BASIC WORDS, BASIC DUTIES

Rumors persist that President Obama readies executive action to help illegal aliens stay in the United States, a move contemplated despite midterm election results. People who revere the Constitution fear he will try to subvert that sacred charter. It seems, even among those supporting him, such declarations risk legal rebuke.

Set aside deep concern about constitutional subversions dating back to both Roosevelts. Executive orders are now the subject of debate over their constitutionality.

Rereading the Constitution on the legislative and executive branches of government, Articles I and II, show that the second article on the presidency is half the length of the first. Article III, listing the powers of the Supreme Court and “inferior courts” that Congress might create, is fourth as long as the second.

Most of the words in all three articles are devoted to the mechanics of setting up those branches; listing of the powers granted are brief, which is fitting for a document establishing – forming -- a government. “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” (The remainder of Section 1 of the article where the quoted words appear covers the elector system and how that is to be set up; residential requirements, minimum age, successor in case of vacancy, compensation, oath text. That much covers about half of the article.)

ü  Section 2 says the “President shall be Commander in Chief” of army, navy and state militias when called;

ü  He “may require the Opinions, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments” on subjects under their duty;

ü  “Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against” the U.S., but not for impeachments.

ü  Power with the “Advice and Consent of the Senate” to make treaties, appoint with two-thirds approval “Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and other Officers of the United States” appointed, under law, to head courts and departments.

ü  Power to fill vacancies that happen “during the Recess of the Senate” till the next session.

ü  Section 3 says he “shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union” and recommend bills “he shall judge necessary and expedient.”

ü  Power to call special sessions of Congress or either house and set time for adjournment.

ü  He “shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers;

ü  “[He] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.”

(Section 4 provides for the removal of the president and vice president “from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Four of the 26 amendments to the Constitution affect the presidency by [XX] changing the date of the inauguration, [XXII] limiting terms, [XXIII] permitting District of Columbia citizens to vote for president, and [XXV] changing the order of succession.)

No duty is left out of the nine listed above. A full quotation of Sections 2-4 would not be very much longer. The point is that the duties of the U.S. president are truly limited constitutionally.

Duties set out in the 1787 Constitution for the Congress are just as pithy as for those of the president. But the torrent of laws (not to mention through the flume of administrative rules) since the New Deal of FDR is unfathomable. This legal flood has muddied presidential waters as well as clouding the perception of presidential powers.

Arguing what should have been since 1787 is futile. But if that charter remains fundamental, opportunity exists within its basic framework to shape a workable government envisioned by that oft-quoted preamble: “We the People of the United States . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.”

Regardless of one’s political stance, there is no dispute that President Obama issued a number of executive orders that ignore Congress. Obama has brandished his willingness to act if Congress won’t. He obviously believes his goals are right, and he should not be hampered activating his desires.

Congress, despite its dependence upon human weakness and folly, is there constitutionally to incorporate the will of the country’s citizens in governing themselves. Theory holds that enough common sense exists to form government that works. That theory has not been disproved entirely. Hope is alive although as a one-word campaign slogan hope’s verity has been stressed.

Paring back presidential powers to those enumerated in the Constitution will not, probably cannot, be realized. Yet, yearning for each governmental branch to counter the other two is not beyond reason, not wild-eyed right wing extremism. Partisanship should be confined to debate over how best provide wellbeing of citizens. Those very citizens select the men and women who are supposed to operate under those first two articles of the country’s basic document. Simple, yes, but ingenious.

KO PC PDQ

Vice President Joe Biden got into trouble with the political police recently for referring to the “Orient.” He should have said “Asia,” the correctors said.

A letter writer told the Washington Post that the paper was wrong for citing Biden’s remark as insensitive to those who would control his as well as the speech of others. Orient is a perfectly good word, the writer argued, giving some good examples, including contrasting it with Occidental. East and West are the accepted definitions, referring to the areas east of the Mediterranean and Red Sea, and to the Western Hemisphere and (surprise) Europe. Other definitions would cover the area from India on to the Philippines for the Orient. Often, of course, the terms Near East and Far East are used to cover the great expanse of Asia.

But, hold on! Orient is offensive to some people, so one dare not use the term.

Who says so?

The true question is: Who arbitrates what constitutes political correctness?

No person, no one group can be cited. There is no authority for political correctness. The press in its broadest sense, however, carries water for the cause, which is espoused by those with pet peeves.

PC is the construct of unidentified persuaders that wish, ultimately, to control speech --- public and private – and the thoughts behind it.

People intent upon communicating with each other – regardless of medium – must not allow such manipulation for their own good. They must not dodge politically incorrect conclusions expressed fearlessly. That is the sum and substance of the rejection of political correct speech.

But someone might be offended!

That is the summation of the defense of political correctness. But is that defense used by, let’s suppose, those without social agendas? One can hardly have much self-confidence if easily offended. Or, one’s high regard for self must lord over the pitifulness of less-educated creatures.

Google listed search requests it had received for the politically correct substitutes for “third world country” “midget”  “retarded” “handicapped” “native american” [sic] “deaf” “homeless” and “poor”.  The list itself indicates the problem. Those words or terms, with the exception of the PC term for the original American Indian, are descriptive without insinuations one way or the other, and were for centuries.

But there are long-standing, effective regulators of speech. Courtesy. Good manners. Etiquette.

Racial slurs have existed forever and are of a different order. That does not make them right or acceptable. People of “good breeding” – to use an old cliché – would not use them. If they did, they meant to offend; they were – and are -- prejudiced. Some are still with us, whether cultured or “white trash.” (Is that politically or socially incorrect? As an aside, racial or ethnic jokes once were enjoyed, even on network TV, without rancor.) Real slurs transcend social acceptance and should be criticized.

Intention is everything. Intention is controlling in criminal law. Intention is controlling in determination of sin. Intention is considered by people of good will in their dealings with others.

Good ol’ Joe Biden undoubtedly did not intend to hurt anyone, but . . .

Intention is completely ignored by those wishing to police the language of others. Look at the public figures whose futures have been completely changed by some word or phrase. Use alone doomed these people. Their apologies went for nil. Their livelihoods were endangered.

No need to prove them guilty of a deliberate wish to offend. Maybe some did so deliberately, but proof was not required. Some spoke in private. One who did speak in private is said to suffer dementia. Without benefit of legal charges, trial, or judgment he lost membership in a sports league and was forced (the law was involved, but not regarding his speech) to rid himself of the franchise. Two billion dollars was involved.

Names of those punished for their words could be run off at this point. The purpose here is not to argue particular cases of political incorrectness. The purpose is to argue consequences of this growing, encompassing problem.

Newspeak, according to Wikipedia, is “a controlled language created by the totalitarian state as a tool to limit freedom of thought.” This fictional language was the work of George Orwell in his novel, Nineteen Eighty Four. But politically correct speech is becoming compulsory in the United States and elsewhere in what had become to be known as the Free World.

Compulsion should be feared and combatted. Especially when government barks.

E-cigarettes may offer a good example without getting into the frightening possibility of totalitarianism. Tobacco smoking is now prohibited by governmental regulation in nearly every place of public accommodation and sometime in public spaces in and out of doors. The harm of smoking was perceived long before public opinion developed overwhelming against it. The phrase “coffin nails” dates back to the 19^th century. The surgeon general’s report in 1964 led to widespread criticism of smoking and to many smokers quitting. Then arrived advertising limitations and warnings on packages, outright bans on smoking in public, even threats of prohibiting puffing in one’s own castle. So, e-cigarettes, which contain nicotine but no tobacco, are being targeted by people who would control other people’s behavior.

And by the way, many of those same would-be controllers probably are perfectly willing to see marijuana legalized, as has been done in Colorado and Washington. Some 20 other states and the District of Columbia have some form of medically approved cannabis or other relaxed regulations on its use. The recognized health dangers of marijuana use bring little concern among its supporters.

A leader of the campaign against tobacco was behind an effort to get the Federal Communications Commission to deny broadcast licenses to stations using the name “Redskins” in referring to the Washington football team. And outside of government, Facebook surrendered in permitting drag queens to use their professional names instead of legal names on their sites.

PC regulation is both governmental and private. Enforcement, in general, is through attempted embarrassment.

Regardless of partisan views, a majority of citizens would – at least for the time being – oppose governmental imposition of speech controls. Not everyone realizes constitutional recognition of the rights to freedom of speech, communication (press), assembly and petition for redress of grievances are there to protect citizens from their government, not mention religion. We count on elected officeholders and, in turn, those appointed carry out policies or to judge acts as protectors of those rights.

Still protection of free speech calls for individual strength. One must not cower before those who would tell us how to express our thoughts.

What might happen when standing up for what is right?

Early in his chapter entitled “Take Courage,” Ben Carson in One Nation asks four questions about standing up to political correctness. What are the best and worst things to happen from taking action, and from not taking action? He writes:

  Let’s consider these questions with respect to being courageous enough to go against the flow of political correctness and demand your constitutional rights. What is the best thing that happens if we refuse to abide by the dictates of political correctness? I believe that we could return to a nation that truly cherishes freedom of speech and freedom of expression. A nation where people are unafraid to express their opinions and beliefs are eager to engage in intelligent and constructive conversations about their differences. A nation where we value even those with whom we disagree and work together to accomplish common goals.
  What is the worst thing that happens if we oppose political correctness? I believe that every attempt would be made to silence those who oppose political correctness and to make examples of them to discourage others. World history demonstrates that it is very difficult to eradicate every single fighter for freedom.
  What is the best thing that happens if we don’t oppose political correctness? I believe we would achieve a very homogeneous society with little original thought but complete harmony. What is the worst thing that happens if we don’t oppose political correctness? I believe we could see a dictatorship with brutal domination of any individual or group that opposes the leadership. The worst things that can happen if we don’t take action are considerably worse than the worst things that can happen if we do take action. Therefore we must take action.

This is one man’s opinion. It is, however, reasonably argued and worth considering. But Dr. Carson is a controversial man because he has spoken and written his beliefs. His life’s story of rising from the Detroit ghetto to that of a famous neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins brought him to public attention. His attention to public affairs has brought him both praise and disparagement. His career and reputation are examples of the very thing he writes about above.

A quick history: Wikipedia says “politically correct” appears in a 1793 Supreme Court case where it merely means “in line with prevailing political thought or policy.” In the 1940s and ‘50s Socialists used the term pejoratively against the Communist “party line.” In 1970 Toni Cade wrote in The Black Woman, “A man cannot be politically correct and a chauvinist too.” William Safire cited that in his Safire’s Political Dictionary. The Wikipedia entry also cites conservatives criticizing leftists in academia in the latter part of the 20^th century.

The practice of calling for PC usage heated up in the last quarter century or so; the heat intensifies. More frequently public figures are being attacked for their lapses. Charges arise from various sources. Adjudication is practiced in the news media and by pundits rendering decisions. Businesses and organizations are imposing penalties.

One even may be corrected in ordinary talk by another guzzler over a beer.

Efforts to control what others say, browbeating them into a construction perceived acceptable for some real or fancied cause, should not be tolerated. Such should be opposed with rigor and solid logic. Any elected official trying to enact political correctness in any form should be opposed at public hearings and at the polling place.

All opposition should be expressed in reasonable tones without rancor, but with anchor firmly set in the might of right. Start with friends and family.

HER HARDEST CHOICE

Astonishingly little has been said about a co-presidency should Hillary Clinton win the White House in 2016.

Mrs. Clinton’s book, “Hard Choices,” just published, is seen as an opening shot in her campaign for the presidency, despite demurs. She is the favorite in polls of Democrats.

Yet, how often is former President Bill Clinton, her spouse, mentioned as sharing the same roof should she succeed in winning what has been the most powerful office on earth?

Here is one quote on the subject:

“From day one of Hillary’s inauguration, Bill will have more experience than her on everything she touches,” wrote Charles Krauthammer on Nov. 2, 2007. Bill’s influence would be “immeasurably greater than that of any father on a son.” The columnist referred to John and John Quincy Adams and to George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush.

If she gains the nomination, surely her campaign would try brushing aside any question – or insinuation – that she would be subservient to her man. After all, she wasn’t going to stay in the White House and bake cookies, she said during the 1992 campaign.

Bill even huckstered: “. . . and you get two for the price of one” with his election. She was reputed among the smartest women in the world during that campaign. She later showed her worth by blowing an overhaul of the country’s health delivery system.

“Two for one vote.” “Experience Squared.” “Two peas in a pod.” “Billary and Hill.”

Well, Hillary won’t use such slogans. But Republicans will, ironically.

A few Americans might be inspired to vote for two presidents joined by a marriage license. Bill and Hill would hardly campaign for traditional marriage. Theirs has not been such. And their party is clearly opposed to maintaining one man/one woman as the legal standard for nuptials.

They could divorce, then cohabitate as President Rodham and William Jefferson Clinton.

Even then, every policy or pronouncement to come out of the Oval Office would be subjected to this query: Whose decision, actually?

If elected her hardest choice would be in telling Bill to keep his opinions to himself.

Indeed, she would be the first woman ever elected president of the United States of America. Would that be a clean victory for her gender, or for her surname?

Would the First Husband – America’s consummate politician – really be content to supervise the social secretary and the pastry chef? “First Husband” hardly seems a truly descriptive sobriquet.

Who would be president?

"TAKE ME OUT WITH THE CROWD"

Why was – and should be again – baseball “America’s pastime”?

Last night’s game ended in excitement that is hard to beat by any form of entertainment. That’s why.

It matters not where or when or by whom. That’s why no names are used here.*

Leading 5-2, the Home Team went down in order in the bottom of the eighth. A happy ending appeared certain as the Visitors’ bottom of the order came to bat in the top of the ninth. True to baseball’ statistical expectations, outfield flies were caught for outs one and two. The closer was doing his job.

As the top of the order came up, fans were disappointed as batter three got a base-on-balls.

Still another and greater disappointment: pitcher and catcher allow the runner to advance. Then, another walk!

Drama builds. The Visitor’s leading hitter with a .355 average toes the plate. The crowd, on its feet, makes the noise the Home Team wants. Unrelenting cheers.

Back of the plate the umpire lets the balls speak for themselves; calls the strikes. Foul balls speak for themselves. Tension grows. The crowd increases its noise. The count stands at 3 and 2.

The winning run – unthinkable ten minutes before – would cross home plate with a homer.

Just one more pitch could do it. There were several (real fans know the number, even now).

POW! A shot heads for the right field fence.

All eyes and head follow the low arc.

The right fielder jumps.

His glove reaches above the fence railing.

It gets in between a nanosecond before the ball can cross the fence.

The ball sticks in the fielder’s glove as his feet hit the ground.

Crowd noise explodes to eardrum bursting.

Another win to keeps the Home Team’s record above the .500 mark.

One hundred and 121 games to go. More thrills to come, whether on TV or, better, at the park with a hotdog and a beer to wash it down.

* For the record: Mets at Nationals, 5/16/14.

DO WE WANT BABIES TO VOTE?

Bill Clinton suggests it might be a good idea to put photos on Social Security cards, which would make photo-ID more acceptable to insure fraud-free voting.

Several people leaped to his support. Some, however, noted that such a change could lead to a national identification card, which is questioned by concerned people up and down the political spectrum.

Did anyone, however, point out the obvious reason not to mess SS cards?

Many of them are issued to infants. What good would photographs do when the little one grows old enough to exercise the franchise?

Social Security cards were intended to last for life. They were meant only for a hand-up for retirement. And, by the way, no one was ever to know your SSN for any reason other than employers – as an example – for assuring credit was made to the holder’s account.

When I got my card at age 15 in 1942, a bare six years after the law became effective in 1936, I was told to hold my number in strictest confidence.  Now, every merchant granting credit has it, among many others.

So, were photos now to be added to that card – now worn and nearly tattered (oh yes, by law a holder may not enfold his card in plastic for preservation) – it would have to be a new card. For younger people, cards would need to be reissued with new photos many times to keep them useful.

Something simple practicality such as the need for many updates of cards is just overlooked, or it would seem from press reports.  

Nonetheless, it is good that needed safeguards for restricting voting to citizens is recognized in some unexpected quarters.

Eh? Yeah, I guess Clinton’s suggestion implied citizenship.

STRIKE OR STUDY

His ruling may not stand, but the National Labor Relations Board Chicago director’s decision that Northwestern University football players can unionize could change college sports for a long time to come.

Say that the NLRB preliminary stand prevails, someday every college athlete, regardless of sport or sex, or attendance at a private or a public school would be a professional. Higher education institutions would become the minors for the NFL, MLB, NHL and so on and so on. There would be students and athletic employees on each campus. Maybe the union members would be required to attend class only because tuition was part of their pay. Would they even have to study and earn degrees?

Would Siwash U still live in the memories of old grads and their estate plans? Would alumni gather on Friday nights for pep rallies? Would famous All-Americans playing for the Packers or the Giants or whomever stand on the sidelines Saturday afternoons cheering on paid performers rather than undergrads?

Of course, everybody from local brew swillers to vintage connoisseurs will still go nuts when their squad wins the Lombardi trophy. Some will still go to the AAA ball yards to watch future big leaguers. And high school football in Texas will bring out rabid fans on Friday nights. Indiana high schools will still see their gym’s stands rocking on game nights.

But will college students, who have to pay extra student fees for game tickets, attach themselves to fellow “students” that draw paychecks for the supposed glory of Old Siwash? Would not the tuition-payers wonder whether or not the employee representing their would-be alma mater might jump ship for a pay hike? And parents --- those with kids making money while enrolled in college would be more grateful than present parents of sport-scholarship holders; those just paying tuition for a kid hoping to get a good job after graduation might feel different about laying out all that money.

So what? College sports, particularly big time football and Sweet Sixteen basketball contenders, already have national stars with followings not unlike those of National Football League luminaries and National Basketball League bling bearers.

Three questions:

·        Will fans dig deeper for higher college sports tickets?

·        Will alumni and alumnae still generate the same nostalgia for their schools?

·        Will paid athletes that don’t win jobs with professional teams after four years be left in the lurch?

Paying so-called students who perform in the athletic arenas – ones who probably will strike if their playing conditions and paychecks are not improved frequently – will drastically alter the way Americans have looked at college sports for more than a century now.

Professionalism will also turn athletic directors into a new form of entrepreneur. Head coaches, already making far more than their university-president bosses, probably won’t change as much, other than their attitude toward their charges, who will become more like chattel than future societal leaders.

Or – maybe, just maybe – universities that have actually paid off the mortgages on those giant stadia and field houses would revert to true amateurism in sports. That would prove refreshing. Young athletes could gain admission and then try to “walk on” to the pigskin squad and relish representing Siwash against State and the other teams in a regional conference whose name did not stretch geographic definitions.

Top players could still graduate into the pros.

That would refresh academe.

A-Z ALLITERATIONS

Apple analogies always annoy Android.

Bankers bank Bitcoins before bankruptcy.

Can cantankerous Camels conquer cancer?

Damaging damns during draining diatribes deemed dangerous.

Engaging engineers entwine exigencies exiting energy exercises.

Freakin’ fabrications foil faithful fable fosterers.

Great globs glue gleaming gastronomical gizmos.

High-strung Henrietta hails hack haltingly.

Instant iPhones instigate investigation.

Jelly jiggles joyfully joining junior’s jumper.

King Kong kicks Kipling’s kangaroo.

Lanky longshoreman lassoes loose llama.

Mawkish macaw masticates mate’s mash.

Noteworthy notaries nix nasturtium network.

Octopus occupies octogenarian’s ocarina.

Pius pensioner pushes pink pinafores.

Quaint quack quickens quivering quaff.

Roofer rips rompers razing ragtag ridgepole.

Silly Sally slips solecisms selling sports.

Titillating tattlers tender tall tales to tattletales.

Ukrainians unveil ukase undercutting unicorn understanding.

Valiant valet vaulted valley vanquishing Volker.

Washington wag wishes Walmart well whacking wage warriors.

Xavier Xeroxes Xmas X-Box.

Yankee yanked yak yesterday.

Zack zaps zinnia zombie.

ANNOYING ALPHABETIC ALLITERATIONS

Alliteration almost always amalgamates advocates avowing adverbial acrobatic antics anchoring aggravating announcements and adversarial aliens aligning any anecdotal apprehensions available. Ahem!

Basic babyhood begs boyhood ballyhoo before beguiling beautiful babe batting baby-blues bewitchingly.

Cough cancels Carl's conjoining Cheesehead chopsuey cohort conclave.

Doughnuts devour dollars delivering delicious delights deviously denying desirable derriere dimensions.

Easy enterprises exhaust electrifying elementary elocution emasculating energetic educational excellence exceedingly enervating enfeebled evasiveness.

Flat feet flabbergast fledgling fielders flagging flies falling fleetly from fouling fellers.

Giggling gigolos glare glowingly glad-handing gangling girls gaily gaining grotesque grams gradually.

Hens holding hands haltingly hear hollering hellions hanging halters heifers hate.

Izzy insists inking investment instrument instinctively involves instant insanity, insecurity indubitably.

Jazz junkies jamming jinx jerks juggling javelins joyfully jigging.

Kitchens keep ketchup kettles.

Look, Lizzie leaps leopards lazily lassoing lollygagging llamas.

Migrating moose mosey mountain-ward miming misunderstood mammals minding masticating minions.

Nostrums neither negate nor nettle notoriously negative nemeses.

Oleaginous onions offend oleomargarine operative.

Pallid pallbearer parades parquet preceding platypus planting,

Quaker qualms quiet quarrels.

Rally Rotarians render raucous rondos recounting racy reunion roguishness.

Sassy senorita sashays sideways sloshing Singapore Sling so senor senses serious sensibilities.

Tormented toreador treads tenderly tending tipping tequila toward tongue.

Unfortunate unctuous uncle understands unicycle union upsurge.

Vacuous vegetarian vandalizes veldt vouchsafed voluntarily.

Wacko weirdo wacked while watching Washington wastrels.

Xenophobe xerographs Xerxes’ X-ray.

Yahoo yanks yammering yeoman.

 Zany Zulu zaps zebra.

PENNIES EARNED

 

Is there one penny of governmental revenue that does not somehow originate in business?

Obviously, the answer is no.

At any level of government, from sewerage district to the federal establishment, business earnings pay all the bills (or build the debt), directly or indirectly. Yet, how often does a politician cite that basic tenant of government finance?

Seldom, if ever, it would seem.

Even truly non-profit enterprises, such as charities, raise money from people who have it. They pay salaries, which in turn are taxable. For-profit organizations sell products or offer services or combine both for money derived from customers, who get their money from working or from inheritance. But even inherited money had to come from work-produced income sometime.

Thinking caps can come up with no source not connected somehow with business. Even treasure uncovered from the earth or dredged from a sunken galleon somehow had to be derived from licit or even illicit work that was somehow taxed.

So does this mean entrepreneurship and business enterprise are always good. Again, obviously, not. Leaving criminality aside, not all legitimate businesses are ethical. That, also, is a given. Government has a place to oversee administration of justice in keeping business honest.

Elected and appointed governmental officials at all levels often show no acknowledgment of the true source of public revenue. How could they when they ignore deficits and debt in running – or ruining -- the machinery of government?

We citizens will get no relief from the oppressive governments we unwittingly have put into place until we demand through the ballot box our due.

Partisan politics has not been conducive to providing the commonweal. But we are stuck with it. Thus, we must pick and choose between candidates, regardless of the party flag they fly, to find those truly willing to work for the good of all rather than for a career slurping business-produced revenue for their personal egos.

Workable government, even if it might require more revenue, is dependent upon the golden egg of private enterprise. Protecting the goose is everyone’s concern. But force feeding the goose for political foie gras is not right, either. All that’s needed is to recognize that the healthy goose keeps laying eggs if permitted to range relatively free.

PLAYER OR REFEREE

Fifty years of war on poverty. Twenty trillion, 700 billion tax dollars spent. Poor people still some 14 percent of the population, meaning more now than in 1964.

LBJ, in declaring the war, said he wanted to replace poverty with jobs. Some tax “investment” was needed to accomplish that, he said. Lyndon Byrd Johnson was wrong. Barrack Hussein Obama is wrong in seeking to spend more and more on continuing the tax-funded “weapons” in that unending war.

Two real attacks, which might be called principles, could reduce poverty (poverty may never be eliminated because of the nature of humanity).

Teach youth Reading, ‘Riting and ‘Rithmatic.

Foster an economic climate that encourages business in all its form.

First, teaching is the job of parents, who must demand that schools do their jobs, too.

Secondly, voters must demand that government at all levels recognize the reality that each tax dollar is generated by private commerce, and that each dollar belongs to the governed not to the governors.

Putting those principles into effect will be pretty hard to do with the present climate in this country. The family is in trouble. Governmental functionaries think they know all the answers.

Voters must learn more facts. They must try to spread those facts. They must agitate.

Then they must vote the rascals out. They must vote in common sense people intent upon letting the American system work – imposing only meaningful restraints, eliminating the fanciful – for the benefit of all.

Rich, poor, middle class all can gain when government stops playing and just referees.