The Century-Old Gravestone With Current Appeal (To Some)

By Alicia Colon

There's an e-mail floating around that inadvertently reveals the animosity aimed at certain politicians creating gridlock at this time of year. It has a picture of the gravestone of Nathaniel Grigsby, who died in Kansas in 1890, and on the side of the stone is the following message, which was put there in fulfillment of a promise to the deceased:

"Through this inscription I wish to enter my dying protest against what is called the Democratic party. I have watched it closely since the days of Jackson and know that all the misfortunes of our nation has come to it through this so-called party. Therefore beware of this party of treason."

The subject of the e-mail reads: "they knew it a long time ago," which seems to imply that the Democrat Party hasn't changed much in over a hundred years. The person who forwarded the e-mail and many of the voters who elected the Tea Party candidates to office view Democrats as enemies of the republic, but are just as skeptical of the status quo Republicans who are prone to compromise on spending legislation. They see the economic crisis as unending and the president and Congress not doing anything to end it.

The issue of extending the Bush tax cuts for all, including the very wealthy, has been adamantly opposed by the Democrats, but to their dismay President Obama has agreed to do so only if the legislation extends unemployment benefits for those who've exhausted their 99 weeks of eligibility. Republicans have been opposed to the benefits extension, but the weak-willed RINOS (Republicans in Name Only) may go along just to have the tax cuts extended.

The more I listen to the pros and cons on both sides of the aisle, the more I've come to understand why Grigsby blamed so much national harm on the Democrat Party. I don't know if the Democrats are genuinely sincere about their position or just plain dumb, but the idea that this country needs to extend unemployment benefits for those who've been getting checks for nearly two years has no merit at all.

I can only say this because while I might be able to benefit from this legislation, it would be dreadful for the country. When my unemployment benefits were exhausted, I did what people in my position have done for eons. We buckle down and revamp. The stocks went first, then the savings, then my meager jewelry collection - no that's not exactly true. I tried, but costume jewelry doesn't sell well - but I started selling whatever I could on EBay.

But I'm one of the lucky ones. I have a huge family and we've learned to pool our resources and that means more home-cooked meals - sorry, pizzeria man - no more trips to Atlantic City or vacations. The upside is that I may finally finish my memoir.

Yet the Democrats insist that extending the unemployment benefits somehow will stimulate the economy. They are either brain dead or malicious.

The Senate finance chairman, Max Baucus (D-Montana), introduced legislation that would provide long-term unemployed workers with benefits through the end of next year and said that he "will try every way I can to get this passed."

I laughed when I read that Mr. Baucus said the measure would provide the best "economic stimulus" heading into the Christmas holidays. Just because a recent Labor Department report showed that for every dollar spent on unemployment insurance, two dollars are reinvested into the economy doesn't mean it stimulates job growth.

The unemployed are spending it in areas that are already in business. To create jobs, employers have to hire more employees, which they will not do if they know their taxes will increase. Ergo, extend the Bush tax rate and stop calling it a tax cut for the rich, Senator Reid.

I have come to the conclusion that the Democrats only push for programs that will produce Democrat votes from people receiving a government check. Creating dependent cripples means that they will get reelected. When I first moved to Staten Island, I noticed a strange looking man standing outside the methadone clinic on Canal Street. He looked strange because he had a protruding stomach that made him look six months pregnant. Last month, I saw him again coming out of the clinic but this time he looked deathly ill, was on crutches and 30 years later still had that obvious feature. How had he benefited from that clinic?

I once argued with someone that methadone was just supplying addicts with a different drug and that person countered that at least they weren't going out robbing people and could hold down a job. Basically, liberal programs just want to sedate the populace rather than to do what is right by getting them off drugs. An Iranian dissident I once interviewed told me that the mullahs in Iran were doing that to the people to control them. So are we.

Those pushing for legalizing drugs are recreational users themselves. Unless the drugs are free, the real addict will still resort to criminal activity to get them, so what's the sense in legalization except to pad the coffers of the government?

Unemployment insurance (incidentally paid for by employers) was meant to help workers temporarily while they looked for another job. It has become, however, just another form of welfare, which I found incredibly easy to apply for via the Internet. Do the Democrats know how many people who hate their jobs look with envy at the European benefits that have bankrupted that continent? One man at my son's courier job tried hard for months to get fired so he could stay home for two years and collect a check. Can you blame him?

Don't get me wrong. I know full well that there are people hurting badly by the economy and would like nothing better than to have a good paying job but those jobs will never be created without a strong private sector. The Democrat policy is to hinder that from happening by continuing to demonize the rich who are the entrepreneurs and employers. They also want to push an amnesty "Dream" bill, which will add 20 million illegal immigrants to the job-seeking market. This is totally insane.

But these issues aren't what drove Nathaniel Grigsby to loathe the Democrats. He was a close childhood friend of Abraham Lincoln and blamed the Democrats for the traitorous secession and rebellion of the Confederate States. He also blamed them for the Civil War and the death of the president, his close friend and relative. (Lincoln's sister Sarah married his older brother.) That was enough for him to charge them with treason.

With the deliberate devastation of our nation's economy, the unelected czars taking over private industries, and Big Brother watching over us all, can you blame that e-mailer for thinking the Democrat Party hasn't changed a bit? C

Alicia Colon resides in New York City and can be reached at aliciav.colon@gmail.com and at www.aliciacolon.com