"THESE ARE THE TIMES THAT TRY MENS SOULS."

Those words were penned by Thomas Paine - American - on December 23rd, 1776, in a pamphlet called "The Crisis". Words which are as applicable today as they were 233 years ago. Paine was a true believer in freedom. Freedom from, freedom to, and freedom for all Americans. Freedom from tyranny and government oppression. Freedom to assemble, associate, speak, write and worship. Freedom for all motivated Americans to develop their full potential, or to earn a fair and reasonable wage for their labors. To worship - or not - in the manner of their own choosing, and to be the architects of their own destiny. Thomas Paine, although something less than a social and financial success, was the personification of "the American spirit".

At that time Paine was expressing his opposition to Britain's King George III's tyrannical rule over the American colonies. The wording is a bit archaic, and therefore awkward for today's reader, but tyranny is still tyranny, and revolution is still revolution. "These ARE the time that try mens souls."

In today's United States of America there is a significant political, philosophical, and moral rift between the left-wing "liberal progressives", and the right-wing "conservative traditionalists". There is a second Revolutionary War being fought as I write this blog. Thus far the skirmishes have been restricted to the mass media, the halls of Congress, and the "town hall meetings"... and the fusillades are only verbal. Retaliatory barrages from the White House consist of verbal smokescreens designed to blind and confuse the opposition forces, while simultaneously obscuring the intent of those who wish to rule rather than govern and discrediting those who are most outspoken against the rapid, insidious development of the infrastructure needed to support that rule. Citizens are governed by choice - slaves are ruled by whatever means necessary! Paine also said, "Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER" and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth." (Two hundred thirty three years is a bit long, but I think that - were Thomas Paine alive today - he would be having a deja vu experience.)

Paine continues, delineating the difference between Tories (conservatives, sometimes called "loyalists") and Whigs (liberals, social reformists, believed in loose interpretation of the Constitution) -"Why is it that the enemy have left the New England provinces, and made these middle ones the seat of war? The answer is easy: New England is not infested with Tories, and we are. I have been tender in raising the cry against these men, and used numberless arguments to show them their danger, but it will not do to sacrifice a world either to their folly or their baseness. The period is now arrived, in which either they or we must change our sentiments, or one or both must fall. And what is a Tory? Good God! What is he? I should not be afraid to go with a hundred Whigs against a thousand Tories, were they to attempt to get into arms. Every Tory is a coward; for servile, slavish, self-interested fear is the foundation of Toryism; and a man under such influence, though he may be cruel, never can be brave."

Today's "Tories" are, politically speaking, primarily Republicans, Independents and assorted impotent-third-party followers. Mostly conservatives, they believe that the Constitution is an enduring document requiring little, if any, "interpretation". They also believe that the best government is the least government.

The "Whigs" of today are the Democrats - and their liberal following of government-dependent entitlement whores, who would sell our freedoms for a big screen TV and a couple of more government give-away programs. They believe the Constitution is a "living document" - one that should be changed as often as they change their minds... or their underwear, whichever comes first. The "blame America first" crowd, whose words and actions echo those of the Pogo Possum cartoon of 1970, wherein he proclaims "We have met the enemy and he is us."
The difference today is that the Tories are the ones who would "protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic", while the Whigs would tremble, quake and hide, while crying out for their nanny-government to protect and save them.

Our constitution - for all the wonderful rights it does promise us - it does not promise that we will be given anything other than that which we earn! It does not promise that we have a right to take that which another has earned, nor do we have a right to not be embarrassed, inconvenienced or otherwise upset by something we may experience during our appointed time on this Earth. We have the opportunity to fail in our endeavors, as well as the opportunity to succeed! How we exercise those rights and opportunities is entirely up to us.

Thomas Paine was not just a "man of his time"... he was a man for all times, and his words ring as true today as they did on December 23, 1776! Where will you be when the voices of opposition are silenced... right before the other noises begin?

Obama's Birth Certificate... or A Forgery? You Decide?

Speaking of SCAMS, the video below either is or is not one. Since I neither shot the video, nor retrieved the "birth document" from the hospital myself, I have no personal knowledge as to the credibility of this claim. I do, however, believe it is something to which the American public should have access...

What do you believe? And, if you do believe that Obama is the Great Usurper of the U.S. Presidency, then the greater question becomes "What is the power that placed him there?" followed by "Why?"

Addendum: As of today, 26 August 2009, the document in question has been declared a "clever forgery" based upon the following information -

"The document appears to have the following defects:

1. Kenyan News Sources have called into question the use of "Coast Province" or "Coast Provincial" as a correct reference to the official name of the Mombasa general public hospital in 1961, citing Professor Dan Branch of the University of Warwick who noted that the term "Coast Province" was not used in the early 1960s when Kenyan provinces were typically referred to as "regions."
   
   
2. Until 1964, Kenya was the Dominion of Kenya, not the Republic of Kenya, and Mombasa was part of Zanzibar until Dec. 12, 1963, not a coastal province of Kenya.
   
   
3. Dr. James O.W. Ang'awa, the physician who was named in the document as the attending physician at Obama's birth, was a physician who worked in Kenya during the 1960s; however, he worked at Kenyatta National Hospital in Nairobi. Dr. James O.W. Ang'awa never worked at any hospital in Mombasa.
   
   
4. The dates on the document are formatted in U.S. style, listing in order the month, day and year; this is not the British format which typically follows the order of day, month and year.
   
   
5. The footprint on the document appears nearly perfect in definition; real infant footprints typically show signs of smudging because of foot movement.
   
   
6. The footprint on the document is densely black, revealing few natural lines on the sole of the foot; footprints used for document identification are typically inked much lighter to allow for natural lines to be clearly apparent.
   
   
7. Footprints taken for document identification are typically taken for both feet, just as fingerprints taken for identification are typically taken for both hands.
   
   
8. The document does not look remotely like the 1961-era birth certificates used in Kenya; infant footprints were not displayed on Kenyan birth certificates in the 1961-era."

And, there you have it! The best, most objective information I have access to as of this date. Now the question becomes one of:

"Can we trust what we see or hear... anywhere?"

Mich. High School Senior Aces ACT, SAT and PSAT

Talk about a supporting coincidence! Above is one of today's on-line headlines from the Associated Press, and the article begins -

"CANTON TOWNSHIP, Mich. – Willa Chen has a knack for tough tests. The Detroit News reported Saturday that the 17-year-old senior at southeast Michigan's Canton High School got perfect scores on the ACT — and the SAT — and the PSAT."

Miss Chen provides one specific example of the Asian-Americans drive for excellence in intellectual pursuits. Will she be accepted by Princeton? It would be foolish, bordering on criminal, to not accept her application. Luckily, she is not applying to the University of California.

New UC Admissions Policy Angers Asian-Americans

The above title is an Associated Press headline, and the issue is that the new standard "will greatly expand the applicant pool, eliminate the requirement that applicants take two SAT subject tests and reduce the number of students guaranteed admission based on grades and test scores alone. It takes effect for the freshman class of fall 2012."

Excuse me, but I apparently have failed to understand something here. Whatever happened to the requirements of :

SCHOLASTIC QUALIFICATIONS

and

MERIT

Are these archaic concepts now? Should our universities no longer accept those students who have proven their desire and ability to complete programs of higher education? Or, has the University of California Regents decided that it is easier to indoctrinate the less intelligent with the fervor of leftist philosophies?

The issue of Asian-American ethnicity aside, ethnicity of any kind should not be THE determining consideration in ones acquiring access to higher education. What should be the only consideration is the prospects proven ability to satisfactorily complete the course(s) of study leading up to a particular degree. The only way to do that is with a standard, and the only universally accepted standard is the SAT.

There is no entitlement to a university degree... the only entitlement is that each applicant has had an opportunity to compete for available placements. Permitting preferential placement, based purely upon ethnicity, eliminates "equal opportunity and treatment" from the academic culture, and deprives those in the category of "other than" from their rightful educational opportunity.

Asian-American students, as an ethnic group - and I know this is broad-brushing - are historically more academically inclined than any other ethnic group. There is greater emphasis and support within the Asian home and the Asian community for excellence in intellectual endeavors. The result is highly motivated students who perform better on the SAT than most others - hence, the unusually high attendance figures for Asian students on UC campuses.

The assignment of available spaces on UC, or any other campus, should go to those best qualified - period. If identical SAT scores are posted by multiple students then perhaps ethnicity should become a consideration at that point. To do otherwise is a disservice to the nation as a whole by diluting the meaning of a degree from the University of California.

As always, there is a chance I could be wrong about this. What do you think?

"Government of the Wealthy, By the Wealthy, and For the Wealthy"

Recently, I was moved to re-read some of the founding documents of our great Nation, among which were the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution of the United States. Nowhere in those documents are the wealthy excluded from seeking the various offices of government - nor is government set aside as the exclusive milieu of the wealthy. Abraham Lincoln, during his oft-quoted Gettysburg Address said, "... That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. ..." (At this juncture Bill Clinton may have injected, "It depends on what your definition of 'people' is.") Granted, the wealthy are, by definition, (for the most part) "people".

How did the wealthy become that way? There are several roads leading to the streets of gold:

1. Some achieved wealth by the sweat of their brow, fulfilling "the American dream".
2. Some inherited their wealth, never having done an honest days' work in their life.
3. Some made their fortunes by creating misfortune for others, which qualifies them as either wealthy predators or wealthy carrion eaters ... or both.
4. Some married into wealth - and, possibly, a few even for love. The wealth was just a bonus.
5. Some were just astute businessmen and investors, who availed themselves of every opportunity to increase their portfolio, their holdings, and their market share.

It makes no difference how the wealthy became wealthy, the difference is in perspective. I know that generalizations have a very good chance of being wrong, so I won't use the word "all", or even imply "all", but in general the wealthy tend to have a very different perspective on life, and a totally different set of values, than those of us who have worked for wages all our life. The wealthy drink Dom Perignon, and the "worker bees" see movies with Dom Deluise in them. The wealthy have their huge yachts, and the workers have their seventeen foot bass boats. Dinner out for the wealthy means a trendy high-end restaurant, and for the worker it may be Olive Garden or KFC. The wealthy have their Rolls Royce, and we have our "rolls downhill". Don't misunderstand though - I don't begrudge the wealthy any of their sensory pleasures.

The wealthy seem to live in a parallel universe - a universe of expensive excesses. Should we "redistribute the wealth"? Not on my watch! What's theirs is theirs - as long as it was acquired through legal means. Well, if that's not the point of this post, what is?

The wealthy have bought our government. Over 40% of our Congressmen and Senators are millionaires ... and the rest are very comfortable. Their personal and/or family wealth, and their wealthy connections, PACs, etc., have been buying elections for the past 60 years or more. Others, like the Kennedy's and the Dodd's have turned government into a family business. For me, the question that comes immediately to mind is, "How did they get that much money as servants of the people?" From a job that pays less than $175,000 per annum? And if they are "independently wealthy", they don't need the money, so why not refuse it and really DO a public service?

What happens when people of great wealth are put in a position where they actually make the laws of the country? The same thing that happens when they are permitted by law (which their predecessors created) to vote on their own pay raises - they will create laws that benefit themselves and their associates. It's not exactly an unnatural act! You've probably heard that variaton on the "Golden Rule" - "Those that have the gold, make the rules." Well, here you are - validation and proof-positive of that claim. And then there's "Birds of a feather flock together." Money supports money! People who have either never had to hold a work-a-day job for wages, or who have forgotten what it's like to have done so, are now making the laws by which the rest of us have to abide.

Is it possible to vote them out? Technically it certainly is ... but in a practical sense it can't be done under the present system. We can replace the incumbent, but only with another of the same kind offered by the wealthy leadership of either of the two major political parties. How do we create change? Petition our Congressmen and Senators to change the law? Not a snowballs chance ...

What needs to be done?

1. Reduce Congressional compensation by 50% - making it a reasonable living wage of $87,000 per year for rank and file, Majority and Minority leaders would get $96,700, and the Speaker of the House would receive $111,750 - and cap them all at that level with a fixed 2% COLA adjustment annually.
2. One term only. Eliminate the entrenchment of those whose who would dole out political favors - and NO "Grandfather" clauses!
3. Publicly funded campaigns with a set limit. Eliminate private donations, and demand accurate records be made available to the CBO for review.
5. In other words, make the process of government less attractive to the moneyed interests of our country, and return it to the status of "public service" so that good people, well-intentioned people, people with the best interests of our country in their hearts and minds stand a chance of winning an election.

There would be other necessary adjustments that would have to be made as well - the above is just a jumping off point.

Have you never asked yourself, "Why in the world would people spend $3,000,000 to capture a job that pays $174,000 a year??" Doesn't that raise a flag for you? If Congress is that bad at math, do you want really them deciding what to do with our tax dollars?

If you think there's something wrong with that approach, you're a bigger leftie than Obama. And, if you have a better idea, leave a comment.