Another Gettysburg?

New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg may be one of the few members of the United States Congress for whom the phrase "Clown of Congress" is a poor fit. The fact that he is a Republican is really of no consequence, as the Republican party is of no consequence. It is Gregg the man who is important.

Gregg was picked by Obama as nominee for Secretary of Commerce as a demonstration of how the Obama regime was going to "reach across the aisle".

Of course, Obama put the screws to that when he moved the 2010 census out of the Commerce Department and into the Orchid Office, specifically into the sticky fingers of Rahm "The Fish" Emanuel. The census is an important undertaking, as the results of the census determine Congressional districting as well as allocation of funding. Both parties have been guilty of manipulating the census for political purposes, but none in recent history have been so blatant about it as the Obama regime.

When Obama moved the census to the Orchid Office, Judd withdrew from consideration for Secretary of Commerce. I liked that. It showed that the New Hampshireman was not going to be an Obama puppet for the sake of a political appointment.

Gregg is considered by many knowledgeable people to be a fiscal expert, our foremost fiscal expert in the Senate. We've seen a lot of 'fiscal experts' in the past several months. Most of them would be best served by shoving their heads in a toilet for a swirlie, to clear out the fog or cobwebs or whatever. Timmy Geithner, for example.

Gregg has become an increasingly vocal opponent of Obama's 'fiscal policies'. I use the term guardedly, because figuring out what Obama's policies really are, other than huge takeaways/giveaways, requires a good background in Chaos Theory.

"We believe you create prosperity by having an affordable government that pursues its responsibilities without excessive costs, taxes or debt," Sen. Judd Gregg said Saturday in the weekly Republican radio address.

The Federal and state and local governments are identical in that respect. The same is true of family finances. How can any family spend itself into prosperity? How can any family borrow money many times the amount that it will reasonably bring in, in a year's time, and expect to survive? How can any small business do that?

Our city government does not run on a deficit. I suppose it could, if it could get a lot more of that free Federal money, but that Federal money has to come out of someone's wallet eventually. Obama is apparently not concerned about that. Gregg is. So am I. So should you be.

How about this:

Gregg said Obama's proposals "represent an extraordinary move of our government to the left."

He said Obama "is not trying to hide this; in fact, he is very forthright in stating that he believes that by greatly expanding the spending, the taxing and the borrowing of our government, this will lead us to prosperity."

Gregg countered that:

-- "It is the individual American who creates prosperity and good jobs, not the government."

-- "We believe that you create energy independence not by sticking Americans with a brand new national sales tax on everyone's electric bill, but by expanding the production of American energy ... while also conserving more."

--"We also believe you improve everyone's health care not by nationalizing the health care system and putting the government between you and your doctor, but by assuring that every American has access to quality health insurance and choices in health care."

He said the United States "has an exceptional history of one generation passing on to the next generation a more prosperous and stronger country, but that tradition is being put at risk."

'Put at risk'?

There is such a fundamental difference in personal philosophy in this nation today that I have begun to think that the difference is insurmountable. We have a large segment of the population, perhaps a majority, that has a deeply-held belief that the government owes them. That it is government's responsibility to make them happy. That it is government's responsibility to keep them fed and clothed and housed.

Then there is the other part of the population that believes this is nonsense. It is this part of the population that allow us to live up to Lincoln's closing comment at Gettysburg:

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government : of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Though no shots are being fired, and no battles are destroying the countryside, it seems to me that we are engaged in another form of warfare, a different version of "Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure." It's a war of ideologies.

Obama likes to hear himself compared to Abraham Lincoln, but any comparisons between Obama and Lincoln are shallow and specious at best.

Obama, who is proving to be more of a Pelosian puppet than a real president, and his collection of Chicago henchmen and Clintonistas, is not "... a leadership of frankness and of vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory."

So far, despite a few Congressional leaders like Judd Gregg ... or perhaps because there are so few of them ... we are losing the battle.