The Cruelty of Compassion

Let me start out by saying that I believe it is our responsibility to help those who are incapable of helping themselves, and to assist those down on their luck to get back on their feet. Having said that, I believe the way we currently help, is no help at all, and is actually cruel.

I made a comment on soembody's Facebook posting that basically said most of what is above, but also that giving a handout to somebody who is fully capable of working only serves to drain their ambition and keep them poor, as we see daily evidence of. Here is the response that I received. "Just what makes you think that you are the "judge and jury", or can play God by determining who is capable of working, and who isn't? Can you tell when a person is physically able,and that he/she isn't suffering from a mental illness so debilitating that they can barely function and perform daily tasks that you take for granted? Not everything is black or white, there are a whole lot of gray areas in life, and if you truly believe that we're all on "a level playing field" and that we are all given the same opportunities to succeed, than that is what precisely what separates our belief in the role of Government, and allows me to wear the label of a Liberal as a badge of honor. Try changing the color of your skin and grow up in a housing project, without the love and support of your family, and tell me that we're truly all equal and born with all the same opportunities to improve our own conditions."

Here is my problem with the philosphy espoused above. First, we should assume that there is no abuse in Welfare and give everybody the benefit of the doubt that they are incapable of working. I've seen, first hand, too much abuse to accept this. And any government program should be vetted for fraud. Second, Where somebody grows up and the disadvantages they had does not make a handout right. All it serves to do is keep them disadvanted and ensure that their children grow up in the same unequal environment with the same lack of opportunity. However, helping those people climb out of that environment, giving a hand up, helps to level that playing field and presents new opportunites for them to take advantage of. Government cannot make the poor wealthy, it can only make the wealthy poor and ensure that the poor stay poor.

By saying that we should support people through welfare because their live has been hard and disadvantaged, is the equivalent of saying "I know your life has sucked so far, so take this check to ensure that your life will suck forever."

Instead of giving a check in apology for what their lives have been, we should invest in them and work with them to bring them up to a level where they can compete and succeed. This is an investment in the individual, but it does take work on their part as well. However, by investing in this person, once they succeed, they will pay back way more in taxes than was ever put into them. And, it improves the opportunity for the next generation.

Keeping somebody in a bad environment out of "compassion" is not compassionate to either that indivual or their children. It is cruel. Not to mention that we are not designed to be idle creatures, and just giving them a check takes away their reason to get up in the morning. It tells them they have no purpose. And I believe we all have a purpose. We just need to help some people more than others on their quest to find that purpose.

So why is giving them money to keep them in the projects considered compassionate at all? Isn't claiming that where they are is horrible, and yet working to keep them there, really the very heights of cruelty?

Bush's Inherited Surplus

I've been hearing a lot about how Bush inherited a surplus and turned it into a deficit. And this is true, but there might just be a little more to the story.

Where did the budget surplus under Clinton come from? Were they spending more responsibly for social programs? Did he make reforms to the entitlement programs, the biggest drain on our federal budget? Did he set out to reduce the scope and power of the federal government and therefore the related costs? To a certain extent, he did. He slashed the budget as it pertained to our military and our intelligence agencies. The main role, the most important role, of our federal government is protecting our sovereignty, and this is where he targeted his cuts. Just ask yourself whether Bush would have inherited that surplus if Hillarycare had gone into place.

So what happened to that surplus? Well, for one, the country was in a recession when Clinton left office and Bush came in. The economy is cyclical and will have it's ups and downs. The only thing the government can really do to affect this, is to make it worse. Bush believed, and I agree, that when the economy is flagging you make government bite the bullet and let the people keep more of their money to put back into the economy. Obama believes that you make the people bite the bullet, and give their money to the government to put back into it where and however the government sees fit. Let's ignore for a moment that raising taxes in a struggling economy has only ever served to make it worse. I know many will say that government spending got us out of the depression. But what got us out of the depression was WWII. So maybe it was government spending on the war, but it wasn't new social programs. All those served to do was stabilize the unemployment rate in the double digits.

So Bush has a surplus, but the economy is on the downward slide, meaning revenues are going down and that surplus is being eaten up without any additional spending. And then what happened? We got attacked on 9/11. There was the recovery cost of that to deal with, while at the same time spending money to rebuild everything that Clinton had torn down. The CIA needed to be rebuilt so we could actually obtain intelligence that Clinton had deemed irrelevant now that the cold war was over. Setting aside the attacks on our planes, our embassies, and our Navy, we didn't need intelligence to deal with those. And the military? We were at peace so what was the point of having a strong military. Don't you know being proactive and prepared is way overrated?

And then we had natural disaster after natural disaster again eating away at the budget. Then Bush had the idea to create the new entitlement program that the country was clamoring for. Medicare part D. A new drain on the budget, a new entitlement program, and more spending.

After that the Republicans in Congress hit their spending stride. The economy was booming and revenues were climbing at a faster rate than ever before, but they fulfilled the old cliche of the more you make the more you spend. Setting none of these new revenues aside for the future, they kept a short-sighted vision on the expectation that the economy would never have another downturn.

At the same time, the banks were being put under pressure by the likes of Barney Frank and ACORN to give loans to people who didn't actually qualify for them. All in the belief that every American has the right to own their own home. A right I have as yet been unable to locate in the Constitution. This drove the housing costs through the roof. The banks were also being pushed to give other loans, and Americans went on a spending spree, emulating their government, and maxed out limits that were set way too high in the first place. As a result of the pressure put on the banks to make these loans, people's money was being taken up paying for the past with nothing left to spend in the now. Demand for products began to drop, meaning production went down, and the workforce was cut. And then the defaults started.

The credit crisis, the inflated housing market, and a cyclical slowing of the economy is what served to create the deficit. Much is made of the money spent on the war, but the truth is that if Congress had stayed the hell out of banking, and allowed the banks to operate the way they needed to instead of the way Congress thought they should, and had Congress focused on cutting the pork and payoffs in the bills they passed, then we would have been able to sustain the cost of the war.

The housing boom and bust is the center of our current troubles, and what has Obama and the 111th Congress done to address that? Not a damn thing!

Bend Over For The President

While in Italy the President was captured checking out a backside reportedly attached to a 16 year old girl. This could be just a man appreciating a thing of beauty, after all, who hasn't looked at something that caught your eye just to find out it was something you really shouldn't be looking at? I'd give him the benefit of the doubt if it wasn't for the fact that, since he took office, he's been asking every American to bend over and grab their ankles.

But here we have a man who is trying to pass legislation, and pass it quickly, which will grow the federal government to the largest it's ever been. He's taking us further and further away from the government listed in our Constitution and the ideals set forth in our Declaration of Independence. He is single minded in his goal to turn us into Europe, the one thing our Constitution was supposed to protect us from. But maybe he only wants to be someplace where he can ogle a teenage girl's backside with impunity. But if that's the case, I wish he would have moved there on his own and left us the hell alone.

And why do you think it is so important to pass the healthcare legislation before the August break? Is it because the crisis that they've been talking about for 20 years just can't wait a day more? Will all of us be bankrupt from our medical bills by the time Congress comes back? Nope. But if the congressmen get back to their own districts and find out just how upset people are about the high cost and low return, his bill will really be in trouble. People may want a healthcare bill, but they also want a good one.

I for one am a little ticked at the idea of our healthcare reform bill including money for parks, walking paths and street lights. They may say it's an encouragement for people to exercise, but if you don't go out and walk now, streetlights aren't going to help.

So when it comes right down to it, I'd rather have our President looking at a teenage girls butt instead of him asking me to bend over and present him with mine.

If You Build It...

I just watched the Nancy Pelosi weekly press conference (have I mentioned that I love working from home)and healthcare was addressed. The congress is looking mainly for a government run option which would follow their pattern of spending as much money as they can as fast as they can.

When asked about the cost of the public option that the majority support, Pelosi indicated that the Congressional Budget Office has not factored in the savings from prevention and early intervention, and that they need to look for every bit of savings they can find. Savings, savings, savings, is what she said. But that savings would be very difficult to calculate. Should we base the savings on the assumption that if you build it they will come? There are many people, like me, who just don't go to the doctor regularly. And I have preventative care as part of my insurance. How then can we calculate the cost of the savings when we don't know how many people would actually use their new preventative benefit? History has already shown us that their estimates on the costs of their programs is usually way off, and this could be why. If they are going to count on savings that won't actually ever come to pass, we should be concerned.

My other concern is their insistence that a bill, any bill, must be passed this summer. This continues their trend of being more concerned with doing something fast than doing it right. Look at how that worked out with the stimulus package. We had to pass it without reading it so the money could get into the system immediately. And 4 months later only 10% of the money has been spent. Shouldn't we instead take the time to ensure that a program which will impact the country for decades, if not forever, is the best possible bill that it can be? Shouldn't they be looking for a plan that delivers the best solution for the lowest cost instead of trying to cook the books to make the plan they want more palatable to the people? Shouldn't this fall under the old cliche of "if it's worth doing it's worth doing right"?

I am very concerned with the way Congress is spending our money. It appears, to me at least, that they are using our money to fund the growth of the government instead of the growth of the economy. And should we burden an already struggling economy with another $1 trillion in debt?

Delay is preferable to error. - Thomas Jefferson

Another Stimulus?

So the white house admits that they had their collective heads up their asses when it came to the economy. Didn't know it was that bad, and didn't write the stimulus package right. So now they're saying, since we screwed this first stimulus package up so royally, we'd like a do over.

So they want us to let them try again and see if they do better this time. Problem is that the first stimulus has only had 10% of it's stimulus money spent. So if they pass another one, will THAT one get money into the economy now? Doubt it. After making an $800 billion dollar mistake we should just give them another try?

Maybe, just maybe, they should have taken the time to actually READ the first one. That might have helped. But they had to do it right now and get that money into the system. Uh huh. So here we are 4 months later, and 10% of that money that had to be spent so quickly that we couldn't read how, has actually been spent.

Of course they also claim the stimulus is working, even though unemployment is at 9.5% now and their green shoots have withered and died. But still they claim it would be worse without that stimulus. Of course there is no proof, no evidence, and no way to prove this.

Another stimulus package is the height of stupidity. But then again, isn't stupidity what Washington does best?

The Caribou Call to Arms

Let me just start by saying that I don't want Sarah Palin to run for President. I think she would do a much better job of inspiring the people and holding the politicians accountable when she doesn't have other duties to distract her or compromise her. I think instead that she should play to her strengths, and say what you will about her, she does have some.

In a blog on The KOOK's Manifesto, I commented that I wanted her out there throwing a bucket of ice water in the faces of the complacent American populace to wake them up and make them see what's going on, while simultaneously delivering a series of bitch slaps to the Republican party and the old politics as usual rut we're stuck in.

Call her Caribou Barbie if you want, call her an idiot, call her a quitter, the woman still has the charisma to really reach out and speak to the American people. This is where her folksy charm, you betcha and a wink come in to play. She can speak TO the American people, not AT them. And what we need now is a wake-up call so WE can take back our country from the endless pursuit of ever growing government power. We don't need somebody in a single office anywhere near as much as we need the people to pay attention to those in EVERY office. We need somebody to remind us all of the great principles on which this country was founded and inspire the populace to stand up and fight for them all. Let's set all the distracting social issues aside and send them to the states where they belong, and instead focus on a federal government that is growing at a rate that makes cancer look sluggish. Focus on the irresponsible spending of OUR money with out even an attempt at efficiency. Focus on reminding our politicians that they actually work for us and we're not afraid to send them packing. This is what we really need.

So if it's going to be Caribou Barbie that can put the focus of the American people where it needs to be, well then, I'll have to learn how to do a caribou call. If I had the least idea what a caribou actually sounds like, I'd start practicing now.

Ellen Degeneres As Cover Girl Rep

I just saw a commercial for Cover Girl make up with Ellen Degeneres as the spokeswoman. I think this is brilliant! Ellen has a huge following, mainly because she is a hoot, but she's also one hell of a talk show hostess. But in addition to that, she is a combination of being lovely, and being your everyday woman.

In the commercial she lends her humor to the product, while at the same time explaining why it's great, thereby speaking to most women on a level we understand and embrace. And she also makes fun of herself in that uniquely Ellen way.

What I love about how they did this advertising is that it targets more to the average, everyday woman, and using a woman that most of us love. Ellen makes a great spokesperson for any product, but I love seeing her used specifically for a make-up. Her American Express commercials are great as well, but seeing her talk about make-up, and particularly an age defying product, makes me want to try it.

By the way, if you've never seen Ellen's stand-up routine on procrastination, I highly recommend it. I've seen it several times and laugh myself silly with every viewing.

Selling Tickets to a Funeral?

The fact that tickets are being sold or raffled in order to admit entrance to a memorial or a funeral I find morally repugnant. Enough with Michael Jackson already. Why on earth does the funeral have to be a media circus?

Did they raffle off "tickets" for Princess Diana? Did they raffle off tickets for Ronald Reagan? Have they ever before raffled off tickets for a funeral? Like the man wasn't enough of a freak in life, they have to make him a public spectacle in death as well?

I understand that millions mourn his passing, but why do they have to turn his memorial into a concert? And then of course the cost to the city for the added police force that will be required to deal with the crowds. Nice of the Jackson family to consider the strain on a city in a bankrupt state when they made their plans.

Personally, I am sick to death of the Michael Jackson hoopla. Just put the man in the ground and lay it to rest already.

God's Fireworks

For the 4th of July celebration I got together with a few friends for beer and barbecue and had a great time. We even managed to set up a badminton net and played, badly, for a while. It was really humid here in the center of the country, but not too hot as storm clouds were rolling in. But playing was still fun.

No matter the direction we faced, fireworks displays could be seen. They started early as the dark clouds made a great backdrop for the colors of the fireworks. The great state of Missouri is not one of the states that protects it's people from themselves by outlawing the sale and display of fireworks, so in addition to the city display, which we could see from the yard, the neighbors were all having fun with fire. We had our own that we shot off as well. But as it got full dark, the sky was lit up with more than man made fire. God was making His own contribution to the show. Having fireworks with a backdrop of lightning made the display something really special. For nobody can put on a show like He can.

It also served to remind us that God should always be a part of our celebration. The freedom we celebrate we believe is a freedom given to us by Him. Being included in our Declaration of that Independence, He should also being included in our celebration of achieving and maintaining that Independence. For as with the fireworks display, God's contribution made it something more than it ever could have been alone.

So I thank God for his display last night, and for reminding me of who we should really thank.

God Bless America.

Promote the General Welfare

A comment was made on my blog yesterday which brought up the fact that, though the preamble to the Constitution has no basis in law, it is used while interpreting the role of the federal government. One phrase in particular is used as an excuse for everything the federal government does to expand it's own power.

The preamble reads, "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice and ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America."

That general welfare clause has been used as a justification for many new programs and wasteful spending over the years. Isn't our current push for government run health care touted as "promoting the general welfare"? But what about another clause? What about that little thing about "ensure the blessings of liberty"? Have we decided that some of these clauses are more important than others? If so, how did the general welfare become the top dog in the prioritization process? So important that we can push liberty and justice aside for it? Considering that our pledge of allegiance says with liberty and justice for all, not for the general welfare of all, shouldn't liberty and justice be a little higher up on the totem pole?

Their legal interpretation of the preamble was this; "Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department of the Federal Government, the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution. ''Its true office,'' wrote Joseph Story in his COMMENTARIES, ''is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the Constitution, and not substantively to create them. For example, the preamble declares one object to be, 'to provide for the common defense.' No one can doubt that this does not enlarge the powers of Congress to pass any measures which they deem useful for the common defence. But suppose the terms of a given power admit of two constructions, the one more restrictive, the other more liberal, and each of them is consistent with the words, but is, and ought to be, governed by the intent of the power; if one could promote and the other defeat the common defence, ought not the former, upon the soundest principles of interpretation, to be adopted?''

The annotation uses the common defense as an example, but what about using the general welfare as an example. Doesn't the above interpretation mean that the federal government CANNOT use that phrase in order to expand it's own power, or to create power for itself. Yet isn't that exactly what it has been doing for years? The quote above says "no one can doubt that this does not enlarge the powers of Congress.." But that doesn't appear to be true since many people, many, many people, believe that it DOES enlarge the powers of Congress. And Congress is way more interested in their power than our liberty. So now we are pushing liberty aside, and in some cases justice, in order to promote an incorrect interpretation of the general welfare. And we're using that incorrect interpretation to create power where it was not given, nor intended, in the Constitution.

The annotation also says that it should be used to see if some legislation is working against that statement more than if it's working towards it. Couldn't the argument be made that cap and trade is against the general welfare? Explain to me, if you can, how increasing everybody's energy costs, putting thousands out of work, and giving the government control over free enterprise is a promotion of the general welfare. Because, frankly, I don't get it.

The fact is that the pre-amble to the Constitution should not be used as a justification for any law or any new program. Those items listed there are already covered in the body of the Constitution in the powers delegated for each branch. And if the power is not designated, then it is not a power that exists. No matter what the preamble says.

The Textbook of Freedom

Needing to be reminded, after all of the apologies for our arrogance, of what a great nation we truly are, I decided to read Reagan's speech where he referred to us as a shining city on a hill. I was just 14 years old when Reagan was elected to his first term in office, but I remember clearly going, as a nation, from demoralized and depressed as we dealt with the fall out from Vietnam, the economic problems and the energy crisis of the Carter years, into the hope and pride that Reagan instilled.

Whether you agree with his economic policies or anything else about him, Reagan, in his speeches, reminded us of why we should be proud and why our nation was great. I found a story that he tells regarding the signing of the Declaration of Independence that I would like to share.

You can call it mysticism if you want to, but I have always believed that there was some divine plan that placed this great continent between two oceans to be sought out by those who were possessed of an abiding love of freedom and a special kind of courage.

This was true of those who pioneered the great wilderness in the beginning of this country, as it is also true of those later immigrants who were willing to leave the land of their birth and come to a land where even the language was unknown to them. Call it chauvinistic, but our heritage does not set us apart. Some years ago a writer, who happened to be an avid student of history, told me a story about that day in the little hall in Philadelphia where honorable men, hard-pressed by a King who was flouting the very law they were willing to obey, debated whether they should take the fateful step of declaring their Independence from that king. I was told by this man that the story could be found in the writings of Jefferson. I confess, I never researched or made an effort to verify it. Perhaps it is only legend. But story, or legend, he described the atmosphere, the strain, the debate, and that as men for the first time faced the consequences of such an irretrievable act, the walls resounded with the dread word of treason and its price -- the gallows and the headman's axe. As the day wore on the issue hung in the balance, and then, according to the story, a man rose in the small gallery. He was not a young man and was obviously calling on all the energy he could muster. Citing the grievances that had brought them to this moment he said, “Sign that parchment. They may turn every tree into a gallows, every home into a grave and yet the words of that parchment can never die. For the mechanic in his workshop, they will be words of hope, to the slave in the mines -- freedom.” And he added, “If my hands were freezing in death, I would sign that parchment with my last ounce of strength. Sign, sign if the next moment the noose is around your neck, sign even if the hall is ringing with the sound of headman’s axe, for that parchment will be the textbook of freedom, the bible of the rights of man forever.” And then it is said he fell back exhausted. But 56 delegates, swept by his eloquence, signed the Declaration of Independence, a document destined to be as immortal as any work of man can be. And according to the story, when they turned to thank him for his timely oratory, he could not be found nor were there any who knew who he was or how he had come in or gone out through the locked and guarded doors.

Well, as I say, whether story or legend, the signing of the document that day in Independence Hall was miracle enough. Fifty-six men, a little band so unique -- we have never seen their like since -- pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. Sixteen gave their lives, most gave their fortunes and all of them preserved their sacred honor. What manner of men were they? Certainly they were not an unwashed, revolutionary rebel, nor were then adventurers in a heroic mood. Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists, 11 were merchants and tradesmen, nine were farmers. They were men who would achieve security but valued freedom more. "

For that parchment will be the textbook of freedom, the bible of the rights of man forever. Is it? Or are we relegating it to a piece of interesting, but irrelevant, piece of American memorabilia?

We should all know the text of the declaration, and more importantly, what it really means and represents. Everything that is done by our government should be examined and compared against those truths laid out in the textbook for freedom. Do you, as an individual, hold these truths to be self-evident? Or do you believe they are up for negotiation based on what the government promises you in return?

America's Addiction - And Not To Oil

We hear a lot about America's addiction to oil, but she has another addiction. One much more destructive to her. America has an addiction to government breast milk.

The breast milk is the drug that has been sweeping the nation since the 1960's when the war on poverty created welfare. Like many other drugs, this one is for a specific purpose and helps the individual when used as directed. However, when abused it has the same bad results as the other drugs on the market.

So what are the bad effects of this drug? For one, it is very, very addictive. The longer you suck on the government tit, the more palatable the milk becomes and the more difficult it is to give it up. That milk saps your ambition, your desire to work and keeps you in a continuing state of poverty. It propels people to violence as they seek more than what the milk can give them, and are driven to find something, anything, to fill their time and their days. It also causes children to be born into this addiction, thereby perpetuating generations of families addicted to the government tit and unable to break free. Many know nothing but this addiction and can't see what it is doing to them or how much better life without it would be.

There are those that manage to kick the habit and go on to live very productive lives. But as with any rehab, the percentage of addicts who recover is very small.

And yet, unlike an addiction to any other drug with such negative effects when misused, we do not arrest the dealers for this drug. Why? Because the dealers are the different levels of government. Instead of being encouraged to free themselves from this addiction, the government, the pusher, does their best to convince the addict that they will take care of them. That more will come and this time it will be better. And this drug is cheap, you get the fix every month and all you have to do for it is cast a vote. A very fair trade. This is how the pusher keeps the user addicted and keeps their power over the user.

This drug must only be used as directed. The failure to do so has such debilitating effects on individuals and all of society. And yet, instead of encouraging people to enter rehab to break the drug's hold, the government is always working to find more versions of the drug in order to get more people addicted. Just like any other drug dealer would do.

Disabled Debbie From the Town Hall

I didn't watch much of the Health Care town hall meeting because I was actually working, but one thing has caught my attention. That is the woman, Debbie, who spoke about how she can't work, has no insurance, and a new tumor.

Let's set aside for a moment that this woman was placed there as an Obama supporter. She's actually a volunteer for one of the organizations working toward health care. I can see her being a volunteer due to her situation, but as somebody who deals with insurance, her situation raised some questions for me.

Obama answered her situation by saying a nation this rich should be able to take care of people in her situation. My question is, don't we already? If she is really unable to work isn't she on SSI Disability? And if she is, then guess what, she qualifies for Medicare if she has paid into it. If she hasn't, then she's eligible for Medicaid. So our current socialized health care programs actually cover her situation.

So why isn't she on Medicare or Medicaid then? Could it possibly be that SSI Disability has a policy of denying every claim on it's first submission and only reconsidering on appeal? But wait a minute, this is a government program. Isn't it only the evil private insurers who would do something so diabolical? And she did say that SSI has denied her claim saying renal failure is not a qualifier for disability. This is the government program folks. This is the people we plan on putting in charge.

She also said she doesn't qualify for Medicaid because she has to be on disability. And Medicare eligibility occurs for renal failure, but only once you've started dialysis.

This is why Debbie is disabled but not already covered under that umbrella? My deepest sympathies go out to her for the health issues she is going through, and I hope her issues are resolved soon, but sadly, this is more of a condemnation of our government insurance programs than our private ones.

Just Call Me Faust

This should be the new flag created to replace "Don't Tread On Me". The American citizenry appears to have cast aside their Republic and embraced Tyranny. In effect, we are selling our soul to the devil.

Where Faust cast aside the eternal blessing of God to get the immediate satisfaction promised by the Devil, we are casting aside our liberty, our very freedom, for the instant gratification of a government handout.

Or wait, is our leadership Faust? Selling out to the biggest donors in order to grab power.

Either way, it appears that our country is becoming one giant Faustian Bargain. And the question I have is whether or not any government program is worth our liberty. I have to say no, but evidently many say yes. Or else they are unaware of the bargain they are making. You don't ever get something for nothing. By taking what is offered you are agreeing to their terms, and once caught, there is no escape.

Government Watchdogs Are Being Muzzled

The Inspector General is supposed to be a watchdog, pure and simple. Their role is watch and inspect what is going on, and if they see anything questionable, start barking like crazy. They are there to ensure that the tax payers money is being spent the way it is supposed to be spent. In essence, they are there to keep the tax payer from getting robbed.

But it looks like there's a new trend to muzzle the old watchdog. And if they somehow get the muzzle off and manage to bark out a warning, then they're going to get put down.

The most recent watchdog to get put down is Inspector General Fred Weiderhold of Amtrack. To be clear, he was not fired for what he said, he was "retired". Amtrack is our government run train system that is heavily subsidized by government funds. It was IG Weiderhold's job to ensure that our money was spent wisely. And bark loud and long if it wasn't. But he had been pretty effectively muzzled. He was forbidden by the Amtrack leaders from communicating with Congress without their approval, and any written communication had to go through them. Um, OK. So the people robbing us blind demand the right to edit the documents that tell Congress that they're robbing us blind. That's a great way to ensure that things are working effectively. And keep in mind, Amtrack got $1.3 billion in stimulus money. The office of the inspector General got money in that stimulus package as well. On paper. The leadership of Amtrack actually appropriated the money for the IG. Weiderhold did manage to get the muzzle off long enough to get somebody's attention, and now he no longer has a job.

But Wiederhold was not the first, and he won't be the last. There was also Gerald Walpin, Inspector General of AmeriCorps. And why was Walpin fired? Because the powers that be didn't like his investigation into the misappropriations of AmericCorps funds. They fired him for doing his job. This is not an enviable job to have. The Inspectors General are whistle blowers as their main job function. They are there to protect us against waste in our government, but how can they protect us when the government retains the right to fire them. And how can our government work if the people designated to speak out are silenced.

Then there is EPA employee Alan Carlin who did his job but his conclusions weren't what the administration wanted to hear. As a result his report that CO2 emissions are not impacting climate change, and that the climate may not, in fact, be getting warmer, was suppressed and he was instructed to work on something else. The memo to him actually said that his report did not support their policy or legal stance. OK, silly me. I thought the EPA was there to report the conclusions dictated by the data, not by the President. To be fair, Carlin is still employed. For now. But he has been speaking out. He has slipped his muzzle and is sharing the findings of his report.

We need our watchdogs unmuzzled. The average American doesn't have access to the files of all of the government organizations so we have these watchdogs in place. How can we have any faith at all that our government is acting in our best interests when our watchdogs fear getting kicked if they bark. Our once vicious watchdogs protecting our interests will lay down and whimper as the thieves rob us blind.

The big question is whether or not we're going to let this happen, or if the American people have become a bunch of whimpering lap dogs as well.