The Progressives--A Long Range Plan--Part 4

Wilson's first term concentrated on issues dealing with domestic policy. The Revenue Act passed in 1913 lowered tariffs and gave us the 16th Amendment imposing the Federal Income Tax. The 17th Amendment, being considered by some for repeal, gave us the direct election of senators now no longer responsible to the citizens of their home state. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 provided a central banking system so that we had flexible currency and the rediscounting of commercial paper. We gained the Federal Farm Loan Act that provided federal assistance to farmers and established the National Park system with the National Park Service Act of 1916. And let's not forget the Clayton Antitrust Act and its impositions on big business.

Wilson's second term was taken up by World War I or "the war to end all wars." To Wilson's credit he did not rush the country into the war in Europe until certain issues forced his hand. He did offer to mediate the war and he did not move to build up the army probably something he regretted. His comment to the peace faction in the US was that an army build up would be to provocative. Indeed, Wilson got himself in trouble in Philadelphia while making a speech where he declared that "sometimes a nation can be too proud to fight."

Wilson was not inactive when it came to criticizing the warring nations. He warned Germany about her submarine warfare because the Germans made it perfectly clear they would attack those who supplied England.That came true when the Lusitania was sunk by German subs killing American passengers. One would think that the sinking of the Lusitania would be enough to cause America to go to war but that was not the case because the Germans promised to restrict submarine attacks to combatants. That did not work because Germany was losing the war.

The issues that took America into World War I were the Zimmerman note and Germany's decision to renew unrestricted submarine warfare on noncombatants. Germany made overtures to Mexico. They suggested that Mexico invade the United States and when Germany won the war Mexico would be given the land they had lost to the US. This infuriated Wilson and he asked and received a declaration of war against Germany and her allies. Wilson told the public that this was a war to make "the world safe for democracy." It was America's entrance into the war that caused the defeat of Germany and her allies Austria-Hungary and Turkey.

What we need to pay attention to is what happened at home after Wilson took us to war. The Congress passed and Wilson signed the Espionage Act in 1917. This made it illegal to pass information on to the enemy or convey false information to any branch of the United States military.

In 1918, the Sedition Act was passed. It prohibited citizens from speaking, printing, or writing anything bad about the United States government or military. Government officials such as the postmaster general had the power to stop the delivery of mail if he deemed it to come under the Sedition or Espionage Act. All foreign publications had to be translated and approved by censors. If American publications did not obey their newsprint could be shut off effectively ending their ability to publish.

Citizens were not to speak out against the government in their own homes. Jonah Goldberg points out in his work, "Liberal Fascism" that a man in Wisconsin was put in jail for two and a half years for criticizing a fund raising drive by the Red Cross. Another incident concerned a movie showing British troops committing atrocities during the American Revolution got the producer a ten year jail term. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stated that these actions, that saw tens of thousands of Americans being arrested, were constitutional. Does any of this sound familiar?

Historically speaking, my history teachers and professors taught that this was all okay. One came away with the impression that all these policies and all the new government agencies created to implement these policies were necessary to help the downtrodden and create a safe home front. We had emergencies that we had to deal with and only the government could do that. Now an expanse of time has passed and we are able to do a critical analysis of the Progressives. Good causes or not the Progressives showed a willingness to interfere in areas not supported by the Constitution. They did this and do this because they believe that we are unable to fulfill the legacy left to us by Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers. Thus government must take over and direct us and spend our money for us. Government knows best.

With the passage of time we can see clearly the path of the new Progressives who by changing their name from liberals, what they became at the end of the Wilsonian era, are going back to their roots. They speak of unity and centralization. They believe that government knows best. They constantly speak of change something that has devastated our education system. They bring wars that seem to need fighting yet they are wars to enhance their grip on our country. In the words of the immortal Pogo, "We have met the enemy and he is us." And that "us" can show up as a Progressive liberal or a compassionate conservative Republican.

The Progressives--A Long Range Plan--Part 3

By the time he walked into the White House on March 4, 1913, Woodrow Wilson had acquired a heavy resume. Son of a founder of the Southern Presbyterian Church who had also served as a Chaplin in the Confederate Army, Wilson was an 1879, graduate of Princeton. He attended the University of Virginia for one year when he returned home probably because of his health. He entered the law firm of an old U of V classmate and passed the Georgia Bar. He was not all that happy as an attorney so he applied to and was accepted at Johns Hopkins where he earned a PhD in history and government in 1886. To date he is the only president who obtained a doctoral degree. He would go on to serve as president of his Alma Mater at Princeton and as governor of New Jersey from January 17,1911-March 1, 1913.

Wilson was a member of the Democrat Party. He was a major figure during the Progressive movement of the early twentieth century. As such he was a man interested in change including the changing of the Constitution a document he considered cumbersome. At on point, Wilson stated that we should work to bring "the Executive and Legislature closer together". What Wilson was really looking at was taking our government over to a parliamentary system similar to that of Great Britain's. He was not a fan of our system of checks and balances because it was impossible to lay blame for any problem that might arise.

Wilson's time in office is very interesting in that his first term was consume with the implementation of his domestic agenda. Wilson ran on a platform calling for a "New Freedom". He promised that he would make changes to the antitrust laws, reform currency and banking regulations and revise the tariff. Indeed he accomplished many of his goals.

In 1913, Congress passed and Wilson signed the Underwood Tariff that lowered rates and revenue from tariffs. We made up the shortfall of funds by passing Amendment 16 that gave Congress the right to levy and collect the now infamous income tax.

Wilson initiated a series of acts to help farmers by providing farm extension agent who assisted farmers by teaching them new farming methods. WOW teaching farmers how to farm. Maybe those that did not know how to do that should have been in another vocation.

Laws to curb child labor, assist seamen, help the railroad and the unions were also part of the New Freedom Wilson espoused. A big change came with the Federal Trade Commission whose purpose was to stop trade practices that were deemed unfair.

One major piece of legislation was the Clayton Antitrust Act. This act differed from Sherman in that the Sherman Antitrust Act, passed in 1890, was designed to break up the Trusts, large companies becoming monopolies. Clayton made inroads because it was aimed at stopping what was deemed to be anti-competitive practices in a competitive market. Thus price fixing, forcing retailers to not sell another companies goods, and certain mergers or purchases of other companies could fall under the provisions of the Clayton Antitrust Act. The major move by the government was that the officers of such a company could be held accountable yet interestingly enough was that Clayton exempted labor unions and agricultural organizations.

The argument can and has been made that government had to become involved because the times were such that people were suffering and something had to be done. But is this the way a people who live in a republican form of government are suppose to act? With the Clayton Antitrust Act, Wilson introduced identity politics to the political arena and it was an item that would not only continue to grow but would create an anger within the country that may not be fixable.

Sam's Club and Rice

I want all of you to realize that this entry is a direct result of a news story declaring that Sam's Club, and certainly it is only a matter of time before other grocers join in, has rationed rice that comes in 20lb. bags. Someone, I presume at Sam's or maybe the evil Wal-Mart, has come to the conclusion that folks buying rice in large quantities are hoarding and trying to escape the escalating price of food. God forbid you should decide to take care of you and yours. There was a time when this would have been considered frugal behavior. Indeed, it is my understanding that those who belong to the Mormon religion ask their members to keep a couple years of food on hand in case of hard times.

Rationing is something we usually associate with shortages. If we do have a rice/food shortage we must ask why. Let me give you two words, government subsidies. We have been subsidizing American farmers for one reason or another ever since the depression. We are at it again in that we are subsidizing them to grow corn so that we can turn it into ethanol and burn it. I thought it was dumb to use petroleum to make polyester and plastic and wear it. This ethanol thing is one of the stupidest things we have ever done. Why are we doing this? We are engaged in the War on Global Warming or Climate Change, the latest war in the strategy of the Progressives.

Government officials would tell you that we subsidize agriculture because we want to save the small farmer. I would suggest that the small farmer disappeared with the Romans. What we are really doing is subsidizing Big Farming and bad agricultural practices.

In reality we probably have too many farmers in the country who continue to do the same things they have been doing since World War I. They grow crops. If the farmers in an area have a good crop that year in that region they all have a good year. Price for the crop in a surplus year will go down because there is too much product. In a bad year all the farmers will be low on product but price will be up. Unfortunately the farmers will not have a lot to sell. Costs, meanwhile, continue to go up for equipment and those fluids needed to run that equipment. Right now there are farmers growing corn for ethanol and they are not making money because the price of gasoline and diesel is through the roof. Meanwhile commodity prices are going crazy and the speculators have pushed those prices through the roof. Do the farmers consider growing something other then corn or whatever the major crop is for their region. Seldom do they do this. I live in Pennsylvania. My wife and I have put in a garden this year. Summer and winter squash, tomatoes, peas, carrots, radishes, zucchini, lettuce, cauliflower, broccoli, are but a few things in our garden. Farmers' fields will be full of corn, soybeans, and hay. Talk about your diversity and forward thinking.

Are we really looking at a food shortage? Are food prices going to make gas prices look like a good deal? Are we going to continue to allow the hoax of Climate Change? Isn't Al Gore's green hedge fund enough proof of what this is all about? Are you going to let them buffalo you on the ethanol matter, a fuel that requires 100 gallons of petroleum to make 90 gallons of ethanol a fuel that will give us lower mileage per gallon and is dirtier then what we have?

We subsidize farmers and the price of food goes up. We subsidize oil companies and they don't drill for oil or build refineries. We subsidize schools and test scores go down. We subsidize colleges and the cost goes up as the money goes to the likes of Ward Churchill. Without subsidies Ward Churchill would not be a professor and Colorado University would not be there. Can you find the common key here? Keep in mind that it is today's Progressives, Clinton, Obama, Pelosi, Reed, and indeed compassionate Bush, are up to their eyeballs in this. Take a close look at the picture on this entry, it is cat food. Is it the meal of the future for you and me

The Progressives--A Long Range Plan--Part 2

How are you feeling? A bit worn out? Tired? Well you should because you are at War. Oh, I know. You're here in the states not in some foreign country like Iraq or Afghanistan. Still, you are at war.


Like most Americans you get up in the morning and prepare yourself for the day. Shower, brush your teeth, shave, comb your hair, dress and show up at the breakfast table. So far so good. The wife is smiling and the kids are being kids getting ready for school or play. Then you do what you do every morning, you turn on the radio to catch the news. By the time you're done with your toast, maybe even your cereal, you feel like someone has been hitting you with a baseball bat for several weeks. The problems seem overwhelming. You ask yourself, what is going on here? What is going on are the wars being waged by the Progressives.

The Progressives learned with World War I that war was their friend. They were able to unite the people around this dreaded emergency and have the government take greater control of the country. War was good.

I am not talking about war that is carried on against a foreign enemy in places like Iraq or Afghanistan. I am talking about nice wars. Wars that we would almost leap to participate in because they are truly a good cause. Take the first good war, the one to get you to wear your seat belt. Wear your belt because it will save your life. However, many opted not to wear the belt something they believed was their right to do. Well, the Progressives then made seat belt wearing mandatory and if you got caught not wearing it you received a ticket and a fine. Progressives, the state, knows what is best for you.

While Teddy Roosevelt was the first Progressive president bringing us trust busting of big business, Woodrow Wilson put us firmly on the road to government control of the population. Wilson was a centerist. At the age of 29, he wrote "Congressional Government" wherein he suggested that America become a centralized parliamentary government. Indeed he stated the it was our checks and balances system that was making life difficult. Wilson took his cue from Roosevelt after he saw how successful Roosevelt was in using the presidential "bully pulpit".

Wilson used World War I to bring government and private businesses together with the War Industries Board and Wilson allowed them to make their own regulations. The private business guys must have thought that they had died and gone to heaven.

But there was more to be done. Once government and business were involved in the first of many private-public relationships, the folks had to be convinced. Wilson created the Committee on Public Information or CPI and put George Creel, a former muckraker, in charge. The CPI was our first ministry of propaganda. It multiplied like so many rabbits. In the end the CPI had twenty subdivisions.

Wilson filled his administration with additional muckrakers and liberals. Clarence Darrow who defended evolution in the Scopes Trial, said that he questioned a man's patriotism if he asked the terms of peace. Children were asked to sign "'A Little American's Promise'" where they pledged to clean their plate and pray for America.

Now you might say what is wrong with all of this. On the face of it nothing at all. In reality it was the first foot of the government coming through the door.

The Progressives--A Long Range Plan--Part 1

One of my major concerns and gripes about America and Americans was our inability to look into the future and make a plan for it. Other nations, most notably China, have been able to develop policies that seem to take into account what the world might be like decades out and maybe even longer. But I must admit that I have erred about this for the Progressives did develop a plan and it is being put into place.

The term Progressive Era conjures up in the mind of many people progress. Indeed progress was made. There are, however, two questions that must be asked. What type of progress was made and at what cost, if any, to the populace and our system of government as described in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

The Progressives came into being because of the turmoil in this country during the time period spanning 1890-1920. Unions were attempting to make headway on matters such as wages and benefits. Radical political elements were in place ranging from populists, to socialists and anarchists. Striking workers engaged in battles not only with management, they also rioted in the streets and fought the local and state police. The political elements wanted to overthrow the government and replace it with their own brand. Enter the Progressives.

To put it bluntly, the Progressives believed that the best way to solve the nation's problems was through centralization and government regulation. Regulate the big companies referred to as Trusts and if necessary force them to break into smaller entities. Keep in mind that the Constitution would have to be ignored and Teddy Roosevelt was willing to do just that.

Teddy was a piker when compared to Woodrow Wilson. At first glance Wilson looks like a meek, mild manner college president and indeed he was. He served as President of Princeton from 1902-1910. Wilson believed that since Congress was so cantankerous and all they did was write legislation nothing was really being accomplished. Wilson, therefore, recommended that we change our government to the parliamentary system with a concentration of power in the hands of the prime minister. That, we know, did not happen.

What did happen was World War I. It gave Wilson his opportunity to do what he believed was necessary, putting power into the hands of the government. War allows this to happen.

Wilson formed the War Industries B0ard or WIB. It was chaired by Bernard Baruch who was then charged with getting the business men to love and embrace the state. Jonah Goldberg in his book "Liberal Fascism" cites Grosvenor Clarkson the historian of the WIB,"'It was an industrial dictatorship without parallel---a dictatorship by force of necessity and common consent which step by step at last encompassed the Nation and united it into a coordinated and mobile whole.'" Now your initial reaction to that might be sure, the nation comes together to fight a the war and we cannot abide a lot of nonsense. You would be correct but what this did was teach the Progressives that war could be a good thing for their goals.

What is the Appropriate Label for Jimmy Carter?

James Earl Carter, 38th president of the United States, is having a difficult time shaping his legacy. Anticipating a bad showing in the history books, he continues to run around the world in an effort to salvage his reputation and his legacy. Let's take a little trip back in time to the 1976 presidential race.

The competitors for the office of president in 1976 were Gerald Ford and James Carter. President Ford, the incumbent, came to the office as a result of the resignation of Richard Nixon. James Carter was the Governor of Georgia. Ford, the experts tell us, had angered a lot of Americans by pardoning Nixon for his involvement in a scandal known as Watergate. Governor Carter, an Annapolis graduate, was an appealing choice for many Americans after the tumultuous Watergate affair. Initially Carter had a wide lead in the polls but Ford would narrow that lead to 2 points by the time of the election. James Carter took the oath of office in January of 1977.

The new president presented himself as a humble, religious man from Plains, Georgia. Indeed, he took great pride in the fact that he was a peanut farmer. As it would turn out, many Americans wished he had chosen to remain in that position.

During his time in office we saw the first major gas crisis. Long lines appeared at the pumps. Eventually we had alternate day pumping based on an odd-even system using license plates. Carter proved to be ineffective when dealing with OPEC. Despite the fact that he created the Cabinet Post for a Department of Energy, nothing was done to turn the nation in a new direction.

With the overthrow of the Shah we saw the mullahs come to power in Iran. We were called the Great Satan by the mullahs and their followers. Eventually they took over our embassy there and held a number of Americans hostage for 444 days. This crisis crippled Carter and he spent a vast amount of time in the White House not doing the nation's business.

His domestic policy and programs were almost as good as his foreign policy. Under his administration we would suffer stagflation. Interest rates went into double digits. Prices went up. People lost their jobs. And the president told us that we were suffering from a "malaise" In his fireside chat to us he exclaimed, in the face of rising fuel oil prices, that we should put on our sweaters and pretty much get use to it.

With prices rising and wages not keeping pace, we were in one of the worse economic times I personally can remember. I was a teacher at the time. We negotiated a 7% wage increase but inflation was at 12%. I was not making up ground at that rate and a lot of my fellow Americans were in the same boat with me. Needless to say, James Earl Carter was a one term president.

Now Carter is trying to establish his legacy. He has been a gadfly flitting from one spot to another to put a sheen on Jimmy Carter. He has sat down with wretched people like Hugo Chavez and now he has spent time with Hamas, a group of avowed terrorists who swear that they will destroy Israel. I can think of only one other president who was as much the egomaniac and that was Woodrow Wilson. Jimmy Carter needs to return to Plains, Georgia. Above all else, the state department needs to revoke his passport before he does some serious damage in the world in his effort to salvage his own ego.

The First Progressive-Our Downfall Begins

Born on October 27, 1858, to a well to do family at 28 East 20th Street, New York City, Theodore Roosevelt at the age of 42, would go on to become the youngest president of the United State. He would also become the first Progressive President of this country.

Roosevelt was a frail child. His asthma was so bad that his father would take him outside and carry him up and down the block in front of their home until the attack was over. The senior Roosevelt would convert an area in their home into a gym for young Teddy. There Roosevelt would exercise lifting weights. He would grow in strength and he would become a member of the Harvard rowing team upon entering that institution. Along with great physical strength was his mental strength. He was a member of Phi Beta Kappa, the honor society fraternity, and graduated magna cum laude in 1880.

Roosevelt would have an illustrious career. He would serve in the New York Assembly. He was a naturalist, historian, writer, explorer, author and cowboy. He would suffer an unbelievable tragedy with the death of his mother and wife who died on the same day in the same house. That would lead to his cowboy career in the American west and put him on the path to conservation of the nation's resources. Roosevelt, however, would also become the nation's first Progressive thus being responsible for initiating a policy of big government regulation.

Teddy became president because of the assassination of William McKinley. In 1898, McKinley took aim at the large, monopolistic companies being created in America. Carnegie, Rockefeller, Schwab and many other industrialists came under the scrutiny of the U.S. Industrial Commission of Trusts. Roosevelt would pick up on the businesses, now know as Trusts, and would set out to break them up and regulate them through the government. Indeed, Roosevelt gained quite a reputation as a "Trust Buster" breaking up 44 such industries during his time in office. Though not the biggest of the Trust Busters, that was a title won by William H. Taft with 90 Trust Bustings, Roosevelt put this nation on a path still taken by those who wish to return us to the day when the government told us what our rights were much like the King of England did prior to the Revolutionary War.

Roosevelt brought the presence of government regulation into the lives of countless Americans and American industries. Big Oil, Big Steel, Big Food, Big Drug, no one was safe from his scrutiny. He even proposed universal health care and national health insurance. Big brother and Big government had come on the scene.

As you go to the polls in this primary and general election season take a look at the beginning of the turn about for America. For the past almost 11 decades we, as a nation, have been regressing. We are losing out personal liberties while telling our government that we want health care to be a right. We can't figure out why college is so expensive while we tell our government that we want more grants and loans for college. We tell our government to give us more of the same failed policies like social security, medicare and Head Start. Khrushchev told us years ago that they would bury us. I believe that we are going to do the job for them and they will conquer us without a shot being fired only this time it will be the enemy within, those politicians who call themselves Progressive. The liberal chickens have come home to their roots.

The Maverick--John McCain

John McCain likes the label maverick. He sees himself as an independent, unconventional individual who will not allow anyone else to tell him what to do. I like that in the Senator. However, there are some questions that must be asked about things he has done. I even like it when he reaches across the aisle and works with members of the other party but I must question the hands he shakes.

McCain-Feingold is a biggy for a number of reasons. Anyone associated with politics knows that while you are working on something like McCain-Feingold others are working on ways to get around it. The ink wasn't dry on this legislation before Richard Gephart told allies of the Democrat Party that things like the 537s that we see would be allowed and in place. Lo and behold they were but John Q. Citizen was left out in the dark. Feingold is one of the most liberal senators in the Senate. Why did McCain do this, something he now kind of regrets, and why did he select Feingold as his partner? Why wasn't another Republican on the bill? Why wasn't a more moderate Democrat on the bill?

Then there is the matter of the McCain-Kennedy amnesty of illegal immigrants bill. McCain now says he gets it and he favors border security first. Senator what you must say is "I am not in favor of amnesty".
Of all people why Kennedy particularly if you want the conservative vote in November of 2008. Remember when Bush reached out to Kennedy on the No Child Left Behind bill. The moment things started going south on that legislation it became the Bush No Child Left Behind Bill. Does McCain really believe Kennedy will stay with him? Last time I looked Kennedy was endorsing Obama.

Senator McCain has additional problems to overcome. While his life time American Conservative Union rating was touted at 85% last year it was 65%. His rating has been declining for a number of years.

McCain's pro-life stance is questionable. He is a supporter of research on embryo stem cell research. He supports this despite the fact that all the evidence is pointing toward adult stem cell research for a success story.

His stand on the Second Amendment is shaky. While I have yet to see a rating from the National Rifle Association, I believe it will come out around a C. This can cost him big time in a lot of states including Pennsylvania.

Then there is his hooking of his wagon to the global warming star. Within a year or two, maybe sooner, this issue will be seen for what it is, the greatest hoax on the American public. The tide has already started to turn as reports are now coming out indicating that we will most likely see global cooling. I'll wait to see that one too before running out for my heavy sweaters. Does the climate change, you betcha. Is it cyclical? Yes it is. Can we really do anything about it? Not really.

So there we have it. Three candidates running for President of the United States, are you happy with them? Has the thought passed through you mind, can't we do better? Hard to tell which one to vote for because they all look alike from my perspective. Not a classical conservative in the bunch.

The Second Amendment

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Thus says the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States.

Over the past four decades this amendment has come under tremendous attack by the Progressive left in this nation. Oh yes, we are told that our hunting rights will be protected. Ms. Hillary, recently seen tossing back a shot and beer, has now told us about her day in a duck blind where she shot a "banded" duck. Her opponent chided her on taking her "six gun" into a duck blind. Word of caution here, do not go into a duck blind with Barack Obama.

Had these two presidential candidates, and others before them , tried to convince our colonial ancestors that they some how needed the Second Amendment to protect their hunting rights, they would have been laughed off the farm. Our ancestors did not need a Constitutional guarantee to hunt. Guns were a way of life, a tool if you will, that you took with you for two reasons, to hunt animals and to protect yourself against unforeseen dangers whether man or beast.

The Progressives want to argue that the Second Amendment is not an individual right. Rather it is there for state militias. To the gun regulating Progressives, guns should be in the hands of what they perceive to be the modern militia, the National Guard and Reserves. According to my Compact Oxford Dictionary a militia is "a military force made up of civilians, used to supplement a regular army in an emergency".In short, a militia is a citizens army. During colonial times men were expected to report to the town square with weapons and ammunition that they supplied. They were, for the most part, not in uniform, and they practiced military drills on the town square in order that they could act in an effective manner during an emergency. They did not gather there to learn how to make decoys, call turkey, or stalk big game animals.

The Second Amendment is about self defense. You have the God given, not governmental given, right to protect yourself and your country. You can be called upon to this day to be a member of a citizens' militia where you would be required to bring your own gun and ammunition.

The United States Supreme Court recently heard a case involving the stringent Washington, DC gun ban. Under this ban, for all intents and purposes, citizens of the District could not own a gun. A lower court had decided that the ban was to restrictive and that the Second Amendment was an individual right. This decision was appealed to the High Court. Among the briefs and arguments was documentation that in modern times citizen militias have been created. One such example was in the state of Maryland during World War II. The governor, looking to the gun clubs on the Eastern Shore of his state, called on such clubs to serve in the capacity of militias because so many men had gone into the regular military and, along with the National Guard, had been called up for duty due to the war. The men in the gun clubs were expected to bring their own guns and ammunition and serve as the military force in the state. Some 60 plus briefs were filed on this case, a case that is going to make it clear once and for all that the Second Amendment is an individual right just like all the other rights found in the Bill of Rights and the other Amendments added to the Constitution. It's about time that this issue be put to rest so that we can rest in peace knowing that we will be able to protect ourselves from the interlopers on our rights whether they be foreign or domestic.

The Regulator--Michelle Obama

Recently Mrs. Obama told an audience that Americans were not poor because they were frugal, they were poor because they were sick. She explained that people were unable to pay their insurance or co-pay and that the government programs just weren't working but not to worry, Barack was going to solve all our problems when it came to health care.

By way of full disclosure I must tell you that I taught for 32 years and had a very good health package. It covered hospitalization, drug, and dental problems. It was so good that I did not even worry about it. I retired in 1999 and still have that package, it was part of my golden parachute. However, when I turn 65 next year that will all go away and I will have that fun government program medi something and will have to have a something part 2 to go along with it. I believe I am also entitled to a drug plan but maybe I will just go to Wal-Mart for my drugs. I know this sounds a bit light hearted on my part and it that was my intent. I have been very fortunate when it comes to my health. I had strep throats when I was a kid and found out I was allergic to sulfa drugs. I get a cold every once in awhile, usually if I don't get enough sleep and get worn down. I am back running 3.5 miles every other day and want to set up my barbells in the basement for some lifting. I sell real estate and am constantly on the move or my posterior. I come from a family with good genes. As to the health policy part 2 I will get, I am going to let Mrs. Miller look into that because she is already on that medi something.

Mrs. Obama is not concerned about your health. She is concerned about running your life and the life of everyone in America because she and Obama are much smarter then we are and will do a better job of picking your insurance and everything else in your life.

Folks we were once known as the land of the free and the home of the brave. We are rapidly on our way to being the land of the totally regulated and home of the biggest sissies in the whole wide world. Is that what you want for yourself and your kids?

Our problem is that we have forgotten black and white. Yes, I know, how about gray. Forget about it. Do you know the difference between what is right and wrong, good and evil? Does someone really have to tell you that you should not eat a gallon of ice cream at one sitting? Do you not know the evils of tobacco? Will you go crazy if your spouse wants to enjoy a nice cigar or a bowl of ice cream? I could go on but I think I have made my point.

Health care is not a tough issue and I say this claiming no expertise at all in the matter. Instead of your employer buying a one plan fits all for the company, you purchase it. You can have it customized to your own specifications. Make sure that as you get older you can alter it--you might want eyecare for you and the kids. Oh, and when you get older remove the section on pregnancy--it will save you a bundle just like it did when you were pregnant with those little bundles of joy.

Here is the key problem, how do you pay for it? By being frugal in your life and planning on it for yourself and your family. I hate to tell you this but health care is not a right and it never should be. People want the government to take care of this big ticket item so they can spend their money on their wants instead of their needs. The hell with the kids' health insurance we'll buy a new vette for me instead.

If we let the government in to take care of our health care we will suffer and lose control of our lives. They will make decisions for us and our loved ones we will not like. And yes, there are people out there who will be only to happy to do the evil. Tell the senator and his bride that you know the difference between good and evil. Tell them you don't want another government program placed on the backs of future generations. Then go out and have that chocolate malt ice cream on top of your apple pie.

Lincoln and Emancipation

When you left school were you thoroughly convinced that President Lincoln had freed the slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation? Did you realize that slavery actually went on after the war? Let's take another look at this document.

When the Civil War broke out President Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to help preserve the Union. Lincoln believed that had he called for a war to end slavery volunteers would not have shown up for the war. The reason for this was that industries in the North relied on cheap cotton for their well being

Lincoln was conflicted on the issue of slavery. Indeed he would state that if he had to end slavery to preserve the Union he would but he was willing to let slavery exist if it saved the Union. Lincoln pondered many plans to solve the slavery problem including the purchasing of slaves and sending them back to Africa. It was Frederick Douglass who would remind the president that America's slaves had been here since the early 1600's and were Americans. They did not want to return to Africa.

Lincoln was under tremendous pressure from the radical element of his party and the abolitionists to do something about freeing the slaves, but Lincoln was not convinced about any one solution. He was not willing to go out on a limb and in the process hand victory to the Confederacy. Lincoln declared in September of 1862 that he had no power granted to him under the Constitution to free the slaves. There were those who told him to use his war powers but it was politically risky in that the public, northern Copperhead Democrats who supported the Confederacy, and the loyal border states were opposed to it.

What would happen to change his mind? Somewhere along the way Lincoln came to the conclusion that as a divided nation we could not survive. Lincoln realized that slavery could no longer be denied as an issue, a very important issue. If slavery was not ended we would become a divided country. In July of 1862, Lincoln met with his cabinet to discuss the proclamation. He told them that he was waiting for a victory before he took the first step in the process. The victory at Antietam in September 1862 gave Lincoln his opportunity.

The Proclamation was made up of two executive orders. The first was issued on September 22, 1862. It granted freedom to all slaves"in any state of the Confederate States of America that did not return to Union control by January 1, 1863".On January 1, 1863 the specific states where it was now applicable were listed.

Lauded as a great act at the time keep in mind that in Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware, and West Virginia, the border states, the slaves were not freed. Nor were they freed in any southern state or part of a southern state that was already controlled by the Union. Pretty much it was runaway slaves who managed to get across and into the Union lines who obtained there freedom under the Proclamation. As Union forces moved south more and more slaves gained their freedom.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a great first step. It gave slaves in the south hope for what had been a long time coming. The final demise of slavery came with the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment on December 18, 1865

Pivotal Battle of the Civil War

This year the town of Gettysburg will be recognizing the 145th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg that originally occurred on July 1-3, 1863. It can be argued that this is one the most important battles of the Civil War and specifically within the three days the battle for Little Round Top was the most significant of the that struggle.

The Confederate and Union forces first engaged on July 1,1863 at a point north of the town known as MacPherson's Ridge. The two armies engaged in battle that day, a day that saw the Union forces enjoying early success only to be driven back through the town and occupying what is known as Culps Hill and Cemetery Hill forming the curve of the fish hook Union line that would extend south along Cemetery Ridge. The Confederate army would line up along Seminary Ridge.

During the evening and the early morning hours of the July 2, General Lee pondered what to do next. Having looked across the way at the Army of the Potomac, Lee saw the two peaks, Little and Big Round Tops, were not occupied. After a discussion with his officers, Lee decided that the blow would come on the left flank of the Union on July 2nd and once the gunfire was heard Confederate forces would again attack the right flank of the Union.

Not all of Lee's officers were thrilled with going on the offensive, particularly Longstreet, Lee's "Old War Horse". Longstreet, who was to lead the attack on the Union left, much preferred to have the enemy come to them, the strategy that had been so successful up to this point. Lee had determined that he would have to go on the offensive if he was going to be successful on his push into the North. Thus he ordered his troops to attack up the Emmitsburg Road on the way to taking Little Round Top.

Meanwhile the Union was in the process of extending their line south along Cemetery Ridge. The forces of Hancock, Sykes, and Sickles ran from north to south toward Little Round Top but no forces from either army had as yet occupied either peak.

It was nearly 4 PM before the Confederate forces got into position. Hood had spotted the build up of Union forces in the area and asked Longstreet four times to allow him to swing and attack the Union head on but Longstreet said that Lee's orders were to be obeyed.

Meanwhile General Gouverneur Warren, the chief engineer of the Union Army discovered that there were no troops on Little Round Top. Warren immediately moved to resolve the problem. Ordering a signalman to wigwag to get attention, word got to General Meade who ordered Sykes to send troops to Little Round Top.

It was Colonel Strong Vincent who would arrive about fifteen minutes ahead of the Alabamans and Texans. Strong, the youngest brigade commander, showed up with four regiments who would stall the Confederate attack. Warren would bring up reinforcements in the form of cannons and troops.

The struggle on Little Round Top was great. The Confederate attack on Little Round Top was broken by the 20th Maine under Colonel Joshua Chamberlain, a minister prior to the war. Chamberlain and his men were the left flank of the Union line and they would face the brunt of the attack by the Alabamans and Texans. With half his force down and low on ammunition, Chamberlain would order is men to fix bayonets and charge. The Confederates were stunned by the attack and their lines would break as they ran. Chamberlain was wounded and would receive the Congressional Medal of Honor.

The defeat at Little Round Top was critical for Union success. Had the Confederates taken that peak they could have brought artillery to the top and devastated the Union line along Cemetery Ridge. In so doing the Army of the Potomac would have been destroyed and Lee could have north and onto Washington, DC. Conceivably the war could have ended with different results thus the fight for Little Round Top becomes a pivotal battle of the American Civil War.

On July 3, 1863, came Pickett's charge. It was a brutal fight that the Confederates would lose. Lee would get his troops out of town heading south never to come north during the course of the war. More importantly General Grant would win another crushing battle at Vicksburg, Mississippi and Lincoln would call Grant east. The days of the Confederacy were numbered.

The Messianic Candidate

By now, thanks to the media, we know that Barack Obama is the new Messiah. He is a charismatic orator with a message of hope and change. He is promising that he is going to make government work for us, get rid of obscene pay for CEOs, provide us with a national health care program and much more. This is what we can expect from a Progressive candidate but let's take a closer look at this man of Hope and is he anything like the man from Hope.

On March 18, the Senator gave a speech wherein he tried to explain his black liberation minister, Jeremiah Wright. In his oration he told us that he had been in the room during Reverend Wright's castigation of the United States where Wright, among other things, called upon God to damn the United States for a host of perceived sins. But let us not forget that the day before this speech Senator Obama stated he had not been in the church during Wright's rants. Indeed Obama told us a few weeks later that he was able to stay in Trinity UCC because the Reverend Wright had apologized for his remarks. Really? Where and when did he do that?

Then we have the awkward situation with Mr. Rezko, the slum landlord and political contributor to the Senator. Obama was able to purchase his $1.5 million dollar home and the back lot with the assistance of Mr. Rezko. The original owner wanted to sell both so while Mr. Obama was able to purchase the home Mr. Rezko made up the difference with his purchase of the lot that some how became affixed to the Senator's home. The Senator constantly tells us how he can relate to us.

We now have his latest slur. While in California speaking to a group of donors he expounded on the communities in Pennsylvania where the residents had lost their jobs due to the current economic situation. He exclaimed the these people had turned to holding onto guns and religion during these trying times. How awful is that. I do believe he might have lost a few votes as well as a bit of luster on his halo.

Senator Obama is also running a very interesting set of ads in Pennsylvania. In these ads he talks about wanting to make "government work for us". That is not the function of government. He tells us that when he is president that he is going to do something about the overpaid CEOs and the obscene profits of Big Oil. He wants to end the Bush Tax cuts and in particular wants to raise the Capital Gains tax to 25%-30%. This combination would give us the largest tax increase in our history and you can bet the ranch it will not be a tax increase for the rich only. He wants to stop the war and spend that money at home. Where do you think that money, the next peace dividend, is going to go? Do you believe it will come back to you? Hardly.

Barack Obama is a Progressive who has been prepared by the likes of Kerry and Kennedy. Listen to the man when he speaks. He wants to unify us while continuing to adhere to identity politics wherein he brings up the issue of race telling us how we need to talk about it when in reality he is obfuscating the entire time. The race card is being played by the Senator to keep us apart that is the only way the Progressives can ever win. Their goal is the fulfillment of the 'nanny state" that will put the government in charge of everything and your rights will be gone. Accusing conservatives of coming into our bedrooms we have the state of California, probably the most Progressive state in the union, planning to come into the homes of the citizens and setting the thermostat and monitoring it. What do you suppose will happen next?

Many years ago Samuel Adams said, "The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men". I am going to listen to Sam Adams as should all fellow Americans and check out the characters.

What Kind Of Rights Do We Have

We have been blessed with two noteworthy documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. In addition to these we have the Bill of Rights and The Federalists Papers. It is from the Declaration of Independence that we get our "inalienable rights". These rights cannot be be stolen, sold, traded or given away. These rights do not come from government rather governments exist because of these rights.

Let it be clear that with these rights come certain obligations some positive and some negative. As citizens we have the right to do certain things that are morally allowable under the law. It is the responsibility of the rest of us to see to it that individuals are not hindered in exercising their legal rights.

While we have the positive obligation to protect our own morally allowable rights and those of our fellow citizens, we are also not obliged to assist them in certain ways. In exercising one's freedom of speech the citizens protect one's right to do so but the citizens do not have to provide the dais, microphone or soapbox.

To add to the complexity of all of this keep in mind that we do not have absolute rights, we have limited rights. The classical example of this is Justice Holmes famous "you may not shout fire in a crowded theater". Put another way "Your right to do something ends at my nose".

The rights we have, particularly those found within the Bill of Rights are referred to as Substantive or very meaningful rights. In order to protect these rights governments are obliged to develop Procedural rights to protect those that are substantive. You are protected from an illegal search. Police or the military cannot simply smash down your door in the middle of the night. If, however, they expect you of committing a crime or engaging in criminal activity they must follow certain procedures, obtaining a search warrant and exercising it properly, before they gain entrance to your home to conduct the search.

Keep in mind that the responsibility of our government is to protect all MORALLY ALLOWABLE rights. That word, morally, would imply that the government should not allow immoral behavior. One might argue, correctly I would think, that all sorts of immoral actions go on regularly in our country. We allow for the massive multi-billion dollar pornography industry to spew its smut via a variety of mediums. We give a wink and a nod to NAMBLA. We have those who would make prostitution legal throughout the nation so state governments could tax them. We already have the governments of the states running gambling for revenue purposes. We have soft porn in our movie theaters and on our television screens. And we do nothing about it. We have not only forgotten our rights and act as though they are no longer important, we have forgotten that ultimately there will be consequences.

Lying, Misspeaking, and Integrity

A few weeks ago Hillary Clinton managed to tell a falsehood, otherwise known as a lie, about her trip to Bosnia. She was accompanied by her daughter and a lot of press because she was the First Lady of the United States. Supposedly she reported this event in her book, sorry I haven't read it, and said nothing about what has now become Snipergate. Were this the first time she exaggerated we might excuse and forgive her accepting her statement that she was "sleep deprived".This was not here first lie.

On September 11, 2001, Hillary reported that Chelsea had been running in the area of the Twin Towers when they went down. Chelsea reported that was not the case.

Hillary had previoulsy reported that her parents had named her after Sir Edmund Hillary, the man who had conquered Mt. Everest. He conquered it some half dozen years after Mrs. Clinton was born. Given these misspeaks, one could reasonably come to the conclusion that there are probably many more in Mrs. Clinton's wardrobe.

Now let's look at bit further into this matter. We are all well acquainted with Bill Clinton's proclivity to lie. R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. in his book "The Clinton Crack Up" commented on Mr. Clinton's lying. Tyrrell said that Bill told a lie when he didn't need to as though he were practicing and he told a big lie when a small one would have sufficed.

There are two questions here. Are both of these people pathological liars and should we even concern ourselves with this?

Let me offer some answers. I believe they are pathological liars. How do you explain this kind of behavior in this era of technology? Did Hillary forget that they were running film when she was in Bosnia? Did she forget her own paranoia that the vast right wing conspiracy was watching her? Did she really think we would all forgive and forget? Was she counting on her pals in the press to not bring out the film? I could go on but you get my point.

As to whether we should be concerned about this the answer is a definite yes. Continual lying goes directly to character. Why do you thing people you know and love, parents, former teachers, your prist or minister, caution you about it? Did your parents ever tell you that constant lying could cause those who loved you to lose trust in you, something you did not want to happen. Can you imagine your parents not trusting you? Can you imagine being the president and the nation not trusting you?

Her lie about Bosnia brought out other lies she told. This reminded all of us about the famous "I never had sex with that woman" lie by her husband and all the lies he told. This is why she has the high negatives she has and will continue to have. And this is why she will not be the president of the United States.

We're Losing Our Rights

At the time that Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence most of the citizens believed that the rights they had were given to them by government. Jefferson and John Locke pointed out that the exact opposite was the case, men had natural rights and it is the people who have the ability to create and dissolve governments. The government's job is to protect our rights.

Today the Progressives, once known as Liberals, are on a mission to show all of us how wonderful it would be if this nation were led by the government. They have been very clever in promoting good causes like wear you seat belt, stop smoking and avoid fatty foods. Few of us would argue with this campaign but is it really the responsibility of the government to regulate these matters? The answer is a definitive no because we, as individuals, are in charge and are obliged to order our own lives.

Now you might ask how does this really have an adverse affect on us? Remember when wearing a seat belt was voluntary? Now it is mandatory and a punishable crime if you are caught not wearing it. Do our governmental officials really have a concern about our well being or is it simply another way to not only alter our behavior but collect money from us to fund more government programs? Are we not turning good people into criminals while ignoring serious criminal activity? Whatever happened to that new FISA law?

Is there a danger here? I believe there is. Start out with something innocuous and it's barely noticed. Pretty soon the folks are used to it. They also become accepting of the propaganda from government officials about how much good the government is doing for us when we should be asking what they are doing to us. Before we know it we will be looking at major alterations to how we live our lives. Government will tell us that we can no longer drive those big cars we like. Maybe we will be told what kind of house we can live in because our carbon footprint is to big. If we can't move to a new house the local government will be allowed to tax us to pay for all the pollution our home is emitting.

If we fail to educate ourselves on the intent of the Progressives, whose plan has been evolving since the Wilson's administration, we will find ourselves surrounded by government bureaus and their many regulations with accompanying punishments. The desire to establish a nanny state will be fulfilled

I know may you find all of this hard to believe but take a look at what happened in the past in places like Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, Mao's China and ask yourself is it going on here. I contend that it is and keep in mind the words of Alexis de Tocqueville,"It must not be forgotten that it is especially dangerous to enslave men in the minor details of life. For my own part, I should be inclined to think freedom less necessary in great things than in little ones." Start with the innocent causes and watch the Bill of Rights disappear.

Superdelegates

The word Superdelegate is constantly in the news. It is, primarily, connected to the Democrats and a lot of people are having a difficult time trying to figure out how this will affect the selection of the Democrat nominee.

After the 1968 disastrous Democrat convention in Chicago the liberal wing of the party left the convention convinced that something had to be done to regain control of the party from the party leaders and make it more responsive to the votes that came out of the primary elections. This way the Democrat voters would have a greater say in the selection of their candidate. In the view of many this actually hurt the party and ended up giving them George McGovern and Jimmy Carter as candidates

By 1982 a new commission under Governor Jim Hunt, from North Carolina, was created. Hunt would introduce the Superdelegates and they would represent a proportional part of the delegates at the convention. Over the years the rules and the matter of proportional representation within the party would change pertaining to the role of the voters in the party and party officials. This would bring about the pledged delegates and unpledged Superdelegates.

So where are the Democrats today? Currently they have what are known as pledged delegates selected through the primary and caucus system. These delegates have announced the candidate they are supporting. The Superdelegates are free to vote for anyone. They are all Democrats. All the Democrat governors, congressmen, senators, former Presidents, Vice-Presidents, former House and Senate leaders, Speakers of the House, and Chairs of the National Committee make up the Superdelegates. There are also the add-ons such as mayors and state party leaders. This year it is projected there will be 795 Superdelegates but that number can be added to right up to the convention and probably will be because many are saying the real number will be closer to 820.

What does all of this accomplish? Supposedly it gives a lot of power to the voters while giving party officials and bigwigs a say in the nominating process. But there are a couple of issues that have arisen during this campaign. Should these unpledged Superdelegates, who are independent, be encouraged to vote the same way the voters in their state or maybe district voted? Are the announced pledged delegates really pledged or are they out there for the taking by either Clinton or Obama? Are the Superdelegates really independent? Will this system blow up in the face of both candidates and, more importantly, in the face of the Democrat Party? And let's not forget we haven't even discussed the Florida and Michigan situation.

Here is the really big question, should there even be Superdelegates? Aren't they simply playing the role of safe guarding the party in that they can determine the right candidate for the party?

Why Studying History Is Improtant

People do not like to study history because they believe there are no changes and that once something is found in a history book it must be settled. Such is not the case. History is something that is always undergoing change in a variety of ways. Let me give you one example.

In August of 2007, my wife and I took our two grandchildren to Gettysburg. While there I met a young man whose relative was a sharpshooter with the Union forces and had been killed there. One day we were talking about Devil's Den, a heated spot on day two of the battle. He told me that during the current clearing of trees from the area the workmen had come upon some friction fuses. Now these fuses were used by artillery batteries to ignite the cannons. It is believed that this find will explain the ineffectiveness of an artillery battery that should have been effective. Currently placed on elevated ground at Gettysburg, the record states the battery did not perform all that well on day 2 at Devil's Den. The fuses, found at a lower elevation and thus at a different location, might explain the reason for the battery's less then acceptable performance. This incident is not isolated. Historical discoveries are made all the time but unless they are glamorous there is little reporting on the matter and we go on being ignorant of what is happening. History is not static.

Why, therefore, is history important? I believe it ties us not only to our nation but to the people in it and thus a generational connection is maintained. How connected are you to those who are older then you? Did you ever ask your parent or grandparent what life was like when they were a kid? Did you ever teach that to your kid or grandkids and don't think this is just something silly, how do you think you make that connection? Want to have some real fun, ask you mom and dad what their dreams were when they were young? You might learn about a real sacrifice they made or a great success that happened.
Let me proffer a suggestion to help you get back in the saddle on history. Check out some good historical fiction. Try Allan Eckert, find him at Amazon, and start with "The Frontiersman". Look at Steven Pressfield for "The Afghan Campaign" Alexander the Great's little trip into that area. Michael Saharra wrote, "Killer Angles" and the movie Gettysburg was based on it. Newt Gingrich did a trilogy on Gettysburg that is one of the best sets I have ever read. Try this and I guarantee you will be visiting historical sights and reacquainting yourself with your nation's history.