Would You Rather Fish For Freedom... or Cut Bait For Obama?

Referring to slavery, Abraham Lincoln said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half-slave and half-free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved - I do not expect the house to fall - but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other."

Paraphrasing our 16th President, yet referring to a different kind of slavery - "A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half socialist-progressive and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved - I do not expect the house to fall - but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other." (emphasis added)

I, on the other hand, would not be surprised to see the Union dissolve. Thirty-three states have felt it necessary to reaffirm their sovereignty over the past 12 months. Why do you think that is? Were their State Legislatures bored, and had nothing better to do? The reason is that they can see The Beast of government growing larger on an almost-daily basis - stealing more power for itself while attempting to reduce the powers granted to the States by the United States Constitution, Amendment X - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Any government is essentially a parasite. Our government is much like a leech - one which "supports" itself by simply taxing the earnings generated by the blood, toil, tears and sweat of the citizens of the fifty sovereign states. The government ignores the expressed will of the people, for we are not nearly as intelligent as "The Chosen One". We are just the ignorant worker-drones whose only legitimate function is to feed The Beast. But The Beast is insatiable.

SAVE THE REPUBLIC - IMPEACH OBAMA!

"May You Live In Interesting Times" - ancient Chinese curse

Interesting times, indeed! Any point in time is "interesting" for somebody... whether they are struggling for their life, or fly fishing in a quiet stream. Interesting is a relative term - relative to humdrum or boring. Our present time is one I find quite interesting.

Among those things of interest to me are the troubles in the middle East, the world-wide recession, the election of a socialist as the President of the United States and his appointment of various incompetents to Cabinet posts, "swine flu"/H1N1 virus, what is essentially the nationalization of two-thirds of the US automotive industry and many of our financial institutions, and the preference a 2" long fish is given over the jobs of 80,000 farm workers - causing an immediate and critical shortage of American grown vegetables from California. Let's look at them one-by-one.

The middle East of which I write consists primarily of Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Pakistan and all the other, relatively calm, "flyover" countries in between.

Afghanistan has its own unique set of problems. For decades (perhaps centuries) Afghanistan's main cash crop has been heroin, and the leadership had been primarily Islamic fundamentalists. The paradox is that, even in a major narcotic producing country such as Afghanistan, drug abuse is illegal. And punishments for breaking their drug laws are much more Draconian than our own. Death is about as severe as a penalty can... get short of perhaps death by torture. Add to that problem a heavy influx of Western military personnel, bringing with them a perception (real or not) of invasion, and a reactive, militant Taliban, and you have a fine recipe for chaos! The intelligent thing for the Taliban to do? Sit quietly and do nothing. Sooner than later, the Western forces will depart, and then Aghanistan can go back to business as usual. Turn that blind eye toward the heroin poppy crops and drug "smuggling" (nudge-nudge, wink-wink), reinstate Sharia law, subjugate females again ... all the fun things of Islam.

Iraq gets the same recommendation: cool your heels until the West leaves, then complete your struggle for control against the democratically elected government. They will quickly fold, and you win! Why fight against a multinational force with superior technology, weaponry, and training. You have something they don't... the desire to be there! Leave them alone and they will get bored and go back to wherever they came from. They are not there to take over your country. Besides... who but you would want it? I see it as nothing more than a gigantic litter box!

Pakistan... what can I say about Pakistan? They're having some internal strife, caused by the Taliban in the Swat valley. They also seem to have the motivation, and the forces and necessary logistics ability, to deal with that strife. The West should just sit back and watch from afar, as the situation there develops. Let the Pakistanis decide their own destiny. If the government asks for assistance perhaps provide logistical support, but no "boots on the ground".

The real problem in the middle East is Iran. Perhaps not the people of Iran, but the mentally deranged leadership of Iran. Their "elected" president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and their religous leader - who is the actual power in Iran - Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, are two nuts from the same tree. First of all, they believe that Israel should be "wiped from the face of the Earth", which is a position that sounds pretty much non-negotiable right now. It's almost as if "Kill the Jews, and Death to The Great Satan (that's the USA)" has become their national motto. Add to that attitude, the fact that today, May 20th 2009, Iran announced the successful launch of a Sajjil-2 missile with approximately a 1,200-1,550 mile (2000-2500km) range, which can easily reach into Israel. Now, throw in Iran's unmonitored, super-secret nuclear program, and Israel has a genuine reason for concern. In the past, the surrounding Arab nations have discovered that Israel does not like surprises from outside their country. In fact, when it comes time for somebody to jump up and yell, "SURPRISE!!", it's the Israelis who prefer that role. It is not outside the realm of belief that, for some time, Israel has been busying themselves developing strategies to deal with just that type of situation before it becomes a problem for them. Can you say preemptive strike? History has shown that the Israelis don't start trouble where there is none - they specialize in ending those troubles!

And, speaking of surprises... did the world-wide recession come as a surprise to you? It caught me off-guard, for sure. Luckily, I have no personal investments, or at least no direct personal investments to watch evaporate. I'm sure my credit union has some going with my money, but I still feel that it's relatively safe, even though my money may be inflated more than the Goodyear blimp. For decades, The USA has been the world's largest consumer of those things we call "consumables". We have done our part! Our consuming of consumables made consumption by lesser consumers look miserly. So what happened? Unfortunately, I do not have even a tenuous grasp of international economics, so I can't make an educated guess. What I can do is provide this quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln:

1. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.

2. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

3. You cannot help small men up by tearing big men down.

4. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
5. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
6. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.

7. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
8. You cannot establish sound social security on borrowed money.

9. You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man's initiative and independence.
10. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.

Abraham Lincoln

Since the 1940s these “Ten Points” attributed to Lincoln have been widely reprinted. They have appeared in such places as magazines, Christmas cards, and the Congressional Record. However, the Library of Congress and Lincoln scholars believe that any connection made between Lincoln and the “Ten Points” is spurious. On the other hand, they are "good ol' homespun, common sense" statements - the type for which Lincoln was known.

As for the President and his Cabinet appointments - what is, is! Sadly, the American people must now live (hopefully) with it. I find Obama's apparent lack of birth certification interesting...

"Swine flu"... SCARY! Well worth being aware of, but not worth putting oneself into panic-overdrive. It's interesting that there have been relatively few fatalities from the H1N1.

Nationalizing private industry and financial institutions is socialism at its finest! Next will be the unsuccessful attempts at firearms confiscation, control of food supplies by banning home gardens, rationing of fuels, national health care, etc. It will be interesting to see just how all that plays out.

Eliminating the critical irrigation system to the largest single produce-growing area of our country - California - to save a 2" long freshwater smelt! However, smelt are not naturally freshwater fish, but were introduced into the freshwater ecosystem by man! Isn't that interesting? Somebody needs to start a "SAVE THE HUMANS" campaign!

There is always a chance I could be wrong about this, but we certainly do live in "interesting times".

"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.