A Legacy

As the proud (very, very proud) grandfather of 3 (soon to be 4) wonderful young people and children, one of my greatest concerns is what type of legacy I will leave for them. I don’t mean legacy in the way that most career politicians use the term….a notable political achievement. No, the legacy that I seek is the one that is firmly implanted on their hearts and their characters. Each of them has unique talents and abilities that equip them well for becoming producers and contributors as they mature. For any living thing to flourish it must have the proper atmosphere or environment. My hope as I mold my legacy is that I do enough to provide my grandchildren with a healthy environment for their personal development.

Like many people I have a desire that I want my grandchildren to remember me, but I prefer that they always recall what they have learned from me. My own maternal grandfather was a great source of wisdom for me as I was growing up, and even though I do not get to spend as much time with my grandchildren as I enjoyed with Grandpa, I would hope that I influence them in a similar fashion. Although I have many preferences and priorities, I do not necessarily want to teach them what to think, but I do wish to help them to learn to think rationally. Certainly I hope that they become warm-hearted and generous, but I wish their minds would lead their hearts. There are innumerable opportunities for helping others, so it requires discernment and reason to choose the best method for achieving the most good.

If I were given absolute control over my grandchildren’s futures, I would bless them with the 4-F’s for their futures. Faith, family, freedom and fun are the cornerstones for a well-squared life in my view. It begins with faith because as a Christian, I understand G_d’s wisdom, mercy and grace. They have sustained me in my darkest times, and counseled prudence when I become too self important. Family is the anchor of this worldly life. If one is blessed to have a loving, forgiving and helping family, then most of life’s obstacles can be surmounted. Freedom is a gift from The Almighty, secured by His Son, and nourished by a loving family. Without liberty….without freedom…life can be robotic and unfulfilling. My definition of fun in this context is “doing what you love and loving what you’re doing.” A typical working lifetime is more than half a century long. To endure 50 years of drudgery damages the spirit. Fun at work, at play, at home or where ever is an important aspect of a complete life.

Obviously I want my grandchildren to share my faith and its comfort, but that is a personal matter between each of them and Him. Young people who are convinced that they are immortal often fail to see the need for a Savior. My prayer is that they discover and accept Him sooner rather than later. The supportive family dynamic is something that their parents, their grandmother and I can nurture each and every day. We must remember that our anxieties or impatience can sometimes undermine our desire to build the strong reliable family unit. My passionate desire to have my grandchildren yearn for liberty is one that I rant, rave, preach and speak about quite frequently. My fear is that my intensity may be somewhat off-putting for my beloved progeny.

Fun is a more difficult concept to transmit. The best method for doing so is to live it. Allow the kids to learn by observation and osmosis. We must encourage them to find their talents and their niches without pounding them into the round holes of our expectations and hopes for them. We must be willing to permit them to develop as square pegs as long as they do so with integrity and honor. The results will be worth it.

The beauty of a legacy of this nature is that it need not be probated. No attorney or the government will get a piece of the action when my grandchildren claim their inheritances. Who knows….they may try to tax it before I take my leave from this earth. If so, I’ll fight it. A legacy is a terrible thing to waste….paraphrasingly speaking.

Our Tuesday show will air tomorrow from 6:00-7:00pm on 1370 WSPD.  www.wspd.com

Comment: cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

The National Mindset

Sometimes sentiments are contagious. A sense of panic among a few key people can thrust an entire community or nation into hyperventilation. An overwhelming sense of happiness and goodwill can infect hordes of people….look at how our generous spirits and senses of well-being are lifted during the Christmas season. Ann Coulter’s latest book, Demonic, explores the mob mentality that frequently prevails in certain high-tension situations. While pursuing PhD. Studies, my cognate or minor was in Social Psychology….a discipline for the study of social influence, social perception and social interaction. A brief summary of the field is that we humans are highly susceptible to the influence of others and often embrace a mob-like mentality when confronted by an undefined perceived threat.

Not all social contagions produce panic or hysteria. Some may lead to an overwhelming sense of futility and fatalism. Others may induce violent actions and unprovoked attacks on potential threats or presumed outliers. There are types of mass reactions that produce paralyzing fear. Mass cowardice is an element of fear paralysis. Risk-taking is assumed to be an unworthy enterprise because whatever reward may ensue does not return reasonable benefits. In my view the people of the United States are entrapped in a national mindset of cowardice. From our civil and civic leaders to our lowliest citizen we have calculated that high risk yields small rewards and is not worth the investment of time, talent, resources or reputation.

We have become a nation of cowards. We look to government to pay for our staples, subsidize our businesses, feed our children at school, and protect us from all imaginable harm in the universe. If we wish to explore a new avenue of learning, we seek a government grant. If we wish to enhance our education or start a business, we apply for a government loan. We insist that government license people who provide the most basic services so that we will not suffer the humiliation of “orange hair” or frizzy ends. Licensing is a form of risk management that limits the practitioners in certain fields, but many folks get their hair cut at home…so how long until government protects us from an overzealous Mother or Father wielding clippers and scissors? When government regulations or licensing make no sense, we comply without complaint. Think about it. Why should government license the clergy? Why should government intervene in a contract between God and an individual….or between a congregation and its chosen spiritual leader?

Our political leaders are blatantly cowardly….afraid to tackle pressing issues and problems head on for fear of antagonizing voters. They have wasted countless lives and an immense amount of our tax money by their unwillingness to take a stand and declare war when we are violently engaged. Our fearful citizenry continues to let the career political miscreants off the hook by reelecting a high percentage of them and failing to hold them accountable. We insist on supporting “creators” of the problems so they can solve them. We voters are too cowardly to change paths and demand responsible leadership. The politicians reward us by passing out goodies, bennies and mythical “safety nets.” We citizens KNOW that those actions are bankrupting our nation and our future, but we are too weak and too cowardly to say “NO.”

So, as a nation perhaps we should change our name to “Oz” and join with Dorothy, Toto, the Tin Man and the Scarecrow as we follow the mythical yellow brick road towards our national collapse. While we await some magical formula to provide us with the means to be strong and self-reliant, we can recite Bert Lahr’s notable line “….Courage!” Like the cowardly lion, however, perhaps we’ll discover that the courage we need resides within us. We have allowed cowardice to become our national mindset because we have become too fearful of risk taking.

I’ve heard bravery described as “an ordinary person who is afraid to fail.” I sense that definition is too simple. Our fear of failure has led us to expect the government to insulate us from any and all ill fortunes. Political bravery and national courage must be based on the principle that failure is preferable to tyranny. When government insulates and protects us, it also commands and restricts us. We must muster the courage to demand our liberty. We must insist that our political leaders weigh personal freedom as the highest value when they engage in their typical political calculations. We must stall tall and shrug off the artificial cloak of government protection. We must shed our cowardice and stand for liberty.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Tue. 6-7:00pn, 1370 WSPD, Toledo  www.wspd.com

Good Grief!

Good grief! Have I stumbled into a lousy re-make of “Groundhog Day?” As I view the GOP debates and listen to the “informed” pundits, I recall that I’ve heard all this garbage before. This movie should be titled “The Lesser Evil Again.” For more than 150 years the two old parties have followed similar paths at differing speeds to lead us to the same result….socialist state followed by fiscal collapse followed by either violent anarchy or tyrannical totalitarianism. Yet, the pundits, our “leaders,” and even some frightened constitutional activists plead with us to accept the lesser evil because another path would lead to losing. Here’s a news flash: winning with the lesser evil guarantees that we lose…not just the party, but everyone loses.

The most predictable behavioral aspect of American voters, self-identified conservatives and progressive-leftists alike, is their predictability. They continually select lesser candidates in order to avoid losing to a worse candidate while sacrificing principles for short-term political gain. Clearly, our elitist statist leadership is exactly what we deserve because we appear steadfastly committed to handing them the reins of power. We are engaged in a march toward national suicide because we continue to promote and elect career politicians whose lack of political courage places their fingers on the trigger of our demise.

Most of us prefer the familiar over the unfamiliar. Our tendency is to continue repeating our behaviors until circumstances force us to change. For example, during the past several election cycles U.S. voters have allowed the mass media to define the candidates and design the criteria for choosing. Media buzz-words such as “extreme,” “frontrunner,” “electability,” and “isolationist” are sprinkled through the broadcast or story to tilt the coverage and audience perceptions. By choosing which candidates to vet and which elements of their pasts merit reporting, the media construct the public images of the various candidates. Many of us who consider ourselves to be politically aware and astute, nevertheless, swallow the media meme, and we choose our preferred candidates based on the media definition of “electable.”

A recent Battleground Poll suggests that roughly 55% to 60% of the voters in the United States self-identify as “conservative.” Any discerning observer would view that number skeptically because the term “conservative” roams all over the philosophical, ideological and political map. Many conservatives truly desire a constitutional government that confines the federal beast to its enumerated powers. Others appear to be “OK” with a massive federal apparatus that wanders far beyond the Constitution as long as private-sector markets remain unhindered. Another group of conservatives are focused on lifestyle issues and view the federal machinery as a force for coercing and limiting certain personal choice. It seems, therefore, that a conservative majority of voters in the 55% to 60% range is meaningless. Divided priorities, “winning over principles,” and accepting media definitions merge together to create a majority comprised of a collection of poorly defined or articulated minorities.

It appears that while many profess to desire change…especially a return to constitutional principles…they are unwilling to fully commit to candidates who have the principles and the courage to implement the new direction. Their attitudes are similar to the MBA graduate who dreams of becoming CEO but is afraid to leave the comfort of the mailroom in order to enhance his career. So-called constitutional conservatives pine for principled candidates who honor ALL of the Constitution, but hesitate to vote for them for fear of “splitting the vote” or backing a possible loser. So, as a consequence, they vote for the “lesser of two evils” and elect a certain loser while insuring that the nation, too, becomes a loser. Weak-willed voters and weak-on-principle candidates are a combination that will lead to the collapse of our nation. It is impossible for weakness compounded by more weakness to withstand the tides of chaos and destruction. Despite the principles of mathematics wherein two negatives yield a positive, the opposite is true in governance.

Normally I have a good head of hair. I sometimes cut it very short to make it easier to work around the farm, but it does not qualify me as presidential material. Neither does a winning smile nor a resonant voice guarantee that one has the capacity to govern a massive nation. Many years of political service may actually be a detriment for a candidate who is committed to reform because she or he has become too familiar with the status quo. Looks, appearance or poise are not the best criteria for a political leader. Principle, character and consistency are the traits that we should seek for our elected officials.

The lesser of two evils is definitely lesser and obviously evil. We can no longer permit our nation to be in the hands of lesser types who lack a moral and principled compass. We must choose courageously if we expect our elected officials to act with courage.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Tues. & Wed., 6-7pm, 1370 WSPD   www.wspd.com

Consistency of Character

Consistency of character is something that not many of us can claim. We all want to be viewed as people who can be relied on to do the right thing time after time. Unfortunately most of us can recall instances where we failed to come through when someone or some occasion needed our strength and our assistance. Even without the descriptor of character attached, consistency is difficult to accomplish. For those of us who are parents we have often second-guessed our inconsistent guidance for our offspring. Consistency is a highly-valued trait in professional sports….with limitations…. a consistent .100 hitter will find himself consistently re-assigned to a lower league. Consistency is a valued attribute when it is productive or represents a favorable behavior. Consistent character in the lofty world of national politics is truly rarified air. The term “flip-flop” has more social relevance today for chameleon-type politicians than for flimsy footwear.

It is time for a mea culpa. Back in my ultra conservative GOP days I thought Ron Paul was a somewhat looney nagger. His constant harping about the Constitution and the abuses by the Federal Reserve seemed quaint but somewhat far-fetched…..a little “out there” if you know what I mean. But time and circumstances have moved us all “out there” as we realize that Dr. Paul’s predictions were “spot on.” The unconstitutional forays into “never never land” by Congress and administrations have resulted in a massive, intrusive, expensive and inefficient government. The secret manipulations by the Fed when added to the known digital creation of money from thin air have led to the value of our currency becoming debased while the specter of runaway inflation haunts us. Ron Paul has understood the gaping faults within the Federal Reserve for a long time, and we ignored him.  The current knock on Congressman Paul from his detractors involves his foreign policy positions. They accuse him of being an isolationist, or naïve…..or “wacko.”

The title of this piece is “Consistency of Character,” and if one is to be faithful to the Constitution, one must be consistent regarding domestic policy, foreign policy and government-citizen interactions. As I have written in previous columns, the United States Congress has not DECLARED war since December 8^th, 1941. Consistent constitutional adherence would not permit the multitude of military actions that we have pursued during the past 70 years. To praise Dr. Paul’s constitutional integrity regarding the size and scope of government while condemning his constitutional foreign policy stance is both hypocritical and self-serving. If Dr. Paul’s critics want him to become a flaming interventionist who spends trillions of dollars and countless lives, they should amend the Constitution to allow for frequent willy-nilly military operations against every perceived threat, real and potential, with a minimal legislative or constitutional justification…..rather like we have been doing for seven decades. The chief reason that no war has been declared in all that time despite our being in nearly constant conflict for the entire period is that Congress and the presidents have lacked the political will and courage to take a recorded stand. Cowardice should not be rewarded…..nor tolerated.

Now, regarding Mr. Paul’s specific stand on Iran and the nearly universal gnashing of teeth and wailing about his unwillingness to initiate aggressive military action against the Iranians, in a previous column (“Do Something”—8/19/2011) I identified several nations that are legitimate threats to the security of the United States. That number has increased with the events in Libya. That nation is on the verge of anarchy with tribal, regional and ideological factions all vying for power. At stake is the broad range of weapons of mass destruction that have been sequestered throughout the country. Those armaments are particularly vulnerable for acquisition by groups committed to terror. Iran certainly is a threat…a considerable threat with no air force or missile delivery system …but to focus on the potential of Iran without watching the reality of other threatening countries would be….could be…a disastrous oversight.

Dr. Paul thoroughly understands that fixation on the enemy du jour could lead to a devastating consequence for our nation. He believes in a strong defense and a powerful swift response if any nation directly challenges our people. Those who would dismiss Congressman Paul as a serious contender for the presidency because of his foreign policy views are hypocritically disingenuous. It is radically hypocritical to laud Mr. Paul’s steadfast consistent compliance with the Constitution while decrying his constitutional position with regards to international ventures and military action. It is disingenuous to insist that the only true leaders are those who violate the Constitution by sending our armed services personnel into harm’s way while playing the role of chicken hawk cowards who are unwilling to go on the legal record to justify their actions.

Consistency of character is a commodity that is rare in the halls of political power. Honesty and integrity are also in short supply. For those of you who are or may know someone who is a serious follower and believer of faith, you may be aware of how some people like to ridicule believers and poke fun at their faith. It is similar to someone like Dr. Paul who takes his oath of office seriously but is the target of derision by those who claim to support the Constitution. There are three valid remedies to this situation: amend the Constitution, stop falsely claiming to support it, or engage in a serious examination of Dr. Paul’s positions in the light of constitutional awareness. If you, yes You, truly want a restoration of constitutional government for our nation, you must perform your due diligence and request that other candidates stop claiming to be followers of the Framers while they pursue their interventionist world-policeman and unconstitutional foreign policies. Let’s be consistent.

Comment:   cearlwriting@hotmail.com      or    www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Listen in to 1370 WSPD radio on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, 6:00pm to 7:00pm. www.wspd.com

Diving for Cover

There is a term that all career legislative politicians know and cherish. It is “voting from cover.” This is a device whereby your typical unprincipled politician can vote either way on a piece of legislation, but the leadership allows him or her to vote according to which way would most assist the politician’s re-election because the leaders had enough votes to pass the measure. In other words the politician was willing to vote for passage but voted against it because his vote was not needed. Given this frequent scenario, it is no wonder that citizens have become as cynical as their elected officials.

When one examines the voting record of a political professional, one often discovers some contradictory results. A politician may vote for a measure the first time around, but vote against a nearly identical version on the second pass. The suggestively schizophrenic behavior is generally an indicator that the so-called public servant was voting from cover. You may recall the legendary John Kerry statement from the 2004 campaign that he “voted for funding the Iraq war before he voted against it.” There were some commentators and of course, Republicans, who ridiculed Kerry’s apparent two-faced approach to such a vital issue. Many in the mass media, however, did not condemn Kerry because they understood that his votes reflected a total self-serving attempt to appear on both sides of the issue. They correctly understood that Kerry’s waffling…his unprincipled position…was not rare, but it was all too common among our United States’ political class.

At first blush an observer might seek to find some mechanism or penalty for those who choose to vote from cover to enhance their political fortunes. The problem with a remedy that directly addresses the issue is that there is no allowance for the politician who actually changes her or his position because of conscience, principle or payoff. We cannot fully trust the politician’s explanation for the position switch because so many of them are either slick liars or self-delusional. The observer can assume from the beginning that the leadership allowed the member to vote from cover if the vote was close, and the member voted against the majority. An overwhelming vote on either side of an issue is not a good barometer for testing the legislator’s principles because aside from the chicken or weasel, congress critters most often resemble lemmings. One of the first skills developed by a legislator is learning how to jump in front of a parade and pretending to lead it.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to detect which unprincipled politicians were voting from cover on any particular bill unless one is closely observing the roll call on C-SPAN. If the watcher knows who the Whips are for the party, they can see who they’re “babysitting” as the vote rolls in. As the numbers of “Ayes and Nays” approach finality, the Whips will release their wards to vote. If the Speaker “needs” their votes, they’ll vote for his position, but if there are a sufficient number supporting the Speaker’s stance, the captive Congresspersons will be allowed to vote consistent with their constituents’ preferences. So, what if the leaders are wrong (we have 100 years of recent history to suggest that our political leaders are often wrong)? Are our elected representatives so politically motivated that they would sacrifice principle in order to prevent embarrassing the leadership? Apparently so and historical evidence supports the premise. Certainly it is helpful if there is unity within the caucus when they are pursuing an ideal or policy that is based on principle and integrity. Unity for unity’s sake, however, when promoted and enforced to achieve damaging compromise merely reinforces the cynicism of the voters. Deal-making, deal-cutting and bet-hedging are reprehensible positions when the integrity of the nation is at stake. Yes, this type of legislating has been in place since the beginning of our Republic, but heightened scrutiny and moments of sustained crisis have illustrated the folly and damage that such an approach creates. “Business as usual” should become unusual and undesirable.

Our political system has become so corrupt and decayed that fixing it seems nearly impossible. I am convinced that most of those who are first elected to Congress or their respective legislatures enter with high hopes and sincere desires to make a difference. They become part of the system without realizing how compromised they are. Voting from cover is just another example of how unrepresentative our political system is. If you recall, 22 House members voted against Boehner’s sell-out deal on the debt ceiling, but the real number of steadfast fiscally-responsible patriots is 19. Three Members were being herded by Whip Kevin McCarthy until the vote was “locked.” They were willing to vote with Boehner, but because there were sufficient votes, they were “allowed” to vote for principle. I’m still trying to confirm who those three were, and they do not merit inclusion in the roll call of courage and conviction. There were 19 Spartans standing at the gates as the Persians advanced. There were three opportunists standing behind them….under cover….away from the arrows. Luke’s Gospel is good. Lukewarm is tepid.

Comment:   cearlwriting@hotmail.com       or     www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com