Throwing Down The Gauntlet: Pt. II

In Part I we discussed the ‘Five-Minute Rule’. This week we’ll discuss why you need to look and act the part, which you need to incorporate when applying the rule. In Part III we’ll break it down into the mechanics of the same.

Right or wrong, all of us tend to stereotype people. But we’re civilized enough to keep it to ourselves. Likewise, people typecast you when you expound on your values of limited government. Regardless of the political perspective, too often those conventionalisms are correct.

I remember meeting a legislator for the first time in a buffet line at a political luncheon. I’m not certain why, but he struck me as being a pompous, obnoxious, big government, wimpy wife beater. My first impression of him was extremely negative and nauseating, I was uncomfortable with his presence, and I didn’t want others to assume we were more than recent acquaintances, so I found an excuse to terminate our casual discussion. Sure enough, a decade later he made the front page of the local rag for beating his wife after making multiple attempts at expanding government.

How are you labeled when you espouse your principles?

As a former weightlifting coach, I prided myself on how effective I was in influencing and inspiring youngsters to apply self-discipline in achieving their fitness goals in a sane manner. No drugs, no radical supplements, no silver bullets, and no shortcuts. Just cold, black cast iron on steel bars, proper technique, moral fiber, and pure grit. Oorah!

My athletes ate it up and stayed motivated.

Could I have done that if I didn’t look the part of a healthy and fit weightlifter and bodybuilder? Not likely.

Take a look at how many public school teachers are unable to gain their students’ respect in the classroom. Most of those offenders have no business in a classroom, let alone representing the human race, because they dress like slobs and sound inarticulate. How can you educate if you fail to emulate the ideals of an educated person?

Are we, as proponents of self-responsibility, emulating the epitome of how such a person should look and act? Do we always assume responsibility as often as we should? Or do kids see us blaming someone else for a problem, even if it is someone else’s fault?

For example, we may be quick to blame an elected representative for our problems, but what did we do to prevent that public official from being elected? Did we spend a few minutes every day influencing the politically undecided or did we spend more time with a remote in our hand before Election Day, cursing at the polls and the opposition’s campaign advertisements?

Those of us, including me, who took the time to educate voters, even though we sometimes failed, are beginning to reap dividends, four years later, if we didn’t succumb to all the freebies and handouts that are available. But if the local media caught us whining to a government assembly, council, or commission for more services, then we just shot to hell everything we stood for.

In other words, we’re our own worst enemy if we’re not modeling ourselves as the quintessence of limited government. In order to influence fence sitters to vote for candidates who embody our values, we need to fall in love with our ideals, 24/7, and act as if they’re becoming contagious. No looking back. Just have faith, assume it’s happening and it will.

We need to start behaving like mature adults in public. Negative issues should be taken up privately, when possible. Start with minor issues and work your way up as you become more proficient and comfortable with debating your point.

Returning to last week’s analogy, could someone with a battle-scarred face sell the concept of shaving with a straight razor? I don’t think so and we need to start practicing what we’re preaching.

Those kids are watching our behavior.

Together, we can do this.

Pete Alexion

Please subscribe to:

Our nationally syndicated weekly blog

Our monthly newsletter

Throwing Down The Gauntlet, Pt. I: Challenging Kids

The solution rests with you and only with you. This series will provide you with ideas that are an easy means of implementing your values in limiting government to its enumerated powers.

One of the differences between a child and a mature adult is the dependency of the former on the latter. The difference between an adult and a mature adult is the dependency of the former on both the latter and the government.

Your job is to transform the child into a mature adult capable, of assuming self-responsibility. That’s easier than you think if you’ll stop coming up with excuses for just five minutes a day. That’s because a child will respect and listen to a mature, rational adult for at least five minutes, but not to an overgrown, irresponsible idiot.

Frustration is one of the common denominators we share regarding our intent toward restoring government to its enumerated powers. While it may appear to be easier said than done, most of us are guilty of being less of a solution than we think we are.

Vocalizing irritating thoughts and waving Gadsden flags doesn’t solve problems. Cracking jokes on Facebook and Twitter, more often than not, is merely preaching to the choir. Writing letters to representatives has a slight effect, depending on the quality of the letter and maturity of both the sender and recipient. The least effective communications are inundated with ‘you’ and ‘they’, in lieu of assuming responsibility.

The real solution lies with you and your influence on children and adults who have the cerebral capacity that you can intelligently impact upon.

It’s very easy to instill in children the values of limiting government to its enumerated powers and assuming responsibility for their actions. All that’s required is a respected influence. Please bear with me while I illustrate a lengthy analogy.

As a child, I didn’t have the advantage of being directly molded and challenged by real men on a daily basis – not by my standards. Often, I had to ‘borrow’ another kid’s dad to learn what young men were supposed to learn. Unfortunately, one of those skills that I had to learn on my own was shaving.

Physically, I matured very quickly and by the time I was in the seventh grade I had to shave every morning. A year later, I had a five-o’clock shadow by 3:00 PM. So, a date in the evening meant that I had to either shave twice in the same day or lose out on intimacy, as no teenage girl wanted her face sandpapered by my brutal whiskers.

Beginning in 1964, there was a toiletry product boom designed to appeal to a new generation of less masculine men, which continues to this day. Instead of straight and double-edge razors, there were idiot-proof, hi-tech, convenience razors because men were either too lazy, stoned, or irresponsible to figure out the correct angle a blade was to be applied against their face.

As a substitute for masculine scents, aftershave lotions became tooty-fruity or smelled feminine. What was odd about the toiletry boom is that even boys who didn’t shave were buying the lotions to douse themselves with.

To a 12-year old kid, it was confusing and expensive because there were too many options to choose from and social pressure was against masculinity. Somehow, society came up with an unwritten law that my flattop haircut, butch wax, and ordinary clothes had to go the way of the telegraph.

I lived outside of a small town that had an old fashioned apothecary (pharmacy) where I purchased all of my shaving gear. The pharmacist was the type of reserved and respected gentleman whom you’d be hesitant to purchase condoms from if you were a kid.

One day the pharmacist, who knew me fairly well and was cognizant that I didn’t have a consistent, masculine form of guidance in my life, took the time to explain a few facts of life to me, regarding shaving, so I could save my hard earned cash. Then he reached below the counter, took out a small, slender cardboard box, laid it on the counter, and matter-of-factly stated that I wasn’t a real man unless I used one of these.

He threw down the gauntlet.

I opened the box, took out the straight razor, and gawked at it. I knew he was challenging me for my own good and I couldn’t back down due to a surge in testosterone, fear, and excitement. I purchased the straight razor and a leather strop.

The next morning my face looked like a battlefield and to this day I haven’t a clue as to how my jugular vein remained intact, because my hands were shaking before I was finished shaving and I was almost out of styptic powder. But within a few months, my ugly mug was back to its usual state of ugliness sans blood, nicks, and scabs. The next time I was at the pharmacy, did I blame the pharmacist for the cuts on my face? Hell no. I accepted responsibility for my actions, solved my own problems, and not once did I raise the issue with him. He respected me for that, just as I held him in high regard and respected his challenge and maturity.

While my self-edification could have been classified in the Darwin Awards category for not seeking adult supervision, I didn’t take the easy way out and the investment made sense to me, especially since I have a tough, thick beard that was destroying double-edge razor blades. But none of my classmates and friends, by the time they were old enough to shave, went the same route I went.

Why?

Most of my classmates had real fathers. Or did they? Perhaps their fathers simply went with the trend instead of fighting the influence of marketing campaigns.

That same year (1964) was a turning point in America’s history and many men caved to the new themes of being soft and showing their feminine side. They went with the tide, much like the way political moderates accept whacko nonsense such as global warming, saving minnows, free health care, hugging trees, bailing out solar panel companies, and blaming whatever else is politically correct for the sake of blending in.

It was the easy way out, back then, and still is, along with college degrees in underwater basket weaving and teaching certifications to maintain a deferment from the draft. No cerebral activity or intestinal fortitude required.

Today, I’m presuming (right or wrong) that less than 1% of all American men enjoy the masculine tradition of whipping up a mug of hot lather, stropping a blade, and shaving with a straight razor, all because of a lack of a testosteronic influence. Likewise, how many adolescents have the correct influence in their lives regarding our traditional values toward government’s role and purpose?

If today you had a chat with a 12-year old about our values, that parent might lose self-control as if you handed their child a straight razor.

Why? And how can we get parents to not come unglued? How do we throw down the gauntlet in the devalued 21st century? How do we challenge kids (and parents) to accept responsibility in a society that preaches and pressures individuals to do the opposite?

In the same manner that pharmacist did.

Did he do it with every kid who purchased shaving gear from him? Probably not. He only mentored who was capable of being influenced, who had enough sense, and who could think for himself. The rest weren’t worth his time.

Likewise, you need to scrutinize whom you invest five minutes of your time with, when compensating for society’s ills. And don’t look elsewhere for reprieve.

Many of the old standby organizations that stood for accepting responsibility, such as the Boy Scouts of America, are no longer as efficacious as they once were. They too are becoming overly concerned with political correctness due to pressure from those who lack honorable values.

Forget about the public schools. You can’t get much further away from America’s traditional values than that. Don’t believe me? Imagine the following scenario involving two high school senior boys:

It’s Friday, school just ended, both have a date in a few minutes, and both need a shave. While everyone else is boarding the school buses, they head to the boy’s room. One is using a Mach 5 razor and the other is using a straight razor. The principle walks in. Which one is in trouble for acting like a man?

On that note, let’s take a step back to my shaving analogy. If you wanted to teach all of the young men in America how to shave with a straight razor, how would you do it? Can you do it? If not, why not?

My guess is once we have the answer to those questions, we can apply it to teaching and learning the principles that survived the test of time. In the meantime, try applying my ‘five-minute rule’.

Each day, devote just five minutes to influencing a youngster about the values of assuming responsibility and decreasing their dependency on government.

What could you accomplish in five minutes, presuming you are a mature, responsible adult with reasonable communications skills?

Well, the truth is, most of the adult population isn’t mature enough to responsibly devote five minutes a day for the benefit of maintaining our traditional values. Pity. In fact, most adults would rather whine to each other than solve problems in a conciliatory manner.

In Part II we’ll toss the gauntlet again with another analogy. In subsequent columns, we’ll become more finite with our solutions.

Together, we can do this.

Pete Alexion

Please subscribe to:

Our nationally syndicated weekly blog

Our monthly newsletter

P.S. Got five minutes?

How To Become A Political Hero In Two Naïve Steps

Imagine I was driving recklessly and caused an accident that totaled your vehicle, but showed no remorse for my actions. Afterwards, I go to the junkyard, salvage the cigarette lighter out of your trashed vehicle, and return it to you. Would you consider me to be your hero?

Or what if I punched you in the nose for selfish reasons and then offered you a tissue to mop up the blood. Would you think I was a swell guy?

Sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it?

Well, that’s exactly what politicians are doing with much of the unconstitutional legislation they voted for, such as ObamaCare, to win favor with you after destroying your liberties and freedoms. It’s not a new political strategy, rather one that’s increasing in popularity in response to your diminishing rights.

Here’s is how it works …

After voting for the whole enchilada, they’re going back in, correcting one tiny, miniscule portion of it, bragging about how they’re working hard for their constituents, and asserting that they’re saving America.

Most voters fall for it because they’re too slow to catch on, have short memories, and are willing to submit to accepting breadcrumbs when they’re the ones who are baking the entire loaves that feed our economy. Small business owners don’t have the time to babysit crooked politicians.

That’s because the immoral majority didn’t elect representatives with moral fortitude to vote correctly on legislation to begin with. We’re settling for a poor substitute while you pick up the tab.

Recently, a U.S. Senator had the audacity to mail a classic example of such an appalling act to his Alaskan constituents.

Let’s look at the facts based on videos of town hall meetings and media reports:

• The senator voted for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka ‘ObamaCare’) without reading it, but defended his actions by stating it was good for Alaska businesses.
• He did so in spite of his constituents’ overwhelming displeasure with him, his anti-free enterprise stance, and our grave concern for his arrogant, big government attitude of “I know what’s best for you – you don’t”.
• The bill included a requirement that businesses file a form 1099 for each gross receipt of $600 or more, which he apparently didn’t object to.
• Said requirement was a tremendous impediment to free enterprise in Alaska due to its unnecessary and counterproductive administrative burden.
• The senator defended his actions until sufficient pressure mounted from his constituents.
• Constituents had to read the bill to the senator, who was oblivious of its contents.

And now he’s trying to portraying himself as your hero.

In all fairness, Sen. John Thune (R-SD) sponsored The Red Flag Program Clarification Act of 2010 that included a provision to strip the 1099 requirement. The Alaska senator, after sufficient pressure, became a cosponsor of the bill, which provided him with an escape from his unlimited government stance.

But we still have ObamaCare and that senator, who is partly to blame for free enterprise struggling in Alaska and partly why the BRAC status of Eielson AFB has become a greater concern. The cost of doing business in Alaska is becoming excessive and military bases depend on local businesses for support.

And now that same senator asserts that he’s going to save EAFB and us from the evil BRAC by suspending a general’s promotion that was earned for service to his country. How pathetic and childish. Promotions are not based on future performance, rather, recognition for leadership and management achievements. The senator’s grandstanding suppression of the general’s promotion is nothing more than a distraction with a circus act of unethical politics substituting for his inability to rationally discuss the matter as mature adults do.

Our Armed Forces have no respect for juvenile politicians.

Besides, what does that senator know about service to country? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. And he still hasn’t figured out (or won’t admit) that he’s part of the reason why those F-16s and related personnel are moving south.

But he does know how to pander to greedy morons who want the financial windfall of EAFB, free health care, exorbitant union wages, and so forth. He feels that integrity, honor, and his oath to uphold the Constitution have absolutely nothing to do with the 1099 issue. In fact, had he any principles, he wouldn’t have lied to you and supported ObamaCare, to begin with.

Then again, can you name one politician or bureaucrat who favors unlimited government but has principles and scruples? I can’t.

As politicians continue to expand the size of government, the weight of trivial gifts bear more significance as your freedoms and liberties are stripped away.

Take 99, gift 1, and become a hero.

Aren’t you getting tired of this prepubescent comportment? Isn’t it time we found at least one adult to represent Alaska’s interests?

How do we solve this problem?

Each time you’re offered a breadcrumb you should publicly and loudly refuse it. Remind the politician how he or she caused the dilemma. Make it very clear of your disappointment in them as your employee and that you will fire them if they don’t start acting like a responsible, mature adult.

In this case, tell the senator that he needs to take the initiative by reversing the entire mess he’s caused, propose legislation to repeal ObamaCare as the more ethical representatives have, and to continue proposing similar legislation until successful.

Say ‘no’ to breadcrumbs and ‘no’ to quitting on reversing his mistakes. You’re not paying that politician to provide you with tissues after giving you a bloody nose.

Together, we can do this.

Pete Alexion

Please subscribe to:

Our nationally syndicated weekly blog

Our monthly newsletter

The Unfair Share

Do you believe the wealthy should pay more taxes?

Why?

One of the greatest debates of our time is over the concern of taxation. Whether it’s the current code, 9-9-9, fair, flat, or complete elimination of all taxes, advocates of monstrous government have one premise on their mind: tax the rich and redistribute the wealth.

The inept, who desire more government and more adult supervision over their failed lives, need your money. The more they want, the more they need, and the less they believe you should have, if you earn more money than they earn.

Bill Whittle, of PJTV and known for his Firewall video series, composed a very informative video entitled, Eat The Rich! Mr. Whittle acquired his data from ‘Iowahawk’ blogger David Burge, who wrote Feed Your Family on $10 Billion a Day.

The purpose of ETR’s easy to understand graphical explanation was to crunch the numbers and illustrate how increasing taxes on the wealthy will not solve our financial crisis. In fact, not only would it be counterproductive, but completely unrealistic. If the ultimate, obese government’s tax plan was implemented, the American Dream could never be realized, by anybody.

Messrs. Burge and Whittle took into consideration every semi-confidentially proposed tax increase and theft of cash flow to pay for the 2010 budget, regardless how unrealistic you and I believe they are.

In order for fat government to have their cake and eat it, this is what their ‘take-it-all’ tax plan would ultimately involve:

• Profits from all Fortune 500 companies
• Super bowl ads
• Professional sports salaries
• Household income over $250K
• Recent wars
• Summer blockbuster movie profits
• Most expensive homes in Beverly Hills
• Almost all billionaires
• Foreign aid
• An extra $40 from every household

If chubby tubby government repossessed all of that money, what would be left? What profits would be available to reinvest into the following year? Where would companies obtain capital to pay the wages and salaries of employees?

Most importantly, where would the following year’s gross receipts come from?

Aficionados of huge government have been screaming for years, “Tax the Rich!” Why? Because it sounds good? Because it’s political rhetoric that’s in vogue? Or because no one in Washington has the acumen to solve problems?

And what would happen if porky government did get its way? Wouldn’t it want more, the following year? Where would that money come from?

The 100% tax plan is on the tips of many Beltway tongues. It’s the next step toward one of the many forms of a government-centric union. It doesn’t matter what ‘-ism’ label you put on it, one outcome remains: no incentive to become exceptional by America’s traditional standards.

Those of you who are small business owners, such as myself, are all too familiar with the discouragement of hiring employees. From health care plans, to withholdings, to endless forms and reports, it seems as if the government is trying to discourage us from success. And now they want more of your sweat equity. For what?

If you can spare nine minutes, I encourage you to watch Eat The Rich!” If you’re confused about wealth hording, the relationship between prosperity and our enormous debt, and what ‘fair share’ is all about, this video should put an end to your bafflement.

And while you’re on YouTube, take some time to treat yourself to Bill Whittle’s other Firewall videos. I promise you won’t be disappointed with his irrefutable presentations and common sense form of delivery.

Together, we can do this.

Pete Alexion

Please subscribe to:

Our nationally syndicated weekly blog

Our monthly newsletter

Keep Your Eye Off The Shiny Object

Unlimited government loves to pull the same pranks that most children pull to distract voters from the real issues.

For example, as kids, we might tell another kid that their shoe is untied. As the second kid looks down, the first kid will flip the kid’s nose with a finger because they’re distracted from the real issue.

Big government is playing the same doltish game because acting like mature adults is counterproductive to their ulterior motives.

Which are you more concerned about: the national debt or college kids getting free condoms, homosexual unions or termination of unethical bureaucrats?

You know the right answer but they’re hoping you don’t, because that’s not big government’s answer. It’s more efficient and easier to cloud the important issues so they can remain employed at your expense while continuing to grow government at a phenomenal rate.

Because of their immaturity, and regardless of their political party affiliation, they continue their childhood games. Rather than reverse a bad decision, it’s perpetuated in the same manner children prolong a disastrous act by enticing colleagues who enjoy the game. It reminds me how one kid will swipe a cap from another kid’s head and start playing keep-away with other miscreants. Eventually a more mature child will catch the hat and return it to its rightful owner.

Only a few members in Congress fall into the latter category by working to return what rightfully belongs to our Nation’s citizens. The rest are creating diversions from reality. Let’s look at two of their prepubescent smokescreens.

Recently, a college student was invited to cry her heart out to Congress about the lack of government-funded condoms and now we have a president advocating government-sanctioned homosexual unions.

Both actions have the following common denominators:

1. Our representatives are meddling in affairs that we didn’t hire them to meddle in
2. Sexual intercourse should never be discussed in public
3. Neither concern is even remotely connected with their constitutional obligations or have anything to do with preserving your liberties
4. They’re not the real issues and they’re hoping you don’t look past those childish feints

Now that most of you are disappointed, if not angry at their unscrupulous and mischievous behavior, you’re inattentive from what’s really at stake.

It’s all about dangling a shiny object in front of you while influencing you to not think for yourself. That is, if they can make you believe that a condom for a college student is a more pressing issue than the national debt, then they won and our country loses.

When The Wizard of Oz told Dorothy, “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain”, did she fall for the distraction? Even Toto was smart enough to figure out the wizard’s shenanigans. Likewise, in unlimited government, ulterior motives trump ethics and constitutional obligations.

If you want more condoms, you’ll buy them and without the support of Nancy Pelosi et al. What anyone does behind closed doors in the privacy of their bedroom is just that. Private. And you don’t need government yahoos monitoring your sex life.

Obviously, the big government crowd disagrees and wants to regulate and sanction the sexual lives and lifestyles of what should be discreet in a civilized society. That’s disgusting and perverse.

Whose business is that and why should it concern you and me? It doesn’t. It’s a distraction and a mockery at the expense of the millions who fought for our freedoms. The same goes for same-sex marriages. Sexual preferences have nothing to do with defending your liberties.

Marriage is primarily a church function that should not be governed by bureaucrats. Obama disagrees and recently went on record with his position. To add insult to injury, he then required the Catholic Church to issue contraceptives. That’s a willful disregard toward the separation of church and state, among other things.

Again, that’s not the real issue. It’s ‘carnival barking’, as Obama likes to call it. Did your representatives challenge Obama on such unconstitutional issues? If not, why not?

These are deliberate distractions from a track record that incompetent representatives don’t want you pondering over. By misusing terms, such as ‘equality’ and ‘equal rights’, with a false interpretation to ‘pursuit of happiness’, those who lack cerebral activity are being molded into how the bureaucrats want them to think.

The same could be said for global warming, Internet security, TSA’s groping, baseball players, and so forth.

Take a tip from Dorothy and Toto and don’t focus on the smoke and mirrors. Stay the course of ‘enumerated powers’. Anything outside of that basic principle is a threat to the real happiness you’re supposed to enjoy.

Now keep your eyes on the shiny watch. When you wake up, you’ll vote for …

On another note, please remain mindful of the spirit of Memorial Day and that the freedom they died for is dying.

Together, we can do this.

Pete Alexion

Please subscribe to:

Our nationally syndicated weekly blog

Our monthly newsletter