Author: Chip Wood

For the past week, I’ve been having one of those “you should have, no you shouldn’t have” arguments with myself. Since both sides of my brain seem equally divided, I thought I’d ask you what you would have done if you’d been in my place.

Here’s what happened. A week ago Sunday, my wife and I attended a concert at the Prince of Peace Lutheran Church on Amelia Island, Fla. If you live anywhere near there let me encourage you to check out the other concerts for this year’s Amelia Island Chamber Music Festival (www.aicmf.com). If you can’t attend any this season, then consider vacationing on that lovely island next May. It will definitely be worth it.

The Sunday night concert began with Christopher Rex, principle cello of the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra, performing Chopin’s Sonata for Cello and Violin. That was followed by William Preucil, concertmaster of the Cleveland Symphony Orchestra, doing an extraordinary job on the thousand-notes-a-minute (or so it seemed) of Camille Saint-Saens’ Sonata No. 1 for Violin and Piano. Elizabeth Pridgen did an excellent job as the accompanist on both.

After a brief intermission, though, came the real piece de resistance. Valentina Lisitsa, a truly amazing pianist, performed Beethoven’s magnificent Opus 106, the “Hammerklavier” (Piano Sonata No. 29) with all of the passion, skill and artistry that the Maestro himself could have wished. When she finished the audience sat spellbound for a moment or two before bursting into thunderous applause. They had heard magic that night and they knew it.

So what was my problem? It sounds like a truly wonderful evening doesn’t it?

I won’t say the concert was spoiled for me by what I saw two rows in front of me. That wasn’t possible. But the sight did put a blemish on the evening. As you can tell, I’m still bothered by it.

A gentleman two rows away was wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt. I’m sure you’ve seen the iconic image—a saintly looking Guevara staring off into space. The outline of his face and beret are in solid black, while the shirt itself is a deep, dark red—sort of like the blood of all the innocents Che helped murder.

The person wearing the T-shirt was no teeny-bopper rock-‘n’-roller, by the way. He was a rather handsome gentleman in his 50s or 60s, wearing a grey sports coat. He seemed very pleasant as he chatted with other guests near him. But every time I saw his shirt all I could think of was asking him, “Why are you wearing a shirt that honors a Communist murderer? And to a church, for crying out loud!”

If I could, I would have added, “Your hero was more likely to herd Christians into a church and burn them alive than to participate in a program here.” I imagined an entire conversation with the man—what he might say, what I’d reply and what other attendees might say if our own conversation got somewhat heated.

But as you know from this long preamble, I didn’t say anything. As my wife and I exited our pew I let him walk a few steps ahead of me. There was plenty of time to catch up with him in the foyer or even outside, but I let the moment pass.

My question for you is; did I do the right thing? Should I have said nothing? Miss Manners would probably say that silence was the socially correct response. Don’t rock the boat; don’t embarrass a stranger. And whatever you do, don’t pick a fight—or at least an argument—in public, especially not in church. Heck, even Garrison Keillor probably couldn’t imagine such a thing happening in Lake Woebegone.

There’s a still small voice inside my head that says, “Don’t worry about, it, Chip. You did the right thing.”

But there’s an even louder voice that keeps repeating, “No, you didn’t. You should have said something. You didn’t have to insult him or try to pick a fight. You could have gently and politely told him why you were offended by his T-shirt. He’d probably tell you he had no idea what his shirt might mean to others. Heck, he’d probably thank you for saying something.”

I’ll be the first to admit that the whole “Che Guevara As Hero” thing among many young people really frosts my cookies. It may be because my family was in Cuba when Fidel Castro seized power there and he and his Communist buddies (with Che as one of his most important lieutenants) began jailing, torturing and murdering their opponents.

But you didn’t have to know any of his victims personally to know that Guevara was a truly nasty piece of work. He was petty, mean and vindictive… a murderer without conscience or remorse. I’m frankly delighted that he met his end from a soldier’s bullet while trying to lead yet another revolution in Bolivia. The world became a better place with his death.

But enough about why I despise the man—and the fools in this country who honor him. Let me climb down from my soapbox and turn the microphone over to you.

If you had been in my shoes (or, more accurately, my pew), what would you have done? Would you have said something? And if so, what? Remember, you would have only a few seconds as you both made your way out of the church.

And what if he didn’t respond kindly to your remarks? What if he got angry or belligerent? What would you do then?

In my imagination I’ve thought of numerous possible outcomes. And I have to admit I don’t like any of them. So if you can come up with a better solution, please click on the “comments” bar at the end of this column and tell me what it is. I’d really like to know what you think I should have done.

Honor Our Defenders This Memorial Day
For too many of us, Memorial Day has become just a weekend to picnic and party. We forget the original purpose of this national day of remembrance. It should be a time to honor the men and women of the armed forces who made the ultimate sacrifice for us and our country.

I hope you will pause for a few moments this Memorial Day weekend to give thanks to those who laid down their lives to defend and protect us. Make it a time of reflection and appreciation. And yes, if you have one, please proudly fly our country’s flag.

To any members of the armed forces reading this, thank you. Thank you for your service, thank you for your sacrifices. And yes, thank you for your willingness to lay your life on the line for us.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

—Chip Wood

*3 down, 532 to go. It looks like it’s going to be a tough year for incumbents. And it’s about time. Conservatives in Utah said “no thanks” to Bob Bennett’s attempt to turn the Senate seat there into a lifetime sinecure. Democrats in Pennsylvania told Arlen Specter to return to private life, despite Barack Obama’s less-than-all-out endorsement. In Kentucky, Rand Paul overwhelmingly defeated the Republican establishment’s hand-picked nominee. So much for the media argument that the Tea Party movement is just a tiny, ineffective fringe. Go get ‘em, guys.

*Which words do you see more often? CNN contributor and Redstate.com blogger Erick Erickson says that the words “Islam” and “terrorism” are seldom used in the same news stories. On the other hand, he reports, “you’re more likely to see the words ‘racist’ and ‘Republican’ together in the newspapers these days.” And on TV, too, Mr. Erickson—including that most unbalanced network you work for, CNN.

*Some strange things up north. I’m just back from five days in Montreal where I was the emcee for an investment conference. It’s a gorgeous city, filled with history. But they sure do things differently up there. These stories appeared in one section of a newspaper on one day: When a woman was arrested for shooting her husband she said she was innocent of any wrongdoing… because she had mistaken him for a bear. Another woman is suing her cell phone company because her monthly bill (which her husband saw) listed all of her calls to her lover. And finally, officials in Ontario are asking for help in collecting unpaid parking tickets. Seems the municipality has more than $1 billion worth of outstanding tickets. Sure glad those kinds of things could never happen in this country, aren’t you?

—Chip Wood

America’s greatest orator was born on May 29, 1736. I’m referring to Patrick Henry, whose “give me liberty or give me death” speech to the Virginia House of Burgess marked an important turning point in our battle for independence.

Here’s how Paul Johnson, one of America’s greatest historians, describes the moment in his book, A History of the American People. Patrick began his remarks by asking,

“Our brethren are already in the field. Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have?” Then Henry got down on his knees, in the posture of a manacled slave, intoning in a low but rising voice: “Is life so dear or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!”

He then bent to the earth for a few seconds with his hands still crossed, then suddenly sprang to his feet shouting, “Give me liberty!” and flung wide his arms, paused, lowered his arms, clenched his right hand as if holding a dagger at his breast, and said in sepulchral tones: “Or give me death!” He then beat his breast with his hand holding the imaginary dagger. There was silence, broken by a man listening at the open window, who shouted: “Let me be buried on this spot!” Henry had made his point.

—Chip Wood

The response is still pouring in to my column last week on our immigration policies. Or rather, our lack of same. If you haven’t read Arizona, Si! Obama, No! and want to get caught up on the topic, just click here.

When you finish reading my column be sure to scroll down to the bottom and read some of the hundreds of comments that readers have posted. You will be very impressed by the passion and, yes, the wisdom shown by many writers. They may be a cantankerous bunch, as I’ve said before, but there is no question that they are motivated by a fierce dedication to our country and the principles on which it was founded. I’d sleep better at night if more of them were on guard in Washington instead of the pathetic bunch of compromisers we’ve got now.

I don’t think there was anything in that column or the comments that followed that most readers would find shocking or unbelievable. Maybe something contrary to their own passionately held beliefs, sure, but there is nothing there that is startling, outrageous or even extremely controversial.

Today’s column will be different.

This week I want to discuss two important corollaries to last week’s column. The first is something that is almost never mentioned in this debate, but should be. The second is something that I have never seen raised. But it’s at the heart of much that has gone wrong in this country during the last 150 years.

Let’s begin with one of the most startling aspects of our present immigration crisis:

It is the official policy of the United States government that any child, born in this country to illegal immigrants, automatically and immediately becomes a citizen of the United States.

Not only that, but by becoming a newly franchised citizen, that infant is permitted to sponsor American citizenship for its mother, father and other relatives.

Such infants are sometimes referred to as “anchor babies,” because their immediate and automatic citizenship is the “anchor” on which a host of other claims, from welfare to the citizenship of others can be made.

On the face of it, this sounds patently absurd. How can a newborn baby be eligible for citizenship when his or her parents are not? Not merely eligible, mind you, but granted it automatically?

Many of us have grandparents or great-grandparents who overcame incredible obstacles to become citizens of this country. Before they were accepted they had to pass a rigorous and demanding test. The questions they were asked, and their answers, had to be in English.

As an essential part of the process every immigrant was required to renounce allegiance to the country he or she had left and to swear allegiance to his newly adopted home—the United States of America. And every new citizen was thrilled to do so.

There was a solemn ceremony, often conducted by a judge sitting high on a bench above them, issuing the oath of allegiance. Friends and family welcomed the new citizens with hugs and tears and enthusiastic applause.

That is what citizenship for an immigrant used to mean. But today we are required to bestow it on anyone whose mother can sneak across our border a few hours before her baby is born. That is absolutely insane.

The new citizen is immediately entitled to all the benefits that accompany citizenship—schooling, medical care, food stamps and other welfare and a whole host of “public assistance.”

Moreover, that new citizen is now entitled to invite other family members—mother and father, aunts and uncles, cousins and grandparents, nephews and nieces—to come visit them in their newly adopted country and even apply for citizenship here.

How did such utter craziness come to be accepted as the law of the land?

Well, the first thing you need to know is that there is no such law.

If you ask how automatic citizenship for babies born to illegal immigrants came about you’ll be told that the 14th Amendment requires it.

This is a flat-out lie. But it’s a lie that’s been promoted by those who want to overturn the established laws and customs of our country. It’s a lie that the highest officials in this country—from the White House on down—pretend is true.

Let me share some important history with you. The 14th Amendment was proposed by Congress at the end of the Civil War. Its purpose was to make sure that newly enfranchised blacks were not denied the rights of citizenship when they returned to their homes in states that comprised the former Confederacy.

Sadly, the 14th Amendment is worded so vaguely that an activist court—spurred on by politically motivated attorneys—can interpret it almost any way it chooses. Here’s the relevant section:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

But what does “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean? If you do a little research on the topic you’ll discover that this amendment was most emphatically not meant to include the children of aliens—even if their parents were in this country legally. Lawmakers assumed that since their parents were subject to the jurisdiction of the country where they were citizens—that is, their native country—so were their offspring, no matter where they were born.

Ah, but if you do a little more research, you’ll discover a secret that’s been kept out of our history books for more than 100 years:

There are compelling reasons to believe that the 14th Amendment was never legally adopted by a sufficient number of states to make it a valid part of our Constitution. This is why the second part of today’s column is called “the Illegal 14th.”

First we begin with the fact that the Southern states never left the union. Oh, I’ll admit they tried to. We fought a terrible war over the issue. But Abraham Lincoln refused to recognize the Confederacy as a separate, legitimate government. Instead, he fought the war to keep the Confederacy from seceding. When the North won, Lincoln was ready to welcome the South back “with malice toward none.”

But if the Southern states never left the Union, then as soon as hostilities ended, those states and their citizens were entitled to all of the promises and protections of the U.S. Constitution. With me so far?

In the aftermath of the war all of the states that had comprised the Confederacy reformed their state governments, including both branches of their legislatures. (Remember, the Constitution guarantees every state “a republican form of government.”)

When the Federal Congress approved the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery, and submitted it to the states, it was promptly ratified by most of the states in the former Confederacy and became part of our Constitution.

But this was not enough for the Radical Republicans (as they were called then) who controlled Congress. They wanted to punish the South. Even more important, they didn’t want the Southern states sending people to Congress who would oppose their plans for Reconstruction. So they proposed the 14th Amendment.

I can find no evidence that the 14th Amendment was ever approved by a two-thirds majority of the House and the Senate as the Constitution requires. In fact, there were plenty of contemporaries back in 1878 who said it was not. Nevertheless, the Radical Republican majority approved a resolution saying it had passed and submitted it to the states.

Six states that had approved the 13th Amendment balked at approving the 14th. The legislatures of Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina and South Carolina said “no!” (So, incidentally, did New Jersey and Ohio.)

The Radicals in Washington were furious. They promptly approved a series of bills, called the Reconstruction Acts that divided the former Confederacy into 10 military districts. The legislatures of each state were ordered dismissed “by force of arms” and were replaced by political hacks appointed by the Federal army of occupation. Seven of these military-controlled bodies then did as they were told and “ratified” the 14th Amendment.

These “rump” governments were a far cry from “the republican form of government” that the Constitution guaranteed each state. Our Founding Fathers would have been aghast at what was done in the aftermath of that very un-civil war. And they wouldn’t have agreed for a second that any “vote” by these so-called legislatures could authorize a change to the Constitution.

But change it they did. When news of these coercive measures reached Washington, Secretary of State William Seward at first refused to ratify the amendment. He was quickly brought into line by the Radical Republicans in Congress however, and on July 20, 1868, he dutifully proclaimed that the 14th Amendment was now part of our Constitution.

And here’s something you probably never considered: The effects of this nefarious bit of legislative chicanery go far beyond citizenship for a few million children of illegal immigrants.

Bet you didn’t know that the 14th Amendment has been used by the Supreme Court as the legal justification for banning prayer in public schools… or authorizing abortion on demand… for requiring the forced busing of children… or scores of other usurpations of power by our central government.

If you’ve stayed with me this far I’m sure you’re saying to yourself, “Can this possibly be true? And if it is, how is it possible that the legality of the 14th Amendment has never been challenged in the courts?”

My answer to the first question is, “Yes, I believe it is true. The 14th Amendment was never legally ratified.”

My answer to the second is, “I don’t know.” I have not been able to find any record that any Federal court has ever issued a ruling on the adoption of “the illegal 14th.” I can’t even find evidence of the issue being raised in a lawsuit filed in a Federal court.

I can understand why those who benefit from today’s Goliath Government want to keep this issue swept under the heaviest rug they can find. But where have the conservative and libertarian talk shows, think tanks, advocacy groups and tax-free foundations been for the past 50 years? Have any of them raised this issue? Written articles about it? Made even a peep of protest?

If they have, I’m not familiar with it. If you know otherwise please tell me, because I really would like to know.

And so should every American who’s concerned about the future his country.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

—Chip Wood

*Leapin’ lizards, folks, Annie’s gone. I’m sorry to report that Little Orphan Annie won’t live to see 100. The folks at Tribune Media Services say the last column of the iconic comic strip has been sent to the handful of newspapers that still run it. The column made its debut on Aug. 5, 1924. Annie and her dog Sandy have enjoyed a lot of unlikely adventures since then. The spunky little girl—the inspiration for a radio show, several movies and a Broadway musical—never got any older. She never got any pupils in her eyes, either.

*Sean Hannity knows one when he sees one. Re: my column a few weeks ago, Is Barack Obama a Socialist?, one popular media conservative says he has no doubts. In his best-selling book, Conservative Victory—Defeating Obama’s Radical Agenda, Sean Hannity titled one chapter “Obama the Socialist.” In it he says our president “meets the dictionary definition” of being one. I still disagree, Sean.

*Guess who got the most money from Goldman? I’m not talking about bailouts to banking buddies, but instead, political contributions by those “Wall Street fat cats” our politicians love to bash. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Goldman Sachs wrote a lot of checks to the contenders. Here’s who got what: No. 1, Barack Obama—$996,595; No. 2, Hillary Clinton—$411,150; No. 3, Mitt Romney—$234,275; No. 4, John McCain—$230,095. Looks like Wall Street can spot a winner when it sees one.

*Would you like gold with that? Did you see that large, full-color photo of a gold-dispensing vending machine last week? It ran in several newspapers, including The Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. The machine is located—you won’t be surprised to learn—in the lobby of the Emirate Palace hotel in Abu Dhabi. Maybe there’s a trend here. Last year Harrods’s, the luxury department store in London, began selling gold coins and bars to its affluent customers who wanted them. How soon before we see gold being offered for sale at Wal-Mart?

—Chip Wood

What would become the New York Stock Exchange was born 218 years ago this week. On May 17, 1792, 21 stock brokers and representatives of three firms met under a buttonwood tree at 68 Wall Street and signed what became known as “the Buttonwood Agreement” to regularize the buying and selling of public shares.

Members of the New York Stock and Exchange Board, as it was called, pledged to honor two commitments. First, to buy and sell shares only among themselves—no outsiders permitted at this table. Or as the Agreement put it, “We will give preference to each other in our Negotiations.”

Second, that their commissions on all exchanges would never be less than .25 percent (one quarter of one percent) of the transaction. Over time, both the number of members and the percent for commissions grew exponentially.

And here’s an interesting tidbit: For more than 200 years stock prices were quoted in fractions, not decimal points. The reason has more to do with Spanish pirates than English banks. In order to share some of the captured booty with their crew members, pirates would slice doubloons into eight pieces—sort of like dividing a pizza today. So 1/8th of a dollar became a common unit of measurement. Two of them were “two bits,” or 25 cents—an expression we still use today.

That is, of course, the only association between pirates and Wall Street that’s ever existed.

—Chip Wood

*Don’t feed this to the homeless. When a small church delivered a load of fried chicken that its members had spent hours making to the Bowery Mission in New York City, the folks running the feed-the-homeless program said “thank you very much”—then promptly threw it all away. Why? Because of a law the city passed back in 2008 banning everyone with a Health Department license from having trans fats in their food. That includes emergency food providers such as the Mission. More and more it seems the world is going crazy—and the inmates are running the show.

*These guys want their free beer. From Copenhagen, Denmark, comes news that workers at the local Carlsberg brewery have walked off their jobs to protest a new company policy restricting how much free beer they get. There used to be coolers stocked with beer throughout the plant; a worker could grab a brewski anytime he wanted. Now, free beer is available only during lunch hours in the company cafeteria. Some 800 workers walked off their jobs in protest.

*Sounds a little risky to me. A brokerage firm is running ads in The Wall Street Journal with the following pitch: Borrow from us at only 1.3 percent interest and buy stocks paying 5 percent in dividends. Not only that, you can borrow $5.6 for every $1 you have in your account (assuming you have at least $100,000 invested with them). The ads do warn that doing this “is only for sophisticated investors with high risk tolerance.” Thanks for the warning, guys.

*The sign of the week. This one was seen at a tax day protest in Manhattan on April 15: There were two columns of numbers; the one on the left was headed “Govt Takes” and had six different taxes listed below, totaling 69.825 percent. The one on the right was headed “U Keep” and had only one number underneath: 30.175 percent. Talk about a picture worth a thousand words.

—Chip Wood

My, my, you are certainly a contentious bunch. Thus far, more than a thousand of you have clicked the reply button to my column two weeks ago on The Worst President Ever. Your remarks have run the gamut from the sublime (those that agree with me, of course) to the ridiculous (the worst president in history was the first one George Washington?).

I just spent the past couple of days reading every single one. Yes, even the ones that ran more than a full page IN ALL CAPS! Oh, the sacrifices I make for my loyal readers.

Hey, folks, I know you feel pretty passionate about some of these issues. And I love that so many of you enjoying commenting on what you’ve read—or what some imbecile before you said. But trying to shout in email really doesn’t work—it just makes your comments hard to read. Please, turn off the all-caps key before you start typing.

But definitely keep those cards and letters coming. Or at least the emails. The comments sections are one of the best-read parts of Personal Liberty Alerts. I wouldn’t change that for all the rice in China. In fact, I’m going to quote from several in today’s column.

What got me started on the subject was a visit my son-in-law and I made to the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C. He pointed out that Franklin Roosevelt laid the cornerstone for that majestic building. I remarked, “Isn’t it ironic that one of the worst presidents in history dedicated the memorial to one of the best?”

This led Micah to ask me who else I would number among the worst presidents ever. I surprised him by saying I wouldn’t include Barack Obama—at least not yet. Let’s let him finish at least one term (hopefully his only one) before guessing what history will say.

That left the rest of my list: FDR, Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton and (to the surprise of many) Richard Nixon. But the absolute worst, I said, was Woodrow Wilson. You can explore my reasons in the original column; I won’t repeat them all here. Click here to read it.

An overwhelming number of you wrote to say I had made one huge mistake in that piece—my exclusion of Barack Obama from my “five worst” list. In fact, many of you were outraged that I didn’t put him at the very top. Lee Ann spoke for a lot of readers when she said “anyone with a brain” would know that.

Interestingly, to many of you he doesn’t even deserve to be called Barack Obama. He’s B.O. Or Barry Soetoro. Or a lot worse. Thanks to a pretty tough spam filter, the most intemperate comments don’t get posted. But there sure are a lot of ways to be (relatively) polite while you say something nasty about our Teleprompter-in-Chief.

You may be surprised to hear that not everyone who reads Straight Talk can be found on the right side of the aisle. Hannington Okello wrote: “Barack Obama? You have got to be kidding yourself! He is and will be the best president America has ever had and one you wish could rule forever.”

Gee, Hanny, I think you kind of gave yourself away there, with your “rule forever” comment. How long before you demand that we serfs gently tug our forelocks as we bow to every bureaucrat and say, “yes, massuh”?

But Mr. Okeno has at least one ally in our comments section. Che King wrote to say, “President Obama will go down as America’s best president even before he finishes his second term.” Hate to rain on your parade, Mr. King, but I don’t think Obama will be in the Oval Office in 2012. Not after Jan. 21—unless he’s a guest of the new president.

Christopher Huber had a perfect rejoinder for the Obama idolaters in the audience. “Whatever drugs you are on,” he replied, “I want some.” Nicely put, Chris.

So who else did our readers nominate for the “worst of all time” list? There was a spirited debate lasting for many pages on the various demerits of Jimmy Carter vs. Bill Clinton. Bill made my original list, Jimmy did not. I will admit there was much the peanut farmer from Georgia did to embarrass me while he wore the title of the world’s most powerful leader. But being a sanctimonious, hypocritical, weak-kneed wuss isn’t enough to make my top five.

Several readers claimed that Bill Clinton wasn’t bad enough to deserve that honorific, either. But Lynette insists they didn’t know what they were talking about. Listen to this lady’s rant:

“Bill Clinton was one of the biggest drug dealers this country has ever known! He has been bringing in cocaine from Mena, Arkansas for years. While he was governor and while he was president. Watch The New Clinton Chronicles for a real eye-opener.”

I didn’t mention any of that. Or Whitewater, or Vince Foster, or even the unbridled ambition of his First Lady. All I know is that I was ashamed he was the leader of my country. I was delighted when he was impeached and sorry when he wasn’t found guilty and removed from office.

I thought my inclusion of Richard Nixon in a “worst ever” list would have many of you rushing to straighten me out. But in fact, most who commented on his appearance agreed with me.

No, the Republican president an extraordinary number of you loathe and despise is George W. Bush.

There are some of you who believe that GW personally conspired to bring down the towers of the World Trade Center. I guess the fact that 27 fanatical jihadists, armed with box cutters and other weapons, took control of those airplanes was strictly a coincidence? I like a good conspiracy theory as well as the next man. But this one is beyond absurd, as far as I am concerned.

RK denounced one contributor with the comment, “You are as stupid as the Tea Party.” (Did I mention that many of my readers enjoy insulting each other?) He then added, “The list of the worst president should read as follows: #1 George Bush, #2 George Bush, #3 George Bush.”

Apparently RK liked his comment so much, he posted it twice. Sharon added that since he only named three, she wanted to add two more: “#4 George Bush, #5 George Bush.”

At least some on the left have a sense of humor.

One who does not is Debo, who wrote that, “You might be watching too much Fox News. You and your ilk are not qualified to question the competency of the president of the United States.” Gee, do you happen to know Hanny Okello, Debo? Maybe I could introduce you.

In addition to George Bush, two other Republican presidents came in for an inordinate amount of reader-bashing. One didn’t surprise me—Abraham Lincoln. Many readers wrote at length, with eloquence and passion, about why they felt the Great Emancipator belonged on the list. Several said he should top it.

Jesse put it succinctly: “Lincoln prosecuted an illegal war against the Southern states… [that] resulted in the deaths of over 600,000 men on both sides.” This was more fatalities than we suffered in every war since then, he added.

You may be surprised to learn that many Americans consider Abraham Lincoln a terrible president. I’m not. I’ve read enough to know that these critics have some powerful facts to buttress their arguments. (See Thomas DiLorenzo’s Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed to Know about Dishonest Abe and The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War.)

So who was the other Republican a number of readers disparaged? None other than Ronald Reagan.

I have to say, the unbridled vituperation many of you exhibited against the Great Communicator did surprise me. I’ll be the first to admit that as president (and before that, as governor of California), Reagan did many things with which I disagreed. More to the point, he did not do many things he promised he would—such as abolish useless cabinet agencies, reduce the cost of government, balance the budget, etc.

But being wrong or ineffectual didn’t make him evil. On the positive side, he brought the United States a new respect around the world. He said many of the right things—and he said them more eloquently than any president since the Founding Fathers. (And unlike JFK, he wrote most of the words he spoke.)

This triggered a provocative question from one of our regular correspondents. Beberoni asked: “Once I saw for myself what Ronald Reagan did, I ran as fast as I could from the Democrat Party to Ronald Reagan’s conservative party. I now wonder why the Republican Party has run away from Reagan’s conservative party. Why wouldn’t you continue a successful thing, when he showed them how to do it?”

Maybe they will, Beberoni, maybe they will. We’ll know this November.

And with that folks, I’ve run out room for this month. So let me close by encouraging you to join this fray once in a while. Read some of the comments at the end of my columns. Or if you’re a real glutton for punishment, read them all. And then join them yourself.

Unless you do, you won’t know why at least some loyal readers want Franklin Pierce, or Rutherford Hayes or James Buchanan added to the “worst ever” list. Or why one insists the top spot must go Dick Cheney.

As I said, my readers are a contentious and cantankerous lot. God bless you, each and every one.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

—Chip Wood

“May Day!” “May Day!” The first day in May has been a warning, a celebration and a cause for alarm for more than two centuries.

May 1 has been a time of international socialist solidarity ever since Communists seized power in their first country. Although Karl Marx was sure that his “workers of the world” would unite first in the industrialized west, instead it was a Bolshevik coup in Russia that led to the first Soviet state.

On the other hand, May 1 was a pretty good day for the end of hostilities (or at least open fighting) in the United Kingdom. Because it was on May 1, 1707, that England, Wales, and Scotland formed “the United Kingdom of Great Britain.”

But wait, there’s more. On May 1, 1961, Fidel Castro announced that (surprise!) he’d been a Communist all along. He named himself "president for life," claiming there was no longer any need to hold free elections in Cuba. Unfortunately for the Cuban people, it turned out to be a very long life.

On May 1, 1920, Babe Ruth hit his first home run as a Yankee. And on May 1, 1951, Mickey Mantle hit his first major league home run. There would be many, many more by both men.

—Chip Wood

*Judge outlaws National Day of Prayer. It was bound to happen sooner or later. Last week, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb declared that the National Day of Prayer—something the nation has honored since it was first proclaimed by President Harry Truman back in 1952—is unconstitutional. She was responding to a lawsuit filed by something called the Freedom from Religion Foundation. Despite the ruling, the White House says the president still intends to recognize a National Day of Prayer. Maybe we should all pray that judges read the Constitution again (if they ever have).

*No silly walk for this guy. Tens of thousands of people have had their travel plans disrupted thanks to ash clouds from a volcano in Iceland that spread over much of Europe. One of them was my favorite English funnyman, John Cleese, of the “Ministry of Silly Walks” fame. Cleese was stranded in Oslo, Norway, after a TV appearance there. When he couldn’t find any other way to get home he hired a cab to drive him to Brussels, where he caught a train to London. Total cost of the trip: a hefty $5,140.

*“Bring your money, buddy.” I’ve written before about the flight of capital from California. Something like 25 percent of the state’s millionaires have fled to less taxing states. But here’s a twist: A multimillionaire I know is moving to Newport Beach from an eastern city. A few weeks ago he received a personal phone call welcoming him to the state from embattled governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Near the end of the call the governor said, “And please bring your money with you.”

—Chip Wood

The White House couldn’t wait to trumpet the news: When President Barack Obama completed his official form for this year’s census he declared that he was… are you ready for this?… black.

For the next 24 hours, the announcement led the news in the national media. It was the top story on CNN.com, the network news shows, cable television and just about everywhere else I looked. For nearly a week, you couldn’t escape it: “The President of the United States says that he is black!”

Give me a break, please. Obama has been trumpeting his blackness for decades. Appearing on Late Show with David Letterman back in 2009, Obama brought the house down when he said, “First of all, I think it’s important to realize that I was actually black before the election.” Harty-har-har. When the laughter died down, Letterman played the perfect stooge by asking, “How long have you been a black man?”

Lost in all the chortling are two very important points. First of all, Obama isn’t really black; he is a person of mixed race. In the olden days, he would have been called a mulatto.

Second, the president had every opportunity to recognize this on the census form. It is no longer necessary to select between black and white (or Asian or American Indian, for that matter). If it is more accurate to say so, you can check two or three or even four boxes.

To the best of my knowledge, Tiger Woods has not disclosed what he said on his census form. But in the past he has identified himself as a “Cablinasian”—that is, a combination of Caucasian, black, Indian and Asian. It’s not only a more honest declaration than our president made; it also suggests that Tiger doesn’t take the matter of race as seriously as Obama does.

Then again, it’s his talent at golf, not his color that has made Tiger Woods one of the wealthiest and most famous athletes in history. While Obama obviously believes that it is his blackness that enabled him to become our president—not to mention a multimillionaire—thanks to the sales of his best-selling book, Dreams of My Father, which chronicled his search for his black identity.

His fixation with his black identity also helps explain why he and his wife Michelle could be members of Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity Church for so many years, without uttering a word of protest over his preacher’s overt racism. Obama remained a member in good standing of the church (which described itself as “an instrument of Black self-determination”) until it began to cost him votes.

But what about Obama’s white heritage? In declaring on the census form that he was black, the president in effect disowned his own mother; not to mention her parents—his maternal grandparents—who raised him for most of his childhood. All three were unquestionably white. The only black in the family was the father who abandoned him in childhood. I can appreciate how traumatic that abandonment must have been. But does that justify ignoring the white half of your heritage? Doesn’t that strike you as a tiny bit ungrateful?

By the way, there’s an interesting footnote here. While the changes to the census form were being debated 10 years ago, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and other civil-rights groups fiercely opposed allowing people to select multiple races to designate their heritage. At the time, they were concerned that too many “blacks” would check other boxes as well, with the result that “black” numbers would drop dramatically—thus reducing how much aid and other federal favoritism would continue to be bestowed on them.

It turns out that there was no basis for this concern: To the relief of everyone campaigning for more government benefits, any person who identified himself or herself as even partially black is included in the “black” total.

Does anyone besides me detect something incredibly racist in this whole issue? I keep thinking of the plot of “Show Boat,” one of the greatest musicals in the history of U.S. theatre. I’m sure most of you remember the 1951 movie starring Kathryn Grayson and Howard Keel. If you don’t, rent it sometime soon. It is absolutely enchanting.

In case you’ve forgotten, the plot turns on a bitterly racist fact of the times. Pete, the thuggish engineer on board the Cotton Blossom show boat, makes a play for Julie La Verne, the leading lady. Julie’s husband Steve, the leading man, beats him off. Swearing revenge, Pete tells the local sheriff that Julie is a mulatto and that she and Steve are guilty of miscegenation, which was a crime in Natchez, Miss., at the time.

Before the sheriff arrives, Steve takes a knife, cuts Julie’s hand, and swallows some of her blood. He then tells the law and the crew that he, too, is black—because he has “one drop of Negro blood in him.” Witnesses confirm that this is, in fact, true, and the sheriff drops the charges. Of course Steve and Julie have to leave the show and the ship.

In much of America at the time (the story takes place in the 1880s, when the scars of the Civil War still ran deep), one drop of Negro blood was all it took to be considered black.

I would like to believe that we in this country have come much further since then. I’d like to believe that the majestic words spoken by Obama at the 2004 Democratic National Convention are true, when he proclaimed, “There is not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America.”

I’d like to believe it. But by his racist response to the U.S. Census, Obama has shown he doesn’t. In fact, his actions have delayed the day when they will be true. Shame on him for what he did… for denying his heritage and for helping make old wounds bleed anew.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

—Chip Wood

On April 25, 1945, 45 countries convened in San Francisco for the founding conference of the United Nations (U.N.). The general secretary of the meeting was none other than the notorious Soviet espionage agent, Alger Hiss. He had been picked personally for the post by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and was promptly approved by FDR’s buddy, “Uncle Joe” Stalin.

Hiss was not the only American involved in the formation of the United Nations who was later revealed to be a Communist. In fact, of the 18 Americans cited by the State Department in 1950 as “the important men who shaped the UN,” all but one was later identified as Communists. The lone exception was former Secretary of State Dean Acheson, who may not have been red, but was certainly very pink.

With such a record it is no surprise that the U.N.’s “Universal Declaration of Rights” makes absolutely no mention of the source of our rights being a Creator—or anything else but government—and further says that all rights and freedoms “shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law.”

No wonder that the U.N.’s idea of “world peace” has always and everywhere been the same as “world socialism.” Or why so many responsible Americans insist that the U.S. should get out of the U.N.—and vice versa.

—Chip Wood

*Obama orders our flag taken down. United States military personnel in Haiti have been ordered not to fly the American flag. A spokesman explains that “We are not here as an occupation force, but as an international partner.” Isn’t that absurd? The whole world knows we’re there on a mission of mercy, not conquest. By the way, all of our “international partners,” including Britain, France and Croatia, proudly fly their own flags.

*Why not just eat them? I read that a high school teacher in northern Utah had his students make a 6,400-square-foot replica of Vincent van Gogh’s famous painting, “Starry Night.” The artwork, which covered the floor of the school’s gymnasium, was made from two tons of the colorful Malt-O-Meal breakfast cereal. My only question is, why?

*Buffett is a safer bet than Obama. Hardly anyone noticed, but on the same day that Obamacare passed the House, U.S. government debt lost its “risk-free” status. For the first time in history you would earn less interest loaning money to a private company—Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway—than to the U.S. Government. I’m afraid this is just the beginning of seeing interest rates soar.

*Another great quote. The Wall Street Journal ran a fascinating piece called “Why Psychiatry Needs Therapy” in its Feb. 27-28 weekend edition. In it the author warned, “Patients who seek psychiatric help today for mood disorders stand a good chance of being diagnosed with a disease that doesn’t exist and treated with a medication little more effective than a placebo.” In other words, you’d be nuts to trust a psychiatrist.

—Chip Wood

A delightful experience over the weekend led to a discussion that prompted the headline for this week’s Straight Talk. Let me tell you about it.

My wife and I had flown to Washington, D.C., to spend the weekend with her youngest son and his glowingly pregnant wife. This will be their first child and everyone (most emphatically including grandma) is excited beyond words.

But “Boots’” arrival (that’s the infant’s temporary nickname) won’t be until October. So, the four of us decided to enjoy a perfect spring day by taking the Metro to the Washington Mall and then strolling down to the Tidal Basin to see the last of the world-famous cherry blossoms. While the ladies relaxed on a park bench, Micah and I walked to one of my favorite sights in the capitol, the Jefferson Memorial.

As you may know, the building is modeled after the Pantheon in Greece, a design that Thomas Jefferson admired very much. Inside, a magnificent 17-foot bronze statue of our second president looks out toward the Washington Monument. On the walls around him are panels containing some of his most famous quotes.

The first panel, naturally enough, quotes the beginning of the Declaration of Independence, including the phrase, “endowed by their Creator…” The second panel starts, “Almighty God hath created the mind free.” The third states that “God who gave us life gave us liberty.”

And surrounding all of this, in letters three feet high, is this: “I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

Standing there, reading these words, it is impossible not to be reminded of Jefferson’s reverence and piety. As I read all the references to God and our Creator, I couldn’t help but wonder would it even be possible to construct such a memorial today? Or would the aggressive atheists and their friends in the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) make certain this wonderful edifice would never be built? Or if it had, that it would not have contained any of these heartfelt sentiments by a founding father?

As we turned to go, Micah pointed out the cornerstone of this marvelous memorial. We were both surprised by how high off the ground it was. I think we expected a cornerstone to be in the ground… or even under it.

Then I noticed the message inscribed on it. The stone had been dedicated by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1939. I remarked to Micah, “It’s a little ironic, isn’t it, that one of the worst presidents in our history dedicated the memorial to one of the best?”

That led Micah to ask me who else I considered the worst presidents in our history. My reply surprised him, because Barack Obama’s name didn’t make the list. He’s read enough Straight Talks to know how I feel about the current occupant of the White House.

Before we go any further consider for a moment whom you’d put on a list of the five worst presidents of all time. Who would top the pile and why? If you want to join the debate, when you get to the end of this column just click on “reply” and fire away. There will surely be some interesting remarks posted below.

Of course you already know one of my choices. In the first half of the last century, no one did more to promote government growth than FDR. Longtime socialist leader Norman Thomas said FDR implemented more of his policies than he ever could. And let’s not forget the lies and deceit that got us into World War II; all of the things he did to buttress the Soviet Union during the war; or the horrible concessions afterwards that condemned millions of people to a lifetime of slavery under Communist rule. Need I say more?

Then there are the three men during my lifetime who embarrassed and angered me by their conduct and their policies. I consider all of them a disgrace to our nation’s highest office. I was glad when Bill Clinton was impeached; I was only sorry when he wasn’t convicted and removed from office.

Richard Nixon is another of my least favorites. No one did more to prevent our troops from winning in Vietnam. Our soldiers were condemned to fight and die in a no-win war while our country was torn apart at home. Nixon abandoned our allies on Taiwan and opened relations with the vicious murderers who ruled Communist China. He also launched the era of Big Government Republicanism here at home from which we’re still suffering today. No, “Tricky Dick” Nixon is not one of my favorites.

But the man I truly despised was Lyndon Baines Johnson. I doubt if a bigger crook or more dangerous bully has ever occupied the Oval Office. He was not only a nasty and mean-spirited politician; LBJ took arm-twisting and vote fraud to a whole new level. In fact, he may even have sanctioned murder. For a glimpse of the real LBJ, get J. Evetts Haley’s searing study, A Texan Looks at Lyndon.

Who could possibly top such a list? I hereby nominate Woodrow Wilson as the worst of the bunch: In fact, the very worst president of all time.

Just consider the highlights of this man’s despicable record. He won election by promising to keep us out of the war in Europe—all while he was scheming to get us involved. The contrived sinking of the Lusitania gave him the excuse he needed.

Millions of people suffered and died needlessly in Wilson’s war “to make the world safe for democracy.” For that alone he deserves to be rebuked and repudiated by every honest historian. But the dirty misdeeds don’t stop there. Wilson was an early One-Worlder; we have him to thank for the aborted League of Nations, without which there would be no United Nations.

Oh, and let’s not forget the trickery that got Congress to adopt a key plank in the Communist Manifesto—a progressive income tax. The rules had already been rigged so the super-rich could hide their wealth in foundations and family trusts. The income tax would keep most of us from ever hoping to compete with them—while giving government the funds it needed to offer a gullible public all of the bread and circuses it could want.

There are other things I could mention, but this should be enough to persuade you that Woodrow Wilson belongs high on a list of presidents who have betrayed the great trust the public put in them. Should he really be No. 1—the worst of all time? I say “yes.” But you’re certainly entitled to disagree. After all, this is still a free country, isn’t it? No thanks to the five gentlemen I’ve listed above.

After reflection, I’m willing to consider a motion to have Barack Obama replace Bill Clinton in the top five. Bill may have done more to embarrass us than our Teleprompter in Chief. But he wasn’t very successful getting his socialist policies passed. Wish we could say the same thing about Obama.

Until next Friday, keep some powder dry.

—Chip Wood

*Terror trial moved from New York City. After first saying he was okay with holding the trial of confessed al-Qaida terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in lower Manhattan, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg changed his mind and asked Attorney General Eric Holder to move it. The state’s senior senator, Chuck Schumer, and a lot of other politicos also jumped on the “not in our city” bandwagon. That was enough to convince the Obama Administration to pull the plug on a really bad idea. Officials are now scrambling to come up with a new plan. Here’s one: Let the military handle it. This should never have been moved to a civilian court in the first place.

*Man, those new jobs are expensive. Remember when Barrack Obama promised that if Congress approved his $800 billion “stimulus” package, unemployment wouldn’t go above 8 percent? Well, to quote an old country song, he got the gold mine and we got the shaft. Unemployment is now a minimum of 10 percent. Since people who’ve stopped looking for work and down-sized temps aren’t counted among the unemployed, the real number is undoubtedly much higher. Still, our President claims the stimulus has “saved or created” 2 million jobs. Let’s see, that means each new job cost us taxpayers about $400,000 each. Want to guess how long it will take each new worker to pay that much in taxes?

*Our “too little, too late” State Department. You may have missed the news that back in January the State Department revoked the visa of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian wanna-be bomber who tried to bring down a Northwest Airlines flight over Detroit on Christmas Day. Thanks guys, I feel much safer now.

—Chip Wood

This is Tax Week, as every wage earner in America is all too aware. As you contemplate how much you pay the government for the privilege of living in this wonderful country, you might amuse yourself by repeating the following. (Sorry, I don’t know who the author is. If you do, please tell me.)

Tax his land, tax his bed,
Tax the table at which he’s fed.
Tax his tractor, tax his mule,
Teach him taxes are the rule.

Tax his cow, tax his goat,
Tax his pants, tax his coat.
Tax his ties, tax his shirt,
Tax his work, tax his dirt.

Tax his tobacco, tax his drink.
Tax him if he tries to think.
Tax his cigars, tax his beers,
If he cries, then tax his tears.

Tax his car, tax his gas,
Find other ways to tax his a**.
Tax all he has, then let him know
That you won’t be done ‘till he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers,
Tax him some more.
Tax him ‘till he’s good and sore.
Then tax his coffin, tax his grave.
Tax the sod in which he’s laid.

Put these words upon his tomb,
“Taxes drove me to my doom.”
When he’s gone, do not relax.
It’s time to apply the inheritance tax.

— Chip Wood

*Obama said what about being pro-business? At first I thought it was an April Fool’s joke, but this happened in February. In an interview with Business Week magazine, President Obama said that he and his top officials are all “fierce advocates for a thriving, dynamic free market.” In fact, the president claimed, his administration has promoted a “fundamentally business-friendly agenda.” Sure, if raising taxes, increasing rules and regulations, taking over of medical care and increasing dependence on subsidies are good for business, I guess you can call him pro-business.

*How much would you pay for a cookie and a Coke? USA Today reports that during a three-day conference for its procurement officials (these are the folks whose job it is to buy things at the lowest possible price); NASA paid $62,611 for the 317 attendees to snack on “light refreshments.” That works out to $66 a day for coffee, soft drinks, bagels and cookies. This is just one more example of how careless bureaucrats can be when it comes to spending your money instead of their own.

*At least they don’t all want to come here. The Pew Hispanic Center conducted a survey of how many citizens of Mexico would prefer to live in the United States. Guess what? The report says 46 percent of the population would move north if they could. Gee, that’s only another 49 million immigrants. I expected the number to be higher. Are we sure they asked the question in Spanish?

*Can we outsource the census? The U.S. Census Bureau reports that it will spend $14 billion to count all of the people in the U.S. this year. With a total population of around 309 million, that works out to $45 a head. India, meanwhile, is also conducting a census of its population. With a total population of around 1.2 billion people, they expect it to cost $1.2 billion to count them all, or about $1 a head. Next time can we outsource our count to them?

—Chip Wood

When you hear the name “Davy Crockett,” what do you think of?

If you’re of “a certain age,” as the more diplomatic among us like to say, you probably think of Fess Parker wearing a coonskin cap. The incredibly popular television program in which he starred had every boy in America (and a few girls, too) clamoring for their own buckskin jacket and coonskin cap.

A few years later John Wayne played Davy Crockett in the film The Alamo, laying down his life at the Alamo for the cause of Texas’ independence. About the same time the Kingston Trio had a hit with a song called “Remember the Alamo.” I can still remember most of the lyrics.

But before the events portrayed in the movie and the television show, the famed frontiersman served for a couple of terms in the United States Congress—from 1827 to 1831 and again from 1833 to 1835.

After his defeat in the 1834 election he said, “I told the people of my district that I would serve them faithfully as I had done; but if not… you may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas.” He eventually did, and died on March 6, 1836, when the Alamo finally fell to Mexican troops after an 11-day siege.

It is an episode from his time in Congress that I want to tell you about today. Davy himself first told the tale, in a speech on the floor of the House that he later reprinted under the title “Sockdolager!”

A “sockdolager” is one of those slap-your-forehead moments, when something suddenly becomes blindingly clear to you. That’s how Davy felt when he came to realize that his understanding of the U.S. Constitution was sadly lacking. Here’s what happened.

Near the end of his first term, Davy decided to visit the western edge of his district to see how much support he’d get if he decided to seek reelection. To appreciate how different campaigning was back then, let me quote the beginning of Davy’s tale:

“So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddle-bags and put out. I had been out about a week, and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence.”

Can you believe it? No fancy entourage, no public relations flacks paving the way, no reporters covering the scene. Not even a buggy with a suitcase or two; it was just Davy, a horse, and a couple of saddle-bags. Life sure was different back then, wasn’t it?

Davy introduces himself to the farmer and says, “I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and ….”

Before he could continue, the man interrupted and said, “Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before and voted for you the last time you were elected. I supposed you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.”

Needless to say, the young congressman is surprised and asks the man why on earth not. The farmer replies, “You gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case, you are not the man to represent me.”

As Davy says, when he later related the story on the floor of Congress, “This was a sockdolager!” I told the man, “There must be some mistake, for I do not remember that I gave my vote last winter upon any constitutional question.” The man replies, “No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the back woods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?”

Crockett replies, “Certainly it is. And I thought that was the last vote for which anybody in the world would have found fault with.”

Then comes the classic denouement: “Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?”

Let me pick up the rest of this part of the story, exactly as Davy Crockett told it on the floor of Congress: “Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said:  ‘“Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.’

I’d love to share the farmer’s entire response with you, but I don’t have room here. Instead, let me do two things. First, let me direct you to Davy Crockett’s complete speech. Personal Liberty Digest has created a special link to “Sockdolager!” by Davy Crockett. To see it, just click here. (And while you’re there, why not send it to a few dozen of your friends?)

Second, let me go right to the farmer’s concluding remarks. He told the congressman, “When Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people.”

Davy has no choice but to acknowledge the truth of what he’s heard. He tells the man, ‘“Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard.

“If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote, and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.”

What are the chances, ladies and gentlemen, that your congressman would ever make such an admission—or such a speech—today?

You really should read the rest of the story. You’ll be delighted to learn that when Congressman Crockett gets back to Washington, the House has taken up a bill to appropriate money for the wife of a distinguished naval officer. Everyone who has spoken about it has declared himself in favor. It looks like it will pass unanimously when Davy Crockett takes the floor.

To read what he says, and what happens next, please click here to enjoy Davy Crockett’s “Sockdolager!”

And remember the story the next time your congressman votes to take your money for some government activity that is nowhere to be found in our Constitution.

Until next Friday, keep some powder dry.

—Chip Wood

In one of those coincidences that history seems to love, the two greatest generals the United States has produced—Robert E. Lee and Douglas MacArthur—both came to the end of their long and distinguished careers this week… separated by almost a century.

On April 9, 1865, the not-so Civil War ended at Appomattox, Va., as Confederate General Lee surrendered his sword and the 28,000 men under his command to Union General Ulysses S. Grant. The two generals agreed that all Confederate soldiers were to be pardoned. After being given a generous portion of rations, the Southern soldiers were permitted to mount their horses and return to their homes.

With that meeting the bloodiest conflict in U.S. history was over. At least the official fighting had come to an end. In the former Confederacy there’s still a huge market for “The South Shall Rise Again,” “Forget, Hell!” and other mementos of the War of Northern Aggression, as it’s frequently referred to below the Mason-Dixon Line.

Four score and nine years later, on April 11, 1951, General Douglas MacArthur was removed from his position as commander of United Nations forces in Korea by then-President Harry S Truman. MacArthur’s firing followed his public disclosure that the president refused him permission to bomb the bases and supply lines in Manchuria. It was from these lines that Communist China was supplying our enemies in North Korea.

Upon his return to these shores MacArthur enjoyed a hero’s welcome in San Francisco and New York. The following week he addressed a joint session of Congress, concluding his remarks by saying, “Old soldiers never die; they just fade away.” And that’s basically what Generals Lee and MacArthur—two of the most honorable men to ever put on the uniform of their country—both did.

—Chip Wood

Remember when Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson cut a deal with the Obama Administration to deliver the 60th vote in favor of Obamacare? To the ever-lasting shame of both sides, the result was an embarrassment that came to be known as the Cornhusker Kickback.

Basically, Big Ben asked for some special help so Nebraska could cover the increased costs of Medicaid when Obamacare finally passed. Barack and his buddies said “done” and—viola!—suddenly there was an additional $100 million for Nebraska buried deep in the legislation.

When news of this sweetheart deal got out, I’m delighted to report that a mighty outcry went up around the country. No one was willing to defend this crass example of Washington payola—not the folks who arranged it or even the voters who benefited from it.

In a sane world such overt bribery would never make it past a conference committee. But fiscal sanity—or even outright honesty—hasn’t been much of a factor in Washington politics for years. Instead of slicing $100 million out of Obamacare, the wheeler-dealers in charge of spending your money decided that “the only fair thing to do” was to give the same benefits to the other 49 states.

All of a sudden a special subsidy that was going to cost us $100 million—pocket change when you’re talking about a $870-billion piece of legislation—soared to $30 billion. Even by Washington’s spendthrift standards, we’re starting to talk about some real money here, folks.

What happened next shouldn’t have surprised me: The powers that be decided to cover the costs by slapping a new tax on well-off Americans. After all, as President Obama keeps reiterating, it’s only right that the wealthiest among us pay “their fair share.”

So that’s how a brand-new tax on what the redistributionists like to call “unearned income” became the law of the land. Starting next year, if you earn more than $200,000 a year, expect to see another bite taken out of anything you’ve managed to save. The new tax will cover interest on your Certificates of Deposit and other savings accounts; any dividends you make on stocks or mutual funds, rental income on any real estate you own, and anything else our masters in Washington can classify as “unearned” income.

Excuse me for a moment while I let out a primal scream or two about the Marxist misnaming of my so-called unearned income.  I worked mighty hard to earn every penny I’ve managed to save. There were a lot of 80 and 90 hour weeks when I was younger and just starting in business. I had to do the work of two or three people every week to keep my company’s doors open. And I’ll bet a lot of you who will be hit by this new tax can say the same thing.

Even Ben Nelson is now in full retreat from the monstrosity he helped create. No sooner had the Senate version of Obamacare finally been approved in the House than he became the first Democrat in the Senate to denounce “reconciliation.” He said he was especially troubled by the new tax he helped foist on us. He also denounced all those other add-ons that have pushed “the total cost of health reform up billions of dollars.”

Gee, does anyone think the senator is trying to curry favor with the voters back home? I hope a lot of Nebraskans will remember all of this when they go to the polls this November.

By the way, while I’m on the subject, may I ask for a show of hands of all of you who feel you don’t pay your fair share of taxes? And yes, Mr. Buffett, if by any chance someone sends you this column, we would love to publish your reply. I’ve seen reports that you think you should pay more. So why don’t you? There’s no law against Berkshire Hathaway adding a zero to every check it sends Uncle Sam.

For the sake of this discussion, I’m willing to grant that every American who is worth more than $50 billion should pay more in taxes than I do. Not just more total dollars, but I’ll compromise my principles enough to tolerate the plank in the Communist Manifesto that calls for a progressive income tax being levied against them.

But for the rest of us, let’s get real, as my kids would say. The canard that well-off Americans aren’t paying “their fair share” is one of the biggest of the Big Lies that socialists have used for decades to foster the culture of envy that dominates almost all of our politics.

Let’s look at the numbers to see what the truth really is. The last year for which the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has released figures is 2007, so what follows is a bit out of date. But I can’t imagine that the percentages have changed much in ’08 and ’09. Look at what the government’s own figures show:

• The top 1 percent of taxpayers in this country pay 40.42 percent of all income taxes.
• For the top 5 percent, the percentage is even higher. The 7.1 million taxpayers who fit this description pay 60.63 percent of all Federal income taxes.
• The bigger the net, the greater the discrepancy. The top 25 percent of taxpayers (35.3 million of us) can take pride in knowing that we contribute 86.59 percent of federal taxes. And the top 50 percent (70.5 million of us) pay 97.11 of the total taxes collected.

In comparison, the bottom 50 percent of filers—some 70.5 million of Americans with any kind of income—pay a minuscule 2.89 percent of federal tax dollars.

By what possible rationale can anyone say that the “rich” in this country don’t pay their fare share? You tell me. If the 71.22 percent that the top 10 percent in this country pay isn’t “their fair share,” then what is? I’d really like to know how you Obamaites (and yes, there are lots of you who read this column) justify urging government to confiscate more of our earnings.

With tax-collection day now less than two weeks away (Tax Freedom Day won’t happen for nearly two more months; I’ll write about that as it gets closer), I’ve been thinking a lot about our rapacious government and what it will take to put it on a diet.

As we’ve just seen, asking nicely ain’t gonna do it. Even yelling loud and long won’t be enough.

We’ve got to run the rascals out of office. Not all of them, I’m happy to say. Get rid of the worst 10 or 15 percent and the rest of the crowd in Washington will move to the right so fast the loony left won’t know what hit them.

Remember, most legislators aren’t dedicated to making government bigger. They aren’t dedicated to making it smaller, either. They’re just dedicated to staying in office. And if sounding (and voting) like a new Sarah Palin is what it will take to protect their careers, most of them will move right so fast all you’ll see is a blur.

In this country, we can still “throw the rascals out.”  But it will only happen, as I’ve said before, if those of us who work for a living become as devoted to the battle as those who vote for a living.

Until next Friday, think about what you’ll do to make a difference. And keep some powder dry.

—Chip Wood