At the end of 2008 the federal government had debt obligations of $63.8 trillion, up $6.8 trillion from the end of 2007.  That's $546,668 per U.S. household, up $55,000 from the end of 2007.

• $284,288 or 52% per household is for Medicare
• $160,126 or 29.3% per household is for Social Security
• $54,537 or 10% per household is for federal debt
• $29,694 or 5.4% per household is for military retirement
• $15,851 or 2.9% per household is for civil servant retirement
• $2,172 or 0.4% per household is for miscellaneous

"We the people" are ultimately responsible for all of this debt.  In addition, the average U.S. household has leveraged itself on its own to the tune of $121,953 in current debt.

• $89,514 or 73.4% for mortgages
• $22,231 or 18.2% for consumer debt
• $10,208 or 8.4% for other

(The above data is from USA Today May 29, 2009.)
 
For a bit of context for that $63.8 trillion U.S. debt, according to the International Monetary Fund, the world's GDP for 2008 was $63.7 trillion, the European Union was $18.4 trillion, and the USA's 2008 GDP was $14.26 trillion.  China's 2008 GDP was $4.4 trillion, and it's the largest foreign holder of America's debt.

The average U.S. household, then, has debt obligations as of the end of 2008 of $668,621.  And that average U.S. household has total assets of less than $210,000 and a net worth (assets minus personal liabilities) of less than $90,000. 

The average adult American has saved less than $25,000 total, including for retirement.  More than half of folks over the age of 55 have saved well less than $50,000.  The best news is that 42% of those over 55 have saved more than $100,000, and 19%  of them were over a quarter-mil.  The bad news is that many -- even the most frugal and wise -- after the first five months of 2009 have lost 35-40% of that.  Social Security?  Insolvent, I predict, by 2014.  Medicare?  Ditto.

The average American household as of the end of 2008, when their share of the federal government's liabilities is spread, was ($90,000 minus $546,668) upside down by $456,000.  (It would clearly be a cheap shot here to talk "spread the wealth", dontcha think?)  By the end of 2009, the average American family will be upside down to the ChiComs, et al, by about $600,000.

The average American household has annual gross income of just over $50,000.  Net, for sake of argument let's say, is $40,000 after federal income and payroll taxes and state taxes.  If government balanced the budget this New Year's Eve, incurring absolutely not a penny of new debt after the ball drops, (Don't be cynical now.  Quit laughing.  Just play along, okay?), and the people of America -- each and every one of them, no exceptions, singing in concert, a capella -- committed to eliminating that debt a.s.a.p., what would it take?  With interest on the debt at, say, 4% per year, it'd be like paying a mortgage.  To pay off the $600,000 over 30 years, the payments would total about $1.8 million.  That'd take $60,000 per household per year.  Bit of a problem there, mates.

The pendulum?  America has been in big trouble before and has survived and thrived?  We've had the liberal fascism of Wilson and FDR, then of JFK (albeit short) and LBJ, followed by the liberalism of Nixon, the dumbness of Ford, the utter liberal incompetence of Carter, the waffling softness of Bush 41, the grandstand of Clinton, the liberalism of Bush 43; and we've survived.  Right?  A few were inconsequential; some were devastating; the devastating were better at devastating than Obama; but, Obama has the debt picture.  The enormous debt is what's different, what's unprecedented.

President Obama has the possibility -- no, the liklihood -- of accomplishing the most devastation of all, the remaking of America wherein personal liberty is extinguished, the U.S. Constitution dumped in the trash as obsolete and counter-utopian, the oligarchy of the liberal-fascist elite in charge . . . of everything, and for generations, if not centuries.

President Obama, Rahm Emanuel, and the rest of the oligarchy know that unrest is growing, albeit slowly.  They know what the Tea Parties were really about.  That is why the President is trying to rally congress to pass his "universal healthcare" plan this year, gotta be in 2009. They think that healthcare is the straw that will break Americans' back and make the silent majority silent no more.  But, like Social Security and Medicare, like the minimum wage and the Wagner Act, like the New Deal and the Great Society; once done, it's done.  Permanent.

In an earlier post a couple of weeks ago, I pointed out that, "There is no example of a congress or executive branch ever attempting to actually reduce the size of government or reduce the budget.  Not once.  When “budget cuts” were talked about – touted by Republicans, impugned by Democrats – each was demagogueing.  They all snuck in an annual presumption of 8% growth in each line item, then if Republicans proposed, say, and increase of only 5%, the charges of starving children started."

Later in that same earlier post, I said with respect to the alleged conventional-wisdom pendulum, "What happens is that that liberals floor the accelerator, followed by conservatives coasting or braking a bit, etc, etc.  There’s no turn signal.  There’s no u-turn.  The gear shift has 2^nd and drive, but no reverse."

So, boys and girls,is there any hope?  The current liberal-fascist oligarchy will certainly consider, and almost-certainly decide on, having the Federal Reserve Bank print more currency and sell it the the Treasury.  The results of that move are: (1) provide more money for the federal government to spend or "invest"; (2) reduce the value of the U.S. dollar versus other currencies; (3) cause inflation or hyperinflation; (4) effectively reduce U.S. debt to China, et al; (5) effectively reduce the indebtedness of the American people; (6) make everything bought with $US much much more expensive; and (7) increase the attractiveness of owning anything else other than $US; and (8) make China, et al, really angry.  Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke was appointed to a four-year term in 2006 by President George W. Bush.  President Obama will get to appoint a Fed Chair in 2010, and Bernanke's behavior of late suggests that he's running for the job.

So, guys and dolls, is there any hope?  So, what if America elects Republicans in 2010 to majorities in both the House and Senate?  Won't that stop this, even turn it around?  If you believe that the likes of McCain, Snowe, Shelby, Murkowski, Crist (Replacing Martinez), Grassley, Bond, Voinavich, Bennett, Alexander, Corker, and the rest of that gang just in the senate -- inspired one and all by Colin Powell -- will git'r done and are gonna lead us back to the promised land, then you're at least an order of fries short of a Happy Meal.

In another earlier post I noted that in 2006 some 2/3 of what the federal government is and does is unconstitutional.  Assisted first by Democrat majorities in congress, that went to 75% by the 2009 presidential inauguration.  With the current administration and congress, I expect it to be 80% by January of 2010.

So, Townhall patriots all, is there any hope?  If true-conservative majorities were elected to congress in 2010, both House and Senate, their majorities increased in 2012, and President Obama was ousted by a true-conservative prexy, might that do it?  Who are your must-have handful of senators and handful of congressmen that must be there?

Okay you cynics ( and realists?), is revolution the only answer?  A conservative coup?  Will it take millions and millions of tea drinkers or dumpers invading Washington DC, shutting down the congress, shutting down the Supremes, and etc.?  Will it also take millions and millions of those with EINs (Employer Identification Numbers) refusing to withhold and forward taxes?  Will it take millions of military, including National Guard and retirees, and millions of police, fire and rescue personnel defending and protecting the Constitution at the expense of the government?

Everyone with a heartbeat and a couple gray cells in the brain knows that, when a conservative speaks on an American college campus, the reception will be characterized by protest marches, signs with obscenities, booing, shouting, pie throwing, boycotting, and the like from whacko-leftist faculty (I know that was redundant.) and administrators, along with the young minds full of mush, aka students.

A few years ago, my son graduated from Wake Forest University.  Great school!  But, though many in the student body use critical thinking and, therefore, are conservative, most of the faculty and administrators  -- except for those from the fine business schools -- are standard run-of-the-mill-garden-variety leftists.  Like almost all campi, the scheduled commencement speaker was a well-known liberal leftist.  The choice of liberal speakers 99.5+% of the time by college decision makers is understandable.  First, the decision makers are almost-always liberals as well.  Second, decision makers don't want to deal with a commencement celebration, notable for its protest marches, signs with obscenities, booing, shouting, pie throwing, boycotting, and the like.

Some of my son's classmates, knowing that I was a conservative (Apparently, it's noticable.) and that the scheduled speaker wasn't, queried me as to whether I planned to attend.  And, if so, would I boo and interrupt.  I was taken aback.  Why would I disrupt my son's commencement.  Why would I embarrass him (at least more than I already do just by being his father)?  Why would I embarrass myself?  I calmly informed them, that I would of course attend, and that I would behave properly.  That's what conservatives do.  Side note:  It was a pretty-good speech and suitable for the occasion.

Yesterday, at the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana, President Barack Obama faced protests, offensive signs, booing, shouting, and boycotting in the face of a liberal commencement speaker.  The university was embarrassed along with much of its faculty and administrators, many of its graduating seniors, many of its alumni.  I cannot say that they embarrassed the speaker.  Were they conservatives?  I know not.

It does, however, occur to me that half of the reasoning or excuse making for 199-ish out of 200 times choosing a liberal commencement speaker versus a conservative is now moot.  Rudeness and crassness now go both ways.  There's still the pie throwing and obscenities that haven't achieved equal-opportunity status, but we can always hope for change.

I'd rather listen to a commencement speech from Dr. Condoleeza Rice than another from Hillary Clinton, from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas than another from David Souter, from Britt Hume than another from Katie Couric, from Michelle Malkin than another from Arianna Huffington, from Glenn Beck than another from Chris Matthews.  Now these conservatives with so much to offer new graduates may have just such an opportunity.

Oh darn, I forgot.  These new speaker candidates are gonna all be classified as "domestic terrorism risks".

The federal debt as of today is a bit over $11.2 trillion.  That’s $11,200,000,000,000.  The 2009 federal budget is $3.6 trillion and includes $1.8 trillion of new debt.  The 2008 budget was $3 trillion.  In 1976 the budget was $300 billion.

 Over the past three decades the federal budget has grown 10 times or 1,000%.  This year alone the budget is growing by 20%.  Compounding itself the federal budget is likely a decade from now to be about $22.3 trillion.

 The U.S. GDP (gross domestic product) for 2008 was projected, pre-recession, to be $14.26 trillion. In 2009 GDP will decline, and is almost surely to repeat the decline in 2010 and 2011.  Meanwhile the federal budget will be growing geometrically, aiming at exceeding total GDP.

 The pattern of federal governance over the last century has been that:

• First, progressives / liberal fascists / socialists / Democrats / (new-definition) liberals expand the government and its budget hugely.
• Then, conservatives / Republicans / (old-definition pre-FDR) liberals “roll back the excesses” by reducing the growth of the government and the growth in its budget.
• Next, progressives / liberal fascists / socialists / Democrats / (new-definition) liberals expand the government and its budget hugely.
• After that, conservatives / Republicans / (old-definition pre FDR) liberals “roll back the excesses” by reducing the growth of the government and the growth in its budget.

 And on and on.  There is no example of a congress or executive branch ever attempting to actually reduce the size of government or reduce the budget.  Not once.  When “budget cuts” were talked about – touted by Republicans, impugned by Democrats – each was demagogueing.  They all snuck in an annual presumption of 8% growth in each line item, then if Republicans proposed, say, and increase of only 5%, the charges of starving children started.

 "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."  (Norman Thomas (1938), six-time Socialist Party of America candidate for president)

 If right now, the federal government tried to pay off the nation’s debt, it would have to get all of the tax revenues, not incur the $1.8 trillion of new debt, then spend not one dime.  It would have to fire the millions of employees, cease social security and Medicare and Medicaid, disband the military, have congress and the executive branch work for free and with no perks and bennies; this for a  . . . decade.  No, not true.  Given the interest on the debt already there, paying off actual principal would take generations; and all with the government shut down.  Talk about no free lunch?

 For you business folks out there, you know about debt-to-equity ratios; when you want to raise them and when you want them low, really low.  In the U.S. of 2009 – in the midst of a recession – debt is 41% of the economy.  In 2010 – in the continuing midst of a recession – debt will be 62% of the economy.

 I’m told ad nauseum that there’s a pendulum.  We swing right, we swing left, etc.  So, it all balances out over time.  Sorry, that’s a lie.  What happens is that we swing way left, then swing just a little left from there, then swing way left again, then swing just a little left from there, etc.  What happens is that that liberals floor the accelerator, followed by conservatives coasting or braking a bit, etc, etc.  There’s no turn signal.  There’s no u-turn.  The gear shift has 2^nd and drive, but no reverse.

 If in 2008, the country had elected John McCain and Republican majorities in both house and senate, right now America would be on life support.  We’d have voted, I think, for coasting, no brake, even a touch of gas.  However, the country voted for “hope and change”, and America is not on life support.  America is on a train, and the congress and White House are driving that train full-speed, stoking the boiler, heading left -- Saul Alinsky-radical left -- faster and to beyond what FDR ever dreamed possible left, and he admired and was a fan of Joseph Stalin.

 Is there a light at the end of the tunnel for us conservatives, Constitutionalists, even libertarians?  Yes, and it is that train, and the train has an engineer (union) named Obama (reading a teleprompter), and boiler operators (Reid, Pelosi, Durbin, Dodd, Frank, Schumer, Waters and Waxman, et al) but the train has no brakeman (is collecting unemployment compensation . . . extended).

 Hold on there, drpete, you say, the private sector isn’t gonna just roll over and play dead.  Businesses aren’t gonna cozy up with these liberal fascists willingly. They’ll be screaming from the rooftops.  I say I disagree.

 "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.  When the government fears the people, there is Liberty!"  (Thomas Jefferson)

 Business “leaders” can see clearly right now who the alpha dog is.  And they can see clearly that the “rule of law” has been replaced by the rule of a tyranical oligarchy.  And they can see clearly that “card check” will change the playbook markedly.  And they can see that the oligarchy may well take the "healthcare" burden off their hands.  The oligarchy is choosing winners and losers, and ceo’s are street smart enough to side with the tyrants.

Wanna know where the train is headed?  Study the history of 20^th-century Argentina.  It’s your future.  Game, set, match.  Exit stage left.

Breaking news from Columbia, South Carolina, where the #1 ball cap in town says "Cocks".

An early morning run for breakfast at the Waffle House on Paxville Highway in Manning turned terribly wrong for Crystal Samuel.

"I thought I was gonna get me an All-Star," says Samuel. A popular meal on the menu. "Grits, sausage, toast, eggs and a waffle," says Samuel.

She didn't get what she came for. Instead, she says while she waited for her order, her friends started eating. That's when Samuel says she was told they couldn't eat from carryout trays inside the restaurant.

"I said what is your fuss about. I said we haven't paid for our food. She (Ward) said well you all got to leave. How you want us to leave and we ain't paid for the food yet," says Samuel.

That's when it got ugly. Samuel says she threw a waffle at the waitress. "I did actually throw some food but it didn't hit her," says Samuel. "That's when she (Ward) jumped across the counter and we got into it," says Samuel.

Clarendon County Sheriff Randy Garrett says the altercation continued outside where he says Ward got a gun from her car and a gun magazine from her trunk.

"It's poor judgment on her part trying to settle this matter with a weapon. either way she had time to think about what she was doing when she was walking to her car," says Garrett.

Investigators say Ward's gun discharged during the altercation. They say a bullet fragment struck Samuel in the arm.

"Deputies were close by when they rolled up in the parking lot the victim and the suspect were still engaged in a fight," says Garrett.

Before it ended, authorities say Ward struck the victim in the head with the gun.

"She got the last lick,"says Samuel. Meanwhile Ward has bonded out of jail. 

Additional information from independent research:

Waffle House signature hash browns come six ways:

1. Traditional: scattered and smothered (onions)
2. scattered;
3. smothered;
4. covered and chunked (onions, cheese and ham);
5. chunked and topped (onions, cheese, ham and chili);
6. topped and diced (onions, cheese, ham, chili and diced tomatoes).

 The floor is now open for your comments.

The Oklahoma legislature has been in the news for more than a year now with its sovereignty resolution. See story here.  It seeks to undo overreach by the federal government in violation of of the 10th amendment.

Now comes the legislature of Montana which just passed a bill in both its house and senate, and got the governor's signature as well.  The bill -- in brief -- says that guns both manufactured and sold in Montana are exempt from federal laws, based on the "commerce clause".  Knowing that you'll want the facts, and not merely my take, the text is below.  I'll comment below the text.

HOUSE BILL NO. 246
INTRODUCED BY J. BONIEK, BENNETT, BUTCHER, CURTISS, RANDALL, WARBURTON
AN ACT EXEMPTING FROM FEDERAL REGULATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES A FIREARM, A FIREARM ACCESSORY, OR AMMUNITION MANUFACTURED AND RETAINED IN MONTANA; AND PROVIDING AN APPLICABILITY DATE.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:

Section 1. Short title. [Sections 1 through 6] may be cited as the “Montana Firearms Freedom Act”.

Section 2. Legislative declarations of authority. The legislature declares that the authority for [sections 1 through 6] is the following:
(1) The 10th amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
(2) The ninth amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the people of Montana certain rights, as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those rights is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
(3) The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the 9th and 10th amendments to the United States constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition.
(4) The second amendment to the United States constitution reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889, and the guaranty of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.(5) Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution clearly secures to Montana citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of individual Montana citizens to keep and bear arms. This constitutional protection is unchanged from the 1889 Montana constitution, which was approved by congress and the people of Montana, and the right exists, as it was understood at the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

Section 3. Definitions. As used in [sections 1 through 6], the following definitions apply:
(1) “Borders of Montana” means the boundaries of Montana described in Article I, section 1, of the 1889 Montana constitution.
(2) “Firearms accessories” means items that are used in conjunction with or mounted upon a firearm but are not essential to the basic function of a firearm, including but not limited to telescopic or laser sights, magazines, flash or sound suppressors, folding or aftermarket stocks and grips, speedloaders, ammunition carriers, and lights for target illumination.
(3) “Generic and insignificant parts” includes but is not limited to springs, screws, nuts, and pins.
(4) “Manufactured” means that a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition has been created from basic materials for functional usefulness, including but not limited to forging, casting, machining, or other processes for working materials.

Section 4. Prohibitions. A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce. This section applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured in Montana from basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported from another state. Generic and insignificant parts that have other manufacturing or consumer product applications are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition, and their importation into Montana and incorporation into a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in Montana does not subject the firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to federal regulation. It is declared by the legislature that basic materials, such as unmachined steel and unshaped wood, are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition and are not subject to congressional authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition under interstate commerce as if they were actually firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition. The authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made in Montana from those materials. Firearms accessories that are imported into Montana from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in Montana.

Section 5. Exceptions. [Section 4] does not apply to:
(1) A firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person;
(2) A firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1 1/2 inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;
(3) ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or
(4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.

Section 6. Marketing of firearms. A firearm manufactured or sold in Montana under [sections 1 through 6] must have the words “Made in Montana” clearly stamped on a central metallic part, such as the receiver or frame.

Section 7. Codification instruction. [Sections 1 through 6] are intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 30, and the provisions of Title 30 apply to [sections 1 through 6].

Section 8. Applicability. [This act] applies to firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition that are manufactured, as defined in [section 3], and retained in Montana after October 1, 2009

---

With this bill, Montana has thrown down the gauntlet, and declared judicial war with the federal government.  It, I predict, will not take long before this show debuts at a U.S. Supreme Court with revolutionary implications.

The Constitution's "commerce clause" enumerates the federal government authority to "regulate commerce among the states."  First, it does not enumerate the power to prohibit, merely to regulate.  Second, it does not enumerate the power to regulate intrastate commerce, just interstate.  Third, "commerce" (original meaning) was defined as the trade or exchange of goods, including the means of transporting them (including payment, since that's an exchange of goods as well).  Clearly, the federal government has, de facto, stretched and expanded "commerce" beyond recognition.

Any proscription or restriction of behavior between or among consenting parties is, by definition, a violation and infringement of their unalienable right to liberty.  Any proposed proscription must be screened through the "necessary and proper" clause.  A law or regulation must first be really necessary, because the consequences of not having such an a priori prohibition or limitation would be dire.  It is why some highway speed limits are constitutional.  It is why most federal taxes are not.  Even if necessary, the remedy must be proper.  A federal speed limit on a state or county road would not be proper, because the jurisdiction isn't federal.  Also, to be proper, the remedy must be the least infringing proscription possible.  Banning possession of a firearm by convicted violent felons might be proper.  Banning guns per se would not.

Manufacturing guns in Montana is not a federal case.  Buying guns in Montana is not a federal case.  Possessing guns in Montana is not a federal case.  Shooting guns in Montana is not a federal case.  If the federal government intervenes in Montana, that state vows to secede.  The legislators and governor of Montana have rendered Tea Parties child's play.  They've supersized the resistance and put it on steroids. Ladies and gentlemen of Montana, what you see is me standing and what you hear is my applause.

What are grits? a guest column by JT.  JT Stevens is a retired paramedic (previously a professor of music) from Douglasville, Georgia, a few miles west of Atlanta

As what is known in these parts as a “Damn Yankee,” I have given some thought to what grits are. (Parenthetically, thus the brackets, the question might more accurately be “What is grits?” since “grits” is probably a collective noun.)

 Before going any further, those new to the area, no doubt from up north (above Cartersville), should know that there are two kinds of Yankees: Damn Yankees and Dumb Yankees. The Dumb Yankees go back north.

 To return to the subject, I had the pleasure recently of reading a piece in the Chapel Hill News & Views by Frank Parham. His answer to the title question: Nobody knows. Well, thanks to my friends at the Douglas County Fire Department, particularly Chief Ed Daniell, I believe I do.

 I have only been a Damn Yankee for a little over 30 years, so I don’t actually personally know a real-live moonshiner. But I know a few who do. From them I have learned a little of the honorable, if illegal, art of distilling corn likker. It takes skill and patience. And corn. And water. And time.

 First, take the corn and soak it in water. The cobs can go over to the outhouse. Eventually, you end up with a wet mush that you then must separate into the good stuff (fermenting golden water) and the “slag.” The slag is (are?) the grits.

 Done right, all of the value is in the liquid. What is left over is a completely tasteless, Chemically inert white powder. Unfortunately, chemists (as we shall refer to them to protect and honor these “spirited entrepreneurs”) found that if they left this useless slag lying in the open, when it rained, the water would re-hydrate this slag, it would grow and spread exponentially, and eventually mark them as afoul of the Treasury Agents. (I came to see this phenomenon one morning when a pot of grits was left boiling on the stove. The contents not only filled the kitchen but the engine bay at the Fire Department!)

 What to do with the slag. Moonshiners eventually started putting it in barrels. But what to do with the barrels? (They, too, were a dead giveaway, especially if a T-man asked what was in them.) We don’t know exactly who it was that decided to label the barrel, identifying the contents as GRITS. It eliminated that awkward question, but when asked what he was going to do with the Grits, he is reported to have answered, “Sell them, of course!”

 And so he did. Cheap. 49 cents a barrel.

 Don’t know who first taste-tested the new stuff. Probably hoped for some leftover taste from the fluid so carefully separated from the slag. But if you were hungry enough, you could put some fatback drippings on them and fill your gut until some food became available. Nowadays, we just add a lot of butter, salt and pepper, and then mash ‘em all up with the runny eggs on the plate, sopping them up with the biscuits. Don’t know why we don’t just eat the food!

 Better question: Why Are Grits? I propose a contest. Let us see who can come up with something more useless than grits. (Can’t be Kudzu; it keeps the soil in place.)  

The biggest difference between Barack Obama today and Napolean, Mussolini, Lenin, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Hitler and most-recently, Arafat of yesteryear is that none of the others had a teleprompter.  The named leaders of yesteryear all devastated the masses who worshipped them.  Much of the jury in the "Masses v. Obama" case has yet to begin deliberations.

All, it is generally conceded, advanced on the wings of great oratory skills.  All are/were pragmatic opportunists, advancing themselves and their agendae amid the manufactured chaos of crises.  All do or did manipulate the most-mass newsmedia of their day, whether, massive rallies, fire-side radio chats, newsreels at the movies, broadcast of the 1936 Olympics, Palestinian news feeds carried by the gullible and compliant outlets wordwide, televised speaches and "news conferences" along with intimidation of opposition talk radio.

All are/were either radical socialists, radical liberal fascists, or both.  All do/did eschew logic, facts, truth and rationality in favor of emotion and stirring passion in the masses.  All replaced religions with faiths that were this-wordly and political, and led by this-world people rather than exta-wordly [G]od(s).  The hisorical are well-known to most.  The latest iteration is "Black Liberation Theology".

All came to realize that having the people they lead/led, not only impassioned, but scared, made the followers more compliant.  All are/were transformational, creating new societies with new paradigms, while impugning everything past.  All do or did subordinate the individual to the collective -- the state or nation, the worker class, the race, the party -- and subordinate the rule of law to the rule of an oligarchy of "leaders".

All came to believe that truth is unimportant.  Whatever the people believe to be truth is what is important, because it is that which guides them.  Leaders, then, need to create a truth which moves the masses.  It is no wonder, then, that George Will recently opined, "For conservatives seeing is believing while for liberals believing is seeing."  It is why on this blogsite I earlier characterized what the President was doing as "misdirobfuscation".

If what we're witnessing is not new, but rather deja vu, -- and that's how I see it -- the ending is clear, and not pretty.  What remains of the story to be written is what and who will be devastated before the final chapter, and how badly.  If we use post-revolution France, a dying and shrinking Italy, post-war Germany, the Soviet Union, Palestine, and the New Deal legacy as clues and predictors, the prognosis is bleak.