Open letter to Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.)

Below, you will find a letter that I have written to Senator DeMint.

Senator DeMint,

I write to you today, not as a constituent of yours, but as a concerned American who is worried about the direction of our country and has began to fear the rapidly expanding power and scope of the federal government.  For that reason, I hope you take the time to hear me out on my thoughts.

I come to you in regards to an interview that you recently did with David Brody of the The Brody File in which you were asked if you would consider a run for president.  Your response to that comment was,

“You know, I’ve always thought of myself as an average guy and when I think of the President of the United States I’m hoping that there is some knight on a white horse that’s going to ride that I can look at and say you know this is Ronald Reagan character or the level that we could have. Frankly, the people that I’ve seen here in politics I realize that I can hold my ground with any of them. There are a lot of changes I’d like to make in this country and I think Americans are going to be ready for someone to tell them the truth next election. Not someone who will give them a good speech but someone who reminds them that the federal government has to do less not more. I’m hoping we can find that candidate out who has shown himself to be a great Governor or somewhere. It’s not something I desire. Anyone who really desires it does not know how much trouble we’re in as a country because we’ve got some tough times ahead of us and we need a President, who says we can get through it, we can come out better on the other side but we’re going to have to sacrifice.”

With all due respect Senator DeMint, while you stated that it was not something you desire, you laid out every reason why you MUST run.  As a freshman Senator, you have proven yourself a leader.   You stood up to your own party with respect to the TARP program, you fought the current administration on the Stimulus plan, and you work to prevent the intrusion and government into our lives at every turn.  In large part because of you, the American people were able to make our voices heard with the election of Marco Rubio (Fl) and Rand Paul (KY), which were huge wins.  While some of your other picks such as Sharon Angle (NV), Ken Buck (CO), and others were defeated in the general elections, their victories in the primaries were instrumental in stirring up the establishment GOP.  Even today, you yourself stand up to the establishment with your resolution to ban earmarks, showing that you truly understand the people and their desire to change course.

Sir, you are what America needs to saved.  You spoke true words when you made the following statement:

It's going to be a painful job for the next president if they do it right. Taking apart this huge bureaucracy, fighting the government unions, doing the things that have to be done to cut spending and cut the size of the federal government and restore some fiscal sanity,

We, the people, understand these words.  We are willing to follow someone who will tell us the truth and communicate the consequences.  Your popularity proves that you are someone that Americans relate to and understand.  It proves that they will follow, if you would just have the willingness to lead.  Yes, it will be hard, but it is something that must be done to restore our valor.

You state that you are waiting for a “white knight”, but I bring to you the idea that you are the white knight.  Heroes rarely understand their place until after their actions make them so.  I understand it is not a job you may want, but it is a job that American wants (needs) you to have.  With this election, you have a number of young guns that can help your position with Rubio and Paul.  You have others such as Paul Ryan, who have been begging an audience for his good ideas but has been largely ignored by the current administration and GOP establishment.  The tools are there, all that is lacking is a leader.  I believe you to be that leader.  If given the opportunity, you will have my vote and my promise to do all within my power to assure your election.  This nation is under attack from within and we have precious little time to defend it.  If the GOP did not get the message and amend their ways, then 2012 will be our last hope to stop the leftward slide that America has been taking for years.  For this reason, I beg you to reconsider. 

American and fellow patriot,

Nicky Pike

"Be not afraid of greatness; some are born great, some achieve greatness, and others have greatness thrust upon them."  - William Shakespeare


Your retirement accounts: Future funding for the growth of government

Many of you that read this blog I know are older than I.  I also know that many of you have been responsible within your working years, having set aside money to aid in your retirement.  There are even some of you that are living off your hard earned (and invested) retirement dollars now.  However, there are now talks on Capital Hill that the Government needs to "protect" you from the uncertainty of retirement investing.

Yes, you read that right.  The government is now holding Department of Treasury committee meetings on "lifetime income options for retirement plans".  For those of you that don't speak politics, the above can be revised to say "How can we nationalize and confiscate the retirement plans of hard working Americans to help fund and grow our entitlement agenda".

Don't believe me?  Check out the Peter Heller article "US Departments of Labor and Treasury Schedule Hearing on Confiscation of Private Retirement Accounts".   If you don't want to take Heller's word for it, you can see the press release from the Dept. of Labor regarding the hearings here.

The long and short of the plan is based on an idea by Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor at the New School of Social Research, to eliminate the incentives of popular tax plans, namely 401K and 401B plans.  This idea involves workers transferring their current assets into Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (GRA) created by our ever-benevolent government.  In return, the government would deposit an inflation indexed $600/year into the GRAs, while workers would be required to pay 5% of their pay into the same.  For this, the government will guarantee a 3% return on investment for each account and upon retirement, the government would then convert that payout into an annuity, payable each year to the retiree, supposedly to ensure that the retiree has a "life long source of income after retirement". 

So what's the problem that they are trying to fix here?  It seems that the government does not think that the American public is smart enough to handle their retirement financial affairs.  Their operating premise is that employees are put at "undue risk" because generally retirement investments are presented in a "lump sum payment" thus making them "responsible for ensuring that their savings will last throughout their lifetime".  Again, the fed wants to play the "American people are too stupid to take care of themselves, so we need to do it for them" card that has become the standard operating procedure here of late.

So why this new found concern for retirees?  Could it be that the government is generally worried that retirement investment income will not last sufficiently thru a worker's golden years?  Well, if you believe that, please log off my site, cause reality is not something that you show an interest in!  No, the reason for this sudden found interest is for nothing more than a huge cash grab intended to help fund the behemoth that is US Government policy.  According to the Investment Company Institute research on 2009 retirement market, total US retirement assets are sitting at ~$16trillion, up 14% from 2008.  Considering the spending orgy that this current administration has been on, this is simply too much money to ignore and boy would that come in useful in furthering the beaurcracy and entitlement mentality of our new found socialistic "hope and change" for America.  Therefore, they are now considering the nationalization (confiscation) of American retirement accounts.

So what does this mean to workers?  Surely a guarantee of retirement income is a good thing?  First, since the GRA payout is converted to annuity, upon death, the benefit will terminate.  No matter how much you saved, your heirs would no longer be able to inherit anything left over from your hard work and thoughtful savings and investment.  Similar to Social Security accounts, the remaining funds would simply revert back into the general fund.  Second, you will only be guaranteed a 3% return.  Even with a finicky stock market, the average rate of return from money market and IRA accounts average 7%.  Right from the start, you will be taking a 4% decrease in benefit.  James Pethokoukis puts these figures into something much easier to understand by showing that $10,000 growing at 3% for 40 years would leave you with roughly $22,000 at retirement.  However that same $10,000 at 7% for 40 years would net you a total of $150,000.  Not only do you risk a loss of $128,000 of net return, but you must also remember the payout of the annuity.  Would you rather see a monthly payment based on $22K or $128K?  True, we are only assuming a $10K investment, but you can do the numbers to extrapolate.  Also, after spending your life, dedicating 5% of pay into this account, wouldn't you want the satisfaction of knowing that your savings could be willed to your family in the event of an early passing?  Not so with GRAs!!

In the end, we also have to look at the government's (any government's) ability to manage and dole out with respect to fiscal programs.  Social Security, bankrupt.  Medicare, bankrupt.  Guaranteed pensions, backed with IOU's, but no money in the coffers to back the promises, forcing many states (California, New York, etc) to the brink of bankruptcy.  You seeing the same trend I am here???  The simple fact is that the government does nothing well.  They can't run a business (USPS), they can't guarantee the current retirement supplement (Social Security), and I don't trust them to be able to carry me thru my retirement years.  In addition, since these GRAs will be backed with Government Treasury Bonds, I'm not even sure they could guarantee the lowly 3% return they are promising.  Have any of you taken a look at the falling dollar in the world market?  As our current policies keep us going back to the loaning tree of the Chinese and other unfriendly countries, as our debt continues to rise at the rate of super fueled rocket, how can we possibly be satisfied with a "promise" that Treasury Bonds will even be worth the paper they are printed on?  Simple answer, we don't. 

Decide for yourself, are you willing to trust the fed with your hard earned dollar?  Are you willing to be forced by law to save into an account that will most likely not provide you with a return on your investment that will be in the black?  Do you have no concern that all of your savings will not go the betterment of your surviving family in the event of your death?   How about knowing that your savings will be used to fund the retirement of those who have not contributed as much as you? When will the fed want to open these accounts to non-tax paying illegal aliens as we've seen with Medicare, etc?  Rest assured, if allowed, this will not be the end of confiscation of private property.  First it was the water ways, now it's your personal savings.  Where will it end?


To burn or not to burn?

Before I start this rant. let me go on record stating that I think Pastor Terry Jones is an idiot.  Pastor Jones is the man who will be heading up a "Koran Burning" down in Gainesville, Florida on the eve of September 11th.  While I understand Pastor Jones's sentiment behind the burning, and even stand by his legal right to do so, I still think he is an idiot.  I do not think he is an idiot because of possible backlash by Islamic followers or the multitude of global protests, but because I believe he is doing this burning for no other reason than to gain his 15 minutes of fame in the public eye and he is going against the very principals of Christianity that he is supposed to foster. 

That being said, I wish to speak to a key number of consequences that have come from his decision to perform this burning.  At the top of the list, comes the statement by General Petraeus stating that doing so will put the lives of soldiers in danger.  First, let me state that everyone who knows me knows that I have nothing but the utmost love and respect for those in uniform who protect the American ideal, however, in this case, General Petraeus should have stayed silent.  The General is a just that, a general in the US military.  The subject of burning a religious text as protest is a political matter, of which, a general in the US Military has no business intervening.  Had Gen. Petraeus given his "personal opinion" out of uniform, and clarified that such statement was not one of the US Military, it would have been one thing, but he did not, thus violating the very principal of a citizen military.  Just as President Obama, as a national figure, consistently, and unjustifiably, inserts himself into local matters, the General has inserted himself into a political matter of which he has no jurisdiction.  In addition, need I remind the General that our soldiers are, and have been, in the line of danger for sometime. Regardless of President Obama's misguided declaration that combat operations in Iraq are over, we still have 50,000 troops actively engaged, and in the line of fire, daily in Iraq, not to mention Afghanistan.  Those soldiers fight for the rights granted us by the US Constitution, even if they are things that they may not personally agree with.  I know not one soldier who would agree with the burning of the American Flag, but every day they lace up their boots and put themselves in harm's way to maintain the right to do so.

Second is all the media claims of Islamic backlash, the coverage of all the "global protests", and the Ground Zero Mosque Imam's thinly veiled threat that if this burning is not stopped, then the "radicals" of Islam will take this as an attack against Islam and that we will suffer the consequences.  To start, the media is just as culpable in this as Pastor Terry Jones.  They gave significance to his protest, choosing to make it a national and global issue.  Was this done to take the eye off of our current administration's failed policies, to distract the people from the mid-term elections, or to further foster their claims that "islamophobia" has gripped the country?  I don't know, but it appears that they succeeded in all three. 

Since when do we let outside entities dictate how America will react?  Since when do American's lay down in fear and abide to thugs due to risk of violence?  From Hillary Clinton, to Gen. Petraeus, to Angelina Jolie, everyone is stating that this should be stopped or violence will ensue.  Take a look around you!  Pick up any newspaper within the last 20 years and you will see that we've been in the grip of Islam violence for some time.  I do agree with Pastor Jones in that we cannot be afraid of Islam anymore.  We cannot allow our policies, our lives, or our rights to be violated by the Islamic faith.  If we allow Islam to sway our decisions, then we have already lost our freedom.  If we make decisions based on the "possibility" of Islamic violence, then might as well lay down and submit ourselves to Sharia law, as the terrorists have won and the American way is gone.  We must remember that Islam is a religion of violence and fear.  If not this Koran burning, it would be some other perceived atrocity that they would rioting and threatening us over.  Where does is end?  Do we then submit our laws to the same fear?  Will we allow a man who beats his wife to go free because Islamists say it is his right?  Must we demand that rape victims be publicly and violently punished for their misfortune?   Must prop 8 in California be turned to law because Muslim's will distribute violence upon us for allowing homosexuals to have marriage rights?  At what point do we say enough is enough?  At what point does it become too late to make that assertion?

On the subject of "islamophobia" as progressed by the media; first, we must agree on the definition of "Islamophobia".  A phobia, as defined by Merriam Webster is "an exaggerated, usually inexplicable and illogical, fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation".   There is nothing illogical or inexplicable about opposing the building of a monument to the very faith that murdered over 3000 of our American brothers and sisters.  Would it be illogical to demand that a rapists face be tattooed on the body of his victim?  It is not illogical to claim that Islam is a religion of violence when history has shown over and over again the numerous jihad's that have resulted in the murder, rape, and torture of non-believers.  It is not a phobia, but a realistic look at Islam for what it is. 

But what about the "moderate" Muslims?  While I agree that there are those within the faith that wish to modernize it, there has to be an understanding that it will never happen.  In order for Muslims to "modernize" and transform Islam into  a "religion of peace" then those moderates would have to decry their own prophet and religious text to do so.  Mohammed is not a figure of peace and virtue, but instead was a murderous, war-mongering, child marriage practioner, guilty of rape, pillage, and plunder during his lifelong quest to control and subjugate infidels to his faith.  It is also believed that the Koran is a direct dictation of speech between Mohammed and Allah to be followed implicitly and without question.  In order for revisionists to change the Muslim faith, they would have to separate themselves from the very core of their belief.  Since the faith itself punishes any outspoken person against the religion with death, we can expect the vast majority of Muslims to remain silent.  Just as not all Germans were Nazis, they stayed silent as the "radicals" overtook the culture.  We are seeing the same thing today with Islam, but rather just a matter of national pride, we are talking about religious indoctrination which is much further ingrained in the psyche, thus much harder to defend against.

While I believe Pastor Jones to be an idiot for his "protest", the media has now made this a no-win situation for America.  Due to their proliferation of this non-subject, we are now in the global [Islamic] eye.  If he does not go thru with his burning, then we once again allowed ourselves to bend to the threat of Islam.  If he does go thru with it, then we allowed ourselves to "declare war on Islam", and give them an irrational justification for the actions that they've been perpetrating for centuries.  Either way, Islam has gotten what it wants, rule over American freedom or an excuse for their violence.  While I disagree with Pastor Jones's actions, I will have to take the side of standing up against the Islamic threat.  This will get me labeled as a "racist", but they've been calling me that for 2 years now, so what the hell?  This is a situation that was fueled by a sensational liberal media and by politicians who involve themselves in affairs that will advance their political clout and agenda.  It has to stop somewhere, so to Pastor Jones:  I will curse you for your ignorance, but I stand by you in light of the fire you have started.


Why I believe President Obama will go down in history as this nations most important president

Yes, you heard that right.  It is my belief that President Obama, after all the dust has settled, will go down in history as this nations most important president.  That may seem like a strange statement from me, considering all the writings I've done here of late, but let me explain.

Why would I dare suggest that ole Barry may be one of this nation's most influential when compared to the likes of Ronald Reagan, JFK, or Abe Lincoln?  Could it be that he reminds me of the honesty of "I can not tell a lie" George Washington?  Of course not.  I don't think that President Obama has ever told the truth.  Lies come from his mouth every opportunity he has to open it.  Be it about promising to bring transparency and openness to the present administration, while allowing back room deals to pass his socialist agenda or denial of the public to witness the health care debates.  Or promising that if we passed a trillion dollar stimulus package that unemployment wouldn't go above 8%.  No, he has shown nothing but a complete lack of honesty  at every turn, promising that we would all be allowed to keep our health care plans if we wished, when the bill show's the exact opposite.  So no, it's not honesty that leads me to my belief.

Maybe it's his ability to lead and direct policy?  Again, the answer is no.  President Obama has absolutely no leadership skills to speak of.  He is a man that has never led anything in his life.  He's never ran a business, never had to make a payroll, and has never made a major decision on his own.  He was ill-prepared and ill-qualified to hold the office of President.   He is a man who was raised by handlers his whole career and whose only accomplishments include being a community organizer and voting "present" on 129 votes, to include such contentious issues as the sealing of rape and sexual crime victims records and partial birth abortions.  Even as President, he had no control of his own party, letting the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid walk all over his political promises without nary a reprimand.  Maybe it's leadership to maintain a level head in controversy, but Barrack lacks in this area as well.  He's quick to opinion on such topics as the Ft. Hood Massacre, claiming it's too early to claim terrorism when it was clearly proven it was.  Maybe when he claimed racial discrimination and that the police acted "stupidly" in the Gates arrest, before knowing all the facts.  Does the fact that he defended the building of the Cordoba Mosque at ground zero, before backtracking the day after show his skills of leadership?  No, it couldn't be his leadership because a leader would take the time to garnish all the facts before making a statement.

Maybe it's because of his unequaled amount of patriotism?  Surely, as President, I'm in awe of his love for his country?  Sadly, no.  Obama's first act as president was to go on a world wide tour in which he apologized for America to every dictator and enemy nation in the world.  His foreign policy has been modeled after the U.N. in which he assumes that all the trials and evils of the world rest squarely on America's shoulders.  He has bowed to the King of Saudi, exclaimed to the world that America has too often tried to force it's ideals on global citizens, and made nice with brutal thugs such as Hugo Chavez.  He has made America seem weak by refusing to deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions, backing out of the European Missile Defense initiative, and by agreeing to the new START treaty.  Lastly, he has abandoned our long term allies, such as Israel and Britain, leaving them to suffer alone and without friends.  So no, it's not his patriotism, as he has a complete lack thereof. 

So it MUST be his character?  Surely he is a man of strong character and conviction.  Again, the answer is no.  Obama is a man of no character or of real conviction.  He takes no responsibility for his own actions, seeking to shift the blame in all cases.  Almost two years into his presidency, he still uses the same tired line of "He inherited this mess from Bush".  He claims that the deficit is all Bush's fault, but fails to see that he's created a greater debt in two years than the Bush Administration did in it's eight years or of any President in history for that matter.  The gulf oil disaster, Bush's fault, but ignores that his own inaction only served to make things worse.  He tells the American people that Republican's have no new ideas, no proposals, when he was offered many proposals on everything from health care to the economy, which he chose to ignore.  He regularly takes credit for things that he had no part of, such as the capping of the oil well or the draw down of troops in Iraq.  He claims legitimacy to the office, yet he has spent millions of dollars to hide his birth certificate.  Surely, with such a simple solution to end the controversy, a man of conviction would just provide his birth certificate, but not Obama.

So with all these critiques, why would I think that Obama will be a historical president?  The answer is simple, it was Obama who started the "no shot revolution" in America (to borrow a phrase from Mark Levin).  Had Obama not been elected, had he not showed all his faults, had he not tried to push his ideology and rapidly expand the intrusion of government into every aspect of American lives, we would have never seen the resurgence of conservative American values in this nation.  Yes, Obama was the straw that broke the camel's back.  It was his election that showed Americans the other side and that forced the voter to start moving back to center right.  We've seen what a move towards socialistic European style government will do this nation and we've decided that we don't want any part of it.  We've dealt with shady politicians, who only seem to have their own future ambitions in view, and not those of the people they represent and we are now starting to hold those politicians accountable for their actions.  People are starting to demand that their representatives "do it our way" or find another line of work.

Yes, we are witnessing a non-violent revolution starting to take place in this country.  Americans are missing the values and ideals that made this country great and they are seeking to make a return to them.  I've seen people who could care less about politics suddenly get heavily involved and become activists.  We've seen the growth of grassroots movements, such as the Tea Party, take hold, flourish, and become political powerhouses.  The American people are seemingly starting to find themselves, their voices, and are demanding that they be heard.  While this is a non-violent revolution, I suspect it will be a politically bloody one.  Democrats and Republicans alike are now fearing for their positions with a clear message from the American voter of lead or be forced out of the way.  Yes, this is American liberty at it's best.  Tired of the trampling of our founding documents and the visions of our forefathers, the voter is once again looking to gain control of an over-reaching, oppressive government. For this, we have Barrack Obama to thank.  It was his radicalism, his goal of deteriorating America, that fired the "second shot heard round the world" and re-ignited the lust for American liberty.  I know that someday I will be telling my nieces and nephews how I took part in this time in history, how I watched the re-birth of America before my very eyes.  I will use the posts that I create on this blog to detail to them the extent and danger that leftist, stateist control poses to the freedom that they enjoy.  I'm expect it will be with tears in my eyes that I will tell them how we came so very close to losing America, but thanks to Obama showing us the error of our ways, that America stood up and reclaimed it's birthright.  That had it not been for his desire to lead us down a wrong and destructive path, we would have never had the courage to put an end to the stripping of our liberty and save this great nation for them to enjoy.  So for that, I thank you President Obama.

Remember in November!!


Center for Biological Diversity trying to use EPA as an end run around 2nd Amendment

On August 3rd, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) filed a petition with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate and ban the sale and use of lead ammunition and fishing sinkers citing the Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976 (TSCA) as it's basis. 

The CDB is a known anti-hunting group whose mission is to "secure a future for all species, great and small".  More simply put, they wish to ban the hunting, fishing, or killing of any animal.  In sticking with their mission, they are attacking hunters by waging a war against the tools of the trade.  Instead of going after the guns themselves, they are attempting to find a way around the 2nd amendment by outlawing the munitions used.  With this petition, they are asking the EPA to step in and provide "regulation" of any lead based munitions or accessories.  While not all munitions are lead based, if allowed, it would provide a significant, and detrimental, amount of regulation and oversight by the EPA of our guaranteed right to keep and bear arms and an open door for future infringement.

However, does this petition have merit?  If you do a Google search of the aforementioned petition, you will see many people stating that the TSCA specifically excludes firearms and munitions from the act.  Me being one who likes to know the facts, decided to read the TSCA myself, in order to better prepare myself for argument.   Finding this exclusion was not easy, in that the wording of the TSCA never specifically mentions the words firearm, weapon, munitions, or ammunition.

However, within Section 3, Article B, Line (V),  the TSCA does explicitly exclude:

any article, the sale of which, is subject to the tax imposed by section 4181 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (determined without regard to any exemptions from such tax provided by section 4182 or 4221 or any other provision of such Code)

Section of 4181 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 states:

There is hereby imposed upon the sale by the manufacturer, producer, or importer of the following articles a tax equivalent to the specified percent of the price for which so sold:



Firearms (other than pistols and revolvers).

Shells, and cartridges.

So, it was clearly the intent of Congress, when passing the TSCA, to specifically exclude all firearms and ammunition from the act.  IRS, Title 26, Section 4181, is not hard to understand.  There are no other provisions of the code, it specifically, and only, deals with all firearms and munitions.  By providing an exclusion that calls out "any article, the sale of which is, subject to tax imposed by section 4181 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954"", the act clearly denies regulation of ammunition under the TSCA.

So, the CBD is perfectly within it's rights to bring up a petition to the EPA under this act, but per the law written within the Act, the EPA should have no other recourse than to summarily deny the petition.  HOWEVER, I don't think we can just rely on the EPA following the law.  Within the last two years, we've seen the law circumvented by agencies who decide which laws they will follow/enforce and which ones they won't.  Case in point being the Immigration Control and Enforcement  (ICE) Agency deciding that it will not deport illegal aliens referred to them.  If ICE can decide to ignore federal law and decide for themselves that they will not enforce it, what is to stop an agency such as the EPA (who consistently oversteps their authority) to ignore law (TSCA) and decide that it is within it's right to deny Americans their right to keep and bear arms by over-regulation of the munitions used?  Considering the government's track record on following of law and constitutional authority here of late, I don't think that we can assume that they will stay within their legal authority and not try to circumvent the 2nd amendment by regulatory fiat here.

The EPA has opened the CBD petition up for public comment and I urge each of you to go and express your opinions regarding the possibility of the EPA once again over stepping their authority.  You can reach the comment page here.  Feel free to use the information in this post with in your comments.  If you wish to add additional information, the National Shooting Sports Foundation has some pretty good arguments to include as well (link).

NOTE:  The EPA has until Nov 2nd, 2010 to accept or deny this petition.  How convenient that it must decide the day prior to the November Mid-term elections.  So please, make you voice heard soon and pass this along to all other Americans who will not see their constitutional 2nd amendment rights trampled, in any way!


The Enumerated Powers Act

Imagine if you will, a new bill to be presented to congress.  This bill, which we will call the Enumerated Powers Act, would require that every future piece of legislation presented before Congress include a statement detailing under which specific Constitutional authority the bill is being considered for enactment.   Considering that Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution explicitly and finitely details the specific powers bestowed upon on our government, wouldn't it be fitting that every law brought forward for vote be made to show that it is within those Enumerated Powers?

Sounds like a wonderful idea to me, but unfortunately, I cannot take the credit for this common sense, extremely relevant idea.  That praise belongs to Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ), who has already introduced such a bill to Congress.  In fact, Rep. Shadegg has introduced this piece of legislation to every meeting of Congress since the 104th.  For those of you that may not understand the numbering, we are currently in the 111th Congress, with the 104th being called to order between 01/4/1995 - 11/4/1996.   So each of the 15 years since 1995, this bill has been presented, but I'm guessing this is the first any of you have ever heard of it.  Wonder why?

The answer is very simple.  Our ruling class has been operating unconstitutionally and out of bounds of their specific powers for decades.  This isn't just a Democrat or Republican fault, but a rapidly expanding government fault.  Many of the things that we now accept as common, are in fact, unconstitutional per our founding documents.  True, we've witnessed an explosion of governmental growth over the past 18 months unseen since the day's of FDR, but to steal a quote for our current president, "Let me be clear", this has happened under both Republican and Democrat congresses.  Things such as Obamacare, the proposed Cap and Trade, bureaucratic expansions of the EPA, ATF, and other agencies, and even Social Security and Medicare are all outside the scope of the enumerated powers granted to our government by our Constitution. 

That being said, it's no wonder that you've never heard of this bill.  Our ruling class doesn't not want, I would even say, are desperate to avoid, having to base their legislation proposals upon {gasp} the specific powers they have been granted.  We have allowed a ruling class to gain power that feels that they know better, and can govern better, than the people whom they've sworn themselves to serve.  We have a ruling class that denies the states the authority to self govern, even though the states were granted that specific right to do so per the visions of our founding fathers.  We have allowed a judicial class to become activists who bend, mold, and pervert the words of our Constitution to fit political ideologies rather than uphold it as the law of the land.

In short, we have brought our current troubles upon ourselves, the governed.  We elected officials who have no understanding, or desire to understand, the importance and significance of the US Constitution.  We the people have voted in career politicians whose only ambition is to expand their financial, political, and social authorities while desecrating our founding principles.  Politicians who do not make the effort, or take the time, to fully understand the impact of the laws that they vote on.  Politicians who care more about earmarks and political favors than the best direction for this country.  Politicians who when asked about constitutionality respond with "Are you serious?  Are you serious?" or "I don't worry about the Constitution". 

We have allowed the media to be lax in their duties of vetting potential candidates and not asking the hard questions and looking for real answers.  We allowed ourselves to be taken in by a Presidential candidate who had no leadership abilities, no experience, and worst of all, a destructive ideology that is driving our country to it's death.  We, the people, have forgotten the words of the constitution, and the powered bestowed by it, ourselves.  We have forgotten that this is a government of the people, for the people, and by the people.  We have allowed this ruling class to ignore and abandon the very principals and documents that made this nation great and I believe that this bill would be the first step in taking back our nation.  The first step in returning to the great vision that the men who founded this country believed in, enacted, and provided for the US to become the greatest nation in the history of man kind.

I urge each of you to contact your representative and urge them to vote for HR405: The Enumerated Powers Act (full text of bill here).  We must ensure that this bill finally makes it out of committee and gets put forward for a vote.  Let us all find out whom in our ruling class is scared of being required to declare the constitutionality of their legislation proposals.  Let us find out who the patriots are and who are part of the problem.  If you do not know the name of your Representative, then contact me and I will help you find them and their contact information.

Make no mistake, I am under no illusions that this one bill will solve the problems of  the rampant, run away government that we are seeing now, but it is is a start.  It will allow people to become better informed on legislation at a glance, it will reinstitute the premise of constitutionality in our process, and it will help us weed out those of the ruling class who wish to over reach their power.  It will allow for us to recognize and address a government who has far too long stretched the meanings of the  General Welfare and Interstate Commerce clauses for their own means.  When every bill comes thru quoting either of the above, it won't be long before someone sees that they are being abused and demand reform and constraint.  To borrow meaning from Neil Armstrong, passage of this bill would be "One small step for law, one giant leap for American freedom and constitutionality."

Remember in November!!!


Stand Against Us and We Will Destroy You

This is basically the motto of the Obama Administration.  We see it every day, any one who dares speak up or act out against the failing, disastrous policies of our socialist in chief, gets the full weight of the federal machine levied against them. This time, it's Sheriff Joe Apraio of Maricopa County, AZ. 

I'm sure you've all heard of the controversy's surrounding Sheriff Joe in the performance of his duties.  Requiring inmates to wear government issued pink boxer shorts, the creation of canvas incarceration grounds known as tent city, illegal-immigration sweeps, banning of smoking, coffee, and pornography within his jails, and after learning that it was a federal mandate that prisoners be allowed to watch TV in prison, cutting off all channels but the Weather Channel and Disney.

Well it seems that Sheriff Joe has gotten the attention of the US Justice department and is currently being investigated for civil rights crimes including racial profiling/discrimination in his immigration sweeps and mistreatment of inmates within the Arizona prison system.   Never mind that this is a man that has won his elections by overwhelming majorities since first winning in 1992.  Never mind that this is a man loved and respected by a majority of those he is charged to protect within his county (except for those prisoners in his ward).  Instead concentrate on the fact that Sheriff Joe is a man that has denied that the federal system has the right to restrict his ability to protect those citizens whom he has sworn, and was elected by majority, to protect. 

In a letter issued to the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, Civil Right Attorney General Thomas Perez issued an ultimatum to Sheriff Joe to turn over millions of documents to the AG's office or risk being sued under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Sheriff Joe has refused to comply.  I, for one, completely agree with Sheriff Joe's decision.  The tenacity, and unethical treatment, of this law officer goes far outside the jurisprudence of the AG's office.

Investigations originally started in 2004-2005 upon the same claims proved to be baseless.  However, after debate surrounding AZ SB1070, and a subsequent ruling by judicial activist Susan Bolton knocking down several provisions of the bill in US vs Arizona, Sheriff Joe defiantly decreed that he would still perform his duties under various other state laws and that the ruling would have no effect on his efforts to secure his county.  He further stated that he was doing his duties long before SB1070 was even a gleam in anyone's eye, so this has no affect.

Well, that statement then garnished an unprecedented attack by the US Justice Department.  Never mind my opinions on how the DOJ has become the black hooded thugs sanctioned to ensure the policies of the Obama Administration go unchecked and unquestioned (subject for another rant), you need only look at how the DOJ is going about this "investigation".

So disappointed was the DOJ that they opened up a 1-800 to collect complaints about the Sheriff's office.  In my research, I can't find another example where the DOJ has used such a measure to try and gather "evidence" against a law enforcement office. ((Yes, there are whistle blower lines for generic misconduct, but never one set up for a specific office).  In addition, the turn over of the documents requested are so general in nature, that they pertain to no specific crime(s).  Lacking the basis of any real evidence, the DOJ is now looking to go thru millions of pages of documents in a hope to try and drum up some charges.  As quoted by Robert Driscoll, Sheriff Joe's attorney and former DOJ official under the Bush Administration:

"Generally the way it should work is you have evidence that someone's done something wrong, it's not that you're allowed to go fishing around and tell somebody what they did wrong after you look around for a year and a half,"

"If they had a good-faith basis to believe there was a pattern and practice violation of constitutional rights, they could file suit,"  [however]  "It's kind of the cart before the horse, because they've picked the person and they've picked the sheriff's office, and they didn't find a violation and so now they're trying to, for the lack of a better term, gin up a violation."

So, what we have is a Department of Justice who refuses to prosecute voter intimidation by the Black Panther Party when they had an open shut case including video, refuses to go after any "hate crime" suspicions perpetrated by minorities, sues one of it's member states over the their right to uphold FEDERAL immigration law, and now wants to take to task a man who was sworn to uphold the law of the law and protect his constituents.  Is it just me or does it appear that the our DOJ has become a protector of the illegal and criminal rather than upholders of American law?

By the way, the crimes that Sheriff Joe is being accused of?  Racial profiling in immigration sweeps because his sweeps regularly take place in Latino neighbors.  Ignore the fact that is also these very same communities that boast the highest crime rates.  Mistreatment of prisoners by dictating that even bilingual jail officers can only speak to inmates in English stating it provides for a risk that medical emergency may go unchecked.  Ignore the fact that it doesn't prevent guards from "listening" in Spanish, only regularly speaking in Spanish.  Ignore the fact that this is an English speaking country, where the vast majority of it's people speak that language.  Cruel and unusual punishment by forcing prisoners to live in Tent City where temperatures can reach 120 degrees.  Ignore the fact that, as Joe puts it, we have American soldiers facing the same conditions, but wearing 40Lbs of body armor, who did nothing wrong but commit themselves to the defense of our nation and "if you don't like it, don't come back".  Racial targeting in that most of Sheriff's Joe's sweeps result in the incarceration of primarily illegal aliens of Mexican descent.  Never mind that Arizona is a border state, over run by drug cartels and illegal's crossing the border, where Phoenix has become the #2 city for drug cartel related kidnappings and murder, behind only Mexico City.   Improper arrest and detainment techniques in immigration enforcement.  Ignore the fact that 100 of MCSO deputies were trained and instructed by the Federal Immigration, Control, and Enforcement (ICE) agency, who are supposedly charged with doing the work that Sheriff Joe is now doing.  Yup, Sheriff Joe sure does sound like a den of corruption to me.

In closing, the Sheriff's office is not an office of the US Constitution, but one of state constitution.  This is an example of balance of power, in that the Sheriff's office is responsible to the state, not the federal government, operating under state law and authority.  I agree, there should be a level of oversight to prevent egregious abuses, but that is the charge of the state.  If the DOJ wants to go after someone, then they should do so thru the state legal process.  Let the state conduct the investigation and make the appropriate measures, not the Fed.  In either case, this is just another attempt by the Fed to silence those who fail to fall in lockstep with Obama's policies.  Yet another case of our government choosing to protect those that knowingly and willingly break our laws, rather than those that abide or are sworn to uphold them.  First it was the Tea parties, then the State of Texas, now Sheriff Joe Apraio.  This is becoming more and more common place.  If we allow our government to grow at unprecedented rates, we will soon find ourselves in a position where no one is allowed to speak out against the "all knowing, all powerful" federal government for fear of the weight of that government being able to suffocate us.  Who's next?  You, me, the vote of the American people?   That's not the America that I was brought up to believe in nor one I wish to see us devolve to.  This has to stop and November will our first step in this nation's course correction.


End Note:  In a "let me be clear clarification" from President Obama regarding the Cordoba House mosque at the site of Ground Zero, he stated that he was no longer going to comment about the mosque because he did not want to, "get involved in local decision-making".  Well Mr. President, too bad your philosophy doesn't extent to Arizona or Maricopa County.  I guess the only time you don't want to get involved is when you accidentally step on a political landmine due to your inability to keep your mouth shut.  So much for consistency.


Mosque at Ground Zero

Note:  This is strictly an editorial piece.  You will find little, to no, links trying to prove a point.  This is strictly my personal opinion.

There has been a lot of media attention regarding the proposal to build the 13 story Cordoba House mosque just 600 feet from ground zero in Manhattan.  We've heard everything from "we are stereotyping Muslims" to "destroying religious freedom" from the proponents of the build.  So it got me thinking, from an intellectual standpoint, what do I think about this?

Honestly, my opinions are deeply divided.  I've found myself trying to balance my opinions between an intellectual standing and an intensely emotional one.  As someone who always stated that politics and opinion should be based on common sense and thought rather than emotion, I find it very difficult for me to do so on this subject.

From the intellectual, libertarian standpoint, I believe that a person (group) has the ability to do what they wish, as long as the outcomes of that decision do not harm, or impede, upon the rights of another.  Physically speaking, the building of this mosque has no direct affects on the safety of another, in that it causes no physical harm.  It does not impede on any rights (real rights) of another that I'm aware of , so from that standpoint, again it should be allowed.  And finally, I do agree with a statement that President Obama made, in which he stated:

'Let me be clear: As a citizen and as President I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country.

'That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.'

The part with which I agree is that Muslims DO have the freedom to practice their religion with the borders of the United States, should they be legal citizens.  My personal opinions and reflections upon their religion have no bearing on the subject, as simply disagreeing with someone does not infringe upon my rights, nor should it infringe upon theirs.  I also believe that they should have the right to build a mosque on private property, however, this is where my emotional side kicks in and it is a side that I can not ignore.

While I believe in all the above, as an AMERICAN, the place that have chosen to build this mosque is an outrage and a travesty.  To build a tribute to the very religion that perpetrated the worst attack on American soil in history, taking more than 3000 American lives, is nothing more than a snub to the people of this great nation.  Now, I understand that not all muslims supported this attack, it was still under the umbrella of Islam that the attacks took place.  It is akin to building a memorial to honor Japanese Kamikaze pilots that died in the Pearl Harbor attack upon the shores of Pearl Harbor or a memorial to soldiers that "escorted"  the Cherokee along the Trail of Tears.  It is claimed that this building will serve as a way of healing, but muslim mosques are not the community centers we envision.  They are places of exclusive worship for muslims and are not inviting of those outside the faith.  There are more than 30 mosques within New York, so why this one, why here?  It's not because there is a lack of locations for muslims to worship, this building serves no other purpose than to add insult to our injury, to rub salt into what is still a very open wound.

The Imam that is pushing for this mosque has stated that the purpose of this mosque is to promote good will and peace between muslims and the west, but how can you possibly believe that is the intent when they propose to build this center in what would of been the shadow of the the very buildings that this religion's follower's brought to the ground and resulted in the  murder of  thousands of citizens.  This is not a building of peace and love, but one of occupation and conquest.  It will serve no means other than to remind the American people of the loss that we all suffered on 9/11 and to claim a victory in that loss.  It is for this reason that I cannot separate my emotional feelings from my intellectual ones in this matter.

Another portion that treads on the fighting side of me is the complete and total amount of hypocrisy that has surrounded this whole affair.  This land has sat for years undergoing zoning decisions, landmark status, etc, but as soon as this Imam decided to build a mosque, all that was put aside and the process was essentially fast tracked to allow it.  It seems that nothing can be done quickly in New York, unless you are muslim wishing to build a monument to those that murdered American citizens. 

Likewise, when you look at the leftist attacks that have taken place against religion in this country, it simply blows my mind that "religious freedom"  is now the rally cry of it's supporters.  You can no longer have "Christmas" celebrations in areas that are within view of the populace, churches are not allowed to have public Nativity scenes, Hanukkah has suffered the same fate, cries for the word "God" to be pulled from any type of publication, even from the very documents that mark the founding of this great nation, yet we are being asked to respect "religious tolerance" for the Islamic faith.  With no other way to put it, that's a crap argument and only goes to prove that the leftist only believe in freedom when it's a freedom that they want.  Remove all traces of Judeo-Christian faith, but allow the building of religious house to support those that killed our people, it's bullshit!  Piss on a picture of the pope, or make comedic commentary on Jesus/God, and it's freedom of speech, but draw a cartoon picture of Mohammad and you suffer death threats and cries from the left of intolerance.  Again, bullshit!

As equally unnerving, we are now supporting this Imam in his travels across the Middle East as he raises support for the building of this travesty.  Sure, the official word is that no fund-raising will take place, but if you believe that, then I've got some ocean front property for you.  So not only is this Imam, who will not condemn or call the Hamas a terrorist organization, traveling the world to raise funds for this monument of islamic victory, but he is doing it on the American tax payer dime, paid in full by our state department.  It seems the more Anti-American you are, the more support that our government gives you.

Lastly, while I quoted President Obama above, I am left in disbelief that he voiced those words in the place that he did.  As President, he is supposed to be guardian of American ideals and of the American people, but like multitudes of times before, he put his personal ideology before that of the people that he represents.  Even though he quickly backtracked on those statements, (isn't that the Obama way), the fact that he made these statements, with no clue or caring about the views of the American people, goes to show me that he has no leadership abilities whatsoever.  It would have been best if he would have just kept his opinions to himself, but instead, he choose to do what he always does, speak off the cuff with nary a thought to fact or consequence.  The police acted stupidly, "plug the damn hole" while doing nothing to support, but tons to hinder, and now supporting the slap in the face, and adding to the pain, of of all the survivors of 9/11 by the islamic faith. 

Considering that Islam has made it a point of record to build monuments of triumph, in the form of "holy" places, at all sites of their conquests, maybe we were stupid to expect anything differently.  However, the Will of the American people is much stronger than muslims give us credit for.  Should this travesty be allowed, I fear for the conditions that it may cause.  I fear for the acts that it may result in, but then again, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.  Politically speaking, I think that the People will remember that our government not only allowed this disrespect to happen, but aided it with wide open loving arms of support.  I think the people will have their say, but it may take until November 2010 & 2012 for their voices to be heard.  For once, I cannot  separate my emotional and intellectual feelings.  In this instance, American pride, grief for those lost, and mourning for a country scarred win over.  I hope this mosque, if allowed, suffers the same fate as the great buildings that stood 2 blocks over.  Those things birthed by fire, shall also be devoured by it.


When you find yourself in a hole, grab a shovel!

Well folks, the educational amendment that I told you about in The Showdown at High Noon has been passed into law.  This is the educational amendment, originally included in a War Supplemental bill, that unfairly targeted Texas and provides $10B in educational funding and another $16.1B to help fund state's medicare responsibilities.

However, this "emergency spending" amendment is no longer part of the War Supplemental bill, but is now part of HR 1586, which was originally a bill in March 19th, 2009 that was to be used to limit the amount of bonuses received by TARP recipients, but is now part of the FAA  Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act.  And like the original bill, this one maintains it's crusade against Texas, by making them the only state not eligible for funds.  Again we have a bill which includes for unrelated funding begs the question, what does educational and Medicare funding have to do with FAA Modernization?

Interesting note:  The latest version of HR 1586 passed the senate under the name of "_____ Act of _______".  You read that right, this bill passed the Senate with no name.  The Obama Congress, in such a rush to pass this emergency spending, did not even take the time to give the bill a name.  In such a rush that M. Speaker Pelosi demanded the House had to be recalled so as to pass this bill immediately and without time to give the bill a proper name.  Don't believe me?  Check the link that has the text of the bill from Govtrack.us, in which the Short Title, Section 1 states that this Act may be cited as 'XXXXXXAct ofXXXX’.  Anyone else getting those "We have to pass the bill before we can find out what's in it" vibes again?  I guess we have to pass this bill before we can name it this time. 

What does this money do?  Make no mistake folks, the educational portion of this bill ($10B) is a financial bailout for the teacher's and government employee unions after having been threatened with layoffs in the wake of state budgetary financial concerns.  The sole purpose of this bill is to 1. Prevent the lay off of additional teacher union employees. 2. Rehiring of teacher union employee previously laid off, and 3. Sustainability of current union benefits packages and perks.  This money comes on top of the $53.5B teachers union bailout from the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, some of which hasn't even been spent yet.

Now before anyone starts blasting me on "Don't you think teachers deserve to be paid for the advancement of our youth?", the answer is yes I do, but I believe that they should be paid fairly and within reason.  For years, teacher and government employee's unions have forced states into contracts that they can no longer afford, especially in today's current financial situations.  There are ways to keep teachers employed, but still allow for the states to make much needed budget cuts.

Let us take the case of the Milwaukee school board (MSB)as an example.  The MSB proposed an amended health care plan that would instituted co-pays and would have saved an estimated $47.2M.  Now, most of us that have health care are required to provide a co-pay for our health benefits, but the teacher's union refused to bargain with MSB, thus resulting in the layoff of 428 teachers.  Read that again, rather than to adopt a health care plan that most of American's deal with on a daily basis, they opted for the layoffs, yet the unions were not held to blame.  Instead, it became a cry of "Save our Teachers, Save our Children, Save our Future".  The teachers union had it within their power to prevent this layoff, but choose not to!  It's not like their benefits were being reduced to unusable levels, this is a plan condition that most Americans utilize.

What other "benefits" were the union trying to protect?  The reinstatement of coverage for Viagra.  Again, I can't make this stuff up people.  The Milwaukee Teachers Education Association (MTEA) went to a judge to order the MSB to reinstate the drug at a cost of $786,000 per year.  Now, call me cynical, but my thoughts are that the inability to get an erection is not really a "health concern".  If you really are so hard up (pun intended) for this medication, then you should fund it yourself.  The cost of this unnecessary drug comes at a cost of 12 first year teachers, but I guess erections trump jobs when it comes to the union.

The second part of this bill ($16.1B) will be used to help fund state's inabilities to meet their Medicare responsibilities.  However, this funding won't even come close to covering many states responsibilities for just this year.

Using Arizona as an example, earlier this year, the Arizona legislature attempted to cut costs by scaling back Medicare eligibility and eliminating the Kids Care programs, however, upon passage of Obama Care, it was mandated that all future Federal Medicare dollars were contingent on states maintaining existing programs at current levels.  While this bill includes $236M in supplemental funding for the Arizona programs, it is estimated that it will cost $400M just to maintain the program thru June 30th, 2011 and does nothing for the estimated $1B gap expected in the next fiscal year.

So, the new federal policies have put Arizona (and other states) between a rock and hard place.  They cannot afford to keep up their entitlement programs as they currently stand, but if they make any cost cutting measures to try and bring the fiscal situation under control, then they would be cutting themselves off from any additional funding from the fed to support those programs going forward.  Simply put, who holds the deficit once this money goes away?  It won't be the fed, but instead the states who are already burdened with rapidly growing budget deficits, partially due in part to federal policies.  Sen. Russell Pearce (R-Mesa) has went on record stating:

We'd be better off not to take the stimulus", going on to state that Arizona could achieve greater savings if they were freed from all the federal constraints that accepting the stimulus would put on them.

So what is the price for this "latest of government bailouts?"  Congress has stated it has been paid for by closing a "tax loop-hole" for businesses doing work overseas and by a $12B cut to the Food Stamps program in 2014.  They also claim that this isn't a bailout, but instead "a jobs saving measure". 

So each piece in part, first the "tax-loop hole".  This change will now require that all businesses pay tax on proceeds made internationally, where as they used to be able to claim this as tax deduction for business expense.  While this may sound good for the "keep work in America" crowd, let's look at that.  Company A builds a factory in China, with the express purpose of supplying China with it's product.  As it creates, and sells, it's product, it is subject to Chinese taxation, which because they are a foreign (US) company, pays a higher tax rate that Chinese based companies.  Once they have paid that tax on their profits in China, they must then turn around and pay US tax on that same money.  Now let us be clear about something, businesses never pay taxes.  Business taxes are paid either by passing that cost on to the consumer (if tax goes up, price of product goes up to compensate),  paid at the cost of the employee, either in reduction of wages or layoffs to compensate, or paid by investors in companies thru lower investment earnings as profit is used to pay those taxes.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that none of those three options provide for any growth or benefit to our economy.

Now the cut to food stamps program.  While the libertarian in me hates any type of entitlement program, you think I would be supportive of this measure, but I'm not.  It's not the cuts in the program that I disapprove of, but instead the method of the cut:  Use the money now, make the cuts later.  This is akin to telling a car company to go ahead and give you a car to drive now, because in 2014, you will be reducing your gas and housing budgets by $20,000, so the car will paid for.  While this would get you laughed out of any retailer on the face of the earth, this seems to make perfect since to our government.

Lastly, this is NOT a job saving's measure.  Yes, it will save the jobs of those in unions, but at the cost of the nation's economy and debt burden.  The members of those unions are overly benefited, which results in a disparity between the labor and the cost.  If you "save" a job that is over paid, do you really save anything at all?  Again looking at the Milwaukee teachers union, the union members average a salary of $56,000 per year, with a $40,000 benefits package PLUS a health care plan that costs $26,000 (compared to $14,500 for private employees) for a total compensation package of  $122,000 per year.  I'm all for giving teachers what they deserve, they are a hard working bunch, but their compensation must be at a rational, sustainable level commiserate with other Americans.  If this money could be saved, what other jobs could be opened up in the form of new school programs?  If state taxpayers were not forced to pay the taxes required to fund this exorbitant packages, how much of that money left in the taxpayers pocket would be injected back into the economy, thus providing for other jobs.  The questions are endless.

So, I ask you, when you find yourself in a hole, what do you do?  Well, if you are the federal government facing a huge financial and budgetary hole, you grab yourself a shovel and start digging, mostly into the back pockets of the taxpayer.  When you are a state with disastrous entitlement programs that are not sustainable or achievable (think California or New York) or beholden to union contracts that are neither rational or fair, you grab yourself a shovel and start digging into the Federal reserve, which in turn uses it's shovel against the taxpayer.  I for one do not approve of my money being used to bail out those states in which I do not reside, nor do I approve of the Fed using me as it's personal piggy bank for programs that do not work and will bankrupt this country.  However, the only way I know to stop it, is to take away the shovel.  Hopefully, we will do just that in November.


The Show Down at High Noon

So what happens when a state claims sovereignty over affairs within it's own borders and directly challenges the authority of the Obama Administration:  The Fed then passes laws to single out that state and punish the citizens of that state for their impenitence. 

This is what is currently happening between the state of Texas and Obama's Democrat controlled administration.  For those of you that don't know, Texas Governor Rick Perry first had the audacity to refuse participation in the federal Common Core Standards and Race to the Top educational programs required to receive educational "stimulus" funds.  Effectively telling Washington to "keep their money", Texas denied receipt of those funds claiming that the programs, and the strings that went along with them, would hurt Texas Education rather than helping.  The Texas Board of Education then detailed their own, state mandated requirements, that provided for a much more elevated quality of education than those provided by the fed.

In a second move,  Perry then denied more fed funds for unemployment insurance that would have come with even more strings and costs to the citizens of Texas.  Acceptance of these funds would have required the state to redefine their unemployment standards, placing additional costs on Texas businesses that could better use the money to create jobs, rather than fund those without.  Basically, Perry took the "teach a man to fish" outlook on unemployment which has led to Texas being one of the few states weathering this financial repression.

The fed then fired back by having the EPA overturn a 16 year Texas air permitting program which will most likely result in 125 refineries and businesses having to reapply for permitting which will have huge financial, and possible job loss, implications. 

Perry, undeterred, then fired back a letter via the Texas Congressional delegation concerning Obama's attempts to take over the regulation of oil and gas safety.  In what was essentially a big "F*** YOU" to federal authority, Texas declared:

While Congress has every right to consider whatever regulation it deems appropriate on activities in federal lands and waters, it is not permitted to force states to submit their successful regulations and laws to a federal agency for approval and allow that agency to unilaterally dictate changes.

The letter goes on to state:

Federal laws and regulations failed to stop the Deepwater Horizon disaster.  Given the track record, putting the federal government in charge of energy production on state lands and waters, not only breaks years of successful precedent and threatens the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution, but it also undermines common sense and threatens the environment and economic security of our state's citizens.

So, simply put, everything you guys (fed) touch turns into a disaster.  Rigs without our lands and waters are ours and you best keep your hands off!  Don't mess with Texas!!

Well, all of this "insolence" has not been unnoticed or forgotten by Washington, so they have decided to use law and appropriations to try and bring Perry in line.  How do they intend on doing that?  By attaching  $10B in educational funding to a supplemental war-spending bill, then adding an amendment that specifically singles out and targets the state of Texas.  Never mind the question about why educational funds are tied to a bill intended for the support of war-time efforts, let's concentrate on the provision that unfairly singles out Texas.

In a supplement amendment added by Austin Democrat Lloyd Doggett, undue, and against the Texas state Constitution, provisions are levied against Texas and Gov. Perry.  Titled "Additional Requirements for the State of Texas", this amendment states that Gov. Perry must certify that the $800M in funding will not replace state funding and would remain as additional funding.  Requires that Gov. Perry provide assurance that state support for educational funding for fiscal years 2011, 2012, and 2013 at, or above, current 2011 percentages.  Lastly, it requires that the state allocate those funds based upon federal Title I algorithms.

So, besides being specific to, and singling out only Texas, this has several flaws.  1.  Per the Texas state constitution, the governor does not have the power of appropriation of funds, as that is a responsibility of legislature.  By law, no one legislature can bind a future legislature, so even if Perry had the power, he would be breaking state law by accepting.  In addition, the provision is unfair as Texas is the only state that would be required to make such a certification.  And to top it all off, by declaring that the funds would be subject to Title I appropriation would mean that state algorithms could not be used, thus possibly resulting in an unequal distribution of those funds.  However, that doesn't stop Washington elites from trying to add such an amendment.  How dare the state of Texas defy the federal government?  Do it not know that the fed is the all-seeing, all-knowing, saving grace that knows better than thou?  I guess Perry and his state have different answers to those questions than those on the Hill would like them to have. 

So there you have it.  As I watch this unfold, I'm reminded of a scene in the movie Braveheart, when facing the British Army, the Scottish Nobles ask William Wallace what his intentions were.  With a gleam in his eye, he states "I'm going to pick a fight!"  It appears that Gov. Perry is following in those footsteps, choosing to pick a fight with an over-reaching, over-bearing federal government rather than just folding to their demands.  In what I'm sure to be only the start of a battle regarding state's rights and the place of state sovereignty within the United States, I'm sure this is not the last we will hear from Gov. Perry and the this wonderful state of Texas.   I for one am proud that we have a governor willing to take up this fight and stand for the freedom of his constituents.  I hope others will follow, and that those already in the fight, will continue.  As I've said before, if the State has no liberty, then neither does it's citizens.  Given the amount of intrusion that this Administration has made into our personal lives, I'm starting to believe that it's no longer America that is the last bastion of freedom, but instead, the individual states that make up this country.

American by birth, Texan by the grace of God!


In response to Montana - Commenter on my "Remember the Alamo!!!" post

@ Montana
Your post shows that I publish all comments, not just those that support my ideals.  Second, I see that you've been a very busy liberal today, posting this same exact response to multitudes of sites (See here, here, and here to name a few).

I try very hard to be rational and non-insulting to comments.  I make the effort to be respectful and open-minded to all posts that come across my site, but you, you are as ignorant as you are brain-washed.'

First, you go on a diatribe regarding Jan Brewer, never minding the fact that I did not once, in my post, make any mention of Gov. Brewer, her personal ideals, or her character.  While I applaud her for having the fortitude to stand up for her state, and her constituents, my post had nothing to do with Jan Brewer, but more on the Fed over reaching their power for an ideologic means.

You spout, and provide what you state as examples, of "hate filled" legislation, but you do not look at that legislation and provide how it is hate filled.  So let me educate you.

1. S.B. 1070 - The so called, Immigration Law.  As I stated, this is not an immigration law, it is an enforcement law that allows the state to step in an fill the void of enforcing the federal law that the government (both current and priors) have failed miserably to enforce.  It specifically denies racial profiling, only providing an officer of the law to verify citizenship in the course of other, legal contact.  If a person is questioned due to the participation of a crime, traffic violation, domestic disturbance, etc, then it provides the law enforcement official the ability to verify citizenship.  If you are pulled over and asked for your driver's license and you are able to provide it, then that is the end of it.  If you are unable to provide a DL, or other form of ID, then you should be questioned.  Let us not forget, if a person is here ILLEGALLY, then they are breaking the law.  So please tell me, how is it "hate" to simply enforce a federal law?  How is "hate" to expect the federal government to uphold it's Constitutional duty to protect the border at all cost?

Supporting cases:  Article 9, Section 4 of the US Constitution:  The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government, "and shall protect each of them against invasion..."

1884 Elk v Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 - Upheld that Indian Tribes were exempt from the 14th amendment as they were an independent political power that had "no allegiance" to the United States.  Would this not also apply to people who enter this country illegally and in contradiction to our laws?

1898 US v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649 - Held that those born to foreigners where were here "lawfully" and were not employed for diplomatic purposes  were considered citizens.  Note, LAWFULLY.

2. HB 2013 - Again, a misguided attempt to claim bias where none exists.  In this bill, Arizona deny's domestic partnership benefits for all "non-spouse" dependents on the government payroll.  This bill does not exempt just homosexual relations, but also same sex partnerships.  So, if it applies equally across the board, how is this "hate-filled" legislation?  In a state that currently pays $625M in support to state employees, this bill would have saved the state $3M in expenditure.  Where does it state within the constitution, or even the state constitution, that the taxpayer must bear the weight of support for government employee dependents?  You claim that "we" do not follow the constitution, yet can you provide me with a single instance with this document that states the above?  You can not, because it does not exist.  You only scream "unconstitutional" when it fits your agenda, not when it actually comes to the rule of law.

3. No permit conceal weapons - Again, this is strictly a statement of ignorance and stupidity.  In what way does not requiring a permit to carry a weapon, the bearing of which is guaranteed by the US constitution, bare to becoming a "hate-filled".  Who is discriminated against by this law?  Are only white people allowed by law to carry a concealed weapon?  No, it opens up the right to all people. It is perfectly within a state's right to enact such law.  If you do not like, you can move to a state with much stronger control laws, however, it is not "hate-filled" nor is it discrimnatory.  To even state that this bill is such, shows your complete lack of understanding of current affairs.

4.  Birther Law - Again, this bill simply looks to enforce, and provide a check and balance, WITHIN the confines of the US Constitution.  The bill, simply put, requires that a presidential candidate's birth certificate be reviewed by the AX Secretary of State, prior to that candidate being put upon the ballot within the state.   Article 2, Section 1, of the US Constitution requires the following:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

So I ask, if the Constitution mandates that the President be a natural born citizen, why do you consider a law that seeks to verify that condition to be "hate-filled"?  How do you throw out claims that anything is unconstitutional, or seeking to deny rights to anyone, when each law is only seeking to ensure up-holding of constitutional provisions or of federal law.  Again, you throw out talking points, but are uneducated on reality. 

5. Banning of ethic studies:  In a time when most every state is feeling the effects of a recession, exploding budgets, and national debt, it is within a state's right to make cost cutting measures where it sees appropriate.  We are Americans and as such, we have a duty to teach our history.  We do not have a responsibility to teach the history of other countries.  To do so, is only by grace and where it is financially viable.  The bill did not cut just "Mexican" studies or "African" studies, but all ethnic studies.  It keeps only American history, which, in case you do not know, is not a race.  We are a country and we have a duty to ensure that our children know where we came from and how we got here. 

6.  Mural in Prescott - This is pure speculation written only to slander and provide "liberal fluff" to your post.  It doesn't deserve a response.

7. No citizenship to babies born to undocumented workers - See the above citation for US v Wong Kim Ark.  Personally, I believe in a different approach, in which, if a baby is born within the US to an illegal alien, then the parents have a time period (say 1 year) in which they become legal citizens.  If able to comply with the requirements of citizenship, then they are allowed to stay and contribute to our country, but if not, then deportation is warranted.  "Anchor babies" are a drain on our economy and a danger to our system.  Border hospitals have cited significant rises in maternal admittances of people coming for the express purpose of finding a method around legal citizenship.  This is not hate-filled.  It does not discriminate.  All persons entering this country illegally would be subjected.  Unless we protect our borders and LEGAL citizenship, our country will be destroyed from within.  Please tell me how, and in what way, providing for open borders and open amnesty provides for the growth or protection of this country.

8.  HB 2779 - Dealt with employers hiring illegal workers and enacted penalties for doing so.  Even as then Gov. Janet Napolitano signed it into law, she stated that it was absence of a discrimination clause, of which 1070 has.

So, Montana, I see you deploy the same leftist tactics that I see everyday.  If you don't agree, claim unconstitutionality, shout racism, and contend that it is hate.  However, when looking at facts, at reality, you are unable to support the claims of any.  Your tactics prove inferior when faced with rational thought and fact-based arguments.  You are uneducated, ignorant, and serve only to distract from the real issues that are facing this country and it's survival.  Learn to think for yourself and research before you speak. 



It was the battle cry attributed to Texian soldiers on April 21st, 1836, when the Texian army attacked Santa Anna near LynchBurg Ferry, leading to the capture of the Santa Anna and essentially ending Mexican controland paving the way for the birth of the Texas Republic.

I've often said that I think history goes in cycles and will eventually repeat itself, as we are seeing today.  Once again, we find ourselves under invasion by our neighbors to the south.  Again, we find that this invasion threatens our sovereignty.  Again, we find one of our territories (states) fighting to defend and protect itself from invasion, only to be blindsided and struck down, but this time, they were not defeated by a military force vastly superior in numbers, but instead by the very federal government sworn to protect it.  Once again, we need to heed the battle cry of REMEMBER THE ALAMO!!, but instead, it is Arizona that must be remembered.

Liberal U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton's decision on Wednesday blocking many of the Arizona's enforcement law provisions highlights a much greater danger to these United States than the impact of immigration.  Instead, it shows the arrogance of an out of control federal government intent on imposing it's will upon this nation, despite the rule of law and in direct contradiction to it's governing document, the Constitution.

First, let us be clear, the Arizona enforcement law is not an "immigration" law.  It does not determine who can or cannot enter this country, it does not set limits nor restrictions on immigration, nor does it contradict the federal law concerning immigration, instead, it compliments and aids in the enforcement of that law.  It seeks only to rightfully enforce the rule of law that bars those illegally entering our nation and allowing the states to fill the void left by federal authorities.

The Judge Bolton ruling is in direct defiance of state's rights as defined by the Constitution.  It is living proof that the federal government is guilty of selective enforcement of law, choosing only to enforce those laws that will provide for a growing government and ignoring those that do not or constrain government.  It is clear that Obama is courting for the Hispanic vote, doing anything necessary to secure that vote, even if that means defying this countries founding principals and leaving a state helpless to defend itself.  It is clear that this administration cares not what it's people want, cares not about the rule of law (except when it benefits them), and cares not about enslaving the states to federal power, but instead, seeks only to further its ideology and ensuring the subservient  nature of it's citizenship to the ruling class.

So therefore, I say to you, REMEMBER ARIZONA!! come November.  Remember that, if a state has no liberty, neither does it's resident.  We must stop this tyranny that our government is forcing upon us and return to the values of our founding.  We must seek to cut back and limit the power of our federal government, else we risk our freedom to it's rule.  Again, as history repeats itself, we risk becoming a country that loses itself to a well spoken dictator, intent on leading us down a road to destruction.  This country was not created, nor formed, by a benevolent, all powerful central government, but instead by a collection of free states.  It was this revolutionary idea that allowed this country to grow and succeed in becoming the greatest nation in history.  We cannot lose our way now, after having come so far.  So in November, I beg of you, REMEMBER ARIZONA!


Sun Tzu’s Art of War and it’s application to America

So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss.  If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose.  If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself.                                                                    Sun Tzu – Art of War

The above is a quotation from Sun Tzu’s The Art of War, an Chinese Military Treatise dealing with military tactics and the application there of.  Written in the  6th century, it is often heralded as the definitive source of proper and concise guide of military application.

So what does the above mean to us?  To me, it holds an amazing insight into the problems we now face with regards to our national security.  To me, it explains both our failures and our inability to prevent attacks against our citizens.

With each day, it becomes clearer to me, that we neither understand ourselves, nor do we understand our enemy, therefore, it’s only a matter of time before our enemy deals us a deadly strike.  Since Sept 11th, we’ve had approximately 30 attempts upon the lives of American citizens by an enemy that we do not understand and, as of recently, refuse to name.  Likewise, the latest round of attacks have been halted only by the overwhelming ineptness of those that waged said attacks, thus showing me that we, as a nation, do not understand ourselves well enough to prevent them.

We begin with the Underwear Bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who attempted to ignite a bomb sewn into the lining of his underwear on Northwest Flight 253 in route from Amsterdam to Detroit.  It was only by sheer luck and the brave actions passengers, that his homemade bomb failed to ignite, thus saving the lives of ~300 passengers.  Despite being on a federal watch list, warnings from his father that he was dangerous and possibly wishing to do America harm, the man was allowed on the flight, yet Janet Napolitano claimed “the system work”.  More recently, Faisal Shahzad, a naturalized citizen from Pakistan failed to ignite a car bomb in NY Times Square, which threatened the lives of an untold number of our citizens.  Despite numerous red flags, travels to and from Pakistan, being on a watch list, returning from Pakistan with large amounts of money, this man was able to not only set and ignite the bomb, but was also allowed to board a plane after the fact and almost escape, yet media outlets declared the plot foiled.  Again, it was only by sheer luck and the amateurish attempt at bomb making that prevented disaster.  Lastly, let us not forget Nidal Hasan, a radical Muslim within our military who shot up Ft. Hood, killing 12 of our brave soldiers and wounding 31 others.  Ignoring the warning signs of his contact with overseas terror units, statements pledging allegiance to Islam, and known radical views, this man was allowed to continue to serve.

Our current administration is failing to acknowledge, name, and confront our enemy.  They have dictated that we will no longer be active in a “war on terror, but instead involved in an “overseas contingency operations”.  No longer are there “terrorist acts” but only “man-made disasters”.  When AG Eric Holder and Secretary of DHS Janet Napolitano are questioned by congress, they refuse to use the word terror or terrorists in relation to any of these acts.  After an attack occurs, the administration is slow to acknowledge any relation to terrorists, but instead, are more concerned with “possible backlash against Muslims” rather than the act itself.  While they refuse to associate these acts to our enemies, they are quick to release statements that our returning soldiers pose a risk of right wing extremism. 

This policy of non-admittance is a dangerous one for our country.  How can we possibly counter and defend ourselves against an enemy that we refuse to acknowledge?  How many attempts must be made within our borders before we finally admit that there is a clear and present danger to our citizenship? 

Our enemy has been resolute in their actions against us.  We can go make for decades and show the attacks, the loss of lives, but we refuse to admit, much less go on the offensive, to confront our enemy.   We’ve been lucky up to this point.  Thankfully, the latest attacks, save the Ft. Hood massacre, has been attempted by people poorly or inadequately trained, but that will not last.  These attempts will serve only to embolden those wishing to do us harm by showing that we are ill-prepared to defend ourselves against them.  It’s only a matter of time before a trained enemy comes to our borders and finds us unaware.  We cannot sit on our laurels while another 9/11 is planned and enacted.  Our governments inaction and complete lack of ability or competence only serves to make us appear weak. 

Priority shifts are needed.  What good while universal health care do for our country should a massive attack take place?  What good will “environmental reform” be when our citizens are murdered?  You have shown that we are unable, even unwilling, to protect our borders.  You have shown that we lack the foresight to prevent the crudest of attacks even when provided with multitudes of signs and warnings.  Your cowardice to name, and stand up, to our enemy will cost us lives.

He who is prudent and lies in wait for an enemy who is not, will be victorious.                                                                       Sun Tzu – Art of War

By the quote above, it appears that the radical Islamists are following the policies of Sun Tzu. My question to our government, a government who is solely charged with the protection of our country by our constitution,is when will you learn and apply the same?    My fear is not until that government is replaced by one with the fortitude to call out and confront those who wish us harm.