Law and Order Teacher

FATHER'S DAY

2011-06-20T23:28:00.003-04:00

DAD, I MISS YOU. I know you're in heaven and enjoying yourself and all the fruits of your good life, but really, we miss you. There is not a day that goes by that I don't think about you and wish I could be half the Dad and man that you were. Mom misses you a lot and talks about and to you all the time. She's starting to not remember things and she's a little off sometimes, but when it comes to you she remembers everything about you. I think she is really anxious to meet you again.

So just wait awhile and give it some time. Mom will be with you and you'll be together again. I think that's what she wants. I hope she stays around awhile, but you'll be with her soon enough. Let us have her for awhile, ok?

Love, your son.

ROCKY

2011-06-20T22:53:00.006-04:00

Just thought I'd throw something out there. We lost a fine young man from our hometown a couple of weeks ago. He was killed in Afghanistan. I want to make Vietnam comparisons and the like, but he deserves more. Rocky was a good kid who won the Purple Heart in a prior tour, but he went back. This tour cost him his life. We are a small town and it hurt us all to lose Rocky. It hurt my wife a lot because she knew him since he was a kid. What a shame.

When will this end? Afghanistan is becoming a Vietnam. It is a worthless piece of dirt and democracy is a concept they don't get. 7,000 years of tribalism won't end in a great democracy. Stop killing our boys. We lost 58,000.

When will it end?

TRUE GRIT REDUX

2010-12-28T20:51:00.004-05:00

My wife and I are going to see "True Grit." I don't go to the movies very much for two reasons. One, it's as expensive as hell and two, I haven't seen many that stack up to the movies I've watched from years ago, Gran Torino being a notable exception. I watched the original True Grit the other night. I love the movie and the performances by John Wayne, Kim Darby, Glen Campbell, Robert Duvall, and a cameo by Dennis Hopper will be hard to top. This was an Oscar winning movie (John Wayne). We'll see if the remake stacks up.

GAMING?

2010-12-19T22:04:00.005-05:00

Today in church the sermon was about gaming God. I hadn't thought about it, but this really brought home a lot about my life. Father talked about the times in our lives when we have our backs against the wall and we make a deal with God. I was there. When I was on the plane to SE Asia I was gaming God. I made a deal with Him about getting me out safely. If He did it I'd be a better Catholic. The priests at the base I came from passed out rosaries and I took one with no particular idea that I would use it more than I had in the past. On the plane, I don't mind telling you I was working those beads! Of course, when I came back I wasn't the Christian I should have been. I got out in one piece and I'm happy about that.

When I was a cop I gamed God a lot. I prayed for my safety every night. My wife gave me a medal (a Catholic thing) of St. Michael the Archangel, the patron saint of police. I got out of the job basically in one piece and I'm glad it's over.

Father nailed it. Nearly forty years later I hadn't thought of gaming God until Father brought it up. Now I am in the position of trying to think of how I can make up for that. Is God upset that we game Him?

ISLE OF HOPE

2010-12-17T23:09:00.001-05:00

This song epitomizes what it means to be an American. Listen and enjoy. With apologies to my friend Z.

AMERICA

2010-12-17T22:44:00.003-05:00

I understand the draw of America. We are fortunate to be Americans. I talked to a teacher friend of mine today who is active in the German club in the area. I once belonged to this club but I lost interest when it dissolved into a intraclub fight. I walked away. My friend assured me that the club had cleared out and become what it had once been. I'll think about joining again and I hope the club will be what it was I thought it would be.

I wanted to celebrate my heritage as a German. There is no country that has contributed more to America. More Americans trace their heritage to Germany than any ethnicity. Germans have contributed more to the fabric of America than any other enthnicity. British you say? Check the numbers. Germans rank number one.

When it's all said and done America draws from the world, and why not? Freedom is very attractive. My question: Has any other country written a song extolling the virtues of a country their people have emmigrated to?

NOTHING'S GOING TO CHANGE MY WORLD

2010-12-11T01:07:00.002-05:00

The Beatles are the greatest band ever. My wife and I watched a PBS fundraising special that featured folk music. We sang the songs together and enjoyed ourselves. I thought a lot about our music and this song kept coming back to me. I remember my daughter saying this was her favorite song. Mine too.

UNIVERSAL SOLDIER

2010-12-11T00:21:00.001-05:00

I'm still around. I'm not really disposed to post. Someday I will.

St. Michael the Archangel, my patron

2010-09-26T22:45:00.002-04:00

Since I was a kid I have loved St. Michael the Archangel. I was attracted to him as a warrior for Christ. I was devoted to that from the time I was a child. I think that attracted most of my friends. We identified with St. Michael and wanted to emulate him. I've tried to do that all my life. My son was named after him and I devoted my life to him.

I tried to be worthy of him and I hope I have.

JUST A THOUGHT II

2010-09-26T21:47:00.002-04:00

I thought I'd put this song up. One of my students asked if I'd heard of this song. I hadn't, but she said it reminded her of me talking about my wife in class. I listened and I was blown away. Just when you think students don't care they mess things up and let you know they do. Who knew?

JUST A THOUGHT

2010-09-26T21:30:00.001-04:00

I haven't been around much lately but I thought I'd leave this song to inspire those of us who have lost love ones. One more day.

INNER SEARCH

2010-08-12T23:10:00.005-04:00

I've spent a lot of time reflecting these past months on my life and my relationships. The foremost relationship that emerged in my thoughts was with God. In my life I've been in some situations that I didn't know if I would survive. But one thought that always came to me was that when I was scared and in a bad situation I prayed. That was probably a function of my upbringing, but I also think that it was deep in my soul. I remember praying on the plane to Vietnam and making a pact with God that if I got out I would be a better person, one He would approve of. I did the same while I was a cop before I went into situations that were frightening to me. I am here and He delivered me. My contemplation was, why? That's where I am now. God allowed me to survive these times in my life and the only answer I can come up with is that He's not done with me. Now I search for that answer. What does God have in store for me? In God We Trust? I do.

MY EXPERIENCE WITH ANGELS

2010-08-11T18:45:00.004-04:00

I was thinking about my dad today. I do that when I have a hard decision to make. We have to decide about the players on our soccer team who will be varsity and who will be Junior Varsity. Mostly, to me it's not a hard decision, but to the players it is really important. There will be tears, there always is, there will be parents who don't agree, there always is. A friend of mine who coaches another team had a parent challenge him to fight and spit in his face after he cut his daughter. Hopefully, that doesn't happen to me.

I posted this song because I believe there are angels watching over us as we make our decisions. My dad is an angel because he was a true believer in Christ. He was a much better Christian than I ever thought of being and I know he is with God and is enjoying the company of his relatives who went before him.

I have a very strong belief in angels. My personal experience with them is paramount in my life. They protect us and guide us towards what God wants from us. I spent a lot of years in harm's way in my life. I don't say that to get admiration from anyone, it's just a fact. When I went into the military my parents reminded me of my faith and that no matter what happened God would never abandon me. They gave me Holy Cards, a Catholic thing, that I carried with me throughout my time in the service.

As a kid I was fascinated by the angels and their mission of protecting us. That became the inspiration of my life, to protect, first in the military and then as a police officer. I always admired St. Michael and the rest of the Archangels. It appealed to me that God had appointed them to protect heaven against the fallen angels and to provide security for heaven. I wanted to be like them. The patron saint of police officers is St. Michael and I identified with him throughout my life. When I became a police officer I was given a St. Michael the Archangel medal to wear around my neck by those who loved me. It was for protection. I wore it for 26 years and I made it out the other side. My parents and loved ones were relieved as was I.

However, I had a close encounter with my angels in 1978. While chasing suspects in a stolen car we became embroiled in a high speed chase. The suspects lost control of the vehicle and drove through a hotel window. I went to the rear of the vehicle and ordered the suspects out. While at the rear of the vehicle I heard a loud crash above my head as the glass from the 35 foot window broke loose and fell towards me. For some reason I took a step back and the glass cut my leg inflicting a cut that took over a hundred stitches to close. If I hadn't stepped back I would have been struck by the glass, probably in the head. I know this because the glass struck my arm and knocked my gun out of my hand. My angel saved me. I knew then God had a plan for me.

I still wear that medal around my neck everyday and I feel St. Michael's protection all the time. I have a statue of St. Michael on my desk at school and we named our son after him. I believe.

INSTALLMENT THREE

2010-08-10T15:29:00.003-04:00

Another fascinating period in US history is that time period referred to as the Gilded Age. This phrase, coined by Mark Twain, refers mainly to the period immediately following the Civil War and stretching to early part of the 20th century. The Gilded Age gave birth to the "Progressive Era." The excesses of this period paved the way for progressive legislation we will talk about later in this post.

I read a book written by Kenneth Atkinson called "Dark Horse" about the election and assassination of James A. Garfield of Mentor, Ohio. Garfield was a Civil War hero and respected congressman. His election in 1880 followed the presidency of Rutherford B. Hayes, who shared a similiar biography and was also from Ohio. Hayes had followed Grant, who shared Civil War service and too, was from Ohio. That's a rather odd coincidence I suppose, but it is testament to the fact that Ohio was as it is today, a battleground state.

The politics of the Gilded Age were fascinating and were dominated by political machines headed by powerful bosses who controlled and swung elections to their candidates. I suppose it is no coincidence that immigration was at flood stage during the Gilded Age and new immigrants made promising targets for the political bosses who were expert at exploiting them for votes. Some things don't change I guess.

The political strategists (bosses) were just getting ahold of the power of class warfare and continued to mine it with zeal for votes and power. The interplay of the bosses and powerful politicians was really a fascinating part of this book. In the 1880 election the Democrats were basically small time players as they were for most of the Gilded Age. In fact, the Democrats elected only one president from 1860 until 1912. Grover Cleveland won the 1884 and 1892 elections becoming the only president to serve non-consecutive terms. Other than those two elections it was domination by the Republicans. It should also be noted here that with the notable exception of Cleveland, the Gilded Age presidents uniformly acquiesced to the legislative branch. Consequently, the power players of Gilded Age were congressmen and most notably senators. Names such as Roscoe Conkling of NY, James Blaine of Maine, Marc Hanna of Ohio, and Henry Cabot Lodge of Mass., to name a few were the true power players.

The main issues of the 1880 election were Civil Service Reform and monetary policy. The Republican Party was split between two factions, the Stalwarts, led by Conkling, and the Half-Breeds, led by Blaine. Their major bone of contention in the 1880 election was the nomination of Grant for a third term with the Stalwarts backing Grant. This disagreement had led to the split in the party as the corruption of the Grant administration had damaged the image of Grant and the Republicans. The nickname of Half-Breeds had intially been a pejorative, but faction came to take as a badge of honor. The Republican convention degenerated into a political bloodbath as backers of Grant and Blaine fought ballot after ballot for the nomination.

Garfield emerged gradually as a reform candidate. On the 32nd ballot he chosen by a candidate of the reform which continued to grow culminating in his nomination and election. Sadly, Garfield was assassinated in 1881, just as he was emerging as a president willing to take on the political bosses in his own party. My opinion is that the unfulfilled presidency of Garfield was a tragedy with the outcome of adding fuel to the fire for the progressive movement. By this I mean that Garfield, with his popularity within congress and with the American people, could have achieved genuine reforms that made sense without the excesses of the progressive movement.

The Gilded Age is a very interesting period in US history and it needs much more study by Americans. That study will, I trust, give pause to the winds that are sweeping away small government at an alarming rate. There's nothing like learning from the past to sober up the American people. Our politicians are in full power grab mode and we need a president like a Garfield or Cleveland to step on the brake and restore some sanity.

I have given my Advanced Placement US history students an assignment to read several articles covering the Gilded Age and the approach of citizens, like Andrew Carnegie to the use of accumulated wealth. I'll give you the link here.

Read the following articles "The Economy of Time and Expenses," "Wealth," and "The Relation of Wealth to Morals." They will give you a good idea of the thinking of Gilded Age Americans and their thoughts about the booming economy that poured out wealth at an astonishing rate stepping up the pace of the change of America from an agrarian based economy to an industrialized economy. Americans struggle with the problem of accumulated wealth to this day. It's interesting to read how they thought about the "wealth problem" and their reactions to it. It's an interesting insight that we will discuss beginning the opening day of school with a test. You have to make sure they read, right?

Senator Ted Stevens killed in plane crash

2010-08-10T15:23:00.002-04:00

This is just a question. I wonder of the president will speak at a memorial for Ted Stevens who was killed yesterday in a plane crash. Stevens was a bona fide hero of the Second World War, who after the war got a bachelor's degree from UCLA and a law degree from Harvard. He served for many years as a Republican senator from Alaska. Certainly he didn't feel the need to join the KKK, but he did lead a distinguished life. He was convicted of corruption charges that were later overturned by a federal judge due to prosecutorial misconduct. All in all, a life well-lived.

INSTALLMENT TWO

2010-08-06T17:32:00.006-04:00

Probably my favorite period of US history is the first half of the 19th century. The first question in your mind is probably "What's so special about that period?" Let's talk about that time in American history. So...we're at the beginning of the country. We've fought the revolution and won and we exist as a country. Great. What happens now? Throughout the 1790s the country is fending off England, France and other countries that aren't quite believing that America is a credible, new country. Most European countries are convinced that if America was left to its own devices it would probably implode. After all, European countries had been around for centuries and America is a new experiment in self-government. Surely that won't work, right? Having said that, the first half of the 19th century was dicey to say the least for our country.

Now the books I will discuss are two. The first is "Henry Clay: Essential American" by David S. and Jeanne T. Fiedler and "American Lion" by Jon Meachem. Obviously, the first is about Henry Clay, the second is about Andrew Jackson. The importance of these two books is that Clay and Jackson were contemporaries and really enemies. These are two titans of government. Let's talk about what they believed.

Clay was a vehement advocate of the American System. That entailed spending federal money to improve the infrastructure of the states. Jackson not so much. I am not so much of a fan of the American System, but that was a dividing issue between the two.

Let's look at Clay's career. First he is one of the youngest appointed US Senators ever, pre-17th Amendment. Don't even get me started about the 17th Amendment. While a member of congress he was a major force in the Compromise of 1820 that set the Civil War back decades. If you remember, sectionalism was rising and the south was feeling really subordinate to the northern, manufacturing states. But the overall issue was slavery and the southern states wanted to protect that above everything else. Clay was from Kentucky and owned slaves. The compromise allowed the senate to maintain an equilibrium between southern (slave holding states) and northern (non-slave holding states).

Then Clay was involved in the nullification crisis of 1832. Long story short, John Calhoun, a slavery, southern state's rights adovocate, felt that the Tariff of Abominations (1828) was a killer for the south, and really it was. Calhoun, citing the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 written by Jefferson and Madison advocating nullification of laws felt to be unconstitutional, was the leader of the South Carolina delegation in electing "nullies" who then nullified the tariff.

This set up a confrontation with President Jackson, who personally didn't agree with the tariff, but felt that the rule of law must be obeyed. Jackson threatened to send a military detachment to enforce the law and hang any "nullies" who did not obey the law. Anyone familiar with Jackson's career wouldn't doubt his threat. Clay stepped in and negotiated a compromise tariff that headed off the crisis and saved another confrontation between the north and the south.

The last of Clay's moments as the "Great Compromiser" was the Compromise of 1850. It was a comglomeration of bills that allowed both the south and the north to save face and put off the Civil War for another decade. As you can probably tell I am a Clayophile. I think he is as the title of the book states, "The Essential American." Jackson on the other hand, was a great figure, but he was certainly the greatest example of the "Imperial Presidency." Is that a good thing?

Besides Clay's congressional career, he negotiated the Treaty of Ghent that ended the War of 1812. He was involved in every major decision of America from 1811 to 1850 until his death in 1852. All in all, he was the greatest statesman in American history. The beauty of American history is that two titantic figures such as Jackson and Clay were contemporaries who fought against each other for the betterment of the country. How was Clay not elected president when we were blessed with such lumunaries as Martin Van Buren, William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, James K. Polk, Zachary Taylor, and Millard Fillmore during the same period?

Read up on these two figures and know the greatness of this country. I loved both of these books and learned a tremendous amount about that vital first half of the 19th century. There were many great Americans. Just read.

STEP 1: DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

2010-08-01T17:38:00.003-04:00

I felt in my journey that I needed to start at the beginning. The beginning for me was the Declaration of Independence. All the things that led to it were interesting and I love reading about them, but, the Declaration is really the beginning of America as we know it. It has no legal binding, but, it really is the manifesto of American democracy or a republic as it is structured. I won't bore you with a recitation of everything I found in it, but suffice it to say it's one of the most important documents ever written in the history of mankind.

It staked out a place in which man was able to govern himself overturning eons of monarchical rule. It certainly overturned nearly 2000 years of governance in western history. In reading it you should focus on the second part, just after the preamble. "When in the course of human events" leads to the second part or the world's greatest editorial. It answers the question "why?" Why should the Americans desire to separate from the king?

The second part really reads like poetry or a song. Read it slowly and enjoy what it has to say about the ability of man to govern himself and then allow the shear revolutionary nature of its message to penetrate your mind. Swish it around like a good drink and revel in the audacity of its message. Poetry indeed. It is what we are, or strive to be.

With all its poetry, however, remember that it didn't materialize in a vacuum. The founders were voracious readers of all types of literature. They became the ultimate Enlightenment thinkers, not because they wrote, but because they DID. They put words into action. The third part is a list of grievances against the king.

They were tempered by the committee as they could have been over the top. My friend Oso once pointed out to me that he was upset at the writers for calling Native Americans "savages." That's a valid point. But in perspective, the early colonists differentiated the natives between those they were able to live with and those that they fought. The Declaration refers to recent atrocities "out west" after the British abandoned the west following the last French and Indian War in 1763.

Pontiac's War soon followed and the British issued the Proclamation of 1763 forbidding settlement west of the Appalachians. The Americans, being entrepreneurial in nature, refused to give up on good land and basically ignored it. Battles ensued between the settlers and the Indians and they were very brutal on both sides, hence the "savage" reference.

Read the Declaration for what it is, the best written version of the ideals of a perfect government ever written. But alas, governments are made by men and they are imperfect. As Madison said in Federalist 10, "If men were angels no government would be necessary."

So ends installment one.

A JOURNEY OF SELF-EDUCATION

2010-07-23T16:56:00.003-04:00

Recently, I felt that my education concerning history was lacking. After some soul searching, I felt I needed to take some kind of action to become better. I know a lot of histoy, but I felt that I was not as knowledgeable as I should be. So I contemplated taking some classes, but they would surely be very narrow in their scope, right? How then could I expand and deepen my knowledge? I identified several areas or time periods in American history that I felt I needed to know more about. Next I looked for books that addressed these time periods in a balanced way and I read them. So I've spent this last month or so reading and reading a lot.

I found that if someone arrives at the point where they feel they need more education it is that person's responsibility to educate themselves. Therefore, I embarked on a self-education program. I've read eight books so far in the last month. I identified periods of our history that I felt I didn't know enough about, found written material on those periods and read them. The amount that I've learned in the last month has been incredible. I would be arrogant to think that I'm done, but I feel I've broadened my knowledge and I look forward to the new school year and my opportunity to give my knowledge to my students. It's been an interesting ride and I have vowed to myself that the ride will continue.

For those of you who wrote to me in concern, thank you. My attention has been riveted in my self-education and with other obligations I was a little busy. I'll post some things about the books I've read and provide a list of them if anyone is interested. Thanks for the posts. I'll do more now.

REMEMBER

2010-06-21T00:40:00.001-04:00

Every once in a while I need to remember. I always post with the Security Police shield. This is why.

THEY GET US ALL, DON'T THEY?

2010-06-20T23:48:00.003-04:00

I had an interesting conversation in church this morning. We have a lot of veterans in our church and I keep in regular contact with them. This morning I talked to one of our Korea War veterans. I stopped him and said "Sixty years this week, thanks for what you did." He got a quizzical look on his face and said, "Sixty years?" I said, "Sixty years ago, 1950, the Korea War started." He said, "I wasn't there until 1952." At this point I figured he was confused and didn't get what I was saying. I thanked him again and he said when were you there. I thought he was talking about my war and I said, "1972." A look came over his face and he said, "They get us all don't they?"

He winked and said, "The wars get all the young guys don't they?" I thought for a moment and said, "They really do get us all." I told him he was part of the Greatest Generation and he was really embarrassed. My dad had the same reaction. He said, "We did what our country needed. You did that too, right?" I thought about it and said, "Jerry, you're right. They get us all, don't they?" He said, "Thank you too." We shook hands, he handed me a church bulletin and we walked off.

FATHER'S DAY

2010-06-19T16:58:00.002-04:00

June 18th was the second anniversary of my dad's passing. My daughter called and wanted to know if I was alright. I told her I was fine because I think about my dad many times each day. I don't just wake up on the 18th and get depressed. He never really leaves my mind so the 18th wasn't really any tougher than any other day. I miss him more than you can imagine, but the lessons he taught me about what a real man is and does, make me feel like he never has been gone. The Greatest Generation? No doubt. Happy Father's Day, Dad.

My daughter gave my wife and I a great combination Mother's and Father's Day present. She bought us tickets to the Bold Fresh Tour in Columbus on Friday. We loved it and had a great time. Beck and O'Reilly were hysterical. We laughed the whole night and enjoyed our evening. Before the show we went to dinner with our daughter and her boyfriend and had a great, great evening. We are very fortunate to have great children who still care about us. Quite a blessing.

EXCUSES, EXCUSES, EXCUSES!

2010-06-17T12:50:00.004-04:00

OK, I've been laying out recently and haven't posted or commented much for a while. I apologize, but yes, I have excuses. The end of the school year has come and gone and that's hectic as heck what with exams and grades. Mine is a little more hectic because I have to prepare my grades and exams early because I read Advanced Placement essays in Louisville for seven days, causing me to miss the last week of school. Thankfully, I have a great friend and fellow conservative teacher who graciously enters my grades for me in the school computer. Last, but not least, we began conditioning sessions for our high school girl's soccer team that I coach.

ESSAY SCORING

The essay grading for Advanced Placement US history is quite a process. Over 1200 AP US history teachers gather to grade essays for a week every year. Over 300,000 students took the AP test this year. The test consists of three essays, and 80 Mutiple Choice questions answered in 55 minutes. The multiple choice questions are graded by computer. Each student writes three essays. Two are free responses in which the student is given a question and required to write an essay to answer that question based on the knowledge the student possesses about that question. I'll link the essay questions from this year's test. The other essay is a Document Based Question (DBQ) in which the student is given parts of several documents to use as a reference to answer the question. The student must include a preponderance, (rule of thumb: half plus one) of the documents to answer the question.

The essays have to be graded by trained teachers who read them. It is a very taxing process in which we read from 8am-5pm, with an hour off for lunch. All teachers read for six days. It's something like a death march. Most of the free response essays are in the page and a half to two page range. The DBQs are in the multiple page range, mostly 3-5 pages. I read over 1,080 essays. I did my part. Two teachers at my table read in excess of 1,700 essays. All in all a lot of work, but a great training experience. As for the scoring, a "9" is the highest grade on the scoring rubric. Of the over 1,000 I read, I scored two 9s, ten 8s, and a lot of 7s, 6s, and 5s, all good scores. A lot were in the 2-4 range, not so good. Read the questions and see how you would do. They are extremely difficult.

SOCCER

I've coached soccer for way past 25 years. My coaching began with the CYO (Catholic Youth Organization) when my son began playing 30 years ago. I learned about the game along with him. I began coaching high school girls in 1992. When my daughter started high school I started as an assistant coach of her team. After she graduated, I continued on until I started teaching at a rival high school. I eventually became the head coach at my school and started another season on Monday, June 14th. I love the job, but the head coach is responsible for everything that goes on and it's a lot and is very time consuming. Luckily the salary is overwhelmingly high. Insert sarcasm.

I'm convinced that if you are coaching for the money, you're doing it for the wrong reason. I love coaching kids and I believe in the lessons sports has to offer to them. I've made many friends in sports and many players have become great people and communicate frequently. That's all that really matters to me. I'm blessed with great assistants who are knowledgeable and passionate about coaching kids. In this day and age when youth sports are often under fire for parents and coaches who are out of control, there is much that is good about youth sports and I remain dedicated to it.

That's what I've been doing with my summer.

BABE

2010-05-21T23:52:00.002-04:00

I love the music of Styx. I was young once, although this was music of my time on the PD. This song always reminds me of my wife. I am lucky that she loves me and stays by me throughout all my stupid and crazy ideas.

That's love.

WELCOME AND TRASH US, PLEASE.

2010-05-21T23:17:00.003-04:00

I'm going to steal from my friend Z in posting this video. I'm appalled that a president from a supposedly friendly country, on the border no less, would come and trash the lawmaking authority of a state. Mexico is really such a well-run country, that we should listen to Calderon and his angst that we want to enforce the immigration laws of our country. Take some time to read the immigration laws of Mexico. Talk about draconian.

The worst is however, that our president stood by while Calderon trashed our country and agreed with his statements. Then Calderon is given an audience in the Congress of the US and is feted there with applause as he takes our country to task. What the hell is happening here?

When did it become un-American to be an American? McClintock is right. What the hell?

STANDARDIZED TEST RESULTS, 2010

2010-05-17T21:15:00.005-04:00

We received the results of our sophomores' attempt at the Ohio Graduation Test today. We had some mixed results but my students did very well. Out of the 52 sophomores in my classes, all passed. Three students were "proficient", passing at the lowest level. One missed the "accelerated" level by one point. The rest or 49, passed at either the "accelerated" or "advanced" levels. That's over 94% at the two highest levels.

It has always been my contention that students will achieve at a high level if they are expected to do that. We expect them to achieve and they do. Too often schools let students off too easy. They will give you what you ask of them. We should demand more of them.

Lest you think our school is some cushy suburban mostly white school, we have approximately 10% African-American, along with another 15% or so other mixed ethnicity, with about 50% of the students on free or reduced lunches.

They achieve because they are expected to.

AN HONEST POLITICIAN!

2010-05-15T17:47:00.002-04:00

This guy should be the politician we all want. Love him or hate him he's honest. HONEST. No more mealy-mouthed pansies hoping to get reelected. Just blunt honesty. I feel like I just gargled with Listerine mouthwash.

Refreshing!

A GOVERNMENT PLOT?

2010-05-15T15:37:00.006-04:00

If you are not familiar with George Whitefield, he was the foremost religious figure of the period of US history referred to as the "Great Awakening." This period certainly had a profound effect on colonial America and he is sometimes credited with inspiring the American Revolution with his appeals to the colonists concerning their "individual rights."

I think a case can be made for his preaching about individual rights igniting a new way of thinking among the rank and file colonists. In a time of royal domination, individual rights had a certain appeal and enough colonists rallied to that concept to bring on the revolution. The result is the existence of the United States Constitution, a document dedicated to protecting individual rights from government usurpation.

I am stunned by the quote below. After studying US history for most of my life, I was always of the opinion that the breakdown of relations between the American colonies and its mother country of Great Britain deteriotated because of a principle of "salutary neglect." Throughout its possession of colonies in the America, beginning in 1607 with Jamestown (the Lost Colony of Roanoke was just that), Britain was preoccupied with many colonial wars with Spain and France. Conventional thinking is that Britain ignored the American colonies at its own peril, resulting in a self-governing country growing up right under the British nose.

George Whitefield stated the following:

“I can’t in conscience leave the town without acquainting you with a secret. My heart bleeds for America. O poor New England! There is a deep laid plot against your civil and religious liberties, and they will be lost. Your golden days are at an end. You have nothing but trouble before you. . . . Your liberties will be lost.”

Readings do suggest that the British were stunned by the recalcitrance of the colonies as it pertains to British control in the form of taxes. But I've never taken into account this quote. Could the British have been plotting for the demise of the colonies as their arrogance and power grew, threatening the control of the British? Was the Revolution part of a British plan to bring the situation to a head and confront the colonists on the battlefield? That's what makes history so much fun to study.

I finish by asking this question: Does Whitefield's quote have a present day application?

Something to think about.

RISE UP, THOSE OF EUROPEAN DESCENT!

2010-05-10T20:17:00.004-04:00

Sometimes I'm ashamed of some of those in my profession. This guy is a seriously dangerous guy to have in a classroom. Apparently he is a social studies teacher in a "social justice" school. Besides the fact that he is a little wrong on his history, he's espousing the overthrow of capitalism and by extension the evil, white US. This guy glorifies Castro, Che, Chavez and any number of "enlightened" communist/socialist leaders who have made a career of murder and totalitarianism.

I wonder if because of my German heritage I were to espouse the wisdom of Bismarck. He united all the German pricipalities culminating in the newly united Germany in 1871. To do so he fought three wars against in order, Denmark, Austria, and France. After all, there are millions of Americans of German descent and should they all realize that they were used for most of their early stay in America, to perform manual labor in demeaning jobs and as cannon fodder in this nation's wars, they should rise up against the power structure and overthrow evil capitalism. We could certainly be joined by our Irish brothers who, too, were brought low by demeaning labor reserved for the lowest in society. What if I were to preach this to my students and radicalize them to become revolutionaries?

Oh right, most people of German and Irish descent assimilated, worked hard, learned the language and customs and have lived the American dream. They succeeded because they strived to do so. Hard work really does pay off.

By the way, the Mexican-American War was over in 1848. The US gained the land for 15 million dollars after a short but decisive war. The Mexicans gained the southwestern US after revolting against Spain. They invited Americans to settle in Texas, as long as they became Catholic and Mexican citizens. The Texans had enough of the ill treatment by the Mexican government and fought and gained independence for Texas in 1836, becoming a state in Feb. 1845, before the M/A war. Whose land was it? Seems to belong to whomever could take it.

Normally, I would ignore this jerk, but he's dangerous because he has access on a daily basis to young impressionable students. I'm sure he doesn't bring his prejudice to class. I'm sure he's a professional. Right.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DESERVES TO BE SUED

2010-05-08T15:55:00.005-04:00

While watching the hyperventilating over the Arizona law I was struck by the fact that if I lived in one of the four border states (California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas) affected most by illegal immigration, I would really want to sue the federal government. Too bad you can't sue the federal government very easily. The 1946 Federal Tort Claims Act, allows individuals to sue the federal government, but the doctrine of "sovereign immunity" is a tough nut to crack.

That said, let's dream. The four border states have been abandoned by the federal government which has abdicated its responsibility to secure the borders of the United States. This has gone on for over 30 years through the presidencies of Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama. I would submit that the federal government has failed in its duty to protect the security of the United States and it has done so for decades.

I have read the new law and I invite you to do the same. It mirrors the federal law and I invite you to read both.

It is my contention that Arizona passed the law in self defense. There is historical context for states taking the enforcement of laws into its own hands. The progressives, one of the most destructive forces ever unleashed on the country, understood this concept and most of the reforms were implemented by state and municipal governments rather than at the federal level. Laws against child labor, recall of candidates, referendum, and initiative are but a few. This blizzard of "reform" shows the necessity of local control over government. While some of the progressive agenda was well-crafted and needed, some was checked at the door and kept us from more harm than these progressives could have inflicted.

Once again, this fits into my narrative that federal government was purposely kept small and relatively weak in the constitution for a very good reason. The founders got it that the federal government is not able to understand the effects of its laws as it relates to state and local governments.

The states and local governments should be able to override most of the federal laws as it applies to their jurisdictions. While the supremacy clause may be brandished to back-up some arguments to the contrary, that argues even more emphatically for the federal government to limit its reach to that enumerated in the constitution.

The federal government has and continues to be nearly unchecked in its exercise of power over the states. Most appallingly, the federal government often resorts to monetary blackmail to implement laws that do little to enhance the life of its citizens.

After all, wasn't the American Revolution the ultimate statement of a people striving to gain local control over their lives? While their ruler was an ocean away, ours is, by their deaf ear, light years away.

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FAILURE, PART TWO

2010-05-03T21:38:00.003-04:00

My first instinct is to rip the Obama administration for its absolutely ridiculous response to the Gulf oil spill. They were slow and then began the blame game that they have resorted to in every situtation that they've confronted. But you see, I think there's a bigger issue here. This is proof positive of the complete ineptitude of the federal government in responding to any crisis quickly other than those of a military nature. Of course, sometimes those are botched also, civilian leadership being what it is, what with politics and all.

For those of you willing to throw your lot in with the federal government when it comes to serving you, I say watch and learn. The federal government response to Katrina, contrary to MSM and leftie statements, was not racially motivated, it was an inevitable consequence of federal government ineptness. The federal government is too large of a leviathan to do anything quickly and once put into action it is incapable of doing anything with precision. The federal government simply doesn't know the turf.

I for one, am not comfortable placing my safety and welfare in the hands of the federal government. The police and fire are local entities and as such they understand intimately the communities they serve. When the federal government gets involved confusion reigns. Again, I trust the military to do its duty, but the civilian leadership, while necessary, should in an emergency get out of the way and let the military do what it's trained to do.

In the last two major crises the state and local governments were paralyzed by the fact that they had to wait on the federal government for money. The mayor of NO and the governor of Louisiana failed miserably because they abdicated their responsibility to the federal government. The local and state government are capable of responding well and should do so. Load the busses, Ray!

The bombing in NY this weekend was handled early on by the NYPD and FDNY. They performed admirably and took care of the citizens who pay them. They responded quickly and professionally and took care of the situation. Local government is better because it localized and small. The federal government is unresponsive. State and local governments that abdicate to the federal government are not serving their taxpayers.

How many times does the federal government have to fail before the people say enough is enough? When will it become apparent why the founding fathers distrusted the federal government? The framers purposely set up the constitution to be a document that checked federal power and left the majority of the power with local and state governments. What did they know that we didn't? Where did we go wrong?

N.O.W., IRAN? N.O.W., ARE YOU OUT THERE?

2010-04-30T23:20:00.004-04:00

Once again, the United Nations has reached new heights in its quest for total and utter irrelevance. What could the UN have possibly done to further marginalize itself? After all, this is the organization that has been involved in countless scandals some of which are incredibly off the charts by anyone's standards except for Saddam Hussein. "Food for Oil", blue helmeted "soldiers" who are really paid and UN sanctioned rapists, it never ends.

So the UN is looking for another successful venture to further veer into irrelevance. I got it, let's make Iran a member of the group ensuring women's rights. Really? Stoning and hanging for adultery, arrest for having a tan, lashing for short skirts, need I go on? The UN needs to go away and the US needs to stop supporting this travesty of an organization. How can we even contemplate funding this cesspool. We provide 26% of the UN's budget. Really? Why does this occur?

I had a professor in college who often said "you can't spell unnecessary without UN." I would change it to "you can't spell unbelievable without UN."

One world government under the UN. Kumbaya. Bullshit.

FASCISM

2010-04-29T21:46:00.004-04:00

According to the Prentice Hall textbook "World History The Modern Era," fascism is defined as "any centralized, authoritarian government that is not communist whose policies glorify the state over the individual and are destructive to basic human rights."

Discuss among yourselves.

THE CONSTITUTION IS A COMPLICATED DOCUMENT?

2010-04-27T21:44:00.003-04:00

Our local newsrag featured an article in which the constitution was put forth as a very complicated document by a political science professor. I thought, of course it's a complicated document, to one who makes his living interpreting politics and government for those of us with lesser intelligence than his. The constitution has always come off to me as a simple ideal that spawned an equally simple document. My reading tells me that the constitution performs one overarching task and that is to spell out the limited powers of a republican government. Nothing more, nothing less. The tenth amendment was added to allay the fears of the signers that the federal government would have unlimited power. They trusted state and local governments as entities of government far more than a distant federal government.

In class we are studying the founding period. We have taken a real in-depth look at the Articles of Confederation and the constitution. In both, a weak federal government was the aim and both documents were written that way. The Articles were scrapped because it lacked any real mechanism to carry out necessary government functions without the unanimous agreement of the thirteen states. While the constitution may have given the federal government more power, it was purposely harnessed with the inclusion of explicit, enumerated powers.

For example, as president James Madison was presented with a bill that allowed the federal government to distribute money to the states for the purpose of building roads and bridges, sometimes referred to as the American Plan. Two of the foremost proponents of this idea were Henry Clay and John Quincy Adams. In 1816, Madison vetoed this legislation on the grounds that it was not constitutional for the federal government to use the taxpayer's money to fund projects in the states and that it unconstitutionally enlarged the powers of the federal government. In other words, it isn't in the enumerated powers. Simple concept, no? As I pointed out to my students, this is a powerful statement considering that Madison was the architect of the constitution.

Oddly enough, this issue was again in the forefront of the 1824 election, featuring Adams, Clay, Andrew Jackson, and William Crawford. Jackson won the popular vote, but he failed to get a majority of the electoral college which threw the election into the House of Representatives. Clay finished third and out of consideration. As the Speaker he threw his support behind Adams who won the election. Clay was appointed Secretary of State, in those days the steppingstone to the presidency, in what came to be known as the "Corrupt Bargain." The American Plan again died in congress and languished for many years as Jackson and his successors were not in favor of it. Madison had set a precedent that was obviously later kicked to the curb beginning in the progressive era. Here is another simple concept, money is power. Government as Santa has powerful consequences. FDR was a master of targeted government spending in order to buy votes. Therein lies the power of the majority. Somehow I think the unused funds in the "stimulus" package will be targeted to buy votes in the same fashion.

Through the years, the elastic clause and interstate commerce clause have been distorted beyond any recognition. My thought has always been that the courts and college law professors have sold Americans on the concept that the constitution is a complicated document. This a sort of self-serving stance in that it makes the legal community the go-to guys for we Americans who are uneducated enough to think that the constitution is not complicated.

Limited government. Simple ideal, simple document.

A TOUGH BUT UPLIFTING DAY

2010-04-22T19:52:00.003-04:00

Any reader of this blog may know that my daughter has MS. Saturday was the MS walk which could be ironically named. This has put me into a tailspin to be sure. But I have been a pansy compared to my daughter. Growing up she was a near national level soccer player. To have this amount of athleticism put in this jeopardy is hard for me to accept.

My daughter on the other hand is a rock. She has accepted this diagnosis and chosen to fight it tooth and nail, just as she did her opponents on the soccer field. She still plays soccer several times a week. I wish I had her courage. She is a special education teacher and works hard everyday without giving in.

When you think of people, remember these heroes who fight this insidious disease everyday. It has no cure, YET. We will walk for the cure for as long as I can walk.

I have to, my hero demands that I be strong.

TEA PARTIERS UNMASKED AS THE EVILDOERS THEY ARE!

2010-04-19T20:15:00.006-04:00

I am a confirmed tea party guy. My last descent into the seventh ring of hell that are the tea parties, this past April 13th was a revelation to me. I finally began to get a glimpse into the criticism of my friends on the left. In my duties as a volunteer I came into contact with many mainstream Americans. Due to my ability to read their minds, a gift I've possessed since birth, I was able to discern their true intentions.

I met attorneys, doctors, teachers, college professors, grandparents, lots and lots of military veterans, families with children, musicians, and not a few members of the clergy. But something kept gnawing at me as I listened to speech after speech from small business owners, housewives, a college professor, a couple of PhDs, and a couple of attorneys who spoke of their worry over the profligate spending by congress, their preference for small government, in favor of a strict interpretation of the constitution and their worry about the deficit. I listened to some country music which I enjoy immensely. But still, I couldn't shake the feeling that something was amiss. Having been a police officer for 26 years, my vaunted sixth sense was tingling.

Finally, it hit me, this was all a sham. All of this was fake. These people were really a bunch of racists, homophobes, misogynists, and militia members bent on the overthrow of the federal government. They had cleverly disguised themselves as regular friendly, polite Americans, some very educated, just to throw off everyone. But, you see, I'm too smart for that. I've been around the block one too many times to fall that for that stuff.

I'm just embarrassed that my friends on the left were quicker than me in picking up on this. I was fooled by their underhanded, evil ways that have fooled so many of us. The KGB were rookies compared to these people. I'm convinced there's some underground headquarters somewhere that they hold their racist, homophobe, ceremonies including I'm sure, the frequent human sacrifices of innocent immigrant virgins to whatever unholy deity they worship. Rumor has it it looks like a cross between Glenn Beck and Rush and Sarah Palin is the high priestess in charge of the whole sick affair.

I only wish I had listened to my friends on the left. Perhaps the government needs to be bigger so they make sure we all don't fall for anymore of these evil Rush/Beck minions. After all, someone has to protect us. Please take my warning and bow to the superior intelligence of the left. Big government protect us. Please!

Regular Americans, my ass. This is the seventh ring of hell!!

WHAT'S THE CONSTITUTION MEAN?

2010-04-09T20:38:00.004-04:00

I can only say that I hope that the Tea Party Movement succeeds. By that I mean that those involved bring change. Oops, am I allowed to use that word? For those of us in the movement, suffice it to say, we have an agenda. How about smaller government, less taxes, and a balanced budget? What's wrong with that? I know there are entitlements, but I fundamentally reject that term. Really, what are you entitled to? I guess because you are an American you are entitled to the government taking care of you. Since when?

In the constitution it never said that the governtment would take care of you. Find it. I'll wait. I've always thought that when you want to find out what the Founding Fathers thought, ask them. Here is Thomas Jefferson:

I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground-- that all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, or to the people. (10th Amendment). To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.

Let's try to understand what TJ said. He was a strict construcitonist. In other words, the constitution sets forth certain powers for the federal government and that's it. They are called enumerated powers. There are 18 of them. Health care, right to a job, right to a home, those rights don't exist.

Rights are endowed by our creator. These are natural rights. For those loose constructionists among you, that's what we stricters mean. Where does it say you can do that?

NAPOLEON WAS RIGHT!

2010-04-02T12:09:00.003-04:00

I won't spend a lot of energy mocking this congressman because he does a good enough job of that himself. I am however, impressed with his concern for this possible geological miracle. With his concern for the environment and global warming, what a great example of a politician that's really is working to make America a great country. Heartwarming. I wish I could laugh at this, but, frankly, it's too damned disturbing.

Then we have the example of the Republicans spending money at the Voyeur night club in order to court donors. Well done. It's certainly important to relate to all voter communities, even perverts. To add to this stupidity, the RNC Chairman and his cronies are doing a fine job promoting themselves as an alternative to Dem arrogance and constitution shredding policies. Some alternative.

I've often expressed my belief that the Repubs will be unable to go against their innate political arrogance and think of serving the people who elected them. Politicians have a sorry history of becoming so enamored with power that they forget that they were elected by their fellow citizens to represent them in Washington and to do their bidding. Their Burkean tendency to feel that they alone know what's best for their constituents is a strong tendency most aren't able to overcome.

Napoleon was right.

"In politics, stupidity is not a handicap."

I hope that some politician will awake and think about doing the job for which they have been elected. The American people are much smarter than most of the politicians they elect. Maybe the politicians should listen to them.

DAYTON FLYERS, NIT CHAMPS!

2010-04-01T22:04:00.007-04:00

My alma mater has just won the National Invitation Tournament (NIT). That may not be a big thing to my two or three readers, but it's big in Dayton. We beat a lot of good teams to get to this point, but let's be real here, we should have been an NCAA team, but we failed to close the deal. We didn't deserve to be in the NCAA and the NIT was what we earned.

We could have put our heads down, but instead we embraced it and said "We blew it, but let's win this thing." And win it they did. Let's talk about what they did.

The opening game was a home game and we beat Illinois State handily at home. Then we went on the road to Cincinnati (Big East) and pounded them. We next went on the road to Illinois (Big Ten) and beat them. Two (Bowl Championship Series) BCS teams and two defeats. BCS is the highest level of the NCAA. Go Flyers!

Next came the Final Four and we played Mississippi in the semifinals. Here's a (Southeastern Conference) SEC school, really? that's not grammatically correct, but let's move on. The little old Flyers beat them. That sets up the other semifinal. Rhode Island, an Atlantic 10 team, is scheduled to play North Carolina. Watching the game I told myself that justice would be that two A-10 teams would play each other in the finals. But alas, the Rhodies spit it up at the end and lost. That set up the David and Goliath final. The Dayton Flyers (A10) versus North Carolina, the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) the recognized "God" conference.

WE BEAT THEM BY 11! We led them by 13 at the half. We stumbled a little and they closed it to two points, but we fought back and won. NIT CHAMPS!!

Those of us who are University of Dayton alums, both my children included, are thrilled that we are now in the national spotlight. We lose some seniors but, our recruits are top notch so we'll be back next year.

Sorry for this post, but I'm thrilled by the NIT championship. GO FLYERS!!!

PROMISES IN THE DARK!

2010-03-30T22:32:00.003-04:00

I am stealing this post from my friend at Right on the Left Coast (SEE BLOGROLL). First a little music. How can you not love Martina McBride and Pat Benatar? The fact that President Obama has pissed on his campaign promises is really kind of a known thing. My friends on the left blame it on the Republicans. Whatever. But it would seem that Obama has a truth problem. Check these out and be honest and you'll see that he has kind of pissed on his supporters.

He told them it's raining and they believed it. A lot of Dems have walked the plank for him and that's a shame for them. Too bad. My problem is that I don't trust Republicans to take advantage and govern conservatively. Their history is that they'll blow it. They always have. Unfortunately, history repeats itself with these people. Politicians, sheesh!!

HEALTH CARE AND THE EXPANSION OF GOVERNMENT POWER

2010-03-26T20:37:00.005-04:00

I have been ill recently and I apologize for not being in the game. Our school just finished Ohio Graduation Tests. The preparation was taxing on the teachers and students alike. Then we spent the last week watching people take tests. That's a little boring for sure. The upside is I got a book read. Try reading Judge Napolitano's book "Lies the Government Told You." I don't agree with the Judge on everything, but most of his rants I do. I subscribe to the theory that libertariansism would be a great theory if it wasn't for kids.

As for the health care debacle, I am interested that several states filed a lawsuit against the legislation the moment it was passed. That makes for an interesting debate in the courts. I don't see how it is constitutional to force Americans to purchase something they don't want. Health care is a good (economically speaking) and I don't feel the constitution will allow us to be compelled to purchase it. It's another one of those enumerated power debates. Commerce clause you say? You cannot be compelled to engage in commerce. Necessary and proper? Is it necessary to compel a citizen to buy something he doesn't want? I think not.

While discussing this in class I had a student bring up the car insurance deal. I patiently explained to her that driving is not a right, but a privilege. The government does not compel you to drive. You can choose not to. If you choose to drive, you must have insurance and a license. Pretty simple stuff. I spend a lot of time with the students on the constitution.

In my other class we listened to FDR's first inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1933. In it he lays out his plan to take control of the government in light of the crisis presented by the depression. You may want to skip to about 12 minutes into the speech to hear the carrot and stick approach he takes to force congress into to giving up its constitutional power to legislate. Listen to this:
It is to be hoped that the normal balance of Executive and legislative authority may be wholly adequate to meet the unprecedented task before us. But it may be that an unprecedented demand and need for undelayed action may call for temporary departure from that normal balance of public procedure.

I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken Nation in the midst of a stricken world may require. These measures, or such other measures as the Congress may build out of its experience and wisdom, I shall seek, within my constitutional authority, to bring to speedy adoption.

But in the event that the Congress shall fail to take one of these two courses, and in the event that the national emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis—broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.
FDR pioneered the use of a war metaphor for dealing with a domestic crisis, hence the war on the depression. In the speech he asks for far-reaching powers that usurp the legislative branch. Much to their detriment they abdicated their powers to the executive branch rolling over for FDR and the New Deal.

There are a lot of parallels between these two periods in our history. I guess the saying that you shouldn't let a crisis go to waste applies to both. When the government tries to expand its power and usurp the checks and balances, you have a problem and FDR clearly usurped his power in this speech and in his presidency. Look up the court packing scandal. FDR moved to the edge of dictatorial powers during his presidency. Look up the Blue Eagle and the National Recovery Administration (NRA) that was finally found to be unconstitutional. Isn't it instructive that Huey Long, an avowed redistributionist, was thrilled when it was?

The question then becomes, will the constitution be upheld or will we sink further into the abyss of big government?

AMERICA

2010-03-06T00:19:00.002-05:00

I love Celtic Woman. This song reveals how I feel as I go to my reunion tomorrow. America is a country that so many laid down their lives for. They felt it was worth it and so do I.

VIETNAM SECURITY POLICE REUNION

2010-03-05T21:40:00.004-05:00

Here is our 2008 picture. Undoubtedly, we will be more handsome this year. Right? That's the Security Police statue in the background dedicated to all the Defenders of the Force. I'm the one right in front of the statue.

I am off to the reunion of a group of old guys who saved western civilization. Our group of United States Air Force Security Police who served in Vietnam are getting together tomorrow at the US Air Force Museum in Dayton, Ohio. I'm excited that my friend, Pat, has arranged a great time for us. The curator wants to get our input on the Vietnam era display. He wants to find out if we think it is realistically portrayed. How cool is that?

There are some things in my life that I'm proud that I've done, but this is at the top of the list. This is the reason that I post with the Security Police badge. As did my brothers, we did our part.

I can say this about my time. I was very much affected by my family history, but really I went in because I thought it was the right thing to do. That may sound trite, but it was my thought process. Every influence in my life was to go in this direction. But let's get this straight. When I decided to enlist, my dad was not thrilled, to say the least. He tried to talk me out of it, but I persisted. He ended by telling me he was proud of me, but he wanted to tell my mother. When it's all said and done, I'm good with what I did and I went on with my life.

My time was many years ago and a lot of it is a fog. I remember the rockets, the noise and the fear, but I also remember that I didn't pay much attention to it. I think because I was 18 I was a little oblivious to the danger.

I think that's really like most soldiers, isn't it?

JAMES MADISON, 1751-1836

2010-03-02T20:20:00.006-05:00

James Madison has left an imprint on American history all out of proportion to his size. He stood about 5-4, dressed mostly in black and generally was a great intellect, the author of most of the constitution. He certainly was the driving force behind the concept of a republic. A much underrated founding father by the name of Gouverneur Morris was responsible for the organization and form of the constitution as well as much of the text. It is generally accepted that wrote the famous Preamble beginning "We the People."

Madison's position going into the convention was that representation in congress should be tied to population. In his estimation, the biggest states should have the most representatives. This ran up against some stiff resentment from the smaller states who rightfully feared being steamrolled by the bigger states. A tyranny of the majority was a very real concern for these states that would nearly always be in the minority position. Eventually the "Great Compromise" was struck that yielded our constitution and the republic. In Madison's words, it was like a centaur, neither man nor beast. Not a pure democracy, but a hybrid of two ideals of governance.

The only written record is the notes on the constitutional convention by Madison that chronicled the deliberations that stretched throughout the long hot summer, from May to September 17, 1787. It is interesting to remember that the constitution was not the first governing document of the country. The Articles of Confederation proceeded it in 1777. The Articles proved to be inadequate as a governing document. It was a cumbersome instrument that lacked a strong central government able to carry out the basic functions of government. The central government was subordinate to the states. The states controlled commerce, the state militias, and taxation.

As the delegates convened, 55 strong from 12 of the 13 states, Rhode Island stayed away, they were surprised that some did not want to amend the Articles, the stated purpose of the convention, but to abolish them. The convention went about forging the constitution, which is really a bundle of compromises, between large and small states, slave and free states, northern and southern states, states that depended on commerce for their economy and states that were agrarian. The northern states condemned slavery, but compromised with slaveholders because to not do so, would have meant the end of any hope for a constitution among the thirteen states. This would surely mean the end of the US as a country. Drama? Yes, real drama.

Madison was a strict constructionist and governed as one while in the congress and as the fourth president as he took office on March 4, 1809. Just as his mentor, Thomas Jefferson found during his tenure, the presidency was a demanding and in some respects, a dismal challenge. As with all his predecessors he was plagued by the war between France and England which began during the French Revolution. England came into the conflict with intent of returning a monarchy to France. Napoleon had stepped into the role as emperor and the war raged on. As his predecessors were, he was confronted with the damage inflicted on the US by the trade issues with both England and France, America's major trading partners. Washington had issued the Neutrality Proclamation in 1793 and warned against tangling alliances in his Farewell Address.

Jefferson had requested and received the ill-fated Trade Embargo of 1807. In it, the US refused to trade with both England and France which only served to damage the economy of the US. The congress answered with the Non-Intercourse Act of 1809 in which they vowed to trade with every country except Britain and France. In 1810, congress passed Macon's Bill No. 2. This bill stated that trade would be opened with the world and whichever of the two countries that repealed their commercial restrictions. That country would be recognized by the US and the embargo would stay in place against the country refusing to lift their restrictions.

Imagine the problems for Madison with the trade issues confronting the country. Napoleon immediately accepted the offer, cleverly placing the US in the position of squaring off with the British. Britain refused to lift its sanctions therefore, the US was effectively no longer neutral and was now an ally of France against Britain. Shortly, the US found itself at war with Britain in the War of 1812.

The War of 1812 did not go well for the US resulting in the burning of the White House, the Capitol, and other government buildings in 1814 as Madison became the only president to face enemy fire in wartime. He was forced to flee with his wife for their lives. Dolly Madison saved the famous portrait of Washington from being destroyed by the British, who dined in the White House before burning it. The Star Spangled Banner was written by Francis Scott Key as he watched the massive bombardment of Fort McHenry in the Baltimore harbor while Washington burned.

In 1816, the Bank of the US was revived for another 20 years. The Tariff of 1816 was passed placing a protective tariff of about 25% thereby, setting the precedent of protective tariffs that would used many times in the future and became a factor in future elections. In 1817, Madison burnished his strict constructionist credentials when he vetoed the American System, a bill that authorized $1.5 million for use by the states to build infrastructure. Madison vetoed it on the grounds that it was unconstitutional in that federal money could not be used for state projects. States therefore, were forced to finance their own improvements which New York did with success building the Erie Canal finished in 1825.

This is a monumental moment in that Madison, as the Father of the Constitution, as a strict constructionist felt that those powers enumerated in the document were the extent of the power of federal government.

If it is possible to divine the intent of the framers, Madison's actions speak louder than his words. Read Madison in his own words.

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country.

All men having power ought to be mistrusted.

Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.

It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.

The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.

THE WISDOM OF RONALD REAGAN

2010-02-26T21:33:00.003-05:00

My old partner from my days on the PD sent me this. There are few bonds as strong and close as that between partners on police patrol. We talked about everything throughout an eight hour day. We solved the problems of the world. We talked about our kids and hoped together that our kids were better than the ones we encountered on the job. We were buds who risked our lives together. We both were shot at on several occassions and we survived together. We were together for eight years.

We are brothers.

ANDREW JACKSON, 1767-1845

2010-02-21T17:15:00.003-05:00

The word "controversial" surrounds the life and presidency of Andrew Jackson. For reasons that extend far beyond this small post, I don't think he would have had it any other way. He was the son of Scots-Irish immigrants from Carrickfergus in Northern Ireland. His father died before he was born in what was the border area between North and South Carolina. In other words, things didn't start well for Jackson in his life.

Jackson was the last president with any connections to the American Revolution. He, at the age of 13, enlisted himself as a courier for the Revolutionary forces. He and his brother were captured by the British and interned in a prisoner-of-war camp where they both contracted a fever. Their mother, who was to put it mildly feisty, met with the British commander and demanded their release which was granted. She walked them back home, but lost her older son in the process to the fever. Andrew survived. His mother went onto nurse soldiers and herself died from fever. Jackson had lost his whole family to the revolution and he emerged with a healthy hate for the British.

Jackson was basically a self-trained lawyer and he advanced quickly through the politics of Tennessee. In 1796, he was instrumental in Tennessee becoming a state. He spent years as a frontier lawyer in the rough and tumble world of that trade. You would think that Jackson learned to think on his feet.

During the War of 1812, Jackson became a national hero. He defeated the Red Stick Indians, one of whom was Tecumseh, an Ohio hero, who was an ally of the British, at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend in 1814. Tecumseh was trying to form an alliance of Indians in America in order to stop the tide of American expansion to the west. In this regard he was following in the footsteps of Metacom, or King Phillip, in the the King Phillip's War in 1675-76. I'll get back to my thoughts on Native Americans later.

Jackson became the hero of the War of 1812 when he was the victorious commander in the Battle of New Orleans in January of 1815. He outsmarted the British commander Packenham by setting his troops in an impenetrable fortress and forcing them to attack it head-on. The topography of the battlefield contributed, but Jackson was able to use that to his advantage. Read up on this, it was a masterful battle and Jackson was a great battle commander. He proved himself in the War of 1812 and in the Florida battles with the Seminoles and the Spanish that resulted in the annexation of Florida in 1819 in the Florida Purchase Treaty. The other results of this treaty were in the west Oregon and southwestern US, that solidified the borders of Louisiana Purchase by setting a definite border between the US and British claims.

As president, Jackson was successful in changing the focus of the office from the Revolutionary elites to the common man. Was he a common man? Absolutely. He was orphaned by the death of his parents and he was able to survive and be successful despite his plight. In the 1824 election he garnered more popular votes than his opponents, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay and to a lesser extent, Crawford. But in the quirkiness of the American electoral system, he didn't get a majority of the electoral vote. Therefore, the election went into the House of Representatives where it picked JQA and strangely enough, Henry Clay, Speaker of the House, became the Secretary of State. It was rightfully called the "Corrupt Bargain."

He was elected in one of the most partisan, evil campaigns in 1828. His wife Rachel, died before he took office and Jackson forever blamed the vitriol of the campaign, in which she was accused of adultery with Jackson, as she was accused of being married to her former husband when she married Jackson. That aside, he took office as the first president of the common man and the eponymous leader of the Jacksonian era.

I'll write about a couple of Jackson's greatest controversies as president and then we'll talk of his problems with Native Americans (NAs). First, the Nullification Crisis. Jackson's VP was John Calhoun, who by all accounts was a strong state's rights advocate and a big supporter of slavery. Jackson's hands were not clean in this regard. In 1828, the Tariff of Abominations became an issue. It caused the prices of southern goods, which it bought from the north to rise in price. It also caused the British to pay less for cotton, a southern staple. Calhoun came out for nullification of the tariff, based on the compact theory and nullification, put forth by Jefferson and Madison in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. In other words, Calhoun felt that the tariff was in violation of the rights of the citizens of the south and they should nullify it.

Jackson wasn't really in tune with this and threatened to lead a column of miltia to enforce the tariff and hang anyone who violated the law. In Jackson's mind, the constitution did not allow seccession, and he equated this action with seccession, therefore he would have to enforce the law. Calhoun backed down. It tells a lot about Jackson and his fealty to the constitution. I'm not saying I agree with him, but I see his point.

The Bank of the US was a fixture at the founding of the country. It served as an anchor of the early economy. Alexander Hamilton was an advocate of assumption of the debt of the states from the Revolutionary War. First approved in 1791 for twenty years. It expired in 1811. It was renewed in 1816 for twenty more years and was set to expire in 1836. For political purposes Henry Clay required that it be brought up in 1832 for renewal. Jackson vetoed the Bank and it stood as an act that struck for the common man against the rich eastern money interests. Clay wanted to defeat Jackson and in fact, ran as a National Republican in 1832 and tried to defeat him. Clay lost, but in 1833 the Whig Party was created in opposition to Jackson. They elected two candidates but they both died. The Whigs became the Republican Party and elected Abraham Lincoln in 1860.

Jackson vetoed the Bank of the US in 1832 and it was killed to never rear its ugly head again. The downside was there was no regulation of money until the dawn of the Federal Reserve in 1913. We see where this has got us. The Fed is an abject failure and will be for years to come. That's an argument for another day. Jackson vetoed the Bank because he thought it was unconstitutional and put too much power in the hands of an unelected group to control the economy of the US. He was right.

As for the Indian Removal Act of 1830, let's talk. I want to defend Jackson, but that is difficult. Jackson was a slaveholder and didn't much care for Native Americans. His thoughts were a product of his class. He was a white protestant and that gave him a certain point of view that wasn't very different for his place and time. Remember, that Manifest Destiny was rampant and the NAs were in the way. The problem for the NAs was that they had a long history of intertribal warfare. From the time of the pilgrims, they were unable to join in opposition to the Europeans. Had they been able to do so, they would have driven them back into the sea.

Two great NA heroes tried to pull their people together to the extent that they put some serious pressure on the whites and represented the high water mark of the opposition. The first was Metacom, the second was Tecumseh. They never could overcome the intertribal warfare and their efforts failed. I would say that the NAs failed to capitalize on their advantage due to the fractiousness of the tribes.

The "nobel savage" paradigm is something I don't buy. The NAs appear to be similar to their predecessors throughout history. Their time had passed and they were overcome by a superior people. I don't want to intimate that I feel that the Europeans were better or smarter, but I feel they were more advanced and technology wills out. In this case it did. The NAs were a brave foe, but they lost out to a technologically superior people and that's the key. Right or wrong it happened. You can't relive history.

When it's all said and done, Jackson was an important president. He took the US to a new level and his influence extended through the subsequent elections of 1836, and 1844. In 1836, his VP Martin Van Buren won. He had a tragic presidency including the Panic of 1837. William Henry Harrison was elected on the Whig ticket, however, he died early in 1841 and John Tyler took over. (Thanks to Carl for noticing I made a mistake with the date. I knew it but, didn't edit properly.) With the help of Jackson, James K. Polk was elected in 1844 on the expansionist, Manifest Destiny platform. I will talk about Polk later. Suffice it to say that he expanded the US to its present boundaries.

Jackson died in 1845. His home, the Hermitage, is one of the most visited locations in America. I've always wanted to go there and I will this summer. Polk's house is about 60 miles from there. Two great American presidents and I'll visit their houses this summer. History is good.

COMING TO AMERICA

2010-02-20T02:28:00.002-05:00

The lyrics of the song tell us that these people emigrated to America for a better life. They passed through Ellis Island in 1892 when it opened. This is about Irish immigration but it really is about all the Europeans that immigrated in the 19th century.

My great-grandparents emigrated from Germany. In 1885, my great grandmother Magaret emmigrated from Koblentz. In 1887, my great grandfather Charles emigrated from Saxony. They left to escape the Kulturkampf (struggle for culture)led by Bismarck against Catholics. My great grandmother was sixteen. She lied about her age and said she was eighteen. My great grandfather was a cabinetmaker. He worked in a piano factory in Cincinnati, then Dayton. They sought out other Germans. My mother only spoke German until she went to school in the second grade. She still speaks it to this day. After Mass every Sunday, my brother and I say to our mother, Ich liebe dich. She knows what we mean.

These songs are about the Irish. Many Europeans had their stories. This is mine. Listen to the words of these songs. These people were proud to be Americans.

What's the problem today?

THE STORY OF AMERICA

2010-02-20T02:25:00.001-05:00

This is the second part of the story. After the immigrants arrived they assimilated themselves to their new country. AMERICA.

THOMAS PAINE, 1737-1809

2010-02-19T23:08:00.007-05:00

There is always that individual, in any situation, that you can say stays above the fray. The guy that seems to speak for all of us, but really takes no sides. He makes us all think and finally, when it's all said and done, makes us all agree. We read what he's wrote, nod our heads, and say, yeah that's how I feel too. What he writes sells wildly and it becomes the way we all speak to make our point.

In the days before, during, and after the American Revolution, that guy was Thomas Paine. In Political Science speak, he was the ultimate libertarian. Paine was against restrictive government, in fact, he despised it and his words in his writings are a treatise against it. Revolting against the King was, in essence, a libertarian view, I think. If anything, Thomas Paine got revolution.

Thomas Paine believed in revolution so much, that he was in France during the French Revolution which began in 1789 with the storming of the Bastille. He arrived in 1790 and became a vital part of the revolution. As the French Revolution spun out of control he was arrested in 1794. He was nearly beheaded and escaped only by the lucky stroke that his cellmates concealed chalk marks that designated those to be executed.

He didn't return to America until 1802 where he died in 1809. Paine was incapable of avoiding revolution which led him to be elected twice to the French Convention, once before he was jailed and once after. I admire his words, although I am not so sure of his love of revolution. Being integral in both the American and the French Revolutions is testament to his acumen and inspiration as a writer.

If John Adams was the conscience of the revolution and Thomas Jefferson was the voice of the revolution, and George Washington was the inspiration of the revolution, Thomas Paine was the spirit of the revolution. His words were read throughout the colonies and kept Americans on the road to revolution. I would love to match words with him, but alas, I'm not worthy.

Suffice it say that Thomas Paine is in reality one of the Founding Fathers. Read these words from his pamphlet, "The Crisis." If you are a student of the revolution, read "Common Sense." When you are finished you will understand what the Founding Fathers intended us to inherit from them.

These are the times that try men's souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated.

Thomas Paine, The Crisis

JOHN ADAMS, 1735-1826

2010-02-15T23:08:00.008-05:00

John Adams can safely be said to have had a very controversial presidency. He was at first, forced to follow George Washington, the "Father of his Country." How could he realistically succeed in this endeavor? After all, he was the Second president, not the first. If Washington was the face of the American Revolution, John Adams could certainly lay claim to being the spirit of the revolution. Thomas Jefferson seized the role of the voice of the revolution, much to John Adam's chagrin. He was every bit as good a writer and was certainly Jefferson's equal, if not superior intellectually.

John Adams, as president, was buffeted from all sides with crises. First, the French Revolution had led to a war in Europe mainly between the revolutionary French government and Great Britain, along with other European monarchies seeking to save the monarchial system. In America, political parties were born, dividing into the Federalists of Adams and Hamilton and the anti-Federalists of Jefferson. Hamilton was a loose constructionist who saw implied powers in the constitution, while Jefferson was a strict constructionist who saw only those powers as written. Adams was caught between the battle of the these two titans. The Federalists were spoiling for war with France owing to several factors, foremost among them the XYZ Affair and the national humiliation at the hands of their former ally.

The country was basically divided into the two camps, both spoiling for war, and Adams was caught in the middle. He was always sensitive to criticism and this sensitivity culminated in the Alien and Sedition Acts. The most insidious of these was the Sedition Act which made it illegal to criticize the government and the president. Obviously, a blatant violation of the First Amendment. This misstep cost Adams more than anything else. Jefferson and Madison put forth the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions in opposition to the Acts and gave rise to the compact theory and nullification that became the basis for the seccession of the Confederacy at the beginning of the Civil War. This cost Adams a second term and caused a rift between he and Jefferson that lasted into the 18 teens. They eventually reconciled and carried on an active letter writing relationship reuniting the two greatest men of the revolutionary age, that endured to their dying day.

Adams, to his everlasting credit finally negotiated a treaty with the French, ending the Quasi-War, 1798-1800 and saving the US from a devastating war that more than likely would have ended the American experiment at the beginning. We owe Adams for the steady hand with which he guided the country at its inception. He had a single misstep with the Alien and Sedition Acts. After that he did the best for his country and guided it to a successful conclusion of the European problems that threatened the world.

On top of all that, he was the first president to live in the White House, or Executive Mansion as it was called. And we can't leave Adams without a nod to Abigail who kept the family together through all the absences of John and really operated their family farm better than John ever could. She was his most trusted advisor. Take the time to read their letters to each other and you will be made part of one of the greatest love stories in American history.

By the way, let's put something to rest right here. The Founding Fathers were not uniformly rich, white, slaveholders. Adams was a lawyer with a farm that barely survived each year. He and his northern brethren appalled slavery and only agreed to punt the problem 20 years down the road in the constitution in order to form a compromise and get the constitution approved. Nineteen out of the fifty-five delegates owned slaves, a definite minority. It gives the lie to the historical revisionists that want to paint them as rich, white guys with little connection to the people. They were the people.

The fact that most of the Founding Fathers held property should be proof that had they not had a large amount of civic virtue the country would have been stillborn. We owe them for our very existance. They deserve to be revered and they rightfully are. The wisdom of John Adams:

But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations...This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution.

John Adams, letter to H. Niles, February 13, 1818

John Adams and Thomas Jefferson both died on July 4, 1826, the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. It is fitting that the two who conferred in its writing died on the 50th anniversary of the Declaration. It is only fitting.

GROVER CLEVELAND'S BOOK "PRESIDENTIAL PROBLEMS"

2010-02-14T16:39:00.003-05:00

These are the last paragraphs of "Presidential Problems" that became the memoirs of Grover Cleveland. He was reflecting on the Venezuelan-British border crisis of 1895-96. They are the words of man who was confronted by a world-changing problem. He chose to stand-up to the most powerful country in the world at the time and defend the countries of the Western Hemisphere based on the Monroe Doctrine.

Read his words and be in his head as he made the decision in this incident that probably saved America as a sovereign nation. America became involved in another Monroe Doctrine situation in the Spanish-American War of 1898. These two incidents represented the end of European colonialism in the Western Hemisphere. I spent the last two days reading this book and I have gained a great respect for Cleveland as a president. Most historians state that his first term (1885-1889) was good, his second, not so good. I beg to differ.

He was confronted in his second term (1893-1897) with a massive economic problem. He took measures that stabilized the economy, but he didn't receive the credit. He fought the gold crisis by enlisting the aid of J.P. Morgan and the rest of the evil bankers. They came through for the country and bought over $100 million of government bonds, to keep the gold reserve above the dangerous level of $100 million. Cleveland was a good president and he deserves a place in the pantheon of those presidents who took action to save the republic and succeeded. Here are the last words of his book. Read and enjoy:

But those among us who most loudly reprehended and bewailed our vigorous assertion of the Monroe Doctrine were the timid ones who feared personal financial loss, or those engaged in speculation and stock-gambling, in buying much beyond their ability to pay, and generally in living by their wits. The patriotism of such peoples traverses exclusively the pocket nerve. They are willing to tolerate the Monroe Doctrine, or any other patriotic principle, so long as it does not interfere with their plans, and are just as willing to cast it off when it becomes troublesome.

But these things are as nothing when weighed against the sublime patriotism and devotion to their nation's honor exhibited by the great mass or our countrymen--the plain people of the land. Though, in the case of the last extremity, the changes and suffering of conflict would have fallen to their lot, nothing blinded them to the manner in which the integrity of their country was involved. Not for a single moment did their government know the lack of their strong and stalwart support.

I hope there are but few of our fellow-citizens who, in retrospect, do not now acknowledge the good that has come to our nation through this episode in our history. It has established the Monroe Doctrine on lasting foundations before the eyes of the world; it has given us a better place in the respect and consideration of the people of all nations, and especially of Great Britain; it has again confirmed our confidence in the overwhelming prevalence among our citizens of disinterested devotion to American honor; and last, but by no means least, it has taught us where to look in the ranks of our contrymen for the best patriotism.

AMERICAN SYMPHONY

2010-02-12T23:38:00.002-05:00

I've been posting about great Americans lately. Watch this video, enjoy and contemplate the information I've posted here in the last couple of days.

Really, what does it all mean?

THOMAS JEFFERSON, 1743-1826

2010-02-12T20:09:00.005-05:00

The next conservative, or libertarian that I will feature is Thomas Jefferson. Unlike the present day Democrats, I get that Thomas Jefferson is a libertarian. He's not a Democrat, read these quotes. They tell you how he thought. I'm sorry to burst the Dem bubble. So the Jefferson/Jackson Day Dinner is bogus.

I'll take on Jackson later. But as for Jefferson, he was closer to being a neo-Conservative than he was a modern day Dem. Really? The Louisiana Purchase, 1803 was a tormenting experience for Jefferson. He felt in his heart, that the constitution had to be amended to make the purchase constitutional. Nowhere in the constitution did it give the executive branch the power to add territory to the country, consisting of a very diverse population and in the bargain pay nearly $15 million for the addition.

He worried that Napoleon was so unstable and mercurial that he needed to let James Monroe and Robert Livingston who he sent, make the surprising deal that Napoleon offered them immediately for fear of him retracting it. Lucky for us, right?

Jefferson was a complex guy and I think it would be foolish for a lower intelligence guy like me to try to explain him. I would like to recommend a couple of books about Jefferson to you. Both are by Joe Ellis, the first is "American Sphinx" the second, is "Founding Brothers." As the quote goes in the movie "I am not worthy."

The best argument for my premise is to let Jefferson speak for himself. He far surpasses anything I could say. He makes his case as a libertarian quite nicely, thank you.

"I consider the foundation of the [Federal] Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." [10th Amendment] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:146

"I was in Europe when the Constitution was planned, and never saw it till after it was established. On receiving it, I wrote strongly to Mr. Madison, urging the want of provision for... an express reservation to the States of all rights not specifically granted to the Union." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, 1802. ME 10:325

"Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:380

"[An] act of the Congress of the United States... which assumes powers... not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void and of no force." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:383

"To keep in all things within the pale of our constitutional powers... [is one of] the landmarks by which we are to guide ourselves in all our proceedings." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Annual Message, 1802. ME 3:348

"[We considered the Alien and Sedition] acts as so palpably against the Constitution as to amount to an undisguised declaration that that compact is not meant to be the measure of the powers of the General Government, but that it will proceed in the exercise over these States of all powers whatsoever... [We] view this as seizing the rights of the States and consolidating them in the hands of the General Government, with a power assumed to bind the States, not merely as [to] cases made federal (casus foederis), but in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with their consent, but by others against their consent... This would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen and live under one deriving its powers from its own will and not from our authority." --Thomas Jefferson, Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:390

"It would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights... Confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism. Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence. It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power... Our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go... In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:388

"Unless the mass retains sufficient control over those entrusted with the powers of their government, these will be perverted to their own oppression, and to the perpetuation of wealth and power in the individuals and their families selected for the trust. Whether our Constitution has hit on the exact degree of control necessary, is yet under experiment." --Thomas Jefferson to M. van der Kemp, 1812. ME 13:136

"I sincerely wish... we could see our government so secured as to depend less on the character of the person in whose hands it is trusted. Bad men will sometimes get in and with such an immense patronage may make great progress in corrupting the public mind and principles. This is a subject with which wisdom and patriotism should be occupied." --Thomas Jefferson to Moses Robinson, 1801. ME 10:237

GROVER CLEVELAND, 1837-1908

2010-02-11T20:19:00.007-05:00

The next conservative I will feature is Grover Cleveland, the 22nd and 24th presidents of the US. He holds the distinction of being the only president to have served two non-consecutive terms. He also was the only Democrat elected between 1860 and 1912. During his term he was confronted by several crises and how he dealt with them gives us a real insight into his concept of government. Read the various essays on this site by clicking the links in the upper right hand corner.

Cleveland, exerting his non-imperialist, hard money policies, and disdain for government interference in most domestic problems would probably place him in the camps of those souls who are caught between constitutional conservatives and libertarians. That's an interesting place to be nowadays and one that is interesting to me. He is often described as a classical liberal (political science term). I find myself in that realm on many political issues today.

Cleveland brandished the veto more often than any president up to his time, a total of 584 times, mostly to veto congressional spending bills. He issued more vetoes than FDR did in 12 years. Cleveland took the position that any spending not enumerated in the constitution was improper for government to undertake. Many of his vetoes involved Civil War pensions for veterans, many of them for injuries not suffered in the war. Pandering anyone? Probably his most famous veto was of the Texas Seed Bill in 1887. The following quote is a manifesto of limited government:

I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.

Cleveland's Veto of the Texas Seed Bill February 16, 1887

The Seed Bill had authorized funds for farmers in Texas affected by a drought. Cleveland as stated above, did not believe that the constitution authorized public funds to be spent on private matters. Before you condemn Cleveland, the public put forth over $10,000 in private donations to assist the farmers. Cleveland surely approved of that. Today federal funds are routinely appropriated for all forms of disasters. I am ambivalent about this practice. How many times should private homes be rebuilt after they are built on mountainsides prone to mudslides, or in forests prone to wildfires, or on beaches in the path of hurricanes? Should we really pay our money for situations that should be paid for by the occupants and their insurance company? How does government decide who is worthy and who is not?

In foreign affairs, Cleveland held fast to Washington's admonition in his Farewell Address to steer clear of entangling alliances. He stood behind the Monroe Doctrine in the Venezuelan Crisis with Great Britain in 1895. The Venezuelans requested that the US arbitrate in the dispute. Britain wasn't thrilled with any intervention by the US in the matter. Cleveland engaged in some saber rattling and the matter was eventually settled without war.

He refused to annex Hawaii after some Americans fomented a revolution against the queen. Does the name Dole sound familiar in the fruit industry? They were up to their neck in the revolution as their business interest in the islands was worth millions. Congress threatened to vote for annexation in spite of his opposition. Cleveland made it clear that he viewed that as an unconstitutional usurpation of his presidential power. The issue was quickly put on hold for the next administration of McKinley, who approved the annexation Hawaii in 1898.

Cleveland was against the spoils system and insisted on appointing people to government jobs based not on political connections, but on, are you ready for this? Qualifications and fitness for office. He also fought against the political bosses while governor of New Jersey.

I could go on and on about Cleveland. He wasn't the most gifted orator, or thinker of big ideas. In fact, in today's political climate he would derided as a not very bright, thoughtless hater, who hid behind the constitution because he wasn't bright enough to think of it as a "living document."

In short, my kind of guy.

HENRY CABOT LODGE, 1893-1924

2010-02-09T20:09:00.005-05:00

I am going to feature some of my favorite conservative figures from history. They will be conservatives because that is where my compass points true north. I'll start with Lodge because I wrote about him in a prior post in reference to his opposition to the League of Nations. To start read this short article. He was certainly a major figure in his time.

He was a contemporary of Theodore Roosevelt and they both held some common views. While TR was a progressive in most social issues, that is where he and Lodge parted company. They were both in favor of the Spanish-American War, intervention in the First World War, and staunch believers in American Exceptionalism which led them to be in favor of American Imperialism in the Philippines and Asia. Taken in the tenor of the times these were mainstream views. There were to be sure, anti-Imperialists and they were some of the leading lights of the day, including Mark Twain.

If you believe that imperialism would brand Lodge a Neo-Conservative, I would differ with you. The Spanish-American War was a war to enforce the Monroe Doctrine which fell in line with Lodge's views of America as exceptional. Further, it ensured American sovereignty in the Western Hemisphere. In the late 19th and early 20th Century, America was an emerging power trying to find a place in a world dominated by Europe. The US was subject to the sway of the European powers economically and therefore, were subject to the disagreements and ancient grievances that would culminate in the First World War.

Greatly influenced by the Civil War, Lodge and many Americans felt that the US should intervene in the First World War in order to stop the autocratic German Empire from expanding and encroaching in the affairs of the other European powers. He saw the German empire as evil. Was that a good policy? You make the call. In the interest of full disclosure, my grandfather was drafted and fought in the First World War. See his grave marker to the left.

The article makes the point that following Lodge's death in 1924, he was villified by the progressive allies of Wilson. In my humble opinion, Lodge's contributions to his country were at least on par with Wilson's. I would submit he did more for the US by leading the fight against the League of Nations than Wilson did by committing the US to this misguided policy that placed the US at the mercy of the vicissitudes of the world's factions. Lodge's grandson makes the point that Article 10, that robs signatories of sovereignty, is missing from the United Nations. Lodge was right and should be recognized for his prescience in foreseeing the folly of such an agreement.

An examination of Lodge would surely reveal that he was not a libertarian, a philosophy with which I have some trouble. That's a post for a later time. I will close with a quote from Lodge that reveals his feelings about immigration which was an issue that was at least as burning an issue as it is today. By contrast, most immigration in this time period was from Europe. Therefore, the quote reflects his thought and philosophy towards European immigration.

Let every man honor and love the land of his birth and the race from which he springs and keep their memory green. It is a pious and honorable duty. But let us have done with British-Americans and Irish-Americans and German-Americans, and so on, and all be Americans...If a man is going to be an American at all let him be so without any qualifying adjectives; and if he is going to be something else, let him drop the word American from his personal description.

He's a true conservative hero.

RONALD REAGAN, 1911-2010

2010-02-05T19:33:00.002-05:00

Tomorrow is the 99th birthday of Ronald Wilson Reagan. In the pantheon of presidents he is in the inner circle. I've never been an advocate of rankings presidents because historically they are slaves to opinion. I'll just say that Reagan held fast to his principles and that is the measure of a man.

He was a great man who achieved greatly and that is the measure of an American. We miss you Mr. President.

WATCH WHAT YOU TYPE ON THE TELEPROMPTER. HE'LL READ ANYTHING!

2010-02-04T22:20:00.004-05:00

Please don't get touchy. I would not ever question the intelligence of the most talented speaker, the best communicator, the most scintillating political speaker ever to occupy the White House. I'm with Chris Matthews on this one. When I hear Obama speak I get a pain in my butt that starts with a thrill running up my leg.

This is just funny as hell. Does this mean that he is going to send the US Marine Corpse to Afghanistan? The Anchorman reference at the end is priceless.

Is it unpatriotic to laugh at the president?

THE END OF THE FRONTIER?

2010-02-02T22:17:00.003-05:00

I was perusing sites and I landed upon my friend Z's site. She had a great post about the US ceding its preeminence on internet technology to other countries. There seems to be a pattern here. The NASA manned missions to return to the moon are out, meanwhile India plans a trip of its own. In these economic times that may seem to be prudent, but what disturbs me is that it is a troubling step down the path from American Exceptionalism, to American mediocrity.

In 1890, the census declared the end to the American frontier. This represented the end of the American mindset of manifest destiny, that drove American exploration and led to the settling of the continent from sea to shining sea. In the process the US was on the road to becoming the dominant economic and military power in the world, some would say driven by transplantation of the frontier spirit to technological achievement. This fueled an Industrial Revolution that brought about unparalled inventions.

The list of American inventions is incredible and would take some time to enumerate. Imagine the world without American entrepreneurship and inventiveness, spawned by the freedom to achieve whatever was possible. I think that spirit is being bred out of us by multiculturalism, moral reletivism, and worse, a feeling that Americans should be ashamed of their success.

Following the First World War, Woodrow Wilson committed America to the League of Nations. This ill-fated organization was predicated on the illusion that war could be averted if only the nations of the world would sit down together to talk out and resolve their differences. I'm a little more cynical of Wilson, however, suffice it to say his trust was seriously misplaced, especially as it regards Europe with its long history of incessant warfare. To the point, the League of Nations included Article 10 which bound the signatories to accept the frightening notion that an attack on one League member was an attack on all. Hence, the US would make itself a party and worse, a participant in a war that could result from some perceived slight in some far off land.

Rightfully, many Senators were appalled at the prospect of another world war and America's involvement in it. Especially so soon after WWI. At times of crisis many great men rise to the challenge and this crisis was no exception. Henry Cabot Lodge, the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee was adamantly opposed to the involvment of the US in the League basing his objection in no small part to a loss of national sovereignty. He argued that US involvement would represent a forfeiture of the right of the US to plot its own path in foreign policy. To the great relief of many Americans, many understandably isolationist following the horrifying losses in the war, his view prevailed and the Senate refused to approve the treaty.

My worry is that Obama seems to be trodding again on a Wilsonian, one-world, supranationalist path. It seems to me that our national sovereignty is being subjugated to this misguided, discredited policy. The president has signaled a willingness to bargain away our national sovereignty with the publication of his new budget. The president has committed to budgetary policies that signal that he isn't interested in keeping our competitive edge in technology.

His misguided commitment to green jobs, none of which yet exist, is a false idol. He should commit to energy independence and do more than talk about nuclear power and push legislation to allow more off shore drilling. The technology exists to drill with a very small footprint. He should take these steps to ween us off foreign oil, make us energy independent and then and only then do research for alternative fuels. In other words, remove the roadblocks and commit the government to allow entrepreneurs to go about doing what they do best. Achieve. Many jobs will result.

Make us secure, then allow the American spirit of inventiveness to solve the problem of alternative fuels. We went to the moon. Remember?

Wilson's misguided League was flushed once. Let's just leave that policy in the toilet of history where it belongs. National sovereignty. Maybe some isolationism is in order again until we solve our own problems.

BREAKING NEWS! DEMS ARE INTOLERANT! WHO KNEW?

2010-01-31T15:49:00.003-05:00

I was cruising sites and I stopped at my friend Truth's site. His latest post was about the political purity of his Democrat party. I read and as usual he talked bluntly about the purity of his party in accepting all points of view. According to my friend all people are accepted in the Democrat big top. The Democrat party is all encompassing and tolerant of all viewpoints. I have no doubt that he honestly sees it this way.

Read this story and judge for yourself how tolerant the Dems are. Lest you think this is some obscure race in an obscure state, both could not be further from the truth. Ohio is a perennial battleground state and the Secretary of State sits on the state board that redraws the congressional districts in census years. That would be this year for those of you with your head where the sun doesn't shine. In short this is an important race to both parties. It's a power thing.

Of course all good Dems know that the evil Republicans require that all their candidates toe the party line. All Repubs hate gays, working people, poor people, people who aren't white, immigrants, people who don't go to church, abortions, Obama and love guns and war, and are generally all around intolerant of anyone who doesn't adhere to the party orthodoxy. Certainly unlike the Dems.

In other words, Repubs are angry white, intolerant men. Who would really fall for their crap? I've bailed on them but it's about selling out the constitution, but that's another story.

Read this story and judge for yourself about the tolerance of the Dems.

DISSING THE SUPREME COURT

2010-01-28T19:33:00.003-05:00

The assault on the constitution continues. Here the president takes the almost unprecedented step of trashing the Supreme Court at the very public occassion of the State of the Union address. This incredible action stomps on the constitutional separation of powers as the president tries to publicly humiliate the only branch of government that will not answer his classless remark in public.

The Supreme Court does it work in private until their findings are published. It would indeed be unseemly if they chose to remark on the stupidity of the other two branches everytime they overruled them as oftentimes they are calling them on overstepping their constitutional bounds. FDR tried to pack the court in the worst attack on the Supreme Court in the nation's history. His fellow Dems at the time were appalled and rightfully called a halt to his assault on another branch of government.

Unlike those Dems, the president's cheerleaders in the benches immediately behind the Supreme Court leapt to their feet and cheered as though they were at a college football game. Schumer is a jerk and it's well documented. Durbin is a wild partisan who compared American military members to Nazis and Pol Pot. So that type of childish conduct isn't surprising from these two juveniles jerks. I'm only surprised that they didn't tap one of justices on the shoulder and stick their tongue out at them.

But surprisingly the Attorney General of the US, too stood up and applauded. More proof that he, too, is nothing more than an ideological hack. Not surprisingly his decision to try KSM in NY is becoming more and more unpopular everyday. Way to think that one out Holder.

The hypocrisy of the president's and the Dems' argument is that this isn't about ideology it's about politics. The Dems perceive this ruling to favor the Repubs in fundraising, although the president raised a little corporate money himself in the campaign. What's hypocritical is this is coming from the party that favors open voting with no restrictions especially requiring the presentation of ID to vote. They see an advantage for themselves with illegal aliens among other groups over the Repubs. Essentially the president scored a cheap shot at the expense of the SCOTUS whom he knew would not call him on the fact that he was wrong. The law that precludes foreign companies from putting cash into an American election was left intact.

Day by day the president continues to add to the group of people he considers not worthy of respect or those who disagree with him. This is just one more example of a president who really has little regard for those he considers unworthy.

It's getting a little full under the bus, I'd say.

IS RON PAUL RIGHT? I LIKE WHAT HE HAS TO SAY.

2010-01-25T22:34:00.002-05:00

I'll allow Ron Paul to speak for himself. I like what he has to say about the Federal Reserve. With the vote looming about Ben Bernanke, what Paul has to say is really relevant. Dr. Paul is a medical doctor who has become an expert in economics. His political views are libertarian.

There is a lot of what he has to say that I don't agree with to any extent. As for his economic views, I agree with him a lot. Anyone who takes on Paul Krugman is a friend of mine. Krugman is an extremely liberal, Keynesian, whose theories have been thoroughly disproved. Therefore, he is a Nobel laurate, which speaks highly of the Nobel board.

Dr. Paul has taken on the Fed. I agree, as do a large number of congressmen, that the Fed should do its business in the open. The secrecy of government is an intolerable perversion of the constitution. The Fed should operate in the light of day and its deliberations should be public.

When did it become a revelation that the government should be open to the governed?

WHAT IS BRAVERY?

2010-01-22T21:41:00.005-05:00

View this video. Then we'll talk.

There were times in my life that I thought I was brave. Many times in my military career I went in harm's way. Many times when I was police officer I went in harm's way. I did nothing that thousands of others haven't done. I am proud of my service.

What causes me to contemplate this is a conversation I had with my teaching colleagues over some adult beverages after school today. While the conversation was very flattering and I thank my colleagues for their compliments, it begs the question. What is bravery?

I related a story about my experiences with the Secret Service as Ronald Reagan visited our city during the 1980 campaign. I was amazed by their thoroughness and expertise as law enforcement. They checked out our city, told us what needed to be done to secure it and we did it. Total professionalism.

I told my colleagues that I was really impressed by the bravery of Secret Service Agent Tim McCarthy and his conduct during the assassination attempt of President Ronald Reagan in 1981. When you talk about bravery, talk about a man who intentionally put himself in harm's way to save the live of the president. In this act he was shot and seriously wounded. He took a bullet for the president. Tim McCarthy is my hero.

That's the definition of bravery in my mind. How about you?

BROWN OUT

2010-01-21T22:20:00.004-05:00

I am amused by the election of Scott Brown and the left's reaction to it. They have begun to carve each other up and the blame game is in full swing. Whether this will derail Obamacare or not, is unclear. I have a problem believing that the left will willingly give up their "Holy Grail" of universal health care. The left is of the mind that this is the time when all the stars have aligned. With the comments of Pelosi today my BS meter went haywire. She is a devious backroom, armtwister and her meek pronouncement that the votes just aren't there for the Senate version was a little too pat. I'll believe it when I see it.

As for Brown, the cynic in me will withhold judgement of him. A check of his record gives me pause. He's pretty liberal on social issues, although his saving grace can be that he seems to be fiscally conservative, pro tax cuts, pro school choice, for LEGAL immigration, pro military, anti criminal prosecution for terrorists etc. We'll see if he is a true conservative worth supporting or just a place holder to stop the runaway health care bill and left wing agenda of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. I don't give my heart freely anymore. I'm a jilted lover in a political sense.

If Obama has any sense he'll do a Clinton and move to the center for self preservation. Clinton was slick enough in 1994 to see the handwriting on the wall, but then, he's a politician not an idealogue. He was out for himself and was a slick politician possessing very few deeply-held beliefs. Power was his deal and he was good at getting it and hanging on to it. Of course this is all redundant when we're talking about politicians.

Obama may just be another ideologue. If he is, we will get to watch a televised suicide. Then he can join Jimmy Carter in the toilet of history. I'll pull up a chair, pop a beer, and watch the fireworks as the left self destructs.

Should be entertaining.

CONSTITUTIONAL PRIMER

2010-01-17T15:21:00.003-05:00

I apologize for the scarcity of posts lately. I have been experiencing server problems and have had a tough time getting on-line. Hopefully, that's corrected. On to the festivities.

Judge Napolitano has recently put together one of the best primers on constitutional law I've seen in years. Although, from a libertarian bent, it does talk to the framer's original intent. He does a nice job of explaining what the constitution is really all about. For those among us who like to read into the words of the constitution, you are on shaky ground. The seventeen enumerated powers are unequivocal in their wording. We have allowed the thirst for power of our elected officials to override the intent of the framers to curb the power of the federal government.

I have experienced the tyranny of the federal government on two occasions as a police officer. The first was the 55 MPH speed limit. This has been shown to be folly in saving gas and did serious damage to the trucking industry and in turn the economy as a whole. How did the federal government enforce it? It threatened to withhold highway money, extorted through gas taxes, from the state unless they gave in. Most did.

I spent a lot of my time as a midnight shift officer arresting DUI drivers. During my career the Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) was .10. Under pressure from MADD and other organizations the BAC was lowered to .08. How did they coerce the states? Federal highway money.

When coercion is the rule of the day, the government is out of control. I enforced the laws of my jurisdiction, but I also recognized that the government was heavy-handed in its zeal to enforce its vision of a better America.

Where does it all stop?

GLOBAL WARMING IS NOTHING MORE THAN HOT AIR

2010-01-12T21:56:00.005-05:00

Politicians never seem to disappoint when it comes to their unending displays of arrogance and disregard for spending the people's money. Take some time to read this article and watch the video and then take a deep breath and count to ten.

As if we needed more proof that congress doesn't care about spending our money they are able to exceed our expectations and in tone deaf fashion go about blithely spending thousands of dollars to attend the Copenhagen Circus, at which absolutely nothing was accomplished except spending taxpayer's money and partying.

This is such an in your face to the taxpayers from these members of congress that it's hard to argue that they even really care what we think. They are so disconnected from reality that they really don't see that their constituents might be a little upset with them taking a useless luxury vacation on our dime.

This is further proof that these people have no business running anything that requires intelligence or trustworthiness. The only pay that matters to them is power, pure and simple and the citizens continue to be ripped off by these self-aggrandizing freeloaders.

We would do better to feed the government fiat money they print without any end in sight into a furnace and burn it for heat. At least we would get a warm feeling from it and it can replace the hot air that these jackasses generate.

HARKIN FINDS A RIGHT. THANKS, TOM!!

2010-01-08T10:31:00.003-05:00

Recently, I saw this video of Sen. Tom Harkin being interviewed in reference to the pressure Dems are under because of their backroom dealings in order to secure the elusive 60th vote to end the Republican filibuster. While it contained the normal political dodging of the question, I was really shocked by his statement that we are in the process of bringing about a public option, which most assuredly will lead to single-payer health care. I give Harkin points for this interview and others I've listened to, for his honesty. He makes no attempt to disguise his zeal for a government takeover of health care. Unlike most of his Dem buddies he's not a stealth fighter, he's a straight out carpet bomber. Refreshing honesty, however, doesn't make good public policy.

Somewhere in the deep recesses of his mind, Tom Harkin and his fellow true believers have found a new right for all Americans, a right to health care. As he explains it, we are crossing a "line of demarcation" with health care as a privilege on one side and health care as a right on the other. This is a significant statement in that once something takes on the aura of a right, it becomes the government's responsibility to fund it. Harkin has finally come out and said it. Health care is a right.

John Locke, whose writings influenced the Founding Fathers to structure our government as a republic based on the natural rights "endowed by our creator", stated that government exists solely to protect the rights of its citizens. Therefore, government is bound to provide health care. If Harkin's statement is to be accepted, the government will be responsible for ensuring that health care is provided to every citizen or it will be abrogating its responsibility to protect its citizens.

According to the Declaration of Independence, which was based on many of Locke's philosophies, if the government fails to provide universal health care, it is the right of the citzens to "alter or abolish" that government because it fails to protect their rights. That is of course, if health care is a right. Somehow Harkin and his fellow believers have discovered a right that wasn't written in the constitution and they are now in the process of bestowing this on their fellow citizens. Thanks are certainly in order.

Harkin also made a lot of the fact that this was much more of wellness bill than just a mere health care bill. He talks of eating, exercising and other wellness activities. I thank him for looking out for my health, after all, my unhealthful activities would surely burden the system of health care it is my right to have.

So I guess the government mandating that we all follow "healthful" habits is just the next step in the process of the government ensuring that I don't mess up my fellow citizens' right to health care by burdening it with unnecessary costs to give me care I obviously wouldn't deserve because of my selfishness towards the collective. We all need the government to tell us what healthful habits they will require us to follow in order for them to deliver the services necessary to ensure that my right to health care is delivered in the most efficient government manner.

I eagerly await my "Government Reeducation Packet" containing my government mandated shopping list, exercise regimen, mandated reading list of educational government-printed pamphlets, etc., that will get me on the road to being a good citizen of the state with my priorities properly focused on the collective. Get with it, comrades!

Here is Judge Napolitano with a primer on government involvement in health care and other social programs.

WAR

2010-01-03T23:18:00.004-05:00

I was on my friend's site, Dr. D, and he was talking about the series Band of Brothers. I would say this, war is terrible on all sides. The speech I'll post would tell you that combat has two sides. I've been on one side, but I haven't really given a thought to the other side. War is an atrocity. We should try to never be there again. This is from the Band of Brothers series and speaks to war's effects on both sides. Good post, Dr.D.

BUSH, RIGHT OR WRONG?

2010-01-03T19:01:00.005-05:00

I have been amused by the limbo that Obama supporters are doing to justify his response to the Christmas Day attack. I seem to remember that Obama campaigned incessantly against Bush, even though he wasn't running and against McCain as if he were Bush. Everything Bush did was wrong and he surely did some not too good things, and Obama told us he was determined not repeat the stupidity of Bush's policies.

Now we are confronted with the spector of Obama inexplicably repeating the mistakes of the Bush administration in his response to the war on terror. Bush tried many terrorists in civilian court. This resulted in a carefully orchestrated propaganda bonanza. I think as time went on Bush learned and put a stop to these dog and pony shows. This approach was a mistake. Bush was wrong to do it.

Later, in answer to intense international pressure, Bush started releasing Gitmo prisoners back to their home countries. This was and is a grave mistake. These people are showing up on the battlefields time and again. I find it hard to understand where the notion that these people can be rehabilitated was hatched. Precious few prisoners in OUR prison system can be rehabilitated and they are domestic terrorists without the deep feeling of religious indoctrination the international terrorists have. American terrorists are just low-life criminals out to exploit their fellow citizens for their own gain. There are those who are truly evil bastards, but they are not as numerous as our common domestic terrorists.

My questions then becomes, according to Obama, was Bush right or wrong in his policies? If you are convinced the Bush policies were wrong change them and do something different. However, if you continue the same policies it's hard to argue against them, isn't it? This administration is really just continuing the policies of the Bush administration.

How about a surge? Check. How about Predator attacks in Pakistan and Yemen? Check. What's changed? Could it be that once reality struck Obama in the face he was forced to see that we can't defend ourselves and worry about being loved by the world. Check?

As for releasing prisoners from Gitmo, that's insane and is doomed to failure. My hope is that if Obama continues to release these people they don't come back to haunt us. We're watching Mr. President.

BUCKEYES AND BACK TO SCHOOL

2010-01-02T23:13:00.004-05:00

Last night I watched my Ohio State Buckeyes dismember the Oregon Ducks. To hear the pundits tell it, almost without exception, the Bucks were going down in a big way. Oregon's offense was fastbreak football at its best and the big, slow, plodding Big Ten representative was going to get shellacked by the mighty Ducks. Terelle Pryor hadn't lived up to his unlimited potential, Jim Tressel was too conservative in his play calling and quite simply the Bucks couldn't win the "BIG ONE".

Honestly, I had some of these criticisms myself, but I've been a loyal Buckeye fan my whole life as was my dad. My aunt told me that my dad was a great athlete playing for the high school at the orphanage where he and his brothers and sisters were raised. She said he had an offer to go to Ohio State to play football, but he thought he would have to pay for school. He saw no way to do that, so he went into the navy. The sad thing is he had no guidance from adults that would have told him they were offering to let him go to school on a scholarship. No one from their school had ever been that good before, so no one knew what to tell him.

My dad never expressed any bitterness over the situation and he rooted loudly and vehemently for the Buckeyes my whole youth. We spent many hours listening and watching the Bucks on TV and radio sharing that interest as father and son. Sports was always something my dad and I shared and enjoyed together. Some of my best memories are intertwined with our mutual love for sports teams such as the Reds, the Dayton Flyers, the Browns, and then the Bengals. I know he would have loved the game last night and I am confident he did enjoy it. Go Bucks.

I have spent the last few days preparing lesson plans for Monday when we return to school. As I did my research for class, made outlines and chapter packets, I thought about my grandfather. We are starting the First World War and I take that opportunity to give a history lesson about my family as my grandfather fought in the Great War. I don't do it to brag, but to educate my students about the human cost of war. The Great War is my favorite subject to teach and I look forward to the lesson on Monday and the coming days.

I am fortunate to be a teacher, I love doing it and I look forward to everyday in class. It is the best job I've ever had. I love talking to the students I've had in class as they return from college. The week before Christmas is a good time for the students to return to the school and see teachers again. I love talking to them and finding out what they're up to and where their life is going. What a great job!

I FEEL BETTER NOW!

2009-12-30T17:08:00.004-05:00

The DHS has reassured us with an editorial in the USA Today. She has promised to "find and fix" the problems that allowed the near Christmas bombing to occur. As I read the editorial I was struck by the fact that she spent the article twisting herself into a pretzel as she wrote with angst about finding out why these people don't like us and want to kill us. Oh and by the way, using the word "terrorist" in a general way is a gutless attempt to sound tough. Read this quote:

At the Department of Homeland Security, we have increasingly focused on understanding the behaviors associated with violent extremism, from known terrorist groups, such as al-Qaeda, to home-based individuals acting alone.

Why do they hate us? I can help you out here, Madam Secretary. These people hate western civilization. They hate our way of life. They hate our freedoms. They hate that we afford civil rights to everyone, especially women. They don't like Christianity because it's against their interpretation of Islam. They hate our high standard of living. In other words, they hate the very air we breath and they want to take us back to the seventh century. Oh, and by the way, you should really not worry too much about those "home-based individuals acting alone." Those right-wing veterans you're so worried about aren't much of a threat to blow up a plane carrying 300 people.

In law enforcement, Madam Secretary, any type of analysis of the terrorist attacks against us would show "a continuing course of criminal conduct." I'm just a simple retired police officer, who is a military veteran, but I can really look at this information and formulate a pattern and a plan to address it. Stop checking out old ladies and others who don't fit the profile and get on your job and check out the right people.

I know profiling is a bad word in your world but a dispassionate appraisal of all the circumstances surrounding a crime spree gives you a course of action. The police are bound by the constitution in their actions and it makes acting quickly almost impossible. If this was a declared war the situation could be attacked with an eye toward ending the threat. But wait, we can't do that because we might offend some people. Madam Secretary, al-Qaeda are terrorists.

Someone trying to blow up a plane with 300 people on board offends me and a lot of other Americans. How about doing your job? How about protecting us with every tool at your disposal? How about fulfilling your constitutional duty to protect us from all enemies foreign and domestic?

How about resigning?

HE STILL CAN'T SAY IT. EXTREMIST? TERRORIST!

2009-12-29T16:36:00.002-05:00

According to the president's statement of the last few minutes this near tragedy was the act of an extremist. He still refuses to use the work terrorist because that would imply we are at war and he really can't wrap his mind around that fact. This is not a criminal problem, robbers and burglars are criminals. People who try to detonate a bomb while a passenger on a plane with nearly three hundred people on board are terrorists. Terrorists, not extremists.

Oh and by the way, someone made a mistake and he's going to correct it. I'm sure those reviews will fix the problem. Gibbs today stated that the terrorist was lost on the lists because there are over 500,000 on the "watch list." This brings up a question. If they can't keep track of a "watch list" full of terrorists, how in the hell will they keep track of over 70 million people enrolled in government health care?

AN ISOLATED EXTREMIST?

2009-12-28T22:10:00.005-05:00

I was stunned to listen to the president finally speak about the attempted Christmas bombing of an airliner bound for the US. Forget for a moment that it took him three days to respond. Thanks, Mr. President, for interrupting your golf game, to speak to the country about the measures you will allegedly take to make us safer. Damn that Bush.

Read the transcipt of his six-minute speech and you will, I'm sure, be reassured that this administration is on top of things in the terrorist world. The DHS is a joke, so she doesn't even rate much of a response to her two-headed statement to the attack. The system worked, oh sorry, no it didn't. What is that? She's a disgrace. One statement from me, Madam Secretary, there are really terrorists out there and they aren't those evil right wing, military veterans. Say it slowly, "Islamic terrorists."

As for the president, out of this rambling, pointless statement or yours, I picked out a phrase that made my hair stand on end. Our president referred to this incident as being perpetrated by an "isolate extremist." Really? ISOLATED EXTREMIST. How about terrorist? How about a terrorist that is part of a concerted effort by a large group of people to kill as many Americans as possible? How about a war?

The most disturbing part of the speech is this:

"That an alert and courageous citizenry are far more resilient than an isolated extremist."

I'm all for citizen watch programs, but this is not what any of us had in mind. The government is in criminal mode during a war. This is a war. It is not a ring of burglars or robbers who are trying to steal things from people's houses. This group is trying to steal our way of life. They are trying to flush us down the toilet of history, along with the Nazis, Romans, barbarians, and the USSR.

My biggest gripe with the Obama administration is that they don't get it in the war on terror. Hell, they can't even say it. I hate that they are printing money at a prodigious rate. I hate that they feel they know better than us in so many ways. Bailout GM so they don't go bankrupt. Oops, they went bankrupt. Sorry about those billions of dollars, citizens. Oh well, you'll make more. But really, this is serious business. We have a lot of people who want us dead. I would like the president and his people to take this seriously.

Trying terrorists in American courts and moving terrorists into the midsection of the country doesn't make us feel that you get it, Mr. President.

CHRISTMAS MUSIC WITH CELTIC WOMAN

2009-12-23T23:04:00.003-05:00

Some of the most beautiful music you'll hear around Christmastime. Enjoy these beautiful singers and their beautiful voices.

With apologies to Z.

LET ME TELL YOU OF TEA PARTIES AND FILIBUSTERS

2009-12-22T14:27:00.006-05:00

Two issues have been under the radar screen lately that have been in the news in a peripheral way. Those issues are the Tea Party's new found prominence and the possibility of a third party and the vilification of the filibuster used in the Senate.

Let's begin with some history. The history of third parties in the US is checkered at best. For the most part they have been fringe movements that were like a meteor that shone brightly and then flamed out leaving little evidence of itself. Some movements have, however, been influential, if not electing a candidate, at least changing the political landscape.

The most successful third party was the Populists of the 1890s. They were concerned with securing a fair treatment for the nation's farmers, concentrated mostly in the south and the west. This was the group most negatively affected by the Gilded Age. Most of the benefits were concentrated in the north and the east and gave rise to a group popularly known as the robber barons who numbered among their group such names as John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, Cornelius Vanderbilt, etc.

The Populists' platform featured a graduated income tax, nationalizing the railroads, telephone, telegraph, low-interest loans to farmers, and free coinage of silver. The Populists reached their zenith when their candidate, William Jennings Bryan, was co-opted by the Democrats in 1896, and 1900 to run against William McKinley for president. He lost but he and the Populists placed many of the farmer's issues into the forefront and they gave rise to their spawn, or forward thinkers, depending on your perspective, the progressives.

I offer this passage from the great history text by David M. Kennedy, Lizabeth Cohen, and Thomas A. Bailey, The American Pageant, 12th Edition, page #613 and 614:

Yet the Populists, despite their oddities, were not to be laughed away. They were leading a deadly earnest and impassioned campaign to relieve the farmers' many miseries. Smiles faded from Republican and Democratic faces alike as countless thousands of Populists began to sing "Good-bye, My Party, Good-bye." In 1892 the Populists had jolted the traditional parties by winning several congressional seats and polling more than 1 million votes for their presidential candidate, James B. Weaver. Racial divisions continued to hobble the Populists in the South, but in the West their ranks were swelling. Could the People's party now reach beyond its regional bases in agrarian America, join hands with the urban workers, and mount a successful attack on the northeastern citadels of power?

My point is that the Populists and later the Progressives certainly had a monumental effect on the country. Certainly in hindsight, they should not have been taken for granted by the Democrats and Republicans of the Gilded Age. Can the Dems and Repubs of the 21st century afford to repeat the mistake of ignoring this growing movement? Polls continue to show that dissatisfaction with both parties is growing and unless the parties begin to listen they may suffer consequences at the polls. Memo to both parties: STOP SPENDING WITH NO RESTRAINTS. STOP PRINTING WORTHLESS MONEY AND DRIVING US INTO BANKRUPTCY. START LISTENING TO YOUR CONSTITUENTS. STOP THE POWER GRAB.

As for the filibuster, let's talk. The filibuster in some form or other has been around since the Roman republic. It has always been part of legislating and probably always will. Reading Paul Krugman's column today gave me an unexpected laugh. Paul's a little upset at the filibuster of the Health Care Bill. His main rational was that it wasn't in the Constitution. That's interesting coming from a guy who doesn't let the Constitution get in the way of progligate spending when it's done in the name of job stimulus.

It's not in the Constitution is a statement that is continually thrown back at constitutional conservatives when it is used to make a point about the Health Care Bill, the almost $800 billion stimulus bill, TARP, Cash for Clunkers, seizing GMC, Chrysler, bailing out the big evil Wall Street firms, and the myriad other spending bills that those of us who are too stupid understand what's good for us are against. It's not in the Constitution. Really?

Our Founding Fathers were worried about runaway majorities and the filibuster is a brake on that. They feared a "tyranny of the majority." I would caution my friends on the left who are so put out by the filibuster, be careful what you wish for, you might just get it. With the normal ebb and flow of politics in America, you could find yourself in the minority without any kind of mechanism to make yourself heard. Arrogance can lead you to feel that your power is forever. Remember that ancient tyrants would parade their enemies in chains through the streets of their cities in order to demonstrate their power. But the wise tyrant assigned a slave to whisper in his ear during the procession, "All power is fleeting."

AMERICA-THE FUTURE

2009-12-18T22:07:00.004-05:00

I was teaching the Federalist Papers in class the last couple of days before Christmas Break. We were discussing Federalist #10 and #51, both probably written by James Madison. I say probably because while Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay admitted being the writers of the essays, titled "Publius," the authenticated authorship of each essay is still questionable.

I love the fact that my students were able to grasp these two essays because they are smart and now, well educated. Who knew. I thought I would quote from Federalist 51, my favorite of all the essays, in this post.

Oddly enough, the students were very interested in this passage as proof that our government needs to be vigilantly tended to at all times. These students, my students, will be vigilant about government because they are critical thinkers and they care about their future. Here is the passage they picked to be on this blog:

But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government.

I love being a teacher and at times like this I am amazed at the intelligence of my students. I think we'll be in good hands if the colleges they attend don't screw them up.

TEABAGGERS UNITE!

2009-12-17T21:33:00.004-05:00

This is an interesting bit of information. In a poll released today there is more support for a third party identified with the Tea Party movement than for either the Democrats or the Republicans. I have lost any trust in politicians and it seems I am not alone. Their power-grabbing is at least disgusting and at most a death knell for the republican form of government. This is a feeling that is spreading across the political spectrum and has ignited a movement that is taking politicans to the woodshed.

This movement is rooted in the true conservative ideals of limited government, transparency, accountability, and remembering that "We the People" are the boss. Our Founding Fathers had a healthy distrust of government power and they took every opportunity to limit its power. Read Federalist 51 and marvel at the prescience of Madison in his admonition to limit government power. He talked of the delicate balancing act of giving power to men to govern other men while at the same time realizing that they must also govern themselves and their use of power.

It will be interesting to see if this movement continues, I intend to do my part, and if it gains in power. I think it will. Remember, the US is historically a two-party country. Does that mean that either the Democrats or the Republicans are on the way out? A party by any other name.

THE ATTACK MACHINE IS STILL IN HIGH GEAR

2009-12-16T21:11:00.003-05:00

Recently, I was reading at some of my favorite sites when I came upon one that was, to put it mildly, insulting to John McCain. Now as a presidential candidate I felt he left a lot to be desired although I supported him. My support was rooted in my personal admiration for him as a man and an American hero. I was particularly upset with some of the comments about the post. They were uniformly sophomoric and obscene. While a little obscenity doesn't bother me very much, I felt this was over the top.

Throughout the '08 campaign I was disgusted with the attack machine of the left and the way they went after John McCain personally. Leave aside for a moment Sarah Palin. That's a post for another day. McCain was continually subjected to the basest and most vile attacks on a daily basis. Disagree with him on policy, that's fair game. But making fun of his physical problems is beyond the pale. These problems were the result of over five years of imprisonment and torture in a North Vietnamese prison camp. Many on the left distorted his service record trying to paint him as a reckless pilot who was dangerous. Really? McCain was shot down on his 23rd mission over North Vietnam.

In the real world McCain would be revered for his service and selfless sacrifice. I wonder how many of these people know that McCain refused an offer from his North Vietnamese captors to be allowed to leave imprisonment early. He realized that it would be a propaganda coup due to his father's command position. Additionally, he chose to abide by the unwritten rule that those captured first should be released first. Sure McCain can't raise his arms above his head, or comb his hair, or type on a computer. Torture causes physical problems.

I realize politics is tough, but the Dems raised the bar to a new level with their personal, groundless attacks in order to win. It is apparently that important, or they have a total lack of ethics and morality. The latter seems to be true if some of these posts are any indication.

What brought this up was my dismay that the personal attacks don't end. Hey, listen up lefties, your guy won. McCain was humiliated on a daily basis and to his credit he stood tall throughout. It made me proud of him all over again. If some of you people want a lesson in being a hero and what it takes to live like one, read McCain's book, "Faith of My Fathers."

You might learn something.

I HAVE SOUL!

2009-12-04T23:25:00.004-05:00

I play this song by The Band, for my classes in Advanced Placement US History. Why? I love the little pieces of history. This song is about a group of people, the Acadians, who were displaced in 1755 during the four French and Indians wars, the last ending in 1763. Many of these people ended up in Louisiana and are known today as the Cajuns. The song was written by Robbie Roberston whose wife was a descendant of the Acadians.

I joke with my classes that they have no soul. I ask if they have read the poem by Longfellow called Evangeline. It talks about the fate of the Acadians after being axpelled by the British. Evangeline searches the remainder of her life after being expelled from Acadia, to find her love, Gabriel. She finds him on his deathbed and kisses him as he dies. Most say they haven't read the poem. What a loss.

Have some soul. Read the poem.

Here are the lyrics to the song:

The war was over and the spirit was broken
The hills were smokin' as the men withdrew
We stood on the cliffs
Oh, and watched the ships
Slowly sinking to their rendezvous
They signed a treaty and our homes were taken
Loved ones forsaken
They didn't give a damn
Try'n' to raise a family
End up the enemy
Over what went down on the plains of Abraham

Acadian driftwood
Gypsy tail wind
They call my home the land of snow
Canadian cold front movin' in
What a way to ride
Oh, what a way to go

Then some returned to the motherland
The high command had them cast away
And some stayed on to finish what they started
They never parted
They're just built that way
We had kin livin' south of the border
They're a little older and they've been around
They wrote a letter life is a whole lot better
So pull up your stakes, children and come on down

Fifteen under zero when the day became a threat
My clothes were wet and I was drenched to the bone
Been out ice fishing, too much repetition
Make a man wanna leave the only home he's known
Sailing out of the gulf headin' for Saint Pierre
Nothin' to declare
All we had was gone
Broke down along the coast
But what hurt the most
When the people there said
"You better keep movin' on"

Everlasting summer filled with ill-content
This government had us walkin' in chains
This isn't my turf
This ain't my season
Can't think of one good reason to remain
I've worked in the sugar fields up from New Orleans
It was ever green up until the floods
You could call it an omen
Points ya where you're goin'
Set my compass north
I got winter in my blood

Acadian driftwood
Gypsy tail wind
They call my home the land of snow
Canadian cold front movin' in
What a way to ride
Ah, what a way to go

HEALTH CARE IN AMERICA, PART 2

2009-11-30T20:47:00.003-05:00

Health care would be much more affordable if the plans featured high deductibles. Routine medical visits, medications, and procedures should be covered with a high deductible plan. Thanks to my friend Bloviating Zeppelin for that insight. Point well taken. Couple that with an HSA that is set up by employees and you have a combination that will lower medical plan costs considerably.

There probably should be a cap on the amount in the HSA to protect the employees paycheck. Once the HSA is exhausted the plan kicks in. If the HSA isn't exhausted it should roll over to the next year. The businesses and government agencies that are burdened with providing health care are collapsing under the burden. Some of these fixes are in my estimation common sense.

As for Medicare, the funding is drying up and it is on track to be bankrupt. The government is incapable of running anything without bankrupting it. How about finding that $500 million in fraud the Dems say is there, but have done nothing to find until it now is magically going to be used to fund their health care plan? My experience is that if someone is willing to admit to something, it is really a lot worse than the person admits. If they are hawking $500 million, I'll bet it's half again higher than that. Medicare is a swamp that needs to be drained. Common sense reform will go a long way toward making health care more affordable for everyone. Medicaid? Oh well.

What's next. How about cleaning up the IRS quagmire with a Fair Tax?

HEALTH CARE IN AMERICA

2009-11-24T20:01:00.002-05:00

First of all, I would like to thank Truth for agreeing to debate health care in an open forum in which all opposing viewpoints will be heard and respected even in disagreement. Also TAO is a worthy, well-informed blogger with a definite plan for health care that is well thought out and well stated. Visit both of these sites for further information on their plans.

I would like to start out with some signposts for effective health care as I see it. I'll lay out several and then flesh them out in later posts. I would like to keep the posts from becoming excessively long.

1) Any plan has to be portable from job to job and must apply in all states. When health plans are restricted to one state, the number of companies offering are so few that they have a virtual monopoly. This lack of competition has a direct effect on driving up the price of the health care plans. This is simple supply and demand.

2) Even the tax laws for those with private health care and employer funded plans. Employer funded plans are tax deductible while private plans are not. I understand wanting to pay off the unions with tax breaks, but this inequity skewers the market in favor of employer funded plans, which are historically "cadillac" plans and are very expensive. Therefore, the health companies have no incentive to lower their premiums because collective bargaining is in their favor. Employers, both government and private, are raked over the coals, financially paying for these plans. I know, I negotiated a few contracts in collective bargaining. If you don't think we knew the value of our health care plans, you should have seen us throwing most of our demands overboard to keep the level of coverage and our level of contributions. Allow competition and prices will drop. (See #1)

3) The Holy Grail of health care reform is the lawyers worst nightmare, tort reform. I've heard some statistics that tort (injury) settlements only account for 2%-3% of health care costs. While the actual awards may account for this amount, the real money is in malpractice insurance costs to medical personnel. This is a very real expense and very real cost that is passed on to the consumer. JC Penney figures the amount of shoplifting it suffers into the price of a sweater and passes it on the the consumer. All overhead is figured into the price of goods and passed onto the consumer or there would be no profit. The spigot should be closed on this profit fountain for lawyers.

Some items to explore later are Medicare reform, tax reform (think Fair Tax), high deductible insurance, HSAs, and others.

What I tried to do here is throw out a first pitch as it were, in this debate. I hope others join in and we have a good old free-for-all. I realize I haven't talked money, but I'll get to that after I frame my position. I look forward to this debate.

Thanks for reading.

THE BAND

2009-11-21T01:11:00.003-05:00

Of all the songs by The Band, this is my favorite. The wistful pain in the lyrics is evidence of the soul of this group. They made many songs but I love this one.

Having said that, I played their song Acadian Driftwood today in class for my students. We have been studying the French and Indian War and the Revolutionary War. This song is about the Acadians who were rousted from their homes during the F & I War and sent on their way. The British renamed the island Nova Scotia. Most of the Acadians ended up in Louisiana near New Orleans. We know them as Cajuns.

These little pieces of history are the most fun to study. As I told the students today, maybe there will be a whole new generation of Band fans. Who knows?

HEALTH CARE VOTE TOMORROW

2009-11-20T21:59:00.007-05:00

Here are some thoughts on the health care bill (Which one?) that's kicking around in congress. My question is why are we going to bring about this debacle without most of the congress people having read what they are voting on? This bill is a joke and will saddle us with debt for the foreseeable future.

These congress people are without a doubt a disgrace to the institution. I always look back in history to judge current politicians and the current ones don't stack up. As I listen to politicians from both parties I'm shocked by the lack of quality. Both parties seem to pander to the lowest denominator in all of us. The Dems give out money, favors, and then the much ballyhooed and loved Stupak amendment. The Republicans are inept and a nonentity. The Dems will pull the rug out from under them in conference when they ditch the amendement and restore federal funding for abortions, contrary to the wishes of most Americans. Talk about a bait and switch!

Let's look at some history. In 1935, debate began on the Clark amendment to the Social Security Act. It was about a private option vs. a government option for Social Security insurance. Senator Clark of Missouri was convinced that the private, free market option would outperform the government option in the market. He was right with a return on the government option of about 2% to 8% for the private option.

Allow me to quote from the book "New Deal or Raw Deal?" by Burton Folsom Jr. (If you read this book you will truly understand the New Deal and the damage it has done to America. This is a great book with a lot of information. Read it.

"When the Clark Amendment was debated before the Senate in 1935, the advocates of a government monopoly were on the defensive. One of them, Senator Robert LaFollette, Jr., of Wisconsin complained, 'If we shall adopt this amendment, the government having determined to set up a federal system of old age [insurance], will provide in its own bill creating that system, for competition, which in the end may destroy the federal system.' LaFollette was perceptive ...The Senate decided that workers ought to have a choice and voted 51-35 to make the Clark Amendment part of the social security law."

How did FDR respond? Check this out. "When the House passed a social security bill without the Clark amendment, Roosevelt and his supporters used a parliamentary tactic to gain victory. The House-Senate conference committee met to work out a compromise bill, and naturally the Clark Amendment was the main point of debate. The committee decided to submit a final bill to Roosevelt with the government monopoly intact. But they agreed to appoint a special joint legislative committee to study the Clark Amendment and report to Congress the next year on how best to provide for competition. But after the government monopoly was instituted, the promised meeting in 1936 was never held."

A similiar scenario will play out tomorrow in the Senate. We will have a bill that the majority of Americans don't want, jammed down our throats.

The question breaks down to whether a couple of Senators, notably Landrieu from Louisiana and Lincoln from Arkansas will listen to their constituents or to Harry Reid. The wrong vote could cost both of them their careers as their constituents are against this bill.

Thomas Paine was right, "These are the times that try men's souls."

VETERANS DAY, SECURITY POLICE

2009-11-13T22:44:00.003-05:00

I am still in Veterans Day follow up. As I was at my friend's site "Social Sense" I was moved by his posts about the USMC. They are a glorious service and I am in awe.

Having said that, all the armed forces are glorious in their own right. I spent my time in the military in the Security Police. While that sounds like a purely civilian pursuit, it really was a military fighting unit. My brothers fought to retain their bases with their lives and some made the ultimate sacrifice. In Vietnam, that meant protecting your base against all type of attacks. We did our job and when it was all said and done, we never lost a base.

When you are in the military you are committed to your country. There is no higher calling. I was proud to serve my country, and I would do it again if I could.

To my friends like Pat, we were noble, we fought for our country, and we triumphed against all odds. We are proud, we are the Security Police.

UD BASKETBALL STARTS TOMORROW!

2009-11-13T19:12:00.004-05:00

This is my alma mater. I graduated from here, my son and my daughter have also. My wife and I have held season tickets to UD basketball for 25 years. We start our season tomorrow at 1 PM. We are on the rise. We are a top 25 team. We are the Flyers.

There is nothing like a game in the UD Arena. 13,455 fans screaming at the top of their lungs for the Flyers. We are second in NCAA games hosted in all the nation. We host the NCAA play-in game every year. Big deal you say? We average about 10,000 for that game involving teams nobody knows. Why? We love college basketball.

WE ARE THE FLYER NATION!

VETERANS DAY IN SCHOOL

2009-11-11T19:45:00.002-05:00

I celebrated Veterans Day in class today with my students. I talked about my family and our service, talked about the millions of veterans who have given their lives so that we can live in freedom. My first comment was that I considered Veterans Day to be the most important holiday because it makes all the others possible. They got that.

One teacher walked his entire class down to mine and thanked me for my service. Each student shook my hand and thanked me. I was thrilled by that and it was hard to keep from crying. I've had almost every one of those students in class and that was one of the truly coolest things that has ever happened to me.

I don't often talk about my family in a personal way with my students, but they seemed to very much enjoy sharing my story with me. I told them I didn't do it because I wanted to be a hero, I did it because I wanted the service and sacrifice to be personal to them. I felt great pride in talking about my grandfather, my uncle, my father-in-law, and my father and their courageous service to America.

The message I wanted to leave them with was that they should be proud and above all, grateful to be Americans. Despite the constant drumbeat of negativism about our country, millions still flock to America because it is still seen as the true beacon of freedom. America is still the destination of the wretched refuse of the world who reach our teeming shores yearning to breathe free.

I think they got the message and they are grateful to be Americans. And so am I.

VETERANS DAY, 2009

2009-11-10T22:08:00.003-05:00

I'm showing this video to my classes tomorrow. I also have prepared a PowerPoint that I'll show and narrate. They will know the importance of the day when I explain it to them. I'll post tomorrow about how it went.

I've added something new this year. A former student, who is now a Marine, recently visited Europe and he brought back a small bottle of sand from Normandy Beach for me. I think the students will get the message.

HOUSE PASSES HEALTH CARE DEBACLE

2009-11-08T21:42:00.004-05:00

No slant here right? Here's a slanted article that puts us on alert that the health care debate isn't political it is ideological. Note specifically the last part as it takes the part of the Dems and their side of the debate. AP is nothing more than an organ of the left. Nice job being professional.

The red ink flows, but that's all right because we're doing it for the people. You who don't agree just don't get it. Hopefully, the senate has some people who do get the cataclysmic nature of what is occurring. You can't print money that doesn't exist without bankrupting the country. I wish I could print money to pay my bills, but alas, I have to earn it. Pelosi, Reid, and Obama are steering us into an abyss from which we can not survive. Government run health care will be a disaster.

By the way, thanks for the transparency, Nancy/Reid/Obama. I'm glad that bill was posted for 72 hours like you promised. I've read a lot of the bill and I still have a lot to read. I don't consider myself to be stupid, but it's really hard to understand. I don't think that most of the morons in congress have read the bill either.

God bless America.

THE TRAIN CONTINUES TO HURTLE TOWARDS A CRASH

2009-11-03T20:40:00.004-05:00

I was doing my daily lunchtime reading and came across this article. My question is, when do we put a stop to this type of spending? Now I know there some on the left who would say, this is exactly the type of spending government should do in the "public interest." This leads me to ask, what does "public interest" actually mean? Who gets to define public interest? Is all this spending in the public interest? Really?

I would submit that it is narrow spending in certain districts and that kind of spending is subject, to say the least, to political, shall we say, considerations? This kind of spending is unnecessary and seems to be done to get rid of money rather return it unspent. Politicans spend money. That's what they do. There is an undeniable fact that controls the debate. Government consumes everything it gets and it, in turn, produces nothing.

I won't go to the trouble of taking on everyone of these projects because the absurdity of them stands on its own. I leave it to anyone with a modicum of intelligence to wise up to the profligate spending of our hard-earned tax money by our out-of-control government, on projects that don't pass the absurdity test.

The only way to break an addictive pattern is to go cold turkey. Choke off the supply to save the patient.

DRAIN THE SWAMP?

2009-10-30T21:24:00.003-04:00

Let's drain the swamp. Aren't we all appalled by the corruption in congress? It isn't restricted to one party, the whole institution is ridicuously out of control. When will America wake up and say "Enough is enough?" We elect these people and they let us down, time after time. I want to believe the government is populated by well-meaning people who want to do what's best for the American people. My brain tells me otherwise.

When someone tells me that they want to "fundamentally change America" I get really nervous. I think, fundamentally, America is OK. We need a tweek here and there, but at its roots, America is a great country. These people who are in congress are without a doubt, for the most part, the worst of this country. The everyday people, the workers who make the clock that is America tick, are what makes us great. Not these self-aggrandizing, narcissists, who populate congress.

Our founding fathers never contemplated professional politicians. That invites corrupt politicians who have lost touch with the people who have elected them to run for office, year after year, after year. What the hell has happened to our country? We used to listen to each other, now we talk past each other. When did we think that was a good way to govern?

I don't understand people who are so wrapped up in the ideology that they can't see the other side. That's not to say that I don't argue my side vehemently. I just want a dialogue that is robust but respectful. What's wrong with that? That's the beauty of blogs. They are not restricted by ideology they are open season. And that's good.

I don't hold anything with any politician or with any political party. In my estimation they both stink and they both don't really care about the people they are supposed to serve. I would love to have a third party candidate come along who would listen to the people and really, really remember that the power lies with "WE THE PEOPLE." In today's politics, that is certainly a novel concept.

What do you think?

WHEN I WAS MUCH YOUNGER

2009-10-23T22:22:00.003-04:00

Late at night I often reflect back on my time in the military. It seems like that was a lifetime away and now it was. I was in SEA in 1972, over 37 years ago. My reflection is that I don't remember a lot about it because I put it in a different part of my brain. I did my part and went on with my life. Most veterans are like that. My dad and uncle didn't talk about their time and I don't make a practice of it.

Once in a while, it comes up in my classes and I embellish a bit because I want the students to know that service is honorable and that the sacrifices of veterans ensured their way of life. Veteran's day is coming up and I'll make a presentation to the students about sacrifice and what it means to be an American. Then I'll put it away in my brain space and go on with my life.

Then out of the blue something crops up that makes me remember. My mom called tonight to check on my wife. It made me a little guilty that she called me instead of me calling her. When I was away in SEA I was young and didn't get the pressure it put on my family. One day I received a letter from home. I eagerly opened it and inside I found a piece of paper inside on which my mom had written "Dear mom and dad" and it ended there. My mom had also thoughtfully added a stamped and self-addressed envelope. I'm not the smartest guy in the world, but I got the message.

The pressure on the families is immense and often underestimated. The veterans have it tough, but the families have to wait. That's much worse.

DENNIS MILLER ON HARRY REID

2009-10-22T21:59:00.002-04:00

Every once in a while we need to be reminded of the utterly worthless nature of the congressional leadership today. The best comedian out there, Dennis Miller, rips Harry Reid to the point of making me feel sorry for him. Nah, not really.

After all, I'm a conservative and I believe everyone should keep what they earn.

AND THE BAND PLAYED ON

2009-10-22T20:32:00.003-04:00

And so it continues. As an out of control government spirals spending out of control, the debt ceiling has be adjusted. Those pesky laws should be amended so that the government officials, who really know what's best for us, are able to fund their vision of America. The annoying thing for them must be that someone, back in the day, saw fit to govern the government. Spending is required to be, oh I don't know, accounted for? Really?

What's really hard to take is that the Dems are in the process of raising the debt ceiling and hiding it. That's gutless and I hope they are held accountable for it. I have little hope that the Republicans will run anyone who will offer a true conservative alternative. I don't hold any water for politicians in general. I don't trust any of them to do anything other than perpetuate their own power. That's a sad fact.

One of my favorite presidents has always been Grover Cleveland the 22nd and 24th president of the US. He really knew the value of the word "NO." What endeared him to me was reading a biography about him in which I learned to respect his penchant for vetoing government spending for any number reasons. Most of all, he didn't think it was constitutional for the government to be involved in private spending.

Where are you now, President Cleveland?

OUT OF THE LOOP

2009-10-16T21:34:00.004-04:00

I have been feeling sorry for myself and my family lately. I have some things to deal with, but they really are small. I finally went over to my friend http://gollygeeez.blogspot.com/ and found that Mr. Z had passed. What a shock. I only wish that she has the peace of the Lord with her and the comfort of family.

She has always been classy in the advocacy of her point of view and Mr. Z was a voice of logic and veracity. Whenever those of us who were privileged to know her on line were involved in life's crises, she was quick to come to our aid and give comfort. I've never met her, but I feel I know her and I feel her pain. I wish I was near her to give her comfort.

Mr. Z is with his maker, God, and like my dad, they are reaping the reward of their good life and are at peace. We can only hope we join them someday.

I am so sorry Z. I don't know what else to say, but God Bless You. Holy smokes, I wish I could do more.

BEEN GONE, SORRY

2009-10-16T19:02:00.002-04:00

My wife was involved in a serious accident and I've been busy taking care of her. I'm not that good at it, but I'm getting better. I just checked in and the comments here are great. I'll check them out and reply tonight or tomorrow. Thanks for the replies and the thought that went into them.

My wife is getting better, but it's a long process with a lot of backward steps. I miss blogging and I'm going to get back full time as soon as possible. Today is the beginning.

Thanks again.

THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE AMERICAN EMPIRE?

2009-10-02T21:56:00.005-04:00

I was watching Fox New Channel tonight, I know I'm a neandrathal, but I was struck by something. When did it become the job of the police to determine what laws to enforce? I don't recall anytime throughout my police career being told, "Enforce this law, but don't enforce this one." The police are in the executive branch whose job it is to enforce the laws. The legislative branch makes the laws.

An attorney on the panel stated the police should with the proper training, decide if an illegal immigrant should be arrested. In my career, I just enforced the law. I didn't have a whole lot of angst about how I enforced it, I just did.

One of the most disturbing developments of law is the advent of immigrant's rights law. If one enters this country legally you are welcomed with open arms. You are part of the "wretched refuse." My ancestors and most of yours are in this category. Where did it all go wrong? When did it become OK to break the law?

I could go off on an entitlement rant, but I'm not sure that would be a good thing. It is what it is. The government is not equipped to deal with social problems. It never has been and never will be. This is the last bastion of those among us who feel that all the social problems in society demand that we, as a society, solve them. OK, I'm good with that, but it must be solved within the family. We must reconstruct the family in this country, not seek ways to tear it down. The breakdown of our moral fiber is what is taking us down the toilet of history.

The question then becomes, on what do I base my statement? I read "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" over the summer and I learned a lot. Suffice it to say we are on the same track. When society loses its morals it is doomed. This book was an eye-opener. Did I mention that the last lines of this book were written by Edward Gibbons in June 1787? If you need a history primer try this: the Constitution of the United States was signed on September 17, 1787.

Is it any consolation that social problems have always been around? Society has never figured out a way to bring all aspects of society up to the level of the best among us. My question then becomes, how do you do this? Is it possible? Put aside your feelings that we are responsible for each other. How do you save humanity? How do you save those among us who are self-destructive?

I don't think that any of us wants to see anyone among us sink. But, really, how do you change society? I wish I could be my brother's keeper, but I'm not sure I can. Or that we can. Some say it's our responsibility. I question that. I want to help, but sometimes, we as humans are really inadequate. I quess we strive to be good, but we end up inadequate most of the time.

What leaves me thinking is that I don't feel really badly about the inequalities of life. I earned my life and most Americans have. When it comes to me that the government wants me to share my wealth, I say this, "I'll be generous on my own terms." When government sets the terms it's confiscatory. When I set the terms it's charity. Voluntary, involuntary. Big difference. I struggle daily with my feelings. My faith, my church, tells me that I must feel responsible for the least among us. I do, but I don't feel guilty. I feel I've earned what I have. I don't feel that's wrong. I refuse to beat myself up over whatever success I've achieved, meager though it may be.

I'm a conservative, not a liberal.

WE LOST A FRIEND TODAY

2009-09-28T21:43:00.003-04:00

I have written about my cats before and the ritual we have of dancing to music late at night on weekends. Mostly, the male cat, Bismarck, is OK with it. The female, Vol, was indulgent at best. She would look at us with a look that said, "What is wrong with you guys." But she was a good sport and danced too.

How did she get her name? Seven years ago, my wife, my daughter and I went out to eat after one of our soccer games. While there, the members of our team came into the restaurant with a cat. She was gray and very small. My daughter noticed that she had some orange spray paint on her. My daughter is a Tennessee Volunteer alum and orange is their color and she was immediately smitten with her. We took her to the vet and got medicine for her medical problems and she has been a member of our family ever since.

Recently, she was diagnosed with kidney problems and her health deteriorated. We hoped against hope that she could hang on for awhile. She lost about a quarter of her body weight and the vet told us she didn't have long. My daughter came home the other day to see her cat and it was really a cool thing to see them together. Vol was happy to see her, slept with her for the night and she seemed grateful my daughter was home to see her. Over the next couple of days she got worse and my wife told me last night that we had to decide to put her down if she suffered anymore. I told my wife I couldn't face seeing her go, so she said she would do it.

My wife came to see me at school today and told me that she woke up to Vol vomiting blood. She seemed to be in pain and my wife took her to the vet. Now she is gone.

I will miss her and Bismarck is still walking around the house looking for her. My wife said that Vol slept with her all night last night and that Bismarck kissed her good-by. It's tough when you lose a family member.

I believe that God has reserved a corner of heaven for animals that had to put up with humans as pets. I think they all are running around and happy. Someday we will be reunited and we will dance again. Good-by, Vol.

I AM A [RACIST] AMERICAN AND I DON'T LIKE THE PRESIDENT'S POLICIES

2009-09-25T23:08:00.002-04:00

When did it become racist to challenge the policies of the government. Apparently, it is now racist to criticize the president. Have I mentioned he is black? That apparently is the game changer. As long as there is a black president, dissent is out the window. I dissent to government.

I dissent to bigger government. I dissent to more government intrusion in my life. I dissent to government and it's inability to run anything without losing money and going into massive debt. I dissent to a massive central government that produces nothing and consumes everything.

When the word "entitlement" entered the government lexicon, it was downhill from there. To what are we entitled? How about what we pay for? I want a strong military, good roads, police and fire protection and that's about it. The rest I'm willing to pay for out of my check. Taxes? I forgot.

Health care can be paid for just like car insurance. I've always had employer insurance and for that I'm thankful. But if health care was portable and private, it would be much more affordable. I don't believe that of all the numbers that are thrown around that 45 or 6 million is accurate. But damn, it sounds horrible doesn't it?

I negotiated several contracts for my union and health care was always a huge issue. Insurance companies are in it to make money. Use that against them. Shop around and get the best deal. I don't recall that anyone said to me, "We like you and we'll help you succeed and take care of your family." I went and got a job when I left the military. Thankfully my dad a longtime post office employee got me a police job. Yeah, Right. The fact that my mother didn't work certainly put some weight behind my application. Really? I know, it must have been my white skin. Right. Gold mine.

Entitlements? Are you kidding me? Really what entitles us to anything? I worked for mine, you work for yours. That's simple right? Apparently not, because the government wants to take more and more of my money, money I worked for and give it to people who didn't earn it. I contribute to numerous charities all year long. I feel their pain. I also expect everyone, and I mean everyone to earn their keep.

I put two children through college on a cop's and nurse's salary. In the interest of full disclosure, my daughter was a great soccer player and got money. My son is extremely intelligent and got scholarship money after scoring a 34 on his ACT. But that hardly covered my family's expenses. I would like to think that my wife and I taught them to achieve, but really there must be another reason. They are both successful and I'm proud of them. Thankfully, I was a full-fledged member of the white pipeline and my kids had a free ride.

I will continue to dissent from a confiscatory government that steals my wife's and my money. I will continue to dissent from a government that wants to resdistribute my wealth to those who have none. Earn something. Try it, you might feel good about yourself.

My parents are children of the Depression. They made it part of our DNA to be about earning a living. I delivered papers before school everyday. I cut grass all summer long. I caddied at the local golf course. My dad didn't get me these jobs. He wouldn't have thought of getting his kids jobs. In his mind getting a job was an individual thing. If you want it go and get it. Pretty simple. Earn your way.

Working for a living is tough. There are a lot of people who might try it. Stop whining for government entitlements. You are entitled to little in your life. Earn your way. Charlie F. said so. That's good enough for me.

WHY DO WE WAR?

2009-09-20T19:42:00.006-04:00

I don't often quote bible verses, but in Mass today this one particularly struck me. Those who have known war will get this.

James, 4, verses 1-4:
Where do the wars and where do the conflicts among you come from? Is it not from your passions that make war within your members? You who covet do not possess. You kill and envy but you cannot obtain; you fight and wage war. You do not possess because you do not ask. You ask but do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend on your passions.

Amen.

YOU ARE KIDDING, RIGHT?

2009-09-20T18:25:00.004-04:00

Am I wrong, or is this the most amazing revelation that a POTUS has ever adimitted? Here you have a POTUS admitting that he has no clue about what ACORN is doing. This is an organization that gave a large amount of money to his campaign. Giving him the benifit of the doubt, I am amazed.

Cynicism tells me he is lying, which is not a posture with which he is not familiar. He is blantantly lying about a bunch of issues and the the American people are catching on. Charm and good looks only goes so far. Certainly, sometime the rubber meets the road. His administration doesn't get it. They will whine and accuse those who disagree with them as racists. I am not a racist. Sorry to burst the bubble, but this is a weak and bankrupt argument. Try something new.

I'M BACK. I APOLOGIZE FOR MY ABSENCE

2009-09-13T23:05:00.005-04:00

I have been otherwise occupied with family issues. I apologize for not writing a reason, but I want to get back into the fray. My inspiration has been the movement that is gaining some serious momentum as of late.

I remember writing a post months ago about the need for a new Hartford Convention. This convention was nothing more than a group of patriots who had had enough during the War of 1812 and in 1814-15 drew up a list of grievances and demanded redress from their government. They felt the Embargo Act of 1807 forbidding trade with
England and France, and other government policies unfairly impacted the commerce that New England depended upon.

One of the grievances hinted at secession. It didn't gain a lot of momentum, because the War of 1812 ended, but the convention was called because the New Englanders involved felt their government had left them and no longer listened.

One of the things I heard was that this would possibly cause a constitutional convention to be convened. To this I say, bring it on. The American people have awakened and I think that a constitutional convention would certainly result in a much needed amendment to restrict government spending. The will of the people is being made abundantly clear to the congress. The president doesn't really worry too much now, but the congress is constantly on the ballot and they feel the heat much more than the president. I think he feels immune, but his time will come.

This is the genius of the constitution. The House of Representatives has a two year term because the Founding Fathers wanted them to be accountable to the people. Secondly, it's no accident that spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives. The Founding Fathers recognized that spending money demanded accountability, oversight, and checks and balances.

I have a "Don't Tread On Me" flag hanging in my room. This represents the colonists warning to the British that to ignore their grievances would have grave consequences. The British didn't listen. Will our government listen now?

I took an oath to protect and defend the constitution against "all enemies, foreign and domestic" twice in my life, when I entered the military and when I became a cop. My understanding is that the oath was for life. I take that oath seriously.

OLD DAYS

2009-08-21T23:58:00.002-04:00

There are some songs that just take you back. The words to this song are really a walk down memory lane for me. I listened to Chicago all through my high school years and in the military. They were one of those bands that just spoke to me and my friends. Tragedy aside, they were a group of the most talented musicians I've ever heard.

The band is together here in all their glory. No one is missing and they sound great. I have their albums (CDs) and play them constantly. Time seems to stand still when I listen.