THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH GOVERNMENT

From the Declaration of Independence, dated July 4th, 1776...

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Many people feel that our present government is betraying the principles upon which this once-great nation was founded. It is not just the Obama Administration and the current Congress that have erred in the navigation of the "Ship of State". This erosion of principle has been going on for decades, in the same fashion as one would eat an elephant - one bite at a time. There have been rare occasions where an administration has gone on a diet, and taken smaller bites of the elephant - but they ate nonetheless. There have, however, been more frequent instances of the government gorging itself on the elephant... and then taking slices of it with them that they may have a late-night snack. Congress "legally" embezzled our Social Security Fund, and now they're trying to blame the lack of funding on what? Too many elderly people that paid into it are now expecting their return? Obama adviser Cass Sunstein has the right idea... eliminate the elderly! Anthropophagically speaking, his solution is reminiscent of the movie "Soylent Green". (If you aren't old enough to remember it, Google it)

Although the president himself is not blameless in this Democratic Detour, neither is he solely to blame for our loss of direction. He has his majordomo - now House Minority Leader Nancy Pelousy - her in-house crew of sycophants, and a fairly large number of other mutineers who wish to divert our ship of state from its originally intended course. Add to those numbers the Democratic Senators who feel they must maintain the "party line" in order to have party support in their next re-election bid, and you create a government of Titanic proportions.

There have been questions raised, such as "Why doesn't the Congress impeach Obama?" The answer is not terribly complicated. Impeachment proceedings must be initiated in the House of Representatives, where the most junior of our elected "representatives" reside (I hesitate to use the word "work" when referring to politicians). We must also understand that roughly 90% of our "representatives" are attorneys. Do you know why sharks won't eat attorneys? It's called "professional courtesy." Unless they are caught in a compromising situation which they cannot intimidate, lie or buy their way out of, politicians won't eat other politicians. They realize that "there but for the Grace of God...", and that awareness keeps them guarding one another's back. If you believe that our "representatives" represent anybody other than themselves and their largest financial supporters, I have this land in Florida I'd like to sell you. It borders a large body of water known as the Everglades. (I would venture a guess that perhaps 1% - certainly no more - 1% of our elected officials at the national level can even recognize integrity, much less possess any themselves.)

Besides... Congress - both the House and Senate - are co-conspirators in the ongoing reduction of the United States of America from world leader and world power, to the insignificance of a 3rd World Banana Republic. Who impeaches the Congress? According to the existing laws, nobody. And who wrote those laws? Congress. Does this seem like a Catch-22 situation to anybody besides me? Why aren't those laws that grant specific rights and benefits for Congress placed on the ballot for a public referendum? That would be their "report card"! Why do members of Congress have the power to grant themselves rights and benefits that no other citizen has? Because they can. The laws they have both created and approved allow it. These 535 people control the fate of an nation of 308,000,000 - and they don't really give a rat's ass about the other 307,999,465 - except for those who financed their campaigns, of course.

All of us have "feet of clay"... those (usually) hidden flaws and weaknesses that make us human. Our imperfections are what make us "perfect", in that our Creator designed us to be imperfect. Unfortunately, some humans nurture their imperfections, rather than strive to minimize their impact upon others. In the world at large we refer to them as criminals... and in the practice of government we call them politicians. (We can't really call government "business", because any business that was run like our government would be bankrupt!) Oh, come to think of it... (never mind - I rest my case.)

And, yes, my introduction was the document our founding fathers created, and the government they were revolting against was that of King George II of England. Do the words still count? Do they carry weight? The principles those words identify are timeless. We are being led "down the garden path" while wearing "rose colored glasses". Even if everything looks fine to you, be careful where you step... the garden path is covered with bullshit!

YOU DON'T HAVE TO LIVE IN WISCONSIN...

You don't have to live in Wisconsin to appreciate the financial and physical dangers of forced union membership, which is what Wisconsinites are faced with today - and what the entire nation may be faced with tomorrow.

American labor unions outlived their usefulness decades ago. The original intent of organized labor was good, even though their objectives in those "formative years" were achieved primarily through violence. Employers weren't, as a general rule, paying workers a decent living wage. Some companies did provide "company housing" (substandard), and a company-owned version of a general store which carried basic necessities. But, both were provided at a premium price. By the time the company extracted the employees "rent", and items charged at the store each week, the worker's take-home pay was approximately the equivalent of one of today's dollars.

Today, labor unions function primarily through leveraged "negotiations" - using the implied threat of a production-ending strike to achieve their goals. A strike is essentially a variation on your basic blackmail scheme - "If you don't give us what we want, we will ruin you (financially) by shutting down your business until we get what we want."

In the most recent skirmish in the battle over the right to work in Wisconsin, a Dane County Circuit Court judge ruled in favor of the unions, saying the state legislature violated the state's

open meeting law. Apparently the unions own some judges in Wisconsin. The media are reporting the Wisconsin law as an "anti-union" law, when the proper way to look at it is as a pro-worker law.

The United States Declaration of Independence proclaims "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Nowhere in the Declaration is forced union membership mentioned! Nor is the payment of union dues by non-union workers, which is another desire of the union bosses! True liberty includes the liberty to perform labor under conditions to which the individual freely agrees - not under conditions of coercion by way of threats or acts of violence.

The man you made President of The United States - Barack Obama - during his campaign in 2008, made promises to the big unions that he must keep - or risk losing their support in the 2012 election. Among those promises was the unionization of all government workers, and the implied elimination of those unnecessary right to work laws... which the unions find to be bothersome.

How do the unions benefit their members? Not nearly so well as they benefit the union leadership. Granted, the members are making a "living wage" (and then some), but their wages are paltry compared to the salaries of their bosses. As an example, let's look at just the upper upper-echelon (the top ten officers) of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU - which is also the world's largest union):

Officers and Employees

• Average Total Compensation: $62,170.21

• Total Employees: 1,030

• Employees Making more than $75,000: 321

Top Ten Highest Paid Leaders

Name	Title	Total Compensation
Andrew Stern	International President	$306,388.00
David Regan	Executive Vice President	$265,488.00
Dennis Rivera	Vice President	$265,216.00
Anna Burger	International Sec-Treas	$252,724.00
Eliseo Medina	Executive Vice President	$242,286.00
Mary Kay Henry	Executive Vice President	$231,348.00
Gerald Hudson	Executive Vice President	$230,671.00
Thomas Woodruff	Executive Vice President	$218,723.00
Scott Courtney	Organizing Dir	$204,750.00
Kirk Adams	Executive Board Member	$197,939.00

The total compensation of the top ten SEIU officers costs the membership: $2,415,533 per annum

BUT... they have 1,031 employees whose average salary is $62,170.21p/a and that works out to a dues-paying membership cost of $64,035,316p/a just for the big shots. And 32% - almost 1/3 - of those officials make in excess of $75,000 per annum. The total compensation package of the "International President" of the SEIU is 65% (plus what he can steal from the membership) of that of the US President ($469,000 - plus what he can steal from the taxpayers)!

Since the big brouhaha over restricting union organization efforts in Wisconsin began, several months ago, and WI Governor Walker's attempt to keep Wisconsin a right to work state, there have been these developments...

"We will hunt you down . . . slit your throats . . . drink your blood. I will have your decapitated head on a pike in the Madison town square." Those are the words of a union militant aimed directly at a Wisconsin state legislator for daring to vote to restrict Big Labor's forced dues control over Wisconsin state workers.

There were literally dozens of similar death threats, along with acts of vandalism leveled against Wisconsin state legislators and Governor Scott Walker for not toeing the union boss line.

After reporting a timesheet-padding scheme, one of the whistle blowers was beaten so severely by union thugs he suffered two herniated discs and had to undergo knee surgery.

Another whistle blower found a dead rat in his locker, along with a note which said he would, "be taken care of." And another stated he was told: "If I continue to complain about their finances, they would have me killed."

Union bosses consider themselves to be above the law because -- they are -- thanks to the Supreme Court's infamous 1973 Emmons decision, granting union bosses immunity from prosecution for acts of violence and vandalism they orchestrate in the so-called "pursuit of legitimate union objectives." How stupid was that? Essentially it says that union bosses can instruct their minions to go forth and commit mayhem and murder so long as it is in pursuit of legitimate union objectives, and that the bosses themselves cannot be prosecuted for the directed actions of their subordinates.

Organized labor - on an interstate scale - has been with us since 1866, when the "National Labor Union" was formed. But, organized labor had little impact upon society-at-large until 1914, and the passage of the Clayton Anti-trust Act, which limited the use of injunctions in labor disputes and provided that picketing and other union activities are not illegal conspiracies or trusts.

In the mid-to-late 1800's secondary education and literacy among the working class were much less common than today. Perhaps there was a genuine need for organizing the workers back then. Maybe they were just too dumb to form their own independent groups to insure fairness in the workplace. But, in my mind anyway, 150 years later those conditions no longer exist. By comparison today's worker is highly educated, more aware of what constitutes fair working conditions and compensation, and what options are available to him/her should he feel the entity for which he toils is being less than equitable.

Forcing workers to either join a union, or pay dues to a union which one does not belong, makes about as much sense as going to the supermarket and being charged for all the groceries you didn't want!

Thomas Jefferson, the great American statesman, once said, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." We ALL need to be more vigilant in our observations of the processes of the government... before its unabated appetites allow it to completely consume our beloved Republic.

I'm Gil, (and you're not - be thankful!) and I approve this blog. I am an equal opportunity cynic and iconoclast.

States Rights? What A Ridiculous Idea!

The headline at HumanEvents.com reads: "Eleven States Declare Sovereignty Over Obama's Actions" and the following is an excerpt from that site ...

"In the first five weeks of his presidency, Barack Obama has acted so rashly that at least 11 states have decided that his brand of “hope” equates to an intolerable expansion of the federal government’s authority over the states. These states -- "Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, California...Georgia," South Carolina, and Texas -- "have all introduced bills and resolutions" reminding Obama that the 10th Amendment protects the rights of the states, which are the rights of the people, by limting the power of the federal government. These resolutions call on Obama to “cease and desist” from his reckless government expansion and also indicate that federal laws and regulations implemented in violation of the 10th Amendment can be nullified by the states."

It was unsurprising that our left-wing Socialist Government would move quickly to minimize states rights. Equally unsurprising are the various left-wing efforts around the country to make gun ownership extremely difficult and/or extremely expensive, inasmuch as they understand the immediate citizens response to making ownership of firearms illegal. Labyrinthine laws, Draconian in their intent and confusing by design, have sprung up in many places. One state legislator has proposed a law requiring that all gun owners must provide proof of a $1,000,000 liability insurance policy specifically for their firearms. This is good news for the insurance companies, but not so good for the honest working-class citizen. Illinois Representative Bobby Rush has submitted HR45: Blair Holt's Firearms Licensing and Record of Sales Act of 2009, as a proposed law in an attempt to intimidate gun owners by tracking them like ex-convicts, and burying them in an avalanche of administrative requirements. THIS IS OBVIOUSLY A STATES RIGHTS ISSUE! And apparently, it's one of the many Constitutional protections the left-wing wishes to eliminate. Registration is the first step toward confiscation.

Here's an excerpt from a little known passage in our Declaration of Independence - "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." The reference, of course, is to the tyrannical rule of King George III over the "subjects" of the British Colonies now known as the United States of America.

Given our present course, I see the USA being replaced by the SSA (Socialist States of America), because of our complacency. According to the published election results, a slight majority of our countrymen - both living and dead - chose to elect a known left wing Socialist as our President. Barack Obama is a man, who through deed and word, has demonstrated his disdain for our country, its customs, and our cultural heritage. He failed to show respect to our flag - a flag for which tens of thousands of freedom-loving Americans have sacrificed their lives. And in his book, "The Audacity of Hope" there's this statement:

“I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”

I'm sorry, but how ignorant does one have to be to NOT understand that Obama does not now, nor has he ever, had the best interests of our country at heart? IF he is an American by virtue of his birth to an American mother - and notice that's a big IF - it is the only connection he has to America. Factual proof of his place of birth has not yet been made public. In fact, those records have been sealed. Why? Another unanswered question surrounds the origins of the financial means by which he attended "Ivy League" universities ... but, again, those records have been sealed. Why?

I could be wrong about all this ... but I'm NOT!