“If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster…”
by John Alexander Madison
February 22, 2010

“If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster and treat those two imposters just the same.”

These words, from Rudyard Kilping’s poem “If,” welcome every tennis player who has had the honor of walking on to the famed Centre Court at Wimbledon, England. They also help us distinguish between good and bad sportsmanship.

Repeat super combined downhill Gold medalist skier (2006 & 2010) Lindsey Vonn’s second medal at this year’s Winter Olympics in Vancouver, BC was awarded for her third place finish in the Super G event. Although favored to win, she was excited with her Bronze medal and, it should be noted, she was gracious in “defeat.”

In contrast, we have favored figure skating Gold medalist Evgeni Plushenko from Russia. If he had repeated his 2006 Gold medal winning effort after coming out of retirement the world would have appreciated and applauded his remarkable performance. Instead, I believe, most observers cheered his Gold medal loss. I certainly did. His lack of good sportsmanship (and arrogance) was exceeded only by that of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Kipling’s poem included this phrase too: “…And lose, and start again at your beginnings, And never breathe a word about your loss...” It’s quite apparent that Pluschenko never read Kipling or if he had, he didn’t learn a thing.

In a highlight of the first week of the 2010 Winter Olympics, Evan Lysacek became the first U.S. man to win the Olympic gold medal since Brian Boitano in 1988, by upsetting defending champion Evgeni Plushenko. But keep in mind, Evan is the reigning World Champion and he won his Olympic Gold medal by outskating the defending champion. He was humble and gracious in victory.

Kudos also to U.S. Olympics medalists Apollo Ohno, Julia Mancuso, Shani Davis, Hannah Teter, Chad Hedrick, Seth Wescott, Kelly Clark, Scotty Lago, Hannah Kearney, Andrew Weibrecht, Shannon Bahrke, J.R. Selski, Shaun White, Bode Miller, Bryon Wilson, and also to Magdalena Neuner (Germany), Andrea Fischbacher (Austria), Torah Bright (Australia), Mark Tuitert and Ireen Wust (The Netherlands), Simon Ammann (Switzerland), and so many other 2010 Olympians who had success in Vancouver while exhibiting great sportsmanship.

May the name Evgeni Plushenko be merely a footnote in history or perhaps his photo displayed in the dictionary next to the words “bad sportsmanship”, right next to Serena Williams (ref. U.S.Open 2009). They are both great athletes and, along with Tiger Woods and many professional athletes, spoiled brats. My advice to Evgeni: Go home and whine to Vlad…you’ll have a sympathetic ear.

To Olympic athletes from around the world, thank you for your years of training and dedication to your goals and for these two weeks of exceptional entertainment. But remember, there is more to life than sports. And good sportsmanship should apply in business, in government and in our everyday lives.

EPILOGUE

Do you know the origin of the phrase “It matters not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game”?

The expression about how one plays the game is a Greek historian’s fifth-century B.C. reference to the Olympians. He wrote, “tis not for Money they contend, but for Glory.” This resurfaced in1927 when sportswriter Grantland Rice wrote, “For when the great scorer comes to write against your name, He marks not that you won or lost but how you played the game.” Amen.

Footnote: Thirty years ago this Wednesday (Feb 24, 1980) the USA Hockey team defeated Finland (after a 4-3 semi-final win over Soviets) by a score of 4-2. Could another U.S. Gold medal victory be in the cards? On the one hand that would be nice. On the other hand, I’d hate to see a grown man (President Putin) cry, yet again.

Thanks for the memories Mike Eruzione, Jim Craig, Coach Herb Brooks, & Co.!

MASKED RADICALS

BY

ROBERT HARKINS

They may wear conservative masks. But a President or Congress is radical that intends the effacement of its Constitution or Sovereignty. In 1993, two teenaged girls walking home from school were captured, raped, beaten mercilessly and, even as they plead for their lives, were strangled to death by the illegal alien Jose Ernesto Medellin and his gang. Medellin, engaged at the time in the rites of gang initiation, celebrated rape, torture and murder with his friends. When arrested he blithely confessed.

Displaying no remorse whatsoever, he admitted to gang-raping, both girls, and he described how they pleaded for their lives before he stomped on one girl’s neck and strangled them both with a shoelace and a belt.[1]

Medellin was appointed counsel and a jury found him guilty of murder. While technically a Mexican citizen by birth, Medellin had spent most of his life in the United States. He was given an American education. He speaks English fluently. Four years following his conviction, he appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, alleging that as a Mexican citizen he was entitled— pursuant to the Protocols of the Vienna Convention—to confer with a Mexican consulate following his arrest in a foreign country. (The foreign country he referred to was America). He argued that as he was not accorded this right the jury verdict against him must be set aside.

The Constitutional mandate in criminal trials requires that a defendant object to any perceived violation of his rights or give up that right on appeal. Medellin failed to object at trial and therefore waived the claim he raised to the Supreme Court. Medellin, however, centered his appeal on an unprecedented theory: That the United Nations and its International Court of Justice are superior in sovereignty to the U.S. Supreme Court, Congress and the President of the United States. The International Court of Justice, in its 2004 Avena decision, had asserted frivolously a sovereign jurisdiction superior to the President, the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress. It then ordered the United States to reopen the murder convictions and sentences of fifty-one illegal aliens on death row.

Former President George W. Bush would support Medellin’s claim. The night before Mr. Cruz’ oral argument to the Supreme Court, he issued a Memorandum stating that,

“…he had ‘determined’…the United States would ‘discharge its international obligations under the decision of the International Court of Justice in [Avena], by having State courts give effect to the decision in accordance with general principles of comity in cases filed by the 51 Mexican nationals addressed in that decision.”

Medellin argued that the President’s Memorandum, as it is federal law, binds the U.S. Supreme Court, all inferior state courts and Congress itself. In the Memorandum, President Bush ignored the Senate’s sovereign prohibitions against the Vienna Protocols. The Senate, when considering the Protocols, prohibited their use or enforcement in American Courts. While the President predicated the Memorandum on “comity” that is “friendship,” had Medellin prevailed he would have done so by subverting the Constitution, Congress and the doctrine of separation of powers. It is, of course, a patently frivolous notion that the President may, in the name of international friendship, order a state court to rewrite its substantive and procedural law and nullify the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. That he intended to do so constitutes a violation of the Constitutional doctrine of Separation of powers, and an abuse of presidential power.

The Supreme Court, true to its oath, affirmed Medellin’s conviction and struck down a Presidential Memorandum mandating that the American government submit itself to the specious jurisdictional claim of the United Nations and it International Court of Justice. The Supreme Court stated the obvious, that,

Nothing in the text, background, negotiating and drafting history, or practice among signatory nations suggests that the President or Senate intended the improbable result of giving the judgments of an international tribunal a higher status than that enjoyed by ‘many of our most fundamental constitutional protections.” Emphasis Added.

Congressional and executive attacks on the protections afforded Americans by their Constitution are increasing. The Congress and President, in passing into law the McCain/Feingold Bill, intentionally criminalized the First Amendment right of Americans to free speech. During the years in which McCain/Feingold restrictions on free speech were in force, an American who engaged in political speech in violation of its provisions, was subject to criminal prosecution, fine and imprisonment. That the Congress and President demonstrated a nearly perfect contempt for the First Amendment is obvious from a reading of the plain words of the First Amendment. No one could possibly have misunderstood its words or discovered there, a right to prosecute, fine and imprison an American who speaks his mind.

Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press….

The U.S. Supreme Court in a 5/4 decision just barely struck down a Congressional attempt to begin the abrogation, in bits and pieces, of the First Amendment. Justice Kennedy, writing for the conservative majority, struck down this Constitutionally aberrant species of Congressional and Presidential faithlessness. His, words, cut out of granite, were precisely what Senators McCain, Feingold— and the Democrats and Republicans who voted Yea— needed to hear.

"When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. ... The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves…."political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it… We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers."

The radical left, whether Democrat or Republican, praises the sanctity and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court only so long as the Court serves its ideology or magnifies the power and reach of the welfare state. President O’Bama, after tongue-lashing the Supreme Court for its decision, revealed his ideological harmony with that of the “conservative” Senator John McCain, President Bush, and those “conservatives” who signed the bill into law. Now, President O’Bama and a Congress controlled by Democrats are already seeking ways to subvert the Supreme Court’s holding, and to efface again the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

What is to be done? Raise your voice to scorn those of our leaders faithless to their oath to preserve and protect the Constitution. Demand their resignation. Vote them into political exile. Look to those who are your President, Senator and Congressman and watch closely what they say and do—and for the politician who tells you that he is a conservative—find him out, unmask him, see if what he tells you is really true. Be careful though, you may be shocked at the face you see.

---

[1] Ted Cruz, Defending U..S. Sovereignty, Separation of powers, and Federalism in Medellin v. Texas. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol.33, Number 1, Winter, 2010. “Mr. Cruz served as Solicitor General of Texas from 2003-2008. He has argued eight cases before the United States Supreme Court including Medellin v. Texas.

“Taxed Enough Already?”
by John Alexander Madison
February 15, 2010

After victory in the French and Indian War England’s King George III decided to tax the American colonies in an effort to recover some of the costs of the war and reestablish control over the growing independence of the American colonies. The colonists were aggravated after passage of the Stamp Act (1765) and the Townsend Acts (1767). The Boston Massacre in 1770 further served to alienate the colonists. When the King of England tried to impose a tax on tea, well, the rest is history.

The Boston Tea Party occurred on December 16, 1773. That evening approximately 45 tons of tea were thrown overboard from three ships belonging to the East India Tea Company, the Dartmouth, the Eleanor and the Beaver. The value of the destroyed tea was about ten thousand pounds (1773) or one million dollars today. If there was a single catalyst for the American Revolution, it was the Boston Tea Party, the straw that broke the camel’s back.

More than two hundred years earlier, Romeo Montague and Juliet Capulet meet and fall in love in Shakespeare's lyrical tale of "star-crossed" lovers. They are doomed from the start as members of two warring families. Here Juliet tells Romeo that a name is an artificial and meaningless convention, and that she loves the person who is called "Montague", not the Montague name and not the Montague family. Romeo, out of his passion for Juliet, rejects his family name and vows, as Juliet asks, to "deny (his) father" and instead be "new baptized" as Juliet's lover. This one short line encapsulates the central struggle and tragedy of the play. (from enotes.com)

Juliet: "What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet." Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2, William Shakespeare (1564-1616).

So, what is in a name, Juliet, as in the “Tea Party” of 2010? According to its founder it is an acronym for Taxed Enough Already (TEA).

It is a Movement

So, is the goal of the Tea Party to establish a third major political party in America or is it a real grass roots movement being embraced by majority of Americans? If Tea Party supporters believe it is the former, America is doomed in 2010 since they will split the common sense, traditional and more conservative agenda thinkers. It brings back memories of Ross Perot and Ralph Nader whose agendas (and egos) greatly influenced the outcome of two national Presidential elections.

In 1992, Texas billionaire Ross Perot’s popularity was based on his concerns over the growing federal budget deficit and fears of professional politicians being out of touch with America (sound familiar?). Perot won nearly 19% of the vote which, many believe, handed the presidency to Bill Clinton.

Eight years later, after two unsuccessful runs for the presidency, consumer advocate Ralph Nader, by all accounts handed the White House to George W. Bush. He garnered 97,000 votes in Florida, a state which Bush won by a mere 537 votes. For better or worse, true or not, Democrats and Republicans alike believe America was either better or worse off due to these strong showings by third party candidates.

“Let not your hearts be troubled.” (Sean Hannity)
Rest assured, the Tea Party movement is all about fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and the free market economy. The Tea Party movement is a conservative movement and that, my friends, is the traditional platform of the Republican Party. The Tea Party grass-roots movement is an organized and somewhat desperate plea to all of America, all elected officials in federal and state governments, to return to a more common sense governance model.

Members of both political parties have failed us in recent years.

Notwithstanding traditional party values, Republican, Democrat or Independent candidates for elected offices in 2010 would be well served to adopt the platform of fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and the free market economy. Add to that a strong national defense and a respect for life and you have a winning agenda…one which a majority of Americans will support.

If you have any doubt, just asked the citizens of Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts.

EPILOGUE

Now that we agree on the Tea Party’s common sense agenda for a better America, vote for those candidates who adopt it, if you believe them. A good start will be to not support incumbent Democrats who have adopted this president’s agenda OR anyone for whom he campaigns…that should be a dead giveaway.

And, once elected, if these candidates don’t fulfill their promises we must hold them and their colleagues accountable, regardless of their party affiliation.

WE DO SEE THEE

By

ROBERT HARKINS




A friend sent me the anonymous poem I place here—so that in the reading of it we may together truly see its 83-year-old author. He wrote his poem just before his death in a nursing home. He died alone. Old age inflicts desolation and indignities, which when young and immortal, brave and beautiful, we cannot imagine. So it was with this old man, and yet he bore indignities with dignity, and could have writ these stanzas of the Dylan’s poem.

Do not go gentle into that good night,

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,


Because their words had forked no lightning they

Do not go gentle into that good night.[1]

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding light.

Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,

Rage, rage against the dying of the light

And you, my father, there on the sad height, 


Curse, bless me now with your fierce tears, I pray. 


Do not go gentle into that good night.


Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

He was strong this old man, and proud and good. But he was angry that his caretakers could not or would not see him. True, his finest days were done too quick, as if by lightening struck; and now, he was needy as a babe. But why would they not see him as he was, still a man of grace and worth however old and close to death?

After the old man died, the cleaning staff found in a drawer his penciled poem. They set it aside awhile as they cleaned away the humble proofs that once he lived, and living, dreamed, and dreaming fell in love with his good wife, raised children, joy and laughter, alas, and pain and grief—for the young man by an unfathomable, most unexpected and amazing curse, grew old; how could this be? Yet worse by far than a man’s own death, is to see the death of the woman he loves. For then finally is a man let be, alone in dread, to face unloved, death desolate, and for this old man—I do wish I knew his name— a solitude his true, well tempered heart did not deserve.

I am certain his nurses meant well. That said, the old man set to rhyme their white, remote efficiency. We all of us fail like this. But I hold most beautiful our power to consecrate, to sanctify and bless. For that which is sacred in itself, an old man, alone, in colloquy with death, we consecrate by truly “seeing” him. Thus the old man’s rage against the dying of the light: that they would not bless him, would not see him; and for want of consecration, I think, he died a lonely man.

As I read his poem, I thought of mine own father’s death, and my wife’s death, and the death of others that I loved, still love, will always love. But this is our primordial, common ground. We must consecrate each the other here: You and me and this old man who live together in a crucible of youth and age, and sacred love, and joy and sorrow, grief and death.

My friend—she is in her eighties—asked that I share his poem with you, and so I will… and so I must. I’ve writ a poem to this good and noble man, to consecrate with thee, hands joined, to consecrate and therefore, to see.

CRABBY OLD MAN

What do you see nurses?

What do you see? 


What are you thinking?

when you're looking at me?


A crabby old man, not very wise,


Uncertain of habit with faraway eyes?



Who dribbles his food

and makes no reply.


When you say in loud voice

'I do wish you'd try!'


Who seems not to notice

the things that you do.


And forever is losing

A sock or shoe?



Who, resisting or not

lets you do as you will,


With bathing and feeding .

The long day to fill?


Is that what you're thinking?

Is that what you see?


Then open your eyes, nurse

you're not looking at me.



I'll tell you who I am

As I sit here so still,


As I do at your bidding,

as I eat at your will.


I'm a small child of Ten

with a father and mother,


Brothers and sisters

who love one another.



A young boy of Sixteen

with wings on his feet.


Dreaming that soon now

a lover he'll meet.


A groom soon at Twenty

my heart gives a leap.


Remembering, the vows

that I promised to keep.



At Twenty-Five, now

I have young of my own.


Who need me to guide

And a secure happy home.


A man of Thirty

My young now grown fast,


Bound to each other

With ties that should last.



At Forty, my young sons

have grown and are gone,


But my woman's beside me

to see I don't mourn.


At Fifty, once more,

babies play 'round my knee

Again, we know children

My loved one and me.



Dark days are upon me

my wife is now dead.


I look at the future

shudder with dread.


For my young are all rearing

young of their own.


And I think of the years

and the love that I've known.



I'm now an old man

and nature is cruel.


Tis jest to make old age

look like a fool.


The body, it crumbles

grace and vigor, depart.


There is now a stone

where I once had a heart.



But inside this old carcass

a young guy still dwells,


And now and again

my battered heart swells.


I remember the joys

I remember the pain.


And I'm loving and living

life over again.



I think of the years,

all too few gone too fast.


And accept the stark fact

that nothing can last.


So open your eyes, people

open and see.


Not a crabby old man

Look closer . . . see ME!!


We Do See Thee!

A Crabby Old Man

He Is Not Thee. Nay!

Proud Seanachi[2]

Rich in Courage, Dignity

We See Thee a Lover

Poet Rhyming True

We see Thee Man, We Do!

Old Winged Soul and New.

We see Thee, Love Thee

Who All His Life

Loved Brothers, Children

His Sacred Wife.

We See Thee

Through our Tears

Tears Due Thee,

Tears Well Shed

Rest Father

Rest Now, Gently Rest

Your Weary Head

In Our Embrace

Your Life’s Struggle

Hard Battle’s Won

For We See Thee,

Joyful Cheer Thee

On and On! Oh Yes!

And Shout to Heaven

Well Done! Well Done!

Again Well Done!

---

[1] Dylan Thomas. Do not go gently into that good Night.

[2] Gaelic Poet, Story Teller.

“An Exclusive Interview with the President”
by John Alexander Madison (J.A.M.)
February 8, 2010

Date: February 7, 2010
Place: The White House

It is Super Bowl XLIV Sunday afternoon and CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric has just completed a live interview with the 44th President of the United States. Immediately thereafter, The President invited a relatively obscure writer from the Rocky Mountain region, yours truly, to an exclusive interview in the East Room of the White House. Excerpts from the visit follow.

JAM: Good afternoon, Mr. President, thank you for granting me an exclusive interview, I am humbled and truly appreciative for the opportunity to meet with you today.

POTUS: Look, with all due respect, the Super Bowl is starting shortly…can we get started?

JAM: Certainly, Mr. President. Let me start by asking why you believe tax increases on the “wealthiest Americans” will create jobs. It seems those who create jobs are primarily small business owners and if you impose more taxes on them they will be less inclined or able to hire anybody?

POTUS: Look, you are right, imposing more taxes will discourage employers from hiring, no doubt about it.

JAM: Then why are you proposing tax increases on the wealthy?

POTUS: Look, we need to create more jobs. It’s as simple as that. If we increase tax revenues to the federal government we can hire more and more people to work for the government.

JAM: But that makes no sense whatsoever. History has taught us that the government cannot create jobs. The government can only take away from citizens by imposing more taxes, spending more money, putting our nation in greater debt, and making millions more dependent on the government (a welfare state), through your re-distribution of wealth scheme. Isn’t that really your goal?

POTUS: Exactly, I can’t say I disagree with you, John. But, look, I was elected President; I am not arrogant but I am in charge, and just about every policy I have proposed has not worked. But the people voted for change, and that means changing from a free-market economy to a socialist agenda…and, I want to give them hope.

JAM: I think Americans are full of hope…hope that you will stop your reckless and irresponsible spending spree (your so-called stimulus bill), stop increasing our national debt, stop your efforts to foist a national health care plan on the American public which they don’t want, and stop all this foolishness. They also want you to stop blaming President Bush for everything. You’ve been in office now for a full year. Isn’t it time for you to take responsibility for where we find ourselves?

POTUS: There is some truth in that, but I am the President and I don’t want to take responsibility.

JAM: But you must know that socialism has never been a successful government model. Don’t you?

POTUS: If at first you don’t succeed…well, you know the rest.

JAM: On a more personal note, Mr. President, how is your neck?

POTUS: My neck?

JAM: Yes, your neck. This is in reference to the twins.

POTUS: The twins? Do you mean Malia Ann (10 years old) and Sasha (Natasha) who is now 7?

JAM: No sir, you know, the Teleprompters. It seems you cannot speak extemporaneously on any subject without being pre-scripted and having to read off the Teleprompters…which is quite a distraction to those who are watching. Your head goes from side to side to side to side to side… well you get the idea…it is distracting and we sometimes forget what your message is.

POTUS: Well, actually, that is part of our strategy. Let’s be honest here, if we learned one thing from the Clinton presidency it is this: If we repeat things often enough our dumbed-down citizenry (and certainly non-citizens as well) will begin to believe everything we are saying. And, may I add, it seems to be working. That’s why I am doubling down at the moment. We can’t back off on this.

JAM: Doubling down, sir?

POTUS: Well, yes. Although it seems that most Americans, as many as 72%, do not want the Obamacare plan we’ve outlined for the last 55 weeks, we must not stop now. We must forge ahead and impose upon our citizens MY plan. After all, I know what is best for Americans. And don’t forget, my plan is not just for citizens. While citizens, their children and grandchildren will be involved, primarily paying for the program, it’s the non-citizens who will benefit the most. And, if we can keep “proof of citizenship” and “photo I.D.s when voting” legislation to a minimum, then everyone will be able to vote...not just citizens…this ensuring my re-election in 2012. After all, we proved once that he who promises the most FROM government will reap the rewards. It worked in ’08 and it will work again.

JAM: I’ve been told you have a pretty good sense of humor so I’ll assume you are kidding. You ARE kidding, right? No, don’t answer that. Let’s move on to another concern, perhaps outrage, of many Americans regarding your decision to try terrorists in New York City. You want to give them all the protections of the United States Constitution; you want them to have their Miranda rights; you want to lawyer them up and not face interrogation by national security experts; you want to try them in a civilian court not a military tribunal; and more. Yet, you do not want to acknowledge that these are enemies of the United States, and that we are at war, and they are not citizens and they should not be entitled to such protections.

POTUS: Was that a question?

JAM: Let me paraphrase that for you. What are you thinking, Mr. President, you seem so out of touch with mainstream America, we are at war!

POTUS: Look, those “so called terrorist” trial decisions were made by A.G. Eric Holder. And now that we’re on the topic of where the buck stops, the financial disaster is primarily due to Tim at Treasury and Ben at the Fed for failing to understand financial markets; and, of course, Chris Dodd, Barney Hotdog, and others who forced banks to loan money to millions of Americans who had no ability to repay those loans. But these guys along with Spender, I mean Speaker, Pelosi and Senator Reid have been in Congress longer than I have so they know all about deficit spending, earmarks, buying votes and more. And how about that Senator Franken (a/k/a Stuart Smalley), in just a matter of weeks he has been voted the most unpopular person in Congress. I am so proud of that boy, he fits right in.

Regarding being out of touch, I won the presidency overwhelmingly by winning big in Los Angeles, New York and Chicago where it really counts.

JAM: So it doesn’t bother you, Mr. President, that you won fewer counties than any President ever elected…just 875 of the 3086 U.S. counties? (27% for those of you from Yorba Linda, CA)

POTUS: Hello Michelle, excellent timing. We were just about through. How did your staff meeting go?

FIRST LADY: We had to postpone the meeting, Barry. It turns out my personal staff is larger than the last ten First Ladies combined and the room we booked was not big enough, so we rescheduled for tonight, in the Blue Room…it’s barely large enough to seat all eight-six, but it will work.

POTUS: Honey, if you don’t have enough staff to help you with all your official duties, be sure to hire more. Remember, it’s not our money.

JAM: Eighty-six, Mr. President?

POTUS: Listen you knucklehead…don’t go there, leave Michelle alone, she’s dedicated her entire life to public service after, of course, that sweetheart deal, the part-time $317,00 per year job at the hospital.

JAM: Mr. President I believe I may be overstaying my welcome so perhaps we should end this interview with one or two more questions.

POTUS: Listen, rookie, you overstayed your welcome at “Good afternoon, Mr. President…”

JAM: Mr. President, there have been three recent referendums on the first year of your presidency and the results must be discouraging. First, the Democrats lost the Governor races in two solidly blue states, Virginia and New Jersey. Then Scott Brown ran away with the Massachusetts election for U.S. Senator, the seat Ted Kennedy held for 46 years. And since early last summer tea parties throughout the nation are demanding a return to the more traditional, conservative values upon which our great nation was built. It’s clear your agenda has been solidly rejected. And then you say you will not let lobbyists influence the government yet you seem to have hired dozens of them as czars and persons of influence within The White House. And, on top of all that a recent Gallop poll says you are the most polarizing President in the history of our nation. So, what are your plans now?

POTOS: I’m going to Disneyworld!

AM: One final question, Mr. President. Which is your favorite part of Disneyworld, Fantasyland?

POTUS: Get out…get out…security!!


EPILOGUE
The truth is this interview did not take place. In a dream, this was how I though such an interview might go. It turned out to be a nightmare, just like the last twelve months!

WE THE “COMMON” PEOPLE

By

ROBERT HARKINS

There is a rumor the French Queen Marie Antoinette said to her people hungry for want of bread, “Let them eat cake.” However, sensitive to the people’s welfare was the good Queen Marie, she did not give a fig for risk, one might even say, she did not have a good head on her shoulders. The Royalty was exempt from taxes. The King’s soldiers kept them safe. By his grace, wealth and power the King raised them above the common people.

The Royalty lived lavishly and why not? But why this Royal Favor? Here perhaps is Queen Marie?

“Why favor? Why indeed! Are we not fashioned by God superior in mind and heart, and in every virtue sublime? Are we not made by Him to live and reign above the rank and common people of the earth?— indeed above a people conceived by Him to work, to pay my King’s tax, to procreate and die?

What else then, tell me now, will honor thee a common man, a plain woman, a soiled child? I have pondered well my philosophy and have come to this. How else may one grace your birth and low ways if not by service to us who, by our old and noble blood, are the more intelligent, the more graced and finely wrought than thee? It is God’s Will. Indeed, why else would He have made so many of thee who, (I say this in all Christian charity) are so plain, so very common—if not to serve?

While it is unlikely that Queen Marie Antoinette told the French to go eat cake, it was not the want of bread alone made the Revolution; it was their hunger for freedom and Royal blood. The Revolution grew out of a burgeoning disgust for a corrupt ruling class, ignorant in their manner, obscene in their claim to opulent privilege and waste, and breathtaking in their contempt for the common people—for the men and women, indeed, even for the children who worked and paid the tax by which they lived lives of pointless frivolity. It was plain hate built a guillotine to part from the French Royalty their arrogant heads.

Now why would Democrats and “conservative” Republicans, their staff, spouses and children squander a fortune in taxpayers’ money to attend a Copenhagen Summit whose members were swinging in a scandalous wind? The participants, Democrats and “conservative” Republicans alike, knew before they boarded the plane, before they first sipped from a goblet of rare Scotch whisky or fine wine, that the theory of global warming pushed in Copenhagen is a hoax. They knew the IPCC report, the foundation of “scientific proof” upon which the global warming theory rests, is rift with fraud, pathetic errors, and “authoritive” references so called, that shamed authors now admit are pseudo intellectual trash.

In a mockery of scientific method and objectivity, the IPCC report, concocted to prove conclusively the existence of global warming, contain absurd errors. The Himalayan glaciers are not dangerously melting. They will not vanish from the earth in twenty years. Somehow its authors forgot to mention that most of the glaciers are actually becoming thicker—as the climate, of course, becomes colder.

“The IPCC’s 2007 report, which won it the Nobel Peace Prize, recites that the probability of Himalayan glaciers “disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high.” But it emerged last week that the forecast was based not on a consensus among climate change experts, but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999. Emphasis added. The IPCC admitted on Thursday that the prediction was “poorly substantiated” in the latest of a series of blows to the panel’s credibility.”(From the Times January 23, 2010. UN climate change expert: there could be more errors in the report, Jeremy Page, South Asia Correspondent).

Will Democrats and “conservative” Republicans be complicit in the havoc the nuts at Copenhagen seek to wreck on us? If not, why are they there—and sipping vintage wine? “NASA scientist James Hansen, one of the instigators of global warming hysteria, in his new book Times Up, describes the Copenhagen Mandate. Some, common as we are, may think it a too radical change. Hansen writes that,

"The only way to prevent global ecological collapse and thus ensure the survival of humanity is to rid the world of Industrial Civilization." (Patrick Gallagher, Green Watch America Jan 27,2010).

Madam Pelosi, in a royal orgy of obscene waste, and in her obdurate indifference to the squander of taxpayers’ money, “vacationed” at Copenhagen with her chosen friends, their staff, spouses and children. The tab for in-flight food and booze alone was $101,000. They collected their government salaries while on vacation. “Part of the tab for alcoholic drinks on a congressional trip arranged by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi It reads like a dream order for some wild frat party: Maker's Mark whiskey, Courvoisier cognac, Johnny Walker Red scotch, Grey Goose vodka, E&J brandy, Bailey's Irish Crème, Bacardi Light rum, Jim Beam whiskey, Beefeater gin, Dewars scotch, Bombay Sapphire gin, Jack Daniels whiskey … and Corona beer,” The total bill to tax payers is a million bucks.

Although the climate summit in Copenhagen took place in December, it has recently emerged that the large congressional delegation headed by Nancy Pelosi charged taxpayers some $1 million for the trip. Newly filed congressional expense reports indicated that more than 150 people—including legislators, staff and even some family members—made the trip at a cost of $2,200 a day, CBS News reported. Further CBS investigation found that 59 House and Senate staff flew commercial to the Danish capital, costing taxpayers $408,064, while the rest used three military jets, which cost $168,351 for the flight time. (Pelosi, Congressional Delegation Take Heat For $1 Million Climate Summit Trip February 3, 2010 by Personal Liberty News Desk).

… Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by Judicial Watch, which investigates and prosecutes government corruption, show that the Pelosi incurred expenses of some $2.1 million for her use of Air Force jets for travel over that time. (Originally Posted by Woodrow Speaker's trips 'are more about partying than anything else’ By Bob Unruh© 2010 WorldNet Daily).

We are the common people who tragically voted into office Madam Pelosi, and the two planeloads full of Democrats and “conservative” Republicans who squandered American wealth in a spectacle of waste so prurient they would have impressed the late and headless Royalty, Marie Antoinette and her luckless King Louis. It is not too late to ask whether our government, Democrats and Republicans, are like the French Royalty, corrupt, ignorant in their manner, shameless in their claim to privilege, and breathtaking in their contempt for the common people, rank as we may be—for the men and women, who work and pay the multitude of taxes that support their opulent, their obscene incumbency.

Because we are a common people, we will not soon sip old vintage wines, rare Scotch whiskey, fly first class on military jets or wile away the lazy days in a Copenhagen Mariott luxury hotel suite— and if we could, we would not blithely send our bill to someone else.

The millions of Americans, now unemployed are instead desperately trying to keep their homes, or if foreclosed are searching for a place to live, or working odd jobs to feed their children. Too many Americans are simply struggling to survive. A common people? Not at all. A people of uncommon faith and grit.

But what if we should protest for want of bread? What then will Madam Pelosi, Democrats and “conservative” Republicans, say to us? Shall we too be offered cake for bread? We may well ask what is to be done with this American Royalty? Well, the guillotine does seem, at first glance, a bit harsh doesn’t it? Or does it? After all, it worked well enough in France, was sharp, efficient, dependable and easy to operate; such malfunctions as occurred were quickly fixed as the Royalty waited their turn—and the blade certainly got Queen Marie’s fleeting attention. No, on second thought, forget it. A guillotine bill would never pass the House and Senate—at least not one constructed for congressional heads. Well then, why not just,

Take them to ruin with your common vote!

“A Worthwhile Tribute”
by John Alexander Madison
February 1, 2010

On August 28, 1963 we heard these words… “Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.” In his memorable and moving address on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. Martin Luther King, Jr. continued (in part) “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Abraham Lincoln was, indeed, a great American as was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968).

Dr. King also proclaimed in his “I Have a Dream” speech that “We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline.” At that moment, the era of non-violent protest was born.

(Note: Did you know that this speech also included “Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado”?)

Since February 2010 has been designated Black History month it is especially appropriate to recognize several distinguished African-Americans who have made significant contributions to our nation’s heritage.

The Tuskegee Airmen consisted of 994 black pilots each of whom possessed a strong personal desire to serve the United States of America to the best of his ability. From 1941-1946 these pilots were trained at Tuskegee Army Air Field (TAAF) in Tuskegee Alabama. They served overseas in combat in North Africa, Sicily and Italy from April 1943 until July 1944. Any student of history will acknowledge the outstanding record of these black airmen throughout World War II.

Frederick Douglass (1817-1895) was a slave born on a Maryland plantation who urged President Lincoln to free and arm the slaves. He was also a spokesman for universal suffrage, women’s rights, and world peace. He was a candidate for Vice President in 1872 on the Equal Rights Party ticket and was appointed minister to Haiti in 1889.

George Washington Carver (1860-1943) was one of the truly great men of his time. Born of slaves in Missouri he revolutionized agriculture in the South. At the Tuskegee Institute he become one of the world's most respected and honored men, he devoted his life to understanding nature and the many uses for the simplest of plant life. He is best known for developing crop-rotation methods for conserving nutrients in soil and discovering hundreds of new uses for crops such as the peanut. (www.ideafinder.com) The first U.S. federal monument dedicated to an African-American was dedicated to Dr. Carver at the Tuskegee Institute on July 17, 1960.

W.E.B. DuBois (1868-1963) was an author, educator, historian, sociologist, philosopher, poet, intellectual, and radical. In 1903 he wrote "The Soul of Black Folks." He may be best known for his debate with Booker T. Washington regarding the type of education needed by African Americans, Washington advocating vocational educational and DuBois believing a liberal arts and humanities education was the road to success. He was a founder of the NAACP and the first Black to receive a PhD from Harvard University.

Jesse Owens (1913-1980) was the track & field hero of the 1936 Olympic Games where he won four Gold medals and there was nothing Adolph Hitler could do about it, not even depart the stadium just as Owens was about the perform in the long jump. He was national director of physical education for the Office of Civilian Defense (1940-1942) a job he considered the “most gratifying work I have ever done.”

Scott Joplin (1868-1917) was a truly great pianist and composer. My favorite is “Maple Leaf Rag” which has been performed countless times to near perfection by Tommy O’Boyle, of Broadmoor’s lakeside lounge fame. He composed two operas and over sixty piano songs including “The Entertainer.” Joplin was the master of ragtime music.

Thurgood Marshall (1908-1993) was the first African-American justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, appointed by President Lyndon Johnson in 1967. Previously, he was one of a the team of lawyers in the historic Brown vs. Board of Education trial (1954) in which the “Separate but equal” doctrine on public education was overthrown. Speaking of Supreme Court justices Clarence Thomas is certainly no slouch.

Rosa Parks (1913-2005) was a pivotal figure in the civil rights movement. She refused to relinquish he seat to a white man and move to the back of the bus and the Supreme Court case which followed determined that segregation on city buses was unconstitutional.

Jackie Robinson (1912-1972) broke the color barrier when he joined the Brooklyn Dodgers on April 11, 1947. He played for the Dodgers ten years and played in six World Series. He was the first African-American inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, NY (1962). Hank Aaron (1934- ) comes to mind as the pre-steroid era home run superstar.

Dred Scott (1795-1858) was a slave who sued for his freedom after being moved to Wisconsin which had become a “free” state. He lost the case but the decision was reversed on appeal. After another appeal he lost but the political revolts which followed led to the Civil War. (see Dred Scott vs. Sanford, 1957).

Booker T. Washington (1856-1915) was a Virginia-born slave who was freed by President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation. A civil rights activist, professor, poet and write he dedicated his life emphasizing that education was the means through which blacks would obtain equality. He founded the Tuskegee Normal and Industrial Institute and the National Negro Business League. (see W.E.B. DuBois)

At this point you may be thinking about others who should be included in any review of significant African-Americans in our nation’s history. There are many and here are a few more.

Ray Charles (1930-2004) , the pioneer of soul music; Michael Jackson (1958-2009), the King of Pop; Harriet Tubman (1821-1913) abolitionist, humanitarian, Union spy; Marian Anderson (1897-1993) American contralto; Arthur Ashe (1943-1993) and Althea Gibson (1927-2003) all-time tennis greats; Louis “Satchmo”Armstrong (1902-1971) jazz trumpeter; John Coltrane (1926-1967) jazz musician , saxophonist; Oprah Winfrey (1954- ) entertainer, philanthropist; Cassius Clay (1942-) “The Greatest”; Mahalia Jackson (1911-1972) The Queen of Gospel; Maya Angelou (1918- ) autobiographer and poet; Langston Hughes (1902-1967) writer, poet; Bill Cosby (1937- ), actor, comedian, activist, aka Fat Albert and Dr. Heathcliff Huxtable.

EPILOGUE
The fact that you may have a list of many, many more noteworthy African-Americans is a good thing…the list is, indeed, endless. During the month of February let’s join in the celebration of Black History in America.

P.S. If you were waiting for a couple of obvious omissions, how about Eldrick Tont Woods (1975- ), very good golfer and serial cad; and #44 (1961- ), good husband, good father and serial spender.