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

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?

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

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

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

During election season, we’re often inundated with slanderous remarks about the candidates’ purity. There’s a strong correlation between a candidate’s virtues and the size of the government they envision. And they’re hoping you’re not astute enough to notice.

If you’ve ever visited a political candidate’s web site, you probably scanned their list of endorsements, checking for names you know, like, or don’t like.

The old adage, “Show me who your friends are and I’ll show you who you are” applies to most of us in the way we judge candidates. If we notice endorsements from people or organizations whose virtues we hold in low regard, we may not vote for the candidate.

During the current POTUS race, supporters of the candidates are throwing questionable endorsements in each other’s face. One is attacked for religious affiliations and being a Mormon while U.S. Socialist and Communist parties endorse another candidate. Yet, the candidate who favors a smaller government doesn’t even list endorsements on his web site.

Behind those endorsements are the nobilities of their respective affiliations, which are often contrary to what the candidate asserts to be his or her source and sense of morality.

What I find most interesting in the game of principles is that those who purport their values the most, contradict their own reality and are least likely to condone a form of government limited to its enumerated powers. While that’s not an absolute indicator, examine the three front-running presidential candidates.

The candidate whose platform is based on shrinking government talks the least about virtues. On the other end we have a sitting president who has expanded government more than any previous president has, and frequently expounds on his virtues.

Think about that for a moment. The challenger’s supporters praise his virtues while he remains modest and humble. The incumbent’s supporters are unable to substantiate one positive virtue but the incumbent has plenty to say on his own behalf.

In other words, the incumbent wants to be judged by what he declares (rhetoric), not by his affiliations and evidence of virtues. Gee, I wonder why.

Religion is a popular but potentially dangerous platform for citing worthiness. To illustrate a point, I’ll diverge on a tangent. But first, answer this question:

When you enter a public building, do you stop to read all the plaques on the walls or do you quickly go about your business and depart?

Across America, public displays of The Ten Commandments are being attacked by a few organizations, such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation and American Civil Liberties Union. While I won’t speculate on their basis for declaring the Decalogue as being repulsive, interesting facts came out of those lawsuits.

Most folks were either unaware of their presence or never took the time to read them. The tablets were merely an embellishment to the building. Adults who defended the presence of the ornamental fixtures weren’t able to summarize all ten of the divine rules, in no particular order, but asserted that The Ten Commandments were a source of their virtues.

In a recent court case initiated by an atheist, the plaintiff was the only person to recognize that six of the commandments cited the word ‘God’ and asked the judge to edit out the allegedly offensive word. Interestingly, none of the defendants were cognizant of that fact.

According to the Pew Foundation, an organization that surveys Americans on religious topics, there is a tremendous disconnect between ecclesiastical knowledge, professions of faith, and source of virtues.

Likewise, candidates who are the most verbose about their church affiliation seem to favor a constituency dependent on government and least likely to respect the separation between church and state. A good example is the war between the Obama administration and the Catholic Church.

Summarily put, candidates who feel compelled to overwhelm you with their doctrinal virtues, tend not to have those values, have little knowledge of theological matters, and covertly shift the topic back to government solving our problems.

How convenient. And the audience is likely to suck it up like a dry sponge dropped into the ocean. Listen very carefully to the divine rhetoric in those speeches and feel free to call their bluff.

Families are a major source of virtues, but try naming one candidate who doesn’t wish a relative would remain in the closet and out of the media’s claws. On the other hand, some voters can relate to dysfunctional relatives and would actually vote for such a candidate out of empathy.

Third parties are a huge but quiet source of principles. Mine was Coach Vince Lombardi. I think I was about seven years old when his profound wisdom, principles, common sense, and motivational speeches impacted me. He made me wonder why other men couldn’t be more like him.

A framed copy of Coach Lombardi’s speech, “The Habit of Winning” (later renamed; “What it Takes to be Number One”), has been beside my desk for over a half-century. It’s as politically incorrect as they come by today’s standards and I make no apologies for it. It’s one of the greatest influencers on my development as a man and I frequently refer to it when life’s challenges interfere with my objectives.

Can you imagine how ballistic the unlimited government crowd would act if that speech was prominently displayed in public areas, today?

Many men of substance, character, and mettle quietly embrace the premise behind the Coach’s rectitude. We’ll take brutal honesty any day over touchy-feely. In fact, examine many of his famous quotes and you won’t find a single one that would be embraced by a candidate who espouses dependency on big government.

So, what’ll it be: self-responsibility or the saccharine, huggy-kissy of immature government and political candidates?

If Coach Lombardi were alive today and ran for office, many would suffer from cerebral burnout while trying to comprehend his virtuousness. It’s almost unheard of in this day and age because he didn’t fabricate tales of his qualities. Instead, he cited the traits he expected to see in his football players and assistant coaches while personally setting the example.

It was never about him and that’s a virtue few political candidates are able to grasp.

Contrast his philosophy to that of a recent U.S. Senatorial race where virtues were a hot topic. The challenger had an exemplary background as a combat veteran, West Point graduate, and passed the bar exam on the first try. The incumbent, who had merely a family name to go on with no track record of accomplishments, embarrassed herself during the political race.

The incumbent and her supporters, out of desperation to detract from the issues, nitpicked out of thin air derogatory, imaginary, and irrelevant innuendos against the challenger. Yet the latter never boasted about his background. His supporters did that for him. When she lost the party’s nomination in the primary election, she continued to display a lack of virtues and class by disavowing her promise not to run as a write-in candidate or jump ship to another political party. All while attacking the very virtues she lacked. She had no honorable principles that her supporters could substantiate.

To this day, she continues to vote for legislation that expands the power of government. Surprise. Surprise.

The bottom line is when selecting a candidate who embodies the ideology of limited government pay close attention to their source of virtues and whether it’s the candidate or the supporters who exclaim those attributes. You probably won’t go wrong by voting for the candidate who doesn’t have to assume a defensive posture over their principles.

Surely you can see through the empty, hollow bragging of narcissists.

Together, we can do this.

Pete Alexion

Please subscribe to our nationally syndicated weekly blog.

How reprehensible.

Oh sure, once in a while a freebie comes along, such as winning a new ATV after paying only a few bucks for a chance ticket. But it’s not in our nature to truly enjoy what we didn’t earn, unless you’re a fan of big government.

We are the odd ducks.

In fact, the Kings and Queens of Unlimited Government are betting that most of you are shameful enough to be bribed with a ‘cradle-to-grave’ entitlement program. To prove their point, they rolled out their latest marketing scam called ‘The Life of Julia’ that demonizes supporters of government limited to its enumerated powers.

Julia is a slideshow about a fictitious lady who illustrates how you’ll never have to assume responsibility for yourself, nor be accountable for your actions, nor take any ambitious risks to get ahead in life, nor make any tough decisions. Your government will control, sanction, and sponsor every phase of your life through their ‘100% welfare state’ if you vote for their unlimited government candidate.

And the reward for being a devout, helpless parasite of unlimited government who is void of an identity with an absence of initiative: a meager social security check for the remainder of your unfulfilled and unaccomplished life. The penalty for not becoming a fervent believer is to be blasphemed as ‘un-American’.

With their new entitlement program, businesses will no longer be competitive to build a superior product and parents are optional. Bureaucrats make all of the major decisions of your life and no ambition is necessary.

Ludicrous? Not for those without self-worth. That is their American Dream.

It would almost be hilarious if it weren’t for the 30% of voters who like the idea and the 40% who are rubbing their chins while pondering the possibilities. That dangling carrot is a dangerous proposition that could permanently lead this country down an almost irrevocable and destructive path.

The other 30%? Well, they have too much self-respect and pride to fall for such an undignified lifestyle. Yeah, they’re not like the other kids. They’re different, all right.

What’s worse is that the slideshow of the campaign condones abortion and plays up to feminists who feel they don’t need a man rather they need a government to get pregnant, instead.

I can’t help but wonder why the patronizing campaign pitch gets away with insulting women. Furthermore, why are feminists who fought for their respect and independence enamored with such degrading and sexist government philosophies? Why do the same feminists downplay the morals and successes of the Bachmanns, Parkers, and Palins of the world?

Do women really need the government to act as their sugar daddy and mollycoddle them for the rest of their lives? Do womanizing politicians enamor women voters? Apparently so, according to studies of the polls regarding women who voted for characters such as Bill Clinton.

If I were a woman, I would be offended by the campaign because if a man were portrayed in the ad, I would feel the same way. I don’t need the government to take care of me.

Big government disagrees.

I’ve never been able to grasp their ideology, nor have I been able to comprehend why the disciples of unlimited government lack the hunger for accomplishments through their own blood, sweat, and tears.

But this is what I do know. The dumbest campaigns are the most effective campaigns because the media will buy into it and promote the dogma. Why? I haven’t a clue. But history repeats itself. Look at how many TV ads insult your intelligence, yet you still buy the product.

Got pride? If so, then you’ve got the solution.

On the surface, the panacea is simple. Pick one person, give them a pep talk, increase their self-respect, and point them in a new, positive direction.

But the reality is that one person may need hundreds of counseling sessions before they’re willing to become accountable and responsible for their actions and conduct. It’ll take a lot of energy to overcome the media’s biased campaign. By volunteering to work with youth groups and setting the positive example that made this country great, we could reverse the dangerous course our country is heading on.

On the other hand, if one million of us performed such a feat for five minutes each day for several years, our philosophy would eventually catch on with the Julias of the world.

The tough part is finding one million Americans with sufficient dignity to perform such a simple task. That’s easier said than done.

However …

Together, we can do this.

Pete Alexion

Please subscribe to our nationally syndicated weekly blog.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if you had the wherewithal to come to the aid of everyone in our country who was in dire need? Truth is, absolutely no one has that many resources. But our federal government thinks it does, with your wallet. And we’re going broke in the process.

I’m all for lending a deserved hand to our allies, provided that our assistance has a clear objective with a return on our investment. Unfortunately, that’s rarely the case.

More often than not, we expend our precious dollars and military lives without a lucid purpose and no positive results to show for our investments because of mass ignorance and ulterior motives that are neither humble nor noble. Most senators and representatives are clueless about global affairs, yet they’re authorizing our wasteful involvement.

For example, during Operation Desert Storm, an informal survey of representatives was taken on the streets of D.C. regarding basic knowledge of the Middle East on subjects garnered from newspapers. Topics included countries bordering Iraq, strategic locations, names of leaders, and the differences between the Iraqi political parties. The embarrassing results, which can be found on YouTube, clearly illustrate that our elected officials do not have a working knowledge of foreign affairs. In fact, not one out of about a dozen elected officials understood the difference between the Sunnis and the Shias.

Their actions remind me of the irrational behavior of investors during the ‘Tech Wreck’ and ‘Dot Bomb’ stock market fiasco, over a decade ago. Investors were anxiously buying into a fad of immature, Internet-related companies, even though the investors never understood what the companies produced. The powerful emotions of a bull market took precedence over the pragmatic principles of making wise stock selections to maintain a prudent, balanced portfolio, and no amount of educating the investors had any significant, positive effect. The market crashed and the unprincipled, ignorant investors wound up broke.

Similarly, educating our representatives would be a monumental task. It would be impossible to explain to all of our representatives the implications of foreign policy on an hourly basis. Instead, we should force economic efficiency in a manner identical to that of the corporate world and household budgeting principles.

In the real world, businesses do not initiate an activity without a specific objective and benefit that’s clearly understood and fits into established corporate parameters. The same goes with charitable contributions.

Do you have a few, select charities that you donate to or do you merely leave your wallet on the table and tell the organizations to help themselves?

Families use the same rationale in managing their household budgets by carefully evaluating which organizations they’ll be charitable to. A pre-determined amount of charitable dollars is established and we remain steadfast in our donations, except when a temporary household financial crisis occurs, such as a hefty repair bill. In the latter case, we come first so that both parties aren’t in a predicament. You don’t jump into quicksand to save someone.

Let’s use the same mindset in Washington as a prerequisite before spending any more money in other countries, whether in war or peace. We can hobble our politicians to prevent them from spending more than what’s budgeted for foreign aid.

Starting immediately, we’ll budget the exact same percent of tax revenue toward aid outside of our borders, as our current President’s family has budgeted for charity, as indicated in their federal tax returns.

As for the United Nations, let’s hold a yard sale and call a realtor. We have a possession that’s no longer of any benefit or use to us. The return on investment has been in the red.

Together, we can do this.

Pete Alexion

Please subscribe to our nationally syndicated weekly blog.

That’s what the ‘school choice’ debate boils down to.

Ask yourself the following questions:

If you pay into a program operated by the public sector, should you have a meaningful say in how your money is allocated, especially if it affects your children?

If the public sector produced a product that was less competitive and lower in quality than a product produced in the private sector, would you patronize the private sector if you could afford it?

If instead of paying someone else to perform a task that you can perform, and you were reimbursed to perform that task, would you perform the task if it became economically feasible and benefitted your children?

Do you have a right to choose quality over quantity and convenience?

Do children have a right to learn in an environment that is relatively crime-free and to affiliate with adults of high moral fiber?

If private schools were as financially efficient as they are alleged to be, wouldn’t it behoove the public sector to study and emulate the private sector, instead of throwing more gasoline on a fire in hopes to extinguish the problem?

Do you believe that a teacher’s ultimate priority should be the desire to teach and improve the quality of a child’s education over personal gain?

Are you concerned about the academic training our young friends will receive and apply toward the problems of tomorrow?

If you answered ‘yes’ to any of the above questions, then you’re not alone. School choice has become an escalating concern at the national, state, and local levels.

In some Alaskan communities, more students attend private schools than public schools. When you toss in the number of home-schooled children, public school attendance in those communities becomes less significant. This leads to competition that ultimately becomes a win-win situation for our children. There’s a very good reason for those trends. But if I had to speculate on the #1 reason, I would say it had something to do with concerned parents.

Mark Twain said, “Do the right thing. It will gratify some people and astonish the rest.” Well, many parents intend to astonish the global community by reclaiming America’s title of the best-educated children in the world. But we can only help them accomplish their objective by:

1.    Assuming responsibility for tomorrow by competitively educating children, today.
2.    Raising the bar in a cost-effective manner through efficient use of limited funds.

Most taxpayers believe that the public school system, which once was a noble institution comprised of humble faculty and staff with an honorable work ethic, has grown into an inefficient, self-serving monstrosity. A ubiquitous thought is that the public school system no longer delivers the proud, far-reaching competitive results in a cost-effective manner we were once accustomed to.

Did the public school systems leave us, or are we leaving the public school systems?

Caring and attentive parents are taking a harder look at private schools and home schooling. In fact, surveys reveal that attitude applied to almost all parents, at one time or another. Unfortunately, the greatest impediments are time and money.

Private schools would be a more economically viable alternative to public schools if parents could reclaim a portion of the tax dollars that are inefficiently funding public schools. Furthermore, voters believe that students have a right to the same quality of education that private schools offer to their children.

Home schooling, which is the least expensive option in an ‘apples to apples’ comparison, might require one parent to remain home more often, thereby, decreasing the potential income to the household. This could be offset if the revenue used to fund public school teachers and facilities were applied to the home schooling parents for doing the same job but with fewer overheads.

Unfortunately, supporters of unlimited government are extremely vocal against such options, and without substantiation or merit. While I’ll be the first to admit that private schools and home schooling are not a convenient option for all parents, this is still America and only parents have the God-given right to make that decision.

But the economic reality is that local governments would financially benefit by promoting home schools, because the parents can produce at least the same outcome more cost effectively. The end result would be a leaner government, lower taxes, and a higher quality product. What’s not to like?

If the desire for placing children in private and home schools is increasing, what does that imply regarding the future of the public school systems, as we know it?

What are the right answers? We don’t know, so let’s find out.

ALG is sponsoring a committee that is analyzing the costs involved in producing a quality product: an educated child who is internationally competitive. This committee intends to eventually realize a fair and equitable formula on how funds are apportioned across public, private, and home schools.

The new apportionment will be refined into a legislative proposal for voters to decide on.

Instead of being apathetic toward our children, let’s join America’s race for the best-educated children in the world.

This is one problem that’s too easy to solve.

If you would like to join this committee or provide your input, please send an e-mail to SchoolChoice@aklg.org. Volunteers who serve on this committee are not required to be a member of ALG.

Together, we can do this.

Pete Alexion

Please subscribe to our nationally syndicated weekly blog.

Imagine what it would be like if the primates in the jungle couldn’t communicate with each other. The screaming would be deafening while they tried to get their points across. The monkeys would split into warring factions or worse, political parties creating a massive government within the jungle.

Our Neanderthal ancestors learned that in order to develop a civilized society, a common form of interpersonal dialogue would be necessary. Effective communication is the linchpin of a civilized society. Yet, those who favor an unlimited government want to regress to a multilingual society where its citizens can only interact in small groups.

Not only are the desires of big government buffs archaic and counterproductive, it divides us as a nation. On the other hand, those who favor limited government want to unify us in the simplest manner possible: we speak the same language.

English is the de facto language of the United States of America. That’s not good enough. It needs to become our official language. It’s unfortunate that our elected officials are illiterate, unable to read legislation, and incapable of communicating with each other. Let’s not complicate an already difficult and embarrassing situation by attempting to make our country multilingual.

For over 200 years, simple legislative efforts to decree English as our official language have repeatedly failed. If you pop the hood on those bills and their respective legislative sessions, and examine the rationale for their objections, you can’t help but shake your head and wonder about the cerebral capacity of those legislators who disagreed. I certainly couldn’t understand their promulgations.

Learning another language is not difficult for people with reasonable acumen. It’s no more demanding for a human to learn another tongue than it is for a dog to learn to sit on command. Nowadays, anyone of dubious intelligence can pop in a CD and learn a language within a few days. But I firmly believe that those who legally immigrate to America tend to be very intelligent and most have already mastered conversational English before embarking on their journey to our land.

I’ve studied Latin, Greek, French, Vietnamese, and German, but I don’t consider myself to be gifted with having a great aptitude for learning language. Heck, I’m just an average, dyslexic Joe who’s still wrestling with English. But a little bit of effort goes a long way. Guess who disagrees with me.

When I was stationed in Germany, for example, I purchased a small, inexpensive paperback on conversational German. Within thirty days, I was able to order off of a menu, read street signs, make purchases in stores, and hold simple conversations. It was not a demanding task.

I felt obliged to assimilate into their culture, not the other way around. Furthermore, it would have been arrogant of me to expect them to converse with me in English.

If an immigrant is unable to assimilate into our customs, language, and culture, of what benefit will they have of being an American, if all social programs and undeserved handouts have been eliminated?

No one legally emigrates from another country to enjoy his or her former culture, lifestyle, and laws. So why discourage them from learning English and why should we regress to the uncivilized times of pre-Neanderthal? Understanding our customs and culture is a greater challenge than is learning our language.

If the monkeys and orangutans have mastered this aspect of civility, shouldn’t Congress give it its best shot at becoming proficient in the polite congruity of communication instead of embarrassing themselves on social media with juvenile statements?

“Right turn, Clyde.”

Together, we can do this.

Pete Alexion

Please subscribe to our nationally syndicated weekly blog.