Paging Al Gore

Remember back in May during the campaign when then candidate Obama said "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times... and then just expect that other countries are going to say "OK"... That's not leadership. That's not going to happen."

Well I wonder what that Barack Obama has to say about THIS Barack Obama....

The capital flew into a bit of a tizzy when, on his first full day in the White House, President Obama was photographed in the Oval Office without his suit jacket. There was, however, a logical explanation: Mr. Obama, who hates the cold, had cranked up the thermostat.

He cranked up the thermostat? With Mother Gaia in the crisis she is in today???? What will the rest of the world think?

“He’s from Hawaii, O.K.?” said Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, David Axelrod, who occupies the small but strategically located office next door to his boss. “He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there.”

He's from Hawaii? Oh well that explains everything...Does that mean that people from Florida can turn their thermostats up? I mean they don't like the cold much either....

Or could this be yet one more leftist "do as I say and not as I do" situation?

Bailout Bonanza

Back when the banking industry bailout was first announced, Jazz and I commented on our Blog Talk Radio show that bailouts without any kind of constraint on how the money was spent was a very, very bad idea. But the all-knowing, all seeing experts in Congress (and both candidates for President) decided that it was best not to put any oversight into how that money was spent. Now Congress and President Obama are upset with how some of these banks are spending their bail out money.

Obama cited “the reports that we’ve seen over the last couple of days about companies that have received taxpayer assistance, then going out and renovating bathrooms or offices or in other ways not managing those dollars appropriately.”

While Obama didn’t mention any individuals or companies, his comments followed reports that John Thain, the former Merrill Lynch & Co. chief executive officer ousted yesterday, spent $1.2 million redecorating his downtown Manhattan office last year as the company was firing employees.

and

Beleaguered Citigroup is upgrading its mile-high club with a brand-new $50 million corporate jet - only this time, it's the taxpayers who are getting screwed.

Even though the bank's stock is as cheap as a gallon of gas and it's burning through a $45 billion taxpayer-funded rescue, the airhead execs pushed through the purchase of a new Dassault Falcon 7X, according to a source familiar with the deal.

While on one hand it is rather amusing to see the feigned expressions of outrage over the expected (by anyone with an ounce of common sense that is) continued mismanagement of "free" money given with no oversight to executives who have a history of mismanaging their investors money, it is rather annoying and more than a little disingenuous. I mean really - what DID Congress expect? Did they really expect these executive leopards to change their spots just because there were a few federal dollars involved in the mix?

Now to be honest, the money spent on both of these projects are stimulating the economy. Architects and builders and contractors had to be hired to work on the Merrill Lynch remodel project - contractors and builders that are really hurting right now. Those monies went to pay salaries for tradesmen who used that money on necessities like food and the like. The monies that would have gone toward that jet (CitiGroup has since decided that maybe that was not a wise use of the money) would have paid mechanics and engineers who again would have used it in shops for food, clothing or whatever for their families.

However well intentioned the folks at Merrill and Citi were (and I don't believe for a moment that they were), TARP funds were not meant for this kind of use. TARP funds were designed to be used to buy up residential or commercial mortgages and/or securities, obligations, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages, that in each case was originated or issued on or before March 14, 2008. Neither of the above uses falls into that category.

Everyone in Congress and the White House is mad that this money got spend the way it did and they are whining about lack of oversight. HELLOOOOO you guys had the power to instill oversight and YOU shirked your responsibility to the people and now you want to complain about how the money was spent? How about you guys do your jobs for once - instead of running around "doing something" how about doing the RIGHT thing for once....

Reality Bites

It's funny - when I posted on this subject last week, I was accused of engaging in "fear-mongering" by Richard in the comments. However, if my commenting on the subject is fear mongering, as Richard suggests, what do you suppose he will say about about the Euro's who ALSO don't want the detainees released in THEIR cities!

President Obama's plan to close Guantánamo Bay within a year appeared to be unravelling yesterday with the emergence of former inmates on terrorist websites, fierce opposition in the US and a lukewarm response to taking detainees from the European Union.

After signing an executive order last week to close the US military prison, Mr Obama has been confronted with myriad obstacles that are making his ambitious pledge look unrealistic.

David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, ruled out the prospect of Britain taking any more inmates, claiming that it had already made a significant contribution.

His announcement, at a meeting of EU foreign ministers, came as Saudi Arabia announced yesterday that it had rearrested nine Islamist militants, including former Guantánamo inmates released to the Kingdom who had undergone a re-education programme in Riyadh.

So is the Times Of London engaging in "fear-mongering" when they report on the recidivism rate of the Gitmo detainees?

Britian and Saudi Arabia are not the only ones reluctant to take the Gitmo detainees.

PARIS: Europe reacted cautiously yesterday to the idea of resettling terror suspects released from Guantanamo Bay, with some countries seeking a concerted European approach and others already opposed to the idea.

The Netherlands went furthest, ruling out accepting any newly freed inmates, despite broad European support for US president elect Barack Obama’s promise to shut down the notorious military detention centre.

“If they are not to be tried but cannot return to their own countries, it is first and foremost the responsibility of the country which arrested and imprisoned them, the United States,” a Dutch foreign ministry spokesman said.

“The Netherlands will not take in Guantanamo inmates.”

So let me see if I have this right - their home countries don't want them because they are too dangerous, Europe doesn't want them for the same reason, but they want US to release them into our population. Good to know.

Contrary to Richard's beliefs, this is reporting on news - not fear-mongering. There are things in the world that we should be cautious of. For me, the first and most important one is people who promise to kill our children. When someone says that there are no "innocent bystanders" not even children, well then I want to keep those people as far away from the children in my community as possible.

Richard - if these people are so beneign, then I'm sure you will be more than willing to have one or two of them housed with you and your family...right?????

Voting......

A week ago, I wrote a post about President Obama's record of voting "present" on the really tough, controversial issues. The local Obama apologists assured me I was wrong (ok that is a mild way to represent their reaction to my post - I'm in a generous mood tonight). Well I wonder what they will say about this....

Most politicians would rather do anything than make a difficult choice, and it seems President Obama hasn't abandoned this Senatorial habit. To wit, yesterday's executive order on interrogation: It imposes broad limits on how aggressively U.S. intelligence officers can question terrorists, but it also keeps open the prospect of legal loopholes that would allow them to press harder in tough cases...

The unfine print of Mr. Obama's order is that he's allowed room for what might be called a Jack Bauer exception. It creates a committee to study whether the Field Manual techniques are too limiting "when employed by departments or agencies outside the military." The Attorney General, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Director of National Intelligence-designate Dennis Blair will report back and offer "additional or different guidance for other departments or agencies."

In other words, Mr. Obama's Inaugural line that "we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals" was itself misrepresenting the choices his predecessor was forced to make. At least President Bush was candid about the practical realities of preventing mass casualties in the U.S.

Present.....

Sound Familiar?

What decade was this???

• During the war, federal spending grows three times larger than tax collections. When the government cuts back spending to balance the budget, a severe recession results. However, the war economy invested heavily in the manufacturing sector, and the next decade will see an explosion of productivity... although only for certain sectors of the economy.

• An average of 600 banks fail each year.

• Organized labor declines throughout the decade. The United Mine Workers Union will see its membership fall from 500,000 in 1920 to 75,000 in 1928. The American Federation of Labor would fall from 5.1 million in 1920 to 3.4 million in 1929.

• "Technological unemployment" enters the nation's vocabulary; as many as 200,000 workers a year are replaced by automatic or semi-automatic machinery.

• Over the decade, about 1,200 mergers will swallow up more than 6,000 previously independent companies;
  

• By the end of the decade, the bottom 80 percent of all income-earners will be removed from the tax rolls completely. Taxes on the rich will fall throughout the decade.

• The richest 1 percent will own 40 percent of the nation's wealth. The bottom 93 percent will have experienced a 4 percent drop in real disposable per-capita income.

• The middle class comprises only 15 to 20 percent of all Americans.

This was the 1920's - the build up to the Great Depression. The same kind of economic policies that brought us to disaster in 1932 are being brought to bear today. Interest rates have been cut dramatically, government spending is out of control and that is BEFORE they decide to "bail out" failing banking institutions, unemployment is rising and Congress (and the President) plan for a massive redistribution of wealth. Is it any wonder that some are calling for a return to FDR's post WWI policies?

How bad is the economic outlook? Worse than almost anyone imagined.

The economic growth of the Bush years, such as it was, was fueled by an explosion of private debt; now credit markets are in disarray, businesses and consumers are pulling back and the economy is in free-fall. What we're facing, in essence, is a yawning job gap. The U.S. economy needs to add more than a million jobs a year just to keep up with a growing population. Even before the crisis, job growth under Bush averaged only 800,000 a year — and over the past year, instead of gaining a million-plus jobs, we lost 2 million. Today we're continuing to lose jobs at the rate of a half million a month.

There's nothing in either the data or the underlying situation to suggest that the plunge in employment will slow anytime soon, which means that by late this year we could be 10 million or more jobs short of where we should be. This, in turn, would mean an unemployment rate of more than nine percent. Add in those who aren't counted in the standard rate because they've given up looking for work, plus those forced to take part-time jobs when they want to work full-time, and we're probably looking at a real-world unemployment rate of around 15 percent — more than 20 million Americans frustrated in their efforts to find work.

A couple of facts to put Krugman's hyperbole into perspective. First, the "population growth" that Krugman fears so much is actually is based on more than a few assumptions. The first assumption is that immigration (legal or illegal) will stay the same. As we started seeing when the economy started to tank, illegal immigrants are leaving the US in droves. In addition to that, US population growth is slowing AND growing older. As the Baby Boomers age and leave the workforce, their jobs will fall to younger workers.

Krugman then goes on to mention the age of Reagan...

Remember the economic boom of 1984, which let Ronald Reagan run on the slogan "It's morning again in America"? Well, Reagan had absolutely nothing to do with that boom. It was, instead, the work of Paul Volcker, whom Jimmy Carter appointed as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board in 1979 (and who's now the head of your economic advisory panel). First Volcker broke the back of inflation, at the cost of a recession that probably doomed Carter's re-election chances in 1980. Then Volcker engineered an economic bounce-back. In effect, Reagan dressed up in a flight suit and pretended to be a hotshot economic pilot, but Volcker was the guy who actually flew the plane and landed it safely.

Well, not everyone agrees with Krugman that Volcker was the man who "flew the plane and landed it safely".

A Carter appointee, Volcker’s attempts to use interest-rate increases to slay inflation in the late ‘70s were met with a great deal more inflation. By February of 1980, with the Fed funds rate at 14 percent, gold hit an all-time high of $875/ounce.

The dollar’s aforementioned fall was of course sped along by another major mistake carried out by Volcker just a few months prior. Correctly recognizing the futility of interest-rate targeting, Volcker shed the latter only to make a fateful decision that would drive the U.S. economy even further into the ditch. Put simply, in October of 1979 Volcker began a three year experiment with Milton Friedman’s monetarism.

Instead of targeting the Fed funds rate, Volcker attempted to target the quantity of money with disastrous consequences. Though inflation is surely a monetary phenomenon as Friedman long noted, with the majority of physical dollars outside these fifty states, attempts to control the quantity of dollars within these fifty states were bound to fail. To the extent that the Fed targeted various aggregates of U.S. money supply lower, this merely meant that dollars in other markets (eurodollars for instance) would fill the shortfall.

Worse, given the Fed’s efforts to control money quantity rather than rates, the Fed funds rate bounced around on a daily basis such that businesses faced an impossible task of raising capital owing to uncertainty about the rate at which they could raise capital. As Charles Kadlec and Arthur Laffer wrote at the time, “the Fed’s action reduced the viability and attractiveness of the dollar,” and as a result its policies “increased the prospects of inflation” in spite of the fact that monetarist targets “resulted in a slower growth in the measured quantity of money.” What the economy needed according to Laffer and Kadlec were “policies that lead to an excess demand for dollars relative to their supply.”

Those policies did materialize, but no thanks to Paul Volcker.

The crux of Krugman's column is if the Fed prints a boat load of money and nationalizes the bank and if the federal government creates a whole slew of temporary government jobs then the economy will bounce back. Banks can not be forced to lend money to people who don't want to borrow! Right now, the people who can best "rescue" the economy don't have faith in it. That faith was killed, in some part by the very politicians that now want to rescue it from certain disaster! The consumers are the ones who can best rescue the economy and right now they are not spending money out of fear of higher taxes, higher fuel costs, an over higher cost of living and a stock market in free fall. The job creators of the country are not creating jobs out of fears of high taxes, higher fuel costs, an overall higher cost of doing business and a stock market in free fall! We simply can not spend our way out of this mess. Responsible spending mixed with tax cuts, permanent job creation and ceasing to live well beyond our means are all parts of the solution to this problem. There is no single cure and anyone who proposes that is just selling you snake oil.

Wrong Track

I don't have a lot of time to comment on this, so I will leave it open to you....

Twenty-one percent (21%) of voters nationwide now say the United States is heading in the right direction. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey also found that 72% believe the nation is moving down the wrong track, while another 7% are not sure.

While those numbers are fairly bleak, they represent the most upbeat assessment since Election Day and reflect a national mood that is slightly more optimistic than before Barack Obama was elected President.

Last week, 17% of voters said the nation was heading in the right direction, while 75% thought it was heading down the wrong track.

Another survey released this week found that 26% of Americans are very hopeful for a quick turnaround with Barack Obama in the White House, and other 34% said they were somewhat hopeful. The same survey also showed that 48% of Americans believe Obama’s inauguration signaled a new era of race relations in the U.S.

So....any thoughts?

Executive Reality

So President Obama has lived up to his promise to sign the executive order to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. Now comes the debate on where the 200 plus prisoners that are being held there. Mentioned as potential relocation sites are Camp Pendleton California and Fort Leavenworth Kansas. There are a couple of problems with those ideas though. The first reality is that both Pendleton and Leavenworth would have to be retrofitted to adapt to the cultural needs of the prisoners. That means lots of time and money. The goal of having it closed in one year will not be met. You can bet on that.

The other problem is that neither the Democratic Governor of Kansas (who helped campaign on the close Gitmo issue) nor elected representatives from both parties in California want the Gitmo detainees in their states! That is because they understand what the Obama Administration and it's backers refuse to understand....that the people that are being held at Gitmo are dangerous and they want to kill as many Americans as possible.

And thus Hope and Change (TM) runs headlong into reality. Only time will tell what will come of it

Inaugural Controversy

There is controversy swirling around this weeks inauguration. On one side of the controversy you have emails like this floating around.

Makes a difference who is in power, doesn't it. The News media can twist and spin information to try to get people to think their way instead of just reporting the news and let the individual think for themselves.

Headlines On This Date 4 Years Ago:

"Republicans spending $42 million on inauguration while troops Die in unarmored Humvees"

"Bush extravagance exceeds any reason during tough economic times"

"Fat cats get their $42 million inauguration party, Ordinary Americans get the shaft"

Headlines Today:

"Historic Obama Inauguration will cost only $120 million"

"Obama Spends $120 million on inauguration; America Needs A Big Party"

"Everyman Obama shows America=2 0how to celebrate"

"Citibank executives contribute $8 million to Obama Inauguration"

And the person who put this together has a small point. There were headlines like that criticizing the Bush Administration for excessive spending during a war as the January 2005 inaugural events were being planned....and then 4 years later the same people didn't say "boo" as the costs of the Obama inaugural soared during a a recession. However, as FactCheck.org points out (if you don't have them bookmarked YOU SHOULD) points out, these are not apples to apples comparisons.

Claims of a huge disparity are untrue. Actually, an apples-to-apples comparison shows that the two inaugurations likely cost about the same.

The final security costs of the Obama inauguration have not yet come in so yes it could be much more, but we won't know for a month or more.

However, there is a lesson to be learned from this controversy. Take what the media tells you with a large grain of salt! I don't care who that media outlet is. Don't believe what they tell you without doing your own due diligence. They are selling a product. Contorversy sells and that is what the media is doing.

I have talked before about the book "Regret The Error" (Craig Silverman's excellent book on media mistakes) in the past and again the points he makes in the book resonate. What most people take to be bias in the media is nothing more than rank incompetence! A smart consumer does their research when going to buy a car - why shouldn't we do the same when consuming news?

Setting the Tone

Submitted with minimal comment....






HT my co-workers who heard this on the MSNBC stream.

Stay classy Obama supporters...stay just as classy as you are.

Inauguration Day

OK - I read this yesterday (after I put this post up) and I have to say I was just a little upset - enough to actually come to the defense of our 44th President.

Though much of the world will party through the night Tuesday after Obama is sworn in as America's 44th president—just as it did when he was elected—there are signs the ardor is cooling as the sheer weight of his challenges sinks in.

A deepening global recession, new hostilities in the Middle East, complications in closing the Guantanamo Bay prison, Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan—an impatient world has a stake in all of them and is asking how much change Obama can deliver.

"Just two months ago, the future president seemed a cross between Superman and Merlin the magician," Massimo Gramellini wrote in a commentary for Italy's La Stampa newspaper. "Now he himself admits he won't be able to keep all his promises, and who knows? Maybe someone will ask for his impeachment by the end of next week."

I really do hope that Mr. Gramellini is engaging in a little hyperbole, because anyone who could consider impeaching a President for going back on his campaign promises, needs to make sure that they have kept all of their campaign promises first (and I can about guarantee that the answer will be no). Only a complete ideologue (or a complete idiot) would even think that going back on a campaign promise constitutes "high crimes"...

Muslims want to know why Obama hasn't joined the chorus of international criticism of Israel's Gaza offensive. Last week posters of him were set on fire in Tehran to shouts of "Death to Obama!"

The reason for this is that, in many Islamic circles, Barack Obama falls into the "once a Muslim always a Muslim" camp and since his father and adoptive father were both Muslims.....President Obama will have continuing issues from that camp.

Sweden's prime minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt, told parliament last week he empathizes with the monumental challenges facing Obama.

"I think it's difficult to find an American president who is being met with such a number of expectations as Barack Obama," he said.

That's the problem, said Reginald Dale, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington: People everywhere simply expect too much, practically ensuring Obama will disappoint.

While Team Obama does bear a little culpability in setting the expectation bar high, but they are not completely at fault. The media bears (as I said yesterday) bears much of the responsibility there. The problem with the media setting someone so high up on a pedistal is that they love to knock that person OFF the pedistal once they are set up on it!

"The United States can't solve all the world's problems," he said in an interview. "It doesn't have enough money or military power. And the president is constrained by Congress and the constitution. The founding fathers wanted to stop someone from being like a monarch."

And that in a nutshell is it. The world expects us to solve their problems and we are not set up to be the world ruler. Yeah we have had Presidents who thought that we were the "king of the world" (and they are sadly mistaken) but the rest of the world is more than happy to look to us to solve their problems and then when it does not happen they love to be pissed at us for not solving their problems!

And with that here is where I come to the defense of President Obama on his Inauguration Day. Give the man a break. He is just a man - a mere human. He can not solve your problems for you, so quit expecting him to do so. Get up off of your **** and solve your own problems. You are not helpless - there are lots of folks out there who want to help - but we can not do it all for you and neither can President Obama.

Founders Morning Quote

"There exists in the economy and course of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness; between duty and advantage; between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy, and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity; since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained."

--George Washington, First Inaugural Address, 1789

A Fair And Balanced Education

As the parent of a kid who plays multiple sports, I feel the pinch that the Star Tribune talks about in this article. As much as I understand that sports are necessary to help a young person grow, I also understand that the schools mission is to educate kids - not provide a farm program for local colleges.

What bothers me is some of the numbers that the article mentions.

In Lakeville, the district's two high schools will each cut $200,000 (20 percent) from their activities budgets for 2009-10 and participation fees are expected to increase.

Do the math - the Lakeville school district spends $1M a year on extra-curricular activities????? Wouldn't some of this money be better used in teaching "at risk" kids? How many other districts are spending this kind of money on athletics?

At Armstrong High School in Plymouth, participation fees have been raised to $200 for athletics and $100 for activities. But there is still not enough money to buy basic sports equipment like bats and balls. Hockey, skiing and lacrosse teams are no longer allowed to rent bus trailers for hauling their gear to competition. Ninth-grade teams in soccer, tennis, softball and wrestling have been eliminated. And a creative thinking-based academic activity called Future Problem Solving has gone away because, well, because there was no way to solve the current financial problem.

I think that raising participation fees is an excellent idea - even if it does stretch our already thin budget even further. It gives the Logical Husband and I a way to help the Junior Logician prioritize. If he wants us to cough up the activity fees, he has to be responsible for keeping his grades at an acceptable level. That said, when the Logical Husband and I were in high school we did not have separate teams for each grade. 9th and 10th grade students played on the Junior Varsity team while the 11th and 12th graders played on varsity. Maybe it is time for schools to go back to that model.

When push comes to shove though, many of these activities are a luxury. 99% of high school student athletes will not make it to the professional ranks. It makes sense, in these tough economic times, that the items that are cut are not the items that the vast majority of the students will need to be successful adults. Things like math, history, English and the other core curricular subjects are the things that schools need to focus on most. Not monument buildings, not staff and sadly not athletics. However if parents can chip in (by car-pooling kids to the games hauling equipment to games etc) to help offset other costs we should. We are (after all) partners in our childrens education and partners are there to help - not just foot the bill.

Taking A Stand

During the course of the last 4 years, we were fed the drumbeat that the US was "hated" by the world. The underlying implication of this meme was that we were hated because of President Bush and his policies and the media cure (during this election cycle) for that was a President Obama. Oh to be sure, some of the usual suspects helped perpetuate that meme, but now that the election is over and President-elect Obama is about to celebrate his inauguration the reality is becoming clearer.

Contrary to his earlier comments of support for Obama, dictator for life Hugo Chavez has decided that President-elect Obama is not going to bring much change after all.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Saturday Barack Obama had the "stench" of his predecessor as U.S. president and was at risk of being killed if he tries to change the American "empire."

Most world leaders expect a new era of U.S. foreign relations when Obama, a Democrat, is sworn in as president on Tuesday after Republican George W. Bush's eight years in the White House.

But Chavez said frayed ties with Washington were unlikely to improve despite the departure of Bush, who the Venezuelan leader has often called the "devil."

"I hope I am wrong, but I believe Obama brings the same stench, to not say another word," Chavez said at a political rally on a historic Venezuelan battlefield.

Chavez is not the only one with that opinion. It should come as no surprise that this protest took place in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Iran.

So why the sudden change of heart. I suspect in large part because of media culpability. The American media was very invested in coronating the "first African American President". Because of that investment, they were very careful to only report on the flowery speeches and the soaring rhetorical campaign promises. They completely ignored a long running voting record that simply did not match the rhetoric. The voting record (in the US and Illinois state Senate) showed a candidate that was afraid to take a stand on controversial issues. Senator Obama's favorite vote to make on controversial issues was "present". When certain bloggers and "right wing" pundits tried to point out the disconnect between the rhetoric and the record, we were pushed aside and told that history was being made and who were we to block history in the making. Now that the media has no choice but to report on the President elect backing off of his campaign promises on everything from Guantanamo Bay to embryonic stem cell research, everyone is shocked, SHOCKED I TELL YOU to find out that President-elect Barack Obama is nothing more than a politician who will say anything to get elected!

All of this should be good news for disspirited conservatives. For President-elect Obama has shown a pragmatic streak that can be used to keep the far-left Pelosi led fringes of the Democratic Party at bay. This is a good thing for all of us.

My friend Gary Gross has his own take on the whole "world hates the US meme". While he and I don't fully agree on the cause of the meme, it is a take to consider. You need to read it.

Change That Won't Happen

One of the problems that I have with political discourse today is that too much of the discourse (on both sides to be fair) is not based on anything more than feelings. Little (if any) thought is put to many issues - just how it makes them feel...the latest issue is H.J.Res 5.

1/6/2009--Introduced.

Constitutional Amendment - Repeals the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution (thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President).

This bill has Republicans across the country "feeling". I have had no less than a dozen variations of this story hit my mail box in the last two days.

As Inauguration Day approaches and Barack Obama prepares to assume his first term as president, some in Congress are hoping to make it possible for the Democrat to not only seek a second term in office, but a third and fourth as well.

The column admits that former Presidents of both parties have taken issue with the 22nd Amendment, but with the title "Hail King Obama" you know that this column is designed ONLY to elicit emotion not promote discussion. The hyperventilating that comes with the attached story is a sight to behold.

Let's take a look at the process of amending the Constitution, not from an emotional level but from a more clinical level. First off, the Constitutionally prescribed process for amending the Constitution.

There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.

This process, as you can tell, is quite cumbersome. Now how easy do you think it will be to get 327 members of THIS current Congress to agree on ANYTHING, much less this type of an amendment to the Constitution. How easy do you think it would be to get 75 Senators to agree? If by some wild stretch of the imagination it miraculously passed the House and the Senate this year, how quickly do you think you can get 38 state legislatures to not only get it on their legislative schedules but get it past THEIR respective Houses and Senates by the same 3/4's majority in time to have it go into effect before President Obama leaves office?

To give you a hint about just how long the odds are, let's take a look at the last amendment that was ratified. The 27th Amendment to the US Constitution provided that no pay raise that Congress voted on would apply to Congress until the FOLLOWING session. Which means that the pay raise that you just voted for yourself takes effect AFTER the next election and if you lose..... The 27th Amendment was first proposed in 1789 and finally ratified in 1992 - 202 years later!

Another modern amendment to look at is the Equal Rights Amendment. The ERA was first proposed in 1923 by Rep. Daniel Anthony and Sen. Charles Curtis - both Kansas Republicans! The ERA was introduced in every session from 1946 to 1970 and it never garnered enough votes to even get out to the states.

Oh sure there was one instance where an amendment was proposed and ratified in less than one year, but it was the exception to the rule. The political environment in 1933 was not nearly as divided or as politically charged as it is today.

As things stand today it would take 8 Republican Senators and 9 Republican state houses flipping in order to ratify the repeal of the 22nd Amendment. Does anyone think that there is any chance, in this political climate, that this could possibly happen? Or is it just some unknown Representative out of New York - one of 29 - grandstanding in order to get a brief hit of warmth and light off of a spotlight that belongs to the next President of the United States?

Good News On The CPSIA Front

A couple of CPSIA updates to bring to your attention. First is this bit of fantastic news.

After a barrage of complaints, federal regulators shifted gears Thursday and said they would no longer require that used children's clothing, toys and other items sold at secondhand stores be tested for lead.

Thrift and consignment store operators had protested that they couldn't afford to pay for the testing, and that doing so would require them to stop selling some goods or even go out of business.

This is great news to non-profits like the Salvation Army and Deseret Industries and every hospital, nursing home and church that runs thrift stores.

Now the bad news - retailers who are already hurting as a result of the bad economy are unable to get their test results back because of the backlog at the testing facilities.

On Friday, clothing buyers from retail boutiques start pouring into the downtown Los Angeles garment emporium to decide which items to stock. Preparations for the year's first market day are always hectic, but they've been tinged with panic this week.

That's because hundreds of clothing manufacturers from across the country have been scrambling to test their children's garments for lead and anxiously awaiting the results, hoping they comply with a new federal law designed to protect kids from tainted products....

Retail giant Neiman Marcus, the San Diego Zoo and a few small boutiques have already said they won't even look at any children's goods that haven't been certified. The trouble is, many of the independent testing labs around the country are too backed up to return items by the deadline.

The retailers are trying hard to be proactive - on very short notice I might add - but at what cost?

The requirements are crippling businesses already struggling in a slow retail climate.

A blow to L.A.'s fashion industry would be another hit to the local economy, affecting jobs in mills and ports as well. Los Angeles County has the nation's highest number of apparel-manufacturing employees, according to the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp., with 56,617 in the second quarter of 2008, the most recent figures available.

"It's going to really hurt our business, and we're already struggling because retail is not doing very well," said Anastasia Backstrand, the owner of children's clothing manufacturer Tralala Inc., based in Orange.

A children's clothing manufacturer sent its whole line back to India to be re-appliqued with glass instead of crystal, because it feared the line wouldn't meet the lead standards, one showroom owner said.

Taggart, who is paid $100 an hour for her testing service, had to inform a Midwestern maker of onesies that the snaps on her garments had failed. She then fielded a call from the weeping owner, who said she needed the income from her clothing business to survive.

"It is just devastating," said Ilse Metchek, president of the California Fashion Assn.

Contrary to what you hear, big business is trying to do the right thing however in doing so they (the employers) are getting the shaft of big government.

Starting in August, only labs that have been certified by the Consumer Product Safety Commission will be permitted to offer the testing. The labs charge an average of $800 per test. Manufacturers are absorbing the costs, knowing that they don't have a choice.

"With the economy the way it is, you can't pass the cost on to the customer," said Joanne Yamamoto, owner of Mimi & Maggie, a Los Angeles maker of girls' clothes.

Many companies say they would be able to comply with the law better if it allowed them to test components of garments, such as buttons or thread, before assembling them. Others say they need more time and can't cover the costs of disposing of any garments that haven't been tested by Feb. 10, as the law instructs.

The good news for consumers is that the Consumer Product Safety Commission is holding open comments on this subject until January 30. If you have not done so already, contact them so that they know what you think about this law.

How Cold Was It?

There is a certain stoicism that living in the upper Midwest gives you, that I miss. When people here in Utah were breaking out the parkas, I was breaking out the light jackets. When people here started complaining about lows in the teens above zero, I finally, grudgingly pulled out the parka. Life there can be breathtakingly beautiful and harsh in one fell swoop, as many back home have been experiencing in the last two weeks. This Neil Steinberg column in today's Chicago Sun Times sums up winter in the upper Midwest....

Cold" is a paltry word to use in connection with the current extreme weather conditions in Chicago, a vague term that could just as easily describe tepid coffee or a somewhat drafty room.

"Like being in outer space" is the metaphor I trotted out Wednesday, one met with characteristic teen skepticism by my older son....

Chicago didn't come near the record of 27 below set Jan. 20, 1985, a date I remember because I got my Chevy Citation started by jamming an aluminum tray filled with hot coals under the frozen oil pan, a practice that is neither wise nor recommended.

But it worked.

However, even a veteran Chicago reporter had to dig to find just the right way to describe this latest assault by Mother Nature.

Grasping at an improvement on "cold," I pulled down Apsley Cherry-Garrard's The Worst Journey in the World, an account of Robert Falcon Scott's fatal trek to the South Pole in 1912.

Cherry-Garrard did not disappoint. The temperature is "ghastly," it is "beastly." It is "dreadful."

At 66 below, he finds his entire body trembling so hard he fears his spine will break.

"They talk of chattering teeth," he writes. "But when your body chatters you may call yourself cold."

"Body-chattering" isn't bad, certainly an improvement on "nosehair-freezing," which came to me while walking to work.

But he closes with the stoicism and indifference to something that you get used to living in that part of the world....

So there is your answer when somebody complains about the cold. "Cold?" you say, with a rakish arch of the eyebrow. "Yes, I suppose some might consider it cold. But we've seen worse."

Today's chuckle . . .

"How cold was it?" Henny Youngman asks. "It was so cold I saw a politician with his hands in his own pockets."

I miss the stoicism, I miss the sardonic sense of humor that many of my Upper Midwestern friends have, but I can honestly say I do not miss that cold and the layers of clothing that are necessary to survive it at all. I can live with and in it, but miss it......

Angel Alert!

Soldier's Angels is an organization that I was first introduced to via the Project Valor IT project. Well SA Louisiana has a new challenge up. They want to send Mardi Gras to Iraq. (HT Kissmygumbo)

OK Louisianans and Mardi Gras enthusiasts everywhere - time tor spread the love! We have 320 Louisiana Guard Soldiers who have been in Iraq for a while and could use some Mardi Gras cheer. This effort was done in coordination with Soldiers’ Angels and the LA Family Readiness Support Assistant (Contractor) Anglia (Nikki) Ganey. The 244th Louisiana Guard unit out of Hammond will be the recipients. If we get a huge response, we have a second unit in the wings.

While those of us in Minnesota and Utah may not know what to send (hint Google "King Cake" YUMMY!!!!!) we can help financially! Greta has a widget in her sidebar (I will be adding it myself shortly) where you can chip in a couple of bucks to help.

So come on folks, won't you please chip in to help bring a little bit of "home" to our soldiers? Be an angel and donate!

Selective Sacrifice

It was not that long ago that President-elect Obama gave an important speech on the necessity of reducing greenhouse gases.

In his first speech on global warming since winning the election, President-elect Barack Obama promised Tuesday to set stringent limits on greenhouse gases, saying the need is too urgent for delay.

One would think that the candidate of "Hope and Change" would start immediately on Day 1. However, that is apparently not the case.

Everyone knows the new administration will be the greenest in modern times. But you might not know how un-green the Inauguration is going to be. The Institute For Liberty scratched together some rough figures for illustrative purposes, and our new analysis Carbon Bigfoot finds:

• Celebrities, politicians, and bigwigs using 600 private jets will produce 25,320,000 POUNDS of CO2
• Personal vehicles could account for 262,483,200 POUNDS of CO2
• In the parade, horses alone will produce more than 400 POUNDS of CO2
• The total carbon footprint for the Inauguration will likely exceed 575 million POUNDS of CO2
• It would take the average U.S. household 57,598 years to produce a carbon footprint equal to that of the new president’s housewarming party

The IFL is quick to note that it’s not criticizing the travel or commerce involved — those can be good things that keep America moving and prosperous. But some people want to tax and regulate carbon emissions, and they happen to be the same people pumping out carbon dioxide like it’s going out of style.

One needs to wonder just how important reducing greenhouse gases really is to this new administration. It also makes one wonder just who will be forced to reduce their greenhouse gases - will it be everyone in the country or only those who aren't rich enough to matter?

Thankful for Bush?

One of the things that most Europeans have that most Americans DON'T is a sense of history and their place in it. The BBC's program "World Have Your Say" took a look back at the last 8 years from that place of history today and asked "What Do We Have To Thank George Bush For?" The answers may surprise most Americans who have heard little or nothing about many of the issues discussed.

Dr Ngoma in Dar es Salaam ,Tanzania

“When I look at George Bush’s presidency I think what he’s done with HIV is remarkable. The funds he pledged have touched the lives of many people; these people are my relatives, my patients and other people I know these are not statistics, this is real life. I could see these people having hope in life now because of Bush’s contribution to HIV treatments they can get better now and take care of their families. I know that everyone makes mistakes but we have him to thank for the HIV treatment and the lives he’s helped save.”

Colleen in New York City

“George Bush is a great man with great integrity. By going into this suffering country (Iraq), it was to free the people and to draw out radical Islam. Thank you George Bush and Tony Blair for all you have gone through and will continue to go through out of office as well, for your effort for eventual peace. Most of all, for doing all you could to keep us safe.”

And Joe in Nairobi Kenya sent me this

“Dear President Bush,
Thank you for speaking out for the people of Southern Sudan and Darfur when the rest of the world and many in Africa buried their heads in the sand debating about the semantics of the term genocide. Thank you for helping in the fight against Malaria and HIV-AIDS. More children in Africa will live to see their 5th birthday”

And from the comments....

Lian khan muan January 15, 2009 at 12:18

Bush has left us a peaceful nuclear deal on the part of India, a ’secular democraticaly elected Government in Iraq, Afghanistan, a ‘checked’ Russia, and scoes of legacies which are more than enough to keep him smiling all the way to his grave. Sceptics would like to talk about the failed Govts. in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries but America is one hell of a nation where America’s interest is the foremost and Bush cannot be blamed for that matter. The one who had tried all possible ways to keep Egypt and North Korea from the nukes deserve all the applause a man can ever deserve. His mistakes reflects the human side of man: his achievements/contributions reflects the superhuman side of man. We laugh with him, smile with him and been through all the way with him but can never have enough. And when the curtain closes down on him , we say ”THANK GOD FOR THIS SAVIOUR WE HAVE HAD”.Thank you, President Bush, for all that you have done.

As has been said before, history will judge President Bush as it has judged all Presidents before him and history will not judge for at least two generations. This generation is too close to the day to day and only the passage of time will tell us where he stands in the pantheon of the American Presidency.

Nothing Better To Do

...to focus on, we have the prospect of a Congressional investigation into the BCS...

Rep. Edolphus Towns, D-N.Y., the incoming chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said he will hold hearings and possibly subpoena NCAA officials, college presidents, players, coaches and athletics directors in an effort to force a playoff in Division 1-A football, USA Today reports.

Now I can certainly buy into the argument that Utah deserves the National Championship but the ARGUMENT about who is the best team in college football adds to the excitement and the hype and what drives INTEREST in college football. People care more about college football when there is a controversy about the national championship. It gives alums something to talk about during the rest of the year.

Sure the BCS system is flawed. I will grant you that and add that the NCAA has done a horrible job of deciding the national football championship FOR YEARS - I don't care what system they used. A playoff system (a la the Men's Basketball championships) probably won't be much better and it would certainly not be as fun. Given all of that, I still think that Congressman Towns would have many more important things on his plate - don't you????

Too Much Time On Their Hands

Some people have way too much time on their hands. Some of those people must work for the RSPCA given this story.

The animal welfare charity claims that forcing pets to wear clothing could be harmful, and in some cases there may even be grounds to prosecute.

Now to be fair they are not going after blankets or coverings designed for service animals - they are going after the people who accessorize the "accessory" dogs - people like Paris Hilton for example.

Canine couture has become fashionable in recent years and there is a dizzying array of products on sale, from bootees, pyjamas, all-in-one trousers and even hoodies for dogs.

Top fashion designers, including Vivienne Westwood and Ben de Lisi, have also created dog designs, while the London store Harrods has an annual fashion show called Pet-a-Porter.

That kind of thing IS way over the top and totally unnecessary. That is not to say that there isn't some time when "clothing" isn't necessary. A great case in point is what is going on in the upper Midwest right now.

But the fashion for pet clothes angers Lynn Williams, founder of dog charity Happy Dogs. She said: "People love their pets and the retail trade has latched on to that.

"To see a little dog dressed up in boots, I think, is a little over the top.

Sorry Lynn, I have seen situations where boots are necessary. As I said - when you are dealing with the bitterest of bitter cold temps and your dog has to spend any time outside, you need to protect their pads. If you walk your dog along streets and sidewalks that are covered in de-icer need to have their feet covered as the chemicals in the de-icers can not only burn their pads, but if ingested it could burn their throats! In addition, search and rescue dogs need to wear very thick boots in order to protect their feet from cuts.

They do make a lot of good points about the accessory clothing, but is that really something that you need to be tying up the court system with? I susepct not.

Speaking of Feeding At The Trough....

Utah's very own "Republican" Governor Jon Huntsman has his hand out for bailout money as well. (HT Michelle Malkin via Stepping Right Up)

With word of a possible $600 billion- to $850 billion-dollar stimulus package from the new administration to state budgets, Huntsman is asking for more than $14 billion for projects ranging from roads to water-treatment facilities. As part of the proposed energy-infrastructure upgrade, the state hopes to receive nearly $4 million in federal funds to beef up natural-gas fueling sites in the state.

Now many will (and have) argue that since the bailout money is coming from the states that it is only fair that the states reach out and take some back. However, the problem with that is it allows the federal government (again) to decide the winners and losers of the "bailout lottery". This also enables states who are poorly managed to continue to mismanage their states thereby continuing the dependency on federal government to bail them out after their mistakes.

If these projects are so very important to the state of Utah, why doesn't Governor Huntsman find a way for the state of Utah to pay for it on our own? I will turn my question from yesterday around and ask Governor Huntsman why should the citizens of Minnesota, Illinois and the rest of the country pay for CNG filling stations that they will never get to use?

The Pride of Utah

This is one reason why the 3rd District sent this young man to Washington DC.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker/Madam Speaker. I rise to give voice to the need to cut the size and scope of government. While the rhetoric and calls for increased spending continue to escalate, let us also remember it is our duty and our obligation to do more with less.

Over the past 12 years annual federal spending has more than doubled, exceeding $3.1 trillion.

Since January 2007 our government has added an average of $2.8 billion per day to our national debt. If deficit spending were the way to prosperity, our economy would be booming.

We are more than $10 trillion in debt, and there is no end in sight.

Let us remember it is not the government’s money we talk about and spend, it is the American people’s money. And we cannot afford to continue to run this government on a credit card.

We are going to have to do more with less and that means finding ways to cut government spending.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker/Madam Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time.

This is something that has bothered me in the last few weeks. In the last 6 weeks we have seen democrats around the country defending the incoming Obama administration projected deficit spending! Democrats like Maxine Waters, who was on "Meet the Press" just this last Sunday defending the very thing that she has been lambasting the Bush Administration over during the last 8 years!

So the question begs asking again - if we have been engaging in excessive deficit spending over the last 12 years and we are still in a recession, why should the American people believe that even more deficit spending will do the trick? After all, doesn't the old adage "The defination of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result" apply here?

Audlt Answers

While the MN DFL House leadership is twiddling their thumbs and pinning their hopes on an Obama federal bailout, the House GOP leadership has been busy proposing REAL budget cutting ideas.

Four proposals, offered by Representatives Marty Seifert and Tom Emmer, would have saved taxpayers money and shown the public that legislators are not above playing a role in balancing the budget. Seifert, R-Marshall, said the Legislature should hold itself to the same standard as the rest of state government.

"If we are going to be searching in every nook and cranny for ways to save money, it is hypocritical to set our own nooks and crannies off limits," Seifert said. His proposals included reducing House members' allotment of stationary and stamps, as well as reducing reimbursements for Internet, cell phone and other communications services.

A proposal from Emmer, R-Delano, – initially introduced as an amendment to House's Temporary Rules – would have cut off member housing allowances following adjournment in 2009. The housing allowance, which during the DFL-controlled 2007-2008 legislative session cost Minnesota taxpayers between a quarter and half-million dollars, would be returned to its 2005-2006 level when the Republican majority limited total out-of-session payments to less than $19,000.

The House DFL caucus reacted in their usual manner.....they voted them down in committee!

Honestly, which makes more sense - cutting per diem, postage and other Legislative expenses and combining committees or hanging your hopes on the possibility of a federal bail-out.

The Minnesota Legislature needs to lead and one of the ways it can show it's leadership is to do the same things that Minnesotans across the state are doing - cutting expenses FIRST!

UPDATE: It appears that I am not the only one who is making these prudent adult suggestions.

The commission's 34-page report that makes several recommendations for dealing with the ups and downs of the state budget.

Kiedrowski, co-chairman of the commission, said the report contains the first 25-year projections for state finances that have been prepared for the state.

Total state spending in the next 25 years is projected to increase 5.4 percent a year and health care costs in the state budget will rise at an average annual rate of 8.5 percent. Revenues are projected to increase 3.9 percent a year in the next 25 years, according to the report's projectoins.

“The public health care costs is the fastest rising cost in the state budget and far exceeds our revenue capacity,” Kiedrowski said.

Kiedrowski, who was Finance commissioner during DFL Gov. Rudy Perpich’s administration, said between $1 billion and $2 billion of the budget deficit for 2010-2011 is attributed to the state’s structural imbalance.

Kiedrowski said demographic changes in Minnesota will also have an impact on future budgets.

The commission isn’t recommending tax changes to ease the state’s volatility problems.

But the commission recommends a couple of ideas to help manage budget volatility in the future.

“I think what’s critical in this legislative session is for (lawmakers) to admit the problem, how they got into this problem and, in a sense, to adopt a work-out plan such that they have a financial goal in sight as to where they want to get as the economy recovers,” Kiedrowski said.

Until the DFL Leadership gets a grip on the FACT that spending is out of control, there is no solving Minnesota's budget deficit.

Show Me The Money

Not satisfied to fleece everything they can from the people of Minnesota, the Minnesota Legislature has decided to reach into the pocketbooks of the rest of the American people.

Show me the money!

That could be the motto for the Democratic-Farmer-Labor majorities in the Minnesota Legislature this year.

House and Senate DFL leaders announced Monday that their top priority for the 2009 session is to get all the federal money they can from President-elect Barack Obama's planned economic stimulus program.

While other states are doing the responsible thing and cutting spending, the Minnesota Legislature has bellied up to the federal trough. The same people who were opposed to bailing out the irresponsible management at Northwest Airlines back in the day are now lining up to get bailed out themselves.

So I will ask the Minnesota Legislature the same thing that they asked the Northwest CEO Doug Steenland back in 2001 - why should the citizens of Utah reward you for your mismanagement of your state? Hmmmmm??????

Gary The Elitist Liberal Racist

Garrison Keillor's latest screed is another work of elitist art. (HT Mitch)

When you look at the audience numbers for TV and then add up the incarcerated felons, Alzheimer's patients and confirmed barflies in America, it dawns on you who is watching TV these days -- people unable to lead normal productive lives --

Uff da! I didn't know that anyone who watched television didn't lead a "normal, productive" life. I guess I have to redefine productive because some of the most productive business people I know watch some television - usually cable news but....Gary then goes on to tie anyone who watches television with the "Current Occupant"

And we allow the Current Occupant to leave the Mansion d'Blanc with a big grin in a couple of weeks, his self-esteem apparently fully intact, imagining that his legacy will emerge golden and shining in a hundred years after all of us are deceased. He is one of the cheerfullest idiots you ever saw, a man who could burn down his own house and be happy that the patio was still standing. Had Congress impeached him, his defense would have been that he was not capable of understanding the charges.

Because after all you morons voted for him where Gary didn't and he knows better donchaknow...

Now honestly, I am used to Gary's screeds - read two of his columns and you get a firm understanding what an out of touch elitist he truly is. However, this next graph got my full attention.

So you shouldn't fret, dear hearts, if what you do doesn't draw a big crowd or get written up in the papers. Be proud. If you've dedicated yourself to the tango, or playing drop-thumb banjo, or digging up ancient cities, or writing sonnets, you are beautiful, and please do not yearn for the bright lights. Those wombats reading the news off teleprompters are talking to the bedridden, the delusional and the criminal. The happy StairMaster president is on his way to a mansionette in Dallas, to be the decider of where to put the sofa. His successor, Mister Mambo, has cast his lot with Harvard and Yale and old Clinton hands, and soon enough, Lord knows, they will get the first of many comeuppances, and their shining faces will be chopfallen.

Emphasis mine. In a campaign where the mere mention of the President-elect's middle name brough charges of racism, you can imagine the howls of outrage that came from this recent affront.....

......

......

......

Sigh....

While we wait and watch the double standard in action, go read Mitch's fisk of the entire column. It's classic....

Founders Morning Quote

This was from Friday but I wanted to add a couple of thoughts and I didn't have the time.

"Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to standing laws. He is obliged, consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this protection; and to give his personal service, or an equivalent, when necessary. But no part of the property of any individual can, with justice, be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people. In fine, the people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent."

--John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

One of the problems we have with a lot of political debate today is that we are debating from dueling definitions - take the discussion on "RINO"s. In this case, the debate needs to be on what defines "obliged" and "without consent". Is it consent when an elected body decides that they need to take more money from the governed for legislative pay raises when the governed are actually experiencing negative income growth?

This particular quote is basically the heart of the debate between the progressive movement and the conservative movement. For the progressive sees the sentence...

He is obliged, consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this protection; and to give his personal service, or an equivalent, when necessary.

as a justification for expanded government services (government health care for example) and expanded taxation.

The conservative sees this quote...

But no part of the property of any individual can, with justice, be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent,...

...as justification for fighting what they consider to be an unjust confiscation of individual property (whether it is real property or monetary property).

Yin and yang at work once again...