Temporary Custody

“Temporary Custody” is a term that has many applications. If a family is experiencing a tragedy, it may be necessary for the children to be temporarily placed with grandparents or other family members. Sometimes the state children’s services or judiciary place the children in someone’s care for a period of time. As people grow older and less able to manage their own affairs, they sometimes transfer the “power of attorney” to an individual whom they trust as a form of temporary custody. The sum value of temporary custody is that an individual or an institution assumes responsibility for the well-being of an individual or group of persons for a short period of time. It might be fitting, therefore, to designate elected officials as the temporary custodians of our nation, the Constitution and our liberties.

Temporary custodians….if you think about each of those words, you must conclude that our elected “servants” have been miserable failures. They have consistently failed to perform at an acceptable level. If their custody had been awarded by the court rather than the voters, they surely would be found guilty of contempt and removed from their respective positions of trust. What would the response of the courts, the community and the families be if an entity that had been awarded temporary custody absconded with all the funds and used the assets of the ward to borrow more money for profligate spending? The answer is outrage followed by arrest, prosecution and conviction.

Historically, we have ignored the “temporary” aspect of political custodianship by electing and re-electing venal old fossils who somehow manage to enrich themselves while collecting a paltry public servant’s salary. Though citizens often speak of the necessity for term limits (federally speaking), it has been proven time and again that voters lack the knowledge or the will to turn out long-time officeholders. Term limits would simply create the merry-go-round of office switching that we witness in several states. The only true remedy for dealing with an irresponsible custodian is to soundly defeat her or him at the ballot box. The humiliation of a resounding spanking should make the career politician pause and ponder before initiating another run for office on the public teat.

Defeating an entrenched blood-sucking veteran is a difficult task. I’m aware of that, but a defeated senior member of the Congress should transmit ripples of awareness throughout the political class. One of the more difficult calculations in determining whom to target for retirement is deciding what level of proper voting is acceptable. That is not the only criterion that should be examined, however, because voting from cover (see “Diving for Cover” 8/8/2011 at www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com) and other sneaky legislative devices skew the numbers. In addition, the officeholder’s attentiveness to district concerns, his or her leadership for critical local and national issues, the contributor list for the incumbent’s re-election campaign, the number of terms in office and finally the appreciation of the officeholder’s net worth while “serving” the people. When taken as a whole, the above list of decisive factors can be helpful when determining which incumbent to challenge.

A legitimate custodian is legally and honor bound to fulfill the custodial responsibilities faithfully and fully. A failure to exert the greatest effort possible for the performance of the duty smacks of misfeasance. Legislative voting and promotion of unconstitutional policies, legislative measures that harm the nation or active or passive allowance for government infringement on our liberties should be labeled as malfeasance. Misfeasance can result in censure or defeat, but malfeasance should lead to either defeat or prosecution. Knowingly violating one’s sworn oath should lead to charges of perjury. Congresspersons get really steamed when someone perjures him-or-herself after swearing an oath prior to testifying before a committee. Ask Roger Clemens. The oath of office that is sworn by Congresspersons….in the company of other Congressmen and women….should be considered as weighty as a normal citizen’s oath before Congress. Perjury is a crime. Willfully violating one’s oath of office should be a criminal act. Our forefathers didn’t take oaths lightly, and we should not allow our present-day career politicians any greater leeway than our early legislative leaders were given.

“Temporary custody” is a serious matter whenever someone has responsibility for another person or for a nation and a district. If the essence of the custody component is violated, the politician should be quickly relegated to temporary status. Just as a child, an ill person or a senior citizen in the final stage of life are to be protected, so should our nation, our Constitution and our liberties be defended and preserved. If an elected official is reading this and believes that these recommendations are too strict, then Madame or Sir, you must resign because your oath is meaningless to you. The citizens….most of them…cherish our nation, its constitutional foundation and our freedom.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Tue. & Wed., 6-7:00pm, 1370 WSPD, Toledo  www.wspd.com

  

Just for Kicks

Although historians have identified some significant dates for the beginning of our nation’s slide away from constitutional governance, my sense is that the major drift has taken place in the past 50 years. While one can make a case that the Alien and Sedition Act initiated the tendency of politicians to ignore their constitutional oaths, others would identify Woodrow Wilson (with able assistance from Teddy Roosevelt) and his progressive agenda as the beginning of our dismal path. Both of those actions or movements were instrumental in our fall, but the pace of our demise has accelerated dramatically during the past half-century…..and I know why.

Soccer is the dominant sport of socialist Europe and socialist/communist South America. It has become a major participatory sport here in the United States. Drive through any community during a summer or fall Saturday, and you will observe legions of fields full of young girls and boys chasing a spotted ball from end to end. Hordes of parents including the legendary soccer moms line the playing fields cheering on their offspring and chiding the officials. The parking lots are laden with scores of SUV’s from every imaginable auto manufacturer, and the tiny siblings of the players kick miniature versions of the game ball as they, too, roam the sidelines and snack areas.

Note as you watch that there are very few “chubby” kids, particularly boys, playing the favorite game of the New World Order. The male children are being transformed into a collection of seemingly anorexic metrosexuals because of their affinity for a sport that celebrates “flopping’ as opposed to the more manly pursuits of blocking and tackling while playing football. We can project that later in life the young men who were subjected to soccer will become the emaciated runners that so many of us see trudging along the streets and bike paths of our communities.

Soccer undermines one of the most important physical developments necessary for young people to be active participants throughout their lifetimes. The skill that becomes lost through soccer-induced atrophy is eye-hand coordination. When you think about it, you realize that a sport that relies almost entirely on the feet is as far away from the brain as one can anatomically get which explains a lot about why our citizens have become susceptible to the statists’ message.

There is a distinct and alarming correlation between the rise in soccer’s popularity and the decline in our freedom. Our liberty is being trampled on the field of “futball.” Our strength and our commitment to freedom have been replaced by short pants and yellow cards. Our economic might and willingness to risk have been overcome by “2 to 1” final scores. The unpredictable bounces of life and footballs have been superseded by the boring predictability of a round ball…..a stark reminder of the globe. We are doomed. J

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Tue. & Wed., 6-7:00pm, 1370 WSPD, Toledo.  www.wspd.com

   

Leery Erie

Those of us who live in Ohio should be aware that the Lake Erie eco-system is threatened again. As the shallowest and warmest of the Great Lakes, Lake Erie seems susceptible to every potential fresh-water malady. Unlike the alarmism spread by the chicken-little earth-is-melting crowd, the Erie threats are visible to anyone who chooses to look. Invasive species and highly toxic algae are the headliners of the choking attempt to strangle Lake Erie. This challenge is not Ohio’s alone because 3 other states and the province of Ontario access the lake. Aside from Ontario, Ohio does enjoy the largest coastal area.

Last week I sat in for Brian Wilson, the afternoon host at WSPD, Toledo, and the topic of Lake Erie’s precarious position was one that we discussed. The danger from the invasive species and the algae is so great and so imminent that proactive measures must be initiated promptly. If they are not, the combined threats could prove to be devastating for the lake. State officials are aware of the lurking danger, but have spent the bulk of their efforts pleading for federal help and intervention. Given that Ohio is now controlled lock, stock and barrel by the Republicans, the EPA under an extremely partisan Democratic administration will not soon be rushing to the rescue. That is a fortunate development because the Environmental Protection Agency   is an out-of-control, sometimes-rogue element of the federal government.

The proliferation of algae is related to the phosphate discharges and runoffs in the Lake Erie Basin Area. Because of the federal EPA’s propensity for overreaching, it seems likely that their remedy for restoring the balance of the lake would include severe restrictions on watershed agriculture and more stringent discharge allowances for the many municipalities and water/sewer districts that use the lake and its feeders and tributaries as repositories for effluent. The typical heavy-handed EPA approach is to levy massive fines, issue “cease and desist” orders and require massive disruptions in policies, procedures and practices of the affected industries and political subdivisions. Clearly the lake must be preserved for a number of obvious reasons. First, good stewardship requires that we protect a valuable resource such as Lake Erie. Second, the lake is an outstanding economic factor for the state and the region as a source for fresh water fish and a recreational bonanza. In addition, Lake Erie provides a shipping and transportation resource that serves the entire Midwest region of the United States. There may be other critical reasons for protecting Lake Erie, but the final one that I wish to address at this time is the lakes’ fresh water. The Great Lakes’ water is a huge valuable resource that is coveted by other regions.

Because the federal EPA is so strident and restrictive, it is best if the states and Ontario can address and resolve Lake Erie’s problems. In a sense the coordinated effort could be similar to “passive nullification.” Even though political considerations have led to EPA foot-dragging regarding the condition of Lake Erie, if the feds observe an active approach from the states, they will attempt to intervene to protect their turf. The states should respond with a “thank you, but no, thank you.” I fear, however, the state legislature has already sought federal assistance and will submissively yield to any federal effort to assume control. The state political class will once again fail to do its duty and place the people and the economy of Ohio in peril.

From the point of view of a native Ohioan Lake Erie is a precious resource that should be protected and preserved. It is too important for federal government interference. If our state legislators lack the will to tackle the lake’s problems without federal intervention, the resource will eventually be lost to the state, the neighboring states and the region. The federal government will either make the situation worse or assume total control of Lake Erie and eventually the other four Great Lakes plus Lake St. Clair. The State of Ohio must stand firm, defend and restore Lake Erie. It’s a civic duty and a constitutional necessity. We are already drowning in a sea of big federal government statism. We do not need to watch our lake go underwater as well. It is time for the private sector interests who are stakeholders in the lake such as the shipping industry, the recreational businesses and agriculture to band together for solutions. In addition the private sector entities should insist on state action and resist any federal involvement. The attitude that the federal government will come to the rescue is mistaken and costly.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Tue. & Wed., 1370 WSPD, Toledo   www.wspd.com

   

Ending Entitlements

As a small-government constitutionalist (actually I prefer the Articles of Confederation), I shudder when I suggest that it may not be prudent or practical to end our federal entitlement apparatus. Entitlements represent the epitome of government theft by force. They take the wealth and property from one citizen and transfer it to another. The problem is that our entitlement mentality has become so entrenched that weaning the recipients could result in violent confrontation. The very last development we can afford in times of fiscal and social stress is to encourage or implement robust policing by the government. Neither the welfare state nor the police state is healthy for liberty.

Another factor that affects the wisdom of eliminating the major portion of the entitlement structure is the regulatory over reach of government at every level. If our goal is to remove people from government benefits, there must be a viable alternative for them to support themselves, their families and to pursue personal wealth. The present regulatory nightmare is not friendly for new startups and, in many cases, discourages creative, energetic people from becoming entrepreneurs. The same government that developed programs to create dependency status for recipients has erected innumerable barriers for those who wish to become self-sufficient.

Dismantling the entitlement and welfare superstructures is a good start towards smaller more constitutional government, but for the reasons cited above and for philosophical and constitutional reasons, the regulatory maze must be simultaneously disassembled. In many respects an attempt to develop a sensible regulatory regime will be infinitely more challenging than ending the entitlement fiasco. Layer after layer, exception after exception and rule after rule exist in a political lasagna of nanny-state oversight. The multi-layered regulatory control mechanism will be extremely difficult to unravel. As one tier or another is peeled away, some unscrupulous individuals or companies may seek to take advantage of the opening. Their schemes could cause the public and the professional political class to demand the restoration of the regulatory oversight. In addition the various agencies and departments are so over-lapped that eliminating one noxious regulation may expose another just as toxic.

Now we move back to the original premise of this column. The drastic reduction of the entitlement/direct subsidy function of the government must be drastically reduced or eliminated altogether in order to restore fiscal sanity and constitutional government. That isn’t enough however as the myriad rules and regulations lie in wait to subvert our efforts to secure our liberty. The task is monumental, but it is vital if we are to pull Nanny’s rug out from under many of our fellow citizens. Concurrent with their weaning they must have a corresponding freedom to pursue their personal prosperity. We cannot in good conscience destroy their lifeboats on which they have depended perhaps for generations without providing the life vests of freedom. Unskilled people whose motivations and dreams have been blunted by government handouts must be allowed as much leeway as is possible to develop the skills and habits necessary for survival…..and for thriving.

Our federal government has grown so large and cumbersome that an objective analysis would suggest that inefficiencies and cost overruns are standard operating procedure. One doesn’t have to be a constitutionalist to understand that our government cannot adequately perform the tasks that it has claimed for itself. Reducing the monster to a functional role is a monumental task. Shrinking the leviathan to its constitutional function requires a radical vivisection that will cause massive disruptive upheaval. The radical remedy is the only viable one because we have experienced the steady growth of government in our lifetimes. Partial solutions will result in little gain as the incremental reestablishment of big government will accelerate and overwhelm us.

We cannot simply address the looter class and their living off the largesse of productive taxpayers. We must attack and eliminate every tentacle of the big government monster in order to rebuild the dream of our Founders and Framers. Restructuring and rebuilding will be painful. The path to restoration is littered with traps and foes. We must be strong. We must be resolute. We must be victorious.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Tue. & Wed. 6-7:00pm, 1370 WSPD, Toledo  www.wspd.com

   

  

Rhetorical Flourishes and Fizzles

Good speakers are rare. Great speakers are rarer, but rhetorical mastery should not be confused with sound principles and good ideas. We all have witnessed the nearly worshipful attention paid to Barrack Obama’s speechmaking skill when he was running for the presidency. Now that he has been in office for almost three years I assume that many of you share my vomit-in-the-mouth reaction whenever he approaches a microphone (usually every day) and engages in one of his repetitive, stammering and “uh-laden” painful addresses. His glaring weakness as a leader and his distorted priorities have demonstrated that eloquence alone is not enough for the leader of the free world---what’s left of it.

One of the more unfortunate aspects of our current political system is that people who speak well frequently say very little. Their verbal skills are directed towards disguising their true thoughts rather than revealing them. They have developed the ability to speak in “sound bite” fashion while failing to provide much detail that could open them to criticism. We citizens are somewhat responsible for the politicians developing that trait because of our short attention spans. We would rather have a brief unrefined answer than face the prospect of a long detailed explanation. As a consequence, some of our political speakers become frustrated by the short-answer format and respond with statements or ideas that may unsettle us. They have complexity and nuance to share, but mass media and our dismal listening habits combine to make their messaging difficult.

With 9 or more candidates vying for the Republican nomination we have an opportunity to compare and contrast rhetorical styles. Also, we have ample opportunities to analyze candidates’ statements for clarity and information. Each of the candidates has some unique attributes, but it is clear that some of them have either been coached or have diligently worked to hone their speaking style for the television/computer age. Others either shrug off the needed alterations for media type speaking or feel the need to thoroughly explain their positions despite the constraints imposed by the media and the audience.

To illustrate how the candidates vary with the rhetorical styles I will attempt to perform a “quickie” analysis of each of the GOP contenders. The two who have the most highly developed delivery styles in my view are Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. There is a vast difference between them, however, because Romney’s utterances for the most part are designed to minimize potential damage whereas Newt’s are directed towards innovation. Both of them are conscious of time constraints, but Newt’s professorial style sometimes causes him to drift outside the suggested time limit. Mitt’s precise and clipped answers suggest a monumental rehearsal regimen, and he sometimes fails to utilize his entire allotted time. Herman Cain’s rhetorical toolbox is fast approaching the previous two. In the early stages of the campaign he left too many unanswered questions on the table, but as he becomes more comfortable in the spotlight, his answers and statements have been more fully developed.

Rick Perry has a plain folksy delivery, but when he delivers a statement or answers a question, he appears to circle before landing the punch line. Personally, I get frustrated with this approach because I prefer to have more “meat” in the sandwich rather than a lovely garnish with a small entrée. Michele Bachmann has adopted a combative style that seems to work for short bursts of intensity but at times appears to lack thorough substance. Rick Santorum, too, has an intense speaking style that slides into passion when he is particularly concerned about a specific issue. He has not mastered the short answer and appears compelled to filibuster with his passionate delivery.

Jon Huntsman seems to be groping for a rhetorical tool that he can call his own. When he attempts to portray intensity, he appears like a professor. Gary Johnson acts as if he were extremely frustrated…perhaps justifiably so because his positions get very little media notice and minimal face time at the debates. Dr. Ron Paul has the weakest rhetorical style of the nine candidates, but he wastes no words and lacks the slick methods one would expect from someone who’s been in the political arena for more than a quarter century.

Now that I have given you my interpretation of the speaking styles of the various GOP presidential candidates, I urge you to look and listen beyond the words. Parse the sentences and the statements. Are they real, solid and substantive, or are they elegant sounding fluff? Do NOT be fooled by well-coached meaningless rhetoric. We already have one of those in the White House, and we’re trying to get rid of him. It appears that the primary season will be sooner and shorter than it has been historically. That suggests that more people may be swayed by someone who is a “good speaker.” Sound principles, honesty, consistency and integrity are far superior criteria for choosing someone who could be our next president. Go past the words…..to the heart. It is your responsibility.

Comment:   cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Tue. & Wed., 6-7:00pm 1370 WSPD, Toledo  www.wspd.com