AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM UNDER SIEGE

AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM UNDER SIEGE

By

Jimmie R. Applegate

American exceptionalism is under siege, and the battle line has been very clearly drawn.  To the right of the battle line are the bald, pale and gray religious American males, their mature spouses and mature seniors of various racial, ethnic and national backgrounds.  On the left side of the battle line are, for the most part, the younger males and females, the so-called have nots, the less educated, those with various sexual and cultural orientations, the large number of immigrants who refuse to assimilate and the illegal aliens living in the United States sans legal documentation.  Without question activists on the left outnumber the entrenched on the right.  Demographics and actions by the current socialist statist government ensure an ever increasing discrepancy.

There are other reasons why those Americans on the right side will remain outnumbered by those on the left.  The $17.3 trillion national debt is placing, at the current rate, a $191,671 dollar debt per citizen and a $752,167 dollar debt per family.  And there is not much doubt but what the national debt ceiling will be raised again.  In addition, since Republicans are in the majority on the right side, their ad hoc comments regarding women, other gender and religious issues as well as the involvement of the United States in international affairs will continue to “turn off” potential members.

Fortunately many of the above issues are generational; i.e., the foci on the right side must be on the future.  The embers of American exceptionalism still burn.  For them to once again blaze brightly those on the right must take action on several issues.

First and foremost we must plan for the future by reviewing and emphasizing the past.  We must stand by John Winthrop’s charge to his fellow Pilgrims while at sea enroute to the New World “…for wee must Consider that wee shall be as a Citty upon a Hill, the eies of all people are upon us.”  Winthrop prayed to the “one God” and closed by saying, “But if our heartes shall turne away soe that wee will not obey, but shall be seduced and worshipp other Gods our pleasures, and profits, and serve them, it is propounded unto us this day, wee shall surely perishe out of the good Land whether wee passé over this vast Sea to possesse it; Therefore lett us choose life, that wee, and our Seede, may live, by obeying his voice, and cleaveing to him, for hee is our life, and our prosperity.”

Then we must renew our emphases on recreating and maintaining the American exceptionalism so explicitly described by Alexis de Tocqueville in “Democracy in America” published in 1835 following his travels throughout America.  This quotation of his is prescient, “Democracy and socialism have nothing in common except for one word, equality.  But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude”.

Additionally we must read and reread, understand and follow the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, the Bill of Rights and the writings of the authors of these documents in the Federalist Papers.  The United States is a Constitutional Federal Republic with a government of by and for the people with clear descriptions of the rights of states and a limited central government.  The separation of church and state is clear even though religion was central in the lives of early Americans.  The separation of powers language describes in unequivocal language the limitations of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government.

Other contemporary actions can be taken.  The actions that emphasize the distinctions between the social progressives left of the line and the moral religious Americans on the right must be modified in tone.  I am not suggesting those on the right minimize for example their strong religious feelings.  But we can reduce the perceived bluster of the “religious right” in political debate by focusing on the solid religious history of America from John Winthrop and de Tocqueville until today, and on the traditions and moral values that made America exceptional.

Those on the right side must focus immediately on weakening the position of the liberal, progressive, socialist statist President of the United States for the remainder of his term.  This can be done within the separation of powers in the Constitution.  Current elected representatives of the people and local, state and federal courts including the Supreme Court of the United States must be challenged by the people through jury nullification, if necessary, to become less activist.

The voting citizens of the United States on both the left and the right must not elect another President so lacking in qualifications, so secretive and as opposed to traditional American values and exceptionalism as is President Obama.  In his 2010 book, “The Roots of Obama’s Rage”, Denish D’Souza described the influences of Obama’s background and on his actions resulting in the implementation of liberal, progressive, socialist, statist and anti-American exceptionalism principles of government.  American voters had only to read D’Souza’s book to know before the 2012 election what has come to pass.  D’Souza has every right to proclaim loudly, “I told you so”.   The call to action is to read it now to ensure President Obama is not followed by more of the same, male or female.

Americans must elect Democratic or Republican Constitutional Conservatives to offices at all levels of government if we wish to rekindle the fire of American exceptionalism so it blazes brightly on the shining city upon a hill.

This can, and must be, done to return America to a nation of laws, of assimilated legal immigrants, of a return to the traditional values of a single, almighty God and a society with a strong moral foundation, a clear work ethic, self-sufficiency, independence, responsibility and an understanding of the phrase, “the pursuit of happiness” (underline added for emphasis).  As I wrote in an earlier document, “Now is not the time to be politically correct, timid or afraid to speak our minds.  We must do so in defense of the traditional exceptional American values we inherited so we can say we did all we could to pass them on to our children and grandchildren.  Otherwise, we will be judged indefensibly guilty of ignoring reality by sticking our heads in the sand.  The decisions we make and the consequences therefrom are ours!”

Only then will the blaze of American exceptionalism burn brightly and illuminate the “shining city upon a hill”.

FROM THE “CRADLE TO THE GRAVE” OR

FROM “GIDDY-UP TO WHOA”?

By

Dr. Jimmie R. Applegate

 

 In his 2013 State of the Union address, President Barack Obama proposed skills and training for jobs begin as early as possible in life.  He said, “But today, fewer than three in ten 4-year-olds are enrolled in a high-quality preschool program…….So, tonight, I propose working with states to make a high-quality preschool available to every single child in America……We know this works.  So let’s do what works and make sure none of our children start the race of life already behind”.  Two days later in Decatur, Georgia, Obama described his proposal as a “Continuum of high-quality early learning for a child, beginning at birth and continuing to age 5.”  He also said that federal monetary grants willl be available “to serve children 3 and younger, starting from birth”.

 

President Obama’s proposals reinvent those made by William Beveridge, a leading English liberal and one of the Fathers of the Modern Welfare State in England during and shortly after World War II.  Beveridge proposed a welfare state based on the creation of a national health service, full employment and child benefit payments.  He also supported a eugenics program that emphasized which parents could have how many children, namely the educated professional class.  He proposed ensuring that citizens when prevented from working would have a subsistence income for themselves and their families as a right, and “below which no one should be allowed to fall” without any form of means testing.  When the German occupiers saw this, they accused Beveridge of plagiarism from the German “Wohlfahrtsstaat” program.  Beveridge’s  program was the blueprint for social security and a welfare state.  The Labor government in England agreed and enacted Beveridge’s proposals.  Is this welfare statism the form of government we wish for the United States?  I think not!

 

Obama’s proposal will provide pre-school for babies from the mother’s womb to kindergarten.  In 1983, The Subhumans, a punk rock group, described such programs in the lyrics to their song, “From the Cradle to the Grave”.  “When they took you from your mothers’ wombs and put you in a school, Told you how to run your life by following the rules….Cos your father will tell you, Sonny, you must do as you are told!  And you’ll say the same thing to your kids when you’re 32 years old.  Your government will rule your mind and your mind will rule your heart.  You’ll conform to every social law and be the system’s slave.  From birth to school, from work to death, from cradle to the grave…..”

 

There is no question but after hearing all of the President’s nationalized pre-school   “giddy-ups”, we should be shouting emphatically “Whoa”.  President Obama justifies his pre-school from “the cradle to grave” by saying, “You know, study after study shows that the sooner a child begins learning, the better he or she does down the road”.  A quick review of some such studies reveals that many of them are questionable.  Many suffer from questionable designs, over-extended generalizations and failures to meet strict experimental procedures.  Most of the studies are correlational; that is generalizations are made based solely on B happened after A occurred, without any demonstration that A caused B.  As a result, no causal relationships were tested and importantly should not be implied!!  Some of the studies are replete with statements like “might have large effects”, “might enhance”, “might be difficult” and “…..it may have large dollar effects if it has larger effects on college degrees”.  Some of these studies purport to show that early pre-school experiences impact positively on incomes at middle age.  How in the world can all of the variables that impact conditions from pre-school to middle age be controlled?  They cannot!  So, let’s rein in a bit, Whoa.

 

The authors of a major study, Head Start Impact Study, Final Report, January 2010, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C., wrote “There is clear evidence that Head Start had an impact on children’s language and literacy development while children were in Head Start.  However, these early effects were no longer evident in elementary school....”  Whoa, again. 

 

Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services said in reaction to this report, “….for Head Start to achieve its full potential, we must improve its quality and promote high standards across all early-childhood programs”.  And Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said, “These results make it clear we need to build a more coordinated system of early care and education, and to focus on key improvements to teaching and learning in the early grades”.  Notice he did not say,  “preschool” or “head start”.

I cannot help but question what studies President Obama referred to when he said in his SOTU speech, “You know, study after study shows that the sooner a child begins learning the better he or she does down the road.”  Are President Obama, Secretary Sebelius and Secretary Duncan on the same page in the play book?

 

Whoa Mr. President, no to “From birth to school, to work to death, from the cradle to the grave….” programs.  It’s time to dismount.  Get off your high horse, sit down and study the Constitution of the United States, especially the 9^th and 10^th Amendments in case you have forgotten that the U.S. Constitution grants no authority over education to the federal government.  Education is not mentioned in the Constitution of the United States.  Therefore, see Amendment #10.

 

 

THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF A STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST

THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF A STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST

 

By

 

Dr. Jimmie R. Applegate

 

 

Constitutional Conservatives believe the “Founding Fathers” of the United States of America were guided by divine wisdom when they wrote the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the Constitution ratified in 1791 at the insistence of the Anti-Federalists who demanded the Constitution more clearly emphasize the endowed rights of individuals.  Constitutional Conservatives believe in the sanctity of these documents; that is, the documents mean exactly what they say, and that any contemporary interpretations must consider events, conditions and arguments made at the time they were ratified.  The 2^nd Amendment is a case in point.

 

The 2^nd Amendment is two lines long.  It is concise and to the point—“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.  This sounds like a simple statement meaning having and holding arms is an endowed right of the people that is not to be violated.

 

Unfortunately, all is not always as simple and clear cut as it appears.  So the remainder of this paper is a brief discussion of the background, the situation, the events and the discussions resulting in the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights in 1791.  The purpose of this section is to set the stage, describe the scenery and consider dialogue leading up to ratification.  In other words, the purpose is to interpret these formal events from the perspective of a Constitutional Conservative to justify a strict construction of the 2^nd Amendment.  The author contends the original intent of the 2^nd Amendment was to codify the right of individuals to keep and bear arms of sufficient quality and quantity to, if necessary, overthrow a government that was not functioning of, by and for the people collectively and individually.

 

By the late 1700’s the English colonists in the New World had a long history of keeping and bearing arms dating back to 880 A.D. during the rule of King Alford.  Threehundredfifty years later most Englishmen were accustomed to being armed voluntarily, either for self- protection or by a king’s decree.  So it is not surprising that by the middle 1500’s armed citizens were given the name “militias”.  The militias included all able bodied men.  They were not conscripted, not enlisted, not drilled and certainly not professional soldiers.  They were nothing more than citizens who kept and bore arms.

 

Disagreements over the power of kings versus that of Parliament resulted in conflict.  When the citizen militias refused to follow the orders of Parliament, Parliament created the “New Model Army” to replace the ineffective militias 130 years before the Revolutionary War and 146 years prior to the ratification of the Constitution.  Militias composed of all able bodied males just because they were citizens living in a specific part of the realm and who coalesced primarily for protection were replaced by professional soldiers who were conscripted, paid and trained as men of war. 

 

The preceding narrative set the stage for the Revolutionary War and the role militias played in English and Colonial American history.  It also describes the general understanding of their role in protecting liberty and freedom.  On April 18, 1775 at Lexington Green the shot “heard round the world” most likely was fired by a Minuteman.  The Massachusetts’s colony had taken the lead in creating an elite group of trained soldiers ready to engage an enemy at a minute’s notice, thus the name Minutemen.  It was a small group of “professional” Minutemen who faced the British at Lexington Green.  The Minutemen were an elite, well trained and armed force, whereas the militias remained as a rag tag group of untrained citizens.  These differences were exacerbated during the Revolutionary War as the fighting forces became more professional.  This was well known to the Founding Fathers and the framers of the Constitution.

 

The endowed right of citizens to keep and bear arms was the subject of many verbal and written comments during the ratification debates.  In Letters from the Federalist Farmer to the Republican, Richard Henry Lee argued that to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.  Patrick Henry argued “the great object is that every man be armed…Everyone who is able may have a gun”.  These same Anti-Federalists prevailed in the argument to add a “Bill of Rights” to the Constitution to include the 2^nd Amendment guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms.  The Anti-Federalists were not alone in their argument.  The Federalist, Daniel Webster, also argued “the real deterrent to governmental abuse is an armed population”.   James Madison, another Federalist, agreed “the real deterrent of governmental abuse is the armed population”.  A foremost Federalist, Alexander Hamilton, said, “the people retained the right to defend their political rights and possessed the means to do so” if their elected representatives failed them.  Both Anti-Federalists and Federalists agreed the people had a right to be armed and, not only that, but an armed populace was critical to the preservation of liberty.  (See, The Federalist Papers)

 

The arguments in favor of allowing the people to keep and bear arms were reinforced again and again in the state Constitutional Conventions to ratify the Constitution.  For example New York, New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina and Rhode Island ratified the Constitution with the understanding the people had a right to keep and bear arms and that Congress would never disarm law abiding citizens.

 

In summary, when the Constitution was ratified in 1791 the common understanding of the word “militia” in the 2^nd  Amendment was all able bodied male citizens who resided in the same geographic division (underline added for emphasis).  For example, the words “populace”, “population”, “the whole body of people”, “citizens” and “everyone” were used time and time again in place of the word militia.  Once an understanding of what militia meant in 1791 from the perspective of a strict constructionist of the Constitution, it is easier to put the meaning of the word into the context of the time in which it was written.  And after all, that is the purpose of this paper.

 

I leave you with these final words:

·       from George Mason:  “I ask, sir, what is the militia?  It is the whole people …..”

·       from Alexander Hamilton:  “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed”.

·       from Samuel Adams:  “That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms”.

·       from Thomas Jefferson:  “No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”

·       from Noah Webster:  “The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”.

 

 

Author’s note:

The author quoted freely from Vandercoy, David E., The History of the Second Amendment, Valparaiso University Law Review, 1994; and The Federalist Papers.

                       

ARE YOU A CONSTITUTIONAL CONSERVATIVE?

Are You A Constitutional Conservative?

by

Dr. Jimmie R. Applegate

HYPOTHESIS     A Constitutional Conservative is a Strict Constructionist of the Constitution of the United States

ARGUMENT       During the late 1700’s debates regarding the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, the Constitution of the United States of America and the Bill of Rights, the roles of the people, the states and the central government were clarified.  The rights of the people, individually and collectively, were paramount and extensive rights were given to the states.  The rights of the central, or national, government were limited to those enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights (Amendment 10).  This federal democratic form of government was a complete reversal of the European model of the sovereign right of kings.  The authors of the Federalist papers further clarified the inalienable rights of individuals.  Thus the model of the divine right of kingship was replaced by a form of government emphasizing rights of, by and for the people written “by the hand of divinity itself” (Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted 1775).

The Constitution and Bill of Rights of the United States of America are permanent documents to be changed only by amendments approved by the people (Article V).  These documents place strict limitations on the roles of the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches of government.  These limitations mean legislators cannot pass legislation that violates the Constitution or Bill of Rights; for example, the passage of gun control legislation that violates the Constitution’s 2^nd Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional.  Likewise, the Executive branch is required to enforce the laws of the land.  In fact the Presidential Oath includes these words, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” (Article II, Section 1).  When the chief law enforcement agencies declare “provisional unlawful waivers” to circumvent enforcing the laws regarding the presence of illegal aliens in the United States, that is a violation of law and of the President’s sworn duty to  “take care that the Laws be faithfully executed (Article II, Section 3).  Or when officers in the Executive branch confiscate earned wealth from some to “equalize” the position of others that is a constitutional violation regardless of what it is called.  It may be called a “right” or claimed that it is “fair”, but in reality it is stealing from “makers” to redistribute wealth to “takers” in exchange for power and votes.  The Estate Tax is a blatant example of “taxation without representation”.  It is outright confiscation of one’s personal property, on which taxes already have been paid, to impose another tax on it upon the owner’s death.  It is no wonder that when a property owner is taxed after death the confiscation of personal property is called a “Death Tax”.  The creation of an “inalienable entitlement right” mentality by such actions likewise is a potential violation because the increasing demand for entitlements results in increased taxation and other forms of property confiscation to redistribute wealth from those who worked to earn it to those who did not.

The members of the Legislative branch must reduce spending to balance the budget.  A necessary first step is to limit the national debt by refusing the demands of the Executive branch to raise the cap on the debt ceiling.  If the debt ceiling is not capped the inalienable rights of our children and grandchildren to their “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”—the key word  here is “pursuit”—as they desire will continue to be stolen to meet the current insatiable demand for additional revenue so we can maintain the good life at their expense.

The members of the Judicial branch are not immune.  Activist judges and attorneys who utilize the courts to interpret the Constitution to promote social and political philosophies are just as guilty of violating the Constitution as are the members of the other two branches of government.

Constitutional Conservatives believe in America.  They are Americans, the majority of who grew up and were educated in a “melting pot” America.  They are Americans, not “hyphenated” Americans.  They believe in one America, and the principles that made it exceptional.

SUMMARY           Constitutional Conservatives believe in the principle of government by and for the people.  They hold dear the principle of a small central government with powers limited by the Constitution.  They believe what is earned belongs to those who have worked to earn it, and that it is the property owner’s right to determine its disposition be he alive or upon death.  They believe in assuming responsibility for the consequences of what you do or do not do.  And Constitutional Conservatives believe in living within available revenue.  They believe we have a spending problem and not a revenue problem.  They oppose ever increasing forms of taxation, confiscation of private property, the forced redistribution of wealth and raising the debt ceiling.  Constitutional Conservatives are Strict Constructivists of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  They believe these documents only can be changed by amendments approved by the people.

These principles are sacrosanct.  They are not to be interpreted, abolished or diluted to fulfill “politically correct” promises or actions.  And they are exceptional, just like America and Americans.

SOCIALISM IN THE UNITED STATES?

SOCIALISM IN THE UNITED STATES?

By

Dr. Jimmie R. Applegate

 It has been said “there are two places only where socialism will work; in heaven where it is not needed, and in hell where they already have it”

If socialism is so hellish, why are liberal progressive philosophies and entitlement programs attractive to, and supported by, so many? 

 Socialism is a political philosophy in which it is believed government should own the means of production and distribution of goods.  It is a political philosophy where government is responsible to ensure everyone in society according to their needs receives subsidized food, housing, education and health care.  These entitlements and other “social justice” programs are paid for by massive taxation to redistribute wealth from those who have to those who have not.  Entitlements provided by government with the people’s money have become so pervasive they indeed are claimed by many as “civil rights” due and guaranteed to everyone. 

 In reality, they develop individual and family dependence on the federal government which in turn creates an electorate demanding ever increasing entitlements and subsidies.  When more people in the electorate receive entitlements than pay income taxes and become ever more loud and challenging in their demands elected politicians will not pay attention to the cries of taxpayers to balance the budget by limiting spending.

 Dependence is further encouraged when the amount of per capita disposable income working Americans have is less than the per capita financial and non- financial government support received by those dependent on government assistance.  William Beach and Patrick Tyrrell, in The 2012 Index of Dependence on Government reported that those on government assistance in 2010 received $302 more in government assistance and support than the average per capita disposable income of Americans.  When those receiving government assistance have more to spend than working Americans, why should they work?  It is time to hold elected politicians and bureaucratic appointees responsible for such situations.  Tea Party activists, to their credit, have attempted to do so with politicians who ran on platforms that included promises to reduce the federal debt.  However the cacophony from the left has been tumultuous.

Beach and Tyrrell reported that more than fifteen times the resources were committed in 2010 to people dependent on government largesse than were committed in 1962.  They also report that the number of people who do not pay federal income tax increased from 34.8M (14.8%) in 1984 to 151.7M (49.5%) in 2009.  The United States is at a watershed where the number of people paying to support others is decreasing while the number of people demanding support is increasing.  Beach and Tyrrell believe “….the root of the problems produced by the great and growing debt lie in the spending behaviors of the federal government…One such significant area of rapid growth is those programs that create economic and social dependence on government”.  Generations of Americans have been given names that describe who and what they are.  Most of us are familiar with names like “Greatest Generation”, “GI Generation”, “Silent Generation”, “Baby Boomers” and “Generations X, Y and Z”.  The name which best describes current generations is “ Dependent Generation”.

 If the electorate is serious about reducing the debt we must elect conservative politicians who, if elected, will practice what they preached while seeking office.  Once they are elected we must follow up and demonstrate our seriousness by holding their feet to the fire.  In today’s political climate, “it is OK to just say NO!” and mean it.  Tea Party activists have provided a good model to follow.

RESPONSIBLITY! WHAT'S THAT?

RESPONSIBILITY!  WHAT’S THAT?

By

Dr. Jimmie R. Applegate

“When you accept responsibility for your life it means that every single success and failure is because of your actions, and this very fact is often what causes people to keep the ‘victim’ mentality for so long. As a ‘victim’, your failures are never your fault; they are always caused by others and allows your ego to feel safe behind a wall of lies. It takes guts and courage to take responsibility for your own actions, to stop hiding behind the ‘victim’ mentality that keeps you safe from the reality that the reason your life sucks is because of you.”  Author Unknown.

The author summed the content of these two paragraphs in the final nine words, “…..the reason your life sucks is because of you.”    Eleanor Roosevelt said the same thing in ten words, “And the choices we make are ultimately our own responsibility.”  I will shorten the summary to three words, “Responsibility follows Choices.”  My thesis in this post is that if you believe your life sucks, it is because you have not accepted responsibility for the consequences that resulted from the decisions you made.  If not you, who is responsible for your decision should your dollar bet or sweat equity investment not return your anticipated financial expectations?  Excuses like “But I wanted it”, or “I needed it” do not cut the mustard.  Neither does playing the blame game with statements such as “It wasn’t my fault” or the amorphous “They caused it”.

The recent $26B mortgage foreclosure deal approved by most states and five banks is a prime example blaming banks for poor decisions that resulted in negative consequences when the housing bubble burst.  Sure some banks did not practice due diligence in verifying the information submitted by applicants when they robo-signed the documents.  But wait a minute, sloppy banking practices were unofficially encouraged by Senator Chris Dodd and Representative Barney Frank who did not discourage cheap money and less than effective business practices by arguing their support of easy money was because of their belief that home ownership is a civil right and many, particularly low-income Americans, were being denied that right.  Banks blame congressional encouragement for suspect home loans.  And Americans who borrowed the money dangled in front of them say they were deceived and tricked into signing documents they knew nothing about.  “I didn’t understand what I was signing”, “No one advised me not to borrow $100K with no collateral”, “It’s not my fault”, or “I thought I could sell the house for profit” were common excuses.  Do any of them sound like “hiding behind the ‘victim’ mentality that keeps you safe from the reality that the reason your life sucks is because of you’?  They all should!  Unfortunately many Americans have become practitioners of the art of being a victim.

Another example of using the “victim” mentality strategy while playing the blame game is taking place as I write this on the Pine Ridge Reservation.  The Oglala Sioux tribe filed a $500M suit against several large brewers, distributors and merchants for “knowingly contributing” to alcohol related problems on the Reservation.  Alcoholism apparently is rampant among the 20,000 tribal members.  But individual alcoholics are not to blame for their addiction because the brewers made the alcohol available for purchase off, but near the Reservation.  “It’s not my fault”, “They made it easily available to me”.  Sound familiar?

A similar suit was filed, and won, by 46 states against the tobacco industry in 1998.  The tobacco industry agreed to pay more than $206B because as Mississippi Attorney General Michael Moore argued “’[The] lawsuit is premised on a simple notion: you caused the health crisis; you pay for it.”’  Previous lawsuits filed by individuals against the tobacco industry failed because  the industry took the position that the individuals were personally responsible for their addiction.  It is important to note that when the industry was sued by the states because of the health crises they were alleged to have caused, the states won, but when individuals sued they lost because the industry argued the plaintiffs were personally responsible for their decisions.  Evidently the personal responsibility for the decision to buy and smoke tobacco products that lead to sickness and death is of lesser importance than blaming the tobacco industry for making tobacco products available.  I can hear the cries “It’s not my fault”, “They  caused me to get addicted”, “They made and sold cigarettes knowing once I started smoking I wouldn’t be able to stop”.  When individuals are not held responsible for the conditions of their lives and instead are lumped into a class action lawsuit, personal responsibility becomes irrelevant.

Similar blame games are played at the federal level with illegal aliens caught in the middle.  Several states and multiple individuals and groups oppose the influx of illegal aliens while Homeland Security and the Department of Justice do not enforce the immigration laws of the United States.  Not only are the laws not enforced but government agencies reinforce the illegal actions of aliens crossing the border from the South.  Illegal aliens who file tax returns claiming a refundable credit are paid a $1,000 tax credit per child.  So not only don’t they pay any income tax, but they receive an outright gift per child.  The Treasury Department estimates that in the 2010 tax filing year more than $4B in child credits went to 2.3 million people who filed tax returns without social security numbers to “prove” they were US citizens or legal immigrants.

Given this background do you suppose the illegal aliens accept personal responsibility for “a life that sucks”?  Of course not, and why should they when they find themselves in a no man’s land with a convenient scapegoat.  “I’m not responsible for the child credit refund, or the “free” doctor and hospital care, or the “free” and reduced lunch programs or the English as a Second Language programs”.  “I am not responsible for the failure to verify my immigration status”.  “I’m not responsible for being paid in cash under the table” and “Like everyone else I know, I’m just accepting what is given to me for the asking”.

Sound familiar?  It should because it reinforces that ‘’’hiding behind the ‘victim’ mentality keeps you safe from the reality that the reason your life sucks is because of you”’.  The United States needs a resurgence of independence, self-reliance, individualism and the “I can. I can. I know I can” spirit that made America great and Americans exceptional.

WASHINGTON'S FUTURE: BOOM OR BUST?

WASHINGTON’S FUTURE:  BUST OR BOOM?

By

 



Dr. Jimmie R. Applegate

The Washington State Legislature was gaveled to order on January 9, 2012 to begin a 60 calendar day session that is scheduled to end March 8, 2012.  As I write this 23 days, or more than one-third, of the session has passed without overt consideration given to the major problems facing the legislators.  To be fair, perhaps more is going on behind closed doors than I am aware of.  I certainly hope so.

The first third of the session has been devoted to general “legislating”.  The 9^th and 10^th Congressional Districts were gerrymandered by racial profile to create a majority-minority district.  And the 15^th Legislative District likewise was racially gerrymandered to create a majority-minority district.  The Legislature had an opportunity to correct such profiling but did not do so.  Instead Hearings have been convened on HB2612 and SB6318 to “push” cities, counties and school districts to switch from at large to district elections in areas of large minority groups.  HB2568 to prohibit the mandatory use of E-Verify to verify the immigration status of potential employees is under consideration.  And Hearings, discussions and negotiations of HB2516 and SB6239 are underway to permit same sex marriage vows in Washington. 

As important as these issues are to some, one third of the session has been completed without public action taken on the major problems confronting the state.  Among them are those caused primarily by gang members or “gang wannabes”.  Drive by shootings, street shootings, car-jackings and home invasions are out-of-control in many cities and other parts of the state.  The drug cartel warfare in Mexico is the Godfather of the gang warfare in Washington.  Law abiding citizens are purchasing concealed weapons permits in ever increasing numbers.  Legislative action must be taken on critical issues sooner rather than later.

The Washington State Supreme Court recently ruled that Washington is not meeting the challenge of funding education as a primary responsibility of the state as written in Article lX, Section 1 Preamble, of the Washington State Constitution thus: “It is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders….”.  Two professors from the University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education recently described the status of higher education in Washington as suffering from a “leadership vacuum”.  (Finney, Joan and Perna, Laura, “State Policy Leadership Vacuum Performance and Policy in Washington Higher Education”, Graduate School of Education, University of Pennsylvania, January, 2012).  In a later interview with the Associated Press, Finney said, “The citizens really should demand better from their elected officials”.  For example, 10 years ago higher education students paid 20% of tuition costs.  Now they pay 70% and it is climbing.

Instead of acting on these, and other critical problems, legislators have received I-502 to legalize the recreational use of marijuana for consideration.  However they also are considering an anti-gang bill (HB2594) with the provision to allow courts to appoint an attorney for those suspected of being gang members who want to contest the charges against them.  HB2432 provides $6 million for gang prevention grants.  If suspected gang members are provided court appointed attorneys, consider the potential log jam in the courts.  You saw it here first, but I won’t say I told you so.

I saved the worst example of apparent legislative dereliction of responsibility for last.  The economies of the United States and Washington are struggling to recover from the Great Recession.  As of January 27, 2012 the total debt per US citizen was $180,634 and the total debt per family was $683,692 while savings per family amounted to a mere $4,608.  Not to be outdone, the Washington State Debt Clock shows a total debt of $67,804,087,250 with a total revenue of $57,456,932,000.  As a result of the state’s economic problems Fitch, one of three major companies that rate debt, changed Washington’s rating from “stable” to “negative”.  Washington is facing a shortfall of $1.5 billion in the 2011-13 budget.  Washington has had a budget shortfall four years in a row and the state’s debt according to Fitch is “well above average” debt levels for individual states.  But wait, there is more!  Two public employees and teacher’s pension plans (PERS and TRS1) are closed but underfunded with an actuarial liability of $4.7 billion. 

And the legislators continue twiddling their thumbs as they have for one-third of the session in Olympia.  Should this “twiddling” continue until March 8, the next step will be for the governor to call a special session because primary legislative responsibilities were not met during the regular session.

Washington is long past the point where playing financial games and using slight of hand maneuvers to correct budget problems is acceptable.  Legislators must reduce expenditures by meaningful real time action.  No more fudging by shuffling funds around, delaying payments by the month or year or calling funds not appropriated or spent by delaying the implementation of programs “dollars saved” as is common practice in Olympia speak.  Legislators must handle the state’s budget the way most citizens handle their personal family budgets by not spending more than they have available.  They must recognize that Washington has a spending problem and they must cut spending, as distasteful as that may be, until the revenue picture improves.  As Finney said, “The citizens really should demand better from their elected officials”.

I can empathize with the Oysters in “The Walrus and the Carpenter” by Lewis Carroll.  The Oysters put their trust in the glad and glorious greetings comments of “all is well” by the Walrus and the Carpenter who convinced them that life was good.  But here is what happened to those Oysters who believed that all is well.

"I weep for you," the Walrus said:
"I deeply sympathize."
With sobs and tears he sorted out
Those of the largest size,
Holding his pocket-handkerchief
Before his streaming eyes.

"O Oysters," said the Carpenter,
"You've had a pleasant run!
Shall we be trotting home again?'
But answer came there none--
And this was scarcely odd, because
They'd eaten every one.

We can gnash our teeth and wail all we want, but if action is not taken, and taken now, to reduce the debt by controlling spending due to the deceit of desires, we will have consumed the economic future of our children and grandchildren to satisfy our unbridled indulgence in and demand for ever more governmental largesse.  Wailing, gnashing of teeth and running for the proverbial pitchforks be damned!

POTUS AND THE SOTU: A PSYCHEDELIC DREAM

POTUS AND THE SOTU: A PSYCHEDELIC DREAM

By

Dr. Jimmie R. Applegate

Tuesday night the American public had a rare opportunity to view a climactic battle between POTUS’ Id (instincts and pleasure) and his Superego (perfection and moral judgments).  I wonder if the president had a plate of magic mushrooms full of the psychedelic drug psilocybin for dinner.  He must have because his Id with a wish list of programs seeking pleasure and immediate gratification was running rampant over his Superego seeking details of any perfection and moral judgment present in his comments.  It is a good thing he has a huge Ego that, according to Freud, would have been severely challenged in attempts to resolve the conflicts.

President Obama delivered his populist SOTU address to Congress and the American people under the title “Built to Last”.  His 65 minute presentation was typical Obamanesque; that is, his reading of the teleprompter was masterful.  I would have appreciated the opportunity to slip a page on the teleprompter with these words, “OK, Mr. President.  Now you are on your own. Goodbye!”.

I heard a rehash of his Id’s Messianic 2008 campaign that was focused on hope and change with emphases on “We can do it” and “Now is the time”.  President Obama stated clearly that the necessary changes he proposed depended on the liberal progressive—some would say, socialistic—growth of the federal government to ensure we all share alike and benefit equally in the American Dream by redistributing wealth from those who have earned it to those who have not.

I remember a saying that went around junior high school boys in the early 1950’s.  We wanted to meet and date a communist’s daughter because she believed in share and share alike and we thought all could “get a little”.   The SOTU reminded me of that because of its emphasis on government determined equality and controlled share and share alike.

President Obama dared not focus on his abysmal record of fulfilling his 2008 promises of hope and change, or on his personal approval rating.  Instead he subjected us for 65 minutes to a 2012 Campaign Kickoff that once again focused on the populist emphases of hope and change for increased government growth and control of the distribution of wealth from the haves to the so-called have nots so everyone gets a little just like the communist’s daughter.  Obama’s speech was a casting call for Americans to play roles in his rerun of “Psychedelic Dreams”.  No need to worry though.  Since there is no competition for the roles, there isn't any work required.  All you need to do is believe in hope and change to make your dreams become reality.

The socialist philosophy hasn’t changed much in 60 years except today we are fighting the communistic share and share alike philosophy on our shores and, of all places, in the White House.  The 2012 election will be a water shed election to determine the direction of the United States for coming generations.  I do not want to tell my children and grandchildren that I stood by and did nothing.  Do you?