What is America about?

After getting into two highly acrimonious debates with individuals who are more interested in promoting political correctness than to listen to reasoned dissent, I have to ask myself what Americans think their country is about. 

The political division that currently exists suggests that there are three possible answers. The liberal would argue for economic, or redistributive “justice,” the neo-conservative would argue for power, and the libertarian for individual freedom. 

I have come to realize that constitutional and libertarian arguments will only make sense to those who value personal freedom – and it appears that for many Americans, that value is expendable. Those who see America in terms of economic equality or military power will support the notion that Ron Paul is an old crank who is off the rocker they think he should be seated on.  

"From each according to his gullibility,
to each according to his greed!"

The economic redistributionist rejects free enterprise, because it entails risk. Risk is unacceptable to the poor because they cannot, of course, accept financial loss; and is unacceptable for the rich because it creates wealth that (in their view) is not earned. Without risk, there is no opportunity, but for them that is a small price to pay. The end game, though, is to replace an elite based on wealth with one based on political correctness. For them, the goal is not really justice -- it is power for those who toe the party line. Their means is to write more extensive and tighter regulations to discourage anyone from taking any initiative that has not been blessed by their government.  

For such people, the charge of racism is a handy way to bully those who disagree with them. If you want to replace the welfare state, you are a racist. If you want an educational system that teaches young people how to find the truth, you are a racist. If you believe in the Anglo-American heritage of rule by law and would insist on using the English language so that everyone can fully understand that heritage, you are a racist. 

Those who see America’s purpose as being a military power see personal freedom as expendable to protect our “national security.” They cannot be persuaded by reasonable arguments that trade, diplomacy, and taking the moral high road can be effective levers to promote our national interest. They think applying the Golden Rule to international relations is ridiculous and perhaps even dangerous, and then they wonder why the Iraqis and the Afghans are intent on getting us out of their countries – after all, we came on a mission to build free and fair societies – according to our customs and standards. Ask the neocons about how they would feel if, for example, the Chinese invaded this country on the same basis, and they will mutter something about “American exceptionalism.” 

To a reasonable person, “American exceptionalism” is nothing more than arrogance, pure and simple. 

As I was recently reminded, those who see America in terms of power cannot understand any argument that undermines their almost religious belief that Abraham Lincoln was the greatest (or maybe second greatest) of Presidents. Yes, he preserved the Union, but was it really worth the cost: 660,000 battlefield casualties, the mass murder of Georgia’s civilians during Sherman’s March to the Sea, his blatant hypocrisy on slavery? The surrender at Appomattox began a process of consolidation into an all-powerful federal government that continues to this day. We had a Constitution to protect our rights. Why did he find it necessary to destroy it in order to save the Union? If the issue was slavery, he could have followed the lead of Britain and France (which Brazil later followed) and simply bought out the slaveowners, which would have been cheaper than going to war. If he valued freedom, he could have shown good faith to the Southerners who were willing to negotiate a settlement to prevent their secession.

When looking at mysteries of this kind, some wise people have said, “Follow the money.” Prior to the Civil War, wealth was fairly evenly spread across the land – North and South. Lincoln was backed heavily by New York bankers, who greatly benefitted from his rule. In the 1870s, wealth heavily concentrated in New York City, while the South was reduced to abject poverty, and would remain so for nearly a century.

Fergit, hell!

The evidence for each of my statements is easy enough to find in any standard history of the Civil War or Reconstruction; but of course, my bringing it up is “revisionist.” And, of course, the neocons join the liberals in promoting the notion that any white male whose family has resided in the South more than a generation or two is the absolute scum of the earth. That notion is completely contrary to reason if you believe that people are individuals who deserve to be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin or the accent of their voice; but Lord, don’t let Martin Luther King, Jr.’s beliefs stand in the way of those who loudly sing his praises! And Christians should keep their religion to themselves if they aren’t willing to idolize the state, support foreign wars, and promote social conservatism!

Just before I wrote this, I asked myself how anyone could believe in personal freedom and not let those who feel they have been wronged to form their own nation; especially when they respected law enough to follow due process as it was understood prior to 1865.

I thought I didn’t get it. Unfortunately, I do now. The way the Republican Presidential primary is shaping up, it is becoming clear that America is not about personal freedom. If President Obama is defeated in November, we will establish that America probably is not about redistribution of wealth, at least not the way the Democratic and Socialist idealists look at it. So I guess it's about power. We will continue to be ruled by those who have the most to gain from holding power.

It’s enough to make a grown man cry.

I’m finished ranting now. Please return to your regularly-scheduled programming.

Why the military likes Ron Paul

Ron Paul is anti-war because he knows what war is like:



    Santorum           Obama                      Paul                Romney        Gingrich

Virtual buckeye to Aaron Alghawi via Blue Republican.

Gestapo tactics

Henry D'Andrea at the Politicons website cites an Atlanta Business Chronicle article about a Waco, Georgia, crane operator who has put the following sign on his trucks:

When asked why the signs are there, Bill Looman, owner of U. S. Cranes, LLC, said, "Can't afford it." He was interviewed by the FBI following a tip that he was a "threat to national security." It was also referred to the Secret Service. However, the Secret Service's reaction was interesting:

“The Secret Service left here, they were in a good mood and laughing,” said Looman, who added he just spent 10 years in the Marine Corps. “I got the feeling they thought it was kind of ridiculous, and a waste of their time.”

As Mr. D'Andrea wrote, apparently liberal tolerance only flows one way.

The slippery slope toward tyranny is getting icy.

Quotation of the day

Charlie Earl, again... reacting to a story in the Daily Caller (and elsewhere) about President Obama's announcement that he will "continue to act independently of Congress to benefit the American people."

Of course... it's the divine right of kings.

I think the President is serious about wanting to be a dictator.

Choosing our friends

When I was a child, my mother told me that "you are known by the friends you keep." That advice has served me well, particularly since I have started publicly stating my political views through this blog. I have made many friends, most of them good; a few I have had to defriend or put some distance between myself and them, because I do not want to be associated with their approach to change.

I bring this up because I found some of my libertarian friends being seduced by the Occupy Wall Street movement, its sister movement Occupy Together, and the latter's affiliates in Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Toledo, and Youngstown (links on the Occupy Together home page).

Since the stated purpose of Occupy Together is to show solidarity with Occupy Wall Street, it is reasonable to assume that they share the same vision. So what is the vision of this movement that has held a continuous protest in New York City since Sept. 18?

"We are the 99%," says Occupy Wall Street (Oct. 1):

We are unions, students, teachers, veterans, first responders, families, the unemployed and underemployed. We are all races, sexes and creeds. We are the majority. We are the 99 percent. And we will no longer be silent.

As members of the 99 percent, we occupy Wall Street as a symbolic gesture of our discontent with the current economic and political climate and as an example of a better world to come.

The previous day, they posted this message:

OccupyWallSt.org stands in solidarity without brothers and sisters in Boston who are marching on Bank of America.

The language and rhetoric is redolent of union activism and leftist protest organizations.

Their symbol is a clenched fist, the historic symbol of the socialist movement. While they agree with us that the Federal Reserve Bank should be abolished, there is nothing in their demands, their rhetoric, or the way they operate that suggests that they are libertarian in any way. Rather, they mirror the leftist approach used in the protests against the Vietnam War and against Wisconsin's collective bargaining bill last winter. Their message is heavily laced with class envy.

They idolize President Obama, but think he does not go far enough.  

Those who are familiar with George Orwell's novel 1984 might suspect that this is a case of Big Brother setting up his own Emmanuel Goldstein (the straw man representing the opposition, but who believed essentially the same thing).

At first blush, Occupy Wall Street really does appear to represent the "99%," but once you peel off the outer layers, you see that it fosters the same kind of socialism that President Obama wants to foist upon us.

We may soon experience revolution. Some of our people may even be desperate enough to want one. But if Occupy Wall Street and its friends are the vanguard of the revolution to come, we will get a dictatorship of the proletariat, and "dictatorship" is likely to be putting it gently.

We just abolished the rule of law

Eric Peters at LewRockwell.com demonstrates how, in the execution of Anwar al-Auluqi, an American citizen, we have just allowed our President to execute any of us -- at will.

America has not been a “country of laws, not men” for many years but now it’s official. The state’s fangs have been bared. Within living memory, presidents and congresscretins were at least nominally bound by law. They paid lip service to it and if caught transgressing, there was usually embarrassment if not punishment – and for awhile, the abuse would stop or at least be dialed back a little bit.

No more.

Now, not even a letter d’ cachet is required. All that is required is for the eye of Obama (or that of his successor to the purple) to fall upon you. Improbable, you say? Idiot, sez me.

Idiot, because you – if you believe you’re safe – believe that the laws of human nature do not apply to our Great Leaders, merely to Great Leaders of other countries, who are not spayshull like us. Idiot, because – if you believe you are secure – you believe that precedents don’t set policy. That once established they are always and inevitably expanded upon. That once any individual is subject to arbitrary state terror any of us may be subjected to arbitrary state terror – and the only thing holding it back (for the moment) is that the eye of Obama has not (yet) fallen upon you and yours.

No more is there the restraint of procedure, of the submission of evidence to a jury in open proceedings, to weigh against the charges leveled. Indeed, charges are no longer required – let alone a finding of guilt based upon evidence. Merely:

Ah ahm the decider! And ah have deecided!

Oh, surely, it is now enunciated in a more polished and highbrow manner by the current Don. But it is the same thing, essentially. I decide. From Lincoln to Hitler to Bush II to The Constitutional Scholar: Fuhrerprinzip. Power flows from on high, incarnated in the person of the leader.

I am being hysterical you say?

Yes, I am. Because I see where this is headed and what it will come to mean for all of us, eventually – or for any of us, that is, who might find ourselves described as “domestic extremists” for disbelieving in the principles of IngSoc and expressing criticism of the same.

In one of my early posts (January 2008), I listed ten steps to fascism. This act has completed Step 7 (Target key individuals). The Establishment already controls the press (Step 8), which leaves only Steps 9 and 10: to assert that dissent is the same as treason, and to suspend the rule of law.

Mr. Peters and I then quote the dissident German pastor Martin Niemöller's famous comment about how Germans allowed the Third Reich to be established. It is worth reproducing here:

First they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Perhaps the more contemporary version will be:

First they came for the Arabs, and I did not speak out because I was not an Arab.
Then they came for the gun owners, and I did not speak out because I did not own a gun..
Then they came for the Tea Partiers, and I did not speak out because I was not a Tea Partier.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Let me make one final comment that will surely offend some people, but I am sure it is the truth: Anyone who thinks that we will change course by electing anyone other than Ron Paul as President or by electing a Republican Congress is a fool. And I am not totally convinced that electing Ron Paul will do anything except slow it down a bit, since he would still have to contend with that Congress.

There is no hope, if we do not take responsibility ourselves. We must build up our state government to resist the tyranny to come, first by passing measures like Issue 3 against forced health care; then honest money, and if necessary, secession.

Virtual buckeye to Charles Earl.

Update 10/3: Paul Craig Roberts gives a concurring opinion at LewRockwell.com: In his article, "The Day America Died," he shows how the federal government and the military have been brutalized, with the support of many "patriotic" Americans who fear terrorism so much that they are willing to trash the very document that protects them. His conclusion:

Readers ask me what they can do. Americans not only feel powerless, they are powerless. They cannot do anything. The highly concentrated, corporate-owned, government-subservient print and TV media are useless and no longer capable of performing the historic role of protecting our rights and holding government accountable. Even many antiwar Internet sites shield the government from 9/11 skepticism, and most defend the government’s "righteous intent" in its war on terror. Acceptable criticism has to be couched in words such as "it doesn’t serve our interests." 
 
Voting has no effect. President "Change" is worse than Bush/Cheney. As Jonathan Turley suggests, Obama is "the most disastrous president in our history." Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate who stands up for the Constitution, but the majority of Americans are too unconcerned with the Constitution to appreciate him.

To expect salvation from an election is delusional. All you can do, if you are young enough, is to leave the country. The only future for Americans is a nightmare.

As I expressed above, I remain a bit more hopeful than he is that the situation can be changed. But not much. I could leave -- Canada is not that far away -- but emigration does nothing to weaken the tyrant.

I'M not laughing...

From the Raleigh News-Observer, via BigGovernment.com:* North Carolina Governor Bev Perdue suggests that Congress suspend the 2012 elections to fix the economy. Her staffers later tried to dismiss it as a "joke" or sarcasm, but as Publius at BigGovernment.com wrote, "If that was a 'joke' then Gov. Perdue may have the worst sense of comic tone and timing in history."

I have heard on occasion that the President has ambitions of becoming a dictator. In a speech July 27 to the Latin-American group La Raza**, President Obama

admitted that “the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting” when it came to dealing with Congress over the debt deal. And while he added the caveat that our democracy doesn’t work like that – the crowd was cheering the possibility of Obama side stepping Congress and doing things his own way. The whole scenario reminded Glenn [Beck] and Pat of (nerd alert) the scene in the Star Wars prequel where Palpatine grants himself emergency powers – effectively making him The Emperor – as the Senate cheers on. Pat even played audio from the scene where Natalie Portman’s character says, “This is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause.”

Gov. Perdue's remark, then, might actually be a trial balloon for suggesting a suspension on a national level.

I'm not sure whether this makes it scarier or more comforting -- we've heard this before in rumors prior to 2008 that Homeland Security (during the Republican Bush Administration) might suspend that election in the event of a terrorist attack (see article by Michel Chossudovsky in the Canadian Global Research site for details)

This is close enough to my Trigger #1 to justify Ohio independence. Once a suspension is put into place,  there is no assurance that it will ever be lifted.

* And many other places. This is one video that has "gone viral" on the Internet.

** German translation: Das Volk. Choice of language intentional.

Quotation of the day

Common sense, actually (via Robert Owens, restating what I said Sept. 15):

Forbes says it all

Forbes is a business magazine that delivers its news and opinion with style and wit. A good example is today's opinion piece by Joel Kotkin. The title should invite you to read the article: "Obama's Economic Trifecta: How the President Helped Kill, Progressivism, Capitalism, and Moderation."

Which wouldn't be so bad, except that the GOP is so inept that their contribution may well be to re-elect the President, so he can, in Mr. Kotkin's words, "screw up even worse."

Communists endorse President Obama for re-election

If I had just made this statement, true as it is, I would have opened myself up to charges of McCarthyism. But here it is, from the Sam Webb at the Communist Party USA's People's World itself:

Neither party is anti-capitalist, but they aren't identical either. Differences exist at the levels of policy and social composition. And despite the many frustrations of the past two years, the election of Barack Obama was historic and gave space to struggle for a people's agenda.

If, on the other hand, the Republicans had been victorious in 2008 the character of class and democratic struggles would have unfolded very differently. Our movement would have been on the defensive from Day One, the Democrats would be running for cover, and the Republicans would have an unfettered hand in their efforts to liquidate the welfare state, roll back the rights revolution of the 1930s and 1960s, and crush the people's movement - labor in the first place.

As for the wisdom of a third party, we have always advocated the formation of an independent people's party at the core of which are the working class and labor, racially and nationally oppressed people, women, youth, immigrants, seniors, gay and straight, etc. It is essential for any deep-going social change. But its realization depends on more than our desire, more than our political-ideological attitude. Millions who have to be at the core of this party still operate under the umbrella of the Democratic Party, albeit increasingly in an independent fashion.

Moreover, to separate ourselves at this moment from these forces would be contrary to our strategic policy of building maximum unity against right-wing extremism now and in next year's elections.

Remember this when the President changes tactics and tries to look like a moderate.

Rasmussen Reports: President Obama has a 1 point lead over Ron Paul

According to a Rasmussen Report poll released on Tuesday, Ron Paul is running only one point behind President Obama in a hypothetical 2012 matchup (39%-38% of likely voters). However, the same source states that among likely Republican voters, Dr. Paul is favored by only 9%, behind Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and Michelle Bachmann. Dr. Paul enjoys a ten-point lead among independent voters.

This suggests that the Republican primary will be a bigger hurdle for Dr. Paul than the election itself.

I cite these figures as a strong indicator that the libertarian message is beginning to reach the American people. However, I am not confident that, if Ron Paul be elected, that he would be able to effect significant change, because I cannot envision a Congress that would cooperate with him.

In my opinion, independence would be much easier and more effective as a means for restoring liberty in Ohio than to turn around the Leviathan in Washington.

However, both ideas are non-starters until we can persuade the Republican loyalists and neoconservatives that militarism is against our national interest.

Where is "Jamal al-Madison"?

That is the question Mike Church asked this morning upon learning about the draft Constitution being proposed for Libya. As reported on his show, also on FoxNews, the draft appears to establish a Western-style democracy for the North African nation.

Except for one thing:

Everything else in Libyan law will be influenced by Sharia under this Constitution.

(The draft document is available on Scribd at the Heritage Foundation site.)

So President Obama illegally spent $896 million of our taxpayer dollars and risked the lives of our troops to put more women into burqas?

And people wonder why I support Ohio independence...! We would have the sense to mind our own business, and be true to our values as a nation!

Black columnist attacks President Obama -- for all the right reasons

Star Parker, writing at Townhall.com has unknowingly submitted an early nomination for The Ohio Republic's 2012 Champions of Liberty award, given to African-Americans who are outspoken in defense of freedom. This is the first article I have read by her, but it is clear, to the point, and pulls no punches:

It is not hard to understand why black Americans were happy that a black man was elected president of the United States. It was kind of a final and most grand announcement that racism has finally been purged from America.

But for the highly politicized parts of black America this was certainly not the only message. Because for the highly politicized parts of black America, the point has always been to keep race in American politics.

For black political culture that dominated after the civil rights movement, the point was not just equal treatment under the law, but special treatment under the law. Plus the assumption that more black political power -- defined by more blacks holding office -- would mean that blacks would be better off.

In other words, post-civil rights movement black political culture embraced an agenda exactly the opposite of what the civil rights movement was about. Its agenda was to get laws and policies that were not neutral but racially slanted and to put individuals in power based on their race and not on their character and capability.

So, according to the script of this political culture, election of a black man as president meant more than an end to racism. The conclusion had to be that if the man holding the highest political office in the nation was black, it must follow that blacks would be better off.

Now blacks have a dilemma. We have a black president and blacks are worse off. Not just a little, but a lot worse off.

She finds only two possible conclusions: Either President Obama is a "traitor to his race," or he is incompetent, or in Ms. Parker's words, "Bad policies hurt the weakest the most."

She is hoping that 

Maybe blacks will realize that they should blame Barack Obama. Not because he is black, but because he is a liberal. And because he has grown government to the point where the oxygen necessary for freedom and prosperity is being squeezed out of our nation.

Now she has hope for change we could all believe in.

Why do we have to go to the Brits to get the good stuff?

Case in point: this piece from The (London) Telegraph, which documents an exchange between an Iowa Tea Party activist and President Obama, in which both agree on one (and only one) thing -- we need to civilize our rhetoric.

Quotation of the decade

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government's reckless fiscal policies. ... Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

-- Illinois Senator Barack Obama, Senate floor speech, March 2006,

quoted by Paul Greenberg in Townhall.com.

My political science professor had the perfect explanation for the inconsistency between Obama 2006 and Obama 2011 in the first words she uttered in my first political science course at Ohio Northern University:

"Politics is all a matter of whose ox is being gored." 

Quotation of the day

"Putting troops into that hell hole Libya would be BEYOND MADNESS even for that Marxist LUNATIC Obama! Thats why I'm convinced its going to happen." (Emphasis his)

-- John Anderson, on Charlie Earl's Facebook page

If this isn't unconstitutional, nothing is.

Judge Andrew Napolitano substituting for Glenn Beck on Fox News, reported that President Obama has signed an executive order claiming the right to keep persons incarcerated at Guantánamo Bay for life, even after acquittal. This power is unprecedented in Western history. Not even Hitler or Stalin went this far.

Bottom line:

Why should you care about this? Because if the government gets away with it by demonizing these prisoners and making it the popular thing to happen, it could happen to you.

And if this isn't a "high crime or misdemeanor" under the Constitution, nothing is. One commenter to the posting on a site that quoted this described our future in America as "hell on earth." If this trajectory isn't corrected soon, that commenter is likely to be proven right.

Handwriting on the wall?

Note, in this video, when President Obama says "We cannot sustain...", the Presidential seal falls to the floor.

(The video object does not work here, for some reason, hence the link).

Virtual buckeye to Rebellion.

President Obama to raise money for Gov. Strickland Aug. 18

Laura Bischoff at the Dayton Daily News reports that the President will be at the Columbus Athenaeum for lunch Aug. 18. Tickets will cost $500 per person -- $2,000 for "priority seating."

At a time when Democratic politicians all over America are distancing themselves from the President, our Governor chooses to embrace him!

That should say something about where Gov. Strickland's loyalty lies.

What we really need is a good protest like the one they had in Texas on Monday.

Who cares, really?

I did not watch President Obama's speech last night about the BP oil spill, but I have heard enough commentary today to have a pretty good idea what happened and how. In essence, following Rahm Emanuel's dictum to "never let a good crisis go to waste," the President decided to basically ignore the problem, and use it as an opportunity to get his "cap and trade" bill going. It is interesting that his speech drew considerable criticism even from the left. Even that epitome of state-run media, The New York Times, editorialized that the President failed to convince the American people that he would take the right steps to ensure that the oil spill would be cleaned up as soon as possible.

This brings me to Rush Limbaugh. Near the beginning of his show today, he launched into a twenty-minute philippic about the President's failure of leadership in this situation; and as usual, acted as a shill for the neoconservative wing of the Republican Party, whose competence to address a crisis of this nature is equally doubtful. Mr. Limbaugh's criticism is that the feds are not listening to the states, and are not providing the help they need to deal with the environmental damage.

The fundamental error that made this oil spill possible was the federal government's cap on BP's liability, and its failure to provide reasonable legislation to ensure environmental protection in the deep-sea oil fields, as I discussed May 28.

When I was a child, my mother taught me that if I make a mess, it's my responsibility to clean it up. BP should be expected to clean up the mess, entirely at their own expense; but that does not preclude the federal government marshalling resources at its disposal to assist; or to get necessary equipment and supplies to the affected states in a timely manner.

On the other hand, now is probably as good a time as any to instruct the American people, that it is not the responsibility of the federal government to rob the taxpayers for charitable causes, such as providing make-work jobs for displaced workers in Louisiana.

With this in mind, the example of Grover Cleveland in 1887 in dealing with a massive crop failure in Texas should prove instructive, as this piece by the libertarian Mises Institute makes clear. Following are excerpts from President Cleveland's veto message against a Congressional appropriation to provide seeds for the Texas farmers (emphasis added):

To the House of Representatives:

I return without my approval House bill number 10203, entitled "An Act to enable the Commissioner of Agriculture to make a special distribution of seeds in drought-stricken counties of Texas, and making an appropriation therefor." ...

Though there has been some difference in statements concerning the extent of the people's needs in the localities thus affected, there seems to be no doubt that there has existed a condition calling for relief; and I am willing to believe that, notwithstanding the aid already furnished, a donation of seed grain to the farmers located in this region, to enable them to put in new crops, would serve to avert a continuance or return of an unfortunate blight.

And yet I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan as proposed by this bill, to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds for that purpose.

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. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people.

The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. 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...

The appropriation of the current year for this purpose is $100,000, and it will probably be no less in the appropriation for the ensuing year. I understand that a large quantity of grain is furnished for such distribution, and it is supposed that this free apportionment among their neighbors is a privilege which may be waived by our senators and representatives.

If sufficient of them should request the Commissioner of Agriculture to send their shares of the grain thus allowed them, to the suffering farmers of Texas, they might be enabled to sow their crops; the constituents, for whom in theory this grain is intended, could well bear the temporary deprivation, and the donors would experience the satisfaction attending deeds of charity.

That's what I would have liked to have heard from Mr. Limbaugh. A call to the people to assist the Gulf states on their own through charitable organizations that already exist. A call for BP to act responsibly. A call for a President who can use the "bully pulpit" to urge Americans to do what is needed, while staying within the Constitutional bonds our Founding Fathers put into place.

But I suppose I'm whistling into the wind again...