 lobbyist. Ponder this for a moment … getting kicked out of a public meeting for a disparaging facial expression.

Such enforced “respect’ is opposed to everything America is about. We are a nation that protests our leaders, when we disagree. We yell out pejoratives, and scream out opposition. This is the American way. This is what personal freedom is about. This is what the First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees.

But wait! There is more.

Elmwood Park’s city attorney has been directed draft an ordinance to make it illegal to “disrupt” a government meeting with non verbal facial expressions or body language. Will this include frowning, shaking your head in a negative gesture, looking shocked, glaring, folding your arms across your chest or maybe just falling asleep? Where is the borderline of disrespectful or contemptible appearance? You can only imagine what would become of people who boo, hiss or groan. On the other hand, you can bet that clapping, cheers and attaboys would not be considered disruptive. I am not sure even the old Communists in Moscow and Beijing ever went that far.

This is just another example of how our populist republic is slowly evolving into elitist statism.

Disclaimer: The photo is for illustration purposes and not from the Elmwood Park meeting.

I THINK … I think a minor overreaction by a person should not cause a major overreaction by government.

Francis Hajosy (pictured left) is a 54-year-old high school teacher in Stafford, Connecticut. He threatened an unruly female student with taking her over his knee for an old fashion spanking for refusing to take her feet of the desk and sit properly. She raised the ante by taking a can of spray glue and defiantly shooting it to the air. When he grabbed her, she starting kicking at him. There was a bit of a scuffle, but Hajosy apparently managed to get her over his knee at least long enough to apply three or four slaps on her butt.

I think we could all agree that his handling of the situation was a bit extreme … things escalated. Minimally, he needed to be sent to the principal’s office, as they say. Assuming that this was an exceptional situation in an otherwise exemplary teaching career, I see this as something to be handled by school administrators, with apologies and punishment all around.

There are still a lot of well educated people alive today who can remember corporal punishment as a routine part of school discipline – especially in the Catholic school system I attended. The criminalization of academic corporal punishment and the decline of quality education are pretty much similar chronological charts. I am not sure that this is an unrelated coincidence. Lack of classroom discipline is a major factor in failed educational systems. However, I will leave that argument for others.

Instead of some administrative discipline, Hajosy was arrested and charged with second-degree breach of the peace (whatever in Hell that is) and fourth-degree sexual assault. A judge issued a protective order against Hajosy. He was suspended from his job indefinitely. Out on $5000 bond, he faces years in jail and a life of a registered sex offender – not to mention thousands of dollars in legal fees from criminal charges and a possible civil suit. Right or wrong, win or lose, this case can screw up his life for years to come.

Frankly, I don’t see sexual motivation in his actions. This is just another example of the neo-puritanical component of political correctness that runs in conflict with the flagrantly liberalized sexual mores of our times. Without further evidence, his motivation seemed to be punishment, and his flaw was an anger that blew away his common sense and good judgment at the moment. Happens to us all, at times.

I know all the anal retentive, politically correct libs are going to be outraged over my opinion on this matter. They will produce a litany of “what ifs.” They will wax on about some imaginary psychological scar that will doom this young lady to a life of therapy. They will elevate her humiliation to the level of trauma when, in fact, punishment and humiliation are Siamese twins. You cannot have one without the other. The strident left-wing feminists will call Hajosy’s actions a form of rape (which is a cruel disservice to anyone who really has been raped), and declare both Hajosy and me as insensitive male pigs.

Let me stress, I am not endorsing his actions, but think the punishment should fit the crime – or in my opinion the non-crime, in this case.

What we really have here is another small example of an overreaching government. Every problem in our lawyer-ruled society must be handled by the lawyer-run legislative, juridical or enforcement communities. I wonder if we will close the loop with a civil suit filed by parents against Hajosy, the school, the local board of education and whoever else some opportunistic attorney wishes to put on the list -- and on behalf of parents who are more motivated by money than justice.

With a sex component, Hajosy may well be placed into some government sex counseling program – which is intended to bring his thinking around to what he most likely already knows and embraces. These thought adjustment programs scare me. While seeming innocent enough at first glance, they smack of the thought control agencies depicted in futuristic sci-fi movies and novels and, for real, in the old Cold War Communist regimes in Russia and China.

When we are not allowed to settle difference between ourselves, or with minimal civic involvement, we are succumbing, inch by inch, to the oppression of a police state. One of the common retorts of yore was, “don’t make a federal case out of it.” In other words, don’t make it more than it is. Today, we seem to see government involvement as the first and only option.

As a parent, what would I do if this had happened to my daughter? First, I would want to know what behavior on her part caused the confrontation in the first place. I would want to know why she was unruly, disobedient and disruptive. I would talk to Hajosy and the principal in private to have them explain the behavior. I would demand an apology, BUT without absolving my daughter’s culpability.

In other words, I would have both Hajosy and my daughter sitting in the corner with the proverbial dunce cap. My fear is that Hajosy will be made a perverted criminal, and the girl’s bad behavior is not dealt with. I can almost see the smug look on her face. That would not be a good outcome for anyone.

I THINK … California should serves as a BAD example.

I did not mind that we followed California’s lead into elements of the sexual revolution. I did not mind following the casual dress code for business. I was okay with the pseudo healthy life style. I was not okay with avocados and pineapple slices on what they call “pizza,” however. But, that is off my point.

More specifically, I wonder how far the rest of America will follow California’s go-for-broke financial schemes. In some cases, I guess pretty far. Here in Illinois we embrace it completely – which explains why we are heading into financial ruin, ourselves.

Because the tax raising Democrats and the cost cutting Republicans in the state legislature cannot agree, California is not only without any money, they still cannot produce the obligatory state budget to distribute the money they do not have.

The failure to create the budget has lead Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to order all state employees, except union members, to be paid only at the minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. The State Comtroller refused to obey the Governor. The Governor went to court. The legal battle rages atop the legislative fight.

There is no doubt that Schwarzenegger’s will create a hardship for thousands of employees, and, if prolonged, could result in repo’d cars, house foreclosures and mounting bills. Consequently there is a lot of anger being directed at Governor Steroids. But, he is not the culprit. The anger should be cast at the Democrats, at all levels of state and municipal government, who spent California into bankruptcy.

They have followed the Keynesian, socialist economic model for years. Maybe that is even unfair to Kenyes and the socialist. Maybe it is merely the Democrats nature to buy political support with taxpayer money without much consideration to economic theories or realities.

Keep in mind the budgetary deadlock in California is between the tax-increase Democrats and the cost-cutting Republicans – and this is mirrored all over America, especially in Washington, D.C. Even before we fight over cutting taxes, which is exactly what we need to do to get the economy growing, we need to resolve the money debate of the moment. Do we increases taxes (or borrow even more of our children’s future) to cover and continue the spending frenzy, or do we place a moratorium on increased government spending and figure out how to cut it in real dollars.

Remember, the Democrats will never stop spending, taxing and borrowing. It is there nature. They are a political party that depends on people being dependent on them.

While I feel sorry for those who will suffer if the $7.25 wage is imposed, it is sadly true that California has earned its economic punishment. Rather than follow the California example, we should be running from it. Personally, I prefer the Indiana example – maybe more about that another time.

I THINK ... we need to resurrect our historic concept of treason.

It is reported in Politics Daily that Wikileaks has released to publications all over the world more than 90,000 top secret documents relating to the military and diplomatic situation in Afghanistan -- and this is not the first time.

The sole purpose of the leak is to undermine our war effort … pure and simple. It will embolden our enemies, weaken our allies and cost the lives of untold numbers of military and intelligence personnel. Perhaps we cannot yet put an exact number on the latter, but additional loss of life is inevitable.

The White House, through National Security Advisor James Jones, strongly condemned the action and complained that Wikileaks did not contact them first.

Condemn the action? This is what you get from liberal governance … words. I can only imagine what our reaction would be if Ronald Reagan were President at this time.

We are in war, and giving out military secrets is treason. It is about time we enforce the laws against treason without sympathy. The First Amendment rights and the tradition of a free press do not entitle individuals or organizations to release and publish secret documents. There are no nuances.

Unless President Obama enforces the treason laws and brings to swift justice all those who now flaunt them, he will again prove that his left wing global philosophy trumps the traditions and laws of the United States of America, and the Constitution which he has sworn to uphold.

When you couple this with his refusal to secure our southern border for political purposes and his willingness to enter into international pacts detrimental to the power and wealth of the United States, it is no wonder that a significant percentage of the public consider him the first un-American President.

I THINK … it’s time to lay the blame for America’s poor quality urban education where it belongs – on the education industry, the unions and the polit

I have been a consultant to the Chicago and Detroit Boards of Education during brief times of reform. I have even traveled to Lithuania to consult on the then new, post-Community school system. I was the founder of the first school choice coalition in Illinois, etc. etc.

I say this just to establish that I know something about American education. The situation is not so complicated. Our public schools are failing … ah … have failed … because of politics. This is not accident. In most major cities, tens of thousands of blossoming minds are trampled down for political and financial gain.

Kids are kept prisoners in substandard schools with inferior education because they are the currency that provides the education unions with members, money and political power. The political value of each kid can be calculated through wages, dues and pension funds.

Why has so much money produced so little good? If you think the “good” is the education of our young people, you are wrong. No wonder you are confused. For most urban school systems, the “good” is the money for the teachers, the unions, the suppliers, the contractors, the support services … and oh yeah … the politicians. As long as these folks are rich, fat and happy, the education machine is running properly – to hell with the kids.

There is no good reason that we cannot give our kids the best education in the world. It is done all the time. It is done in the Catholic Schools. It is done in private schools. It is done charter schools. It is even done in hundreds, maybe thousands, of suburban and rural public school systems.

The big urban school systems do not fail because they cannot teach kids, or because kids come from poor families and single-parent homes. They do not fail because of classroom size. They do not fail because of drugs. They do not fail for lack of money. They fail because the politician and the union officials want them to fail.

How can I say something so outrageous? All you have to do is look at the many examples of quality education, and you know that the failure of the urban government run schools is no accident, no inevitable fate, and no force major. It is the simply the unholy trade off for money and power that dooms the children of the cities.

You want proof that inner city kids can be educated. There are many examples – way back when Marva Collins ran Chicago’s Westside Prep in the heart of the ghetto (and you can download the resulting Hollywood movie).

Maybe it is not a movie yet, but check out Chicago’s Urban Prep Academy. The Class of 2010 will be sending 100% of the graduates to four-year colleges. That’s right. The entire senior class is going to college.

Urban Prep is not some fancy school in an upscale neighborhood that accepts a few promising inner city kids out of noblis oblige. This is a totally minority school in the heart of Chicago’s black ghetto. The kids now graduating were previously on the path of joblessness, gang membership and menial jobs or crime.

The point is … if there is a sincere effort to educate kids, we can do it. If we do not do it, it is because we don’t want to – or, I should say, they don’t want to.

It’s time we stop giving the urban school industry the benefit of the doubt. They are in the business of destroying the kids’ education for political and financial gain. Until that ends, no amount of money will fix the problem – maybe make it worse.

I THINK ... GOP National Chairman Michael Steele should resign.

I was all in favor of Michael Steele becoming the head of the Republican National Committee. In fact, I made a number of calls in support of his candidacy. I could think of nothing better than a conservative African American to be one of the key voices in opposition to President Barack Obama’s far left agenda.

I got what I asked for, but I did not think to ask that the person be intelligent and skilled.

Steele has a history of foot-in-mouth statements, but none can compare to his remarks about the Afghan War made to a crowd of donors. Maybe he thought the insider session was off the record, but even that does not excuse the ineptitude of his remarks. Basically, he said the Afghan War was started by Obama, and that it is unwinnable.

His facts are so provably wrong that it is impossible to understand how he could not know better. Is he that ill-informed … or does he think he can heap blame on Obama with his own version of the facts? Does he think his audience is that stupid?

In addition to his case based on ignorance or malicious misinformation, Steele also joined the extreme left wing in suggesting we should pull out immediately – the consequences be damned. If there is any unifying issue in America these days, it is the broad belief that we must win in Afghanistan. Only the crazies think America can walk away – and apparently Michael Steele.

The GOP has a good and important message to convey to the American people in this election year. It should not be diminished or demeaned by the foolish and counterproductive rhetoric of those who prattle.

As National Chairman, Steel possesses one of the most important Republican megaphones. Despite his next day public apology and position reversal, it is time for him to pass that amplifier to someone with the knowledge and skills to convincingly articulate the GOP message. Political insider stuff aside, I would give the job to Newt Gingrich. Far and away, he is the best spokesperson the GOP has. In any event, Michael Steele needs to go -- sooner than later.

I THINK ... Mayor Daley should be made to to write the Second Amendment on a blackboard 100 times, so he gets it.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

I THINK ... there is no economic recovery with Obama-nomics.

It appears that the “recovery” recently proffered by President Obama and his Democrat cohorts is now falling into relapse -- at least that is the latest report from the economic wunderkind. We should not be surprised.

First: There has been no recovery. Oh sure, the stock market had some gains, foreclosures abated a bit and the rate of new joblessness started to level off. Don’t those things suggest recovery? Nope!

First of all, the stock market tends to respond to corporate profitability. Profits go up. Stocks go up. The reason, however, is not good. Corporate America’s bottom line starting looking better because of cost cutting, not increased sales – and cost cutting was largely in the workforce. That is why the stock market rose and unemployment did not go down.

Second: The Obama stimulus package was largely a waste of money. It was more like a pain killer that makes the pain lessen until it wears off. Now that the stimulus money passed through the financial system, the same old economic headache has returned. This is what happens when we treat only the symptoms and ignore the disease.

Finally: Obama did very little to fix the real problems. His attempts to have the government produce growth by financing work projects is a loser. Never worked, and never will. Remember, every time Obama says the federal money will create spending, and therefore jobs, he does not want you to understand that he took away the money, through taxes, from people who would have spent it, themselves.

His age-old scheme simply redistributes wealth from those who oppose him to those who support him. Obama is using the economic downturn as cover to impost his big government agenda on the United States. He is operating more like a looter who uses a disaster as a cover for his actions. It may be good Machiavellian politics, but certainly not good economics.

You might counter by noting that a lot of the money being spent by Obama is not from taxes, but from borrowing or simply printing more money. Borrowing only insures that we will have a much larger financial crisis in the future. He is literally stealing out children’s and grandchildren’s … and by this time maybe eve our great grandchildren’s ... money. This means a lower standard of living for future generations. This is not only bad economics, but immoral.

Printing money is another short term solution that will bring hyper inflation to a nation that will be, by then, reeling on the brink of economic chaos. They call it “stagflation.” Keep in mind that inflation can feel good because wages go up. This is not economic growth, as Obama and the Keynesians would have you believe. When you go to spend your wages at the store, you will find that your “buying power” will be no better, or even worse, as prices soar.

Government spending is often compared to a narcotic, since there is a certain short term good feeling followed by an inevitable crash – and people and institution do get “hooked” on government money.

Brace yourself for a rocky economic ride for the foreseeable future. For real relief, we should be looking at 2014 – two years after we toss out Obama and the Democrat leadership. If we do not, the long term outlook is grim.

I THINK ... the post office is like any government agency.

Every now and then, when a person is inclined to think government can do something ... anything … right, you are gifted with reality – sometimes with the most modest of examples.

Not long ago I received a letter from the United States Post Office. They explained that they were returning the contents of an envelope that they could neither deliver to the “unknown” addressee nor return it without opening the envelope. They returned my enclosed check and the accompanying brief note – finding my name printed on the check and apparently doing some sort of search to secure my address. I mean, if the Post Office cannot find your address, who can?

On the surface, it seems like pretty good service. However, you may change your mind when you learn that the check was made out to and mailed to … Ready for this? … the United States Post Office. That’s right. Apparently, they could not find their own address.

Sort of reminds me about the time I tried to call the phone store, only discover that they had an unlisted number.

Obama is no socialist

I THINK ... President Obama is not a socialist.

So, stop calling him one! He is not!

He is a fascist, and about that, I am not kidding.

First you must remember that he and his cadre are products of the Illinois (nee Chicago) Machine, the “banana republic” of American politics. It is that same form of government that produced Franco Spain, Mussolini Italy, Hitler Germany and the old dictatorships of South and Central America, Illinois. Yes, Chicago is a classic dictatorship – a fascist dictatorship.

For more than two generations, we feared and loathed Communist socialism, forgetting about the fascism we crushed in Europe in World War II. Our “eternal vigilance” has been so focused on the failed, frail and fading extreme socialism that we hardly recognize the threat of fascism.

Knowing the basic distinction between the two is critical to understanding why we are not sufficiently alarmed by what is happening in Washington. Socialism means the government taking over all aspects of civic life. In socialistic society, the government owns and operates everything. Except for the most minimal human interaction, there is no private sector, no personal property, and no inalienable individual rights that trump the pseudo rights of the collective as determined by an elite minority.

Like socialism, fascism is an authoritarian and elitist doctrine (again I refer you to Chicago), but with one great difference – maybe more in appearance than reality, but significant nonetheless. In fascism, the private sector succumbs to the power of the central government, but does not lose its technical private status. The great businesses become quasi governmental entities. The business leaders become less entrepreneurs and more like bureaucrats.

We can see this in the creation of Fannie May and Freddie Mac – two “banks” that are as much public sector a private. With the passage of the so-called financial reform legislation, the small banks are put to virtually fatal competitive disadvantage, while the big banks morph into Fannie and Freddie-type institutions. The Healthcare legislations is nothing less than a “great leap forward” for government run medicine.

The co-opting of General Motors is yet another example. Unlike a loan or the bailout that was given to Chrysler a generation ago, GM comes under the management control of the federal government. Through the use of unelected “czars” and bureaucrat overlords, GM is effectively being owned and operated by the central government. Obama even talks about hiring and firing officers. Car dealerships are now doled out by liberal congressmen to friends and contributors.

There is movement toward bringing other industries under “regulatory control,” such as energy and agriculture. Among the more ominous proposals is the “bailing out” of the old media companies, such as the New York Times and the Chicago tribune. Combined with efforts to force pro government viewpoints onto the media by edict, the independence of our “free” press is significantly imperiled. You should be thinking Pravda here.

One of the reasons we are blind to fascism is that it appears to align with free market conservatism – which is totally inaccurate. When bailing out (co-opting) Wall Street, it appears that the Obama administration is siding with a conservative business community – the private sector. This is the dangerous myth. Any true conservative abhors the neo-fascists business leaders as much as anyone.

For those who take the time to notice, the current crop of business leaders are not free market zealots, but fellow travelers of the “big brother” types who now control our federal government. They are buying into the unholy partnership. Their chief mission is personal wealth, power and glory – with little regard for America’s entrepreneurial tradition and dying spirit. In short, the fanged wolf of fascism is better able to hide beneath the lamb skin of capitalism. Socialism has no disguise.

Despite their pro-big government bias, the independent trade unions will be big losers. Already, the gigantic public sector unions, such as _______ and _______, are turning into the 500 pound gorillas. The United Auto Workers are already co-opted by the GM take over. Trade unionism will survive, but only as a government agency of sorts -- like those in China.

As President Lincoln once feared, we are a nation divided. The anxiety and conflict we see at the grassroots is due to the fact that we have reached the fulcrum between the dominance of individual free-market capitalism that gave America its strength and the highest standard of living in the world and fascism's road to an oppressive central government and the eventual decline and fall of the American democracy, as we know it.

Under Obama, and the Chicago Way, we are most certainly moving swiftly toward a stronger and more dominant federal government. No sane person can auger against that. This path leads inevitably to authoritarianism. Socialism and fascism cannot prevail in a society were power is truly derived from, and exercized by, the masses.

The American fate is sealed unless this country has the strength and the understanding to not only slow down the intrusion of the federal government into all aspects of our daily lives, but to commence a rollback that will restore the powers of the several states and the municipal governments. It is there where the people have their strongest influence, and there where matters of education, welfare, police protection, etc. can be most responsively and economically managed.

If we continue to be suckered into thinking that all matters of our daily lives must be addressed by the distant federal government, we are witnessing the last days of "the great American experiment in democracy."

Of human bondage ... liberal style

I was pondering our current economic and political situation and for some reason the term "slaves of the state" popped into my mind.

We know that the term had real meaning to the peasants of ancient China, the pyramid builders in the days of the pharaohs, the serfs of medieval Europe, the subjects of potentates, and even the proletariat of Communist Russia. In fact, it was not until the democratic experiment of the Greeks and Romans did mankind begin to envision of system of governance that was based on the assumed or God-given authority and inalienable rights of the governed. This has led to a growing global era of political, social and economic enlightenment -- and freedom. Central to political freedom was economic freedom -- to own property and freely distribute the earnings of one's labor. However, the forces of totalitarianism are an ever present danger.

Under one system, the people derive their rewards and success from the beneficence of the state -- be it a regime or an autocrat. You obey the rules of the state, turn over the fruits of your labor to the state for redistribution and accept the paternalistic care -- at least minimal care -- from the state according to the power elite's will, whims and their need to remain in power.

The key to any slavery is that the benefits of your labor are confiscated for the benefit of the slave master, first and foremost -- and subsequently doled out to those who support the system. In most cases, you, the peasant, receive only the barest of sustenance in return -- only a fraction of the value of your labor.

The key question is: When do you and I become slaves to the state? At which point is the confiscations of our personal wealth tantamount to slavery?

This is not a frivolous question. Most "slavery" does not come in the form of kidnapping, being sold to some private enterprise and whipped into submission. In fact, most slavery is the result of authoritarian governance -- slaves to the state. It can come by sweeping change as was the case in Chile, when the generals overthrew the democratically elected government. But, more often it comes by slow erosion, as the corruptive influence of power consumes more of our rights and freedoms with the false promise to improve the quality of our lives.

The most common characteristics of slavery is a wealthy elite and an impoverished captive laboring class. It is the same whether the enslaved is chattel or just subjected to the dependency on government for life's minimal essentials. If you look closely, you realize that the residents of the American socialist ghettos are captive -- stuck in generational poverty and segregated, figuratively and literally, from the personal opportunities of free market America.

You not only find slavery in America's Old South, but in every society governed by rulers. The evidence of the suffering of the masses in undemocratic societies is so overwhelming as to be indisputable. All-powerful governments produce deprived masses. It can be called communism, socialism, Marxism, feudalism, or whatever. The more the state possess decision-making power over the lives of the governed, the more the governed are "slaves of the state."

Many liberal political science professors like to proffer the theoretical benefits of a "benevolent dictatorship" as the potentially best form of government. However, significant examples of this "ideal" are impossible to find. Therefore it is safe to say that the more a government confiscates the value of our productivity, the more we are enslaved. More government means less freedom. Simple as that.

The Greco/Roman precepts of democracy have given those who live under them the most advanced and highest standard of living in history. Political freedom, the right to own property, pick our leaders, and engage in free market enterprise have brought the commoner personal wealth beyond the wildest imagination -- far better than even those in this modern world who are still enslaved to their state.

While state-desired innovation has occurred under totalitarian regimes, it pales compared to the staggering progress achieved for the masses under free market capitalism. The Soviet Union did not sire the technology that got them into space or balanced our nuclear advantage. They stole it. And while the Russians and Red Chinese were able to focus on specific competitive military technologies (the so-called "arms race"), the people of their nations lived two centuries behind the average American.

As Ronald Reagan said, we are always only one generation away from totalitarianism. The democratic revolution in France, that was to mimic our own, ended with the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte. The more democratic Mensheviks of the Russian Revolution were crushed by the brutal statism of the Bolsheviks. Democracies are always threatened by forces, internal and external, which would enslave the public. This is why Thomas Jefferson admonished us to "eternal vigilance."

So, what is the point.

The point is that we have every reason to be fearful with what is happening in Washington today. It is currently calculated that we already work for government from January 1 until mid August -- more than half a year. This means that more than half of the wealth you and I earn is confiscated and redistributed by government. For most of the year, we already are "slaves of the state."

As if that is not bad enough, we now have a regime in Washington determined to extend or servitude even more. Like all would-be dictatorship, they claim that the government must provide the benefits to society since you and I are not either capable enough or good enough. Like all statists, the radical Democrats currently in power demonize the producers of wealth as greedy and immoral -- and only their government can protect the poor, the infirmed, the needy, and the very natural world in which we live from the evil of our intentions.

This sounds good, like the pitch of the snake oil salesman, but look at the reality of their world. We need not look to history or overseas to find the examples of socialistic statism. Detroit was a city run by radical socialists. The most "liberal" (read that socialistic) states in America are on the verge of economic collapse.

After a speech in a African American church in one of Chicago's Democrat-run ghettos, I was challenged by an young lady to explain what free markets and capitalism has done for her. I told her, "Nothing." Before she got too smug, I explained that she does not live in free market American. She is trapped in socialist America -- an island of socialism surrounded by the obvious benefits for capitalism.

I often refer to the plight of modern inner city African Americans as the second great enslavement. They are trapped in dependency on the meager hand out of the government masters. Like the American slavery that ended with Abraham Lincoln, the new and more subtle economic slavery of today results in depravation of housing, depravation of food, depravation of healthcare, depravation of education, depravation of mobility and depravation of personal freedom. For meager considerations, the slaves of yore were to pick cotton. Today, the enslaved minorities provide the political plantation owners with votes.

More than anything, our founders were small "d" democrats, and more than anything they feared unbridled government as the enemy of the people. "The government that governs least, governs best." "A government that can give you anything, can take away everything." Their warnings ring through their writings, which, by no coincidence, are no longer taught in our government-run schools.

One can argue the extend of the danger in Washington today, but can anyone really say that we are not moving in the direction of an authoritarian regime? Already, the grip of Washington is so strong that many see it as inconceivable to take back the influence of the federal government.

Over the course of my blogs, I will examine this most critical issue from different perspectives.