Layers...

Why do concepts, which seem 'self evident' to me, take so long to get across to others? I asked myself that question a few weeks ago and it has taken me this long to come up with an answer. The fact that it took me a few weeks is itself a hint of what the answer is. Layers.

Knowledge and insight come in layers. Let's say there is a concept that is several layers deep, we'll use 'Non-interventionist Foreign Policy (NIFP)' for an example. In my case, the foreign wars were justified because of the reasons given for their necessity such as

• we would rather fight them over there
• they are trying to kill us because we are free
• they are trying to kill us because of our lack of morals
• to fight them is patriotic

These layers are pretty shallow and easy to get behind, so when an alternate view comes to light, it may be rejected out-of-hand. After all, I have already come to a logical, reasoned conclusion. But then I hear from this person whom I respect for other policy positions, so I listen to these conflicting theories:

• we can't afford to police the world
• we're less safe because our resources are spread out all over the world
• we have no business involving ourselves in the internal conflicts of other countries
• they are angry because we are over there
• our relations would be better with other countries if we would simply trade with them, visit with them, go to their picnics, and keep our nose out of their business

Of course I reject these notions. It's not our fault that they want to kill us. But I do get the one about not being able to afford to police the world, so perhaps I have absorbed one of the layers.

As the border debate heats up, I realize the importance of border security. If millions of Mexicans can cross, then it is not a stretch to think that thousands of terrorists can cross. Securing the border is a duty of the federal government and, politics aside, having our troops deployed overseas means they can't be deployed at the borders. If Al-Qaeda draws our troops over there, large security holes are created over here. Divide and conquer. Now I'm starting to pick up on another layer of the NIFP.

As time goes by, I see freedoms and liberties being yanked out from under me and my government forcing upon me that which it thinks is best. It's a huge snowball, and I saw it coming years before, but it did not look threatening at the time so I went on about my business. Now I don't know how to stop it! Why can't they just perform their enumerated duties and leave this other stuff to the states? If this federal control of my life is upsetting to me, maybe there is something to the idea that people in other countries get upset when we try to interfere in their affairs. Now I'm starting to understand another layer of the NIFP.

So how can these people be angry at us for being over there? We're just there to help! I suppose that an Afghani mother could have misguided anger toward the US if a drone strike inadvertently hits her house and kills her family. She might be angry along with her friends and extended family. The fact that her family was not the target will have no effect on her anger. On a broader scale, we have troops in foreign countries to keep the peace, or perhaps it is a benign presence except for the implicit 'I dare you'. Then we send money to support governments such as Israel, but we also send money to their enemies. We're playing both sides! Perhaps the people of foreign countries think that they are smart enough to determine their own destiny without the help of the US; just like some of us in the US think that we can determine our own destiny without the help of the federal government. I'm starting to understand the motivation of rebels in other countries.

I look at our prior foreign manipulations and conflicts with the benefit of hindsight. We have worked to overthrow Iranian governments (careful what you wish for). We have also armed the Iranians because they were fighting Iraq, and at other times supported Iraq because they were fighting Iran. The enemy of our enemy is our friend. We have been allies with Saddam, then we tried to kill him, allies with Bin-Laden, now we're trying to kill him, for 30 years we have propped up Mubarik, now it appears that our efforts were not appreciated by the Egyptian people. So why not mind our own affairs and leave others to mind theirs? Recent events prove that they are willing and able. I'm starting to grasp another layer of the NIFP.

My turning point was when I watched a video and the question was asked, "What would your reaction be if Chinese tanks were roaming through your city telling you when you could and could not come out, and Chinese troops were busting in to your house at will? Do you think you would retaliate"? That was the light-bulb moment for me.

The theory of layers explains why it can take months and years of repetition before a person's opinions change. Concepts with few or shallow layers can be picked up more quickly which is why sound bites are so effective, they are one layer deep. I've reflected on my own political progression and I have watched the slow, incremental absorption of layers by people around me. I have watched people mature (politically) in areas such as foreign policy, gun rights, and economics and that reflection has led me to this article.

If my Theory of Layers is correct, it proves that my theory is at best incomplete, and at worst inaccurate. Oh my, a recursive theory. I'm so confused!

-- Jim

Ron Paul Predicted The Collapse In 2003 - Morning Joe 5/15/2009

A 2009 interview about a 2003 prediction.

Predictions from April, 2002

Today it's time to go back and see who saw it coming.

Can somebody find me a similar prediction video by other potential candidates such as Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum...? Radio clips would also work. I know Herman Cain has a radio show (in Atlanta I think).

It's time the American people reconsider what a president should be like.

Oh, Lord have Mercy; We Need a Balanced Budget Amendment!!!

This is what many of the new lawmakers and many of the old lawmakers are saying as they try to capitalize on the fervor. The BBA is a different debate for a different time, especially since there is no danger in it passing in the foreseeable future.

If lawmakers were serious about a balanced budget, all they would have to do is stop raising the debt ceiling. KISS! Budget balanced.

If lawmakers were serious about lowering the debt, which a balanced budget DOES NOT DO, they could simply vote to lower the debt ceiling. KISS!

Perhaps this should be a separate post, but the prior debates are irrelevant in our current system where all our currency is borrowed from the FED. This debt can never be paid back!

Check this out:

Say we open a little country and start from scratch. We decide to have a central bank to furnish and manipulate our currency. To run this new country, we need to start with $100, so we create a bond worth $100 and pay 5% interest on the capital.

We issue no more bonds and thus receive no new currency from the central bank.

Now let's say after one year we change our mind and want a different currency. How do we pay the central bank back? Including interest, we now owe the central bank $105 but there is only $100 in circulation in the entire country! Our little government does not have the money to pay its debt once the first penny of interest has accrued!

This is a grossly oversimplified description of our current system, but it shows that the system was set up to take the power from the government and put it in the hands of a few unelected decision makers, and it was set up in a way that will make it very difficult to overturn.

By simple arithmetic we have shown that payment of the national debt is not possible under the current system. Any attempt to pay down the debt will cause a contraction of the money supply, which is not a bad thing but it will cause economic corrections and it will look like a bad thing.

The only way to deal with the national debt is to first eliminate the current central banking system.

Jim

America Swings like a Pendulum do...

The concept of rational expectations is not an oxymoron. Rational expectations would lead workers and firms to make predictions about the effects of monetary policy and there would be no effect on unemployment. You wouldn't have to worry about losing your job (except for the peripheral effects of other people not using rational expectations as a basis of their negotiations).

This concept helps me make a point about cause and effect. If you help Peter, you hurt Paul. Monetary and fiscal policies cannot effect long-run economic changes. Therefore, these policies are bandaid policies that cover up the injury and postpone its natural return to equilibrium. If you use iodine on a cut instead of a bandaid, your cut will heal faster but the initial pain will be greater.

In order to achieve equilibrium and have a stable economy, we need to abolish the Fed and get the government out of economic policy. Economic data has shown time and again that equilibrium will be achieved despite what the Fed or the government does. Their actions change the short-run dynamics and exacerbate the problems; extending the length of economic downturns.

Think of a swinging pendulum. If you leave it alone, it will eventually come to rest pointing straight down; its point of equilibrium. If, instead, you give it a push toward the center when it has almost reached the left or right end of its swing, thinking that this will help it reach its equilibrium point faster (because you are pushing it toward the center), the actual effect will be to increase its swing. It will then move farther the other direction than it would otherwise have traveled. The more you try to help it, the wilder its swing will become.

It may be true that you can help achieve equilibrium faster if you push the pendulum to the left just after it has started moving to the right, but in economics, that point is hard to predict. Or impossible. The reason is that the data used to determine the swing of the economic pendulum is not available until the pendulum has moved to a far different position.

Keynesian economics is bandaid economics. Hayek economics is iodine economics. Unfortunately, almost all politicians follow Keynesian economics because the bandaid feels better and has colorful cartoon illustrations on it.

Jim

Simple is the Solution... now what's the question?

Capitalism is not the problem. The problem is corruption and lack of law enforcement. DC and Wall Street are so intertwined it's like they are two divisions of one entity, each helping the other to do their job in a manner that is mutually beneficial. Who was helped by the bailouts? Wall Street executives. Who conducted the bailouts? Ex Wall Street executives. Who was complicit? Blatantly, two congresses and two administrations, but there has been less blatant collusion for a century. Due to their corruption, Government is the problem.

Capitalism is the methods used to capitalize on situations available in the environment that has been created in which to operate. However, though the environment is technically the same for all, some are allowed to operate outside that environment and operate in a manner that would be illegal for you and me. It is illegal for them too, but they know they won't be brought to justice, and if they are, the justice will cost less than their profit. Government is the problem.

Capitalism is not the problem. Government's original role was to protect individuals' rights. To intervene when other individuals or entities violate those rights through fraud, theft, physical harm, or whatever. Transactions can be freely undertaken by and between individuals and other entities. Each party can know the details of the transaction and decide to enter into it or not. When one party does not uphold its end of the bargain, the government must intervene, otherwise the government has no business in the transaction. Instead, the government tries to legislate transactions and alter the environment under which these transactions can take place. Government is the problem.

Take, for instance, health insurance. The government and the insurance industry, along with the AMA and the pharmaceuticals industry, set up a system that would dictate how people would get medical treatment. The AMA said, "No chiropractic, no Eastern medicine, no homeopathy". The pharmaceuticals said, "Vitamins are bad, drugs are dangerous and need to be prescribed". The insurance industry said, "We need to create an environment that causes all insurance purchases to go through employment so we can sell big policies to large groups instead of small policies to little people. It must be tied to employment since that is where most of the healthy people are". The government said, "Ok. We'll regulate drugs to increase the cost, we'll disallow treatments not approved of by the AMA in order to create a monopoly, and we'll give tax breaks to people who buy their insurance through work". Government is the problem.

A different kind of example, the Department of Education. "We think all children should be vaccinated; if you don't get all your students vaccinated, we can't line the pockets of the pharmaceuticals and we won't send you any of that money your state sent us in taxes, so DO IT!". "We want all kids to be in school, regardless of their ability, their desire, or their demeanor. Therefore, we will pay you for each child you can get to say 'present' each day. The more you get, the more we pay. If you expel Big Bad Billy Bob, we will pay you less. Go ahead and let him disrupt class and terrorize other students, just MAKE SURE HE GETS TO CLASS!". "We decided that we want no child left behind. The way we will accomplish that is to ensure that you allow no child to forge ahead, thus leaving others behind. We will implement this plan with certain tests. Your job is to teach the kids how to pass these tests; if they learn something along the way, great. If you don't do what we tell you, we will close your school, so DO IT!". Question. Once we achieve 'No Child Left Behind', and everyone gets a college degree, who will pluck chickens? Government is the problem.

The more laws our government passes, the more corruption we can (and do) have. These laws that are written to guard against these capitalists are aimed toward the little capitalists to keep them from competing with the big capitalists. The big capitalists are nice people; they volunteer their time to help government by actually drafting these laws against themselves! They even help congress to create the loopholes they need in order to operate unencumbered. How nice is that! The more laws our government passes, the less freedom we have to make our own choices. They help us by telling us we can't buy Penicillin without their permission. They help us by giving us a tax break on insurance, as long as we buy what they allow, from whom they allow, with the terms they deem appropriate. Politicians allow this to happen. Government is the problem.

If government had little power to control people or economics, she would not have any currency to bargain with when the lobbyists come knockin'. Corruption must have a currency or it can not be transacted. If we lessen government's power, we lessen corruption by the same degree.

Using one of the examples above, what if the federal (and state) government did not collect or distribute tax money for, or make rules for schools? The county would have to collect money for school funding and it would directly affect those who are paying for it. It would be much more efficient, right now we send $100 to DC and get $60 back. If this were all done at the county level, it would be $99. Then, if Johnny is a bad kid, we could kick him out of school and send him to chicken-plucker school, or carpentry school, or whatever would work best for him. Simple is the solution.

Jim

Deficits are illeagal, immoral, and unethical

I read this question (the actual question is the last sentence):

"History is unfolding right in front of our eyes, in excruciating slow motion. Economic and financial records are being broken every day, it seems. Consumer prices plummeting. An unprecedented housing market collapse. Huge companies going out of business overnight. Dizzying price movements in the stock markets. The old saying "Who'da thunk it"

In case the previous question was not hypothetical:
Two answers are Ron Paul - as far back as 2002, and Peter Schiff - as far back as 2006 (find the videos on YouTube). Paul was laughed off the Presidential debate stages and Peter Schiff was laughed off the Financial shows (before the tanking economy).
I appreciate this person's discussion of the causes of economic calamity and the result of money printing (not shown), but this is not an 'iced tea on the porch' conversation; in the words of Joe, "This is a big f*$^@ing deal"! Think of it like this. For all intents and purposes, this started in earnest with Reagan, enabled by Nixon:
* Nixon removed the last vestiges of the gold standard from our currency ("We are all Keynesians now"). He installed the air pump on the giant jumping balloon for the kids to play in, but he did not turn it on.
* Reagan turned on the air pump by borrowing gobs of money (by '80s standards)
* Bush Sr. cranked up the voltage
* Clinton left it alone (He had a negative deficit, but not from spending cuts. That was the dot.com boom)
* Bush Jr. cranked up the air some more. That helped for years, but then we started running out of source air, so he added another pump then said Bye Bye
* Obama said Hi Hi and added another pump, two capacitors and a turbo-charger. The atmospheric pressure on the outside of the tent/balloon went to 0.1; which is not a vaccuum. So if matter exists in the source, it can be extracted but it takes a lot of pumping to extract that last bit of air out of the fed.

So now the balloon is aired up, even if precariously so, and the economy is functional for most. But what happens when the tent starts to deflate again and there aren't enough pumps to keep it pumped up? That's when the inflation will really kick in because their solution is to print money (pump air). A teaspoon of sugar in a cup of coffee makes the coffee taste sweet. A teaspoon of sugar in Lake Superior makes an empty teaspoon. Dilution will happen for dollars, and when that happens, the tent is coming down on the heads of the cute little children and they won't be nuthin nobody cin do bout it. (What to do about it on request...)

Will it happen this year? Not before December at least. Turns out, President Obama has an extra pump hidden in his trunk! Come September, he's going to pull it out and hook it to the tent, then it's pedal-to-the-metal! The extra pump I speak of is the rest of the $787B stimulus. Elections hinge a lot on the economy, so I expect the economy to get one last boost in September. Then our source air will be completely extracted and the dollar will fail next year.

Deficits are illeagal, immoral, and unethical, and those who don't understand that are deficient in basic arithmetic. Or corrupt. Someday I may break down a transaction to its simplest terms and explain it; but not today.

Jim

From Uncle Monte...

For your consideration:

Once upon a time, on an acreage far, far away lived a kind and benevolent man named Morgue.

Sharing the acreage (laughingly called Lee's Last Resort (LLR)) with Morgue were his beautiful wife, Lee, and a large population of birds. LLR was covered in oak trees, which made good nesting grounds for the birds. There were 30 or 40 quail and about the same number of other birds of maybe 10 different species.

Being benevolent, Morgue began feeding the birds by spreading seed on the ground for them. Every morning the birds would come down from the trees and grass and feed on the seed Morgue had spread for them.

The birds no longer had a need to forage and the population grew. After a few generations (a generation is one year in the bird kingdom) the birds started to lose the ability to forage, they became dependent on Morgue's largesse.

Morgue noticed that the birds had developed a sense of entitlement; they were entitled to the seed provided by Morgue. If he were a little late in spreading seed in the morning, some would scold him. One particular species, which Morgue called rusty birds because of their rust colored cap, became so bold that they would eat out of his hand. If they found he had no seed in his hand, they would become very insistent, virtually yelling at him.

The bird population stabilized and they all lived happily ever after.

The moral of this story:

Whose fault was it that the birds became dependent on Morgue for their livelihood and that they lost their ability to support themselves by foraging?

Was it the birds themselves who had merely discovered a new way to support themselves? I don't think so. They had been conditioned over several generations to accept this new livelihood as their right.

Was it Morgue whose benevolence had caused the whole thing? I think so. Although Morgue probably didn't set out to make the birds his dependents, the result was predictable if he had only thought about consequences.

The analog of this story in human society is easy enough to see; LLR is a microcosm of America's society today. Starting with the New Deal and continuing through the Great Society to this date, the federal government has been providing the livelihood for a large segment of our population. Is it surprising that, after several generations, those receiving this largesse have become dependent on the government? Is it surprising that those people have come to feel entitled to the largesse? I think not.

Should we blame the third generation resident in subsidized housing in Chicago or the third generation welfare recipient in Washington for their dependency? I think not.

The blame rests on the statists who have owned this country since the Great Depression. I think most of them are motivated by feelings of charity much like Morgue was initially. I suspect, though, that some of them are motivated by a desire for power, for control over others. It's those power seekers who have been in control of the government for decades.

It shouldn't be surprising, then, that the dependent population has grown to the point where they can swing elections to those who promise to continue and even increase the largesse of the federal government. Let's not make the mistake of blaming the dependent population, though. The blame rests with the power seekers and their allies.

First: Stop the Train!

We have very important elections coming up in November and we need all the help we can get to make sure we support the right candidates. We want to find and support fiscally conservative, constitutional candidates so that the houses are split with 2 major minorities (establishment Democrats and establishment Republicans) with the remainder of the houses filled with 'We the People' officials. Think for a minute about this split in the Senate:

45 Democrat
45 Republican
10 We the People

If those ten were true, honest to goodness, red-blooded American patriots, how much bad legislation do you think would pass Congress? Theoretically, none! I don't know about you, but my heart would not be broken if no legislation was passed in the next session of Congress. This ratio would stop 'progress'. If we had even more 'We the People', we might be able to get this train in reverse and start peeling back some of this stifling legislation that has been growing on, and smothering, our Constitution. But even if we can only stop the train, we will be able to build our power. We have to stop the train before we can put it in reverse.

Jim

Why can't people comprehend these numbers?

The U.S. Economy is Unsustainable

Why can't people comprehend these numbers?

Healthcare Arithmetic - 12/23/2009

Senator Franken (D - MN) was on CSPAN tonight talking about how good the Healthcare bill is going to be when it becomes law. One of the provisions he pointed out was a provision that will force insurance companies to spend 85% of their revenues on healthcare claims. That sounds great! Now let's do some math. It is easier to comprehend when taken to a small element...

Year 1 - insurance revenues total $100 / insurance pays $85 / profit: $15
Year 2 - insurance revenues total $150 / insurance pays $128 / profit: $22
Year 3 - insurance revenues total $200/ insurance pays $170 / profit: $30
Year 4 - contract renewal time. Healthcare costs have fallen due to savings from the 2010 Healthcare bill. The doctors' group offers an actual cut in reimbursement charges to the insurance company; isn't that a switch!
Still Year 4 - insurance revenues total $150 / insurance pays $128 / profit: $22
Is that a likely scenario? I don't think so! Not only would an insurance company fight tooth-and-nail to keep the doctor group from reducing their charges, they would fight to have the group increase charges as much as possible, because with the 15% maximum profit, cost savings creates lower profit! Look at the numbers; higher costs = higher profit.

Now if lil 'ol me can figure that out, don't you think them big guys will?

The moral of this story is one I've said before; when the federal government 'fixes' something, 'makes it better' or 'more fair', there are always unintended consequences. For instance, in the '70's, the Nixon administration 'fixed' healthcare by allowing the creation of HMO's, and we know the horror stories following that. So they incrementally 'fixed' all that with more and more regulations.

During WWII, Roosevelt 'fixed' wages (literally) and companies had to come up with ways to recruit good employees. One way was to offer health insurance. That did not end when the war ended, it was encouraged and expanded with:

• tax breaks for companies who sponsored health plans
• tax breaks for employees who enrolled in company sponsored insurance
• the creation of risk pools because of company sponsored health insurance, which is an advantage to the big corporations because they have bigger pools
• reduction of risk to the insurance company because most of the sick people don't have jobs
• none of the above for individuals and self-employed who try to buy insurance on their own

Ever since then, insurance has been tied to employment, so if a person loses a job for whatever reason, they lose their health insurance.

Then there's the Commerce Clause in the Constitution that Congress constantly perverts so they can pass unconstitutional laws (more about that in The Wedge below). Insurance is a valid instance where the government could use that clause for good. Instead of telling the states to allow interstate commerce as the Interstate Commerce Clause intends, they do the reverse! Health insurance cannot be bought from another state! I live in Arkansas and I buy my auto insurance from a company in Texas. I choose this company because of their rock-solid customer service. I don't even know if I'm getting the best rates, but I don't plan to change because I like the company and I trust them (USAA). It is my choice how much of a premium I place on customer service, rates, and all the other factors that influence my purchasing decisions. When I lost my job I didn't lose my auto insurance. It's not tied to my employment or my state.

When government 'fixes' something, it causes irreparable damage most of the time. Based on this blog post, I could fix healthcare with a ten page bill. Heaven only knows what that 2000 page bill is going to do. 2000 pages holds a lot of places to try to hide things. I better close this post now instead of waiting 'till my head is empty, otherwise this might be a 2000 page blog, then there will be no chance that the people in Congress will read it!

Bill Bulgier- September 21, 2009, 12:57 PM

President Obama's Speech Sept, 8, 2009

If I had children in preK - 12 I would keep them home on Monday and Tuesday, the 7th and 8th, because I do not know what he will say to the children, but from the instructions to the teachers, there is potential for an indoctrination session to take place; and I wouldn't put it past them/him because the general consensus is 'get to the children early if you want to help shape their thinking'. I want some answers ahead of time before I turn my kids' minds over to the government. Answers to questions like:

1- What is the purpose of setting aside so much time for the children to work, study, and discuss the president's speech?

2- Why do you want to know how children can help in schools? They are only between the ages of 4 and 12! Given the current debates on Cap and Trade, Healthcare, Bailouts, TARP, and the surprising and overwhelming showing of frustration by the general public in Town Hall meetings, is this really a questions of 'how can you take this propaganda home and tell your parents their stupid'? Or is this a long-term strategy to change the direction of thinking in the next generation?

3- How are the teachers supposed to steer the following discussion:

Why is it important that we listen to the president and other elected officials, like the mayor, senators, members of congress, or the governor? Why is what they say important?

Is what they say important because they are our elected officials and they determine the direction of our country? If so, I want to keep them home and teach them about the Constitution which specifically states that the rights belong to the people, not the government. I want to tell the children that it is much less important for us to listen to them than FOR THEM TO LISTEN TO US!

4- I want answers to these questions before they are asked of the children:
What is the president trying to tell me?
What is the president asking me to do?
What new ideas and actions is the president challenging me to think about?

5- Instead of these questions going to the children:

Students might think about the following:
What specific job is he asking me to do?
Is he asking anything of anyone else?
Teachers? Principals? Parents? The American people?

I might ask, "Why are the requests coming from the government to the people? Who works for whom?"

I like to keep things short, and I have too many questions for this post. Please read the communique sent to the teachers and school administrators and help me figure out what the goal of the president is. I have posted the communique in its entirety on this blog.

President Obama’s Address to Students Across America

Menu of Classroom Activities
(PreK‐6)
Produced by Teaching Ambassador Fellows, U.S. Department of Education
September 8, 2009

Before the Speech

• Teachers can build background knowledge about the President of the United States and his speech by reading books about presidents and Barack Obama. Teachers could motivate students by asking the following questions:
Who is the President of the United States?
What do you think it takes to be president?
To whom do you think the president is going to be speaking?
Why do you think he wants to speak to you?
What do you think he will say to you?

• Teachers can ask students to imagine that they are delivering a speech to all of the students in the United States.
If you were the president, what would you tell students?
What can students do to help in our schools?
Teachers can chart ideas about what students would say.

• Why is it important that we listen to the president and other elected officials, like the mayor, senators, members of congress, or the governor? Why is what they say important?
During the Speech

• As the president speaks, teachers can ask students to write down key ideas or phrases that are important or personally meaningful. Students could use a note‐taking graphic organizer such as a “cluster web;” or, students could record their thoughts on sticky notes. Younger children could draw pictures and write as appropriate. As students listen to the speech, they could think about the following:
What is the president trying to tell me?
What is the president asking me to do?
What new ideas and actions is the president challenging me to think about?

• Students could record important parts of the speech where the president is asking them to do something. Students might think about the following:
What specific job is he asking me to do?
Is he asking anything of anyone else?
Teachers? Principals? Parents? The American people?

• Students could record questions they have while he is speaking and then discuss them after the speech. Younger children may need to dictate their questions.

2 After the Speech

• Teachers could ask students to share the ideas they recorded, exchange sticky notes, or place notes on a butcher‐paper poster in the classroom to discuss main ideas from the speech, such as citizenship, personal responsibility, and civic duty.

• Students could discuss their responses to the following questions:
What do you think the president wants us to do?
Does the speech make you want to do anything?
Are we able to do what President Obama is asking of us?
What would you like to tell the president?
Extension of the Speech
Teachers could extend learning by having students:

• Create posters of their goals. Posters could be formatted in quadrants, puzzle pieces, or trails marked with the following labels: personal, academic, community, and country. Each area could be labeled with three steps for achieving goals in that area. It might make sense to focus first on personal and academic goals so that community and country goals can be more readily created.

• Write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short‐term and long‐term education goals. Teachers would collect and redistribute these letters at an appropriate later date to enable students to monitor their progress.

• Write goals on colored index cards or precut designs to post around the classroom.

• Interview one another and share goals with the class to create a supportive community.

• Participate in school‐wide incentive programs or contests for those students who achieve their goals.

• Write about their goals in a variety of genres, such as poems, songs, and personal essays.

• Create artistic projects based on the themes of their goals.

• Graph individual progress toward goals.

The Wedge...

Let’s look at what happens after congress claims a right from an individual and it is upheld by the Supreme Court. In the ‘40s, some government agency made some guy stop growing wheat in his back yard even though it was for his own use. They claimed that power over this individual’s right because, they said, it affected interstate commerce. The famous “Interstate Commerce Clause”. The Supreme Court upheld the rulings. Now congress claims the right to intrude into every aspect of individual rights, claiming the Interstate Commerce Clause gives them the authority, even the duty.

The moral of this story is that every right that is transferred from the people to the federal government is a wooden wedge in the crack of our Constitutional rock. Congress can then slowly widen that wedge over time by pouring water over the wooden wedge, causing the wood to swell and the crack to slowly widen so they can stick a bigger wedge in there and start the water treatment all over again. It is not very difficult to split a rock if you have the time, but try putting that rock back together again! How long will it take before the rock is completely broken in two?

The mightiest rock cannot withstand a wedge and a bucket of water.

National Debt Road Trip

http://www.garynorth.com/public/5168.cfm

The Essence of Freedom

The essence of freedom is the proper limitation of government.
When government's power grows, people's freedom recedes.

http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment

Benjamin Franklin

"No man's life, liberty or fortune is safe while our legislature is in session."

-- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) US Founding Father

The patriot is a scarce man...

"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." Mark Twain