Rednex Rants

Citizens or Servants: How the Overton Window is affecting our liberty

2011-03-11T13:02:00.001-06:00

It’s a valid question. What would you consider yourself as an American; a citizen or a servant? I think most people in these United States would say “citizen”, but I hate to be the one to tell them, it’s (not s0) slowly but surely moving in a direction where we are becoming subjects to the federal government.

There has been a lot of talk of the “Overton Window”. Since a book by the same name was put out by Glenn Beck, most people immediately dismiss the idea as one of “right-wing paranoia”. However, the Overton Window is a real political theory put forth by Joseph Overton of the Mackinac Center of Public Policy. In cliff note form, the Overton Window is the window of legislative opportunity that a politician has to enact change and still win elections. In essence, the window defines acceptable political options based on outlying extremes and political views. As societal views change (either by growth or reaction), the window will slide to to either the left or right of the political spectrum, thus enabling or restricting legislative action.

Over the few years I’ve become serious in politics, I’ve been able to see the Overton window slide more and more to the left, further in the direction of less liberty and choice for America. Some of the reactions to move the window were based on real issues, others on contrived/false issues. Either way, the direction of the slide should be concerning to all Citizens as with each move to left, we lose the very measure of what makes this country great. With each move, the people of these United States take a step towards citizenship or subjugation. The slides are often so small, that we don’t recognize them, we don’t see the thefts of our liberty, until several years/decades down the line. By then, the window has framed a new set of political ideals, making them common, thus making them extremely difficult to reverse.

The shifts do not have to be big to make considerable impact. In fact, it is these small changes that end up having the biggest consequences. Changes so small, they are barely noticed, but subconsciously translate to the biggest limitations of our freedoms. Consider for example, in our earlier history, our country was referred to “These United States”; however, in common times, it is now stated as “The United States”. Historically, such statements were done in the plural form, but in the last couple of decades, it’s become singular. To many, it may seem contrite, simply a grammatical choice, but it has considerable impact on our nation. In the past, in the days of the plural usage, these United States were considered just that, a collection of independent states united. However, now in the singular usage, we are now a collection of states under one umbrella of a federal mandate. The states are not independent anymore, but instead a fixture of national government, serving only as agents to further and support a federal power. It may seem small, but it has led to an erosion of the idea and practice of the 10th amendment. It has beholden the states to a supreme federal power, allowing that federal power to ever increase it’s scope and authority at the demise of one of our strongest principals, federalism. It has served to move the window.

Within the executive branch (president) we are already starting to see the adjustments of the window. I will not go back into history before me, there are much smarter people than I that are able to do this. I will stick with my own perceptions only. On Sept 11th, 2001, we were witness to the largest scale terrorist attack on U.S. soil. As we watched on TV, horrified by the scenes, scared by the implications, the people clamored for more security. Our government had failed us, things must change. In response, one month after, the Patriot Act was signed into law. The Patriot Act drastically reduced the restrictions on law enforcement agencies abilities to monitor and track those suspected of terrorism. It expanded the scope to include “domestic terrorism”, eased limitations on the policies of search and seizures, arrest and detainment of suspects, wiretaps, email interception, and financial monitoring. Under the guise of terrorism, the federal government radically expanded it’s powers, and in doing so, ripped a large piece of legitimacy from our 4th Amendment rights. If “suspected” of being a domestic terrorist, Law Enforcement agencies now had far more flexibility concerning the rights of the citizen. The window moved.

Then, due to bad accounting practices, financial pressures from big unions, and general mismanagement, we saw various aspects of industry start to fail, namely two of the big three automakers and financial institutions. Under the guise of saving jobs and with a rallying cry of “Too big to Fail”, the government (starting under GWB, ending with BHO), decided to use federal taxpayer money to bail these “too big to fail” industries out of distress due to actions of their own doing with the Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act. In essence, the government nationalized the auto industry upon the backs of the taxpayer, but more importantly, they conditioned the concept of “too big to fail”, thusly legitimatizing the use of federal taxpayer dollars for bailouts. The window shifted. Today, we are starting to see these same cries in areas of state bankruptcies, union pensions, and the health care industry.

Then, we have the vagrant overstepping of authority by the executive branch. President Obama has done more to shift the window in the last few months, than all other presidents combined, and I’m including FDR in that! We’ve seen the president sue a state over their legalizing, at the state level, what the federal statute already stated, in it’s fight with Arizona Immigration law. By challenging the law on the basis of personal opinion, the window has shifted in terms of the 10th Amendment and diminishing state’s rights. In another example, the Obama Administration drops a case voter intimidation because of the color of perpetrators skin, thus shifting the window. Later, Obama refuses to defend the Defensive of Marriage Act based on his opinion that it is unconstitutional. He has shifted the window. He has set a precedent that the office of the Executive can determine which laws it will, or will not, enforce thru the use of a divisive subject such as gay rights. The President does not have the ability to choose which laws he will, or will not, enforce. The office does not hold the authority to determine constitutionality of law, that is under the constitutional authority of the Judicial Branch. he has sifted the window. Likewise, we’ve seen the Obama Administration defy legal authority via the defacto moratorium on the Gulf of Mexico oil exploration and on the issue of cap and trade. By ignoring a court order to break the moratorium, choosing to enact it via fiat instead, placing the administration in contempt of Court, he has established that the judicial branch of government is subservient to the Executive branch. He has dismissed the ability of the Legislative branch (Congress) to set and enact laws if the Executive branch disagrees. He has shifted the window.

It doesn’t take much to make such changes, to slowly rob of us our liberties. Using any public outcry, those with limiting intent can do just that. We see it in our every day lives. Outcries over drinking and driving have led to “DWI Checkpoints” in most every state. Simply by enjoying the privilege of driving, you are giving your consent to be stopped, questioned, and searched without probable cause. If you fail to submit to breath test, for what ever reason, you are stripped of your property, ability to drive, and in some cases, your freedom via imprisonment. By enacting this idea of “implicit consent”, we see the window shift. What comes next? Will they next say that by simply owning a house, you give “implicit consent” to have your home searched for bomb making equipment, further validated by the Patriot Act? Does having your paycheck direct deposited thru a federally regulated automated clearing house give your “implicit consent” into having your financial transactions monitored? Do you give your “implicit consent” to have all your medial records stored and searchable by federal agencies simply because you choose to visit the doctor?

If you say no, then you best check ObamaCare. When enacted, it specifically allows for numerous agencies to store and access your personal medical files.

In short, the window has shifted.

Lastly, we see shifts when it comes to our constitutionally guaranteed 2nd amendment rights to keep and bear arms. With each mentally disturbed person, with each gangland violence episode, we see an outcry for safety and the window shifts yet again. The latest was the attempted assassination of Sen. Gifford in Arizona. Never mind the fact that this was a mentally disturbed individual, we are now seeing calls for a limitation on “high capacity” magazines. It’s a small limitation in some peoples minds, but it is a shifting of the window. First it’s high capacity magazines, then it’s any magazines, then it’s scopes on hunting rifles, then high powered rifles, then concealed carry, then handguns (any guns) altogether. As the window shifts, we become accustomed, so we hardly notice the shift. However, in 10-15 years, the “rights” we have are barely recognizable from what they were in the past.

This is the Overton Window. This is the path that leads us from being citizens to servants. As the government seeks to disarm us, as they trample on the rights provided to us by our Constitution, we lose our freedoms; We lose our place as citizens. What will be done when only the government has arms, and the citizens ( subjects) have none? No longer will you be able to defend yourself against the lawless, who could give a rat’s ass about control. We grow weaker when the world realizes that the American Citizen is no longer armed, no longer able to defend themselves. No longer are we safe from overrun invasion. No longer are the Citizens able to exert control over a tyrannical government, when said tyranny has no reason to fear those over which they rule. When we are no longer able to resist unjust search and seizures, when we are no longer working for our personal dreams, but instead work for “societal good”, we will no longer be free men. We have stood by and let the window shift. We have allowed the window to move in only one direction, with no attempts to correct. We have allowed ourselves to become servants.

Time to Limit the Insanity

2011-01-25T14:24:00.001-06:00

In follow up to my “no one to blame” entry, we will start looking at ways that can provide for the people to rightfully reclaim control over a runaway, oppressive Federal tyranny. As with anything, order of entry and priority mean everything and I’ve thought long and hard about what our priorities should be and how to best list them. We are caught in a stampede of federal irresponsibility and headed for the cliff, meaning there are so many things that can, {should}, be done, it’s hard to pick a place to start. While others may disagree with my listings, I hope that the message comes across. These are just methods and means to an end. If you want to rearrange them, feel free, but point being, it’s time we not be lazy anymore. It’s time we make a real “change we can believe in” to our current federal policies, not just use the moniker to stealthily disguise a road towards socialism.

Term Limits

With all the complications that are now facing our country, I came to the realization that we can’t change a single thing until we again take back our government from the brothel that Washington, D.C has become. All other reforms and attempts to steer our country back to the principals of our founding will be for naught if we don’t find a way to force all the corruption, and the very idea of a ruling class, from our congress. In my opinion, the only way to do that is to impose term limits upon our elected representatives. Yes, I’m aware that there are arguments against such measures, but I will attempt to dissect them and explain why term limits are not only the first step in returning the government back to the people, but the only method by which we will save ourselves from the fate of Rome.

Proposal

The solution is to impose a strict term limit on the amount of time that a person can serve as a representative. Several options have been proposed, but I most favor a three term limit with a 12 year maximum time served. The reason for this is to provide for sufficient length of service for the senate, while preventing complacency and providing for adequate turn over in the house. In essence, a representative would be able to serve two six year senate terms, one six year senate term and two house terms, or three two year house terms, with no more than 3 terms or 12 years served. This would not exempt a representative from being eligible for presidential consideration.

Why the disparity? For one reason, the senate was designed to represent the wills of the state with a responsibility to consider long term effects of legislation. Providing for two terms allows those representatives to recommend and see their proposals thru implementation, while maintaining a sense of continuity and maturity of government. Secondly, the house was designed to represent the will of the people with a primary focus on funding. By providing the above restrictions, it keeps this house full of fresh faces (for shorter term interests) and allows for relatively small time frames in which the people can affect change on public policy via the purse strings (funding). In addition, since funding is such an important function of funding, it prevents a representative from becoming entrenched in the system for 6 terms and susceptible to corruption of pork projects, reelection malfeasance, and financial games. Lastly, this would prevent people from shifting houses to reset the clock, excluding the possibility that someone could possibly serving full terms in both houses and finding a loophole around the intent.

Advantage: Reduction of seniority and return to Meritocracy

The prevailing advantage of imposing such term limits is that it would remove seniority from that halls of congress and instead replace it with fresh ideas and competition, where those with the best proposals would be promoted thru the congressional leadership tiers. No longer would members be given valuable committee chairs simply because they’ve earned the “right” by being in position for so long. In fact, since all congressmen would be on relatively equal footing in terms of time in office, it would reward those with the best ideas to be moved up, replacing worn out “that’s the way we always done it” mentalities with a fresh air of competing ideas. Those who show the most promise and forthright thought, will be given their chance at leadership rather than having to wait on their laurels because they have not “served their time”

Advantage: More voter choice

It would allow the voters more choice, as it would drastically reduce the incumbents strangle hold on maintaining their position of power. Consider this, we have imposed term limits on the President because of fear that they would wield too much power (as FDR did), however we don’t seem to worry about the same issue affecting the congress, the people who actually write and pass our laws and regulations. Due to the amount of power that comes with a congressional seat, those previously elected have a large incentive to become reelected. By limiting the amount of time that they can serve, we remove this incentive, thus increasing the turn over of our congressional houses and more fresh faces to choose from, as incumbents have an incredible advantage in campaigning over challengers. Due to having built in campaign offices (staff) who are in essence working for their own jobs, perks of the office such as junk mailer allowances, ability to campaign while remaining employed and earning a (tax payer funded) wage, etc, it makes it very hard for challengers to compete. By implementing a term limit, these effects will diminish, as the incentive for reelection is not a prevalent consideration. More choice equals more directional options.

Advantage: Diminished voter apathy

Going hand in hand with more choice is the fact that voter apathy will be reduced. Due to a representative only being able to serve for a limited amount of time, voters voting on name recognition alone will begin to reduce. Voters will have to start taking their time to research candidates to ensure that they know who they are voting for. Voters will no long be able to attend the polling places with a mindset of “we know what he’ll do, he’s done it for years”, instead, with fresh faces coming in every 6 to 12 years, then voters will need to be more involved in the elective process. While not immediately apparent, as the systems starts to mature, as more candidates start cycling out of congress, this effect will grow until it becomes a normal part of our political lives.

Advantage: Reduction of pork and special interest influences

Special interests are able to “invest” in representatives today. Simply put, lobby groups know that incumbents have a enormous advantage in election cycles with our current system. Therefore, they are able to groom (corrupt) politicians with lures of money for reelection bids, promises of moving work to districts in exchange for influence & consideration, etc. However, if representatives were only able to be in office for short amounts of time, the return on their “investment” just isn’t there. Why invest large amounts of money or move work into a district, when the chair will be vacant in a few short years and possibly replaced by someone not as cozy with special interest needs. Sure, lobbyist will still exist and some corruption will still exist, but now they would have to make their cases more on merit rather than enticements. Likewise, pork projects are a method to ensure that a representative gets reelected by bringing money into the district. However, if a representative knows that he’s only in office for a limited time, he/she will be less likely to support the “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch your back” mentality when it comes to pork. Why vote for another states pork, so that they will vote for yours, when it will do nothing to keep you in office any longer. Instead, representatives will start slipping into a mode of state protection, looking out for the best interests of their state rather than what would get them a better reelection bid. We will have representatives who start voting their principals rather than trading their votes for a possibility for improved reelection and growth of their power base.

Advantage: Return to a citizen congress

I regard this as probably the most important advantage. With term limits, the rise of the “ruling class” or “career politician” goes away. No longer will someone be able to make a living as federal politician. Instead, we will return to a scenario where our representatives who come from the real world, a business world. Representatives will serve their country for a short time, then be expected to go back into the business world to earn their way. By breaking the class of career politicians, we will get a couple of side effects. First, we will get representatives who actually understand, and live by, the rules that they impose. Be it doctors, lawyers, businessmen, or farmers, they will have an understanding of the harm that regulations, taxes, and government interference wreck upon businesses, citizens, and the economy. We will be putting the responsibility of such matters in the hands of people who are intimately aware of what it means to make a payroll, comply with stifling regulation, and financial impacts of legislation. Second, we will find representatives who actually start operating with the primary objective of protecting and benefiting their constituencies. After their terms, they will be having to go back and live within their communities, deal with the ramifications of their actions by the citizens they represent, and reap the rewards/consequences of their actions/laws passed. Lastly, we will begin fostering a breed of representatives who are actually closer to the people that they represent, rather the politicians we have now, who may hail from a specific state, but spend most of their time on the beltway. Due to the fact that they come from having to make a living outside of politics, they will be more inclined to spend more time at home districts maintaining that business/living. This provides their constituents with greater access to their representatives, instead of leaving a voicemail (when mailbox not full) on a Washington, D.C. phone number. What better way to take back the birthright of a government BY the people, than to remove this ideal of a ruling/politician class and return it to the average citizen?

Yes, there are arguments against term limits, but most arguments just don’t stand up to a debate.

Argument: Term limits throw out the good politicians with the bad

Response: Yes, we will lose some good politicians due to term limits, but the benefits far out weigh the risks. Like a free market system, good ideas will rise to the top. If a good politician comes along and is loved by his districts, then that will be seen and like minded people will fill his role. In addition, term limits limit the time in office, not the time in politics. A good representative can always serve as an advisor to new faces, help groom upcoming representatives in his methods, and further provide for his district.

Argument: Reelections provide incentives for service. With term limits, those incentives will disappear.

Response: It’s possible, but personally I don’t believe it to be true. We have a lot of people out there with good ideas for the direction of this country. Truly patriotic people who one want to see America remain the beacon of hope and freedom for the world. However, due to the advantage of incumbents, the amount of money currently required to run, and the fact that seniority prevents new ideas from being able to be successfully heard from freshman congressmen, I think most are discouraged from even trying. Level the playing field, make the possibility of office achievable, and I think we will see more people seek office. Isn’t that what this country is really about? Providing opportunity and a chance to make better the lives of yourself, your family, and your countrymen?

Arguments: Term Limits are Unconstitutional

Agreed that the founding fathers specifically decided not to put term limits into the Constitution, however, I don’t believe that they fully expected that 1. the people would allow the establishment of a ruling class via apathy or intentional gaming of the system or 2. that people would become “career” politicians. In fact, I can provide you with tons of quotes from our founding fathers illustrating the point that congressional service was expected to be a short term service in benefit of the nation (with possible exception for the Senate, due to the maturity and long term vision required). In addition, if a term limit amendment was added, it would no longer be unconstitutional if constructed correctly. While I’m a believer that the Constitution is on of the greatest documents ever gifted to mankind and that it should be interpreted strictly, the founders did provide us a method to change it when it became necessary to thwart tyranny. It’s not easy, but I believe that current circumstances have dictated that we must make exceptions when effects unseen by are founders start to pervert the meaning and intention of our government. Career politicians and the ruling class are examples of that perversion.

Summary

As stated, this would not be an easy, or quick, undertaking. We would first have to convince those in power to vote to limit that power, however, it’s a road we must travel. It’s apparent that this is something that the voting public agrees with, as 23 states have already imposed term limits on their state legislatures and the time has come to impose those same limitations on the federal.

Again, it won’t be easy, but we can help by only supporting those candidates in primary and general elections who agree on record to support a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits. When you go to your town halls or write letters to your representatives, ask them directly if the support congressional term limits. If they refuse to answer, hold their feet to the fire and stand your ground demanding an answer be presented. It’s simple, a yes or no answer will suffice, no explanation necessary. If they do not, then ask them why? Ask them why they are so unwilling to relinquish their power base? Ask them if they fear having to live in a world of their own creating, and if they are not, then why the need to defend the establishment of a ruling class? Lastly, ask them directly, if they truly feel they are more capable and knowledgeable with regards to what is best for their constituents than the very people they serve?

Yes, I’m asking you to be direct. Yes, I’m asking you to sometimes be obstinate with your representative. Remember, you are THEIR employer. They work for YOU! It’s time to make them accountable and insist that they answer the important questions We have been lazy for far too long. It’s time we take back our government.

My reason for fixing them in office for a term of years, rather than for life, was that they might have an idea that they were at a certain period to return into the mass of the people and become the governed instead of the governors which might still keep alive that regard to the public good that otherwise they might perhaps be induced by their independence to forget.

- Thomas Jefferson

The security intended to the general liberty consists in the frequent election and in the rotation of the members of Congress.

- James Madison & Alexander Hamilton, 1782

The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.

- Thomas Jefferson

No one to blame but ourselves

2011-01-19T14:20:00.001-06:00

As I sit and listen to the congressional debates regarding the repeal of Obamacare, I can’t help but wonder to myself, how did we get here? How did we get ourselves into a position in which Americans now believe that the Government is the answer to all our woes and in which we allow said government overarching control over our lives? How did we allow people to represent us who have zero understanding of the meaning of the Constitution and the premise behind how our government is to be behave? How?

As easy as it would be to place blame on either the left or right, ideologues who have corrupted our political system, etc, it’s just wouldn’t be intellectually honest to do so. Our slide into this perversion of America has been aided by both sides of the political aisle. Republicans and Democrats are equally at fault, so how? Sadly there is but one answer: We have no one else to blame but ourselves. It is the voting public who has allowed our government to become the very beast that our founding fathers warned and sought to protect us from.

When I look at what our country has become, I find myself disgusted. We have figuratively pissed on the memories of our founding fathers and their vision for our country. These were men that gave their lives, their freedom, even their personal wealth to help create a system that curtailed the power of an obtrusive government and provided for the freedom and liberty of it’s people. They came from an era when government left unchecked, would constantly and consistently trample on the governed. Therefore, after great personal and group sacrifice, they declared that government had no right to impede the liberty of free men and waged a war to guarantee that the future of this country would not suffer as they did. Their legacy is a form of government never before seen by the world. They knew that government would always grow when left unchecked, but they provided a means of allowing the people to self-correct and limit that ability, however, the American people have not held up to their end of the bargain. We have grown lazy and allowed ourselves to become the governed, rather than following the blueprint that our founding set for us to be the governing.

We have grown lazy in our responsibilities to this country. Our government is one OF the people, BY the people, and FOR the people, but as of late, it has become a system of the elite, by the corruption of special interest, and for the limitation of liberty. We have forgotten that it is our birthright to be self governed, allowing instead to have career politicians and political elites to determine our course. We' have grown lazy in our responsibilities to ensure that the government bows to OUR will via the methods set in place by our founders. We have forgotten that WE determine our own destiny, instead allowing a new ruling class to determine as much for us. We do this at direct insult to our past and in direct conflict with our path to remain free in the future. It’s something that we MUST fix if our country is to remain the only beacon of personal liberty in the world.

How is it that most anyone can name who the latest celebrity is dating or the latest scandal in Hollywood, but seldom few can name their congressional representatives? How is it that time can be made for the local bowling league or a night out drinking at the local bar, but few take the time to research and vet those that they elect into power? Why is it that people will set aside hours to watch their favorite sports team on the television, but are unwilling to set aside 30 minutes to an hour to try and understand the political issues of the day and how they will be personally affected by them? Why do people get upset that a homeowners association can tell them what color they can paint their house, but could care less that their government seeks to disarm them and take away choice in nearly every aspect of their lives? We have grown lazy.

I look back in history and it’s easy to see why we are such a great country. We were filled with people who took the “American Dream” to heart and worked hard to provide it for themselves and their families. The founding of this country was done on the backs of men who willing offered their lives and wealth for a possibility at personal freedom and opportunity. The west was won by individuals and families who set out seeking new opportunities knowing that they were risking their lives in doing so. The world wars showed an America that banded together to serve the interests of this country of their own will, not by government demand, by helping the war effort with time, sweat, and the buying of bonds. Charity was not the exception but the rule. Communities came together for the betterment of each other, knowing that individual success lent to community success. We were a people who thrived on individual accomplishment, possibility, and responsibility. We were a people that KNEW beyond a shadow of a doubt, that we were a free people and defended that ideal at all cost.

However, now, America no longer believes in success, but rather protection from failure. We are no longer a people who believe in assistance from our government as a final last resort, but as an expected “right”. Americans no longer take responsibility for their own actions, but instead believe that bad decisions are allowed and we expect others to shelter us from the consequences of those decisions. We went from believing that all men are born equal, into expecting that all men will be made equal, from a right to the pursuit of happiness, to a right of guaranteed happiness. Again, we have grown lazy.

We have allowed our ideals to be compromised by the vocal few and have said nothing. We watched as our government takes greater and greater control of our lives, but have remained silent. We have allowed a ruling class to strip us of liberties, forgetting that we have inalienable rights conveyed to us by god not men, and instead have let that ruling class redefine those rights as they see fit. We have forgotten to study and understand our constitution and what it means, instead allowing it be be stripped out of our children’s schools and have elected people to abide by it that have no depth of understanding of it’s true meaning. We believe that the Constitution is no longer the blueprint for our country, but instead something can is malleable and can be “interpreted” to mean whatever a person wants it to mean. We stay quiet when people throw out charges of racism or hatred in order to silence opposition, forgetting that debate is the best method to determine policy. We have forgotten that we are the greatest nation ever conceived and have abandoned our sense of national pride, deciding to portray and feel guilt for the very successes that our method of government has given us. We have grown lazy.

No one is exempt from that criticism, even myself. As you may have noticed, I haven’t written anything in a long time. It wasn’t until I had the pleasure of recently meeting new members of my family on my fiancé's side, that I realized I too had grown lazy. I tried to explain it out as I had become disgusted with the lack of common sense and complete disregard for the will of the people that had made me stop, but again, that was just lazy. What I was doing was exactly what the ruling class wanted me to do, to become disheartened and sit idly by as America was “transformed” into a bastardization of what it was meant to be. The ruling class is expecting me to shut up, they are expecting me to be lazy, so as to not challenge their rise to tyranny. I’m thankful that I met these soon to be additions to my family, because they opened my eyes to the fact that I was becoming the very thing that I speak out against, a citizen who shirks their duty to their country.

So where do we go from here? Well, in the coming weeks, I will begin laying out, what I believe to be, a method of correction. This is nothing new or profound, as our founders provided for methods to self-correct and reign in the power of our government. All it really takes is an interest and desire to fulfill our duties in self-governance. There are many methods to do this, but most important, is our ability to speak out. The fact that freedom of religion and speech were the first addtions to our bill of rights is not lost on me. We need only to speak out, let others know that we are with them, believe as they do, to organize the people to take back control of our country. We can do this via writing letters, attending town halls and meetings, or by participating fully in the campaign and election process. Each of you must figure out the best method for you, but you must make your voice heard. Our government is in our hands, therefore the future of it lies in the same. Only we the people have the power to change it, therefore, when it comes to the preservation of our freedom, we must no longer be lazy.

"Should things go wrong at any time, the people will set them to rights by the peaceable exercise of their elective rights. "

Thomas Jefferson, The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, John P. Foley, ed. (New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1900), p. 842.

"Now, more than ever, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption."

James Garfield, "A Century of Congress" published in Atlantic, July 1877

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

2010-11-11T16:01:00.001-06:00

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

2010-09-14T15:08:00.001-05:00

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?

2010-09-09T16:10:00.001-05:00

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

2010-08-31T11:00:00.001-05:00

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

2010-08-26T14:10:00.001-05:00

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:

Pistols.

Revolvers.

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

2010-08-19T13:29:00.001-05:00

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

2010-08-18T13:51:00.001-05:00

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

2010-08-16T16:12:00.001-05:00

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!

2010-08-11T14:02:00.001-05:00

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

2010-08-05T17:21:00.001-05:00

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

2010-07-30T14:33:00.001-05:00

@ 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.

REMEMBER THE ALAMO!!!

2010-07-29T16:58:00.001-05:00

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

2010-05-14T10:47:00.001-05:00

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.

Another side effect of not reading the Health Care Bill

2010-05-04T11:38:00.001-05:00

Health care has passed and now law. As business start researching thru the bill, we keep finding more and more "unintended consequences" that are going to cost American businesses, and taxpayers, billions of dollars not previously disclosed.

The latest is a mandate that will require all businesses to issue a IRS 1099 Form for any purchases over $600. According to the CATO institute, some wording changes to the tax code's section 6041 will force businesses to issue millions, if not billions, of additional IRS 1099 forms, which would be a costly, anti-business nightmare.

In a change to the current law, which only requires 1099's to be sent for specific circumstances and exempts corporations, businesses will now be required to send these forms to any business with which they have any exchange in excess of $600 and will include this burden on corporations. Think about that for a second. $600 is not a huge cost when it comes to business expense. Should a business buy office supplies in bulk, be it copier paper, pens, etc, and the bill is $601, then the company will have to issue a 1099 form. Even if a business was to treat a client to a business-related meal, this condition could possibly kick in, requiring the business to file a form 1099 to the restaurant. Should they have a contract for coffee service, janitorial service, well hell, basically anything, they will be required to send these IRS forms. Due to this mandate, for virtually any business expense, the company will be required to gather information from their vendor, TIN (tax identification number), etc, fill out the form, then the IRS will need to match these forms to accounting records. No wonder the IRS is wanting to hire an additional 16,000 people. Considering the billions of additional forms that they will receiving each year, 16,000 may be short of the required resources.

Not only is the paper work going to be monumental and an administrative nightmare, but think of the expense that the business must now take on just to maintain compliance, else risk penalization from our federal ~~collections agency~~ tax system. Now, instead of using money to hire new workers, this money will have to be set aside to ensure compliance with this new law. Each company will have to have a person, or more, strictly dedicated just to issuing 1099 forms. Suppliers, vendors, services, will all be subjected to this.

I've said it once and I will continue to say it until people start listening, the federal government destroys everything it touches. It's starting to seem that the rule of "unintended consequences" is the norm for every bit of legislation that comes out of our capital. This law does not provide health care to all, but instead requires that people purchase insurance, regardless of their ability. What the bill is going to be successful at thou, is destroying American business and entrpenurial spirit. As more and more hidden taxes, suffocating mandates, and penalties come to light after the fact, we are seeing our government single handedly destroying private enterprise. Be aware, more types of these mandates will be found. The Fed needs to milk as many funds as possible to feed it's incredible growth, and the only way to do this is to confiscate from the American businesses and taxpayer. However, they fail to see, if they continue to use this as their personal piggy bank for the expansion of welfare entitlements, that there will soon be no more providers to fund their ill-conceived projects. As the statement goes, you can only squeeze so much blood for a turnip, but it appears that our government looks to challenge that statement.

President Obama - TAKE DOWN YOUR FLAG!!!

2010-04-07T11:41:00.001-05:00

According to USA Today, this is essentially the statement made by Haitian Prime Minister Jean-Max Bellerive to our fearless leader. Obama being the patriotic, full of American pride President he is, immediately ~~folded like a cheap suit and~~ agreed and demanded that the American Flag be removed from our bases in Haiti to portray the image that "we are not an occupation force, but an international partner committed to support the government of Haiti on the road to recovery". Yet, even as as our flags are removed, the British Union Jack, the French Flag, even the flag of Croatia and other countries, fly merrily in the breeze.

To me, this is a direct slap in the face to the more than 12,000 American Soldiers who are now separated from their families providing aid to this country. It is disrespectful to the millions of taxpayers who are ~~being forced by the Obama administration to~~ provide(ing) over $179M in financial aid to help rebuild the region. Apparently the Haitian Prime Minister finds our flag offensive, but our open checkbook suits them just fine. Even as our country suffers, as more and more of our citizens find themselves out of a job, as our economy tanks, we find it necessary to provide more financial aid than all other countries combined, but yet the flying of our flag offends them? Even as the French flag flies high, a country that once occupied and colonized Haiti, the American flag, the flag of the country that has diverted more than $10B (that's billion) in aid to Haiti since 2005, is ordered to be removed.

It seems that amid all the controversy that surrounds our humanitarian aid in Haiti, we should remove our flag, permanently! The French Cooperation Minister Alain Joyandet claimed that the US was interfering in Haiti internal affairs when we first sent troops in to help rebuild. Latin American countries of Venezuela, Bolivia, and Nicaragua have claimed that the US is using the relief effort as a cover up for a military take over. Venezuelan ~~dictator~~ President Hugo Chavez even went so far as to state that the US military detonated a weapon that was the cause of the earthquake. While I find it humorous that Chavez thinks we have the power of God and can cause such a natural disaster, I find it insulting that our President caves to these thugs and orders our symbol of national pride removed in light of all the support and aid that we are providing. Again, I see this as another example of where the leader of our country believes that America has something to be ashamed of, something to apologize for, rather than being proud of the fact that we are offering more help and support than any other nation in the world.

Jim Hanson, former soldier in the 1st Special Forces Group, said it best when he stated:

If the Haitian prime minister is unhappy with having the U.S. flag on his soil, we certainly can remove it. We can fold it nicely and place it in one of those giant containers full of food and medical supplies we brought, take one of the many pieces of construction equipment we brought, load it on one of the many planes and ships full of more of the same, and take them all back to the United States.

I couldn't agree more Jim! If our help, our hard earned dollars, the sacrifice of our soldiers is not appreciated, if they are not allowed to show their national pride in their efforts to rebuild your country, to ease the suffering of your people, then we should fold the flag up with all the respect that it deserves and simply leave the region to fend for itself. First we were criticized for not responding with aid fast enough,now we are being told that we should not be allowed to let people know we are there. How much aid and effort do you think the region would get if America was not present. We are helping your country at the detriment of our own! How about you show a bit of damned respect and decorum and welcome our flag with open arms? If that is to much for you, then we should pull all our resources out completely!

As Jim states in his article, "We may or may not be the world's policemen, but we are certainly its first responders." When will we, as a country, learn that our humanitarian efforts are not respected, they are expected? When will our leaders have the fortitude to stand up and say, "If you don't welcome our help, if you don't give us the respect deserved for our giving nature, then we will no longer provide in your times of need." When will the taxpayer demand that our leaders bear the burdens of our own country first, before turning it's attentions to those of another? When the world, as a whole, is in need, is the Red, White, and Blue that they first come running to with an open hand, but once given, they turn their backs on us and accuse us of occupation.

As the statement goes, "Never bite the hand that feeds you", but not only have they bitten that hand, our President has offered up fingers of the other hand as a snack. President Obama, your actions are disgraceful and those of a coward. You have offered up the checkbook of this country to any and all who are undeserving, and rather than demanding respect, you cower in fear before the statements and opinions of dictators and thugs. You see the American Flag, not as a symbol of security and hope, but as something to be ashamed of and to be hidden, discarded even. Your very role as Commander in Chief of our armed forces is a disrespectful slight to all of those who have, or are currently, serving in the service of this great country. I can not wait until 2012 when we are able to remove you from office and offer the job to someone deserving of such a privilege.

Health Care: Harry Reid suggests it is the new slavery debate

2010-04-02T14:33:00.001-05:00

In an statement by Harry Reid (D-Nev), he compares opposition to the health care bill to those that defended slavery in the 19th century. He defends his position by stating:

“If you think you’ve heard these same excuses before, you’re right,” Reid said. “When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said, ‘Slow down, it’s too early, things aren’t bad enough.’ ”

In a way, I do agree that the current health care debate and the question of slavery do have some parallels, but not for the reasons that Reid intends to portray. I detest that any opposition to the reckless policies that are currently coming from the Obama Administration are decried as racist, but I do think that Harry Reid has struck upon something that begs deeper discussion.

Carl Paulus wrote an article titled "Slavery and the Health Care Debate" on American Thinker, in which he does a side by side comparison of both debates, distinguishing the differences between the two debates. I encourage you all to read it in it's entirety, but for those unwilling, I will break down his major points but also add my own commentary.

To begin, within the slavery debate, the two sides were so solidly polarized, that there was no chance for compromise, no chance to reach a middle ground. That is not the case with the health care debate. While the leftists announce that America supports their goal of reform, they are twisting the truth to fit an agenda. There is no debate with regards to the fact that both parties, that Americans, want health care reform. There is no doubt that all Americans would like to see health care more affordable and accessible to all. Using this, Leftists have progressed their utopian ideal of universal coverage, but they missed the mark in that it is abundantly clear that Americans do not want this kind of reform. According to polls beginning in June 0f 2009, the average outcome has been with 53% opposed to the health care bill compared to 43% favoring. Granted, there is a pure partisan divide, it must be noted that among those not affiliated, 59% oppose while only 34% favor. With health care ranking within the top five issues facing America, how can there be such discontent with a bill that is sold to address that issue? The reason is that the majority of Americans feel that this is the wrong way to resolve our health care woes, with 55% wanting to scrap this bill and start over again and find another method.

Within this debate, there is very much a chance for joint measure, for compromise, to come to a program that will benefit the people, while giving the reform that everyone so wishes. So like the slavery debate, the American people want a change, but as shown above, they want responsible change. The amendments that instituted the change in mind set regarding slavery took over a year to plan in Congress and another to get it's passage thru states via bipartisan action. The debate regarding slavery had the time to be worked thru rationally and thoughtfully due to it's enormous public support, therefore there was never a need to ram a bill into action for fear of losing that support. Compare that to the health care debate and we have a completely different picture. With the health care debate, as shown above, there is no popular support for this bill nor was it bipartisan in nature, therefore, the Democratic party felt the need to ramrod the bill into legislation for fear that they would lose the little amount of support required to enact it. Further more, they had to result to less than moral practices of buying votes and coercion to even enact at time.

Now to the real comparison, which is the fact that this health care bill does, in fact, amount to an era of new slavery of the American people. Slavery is defined as the following:

1. (Law) the state or condition of being a slave; a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune

2. the subjection of a person to another person, esp in being forced into work

3. the condition of being subject to some influence or habit

Now, let's compare that to the dictum that is now ObamaCare. A civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune. The health care bill mandates that a person must buy insurance. If they do not, they will be subject to financial punishment. By telling me what I have to buy, is the government not controlling my life, liberty to chose, and my fortune by confiscating my wealth via penalty for not participation? Furthermore, if a person has a "right" to healthcare, then is it not also true that they have a "right" to the labor of another? In this case, they have a right to the services of a physician or the right to the money made by the taxpayer via additional taxes to pay for those services. Within the health care bill, doctors will be dictated how much they can charge, companies will be dictated that they must provide coverage and who they can/cannot chose to cover, and the citizen will be dictated that they must provide additional taxes to help provide this right to others.

If a person has a "right" to the labor of another, then the person providing that right has no rights at all. They are, in fact, beholden to the recipient of their labor. Much like slavery of the 19th century, slaves had no right to the fruits of their labor. Their labor was used to provide for others, and in return, the slave was "looked after" those that had the "right" to their labor. Today, we see the same thing. Government has determined that all people have the "right" to health care. They have taken over the role to "look out" for us and ensure that all people are given access to what they "deem" as a right. For those that cannot, or chose not, to partake in that right, then they will have that right granted regardless. In order to provide that access, they must confiscate the services of the physician and the money of the tax payer, to provide.

In looking at points two and three of the slavery definition, we also see the parallels. As described above, when a recipient has a "right" to the property (money), labor (physician services), or liberty (inability to have personal choice) of another, then the provider of that right is subjected (forced) to the recipient. Like wise, if we face penalty, either financial or legal, for not providing to that recipient, are we not being subject to the influence of power by the federal government?

Now I, nor do most Americans, want to see any person go without health care. We do not want to see the horror stories so often heralded by the leftists of children suffering due to lack of care. As we are the most advanced nation in history, I believe that all our citizens should have accessibility to the best health care system ever known, but I do not believe that can be done by enacting an era of New Slavery upon provider class (American Taxpayer) by recipients (welfare class). To do so takes us back to the 19th century and derives all citizens of the tenants of American ideal, which is the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Instead, the focus should be lower costs of, and improve access to, health care in a way that enables the recipient class to provide for themselves, while maintaining the natural rights that exist to all people. For too long, we've allowed those rights to be chipped away in the name of social morality, but the time to take a stand is now. We do not wish to block accessibility, but we do wish to provide that accessibility in a prudent, responsible manner. We do not need big brother to provide for us, as it is the American way to provide for ourselves. This country has suffered the ills of slavery once, we need not do it again.

Goodwin Liu: Obama's radical left appointee to the Federal 9th circuit court

2010-03-31T11:05:00.001-05:00

"Liu believes that judges have the authority to impose their views... using clever verbal camouflage to disguise what they’re doing." -- Ed Whelan, a one-time clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia and now president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center (3/4/10)

It was this statement from an email forwarded to me by a friend who is a member of Gun Owners of America (GOA) that first caught my eye. In an article titled "Obama Pushing Another Radical Anti-Gunner to the Federal Bench", GOA goes on to detail out the biography of Obama's new federal judgeship appointee, Goodwin Liu.

Based on this article, I decided to do some more digging into the appointment and what I found truly scared me. By looking at the views of Mr. Liu, we can gain a much deeper understanding of President Obama's views and intentions for our country.

To begin, Mr. Liu does not even meet the standards required by the American Bar Association for federal judgeship. According to the ABA's published evaluation criteria, a appointee should have at least 12 years experience in the practice of law, with substantial courtroom and trial experience. As Mr. Liu is only 39, he has not yet even been out of law school for 12 years and has no experience as a trial lawyer, having never represented a case before the courts. Even more shocking than his lack of experience necessary for this life time appoint, is his societal and judiciary views.

In 2005, Liu, in speaking out against the nomination of John Roberts, made the statement that "the values of Free Enterprise, private ownership of property, and limited government were code words for an ideological agenda hostile to environmental, workplace, and consumer protections.". Read that carefully, this nomination for a federal judgeship believes that very core principals on which America was founded, are coded words for an ideological hostile agenda. To think that we could have a judge appointed to the 9th district court who does not value private property rights and extols the virtues of an expanded government are nothing short of pure frightening.

In the same strain, Theodore Frank, President of the Center for Class Action Fairness, goes on to state that Mr. Liu also believes that the judiciary has the duty to foster the "evolution of welfare rights". That it is the judicial responsibility to step in and act as the both the legislature and executive branch in instances where legislatures have failed to affirmatively act in areas to "leverage the expansion of existing social programs". Further more, William Wilson expands on this by stating, that according to Liu, a "right" is what ever society says it is. He goes on to quote Liu as saying that the federal courts have a duty to render decisions based upon societal consensus that a person possess a right to goods and services based on "how a society understands it's obligations of mutual provision." In 2008, Liu wrote that "the existence of a welfare right [emphasis added] depends on democratic instantiation in the first instance, typically in the form of a legislated program, with the judiciary generally limited to an interstitial role". This simply means that if the government performs subsidy or provision of welfare to any portion of the population, then the whole population should have access to that right. I.E., if government provides assistance to any group, then the entire population should be afforded the same assistance via "judicial distribution". He continues his defense of this position by suggesting that constitution "assigns equal constitutional status to negative rights against government oppression and positive rights to government assistance on the ground that both are essential to liberty", but does not point to where these "positive rights to government assistance" exist within the constitution.

In his 2008 Stanford Law Review article, Liu supports a judicial role in establishing constitutional welfare rights, or "affirmative rights" to education, shelter, subsistence, healthcare, and the like, or to the money these things costs. So, either we provide full welfare, or we extract the monies needed to provide them. Can you see the case that he would make for the upholding of the health care bill? It is Liu's view that there is a constitutional right to welfare that echo's Obama's discontent that the Warren Court didn't break free from "the essential constraints" of the US Constitution to launch a major redistribution of wealth. Starting to notice a theme here?

To further compound his radical views, it is his opinion that reparations for acts committed in the 19th century should be born by those of the 20th century. According to Bench Memos by Ed Whelan, in 2008, Goodwin commented on a documentary film Traces of the Trade, exploring the role of New Englanders in the slave trade, that:

"I think I would draw a distinction between a concept of guilt, which locates accountability in a sort of limited set of wrong-doers, and, on the other hand, a concept of responsibility, which is, I think, a more broad suggestion that all of us, whatever our lineage, whatever our ancestry, whatever our complicity, still have a moral duty to … make things right."

He goes on to state;

the exercise of that responsibility … necessarily requires the answer to the question, “What are we willing to give up to make things right?” Because it’s going to require us to give up something, whether it is the seat at Harvard, the seat at Princeton. Or is it going to require us to give up our segregated neighborhoods, our segregated schools? Is it going to require us to give up our money?

Clearly he thinks that it is the burden of all people, regardless of compliancy in a crime, to have the duty to provide money, or other reparations, to any that may have suffered in the path. Again, this is yet another expansion of social programs, in that the provision of monetary reparations for actions against an ancestor, not those actually harmed, is deemed "morally prudent and right".

Lastly, Mr. Liu has far left radical views on the merits and translation of the constitution which could irrevocably harm future ruling of the courts. In a book written by Liu, Keeping Faith with the Constitution, he states:

"Applications of constitutional text and principles must be open to adaptation and change ... as the conditions and norms of our society become ever more distant from those of the Founding generation."

Going on, he further comments that "it's clear why 'originalism' or 'strict construction' doesn't' make a lot of sense. The framers deliberately chose broad words so that they would be adaptable over time." It is this belief that the founding principals, thus their interpretation within the confines of the constitution, that most frightens gun owners and constitutionalists alike. It is Liu's belief that, while gun ownership was prudent in the days of the founding, that dictate doesn't apply to today's day. Further more, he went on to co-author an article (Separation Anxiety: Congress, the Courts, and the Constitution) with then Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, in which they criticized the Supreme Court decisions declaring two federal bans unconstitutional stating:

[W]hat we have seen in recent years gives me pause. . . . Those changes have come directly from the courts in a series of rulings that have effectively worked to exclude the body politic from the ongoing search for constitutional meaning.

Unless I have a complete misunderstanding of the American political system, it is not the duty of the political body (Congress) to deem what is constitutional and what is not, that is a duty left expressly to the judicial branch. By checks and balances, if the judicial branch deems a legislative action unconstitutional, the the political body has the option of trying to amend it. To further compound this view of judicial legislation, Liu goes on to try and expand the roles of congress for determining constitutionality by stating:

When the Constitution says that Congress shall have power “to regulate commerce ... among the several States,” does that not suggest that Congress has some role in determining what counts as interstate commerce? . . . The Court’s recent opinions seem to say no. In the eyes of the Court, whatever Congress may think the Constitution permits or requires does not seem to count for much.

Again, this is a matter of checks and balances. If the Congress has the authority to "regulate commerce", but also has the power to decide what is deemed to be "commerce", then what limitations exist to the power of congress. The founders created a three part government specifically to counter the ability of any one group to hold a supreme power over the others. If Congress were allowed to deem what is/isn't considered commerce, then additionally have the power to regulate it, then by virtue, the congress would have unlimited power over every aspect of society. The limitation imposed on this power is by virtue of the President being able to veto legislation proposed by Congress, but also by the ability of Judicial branch to determine the scope in which the Congress can regulate via the constitution. With a federal judge believing that the legislative branch has this power, we risk the chance of handing unbridled control over to them and imposing a threat of tyranny upon the people.

Goodwin Liu is an unqualified, far left radical, who if appointed to the 9th district court, stands in line to be groomed for the Supreme Court. His views of social impact on constitutional interpretation, along with his belief that Congress has the ability to determine scope of constitutionality, make this a very dangerous man who could stand to fundamentally change the method of checks and balances imposed on our government. I urge you write your senators and demand that they deny confirmation. A man of these views has no right to sit in a life time judicial appointment and his confirmation must be stopped!

Health Care: Why you should support challenging the bill...

2010-03-30T10:09:00.001-05:00

Well, folks, it's final. ObamaCare has been passed, signed, and is now the law of the land. However, don't you think for a second that this debate is over. Even as the ink of the Presidential signature was drying, nine states readied their legal machines to post constitutional challenges to the bill, including: Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Michigan, Nebraska, and Washington. As of this writing, officials in North Dakota are also considering joining the case.

In addition, many states are also taking legislative actions to try and block the bill. Virginia and Idaho have already passed laws aimed at blocking the bills insurance requirements in their states. Michigan and Colorado are now in the middle of a petition drives asking voters if they would like to add a measure to exempt their states and Arizona has approved a constitutional amendment for their ballots in November. Regardless of whether these states succeed, they are keeping the issue in front of the voters until the all important November elections, ensuring that we don't forget about this monstrosity that was rammed down our throats.

So, you may be asking yourself, "why should I be concerned with these challenges?" The answer is simple, if upheld, this health care bill will give the Federal government unprecedented control over your personal lives and freedom. Not only in the realm of health care, but on the slippery slope that could extend to all facets of your life.

In an interview with Rep Michael Burgess (R-Tx) written by Nicholas Ballasy of CNSNews, Rep. Burgess contends that if government could require US citizens to purchase health care insurance via an individual mandate, then a precedent is set in which the government could require all Americans to purchase anything, such as a GM car.

Think about that for a second. Could this really happen? I don't see why not. With all the false hoopla surrounding global warming and human impact on the environment, is it really such a stretch to imagine a time where the government would force citizens to purchase yet another product for the "good of the union"? The Fed already owns and controls a majority of the auto industry with it's take over of General Motors. So hypothetically, let's say that that GM produces an automobile that gets 50 mpg with only a 1/3rd of the emissions of current day cars. Can you honestly say that you think it's implausible that the government would mandate all Americans would have to purchase that automobile in an effort to "save the environment". Too far out there you think?

Well, folks, it's not really! You need only look at the "cap and trade" bill to see that the Fed is already started down this path. Within the bill, the fed is attempting to legislate everything from your appliances, hot tubs, even the light bulbs that you are able to put in your house. In fact, per the bill, as early as 2012, all current outdoor lighting will be eliminated (parking lots, stadiums, etc) in favor of more "energy efficient lighting". It is estimated that this change over could cost one small utility company over $30M in annual revenue. Where do you think that utility company will make up those costs? By shifting that burden over to the consumers of course. You looking to sell a house in 2012, well you may not be able to unless your house passes a government imposed "energy audit" that will penalize you for older windows, dated appliances, and yes, even the wrong type of light bulbs.

So if the sell of your house could be blocked by not having the "right" appliances installed, isn't the government already mandating what products you can buy? Aren't they already exerting control over your lives and economic livelihood? Now couple that with the fact that these appliances, lights, etc are REQUIRED by federal law, you'll have no choice, you must buy them. If that's the case, where is the free market and competition to drive prices down? There is none, as you are now a captive market. You can't simply choose to use another light bulb for fear you will be penalized by the government, so therefore, manufacturers can charge what ever they want. You want to talk about price fixing, this is the bill that will pave the way for price fixing on a massive scale.

So why should you support these challenges? You should support them to remain a free people. You should support them to remind the Federal government that it is subservient to the people. You should support because you value the freedom of choice and liberty that makes America the greatest nation the world has ever known. You need only to look at "hybrid" cars today to know that this kind of intervention will harm your lives. Yes, you can buy a car now that gets 45 MPG, but when you look at the price differential between these hybrid and conventional autos, you know that unless you drive 100,000 miles a year, you will never offset the cost that the extra fuel saving will grant you. Now imagine being told by the Federal government that you have no choice, you must purchase this car and that those that can't afford the car, will be subsidized out of YOUR pocket book. This is what the health car bill does and this is the precedent it sets. It's time to fight for your right to be free and support anyone that opposes this bill. Your very freedom and economic livelihood depends on it.

Jay Inslee (D-WA) calls out Rob McKenna (AG - WA) in the most offensive of ways

2010-03-29T14:52:00.001-05:00

Check out the following email forwarded to me by Lola in Washington state. In a letter to IBEW (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers) asking them to rally against Rob McKenna's effort to challenge the Health Care bills constitutionality.

Pay special care to the sections that I placed in bold and my following comment. These are the tactics that are being utilized by those on the left. We simply can't allow this. If your AG is one of the ones challenging this healthcare monstrosity, call them and show your support. If you AG is not, make your voice known that he/she should be. Lastly, if you are one of those "right-wing extremists" that feels this bill imposes on your personal freedoms, by all means, call Jay up and let him know what you think of his email!

Jay Inslee

United States House of Representatives

403 Cannon House Office Building

Washington, DC 205156-4701

202-225-6311

District Office

Shoreline Center, Suite E-800

18560 1st Ave NE

Shoreline, WA 98155-2150

206-361-0233

Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 19:30:28 +0000
From: Getactive@ibew46.com
To: <email removed>
Subject: Are you a party to this lawsuit?

Dear <name removed>,

As a Washingtonian, born and raised on the Puget Sound, having
lived on the east side of the state for almost 20 years, having
been elected on both sides of the state, and Trudi and I having
raised our family in the state these past 35 years, I think I
have a pretty good handle on what it means to be a
Washingtonian.

Attorney General Rob McKenna joining a cabal of states like
South Carolina, Utah, and Alabama to strip Americans of health
care coverage is, in my opinion, not the Washington Way.
Nonetheless, McKenna is dragging you, me, and all Washington
taxpayers into a high profile tilt at windmills backed by the
fringe elements of the Republican party.

Rednex Note: Fringe elements of the Republican party? Really? I guess the 54% of Americans who favor repealing the law are also "fringe" elements? 44% of that 54% STRONGLY FAVOR repeal.

We should not allow Rob to use our tax dollars to go against
Washington interests. I'm glad you signed our petition already
and are with me on this -- but now we need to get others to
join. Please forward this email to five of your friends right
now and ask them to sign, too.

What is the reason for this? To deny insurance coverage to 32
million Americans and 1.5 million Washingtonians? To cozy up to
the insurance lobby, America's Health Insurance Plans, which
opposed the bill? To ingratiate himself with the Tea Party
activists and right-wing extremists?

Rednex note: First, challenging the law will not deny coverage for 32M Americans, but instead, mitigate the mandate that Americans MUST buy coverage. This bill does not provide health care, it instead makes you purchase it. Also, to cozy up and ingratiate himself? Again Jay, 54% of Americans do not want this bill! Maybe you should try listening to the people instead of thinking you know what is best for them, even against their wishes. Lastly, only Tea Party activists and "right wing extremists" oppose this bill? Amazing to me that he thinks an overwhelming majority of the country are extremists.

These are questions that I cannot answer with certainty. What I
certainly do know, is that we should demand he stop.
Whatever his motivations are, we can't let Rob McKenna deny
health insurance to thousands of Washingtonians.

Rednex note: He's not denying anything. He's challenging the constitutionality of the ability of an over bearing government to impose a purchase mandate on it's people. He is upholding the rights of the citizenship to be free peoples. Sounds like a reasonable challenge to me.

Please sign my petition. If you believe, as I do, that
Washington State taxpayers should not be party to this suit,
please forward this to five friends now and invite them to sign
the petition as well!

http://jayinslee.com/index.php?page=display&id=95

I find Rob McKenna's actions particularly disturbing. Not
because I worked for over a year to get this health care bill
passed. Not because my colleagues and I spent many nights
negotiating language that finally addressed a decades-long
Medicare reimbursement inequity for our state. And not
necessarily because he decided to do this without consulting
with his clients, the governor and the Legislature.

Rednex note: Of course you do Jay. The leftists find anything to promote freedom, liberty, or free choice disturbing. As far as not consulting his clients, I beg to differ and to keep badgering on this point, but 54% of Americans oppose this bill. Try listening to YOUR clients!

What I find particularly disturbing is that the state that has
led the country in technology, led the country in environmental
protection, and led the country in tolerance is now in league
with the Attorney General of South Carolina, a state where they
are fighting against teaching evolution in schools and continue
to fly the Confederate flag on public grounds. This is not the
Washington way.

Rednex note: Wow! Not really sure what to say to this one. Is he just saying that South Carolina is a backward state when it comes to comparison with Washington? Or, by the merits of "led the country in tolerance" then following with South Carolina's allowance of the "flying of the Confederate Flag on public grounds", is he implying that South Carolina is a racist state who's ideals on the constitution should hold no bearing for that reason? Surely not! Far be it from the Democratic party to ever take part in race baiting?? You decide.

While growing up, I knew a lot of families in difficult
circumstances. I know that Rob McKenna's actions have real
impacts on real people. This is not an academic debate.
We need a strong statement, and we need it now. Please forward
this message to five friends now and invite them to sign the
petition as well!

Rednex note: On this, I agree with you Jay. This is not an academic debate. When it comes to health care, the left solidly lost the academic debate, instead resorting to buying of votes and corrupt measures to push the bill thru. When you were unable to defend the position on academic grounds, you resorted to thuggery. Even on the grounds of constitutionality, you are losing the debate and are now resulting in name calling to try and further your agenda.

Thank you for joining me in this important and pressing fight.
Your support has helped carry us through the long year to
achieve health care reform, and it will sustain us again as we
work to defeat this last-ditch effort to defeat the change we
voted for in 2008.

Rednex Note: I know, I know, I sound like a broken record, but 54% Jay did not want this bill. "We" did not vote for this monstrosity, you did. You and your leftist elites voted for this bill because you cared not what the people want, but because you think you know best. You voted for a health care bill for the "little people" but also chose to exempt yourself. Hmmm, if it's so good, why are you and your comrades not participating. All I can say is, watch your political back in November, as it seems only 37% say you deserve to keep your job.

Very truly yours,
Jay Inslee
Member of Congress

Health Care Options not accounted for in ObamaCare - Part 3: Tort Reform

2010-03-29T13:09:00.001-05:00

For part three of viable health care options, we will look at the very controversial subject of Tort reform. If you were to research tort reform, you will find countless articles and papers both for, and against, the impact of reforming our court systems as they pertain to medical practice. Many in the opposition will state that tort reform results in little (less than 1% of total) of health care, thus stating that tort reform will be inconsequential in lowering cost. However, many of these stories are one sided and do not look at the big picture. In addition, it must be remembered, that advocating for Tort Reform is not be seen as the "silver bullet" to making costs affordable, but instead, one of a number of steps that build off each other for the end goal.

First, the impact of medical malpractice on our health care system. According to the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, it is estimated that between $76B - $126B is spent each year on medical liability litigation. In addition, one year later, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners reported that malpractice premiums have increased by 920% during the past three decades. Furthermore, in a study by the Massachusetts Medical Society, it was found that the growth rate of medical malpractice premiums grew at 12% per year, four times the rate of inflation, since 1975. The same study also found that million dollar verdicts were now the norm, with 52% of all awards exceeding $1M, with the average reward coming in at $4.7M.

We should note that the above costs are hard costs only, meaning that this is just the estimated costs that will get passed on to consumers, in that, as doctor's medical malpractice premiums rise, then the additional cost for those premiums will be added to costs of service. It does nothing to show the "soft costs" of medical care which we will explore below, and are often the costs that are left out of other reports.

Limitation of Doctors services: Specifically in rural areas

One of the associated soft costs is how the current medical malpractice system limits the amount, and quality, of medical services, specifically in rural areas. According to Government Accountability Office (GAO) study GAO-03-836: Medical Malpractice and Access to Health Care, they were able to confirm that physician responses to malpractice pressures resulted in a decrease to access to high risk services such as emergency surgery, newborn deliveries, and orthopedic practices in five states. This typically happened in more rural areas, meaning that patients typically had travel much further to receive care. In addition, it impacts the number of doctors who choose to practice in "high risk states", or states without some measure of tort reform. In the same GAO study, Jacksonville, FL, alone has seen the loss of 75 ER doctors due to malpractice pressures, while Clark County, Nevada, has seen over 60 orthopedic surgeons move to other regions thus creating access problems there. The study goes on to give more examples in talking about loss of orthopedic wards, trauma centers, and other high risk practices through out states such as Florida, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.

As more doctors leave states and rural areas, then the supply of doctors for those services goes down, while the demand maintains or climbs due to population growth. This results in doctors that do continue to practice these services to raise the cost of their services due to more of the hardship and demand upon their services. In addition, hospitals and care facilities, must also raise their prices, as more consumers come from wider areas due to lack of access nearby consumer need.

Defensive Medicine

Another main soft cost attributing to higher health care costs is the practice of defensive medicine. By definition, defensive medicine is the practice of ordering, or performance, of medically unnecessary procedures unlikely to benefit the patient but to protect one from lawsuit. Since it's hard to tell what is medically necessary or not, the true cost of defensive medicine is hard to "score", but a report by Philip Howard in the Washington Post puts the estimated cost at $100-$200B per year. Additionally, a Pacific Research Institute study found that the impact of defensive medicine on medical expenditures was estimated to be $124B annually, with another $38 billion in reduced access to health care. In 2003, the Harvard School of Public Health and Columbia Law performed a study for the Journal of American Medical Association that found that ~90% of doctors in high risk specialties performed some measure of defensive medicine. In all these incidents, doctors reported ordering test that they considered medically unnecessary as a matter of avoidance behavior, while others reported changing their practices to avoid high risk procedures or patients that they feared would result in legal action. To really get a look at costs across the nation, look at the results of the Massachusetts medical study above, that showed, just for Massachusetts alone, that the estimated costs of defensive medicine cost $280,925,220 annually (Table 1). If you take these figures and used across all states according to population, you start to understand the astronomical "soft cost" that defensive medicine enacts on the health care system as a whole.

So how do we fix these issues? What are the proposals that that will represent the step of tort reform in the total package of health care reform?

Well the first step is the limitation on erroneous pay outs in the areas of "pain and suffering". As detailed above, the average payout of verdicts is now reaching $4.7M, which has led to an era of "jackpot legal lotteries" within our justice system. Instead, it would seem prudent to allow unlimited damages for "actual" damages, but to limit the amounts of verdicts for these so called "pain and suffering" claims. Several states have already led the way with these enactments. Within Texas, Proposition 12, which placed a limit on jury awards for medical cases had the direct impact of reducing the number of claims by 50% and allowing more than 3,000 physicians to return to the state. By providing more physicians to come to the state, the laws of supply and demand come back into effect. With more doctors competing for business, and providing more access to service in rural regions, prices come down to reflect the new market conditions. Likewise, California also enacted the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975, imposing a $250K cap on non-economic damages. Since the passage of this act, medical liability premiums have been 75% lower when compared to the rest of the nation. By the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) own study, if nationwide jury limitations were imposed, $54B in savings would be realized over the next decade, which is almost 10 times more than previously expected. Of that $54B, $13B would come in the form of revenue realized by health care costs decreasing for employers, thus driving up wage increases and taxable income. In the same strain, a study by Daniel Kessler and Mark McClellan, showed that in states with tort reform already enacted, that an overall reduction of 5-9% was seen in medical expenditures with no substantial effects on mortality or medical complications.

Another reform effort is the elimination of the "joint and several liability" precedent now in effect. Under joint and several, a claimant is able to recover the entire amount of an award from any one of the parties, regardless of their degree of responsibility for the injury. By eliminating this precedent, parties would only be responsible for payment based on their degree of responsibility. Why should parties be subject to higher pay outs based on their ability to pay, when they may have only a fraction of responsibility. In effect, this would help to limit the amount of liability that a person must have, thus further reducing risk and premium increases.

Another form of reform, largely unpopular with the trial lawyer special interests that back the Democratic party, is the limiting or cap on lawyers fees that attorney's can collect on a damage award. When awards are granted, on average, only $.15 of every dollar actually go to the claimant. Lawyers can often collect up to 50% of settlements in contingency fees (average is 1/3rd). By allowing for these huge payoffs, lawyers are more likely to seek exorbitant amounts of damages in order to line their own pocket book and at the expense of the client. Likewise, since clients often can sue with no risk to themselves, they will be more likely, sometimes even persuaded, to partake in frivolous suits in hopes of a big payoff. If we were to cap the amount of contingency fees allowable, lawyers would be less apt to engage in these sorts of suits, thus again, limiting the amount of malpractice claims. In fact, a study posted in New England Journal of Medicine showed that 40% of all claims showed no neglect or fault (3% no actual injury, 37% no error). 40% reduction would also help clear up our clogged and back logged legal system, which is just another soft cost not attributed as directly impacting the taxpayer.

Lastly, we should establish a specialized court system to specifically handle cases of medical malpractice. Let's be frank, accidents happen, short cuts sometimes result in loss of life or preventable injury, and those people deserve to be compensated. However, in today's systems, we leave the merit of such claims to jury's of medically uneducated people leaving court cases to often become a case of emotional involvement and who makes the best argument. While I fully back a jury system of trials, there are cases in which the jury should be comprised of peoples specifically trained as subject matter experts in the issues involved. I am in no way a medical expert, but if involved in a medical malpractice case, it would be up to me to help determine fault, and amount of responsibility, each party had. How can the common man be expected to make such determinations? Instead, it would be better to have specialized medical courts with juries comprised of medical personnel and judges with medical knowledge serving the bench. These courts would be better equipped to understand the severity of malpractice claims, thus rewarding accordingly. Shift the responsibility to judge onto those people best equipped to do so. When we take the emotional aspect out of the trial system, focusing on medical fact and known science, we would have the ability to better expedite judgements, and penalties, based on the knowledge of the system. Such cases could then be modeled after hospital "mortality hearings" that follow the death of a patient in which a group of doctors discuss and analyze the care that was granted to the deceased to see if appropriate care was given. Expand this mentality to all medical cases, thus allowing, not only true, fair judgements on case merits, but also an establishment of medical precedent to prevent failures in the future.

While there are other methods that we can help reduce health care costs, these three parts represent what I believe to be the heavy hitters. Other methods of cost reduction would be directly born from these measures (such as tax code revisions, etc), but with these three, we would set our country on a path to true reform.

Health care reform options not accounted for in ObamaCare - Part 2: Health Savings Accounts

2010-03-25T13:53:00.001-05:00

Welcome to part 2 of real reform options that will help the true issue of high medical cost, thus making health care more affordable to all Americans. In this segment, we will discuss the use of Health Savings Accounts (HSA) to help provide choice, cost savings, and options for providing of health care.

Most people have heard of the HSA idea, but few are really aware of how they can be used. You've probably heard all the talking points of how no one can afford to fund the accounts, how it will shift costs on to the worker, etc, but is any of that information really true? The answer is partially, but only in circumstances where HSAs are not set up in the appropriate manner.

First, let's define HSAs. HSAs are a tax deferred medical savings account in which both employees and employers can contribute pre-tax money for the purpose of paying for qualifying medical expenses when used in conjunction with a high-deductible health insurance plan. HSAs are one of the only tax-free vehicles that allow, not only the pre-tax contributions, but also tax-free withdrawals if used for medical expenses. In addition, HSAs, unlike Flexible Spending Accounts (FSA), allow the interest bearing money in the account to roll over year to year rather than being a "use it or lose it" method and these accounts are owned by the employee, not the business. In this capacity, HSA also provide a valuable retirement savings option.

Now that we've defined HSAs, let's look at how these can be best used. As stated above, HSAs must be used with a high-deductible health insurance (HDHI) plan. What this means, much like car insurance, HDHI plans have a much higher deductible that the participant must meet with their own funds before the health insurance plan kicks in. Due to the statistical probability that the need will not go above the deductible amount, the cost of the premiums are therefore lower. However, with most HDHI plans, once the deductible is met, the plan will kick in at 100% rather than the 80/20 expense reimbursement that most plans have. This simply means, if you have $10,000 expense, the HDHI would cover the full $10,000 after you meet the deductible, while most plans would only cover $8,000, leaving you to pay the remaining $2,000. Already, you can see the benefit of the HSA, in that there are no hidden costs, but many of you still have fears of how you would meet those high deductibles. To explore this, lets look first at an example of a self-insured individual, then move that into an employer provided health plan.

Example: Using actual premium rates form Anthem Blue Cross Blue shield for a family plan: Husband - Age 49, Wife - Age 49, Chile - Age 20

Plan Option 1:

$500 deductible per person

Co-pays for doctor visits and prescription drugs

$644 monthly premium

Plan Option 2:

$5000 family deductible

No co-pays

$210 monthly premium

As you can see, there is already a $434 price differential in premium. Plan 1 would require that the family pay an annual amount of $7,728 annually just for the premiums. In addition, they would be responsible for the first $500 for each person making the total annual expenditure of $9,228. However, in plan 2, if the family saved enough money to pay for their deductible by investing $417 into an HSA, then they would paying $2,520 in premiums, plus $5,000 to meet the deductible, for a total annual expense of $7,520 resulting in an annual savings of $1,708. But wait, that's not it!! We must remember that once the HDHI deductible is met, most plans cover at 100%, while conventional low deductible plans only cover at 80/20. So if this same family had a baby during this year and that hospital expense equaled $10,000, then they would still be on the hook for 20% of that charge ($2,000 - total annual expense $11,228) while in the HDHI plan, there are no extra fees to deal with. Add to that fact, should the family not use all $5,000 in the year due to them being healthy, then any money not used that year rolls over into the next, allowing for a nest egg savings, or a reduction of funding need the next year to meet their deductible. So if they had $2,000 left in the account, they would only need to fund an additional $3,000 in the following year to meet that deductible, or $250 per month, thus reducing their monthly expense.

I'm sure most of you are now saying "I'm covered under an employer provided health care plan, so how would this affect me?" Well, the answer will be made clear, but first we must make some clarifications on employer based plans. First, remember that the contributions made to HSAs are considered pre-tax. All companies have to submit a payroll tax to the government on behalf of their employees, so any contributions made on your behalf would result in a payroll tax savings to the company. In addition, when a company provides a health care plan, they must have people on their payroll to administrate the plan, adding administration and headcount costs to the company to facilitate payments, disbursements, etc. Since the employee owns the HSA and it's their money to spend, the employee is in control of how the money is spent and dispersed, not the company, thus alleviating that cost. I will talk more on that later.

Now, that being said, let's see how this would benefit employers and employees. Keeping in mind that the costs would be less for employers due to business exchanges and discounts, lets use the same figures as above for the sake of comparison. If the employer chose to fully fund the HSA account for the employee ($417/month), they are effectively reducing the payroll tax on that employee that they must pay by that amount. Add to that the $210 premium for the HDHI, they will realize an annual savings of $204 per employee per year. While this may not seem like a huge amount of money, when you consider the reduction of administrative costs and headcount to see to the conventional plan, the saving starts to add up. As a case in point, Michael Lafaive, Fiscal Policy Director of Michigan, wrote an essay detailing how the state of Michigan would realize a savings of $16.2M per year by simply switching to a program in which the state adopted a HDHI/HSA program in which the state would fully fund the HSA accounts of 50,000 employees. This would not only benefit the state, but it would provide for completely free health care for the employees: no deductibles, no co-pays, and no unexpected/hidden expenses. For smaller companies, even greater savings realizations could be made by enacting a program of matching funds into the HSA accounts. Using the following, the employee could contribute half ($2,500) with the employer matching those funds. Now for the cost of $208 per month, the employee would realize a tax break and completely covered care, while the business would realize a hard savings of $2704 per employee plus the untold soft savings in reduction of administration. Starting to see how this benefits, not only employees, but employers as well? Couple this with portability of insurance as discussed in part 1, we now start seeing costs savings growing exponentially.

Lastly, since the HSA belong to the people, it now puts them in charge of their health care spending. With the current insurance methodology, how often do you ask the doctor the cost of procedures ordered for you? How often do you research their necessity? My guess is not often and why should you? You aren't paying the bill, someone else is. However, if you are now spending your money, your control over the cost will become yours alone. After all, it is YOUR money, so wouldn't you want to make sure that you are getting the best for your dollar? Now people will start questioning their doctors and shopping around for the best price compared to service. If you require a colonoscopy, you will now be more inclined to shop around for the best deal. In doing this, doctors are now going to have to compete for your business. Rather than just charging a price that would be handled by insurance companies, they will now have to start lowering prices or increasing service to entice you come to them for health care. It will embolden and strengthen the doctor/patient relationship, in that doctors will now have to work harder to earn your business for fear of effecting their livelihood. By putting the funding and choice into the hands of the consumer, market forces will now come into play forcing those with exorbitant prices or lacking services to change or go out of business. Likewise, those that offer the best price/service combination will see their business grow, and with growth, comes price reduction. Isn't it better to be able to chose your doctor and care based on your individual need and circumstance rather than having to chose within a limited pool of doctors in "your plan" as determined by a health insurance company. The by product of allowing you to be in charge of your options is increased quality of service and savings. As more begin shopping around for best prices, then the overall cost of health care will be required to come down to meet that need, thus affecting the cost of insurance premiums as a whole.

I've said it once and I will say it again, health insurance was never intended to become "pre-paid" health care that it is today. Insurance is to be used for catastrophic circumstances, not day to day care. Just as you don't use your car insurance to pay for oil changes and tune ups, neither should health insurance be used for preventative care. In the terms of car insurance, it does not cover those maintenance expenses, but instead covers catastrophic expense cause by accident or acts of god. One of the reasons that health insurance is so expensive is that it is used for means not intended. HSAs help alleviate that issue, places responsibility and choice of health care in your hands while providing methods to reduce cost via competition. No, it's not the end solution to cure our health care problems, but it is one piece of the puzzle that will contribute to true reform.

Stay tuned for Part 3, where we will talk about Tort Reform and it's cost on our medical system.

Health care reform options not accounted for in ObamaCare - Part 1 - Portability of Insurance

2010-03-24T12:30:00.001-05:00

Obama's much touted health care plan was finally pushed into law against the will of the people . The main talking points in support of this health care plan were: Universal coverage, increased competition, and coverage for pre-existing conditions. However, ObamaCare missed the mark when it came to the "real" reason that health care is unaffordable and that pertains to the high cost of medical care.

Without getting into the legal and constitutional challenges that threaten this health care bill, it's time we looked at the options that will actually address the main cause contributing to lack of medial coverage for a small population of the US and that is the rising costs of such medical coverage. First off, to make myself clear, ObamaCare does nothing to lower medical cost, it instead mandates that all people must purchase health care insurance and then helps subsidize a small fraction of the population deemed unable to buy on their own, but doesn't forcing the purchasing of coverage make things harder on everyone, including individuals and businesses? If you couldn't afford health coverage to begin with, how will the new bill help with that without lowering the costs associated? In my view, it doesn't and we are missing a real opportunity to enact "real" health care reform to fix the issue of rising cost.

Due to the sheer magnitude of the options available and the amount of time necessary to explain them, I will publish one option at a time with information to support. This way, it becomes much more readable and useful. :)

Portability of Health Insurance

One of the main talking points of ObamaCare is that it would increase competition and drive down insurance costs, however, this is precisely an area that the government had forbidden such competition. Thru unintended consequences of the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945, the regulation of health care insurance was left to the states. The consequence of this was that it lent itself to an anti-trust exemption within each state. Only insurance companies licensed in the state are able to operate within the state leading to no measure of price protection or real competition to drive the price of premiums down.

With the above, coupled with widely varying state regulations, we now have an atmosphere of "privatized socialism" in which some states, seeking to create a localized, universal health care system, causing state insurance agencies to drive premiums higher to provide coverage for generalized coverage not conducive to the public needs. For example, in states like California or New York, regulation states that the insurance provider must provide coverage for podiatry, chiropractic care, pregnancy assistance, etc. All of these conditions serve to raise premiums, but why should a 25 year old man pay for health insurance covering pregnancy costs when it's physically impossible for him to ever use the benefit? Why should an individual who does not believe in Chiropractic care pay for a policy that covers such care when they will never use it? The reason is that within these states, the cost of such services are enacted upon all to help pay for those that can not, I.E., "privatized socialism". This is described by a statement from the National Center of Policy Analysis as such:

The cost of individual health insurance varies widely from state to state. In a January 2006 report, The Commonwealth Fund compared the prices of individual health insurance policies in seven states with varying degrees of regulation. The price of policies varied tremendously, due mainly to state regulations rather than variation in health care costs.

research illustrates how regulations can impact the insurance market. But it is no accident — rather it is by design. In states where health insurance costs are the highest, a portion of the premiums paid is being used to cross-subsidize the premiums of high-risk individuals.

By providing the ability of people to shop for insurance across state lines, you enable people the ability to chose a policy that best fits their own specific circumstances. In a 2007 study by Center for Policy and Research, it was found that the average annual policy premium for single coverage was $8,537 in Massachusetts vs $1,254 in Wisconsin ($16,897 vs $3,087 for families, Tables 3 & 4). Now, in looking at that, what do you think would make health care insurance more affordable? Many people unable to afford insurance in Massachusetts could most likely afford a policy from Wisconsin, even if they had to supplement that insurance for specific needs. This sounds like true reform to me!

In addition, by promoting nationwide competition, market forces will allow those companies that under perform or abuse clients to be weeded out. With a national pool of providers, if a customer is unsatisfied with their insurance company, they could simply change policies, an option not available within a heavily regulated, carrier deficit state. As companies compete, those policies with the best service, best care, best price will rise to the top via people participating, while those who are not, will lose clients and drop out of the industry. Market force is how most all business is done with the US, why should it be any different in this industry? John Goodman, writer for HealthAffairs.org, stated it best in his article, when he made reference to car insurance commercials like Allstate, stating "You are in good hands with Allstate". Have you ever heard such a statement from a health insurance company? No, because there is no competition for your hard earned dollars. Unless we can get to a position of de-regulation and true competition among providers, there is no incentive, nor avenue, for these companies to try and earn your business.

Another benefit of opening up competition across state lines (nationally), there is now an option for insurance carriers to provide specific, customer focused policies that can cover specific areas of the population based on risk and health. I.E., if you are fit, reasonably healthy,non-smoking individual that goes to the gym 2-3 times per week, you are at much lower risk than other within your age group. Opening up the realm of cross-state health insurance coverage would allow coverage's just for that demographic. You would not be required to subsidize those that do not abide by the same lifestyle as yourself, but instead would be in a pool that is more representative of your circumstances, thus lowering cost of premiums.

In the end, it allows consumer choice and control in their health care decisions. It allows people to find the coverage that is best and appropriate for them rather than being locked into a regulatory state that may not have their best interests considered. ObamaCare is built off a "one size fits all" approach by requiring all people to buy coverage, but does nothing to try and address individual needs within that coverage. In this respect, it is driving a push for even more "privatized socialism" by forcing many to endure costs to help cover those few who cannot. In this manner, the only way to create "equality" in coverage is to lower all participants down to the lowest common denominator. It would seem logical that if we could reduce the burden of cost, then we would open the industry up for the inclusion of more people. According to a study by the University of Minnesota, enacting this kind of interstate purchasing would enable 12 million additional Americans to afford coverage. The conclusion of that study stated that by allowing policies with fewer benefit mandates (interstate purchase), health care is made more affordable for a larger portion of the American population.

So using the number of 47M uninsured often touted by the Obama Administration using statistics from the Census Bureau, let see how this simple change would affect the "crisis" we are now in.

10 million are illegal or non-citizens bringing the number down to 37M
According to the Congressional Budget Office, 45% (16.6 M) will have insurance within four months due to job transition leading CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin to state that 40+M Americans lacking insurance is "an incomplete and potentially misleading picture of the uninsured population. New number: 20.4M
8M are under the age of 18 and qualify for public programs, but their parents have not signed them up. New Number: 12.4

So, by breaking down those numbers and assuming that the University of Minnesota's study was correct, then by opening up interstate policy purchasing, we almost completely wipe out the uninsured population! Seems to be a compelling argument for such a reform doesn't it? It certainly sounds better than handing over 1/6th of our economy over to the government to "manage" to me. Couple this with other options, I think we may be on to a process of true reform that allows coverage, medical care, and keeps the government out of our private lives.

Stay tuned for the next installment where we will talk about tax code adjustments and health savings accounts.

Just for Fun: Revised quotes from the movie "Tombstone" applied to American Politics today

2010-03-22T13:15:00.001-05:00

What started as an email exchange between me and my best friend in Seattle resulted in us coming to the realization, that with a little bit of time, we could turn one of the great westerns, "Tombstone", into a reflection on American politics today. Below are just a few of the quotes that we came up with:

Conservatives: You called down the thunder, well now you’ve got it! You tell ém the conservatives are coming. You tell them that we’re coming! And Hell’s coming with us!!!

Stranger: Why do you do it? Why do you support this conservative movement?
Rednex: Cause America is my friend
Stranger: Friend? Hell, I got lots of friends!
Rednex: I don’t

Democrats: We’re here for blood. Isn’t anyone here man enough to play for blood?
Tea Party: I’m your huckleberry.

Bart Stupak: It appears my hypocrisy knows no bounds

Nancy Pelosi: I have not yet begun to defile myself

Obama: My fight’s not with you, Tea Partiers
Tea Party: I beg to differ, sir. We started a game we never got to finish. “Play for Liberty”- remember?
Obama: Oh that? I was just foolin’ about.
Tea Party: We weren’t.

Conservative: What makes a man a liberal, Jim? What makes him do the things he does?
Jim DeMint: A liberal has a got a great big hole, right thru the middle of himself. And he can never tax enough, steal enough liberty, or inflict enough pain to ever fill it.
Conservative: What does he want then?
Jim DeMint: Revenge
Conservative: For what?
Jim DeMint: Bein’ born.

American People: Where is he? (Obama)
Liberals: Down by the creek, walking on water.

Big Government: I’ve been good to you, I’ve taken care of you. If you die, where does that leave me?
American People: Without a meal ticket I suppose.
Big Government: You bastards!!
American People: Why Capital Hill, have you no kind words for us as we ride away?
[pause]
American People: I calculate not.
[rides off]

American People (to the Republican party): You gonna do somethin’? Or are you just gonna stand there and bleed?

Big Government: I want your blood. And I want your souls. And I want them both right now!

So what do you think? Pretty accurate huh? :) Anybody willing to put up the capital to fund this venture? If so, just leave me a mail! LOL

Where have all the leaders gone? Are there none left that will stand on conviction?

2010-03-22T10:12:00.001-05:00

Yesterday was a historic day. Historic in that the so-called "representatives" of the American people chose to ignore the voice of their constituents and pressed forward with a health care bill that was overwhelmingly opposed by the people. Historic in that the passage of this monstrosity was done with ZERO Republican support. Historic in that the passage of this bill showed the true color and character of the leaders that took part in this fleecing of the American citizen.

In the late mid afternoon hours, Representative Bart Stupak (D-Mi) caved under the pressure of President Obama and sold out all of his beliefs for what amounted to little more than a false promise of no federal funds for abortions. Holding up a finely crafted "Executive Order" written by President Obama reaffirming that no taxpayer dollars would be used to fund health plans that cover abortion, an order that would not even be signed until after HR 3590 was passed, Bart Stupak, along with 7 others, used this proclamation as a crutch to change their votes to a "Yes" for ObamaCare.

This executive order did little more than allow Stupak to save face for going against his Catholic heritage and place the vote that he knew he was going to make all along. Bart Stupak is not an idiot, he knows very well that this order does nothing to change the meat of this bill that he had claimed to oppose from of the start. The seven provisions of the bill that were at the heart of the abortion debate remain unchanged and President Obama's order will have no impact on them in the slightest. The bill is now a matter of law and the supreme court has already upheld that a presidential order cannot, let me repeat, cannot amend law by issuing an order. If challenged, the Supreme Court would fall back on the letter of the law, thus making the issuing of the executive order an non-issue. In addition, an executive order can be rescinded at any time and will most likely expire before the bill goes into effect in 2014.

In addition, the order does nothing more than reaffirm the Hyde amendment. It's important to note that the Hyde amendment is not a permanent ban on abortion funding, but only applies to Health and Human Services funding. It is an amendment that gets attached to appropriations bills and must be renewed every year. Within the order, it states that "The Act maintains current Hyde Amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to the newly-created health insurance exchanges". In short, it means that if the Hyde Amendment fails renewal, then all abortions bans in the health care act will vanish, and should the Hyde Amendment fail renewal, then exchanges would be free to use federal funds for such actions. Considering the Democratic controlled congress's track record of promoting legislation unpopular with the populace, what is to make us think that the Hyde Amendment will survive the turn of the year? Lastly, the crux of this order is contingent on the President's promise to sign and given the pro-choice backlash against Obama's issuing of the order to begin with, what leads us to believe that President Obama won't rescind, or even actually sign this order as promised? Bart, oh Bart, you sold your ideals, your "moral" stance, your career, and the respect of your constituents down the river for nothing. You gave everything, you bartered everything, but you gained nothing in return. It's no wonder that you are now unavailable for comment. Has your conscience finally gotten to you and made you sorry for what you've done? Atleast Ben Nelson got a $100M tax break to change his vote. Sen. Landrieu (D-LA) received $300M in Medicare subsidies for turning her back. Even Judas was granted 30 pieces of silver for his betrayal, but you sir, got nothing but a worthless paper which may, or may not, be autographed by the President.

So what now? How do we recover from such a sad mark in American history? Well, first, it's important to note that not one single Republican voted for this bill. All social entitlements in our history have passed with Republican votes from medicare to social security, however, this one was elusive of bi-partisan support. It's also important to note that many states have already pledged to challenge the constitutionality and legality of the act itself. Currently, there are nine states stepping up to challenge the bill within the courts before the individual mandates take effect in 2013. Challenges will be coming from states like Texas questioning the constitutionality of requiring citizens to purchase coverage and challenges from Virginia and South Carolina on the grounds that the special treatment of certain states, such as Nebraska due the "Cornhusker Kickback" or Louisiana's "Louisiana Purchase" violates Article 1, Section 9 of Constitution which states: "No preference will be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another ...". In addition, a total of 33 states are already moving bills thru their houses to make it a matter of state law to challenge the impact of the act upon their states, with Idaho being the first to sign it into law, Virginia passing it thru both a Democratic held House and Senate, and many others on the ballot in 2010.

Lastly, the 111th congress discounted the tenacity and veracity of the American people by passing this bill to begin with, but I do believe that this is just the opening bell of a very long fight. It was the American People that won our independence from an oppressive government in 1775, and I believe that it will the American people that will once again do the same in November of 2010. The American People will not be discounted and told what is best for them. Our way of life depends on freedom and liberty and to allow our "elected leaders" ignore our voices because "they know what is best for us, even if we don't" goes against our very nature. The tea party movements are gaining more ground on a hourly basis. People never involved in politics are now taking a stand and becoming engaged. Town hall meetings have turned in to little more than public lashings of elected officials. The American people will not stand idly by as a growing government seeks to confiscate their money, property, and liberty. We are sick of seeing our hard earned dollars being thrown to the feed the flames of an out of control Federal government that does not hold our interests at heart. They will hold their revolution, not by force of arms, but by force of vote come November 2010 and 2012. Now is the time to get involved in local races. If your state is one of the ones challenging the bill, then make your support known. Even as the bill makes it's way to President Obama's desk, ensure that your outrage is expressed to those that voted yes, while showing your support that heard your voice and voted appropriately.

The fight has just begun! November is just around the corner and we have a lot of work to do. It's easy to feel as though we have failed. It's easy to resign to the fact that our representatives do not listen, but it's important to remember that this is OUR country and that those in Washington work for US. For all those that chose not to listen and ignored our wishes on March 21st, 2010, you WILL hear our voices in November of 2010 when we tell you that you're services are no longer needed.

For those interested in the voting record, you can find the complete listing here: Final Vote Results - March 21st, 2010

An open letter to Tom Hanks: You sir, are an idiot!

2010-03-12T12:02:00.001-06:00

I first heard about the below when listening to the Mark Levin show on XM satellite radio. When I first heard the story, I was flabbergasted, even stunned. Could it be possible that Tom Hanks had let the leftist, moonbat culture of Hollywood infect his mind? Surely it couldn't be so!

So, upon hearing the story from Mark, I decided to go looking and sure enough, it was true. The story revolves around an interview that Tom Hanks did with Douglas Brinkley in Time magazine concerning his upcoming mini-series "The Pacific" detailing WWII.

Now let me start off by stating that I've always been a fan of Tom Hanks. Band of Brothers was one of the best movies I've ever seen. Saving Private Ryan ranks right up there as well. So how could a man who had made such great movies have said something so ignorant, so mind blowingly stupid, in a public interview?

The comment I'm talking about is the following:

Back in World War II, we viewed the Japanese as 'yellow, slant-eyed dogs' that believed in different gods. They were out to kill us because our way of living was different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different. Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what's going on today?"

Really Tom? Really? Are you that much of a brain dead twit that you actually believe the words that you just said?

Quick history lesson for you Tom, we did not fight the Japanese because we thought they were "yellow slant eyed dogs who believed in different gods", we entered the fight because they attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Japan went on a campaign to capture all of China, and in doing so, chose to side with Nazi Germany. America, due to interests in the East Asia and Japan's choice to side with genocidal Nazi Germany, extended financial aid to China and imposed an oil embargo against Japan. With Japan being poor in natural resources, the oil embargo threatened Japan's survival in the war. Couple that with America's imposing pacific fleet capable of enforcing the embargo, Japan was fearful of us. It was for these reasons that General Isoroku Yamamoto decided upon a preemptive attack against the US by striking the heart of the pacific fleet in Pearl Harbor.

On December 7th 1941, at 6:00 AM, the Japanese struck America. Caught completely off-guard, America, your country, suffered a loss of 188 aircraft destroyed, 159 damaged, 21 ships sunk or critically damaged, and most importantly, 2,403 Americans dead, with another 1,178 wounded. It was THIS attack that brought America fully into WWII. It was the deaths caused by the Japanese that united the American people and sealed our unwavering commitment to victory in WWII, not that we wished to annihilate anyone different from us.

So know that you know WHY we entered the war, let us not forget about the Nazi Germany death camps, of which the Japanese were allied. Let us not forget the Bataan Death March, in which the Japanese forcibly transferred 75,000 American and Filipino prisoners of war, of which an estimated 21,000 died by the brutal hands of the Japanese imperial army, an act that was later considered a war crime. Let us not forget about the stories of torture, suicidal missions, and mistreatment of all against the Japanese that happened during this war. Yet, you, in your infinite, uneducated wisdom, feel it necessary to state that we entered this war because "they had differing gods".

On August 6th and 9th, 1945, America dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. With Hiroshima being of prime military importance to the Japanese, HQ of the 2nd Army division which commanded the defense of all southern Japan, a prime communications center, storage point, and primary assembly area for dispatching of troops, the destruction of this city essentially ended WWII. While some may consider this a stain in history, it ended the most brutal war the world has ever known. It ended the tyranny and extreme disregard of life that was held by both the Japanese and Nazi Germany. It saved not only the untold number of American lives, but also the lives of our Allies, who would have continued to die at the hands of these countries had America not put an end to it.

Now to the rest of your comment, is there a semblance of familiarity between WWII and what is happening in the world today? Yes, I think there is, but not for the reasons you tried to portray.

Again, a history lesson in the war between extremist Muslims and America: April 1983, 17 killed at US embassy in Beirut. October 1983, 241 dead in attacks against US Marine barracks in Beirut. December 1983, 5 murdered at US embassy in Kuwait. January 194, President of the American University in Beirut murdered. April 1984, 18 dead near US airbase in Spain. September 1984, another 16 killed at Beirut US Embassy. December 1984, 2 killed on a plane hijacked to Tehran. August 1998, 224 dead at US embassies in Kenya & Tanzania. 17 soldiers killed on the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000. October 1999, 217 passengers killed on EgyptAir flight near NYC. 1982 - 1991, 30 hostages taken in Lebanon with Terry Anderson (one of your fellow citizens) held for 2,454 days. December 1988 270 killed in the bombing of Pan-Am 747 near Lockerbie Scotland. Lastly, September 11th, 2001 over 2,981 American citizens were murdered by 19 terroristic Islamic extremists, surpassing Pearl Harbor in death toll.

This is not even a complete listing of all of the attacks directed towards America by Islamic extremists. The 9/11 Commission Report stated that America had been at war for sometime, so the attacks of 9/11, while shocking, should not have been surprising. If you wish to know more about the attacks against YOUR country, maybe you should direct your "reading frenzy" to the commission report I linked above.

So yes, you are correct. There are people that are targeting, killing, and murdering people because they are different and do not follow the same beliefs; however, those people are not Americans, but Muslim extremists. We are now in a war, entered into because of unprovoked attacks against our country, not the other way around. Finally, America has awoken to the threat to it's safety by a murderous regime and has stepped up to protect its citizens, much like what happened in 1941. It should be noted though, that the reasons for finally entering that war are ones of safety, not because a group of people "worship different gods". Our country stood by long enough, and we lost too many of our brethren, before we took that stand.

So now that you have been properly educated, I wish to tell you that you are a blithering moron not worthy of your status as a star. I am amazed by the ability of the America hating, liberal cesspool that is Hollywood to affect all that enter. To me, you now join the ranks of others such as Janeane Garofalo, Jane Fonda, Michael Moore, and Barbara Streisand. You are undeserving of my time, my money, or my respect. You are an actor, nothing more. You should be ashamed of the fact that the very people that you speak out against are the ones that make your stardom possible. You should be ashamed of yourself. The soldiers that fought in WWII, and now in the Middle East, give their lives so that you may have the right to spew such moronic, biased drivel. Rather than discounting their sacrifices, I suggest you drop to your knees and thank them for their loyalty to this country and your safety and beg their forgiveness.

More with the recalls. What is the truth?

2010-02-19T14:09:00.001-06:00

Again, the Democratic led Congress is pushing for more sanctions and financial penalties against Toyota due to "it's safety issues forcing the recall of millions of vehicles".

The worst thing to ever happen to Toyota, the government take over of GM and the US auto industry. As reported earlier this month, recalls are nothing new. The only recall that had any semblance of "outrage" that the Toyota recall has witnessed was the Firestone tire recall several years ago, but that was before Obama and his administration decided that Capital Hill should be a player in auto manufacturing!!

I warned you! I told you that the government would start blasting it's competitors in the industry, but few would believe. "Recalls don't happen that often. No previous recalls have been this extensive. This is proof that Japanese manufacturing process aren't as good as the US". These are just a few of the comments that have been made to me.

It's sad, but maybe it's time to get some education. Recall's happen all the time. There are thousands every year. The only difference here; now we have companies trying to compete with an oversized, out of control government. Wise up!!!

http://www.automotivedigest.com/content/displayArticle.aspx?a=55762

Auto Recalls At A Glance

** Note, these are only the major safety recalls. It is not inclusive of all safety recalls during this time frame.

- Jan. 26: Japan's Toyota Motor Corp. suspends U.S. sales of eight recalled car and truck models, including the best-selling Camry sedan. The aim is to fix gas pedals that can stick and cause unintended acceleration. Toyota says it's unaware of any accidents or injuries due to the pedal problems, but cannot rule them out. The automaker also says it will halt production of the models at six North American assembly plants beginning the first week of February.

- Jan. 21: Toyota announces U.S. recall of 2.3 million vehicles to fix faulty accelerator pedals, its second large recall in four months in the United States.

- Oct 13, 2009: Ford Motor Co. adds 4.5 million older-model vehicles to a long list of those recalled due to a defective cruise control switch that can cause fires, pushing Ford's total recall due to faulty switches to 14.3 million. The series of recalls, which began in 1999, becomes the largest cumulative recall in U.S. history. There were more than 1,100 reports of fires from the switches in the U.S. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says there have been no confirmed deaths or injuries, but lawsuits have been filed over three deaths allegedly connected to vehicle fires.

- Sept. 29, 2009: Toyota recalls 3.8 million U.S. vehicles to address problems with a removable floor mat that could interfere with the vehicle's accelerator and cause a crash. The recall, which on Nov. 25 is expanded to 4.3 million vehicles, is the largest in its history. Owners are advised to take out the floor mats on the driver's side and not replace them. The government attributes at least five deaths and two injuries to accidents in which the gas pedal may have become trapped under the floor mat, causing sudden acceleration.

- Oct. 2005: Bridgestone Firestone North American Tire agrees to pay $240 million to Ford Motor Co. to settle claims related to the tire maker's 2000 recall of defective tires and the 2001 tire-replacement program.

- Aug. 2000: Bridgestone Firestone recalls 6.5 million tires. At least 271 people are reported killed and hundreds more injured in accidents involving Firestone ATX and AT tires, which were widely used on Ford Explorers. Safety officials discover tires were prone to losing their tread, causing rollovers. Bridgestone Firestone spends more than $10 million advertising the 2001 recall and sent 2 million recall letters in 2003 to owners under a class-action settlement. Ford separately recalls more than 10 million tires, and the crisis leads to congressional hearings and the passage of the federal TREAD Act in 2000 to spot safety defects earlier.

- March 2004: General Motors recalls 4 million 2000-2004 pickups worldwide because their tailgates can break without warning. The culprit: common cables that hold the trucks' tailgates in place can corrode or fracture. GM officials say they received reports of 134 injuries related to the cables.

- March 1996: Ford recalls more than 8 million 1988-1993 cars to replace defective ignition switches in what was the largest single U.S. recall at the time. The switches can produce electrical shorts, causing engine misfires that led to stalling, as well as and brake and steering failures. The problem is implicated in hundreds of vehicle fires, and as many as 11 deaths and 31 injuries. Ford faces multiple lawsuits

- May 1995: Eleven manufacturers recall 8.9 million vehicles sold from 1986 through 1991 for Japanese-made seat belt defects, because of concerns the buckles sometimes jam or fail to latch or unlatch. NHTSA, which has been investigating the belts for nine months, says it received hundreds of complaints related to the belts, including some 90 injury reports. There are no reports of fatalities linked to the belts.

- April 1993: NHTSA asks General Motors to recall 4.7 million 1973-1987 full-size pickup trucks with side-mounted fuel tanks.

- Sept. 1987: Ford recalls 4.3 million 1986-1988 model cars, trucks and vans, including some of its most popular models. Ford says the recall follows 222 reports of engine fires caused by a failure of couplings used to connect fuel lines, which caused eight injuries.

- Feb. 1981: GM recalls 5.8 million 1978-1981 cars and light trucks for replacement of two bolts which could fail and send the vehicles out of control. The automaker says it had received reports of 27 accidents that resulted in 22 injuries, none of them serious.

- 1980: The U.S. government allows Ford to mail warning labels to owners of more than 20 million 1970-1980 cars and light trucks with automatic transmissions that can slip into reverse, thus avoiding the largest safety recall in automotive history. The dashboard stickers advise drivers not to leave the vehicle with the engine running, to use the parking brake and to make sure the transmission has been placed in park. However, NHTSA considers the warnings a recall. NHTSA finds that slipping transmissions caused 6,000 accidents resulting in 1,710 injuries and 98 deaths.

- 1973: GM recalls 3.7 million models of 1971-1972 cars due to engine shield problem that could cause stones to lodge in the steering mechanism.

- 1972: Ford recalls more than 4 million 1970-1971 models because the shoulder seat belts could break free of the buckle.

- 1971: GM recalls 6.7 million 1965-1969 various model Chevrolets, to fix faulty engine mounts.

Mr. President - Please step out of the spot light!

2010-02-10T15:48:00.001-06:00

Yet again today, I see President Obama giving another news conference on the state of the health care debate and using it as an opportunity to admonish the Republican side of Congress for being the "No" party. Upon see this, it turned out to be all I could handle and I finally snapped. Screaming at the TV, frightening the dog, and sending the cats running, I, in no uncertain terms, asked the President to please shut up in my own characteristic way.

Seriously Mr. President, you get more media coverage than a Brittany Spears crotch shot! When, oh when, will you give the TelePrompTer a break and take a step out of the media lime light? We don't want to see your face every time we turn on the TV, nor do we want you using your characteristic phrases of "Let me be clear" or "Maybe I'm not fully explaining my position". WE GOT IT!!! We know what you meant and we know your intentions. No matter how many times you get on TV, you will not change the public view.

According to the CBS News organization, (hardly an Obama hating news front), you have only spent 21 days of your first year in which you didn't give a public, or press, appearance. 21 days out of 365 that you weren't directly in the public eye! Even YOU have to admit that may be a bit too much to handle.

In your first year, you've given 42 news conferences and 158 interviews, which is more than twice that of your predecessors combined. Of those, you've used your beloved TelePrompTer a total of 178 times (177 1/2 if you take into account, that during your July 13th speech, one of them broke). Is it simply impossible for you to give a speech without their aid? Yet, ironic that your press secretary made fun of Sarah Palin for making notes on her hand considering the previous fact isn't it? You've attended 28 political fund raisers (compared to GWB's 6) and 7 campaign rallies, all of which garnished media attention. Of the 124 bills you've signed, you saw fit to ensure that 13 of them were public ceremonies. Don't you think that your time as President would be better spent "presiding" rather than getting a spotlight tan?

Worst of all, in the large majority of these appearances, you've given the American people nothing new. You continue down the same path of "Let me be clear", when it's abundantly clear that the people understand you. You make no announcements of direction changes, of policy shifts, of any indication that you have heard the people and what they are trying to tell you. You seem to believe that if you spend enough time invading our personal lives, that maybe we'll change our minds.

We won't! We do not want what you are offering. We are growing tired of seeing you every time we turn on the TV. We can't open a news paper without seeing a story of you on the front page. In fact, the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University states that number of stories regarding you appearing on the front page thru August 2009 equals 119,678 column inches or 9,973 column feet. It's too damn much!

Of late, most of your appearances have been used to blame the Republicans for standing in the way of a health care plan that the people do not want! You use phrases such as them being the "No party", that "Just saying no is not leading", and blaming the election of Scott Brown as a Republican effort to thwart your health care takeover. In fact, that statement is what prompted my outrage. I take you to be an educated man, in fact, the media has crammed that idea down my throat since you took office. If that is true, then please tell me how you cannot see that the people are speaking and the Republicans ARE the ones that are listening and leading!? Scott Brown ran on a promise to stop your health care plan and IT GOT HIM ELECTED! How can you miss such a loud and resounding statement? You admonish the Republicans for "just saying no", but that is exactly what the people want them to do with respect to health care, cap and trade, and frankly, most of your policies. It amazes me that you can be so tone deaf to the American people to not see that you are traveling the wrong way with regards to public opinion.

Look, it's simple. We do not want a media celebrity for our president, we want someone to lead. We do not want a President that spends his days with public appearances full of broken promises, explanations for failure, condemnations of news outlets that disagree with him, or false accusations towards the opposing party, but instead someone who spends his time affecting change and making this country a better place. You have made it clear that you are unable and unqualified for this job, so please do us, and yourself, a favor and quit wasting our time with your appearances.

Maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time reading your TelePrompTer and giving interviews about how your policies are just misunderstood, but instead actually spent time listening to the people who elected you, you might just get the point. Forgive me if I don't hold my breath waiting, cause as I sit here writing this, guess who is on TV again.

Toyota: In the eye of the Socialist storm

2010-02-10T10:15:00.001-06:00

We've all heard about the "safety problems" surrounding the Japanese auto maker here of late. The reports of sticking accelerator pedals and possible malfunctioning brakes have caused a media frenzy and it seems that everyone feels the need to weigh in. Even the Secretary of Transportation Frank LaHood cautioned the American public that they "Should stop driving Toyota's immediately, until such time that they could be repaired", therein sparking a nationwide panic.

So my question to you is, why is this such a big deal? Out of 1.8M cars, there were 52 complaints of of Sudden Unintended Acceleration (SUA) regarding Toyota vehicles. It should also be noted, that both GM and Chrysler were also blamed for SUA complaints and accidents, however, only Toyota issued a recall and is undergoing the scrutiny of the Fed. Why could that be?

Admittedly, Toyota had more complaints than any other manufacturer, but the same gas pedals being noted as fault here, were also supplied by the same vendor to the other auto companies. Seems strange that only Toyota would be called out and so quickly critiqued for a problem that seems to wash over many. The real pain point is a report of a San Diego family that was unfortunately killed in a Lexus SUV due to SUA. While the rumors that it was a stuck gas pedal helped fuel this controversy, it should be noted that the real cause of this horrendous accident are still under investigation and the cause is not known.

So being a responsible auto manufacturer, Toyota has recalled over 2M cars, a much wider net than required, and has shut down it's US plants and stopped selling 9 of it's most popular models until all issues are rectified, an action which is expected to cost the company $2.5B per month. In addition, Congress has now announced that it will begin congressional safety hearings and investigations, while also considering civil suits against the manufacturer, which will surely be a huge boon to the plaintiff's bar, a huge Obama administration ally.

Let us not forget that Toyota has built a reputation on building safe cars. That 3/4's of all the models in their line up receive 5 star crash ratings on both side and front impacts. So again, I ask you why? Why is this case so public and why does it demand so much attention from the Fed? Mistakes happen with complex machinery, as it has happened to millions of cars from all makers. Toyota is taking the steps, at great financial burden to itself, to fix the issue, so why?

Need I remind you that, with the federal takeover of GM, Toyota is a direct competitor to GM and by proxy, the US government? Do not forget that Toyota is Union-Free shop, whose workers choose year in and year out not to become union affiliated. That the government take over of GM was a joint venture between the Fed and the UAW (United Auto Workers) union and that the UAW is huge lobbying force for the current administration?

What we are seeing here today is the perfect socialist storm. This is proof positive of how markets will react when the government is considered an "owner" and backer of certain industries. Surely no one can doubt that all the troubles plaguing Toyota now will be of great importance to GM. Better yet, the Fed is in the perfect position to help foster this paranoia via government agents (Frank LaHood?) making declarations of the disastrous outcomes of merely driving these vehicles. We have the beginnings of the Fed being able to legislate competitors out of the market via the use of congressional hearings, new "safety" regulations, and penalties that will be difficult for any manufacturer, save the government owned one, to comply by. Lastly, what better way to push the ideal that union shops are better, when all this public outcry is pointed squarely at a non-union shop (but ignoring that the same issues exist on union made cars).

I've said it once, and I'll say it again, that no industry can compete against a government that controls the ability to regulate and legislate in a manner that supports and benefits government owned entity. The federal government has seized onto a prime opportunity to further it's socialist agenda by pointing to a incident as proof that "we are better off when the government looks out for us". It's crap and it makes me sick to see this happen. Toyota is a good company and it is doing the right thing by casting such a huge umbrella to ensure it catches the issue, an issue who's cause is not fully known and still under investigation. What comes next? Government mandates that UAW members do safety checks, thus paving the way to require unionization in the plant? The passage of specific penalties and laws aimed solely at one of the main competitors to the Federal auto industry in an effort to run Toyota out of the market? Targeting the next manufacturer (BMW, Mazda) should they ever have to recall a vehicle, like all manufacturers do?

The fed has no place in this matter. Had Toyota not performed the voluntary recall, had negligent fault been found, had Toyota chosen to ignore the problem, then yes; however this isn't the case. The government is on a witch hunt to further it's socialistic principals and push for more control of the industry. Don't fall victim to the false statements and hysteria being expelled by our government. Realize that this is nothing more than yet another power grab by an out of control government.

E-Verify - Is it the solution to our immigration problems?

2010-02-01T12:01:00.001-06:00

There is no question that illegal immigration is a growing problem within our country today. We currently have hundred's of thousands coming across our borders every day and that number just seems to keep growing.

So what is the answer? Many are putting their faith in the E-Verify system that uses several governmental databases, most notably the Social Security Administration, to verify the employment status of potential workers. While it sounds like a good idea, I must be honest and state, I've divided on it's legitimacy as a viable option.

My first, and most concerning point, is that this system puts the responsibility of detecting illegal workers on the shoulders of businesses within America, turning them into bona-facto immigration officers. In my opinion, the Federal Government has failed in one of it's main constitutional duties, which is to "provide for the common defense" as dictated in the preamble. Additionally, Article 4, Section 4 of the US Constitution clearly lays out the enumerated power of national defense by stating:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;

However, it's clear to see that our border states are seeing an "invasion" of illegal immigrants that are cause to a clear and present danger to our economy and national sovereignty, yet the government's reaction and response has been severely lacking. With the Federal Government failing in their role to prevent this invasion, E-verify appears to be a method in which to offset this responsibility to the American private enterprise.

Rednex Note: To be clear, I'm not speaking specifically of those of Mexican decent here, but of all illegal immigration which happens across our southern [and northern] borders.

It's easy to see why the Democrats seek to end the E-verify program, as the increase in illegal immigrations adds to the pool of "zero-liability voters", who will most likely vote for the party as it pushes for increasing social welfare and entitlement programs. Likewise, I see the Republican side as a method to help reduce the burden this invasion causes on our nation and it's citizen. However, I think it seeks to cloud the true failure, which as I stated, is for the Federal government to perform it's enumerated duty of border protection and national defense as assigned by our Founders. So to that end, I am automatically suspect of it's viability.

Secondly, I'm very concerned about the growth of power and scope of this program as it continues. A foreseeable next step to this program would be the institution of a national ID program that could include things such as job, medical, and tax information, biometric recognition, and RFID chips to track movements and whereabouts. I could see the combination of the National ID and the inclusion of the Social Security Administrations (SSA) database, being used as a method to track and control an American public. In fact, the previous Dept. of Homeland Security director (DHS), Michael Chertoff, even made comment that he believed that the the SSA should be moved under his control. If this were to happen, what checks would be put in place to prevent the system from becoming one of governmental overbearance to control and track the populace?

Adding to this, what are the possible implications to an increase in identity theft crimes? If we start making the information of the SSA the cement for the ability to work, would we not raise the profitability for criminal organizations to begin the counterfeiting of such information? It's been noted that false documentation is already a mainstay of criminal enterprise, so what checks do we have in place to prevent an increase in fraud with this program? It's my understanding that the system currently just does a check against name and social security number. Therefore, in order to pass validation under e-verify, one would simply need to provide an existing name/number combination. Social security cards aren't the most difficult of documents to falsify. How many of you out there know where your card is now? So, how does this system truly intend to prevent the spread of illegal workers and rise of identity crimes?

I think the real answer here is to allow the states, and their governors as they are closest to the issue, to help the federal government to address the underlying "security" issue. First and foremost, allow state and local municipalities to provide for the deportation of illegal immigrants encountered during their duties. If arrested for any offense, driving infractions, criminal, etc, and found to not be legal, they should be processed for deportation. Secondly, provide an mechanism of reporting of illegal/suspect peoples wishing to utilize public services, such as hospitals, motor vehicle driver licenses, etc. At some point, everyone requires the use of these services and it should be required to validate citizenship for eligibility to these services. Should an illegal/suspect be found, only the care immediately required to the preservation of life administered (in the case of medical services). After that, a method of deportation to originating state be provided. Lastly, a reaffirmation of the point that the duty of border protection and national defense falls to the Federal government. Our representatives need to stop the cowardly stance that speaking out on immigration reform will cost them votes in the next election. Many blame the last election loss for the Republicans on the fact that they alienated the Latino vote by speaking out on immigration reform. Several key party members have stated that, in order for the party to survive, that they must be open and accepting of the illegal's place in America. Personally, I think this is a cop out and sacrifice of American safety. The republicans wouldn't be worried about the loss of votes had the immigration problem not grown to the epidemic it is now. The more that cross the border and depend on government entitlements for survival, the more votes gained by the Left regardless. It's time to stand and defend the security of our borders.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the E-verify program should be dismissed [yet]. Currently, it is one of the best ways to combat this growing issue, however, as stated, I have concerns regarding the program. I think it needs more investigation and control at the state level. In addition, I think it's presence is detracting from the real issue, which is one of Washington's failures in this area. If illegal workers can cross our borders so easily, then what is the net being used to prevent terrorist, and those wishing us harm, from crossing at the same route. With each day, this issue becomes more critical, either from a pure safety stance or from the harm that illegal aliens impose on our economy. It's vital that our country secure our borders for both our preservation of liberty and security. I have no problem with people seeking to come to America, it is the greatest nation in history, but in order to do so, they must abide by the legal process or be sent back.

Being divided on the issue, I'm open to comments and opinions, so feel free to post them below. I would love to hear anyone's take on this.

The Rednex Response to the State of the Union

2010-01-29T11:38:00.001-06:00

All I can say is that I would need to be a professional blogger to comment on all the statements, opinions, and rhetoric that I heard during this speech. Literally, 15 minutes into the speech and I already have a page and half of notes for things I feel I should comment on. By the 30 minute marker, I had abandoned all hope of being able to cover the speech with any semblance of granularity and decided to just cover the topics I felt most important.

First off, let me state, that was one hell of a campaign speech Mr. President, but gave us little information pertaining to the real State of the Union. I liked the ideals of job creation, restoring the economy, establishing improved benefits for current and returning soldiers, and the overall tone of “America First”; however, the speech left me with more questions than when you started, as most campaign speeches do. The biggest question being, HOW??

To recover funds distributed during the bank bailout, you propose a fee on the biggest banks to recoup the remaining monies outstanding, but what will that fee amount to? In addition, you mock the banks stating:

If these firms can afford to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need.

However, have you forgotten the pay increases that have went to government bodies within the last year. Why not focus on decreasing the increases, upwards of 541%, that have occurred within capital hill during your one year in office? Do you not remember, that it wasn’t at the will of the people that the banks were rescued, but via an unpopular policy expansion decision by your administration. You berate the banks by stating,

“We can't allow financial institutions, including those that take your deposits, to take risks that threaten the whole economy”

but it must be a short memory that allows you to forget that it was the Democratic policy, pushed by Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and others, that forced the banks to make those risky decisions. Thru the Community Reinvestment Act, banks were forced to loosen credit criteria and make loans to people unqualified, and ill prepared, to handle such loans. Banks were further encouraged by Fannie May and Freddie Mac to participate in these subprime loans by increasing the scope of these “flexible” credit standards in which these government entities would guarantee. In addition, you talk of using the $30B repaid by banks from the bailout to invest in community banks. How will that money be invested and doled out? What steps will be taken to ensure that the money given to the smaller banks will not be used in the same, fraudulent manner that the large banks used those funds? What steps taken to ensure that the funds are split equally and not just to community banks in areas supportive of you?

You talk of job creation, you pat yourself on the back for the “amount of tax cuts you have enacted”, you even point out the Republican side for not applauding you for those tax cuts. The reason they did not clap is due to the fact that the policies you wish to enact will increase taxes on most American Families. They did not refuse to clap out of spite, but because they knew that you are misleading in your statements. Again, with this knowledge, how do you propose to create jobs? You talk of the millions of jobs saved, but is that number before or after the counting of jobs in ghost districts that do not exist, or the double counting of jobs for people that worked temporarily only to be displaced within weeks? With policies proposed like cap and trade, the health care bill, and others that will, by the CBO’s accounts, raise taxes and further hurt the American family, by what method will this reverse the double digit unemployment that plagues us now? The same unemployment rate the stimulus bill was to keep under 8% if enacted immediately? How is your new, proposed “job bill” going to succeed when your first attempt was an adjunct failure?

You talk of building trust with the American voter again thru transparency and accountability. Again I ask you, how? Will it be via more broken promises to ensure that the health care debate will be publicized on C-SPAN, but instead spent the majority of time in back rooms closed to the public resulting with shady deals to buy votes, such as the Cornhusker compromise or the Louisiana Purchase? Will it be via your promise that the Economic Recovery act will be removed of earmarks and pork barrel spending, but actually resulted in billions to pet projects and activities that had little to no impact on the recovery of our economy? How then Mr. President, do you plan on rebuilding the trust? How do you tout accountability, when Congress has complained that they have no idea to where stimulus or TARP funds are being distributed? How can you restore accountability when TARP funds were not used to buy up toxic assets, as promised to the American people, but instead used to buy stock and pave the way for a government take over of the banking system?

You ask for bipartisan support in congress, but in a direct rebuke to the Republican leadership, you stated:

Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it's not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions.

This sounds great in a campaign speech, but it seems that you are the one that needs to be reminded that you were elected to serve the citizens. You have ignored the voice of the people since you were elected. You proceeded with the bank bailouts, even though you state that you hated it. You proceeded with the auto bailout, even when the citizens protested. You push forward with cap and trade, despite the fact that it will raise energy prices and taxes on American families. You gloss over the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts, who ran on a promise to defeat the health care bill that you continue to try and ram down our throats, as a sign that people were angry at George Bush. Regarding health care, your own leader, Nancy Pelosi, stated after your address:

If the gate is open, we will go thru it. If the gate is closed, we will climb the wall. If the wall is too high, we will pole vault over it. If we can’t jump high enough, we will parachute behind it. We will get healthcare passed for the American people.

Her statement is a slap in the face to the American voter who has shown via polls, tea party movements, and the election of Scott Brown that they do not want this health care bill passed. So my question is how will you foster this bipartisanship that you request? Will you finally see that the Republicans aren’t just saying no to Democratic policies, but instead following the dictates of the people. When will you realize that Americans do not want this healthcare? When will you allow the Republicans to bring their viable, patient oriented ideas to the table and stop this government take over of our health care system,? You asked, “If anyone has a better idea, let me know”, but yet you’ve dismissed the Republican party to the sidelines and ignored their proposals of better ideas. When will the government get out of our banking, auto, and energy industries? With all of your talk of “I will”, “I came”, “My administration”, “My goals”, “My direction”, you forget the most basic of principals, which is there is no “I” in “Teamwork”, Mr.. President. When will you lead by example and begin to listen to the American people?

You stand before Congress and the American people and preach about the evils of the gridlock within our political system. You defiantly declare that you came to Washington to change the way our political process works. My question to you is how? Need I remind you that you had complete control of Congress for the last year? That with proper leadership, you could have enacted any change you so wished, but instead, we just received more of the same. The same back room deals, the buying of votes, and the expansion of big government. Even with “the largest majority in history”, your party has defied your promises and made you look like a fool. So how will you change the gridlock that is paralyzing our political process when you are unable to even control your own party? You cannot place the blame on the Republicans because, as stated, your party held unprecedented control.

You speak of campaign reform, admonishing the Supreme Court for “reversing a century of law that you believed would open the floodgates of special interest, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections”. A admonishment to which Justice Alito responded by mouthing “Not true”. Not a Joe Wilson moment, but I wish it would have been. You lied Mr. President. You stood before your people, and your country, and lied. Even as you stand there and lecture our Supreme Court, you forget the amount of foreign aid that was funneled into your campaign financing. You forget the investigations that showed the Nigerian man, who within his own border, raised over “$900,000” for you, the infamous “Mr. Doodad” that was also illegally contributed to your campaign, or the other $3.38M in questionable contributions that your agency refuses to reveal. So again Mr. President, how do you plan to reform when the very practices you preach against helped finance your way into office? How can the American voter believe you when you stand before us and lie to place the blame on the Supreme Court for something you took part in and was partially responsible for your election?

You speak of your desire to enhance the security of this country. While I like your ideas regarding the increasing of care and support for our returning and active veterans, I worry that your promises are empty based on your efforts so far. When you take actions, such as the cancelling the development of the next air superiority fighter jet, I worry if you honestly have the security of this nation, and it’s soldiers, in mind. You speak of your will to crack down on terrorists, but again I ask how? You all but ignored your commanding general in Afghanistan in his pleas for more troops, else “We risk defeat” for months, then only giving him a fraction of his ask. You bring terrorists within our borders for trial, rather than putting them before military tribunals as appropriate. You grant terrorists Miranda rights, affording them the same rights of the citizens they wished to harm, thereby increasing risk that they may go unpunished. You place blame on our military system, declaring to the world that the US tortures it’s detainee’s, when it’s been proven over and over again that this is yet another lie. So how can the people trust that our national defense lies at the top of your priority list, when your past year has shown evidence to the contrary?

Lastly, you condemn both sides of the aisle, by stating:

Sadly, some of the unity we felt after 9/11 has dissipated. We can argue all we want about who's to blame for this, but I'm not interested in re-litigating the past.

Issuing a call upon this statement, to again work on repairing the “trust deficit” that the American people have with our government. Again, I ask you how? You have defined your first term in office by re-litigating the past, as you put it. Even this speech itself, was bloated with condemnation and blame placed upon the prior administration. You take no responsibility for your own actions, but instead, push the fault on to those before you. You accuse the past President for the overwhelming deficit over his 8 year term, but make no mention how your administration quadrupled that deficit within one year. You posture that Bush was responsible for the housing bubble, but ignore the fact that it was the policies of your own party, against the advice of Bush’s administration, that were the cause. So while eloquent, your statements drip with hypocrisy when every day you place the blame for failure on everyone but yourself. The American people are tired of the excuses. We’ve grown weary of your blame without personal responsibility for your policies. You were elected under promises of change, but your personal agenda of socialism is not the change that people want.

Maybe the best recourse would be for you to sit and truly listen to your own words, rather than just reading them off a teleprompter. It’s time to stop with the rhetoric and begin with action. Take control of you party, stop the lying, and start listening to the American people. It’s time become the leader you were elected to be and follow the promises you made. You are one year into your Presidency, so time to stop placing the blame on the past and realize that your destiny is now in your hands alone. Your campaign slogan has lost all meaning President Obama. You are no longer “Change we can believe in”, but instead “Change we fear”. You have only three years to reverse the damage done. It’s time to stop preaching to those in Congress and for you to step up as our President. Only you can determine how history will remember you. If this speech serves as foreshadowing, you will be remembered as the President big on campaign promises, but lacking in actions.

The Definition of Marriage and it's place in Legislation

2010-01-27T15:30:00.001-06:00

The debate surrounding the definition of marriage and how it pertains to the gay rights movement has been steadily growing for years. The latest volley reported by Fox News, Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis), an openly gay lawmaker, has sponsored legislation that would allow for gay partners of Federal employees to have access to the same benefits as married spouses, to include survivor annuities, health insurance, and travel & relocation benefits to name a few. President Obama has expressed his support for this measure, with the Senate Homeland Security and Gov't Affairs Committee voting on Dec. 16th to forward the bill for full vote.

Addressing this issue, we need to break the argument into two distinct, but related, parts: The definition of marriage and the assignment of benefits based on that definition.

First hurdle is the definition of marriage and how that pertains to government and legislation. We must understand that marriage is not a public, nor declared, institution; it is a religious one. Marriage has existed long before the creation of the US Government and therefore we have to look at how a such an institution would be included in government recourse.

That said, most all religions in the world define marriage with different variations among all of them. Some allow for the taking of more than one wife, some dictate that the union should outlast life, etc. For the Judeo-Christian ideal, marriage is defined as the union between a man and woman with a life long commitment as a covenant before God.

Rednex Note: The actual definition is much more involved than listed above. Rather than listing all scripture, I condensed for the sake of length of article.

So with this definition, what bearing does it have on the current national debates. The answer is very simple, it has no bearing what so ever. I know that answer will surprise many, so let me explain. As stated above, marriage is religious institution, not one of the state. As the United States was built on Judeo-Christian values, it's very easy to see how the ideals could percolate up thru our governing system and be seen as state institutions, but to believe so would be inaccurate. In fact, the First amendment provides for a separation of Church and State :

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

1st Amendment, Bill of Rights

Now, the purpose of this amendment is provide a separation of church and state, not a exclusion of religion and state. Meaning, the intent of this amendment was to prevent the government from the forcing of one religious ideal (national religion) onto the citizens, but it doesn't provide for a freedom FROM religion, but that's subject for another rant. In the matter of marriage, for the Federal government to define marriage, it would be in direct contradiction to the First amendment based on it being a religious institution. Likewise, Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District vs Grumet, upheld that the First Amendment upheld a restriction on the state level to do the same. Thusly, based on the above, the Government (Fed or State) has no power to define the act of marriage or it's conditions.

Now comes the second part of the argument, while the Government does not have the power to define, they DO have to power to regulate benefits based on the institution, such as the awarding of property after death, parental transfer rights, etc. However, no where in the Constitution is Congress granted the power to determine such awards. If not explicitly granted in the Constitution, then the 10th amendment comes into play which states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

10th Amendment, Bill of Rights

The 10th amendment allows two very important fundamentals within our Federal structure: A check and balance against the power of an overbearing government by placing power in the hands of the States and the allowance for the act of social experimentation within the states.

The idea of state's being the incubators for social experimentation was proposed by Ben Franklin and in my belief, one of the most far reaching, future insights by our founding fathers. By preserving the power to the states, we allow for a "test" mechanism that allows for the state to determine and set policy without affecting the citizenship of the nation as a whole. As an example of action, look to the differences between California and Texas in terms of electrical policy. While Texas is moving towards a system of deregulation and less state control, California moved in the direction of strict regulation, price setting, and control. As a result, we have seen California suffer in the terms of it's policy decisions, while electricity has become cheaper and more accessible within Texas. This has lead to other states starting to follow the Texas model, providing for a better policy direction for the nation as a whole.

The same type of social experimentation should be performed in the arena of same sex partner benefits. Let the states most passionate about it (California, New England States, etc) enact the policies allowing for the inclusion of same sex partners. If the idea proves beneficial, their populations will grow, their economies flourish, and other states will follow suit for fear of losing constituents. Likewise, should the policies fail, then only the states participating will be hurt, leaving others virtually unaffected. In the end, it will be the people that decide and set the direction, not a subset within governmental control

As for the matter of Federal benefits, it's my personal belief that the taxpayer should not be responsible for paying for benefits for anyone other than the person hired, regardless of straight, married, single, gay. The Fed hired a person, not that person's wife, kids, or partner. If a federal employee wishes to have their family covered under the same benefits, then they should be required to pay the differential for inclusion. Using this method, the matter of relationship would hold no consequence. As a federal employee, I could cover my neighbor under my benefits during hard times, should I wish to fund the effort. In this case, sexuality or the acceptance of martial status, becomes moot, saves the taxpayers money, and puts all on a level playing field. Now many would state that they would be unable, or unwilling, to pay this offset, but this is a much bigger discussion. Should we move this direction, the total expenditure of the fed would come down, so should taxes. In addition, we also restart the health care debate and impacts on citizens, best saved for another time. If unwilling to pay the differential, then the employee should find employment within an enterprise that provides more in line with their needs, rather than relying on the taxpayer to front that cost.

In summary, the idea of marriage belongs where it first evolved, within the religious context. As such, it's definition has no place, or relevance, within governmental debate. As for the assignment of benefits, that is a matter left to the states for decision, since, constitutionally, the Fed has no power to interject itself. Lastly, you will notice I made no mention of private enterprise here. Private enterprise should be left to do what ever it feels necessary to attract and maintain the people required for it to succeed. Should they wish to provide, or deny, benefits to same sex couples, they have only to answer to their bottom line and personnel turnover rates. Should they reside in a state that wishes to legislate such measure, then it would be up to the company to decide to comply or move to a state in line with their policy belief, leading to the free market argument made above. Again, the proposal of social experimentation, free market, and competition would be the decider of policy, not the moral stance of government stepping outside it's limitations.

The Second Amendment and the meaning of Militia

2010-01-26T10:29:00.001-06:00

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Never in history have 27 words sparked so much debate and controversy. What is the true meaning of these words? What did the framers have in mind when they made this the 2nd amendment of the constitution? While all will agree that the basis of this amendment is to provide the right for American people to keep and bear arms, the phrase "well regulated militia" has put into play the question of exactly "which" Americans should have that right.

Personally, I am a strict Constitutionalist. I believe that our Founding Fathers were men far beyond their time when it came to the establishment of history's most successful and free government, therefore, we should strictly adhere to their words with little to no interpretation. However, I also realize that none of the Founding Fathers are alive today to tell of their intent, so some interpretation must be made.

Gun control advocates surmise that the words "well regulated militia" intends to limit gun rights to only those that are actively participate in state militia's, meaning military groups raised and controlled by the states. Gun control opponents however, contend that the phrase is meant in a general sense, applying to all "able bodied people".

To fully understand, I think we have to look at the timing and purpose of two of this country's most important documents: The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The US Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, and laid the foundation for the legal authority for the existence of the United States of America, as well as, establishing the framework defining the relationship between the federal government, the states, and it's citizens. The Bill of Rights, or the first 10 amendments, was proposed by James Madison and went into effect four years later on December 15, 1791, as an answer to state concerns that threatened the ratification of the US Constitution due to a belief that the Constitution failed to safe guard the basic principals of human liberty.

That being said, the 2nd amendment was meant to amend the constitution so as to protect a liberty sought after by the states. The exact provision(s) of the constitution that were to be amended were as follows:

The powers of Congress:

To provide for the calling forth the milita to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel Invasions

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15

To provide for the organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16

The powers of the President:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1

So what about these provisions so offended the states that an amendment was needed to allow for ratification? Well, we have to look at history to fully understand. We, as a Country, were just coming out of the Revolutionary war. The term "militia" during this time, meant the same as it did within the text of the constitution, which was a group of trained citizen soldiers under the control of the government (king), to be used in times when a standing army was not present. If you read the words of the constitution, the founders had the same meaning here. In addition, we must remember that Cornwallis used the meaning to disarm the citizens, by stating that a militia was not necessary as the British Army was present for the defense of the states. Had American citizens relinquished their arms as mandated by Cornwallis and not fought, the Revolutionary war may have ended very differently. The states were very aware of this fact and wished to prevent a second coming of this denial of liberty. It was a belief that armed citizens WERE the method by which to regulate a specialized militia.

Take for example, our current National Guard. Many gun control advocates point to this as the example of the "well regulated militia" that the founders had in mind when drafting the amendment. However, we must remember that the National Guard is an arm of the Federal Government which may be utilized by states when needed. The National Guard is under the control and influence of the Federal Government, as prescribed by the above listed articles of the Constitution. How can a people be expected to use the militia as a method of defense against a tyrannical government if that militia is within the power of the Government? It cannot, which was the purpose of the 2nd amendment to these provisions!

You must also look at the wording of "the right of the people" shall not be infringed. Through out the constitution, the usage of "The People" was meant to convey a general understanding of all citizens of the United States. The preamble begins with "We the People", and surely no one believes that the founders were only speaking for a specific group of citizenship, but instead were referencing all. In fact, most of all amendments of the bill of rights use this verbiage to make general reference to all citizens. Why would anyone try to interpret this phrase differently in the 2nd amendment, than they would in the 1st, which guarantees freedom of speech as a "right of the people". In the context of the 2nd amendment, the phrase was meant to convey a right to all citizens as a condition of "general militia" composed of all able bodied people to defend their liberty.

This idea of "general militia" was tried and proven in our courts of law under the 1990 Supreme court case of Perpich vs Department of Defense. Within this case, Minnesota Governor Rudy Perpich sued the DOD claiming that it was unconstitutional for the DOD to order the Minnesota National Guard to perform duties outside the state without the Governor's consent. The Supreme Court ruled against Gov. Perpich by defining a difference between "special militia" as in the case of the National Guard, and "general militia" which they defined as "private citizens with privately procured and owned arms". So, if we have precedent defining a general militia, how could the 2nd amendment be considered meaning anything but?

Lastly, there is the argument that "well regulated militia" was meant to mean that the groups of citizens must be "well trained and willing" to perform the duties of the militia. That without this, private citizens could not be considered within the scope of protection. However, you could liken service in the militia to that of Jury duty. Jury duty is considered a condition of citizenship. No one could claim that most jurists are "well trained", nor that many are willing. However, when called, it is a duty of being a citizen to perform. Likewise, the duties of a general militia are the same. While we have an army (like we have lawyers) to protect us, should a time come when we must be protected against the army, or outside enemies, that the call to militia would be made. In addition, within jury duty, it is made up of common citizens with certain parties being exempt, such as Police Officers, Jailers, Lawyers, Judges, etc. The reason for the exclusion is that they are too close to the process and likely to be swayed. Again, a comparison could be made to the militia. The militia must be composed of common citizens who are not under the influence of the government (Army, National Guard) that could be attempting to derive us of our liberties. One cannot expect an arm of the government to be used to protect us from said government. This would be within the calling and realm of a generalized militia made up of people of the community.

After all of this, we need only look at the quotes of the framers and influential individuals of the time to see their true intent:

What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.

                       Rep Elbridge Gerry (Mass.), Annuals of Congress (1789)

"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights...

                       Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 46

To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them.

                       Richard Henry Lee, Initiator of the Dec. of Independence

That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms...

                       Samuel Adams, Debates in Convention of Commonwealth

The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

                       Thomas Jefferson

Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms

                        James Madison, Federalist Papers

The right to arms is absolute and guaranteed. You need only look at the words of the founders of our country to see their intent and purpose. The last measure of protection against an overbearing government is born by the rights of the citizens to bear arms. Should our armies fail, the armed citizenship is the only hope for self preservation. We must value and protect these rights as there may come a day in which this basic right becomes the difference between existence and extinction.

Lastly, we as citizens, must stand to ensure that this right is left preserved wholly and completely. Gun control in any form is an attack upon our freedom. Many will say that gun rights are plausible, but that a limitation of type of arms should be enforced. Make no mistake that this reasoning is also an attack and lessening of the power. To allow a limitation of arms, is in essence, the disarming of the people. Do I believe that common man should be allowed the use of "military" type weaponry? Yes I do! If we allowed the government to limit the type of arms available, then we are left defenseless against all attack. Should congress state that the allowance of a sling shot constitutes a right to arms, but limits our ability to maintain auto/semi automatic rifles, then what chance do the citizens have against a standing army, either domestic or foreign? We, as citizens, must take the stance to prevent this erosion of our liberty. To stand by and not fight delivers us to the yoke of oppression of which we will have no recourse. It is my opinion that the Framers made this amendment second only to the right to free speech for a specific reason. They did so because of the sheer importance it has to perseverance of free men.

What can Brown do for you?

2010-01-22T14:29:00.001-06:00

It's a message that was spread across Massachusetts, and in stunning victory, a message that the people of Massachusetts decided in which to put their faith.

Man, what an exciting time in politics. First off, I wish that writing this blog were my only job. There has been so much I've wanted to say since this historical election, and make no mistake, it was historical; however, my job and life has prevented me from doing so until now. So bare with me, I've got a lot to say today.

History and Massachusetts just seems to go hand in hand. From the start of the Revolutionary war in Lexington, Ma, to the Boston Tea Party, to the election of Scott Brown, this state seems to be the launch point for key moments in American freedom and independence. In the biggest political coup in my lifetime, the bluest of blue states have determined that a Republican is the best person to represent them. Not since JFK's election in 1952 have they felt in such a way and as thus, represents the ending of a dynasty in the North. To quote a phrase from talk radio, "Camelot has fallen."

Yes, while the election itself was historical, it's my belief that the impacts of this election will be the studies of political students of the future. The vast implications that this could have on the political landscape are almost too much to comprehend. Yes, there will be immediate impacts, such as the ability for filibustering to be put into play for the blockage of the healthcare bill & cap and trade, balancing of power within congress, etc, but it's the longer reaching ripples of this stone that I'm more interested in.

The election of Scott Brown to the Massachusetts senate was not a Republican victory, but yet a victory of the people. We've already heard the excuses and reasoning for the loss from the left

Rednex note: My favorite being that Brown's win was attributed to the failed policies of the previous administration. Right, they were so angry at George Bush, they elected a Republican. That still makes me snicker.

to the victory cries of the right. Neither have right here in my opinion. This victory was warning shot across the bow of the political machine by the people of this country, "Listen to us or we will find someone who will!". The news is already showing that many Democrats have heard the message with calls from key Democrats, such as Finstein (D-Ca), Weiner (D-NY), Frank (D-MA), calling for a slow down in the health care debate and a call to get more in touch with the people. However, the most important question, what will the Republican party learn from this win?

Larry Kudlow, National Review Online's Economics editor, put it best in his article "Are Republicans listening to Scott Brown's message?" Following Larry's lead, I will add my take.

Sen. Brown ran on a simple conservative message:

Following of JFK's across the board tax cuts to stimulate business and the economy
Reduction of big government and a recall to state power
Strong military and defense required to strength and protect America
Call for health care form, but in a logical, reasonable effort

These fundamentals are what resounded with the people of Massachusetts and won him the election. In a direct antithesis of the Obama administration's direction, it was message that led people to put their trust in Sen. Brown and that will provide the future direction of this country. Republicans are missing a prime opportunity to cash in and take the lead. Brown has proven what the people want, so it is now in the hands of the Republican party to rally and show that they understand the will of the people.

As stated by Kudlow, Republicans MUST take up Scott Brown's message if they wish to succeed. Gone is the excuse that Democrats are in complete control, as with Brown's victory, they now have the power to demand a seat at the political table. They must take an immediate and finite stance against any measure that will increase the taxes on the American people. They must rally against the explosive growth of government that is prevailing in the Obama administration and push plans for reduction and control. They must push for reform in a financially responsible way, utilizing the policies they have previously touted but were ignored by the Democratic party. Unless they learn the lesson of this victory and hear the cries of the American public, they will suffer the same defeat in 2010 that Coakley was witness to this week.

Republicans - The ball is in your court and your excuses gone. The people have spoken and the bugle sounded. Have you heard the call or will you simply rest on your laurels with the misguided assumption that Brown's win points to a Republican return? To do so would be a grave mistake. The people are not angry at a party, but a lumbering, stumbling, growing government that refuses to follow the dictates of those it serves. The vote of 2010 will not be voted along party lines, but according to the voice of the people. Those who choose to listen and abide will survive, those who don't will fail under the weight of the monster that they helped create.

Haiti - Deserving of aid, but not from the Fed

2010-01-19T10:37:00.001-06:00

On Jan 12th at 4:53PM (local time), a magnitude 7.0 earthquake hit Haiti causing massive damage and loss of life. Major buildings collapsed, including the presidential palace and the National Penitentiary. With the collapse of the penitentiary, over 4,000 inmates escaped adding to the pressures of the Haitian police force, which usually numbering 4,000 is down to 1,500, with many presumed dead or unaccounted for. While an official number of deceased has not been released, there are estimates that the death toll may end up being as high as 100,000.

This was truly a disaster of epic proportions for the small island nation. Looting is rampant and many are left homeless and worried about the safety of loved ones and neighbors. We've all seen the commercials of various organizations, such as the Red Cross, NFL, and others requesting for people to donate to the cause. The American people have responded in force, with USA Today reporting that the amount of private donations is on track to break records and even surpass the charity given after the Hurricane Katrina disaster. Charity of which totaled $6.47B, thus proving once again, that Americans are the most charitable citizens in the world.

My heart goes out to all those affected by this earthquake. I take pride in the fact that so many Americans have stepped up to provide relief in a time when they are hurting financially. However, my support ends when President Obama agreed to send $100M in aid immediately (with more in the coming months) and that Haiti would be a "top priority" within his administration alluding that this disaster would not be another Katrina.

Well of course it won't President Obama! Katrina was on US soil and affected your constituents, Haiti did not. Katrina fell under the responsibility of the federal government, Haiti does not. The facts are simple, America does not have the funds to support the relief effort for the Haitian people. We are borrowing money from the Chinese to pay our bills and to fund the disastrous policies that your administration is putting in place. We are now using that borrowed money to "invest" in an area where we will never, ever see a return. I'm all for the charity of the private citizen helping those in need, but I am completely against the federal government forcing us to be charitable at the point of the taxation sword. For each penny you spend, for every dime of relief you provide, the American citizen pays an estimated 5x in taxes. It is not your right, nor within your power, to force the people to provide.

We have dealt with this situation before. In 1794, the US Congress was faced with a similar situation with regards to the funding of aid for Haitian refugees after the Haitian revolution. During this time, James Madison led the votes against the granting of assistance by denying that the Federal Government had within it's powers, the authority to provide benevolence.

From the Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, 3rd Congress, 1st Session, page 170 (1794-01-10) [3], Madison's speech was summarized:

"Mr. Madison wished to relieve the sufferers, but was afraid of establishing a dangerous precedent, which might hereafter be perverted to the countenance of purposes very different from those of charity. He acknowledged, for his own part, that he could not undertake to lay his finger on that article in the Federal Constitution which granted a right of Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

Most notable in this speech was Madison's quote, " I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

Please appeal to our past Mr. President and learn the lessons of our history. Once again you are stepping outside your authority and becoming less a President, but more a dictator. The constitution does not grant you the power, nor the right, to provide charity upon the backs of the American citizen. Step aside and handle the issues that now face the country of which you were placed in charge. We have climbing unemployment rates, critical deficits, terrorist attacks upon it's people, and a albatross of a depression. Step aside and let the American people do what they do best, which is provide charity to the world. We do not need you to do it for us. Instead, we need you to handle the problems at home, not try to gain world favor by taking the lead in matters outside your jurisdiction.

Want to make real money? Join the Fed!

2010-01-04T08:56:00.001-06:00

Well the Christmas and New Year's season is over and it's back to the grind. While I hope everyone had a wonderful and safe holiday season, it's now time to get back to the reporting of the mismanagement of our government.

The newest news: The way to make real money in this recession is to join the federal government's payroll. That's right folks, in a time where the government is taking over private enterprise and demanding the limiting of pay and bonuses for private sector employees, when the adjusted unemployment rate is reaching 17%, the federal employee is sitting above the turmoil when it comes to pay.

In a story released by USA Today on 12/10, the number of federal workers making a six-figure income has exploded over the last 18 months from 14% to 19%, NOT including including overtime and bonuses!! Think about that for a second, at 19%, nearly 1 of every 5 federal workers is making over $100,000. It makes me wonder what the 7.3M unemployed Americans think about that?

Just to condense the facts of the story for you:

Defense department civilian employees earning $150,000+ increased from 1,868 in 12/2007 to 10,100 in 06/2009. That is an astronomical leap of almost 541% within a 2 year period!

The Department of Transportation only had one person earning over $170,000 18 months ago, but today, there are almost 1,690 earning this generous wage.

In a bill expected to be signed by President Obama, these federal workers are expected to receive another 2% pay increase this year, while the private sector is expected to see only a <1%. This doesn't take into account the step increases (for longevity) averaging 1.5% per year.

Average salary for nation's 1.9M federal workers: $71.000. Average salary for nations 108M private sector workers: $50,028.

To be fair, some of the bonuses were enacted by President Bush (3% 2008, 3.9% 2009), so it's not President Obama specifically that I'm ranting about, but big government in general. At a time when many Americans are out of jobs and all Americans are feeling the bite of a failing economy, our representatives see it as acceptable to vote themselves, and their staff, pay increases.

When will our Government learn to be "representative" of the American people? Why should so many hurt and suffer, when the government that caused the financial mess to start, continues to thrive? I fear that the only resolution will come in November 2010, when the backlash against this waste is decisive and impacting. We must have long memories here. We must remember that while our neighbors, and ourselves, went without, the machinery of big government was well oiled with the taxpayer money of those suffering. Much like the health care debate, the fed is exempt from the program, and with this story, it would seem that they are also exempt from the realities of an economic recession.

On the eve of disaster, another health care primer. Pointing out the lies

2009-12-23T12:15:00.001-06:00

As many know, Congress is preparing for a vote on the new healthcare act during this Christmas season, specifically tomorrow Dec 24, between 8:00AM and 12:00PM. In an effort to persuade citizens to contact their representatives for "No" vote, I would like to point a few more myths on the current health care proposal.

Medicare denies fewer claims than private insurance

This is a fallacy often used by the left to promote a government run health care plan. I'm sure you've all seen the ads, or stories, often projecting the woes of children, showing how the evil private insurance companies have denied health care claims. Despite the despicable practice of using children in these ads, we find out that this is just wholly untrue.

According to the American Medical Association (AMA) 2008 National Health Insurer Report Card, Medicare denied 6.85% of all claims, higher than any private insurance company, with only AETNA coming close. In addition, even the White House admits that ~12% of all claims are fraudulent (~$60B), where as, Fortune 500 shows that the total profit made by the top 10 private insurance companies was $8B combined!! Read that again, Medicare losses almost 7 times as much in fraud as the top 10 insurance companies make in profit! Begs the question, how can government run health care be more efficient?

Private insurance companies are only concerned with profit

This statement is a play on capitalist mentality. Of course private insurance companies are concerned with profit, any company in America is else they would cease to exist. However, is running a private insurance company really as profitable as the leftists would lead you to believe?

In a profitability report ranking the top 10 insurance companies ending Dec. 31st, 2008 shows that private insurance companies are operating on razor thin profit margins.

Blue Cross, 3.4 percent, United Health Group, 3.6 percent, Well Point, 4.1 percent, Aetna, 4.5 percent, Humana, 2.2 percent, Cigna,(loss), Health Net, 0.62 percent, Coventry Health Care, 3.2 percent, Americagroup,(loss)
Universal American, 2.0 percent, Centene, 2.5 percent

Compared to the 14%+ profit margins of other industries, such as oil, you see, Private Health Insurance (PHI) isn't the most profitable of businesses.

Medicare has lower administrative costs the PHI companies, thus making it cheaper to operate

Several "accounting" tricks help the leftist to promote this myth. First of all, Medicare services a predominately elderly population, which translates to a significantly higher expenditures when compared to PHI companies. So in this regard, when administrative costs are compare to "total costs", then the above is true. However, when you take the administrative costs compared to a "per-patient" basis, you find a radically different number. According to research by the Heritage Foundation, administrative costs per patient are 24.8% (on average) higher with Medicare when compared to PHI.

In addition, Medicare, by virtue of being a government lenity, is not subject to many of the same administrative costs as PHI. Administrative costs that are subject to inclusion by PHI, such as rent, marketing management, taxes, capital for equipment, etc, are included elsewhere in the federal budget and do not ride on Medicare's books. A prime example of this is the act of premium collection. PHI companies are responsible for their own costs of premium collection, however, Medicare doesn't count that cost on their books due to the fact that this is an action performed by the IRS.

Current health care plan will be deficit neutral

Again, this is a lie that is buried with accounting tricks. In the current healthcare plan, if enacted, we , the taxpayer, will begin to be taxed on the new plan, but won't begin to see the benefits for 4 years. In effect, we will begin paying for the health plan now, but our benefits won't start until 2014. Well, of course it's deficit neutral when taxes are levied to pay for it before any expense is paid out!!! That's akin to going to a Cadillac dealership, buying a car, making the payments on that car for 4 years, then receiving that car at the end of your payments and claiming you got the car for free! Only in this case, we paid for a Cadillac, but got a Yugo at the end.

Lastly, the amount of tax increases and pre-tax limitation, used to fund this bill, while "making the bill budget neutral" would greatly increase the hardship on American families earning less than $250,000 /yr. Some of the facts according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the non-partisan scorekeeper of financial legislation.

Employer offered pre-tax Flexible Spending accounts (FSA) will be limited $2,500/yr vs $5,000 currently.

Elimination of payments for over the counter medicine reimbursements by workers covered under FSA or HSA (health savings accounts) which is currently allowed under the tax law

Limitation of the tax deduction allowed for medical expenses. Down from the current 10% of AGI (adjusted gross income) to 7.5% under the new bill, increasing taxes on those between $50,000 - $75,000 annually.

New excise tax on so called "high cost health insurance plans", which according to the CBO and JCT (joint committee on Taxation), would affect 90% of consumers earning less than $200,000/yr.

Overall, the CBO and JCT predict that will increase taxes on all single people making over $40,000/yr and married couples earning over $75,000/yr.

An excise tax imposed on health insurance providers and medical device makers in 2010, would be passed on to consumers, resulting in higher premiums and cost for health care products, affecting for all Americans, with the hardest hit being those earning less than $250,000/yr.

Individual insurance premiums are expected to increase by an average, an average, of 10% or more when compared to current law. So much for "free" or "lost cost" health care huh?

Summary

I could continue to go on about some of the falsities, or just flat out lies, being spread about the current health care plan, but I must balance the length of my posts with the amount of information I submit. I can't make the posts so long that I lose peoples interest in reading. However, the above gives us more than enough to know what has been said all along, this plan is a bad idea! It will cost future generations trillions, will lower the quality and availability of health care, and gives the government more concentrated power than as ever been allowed in our history. I urge you all to write/fax/call your congressman and demand a "No" vote to this monstrosity. If ever there was a time to become involved, now is that time!

List of Senators that accepted "pay for vote" deals from Harry Reid

2009-12-21T15:25:00.001-06:00

Politics is gone. Will of the people is gone. The only thing that matters: how much does it cost to sell out your conscience, the people that elected you, and your ideals.

According to the latest Rasmussen Polls, this health care bill is not something that people want. 55% of American's have stated that they do not want this Health Care reform (45% strongly opposed), with only people under 30 favoring the reform. With the group most likely to use the new bills provisions, senior citizens, 60% are opposed to the bill. 53% of Americans believe that the passage of this legislation will lower health care quality, while 58% say it will drive costs up. Lastly, 57% of voters say that passing nothing would be preferable to passing nothing at all.

So, with all of these numbers showing an overwhelming opposition to this health care reform, why are we faced with it's possible passage during this Christmas season? It's possible because we have a number of senators who, in lack of a better terms, have become political whores who offer their votes to the highest bidder. Below, find some of the names of those Senators so willing to sell out their people. Learn these names, they must learn that the American voter will no longer accept whores in our congress.

Harry Reid (D - Nevada) - Ensured his state was exempted from Medicaid increases even before the bill was submitted

Ben Nelson (D - Nebraska) - Cornhusker compromise: Nebraska is now permanently exempt from the state share of Medicaid expansion that the bill will cause. A negotiation that both the Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman and the other Senator, Chuck Hagel have denounced.

Mary Landrieu (D- Louisiana) - Louisiana Compromise: Was bought for a $300M increase in federal Medicaid funding

Bernie Sanders (D - Vermont) - $10B in pork barrel spending for the creation of state wide healthcare centers, as well as, additional Medicaid funding.

Carl Levin (D - Michigan) - Exemption from hefty excise taxes for non-profit insurers within his state. A tax that like insurers in 48 other states will be required to pay. A concession also received by Senator Nelson.

Chris Dodd (D - Connecticut) - $100M in pork barrel spending for the construction of a Univ. of Conn. hospital.

Evan Bayh (D - Indiana) - Agreement to slash medical device taxes for Indiana.

John Kerry (D - Massachusetts) - Along with Vermont, received the most help in Medicaid funding at $1.2B. While already covered, the deal was cut to substitute state funding for federal

Max Baucus (D - Montana) - Secured expanded Medicare coverage for victims of asbestos exposure at a Libby, Montana mine.

Kent Conrad (D - North Dakota) - Defended a special deal in which the following Western states receive higher federal reimbursement rates for doctors and hospitals servicing Medicare patients.

Democrat Senators of Florida, New York, & Pennsylvania - Medicare Advantage benefits for seniors in these states are protected, while the program will see massive cuts every where else.

Harry Reid showed his character by stating:

“You’ll find a number of states that are treated differently than other states. That’s what legislating is all about. It's compromise,

However, compromise that forces undue financial burden on a majority of states, while showing favoritism to others, is not compromise at all. It's not compromise to force a bill down the throats of an opposing American people who have clearly stated that they do not want it's passage, it's called tyranny. You are a pimp Senator Reid. The only compromise here is that you used money to "compromise" the will of the American people.

So much like immoral dealings on the shady streets of a city's underbelly, these Senators have offered up their votes to the highest bidder. Foregoing the morality of the issue in exchange for money to come their way, the above senators betrayed the trust and well being of those that elected them. Who would have known that, while prostitution is illegal in American cities, that illegality does not extend to our nation's capital. Never mind the fact that, while good for their respective states, they have forced all of America to pay for these concessions thru the tax dollars of the working man, including the people within their state's borders. So yes Senators, you may have a achieved a cost savings for your state, but your constituents will have their tax rates increased to help fund the concessions of others. Yes, Obama has brought "change" to America, but little saw that this is "change" straight from the pockets of the American taxpayer.

A Libertarian's view on the Republican party

2009-12-21T11:45:00.001-06:00

I was asked an interesting question the other day that I felt deserved an answer in this forum. It's a question that I think many people may be wondering, and that others, without good logical reasoning and explanation, may not understand. A question that is critically crucial to politics today.

"You call yourself a Libertarian, but you adamantly defend the Republican party. If you are a Libertarian, why don't you support the idea of a 3rd party or support candidates such as Ron Paul, which would more likely promote your political ideals?"

This is an excellent question! I love Ron Paul. I think his ideas are ground breaking and would lead this country in the right direction, however, when the time came, I did not vote for him. Why? The answer lies in the American mentality of politics today.

America was built on a two party system, first with the Federalists/Anti-Federalists which then evolved into the current Republican/Democrat parties of today. I realize that this system has become a tradition within America. It's the only system that the American voter has ever known and to change something that ingrained in the American voter's psyche would not be easy, nor come quick. Americans as a whole, are not very tolerant of radical change. You need only to look at the uproar and backlash to Obama's socialist agenda to see this. To attempt a three party system would be seen as a radical change and as history has shown, would not be allowed by the voters in our political system.

In addition, one must see the makeup of most third party systems. Most 3rd parties are just a few degrees off of what the current Republican core values should be. As the voter watched the Republicans derail and consistently depart from their conservative values and core beliefs, the 3rd party has stepped in to try and correct that course. The more left that the Republican party veers, the more 3rd parties attempt to fill the void. However, due to loyalty to the Republican system and the belief that they are supposed to support the same ideals, the end result is that 3rd parties usually only succeed to "split the vote". Make no mistake, 3rd parties usually have a strong following, but it will not, at any time soon, be able to change the hearts and minds of those people who have identified themselves as Republican, either because of "family tradition" or a hope that the party will come back full circle and represent based on the values they are supposed to support.

Using the above point splitting the vote, you can look back at the 1992 election of Bill Clinton. During this time, we saw Ross Perot run as an independent 3rd party candidate to appeal to voters displeased with Federal financial budget deficits and fears of professional politicians. Many people were moved by Ross Perot's (often mocked) presentations on how to balance the budget and the promise to change the way we practiced politics in Washington. However, history has shown, Ross Perot won Bill Clinton the 1992 presidency. The election results were as follows: Bill Clinton, 43% - George H. Bush, 37% - Ross Perot, 19%. With many of Ross's votes being siphoned from the Republican party, had Ross Perot not been in that election, predictions show that Bush would have received approximately 2/3's (12.6%) or more of Perot's votes, meaning that Bush would have won 49.6% to 46%, after distribution of his votes among all candidates. The same could be said for the 1996 election, however, in a much more narrow result.

So, I recognize that a vote for a third party is, in effect, a vote for the Democratic party. We must remember, as the Republican party moves more to the left, so does the Democrat party. With each election, our political parties make a leftist slide. Democrats seek to turn America into a more socialist, global government party while the Republicans follow suit in efforts for "bi-partisan compromise". This leads us to the administration that we have in power today. So, it must be understood, 3rd parties today have little effect but to "split the vote" on the Republican side, allowing for more Democrat victories.

Therefore, I have chosen to throw my support behind the Republican party in an effort to reform the party from within. After all, it would be easier to mold an existing, popular party, then to promote an new, unknown party to power. To bring politics back to conservative values, we must first stop the erosion of the only viable conservative party that exists. Until we are able to stop the liberal, socialist left, there will be no chance for change. It is my belief, that the American people have finally awoken to the possibilities of the Democrat's socialist agenda, and with current polls, I'm being proven right that America is finding something that they do not want. Hopefully, this may be the catalyst needed to bring back conservative representation. Once achieved, it is then a goal to seek reform and change from within the Republican party. As our conservative representatives see that Conservatism, financial responsibility, strong national defense, etc is what the people want, it will become easier to seek and achieve change from within the party.

So while the Ron Paul's of the world align with my thoughts and values, I understand that a vote for them is a vote for liberalism due to the siphoning effect they have on votes from the leading opposition party. While I would love to see Ron Paul as president, it's my belief that the best way to achieve that, is to cultivate his level of conservatism within Republican party. Politics are fluid. They change and bend to the will of the people, if and only if, the people exert the pressure required for change. Right now, our politicians have no reason to fear us, but should we succeed in Senate/House turnovers during the next election cycle, we would give them such reason. We would be able to use that fear to ensure that our politicians return to listening to their people. So rather than seeking an outside 3rd party to represent me, I chose to force the existing party to stop the compromising that led them astray, and represent my beliefs thru activism and outspoken appeal. That, my friends, is why a Libertarian votes Republican.

Ben Nelson sells his soul for ObamaCare

2009-12-21T10:42:00.001-06:00

I can't say I'm surprised, but Ben Nelson (D - Nebraska) sold his soul to ObamaCare. An article by Associated Content details the unhappiness that Sen. Nelson's constituents in Nebraska are feeling for their senior senator due to his betrayal. Within the article, Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee compares Nelson to Judas by stating:

The last time a deal like the one Nelson negotiated with Democratic leaders was when '30 pieces of silver exchanged hands.

Like I said, I'm not surprised by this action. In essence, Nelson sold out his ideals for a deal in which he negotiated the Federal Government picking up Nebraska's share of Medicaid forever. This deal amounts to roughly $45M in the first decade adds even more spending on the federal dollar.

With this deal, the Democrats now have their magic 60 votes that could allow them to ram the bill thru legislation with no opportunity for Republicans (or the American people) to stop this monstrosity. However, as even with a deal that will save his state millions, Sen. Nelson is finding out that his constituents aren't happy about his back room dealings.

Senator Nelson is lucky in that he isn't up for re-election in 2010, but I have a hunch that Nebraska will not forget this travesty soon. Visit the site dedicated to removing Ben Nelson from office at GiveBentheBoot and get involved. It must be remembered that Ben not only betrayed Nebraska, but all of America. He was the crucial 60th vote, and without his support, this bill would have died as it should have.

So thank you Ben. Like 59 other Senators before you, you have failed to listen to the people, failed to do the right thing, and for 30 pieces of silver, have sold this country out for evil. How much will your Medicaid subsidies be worth when this bill drives our country to bankruptcy? What deal have you struck when your people are suffering under the weight of higher taxes imposed by this bill and when the Chinese call in the loans that our government has taken to pay for this evil? Judas's life was forever changed by the guilt he felt for the "deal" that he cut, and I can't help but wonder, do you even have enough of a conscience left to suffer the same?

May Chase Bank rot in the deepest depths of Hell reserved for the most vile of corporations

2009-12-16T12:01:00.001-06:00

Okay, so this is story has a lot of personal discontent to it, but it's also somewhat politically based.

To start, my story. Approximately 11 years ago, I declared bankruptcy for reasons outside of my control. In doing so, I knew that I would have to accept a lot of hardship along the way, but it was a last ditch attempt to dig my way out of bad circumstances. So declare bankruptcy, I did. While I don't recommend it to anyone, it was one of the best decisions I ever made. Now, that doesn't mean it was easy. I spent many years paying 23.9% interest on an automobile loan, had issues with getting any credit, but I was prepared for that. During that time, Providian Bank took a chance on me and granted me a credit card with a $500 limit. Over the next 7 years, through hard work and sacrifice, I was able to increase that credit limit substantially, while lowering the interest rate down to 16%. During our financial relationship, Providian was bought out by WAMU, but they held to Providian's standards and due to them honoring the terms originally given to me by Providian, I grew very loyal to that credit card and the bank that held it. They were honest with me, gave me nothing for free, but treated me with respect and rewarded me with higher credit limits and lower interest rates for my good credit behavior.

In walks Chase bank. Using TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) funds granted to it by the US Government, Chase bought out WAMU. That's not what the TARP funds were intended for, but that's another conversation. So, using money granted to it by the US Government, Chase became owner of my credit card. Now, again, I was loyal to this card and it had a good balance on it. It was my primary credit card. By this time, I've owned the card for over 10 years, never missed a payment on it, always paid more than the minimum balance, and had paid the card off several times. Within 3 months of acquiring WAMU, I noticed that my interest rate on this card had skyrocketed from 16% to a detestable 32.9%!!! I called Chase and requested that they lower my rate back down, that I was a good customer and didn't deserve this rate. Their response was that they had sent me a letter informing me of the increase (which they did not!) and that it couldn't be lowered. They informed me that the rate had been increased to "maintain profitability on my account". Wow! Really, you raised the interest rate of 10yr, on time paying, never missed a payment, never going over limit client just so you could make more money?? After several months of fighting with them, getting nothing but rude responses such as "Feel free to close your account" and the like, I decided to pay off the card. Taking a loan, I paid the balance in full to be rid of the border line illegal interest rate charges but chose not to close the account because I didn't want to hurt my credit score.

Here comes the second jab. 3 months after paying off the balance in full, I DO receive a letter from them stating that "due to account inactivity they have decided to reduce my credit line". They reduced it by over 2/3rds!!!! To add insult to injury, the letter also informed me that "Had I made a purchase that went above this new limit, I had 45 days to bring the amount beneath the new limit else I would be subject to monthly over credit, increased interest rate for over credit, and other fees". So now I have a credit limit that is less than a 1/3rd of what I spent 10 years building simply because I wasn't using the account. In addition, had I made a good faith based purchase on this account subject to my known, earned previous credit limit, I would be subject to financial discipline for exceeding what I believed to be my appropriate limit. WOW!

Before this time, my credit score was in the 700's and I'm very proud that I was able to build this score after having declared bankruptcy. I take pride in my score actually, declaring it proof that a person can turn bad circumstances around. However, because of Chase's actions, my score is now below 700, actions that were not done thru any fault, or mis-action, on my part. WTH? Again, I call them and get a "there's nothing we can do, feel free to close the account". This time, they will get their wish. They can't hurt my credit score any worse than they already have, so I've shredded the credit card and sent them a letter with the shredded remains along with a very nice, polite detailing of exactly what they can do with that card and how they might best be able to perform my suggestion.

Now I find out that JP Morgan Chase has repaid all $25M given to it from the TARP program. While one would expect me to be happy that this evil bank repaid the government all the money given to it, I'm not! We, the taxpayers, fronted that money to them, which they used improperly, but do you think we will get a check back for their repayment? Of course not. 2nd, the reason that they were able to repay this money was off the backs and blood of it's customers thru devious, vile predatory practices. Do a quick Google search on Chase bank and you will find 100's of 1000's of stories just like mine. Sites have been set up specifically to complain about this bank. www.chase-sucks.com, www.chasebanksucks.com, and hundreds of other sites. This bank prayed upon it's customers. So essentially, this bank doubled dipped. It was bailed out by a failed, misappropriated, ill-handled government bail out program paid for by the taxpayers (it's clients), then used predatory, vile, despicable practices to raise it's profit margins to pay those funds back.

Where are our representatives in all of this mess? Credit companies use credit to enslave the population. They know, once you owe the money, you are theirs. They can do what they want because you can't escape their grasp. The credit reporting system allows this misuse. Free market can't work here, because if you take your credit from one company to one offering better terms, your credit rating can still be hurt by the original bank. If your credit rating gets hurt, then it makes the ability to move to a better bank harder, if not almost impossible. Worst of all, the Government condoned these actions by bailing out the banks in the first place. Chase should have been allowed to fail. It wouldn't have killed our economy. There are many credit unions out there that understand customer service and would have carried on. However, the Government, in their infinite knowledge, bailed them out and allowed them continue. They allowed the banks to use the funds improperly. They allowed this monster to continue. Chase made bad decisions, Chase over extended themselves, Chase should have reaped the consequences of those actions, but no. Big government stepped in and enabled them to not only continue, but to take even greater advantage of their customers.

Need we forget that we are in a horrible economic repression, bordering on full on depression? With almost 17% of our population out of work, how do they possibly think that devious practices like this will help? They won't. Chase will continue to make things harder on it's clients and when they force them to default, the Government will be there to fund them again. If this can happen to me, someone that was responsible and paid their bills on time, it can happen to anyone. Especially those that have fallen on hard times due to the actions of our government. Wake up DC!! You are killing this nation in every way and this is just one more example. I hope you are happy with the monster you created. And Chase, I know there is a special place in hell reserved for you. I long for the day that you find it. Until that day, I will never do business with you, or any affiliate of yours, and I will do everything in my power to ensure no one else does either. Should our government ever get out the way, capitalism and the free market will give your just dues, of this, I am certain. Bastards!

Bob Marshall proves me right! Our representatives have lost touch with reality.

2009-12-11T16:42:00.001-06:00

Today, Bob Marshall (R-Manassas) submitted legislation (Virginia Health Care Freedom Act) aimed at protecting Virginia's residents from the National Health Care Mandates being proposed by Congress. Per the Washington Examiner, this is the first in what's expected to be a flurry of bills bent on defying the Fed in the next session.

While I completely agree and commend Del. Marshall on his foresight and goal to protect Virginians from this monstrosity, the real statement I would like to focus on comes at the bottom this article as quoted by Del. Dave Englin (D - Alexandria):

"I'm concerned about it because we have a number of newly elected Republicans who came in on the shoulders of the tea party crowd,", referring to the conservative anti-tax movement. "I'm concerned that they're going to want to demonstrate their right-wing chops with these folks, and they're going to try some of those kinds of things."

Oh really? You are concerned that representatives are going to attempt to do exactly the things that they promised they would do? That they are going to do the things that got them elected in the first place?

Del. Englin, you are a schmuck! You are EXACTLY what is wrong with our government today. As evidenced by your statements, you are completely out of touch with the people that you represent and the sentiments of Americans today. People wanted change, but they did not want the change they got. In fact, according to a recent Gallup Poll, 44% of Americans would now rather have George W. Bush back in the presidency rather than continuing down the socialist road with President Obama.

So even as Obama's approval ratings continue to plummet, even as more and more Americans chose to voice their disapproval of the current administration via Tea Parties, 912Project, and other means, you refuse to listen. You turn a deaf ear to the people who elected you and ignore the wishes of those that employ you. In case you forgot, you are a "Representative" of the people, not a "Decider" for the people. Your job is to listen and represent, not to forward your own ideals.

Seems to me Mr. Englin, Mr. Marshall has it right! Will this legislation pass, in most likelihood, no, but atleast he had the testicular fortitude to stand up for sentiments of the people that he represents! This country wants its change back! They are expressing this via the election of representatives who "come in on the shoulders of the tea party crowd" as you say. Maybe you should try listening to people and actually do your job. See that Obama mania is over and the people want nothing more to do with it.

I do agree with you one thing thou, you should be concerned. Not with the "newly elected Republicans" but with the will of the people and how to best perform your duty in representing them. Continue your ignorant, blind eye ways, and you may soon find yourself out of a job!

Queer eye for the........Middle school kid????

2009-12-11T12:33:00.001-06:00

Fistgate: The scandal surrounding Obama's pick for "Safe School Czar", Kevin Jennings, just keep getting worse. For those of you that don't know, Fistgate is in regards to Kevin Jennings and his GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network) organization recently providing school age kits to assist in the sexual act of "fisting". Well, if that wasn't bad enough, the scandal now runs deeper.

In a story released by Gateway Pundit, GLSEN is now being charged with providing sexual literature to children ages 14-21 during a GLSEN 2005 conference by the name of "Little Black Book - Queer in the 21st Century".

Those who know me, know that my libertarian ways lead me to a belief that the government should not legislate/interfere with the actions of consenting adults. What a person does in their bedroom is their action to deal with and be responsible for, and as long as that activity is between consenting adults and causes no harm, it's no one else's business. However, this literature goes beyond and is now pushing these ideals on to children.

Excerpt from book (full reading on the link)

No Dookie On Your Noodle! Nobody knows better than queer men that shit happens. It’s just a fact of life…and butt sex. While there are steps to take to avoid a mess, they’re not always practical for the boy on the go. Condoms allow you a certain freedom that can be a great selling point if you’re cruising the park and don’t want stray spunk on your new polyester shirt...

In no way do I see how this could be practical for teaching to children of a middle school age. Children of this age are impressionable and often susceptible to invocation. You take a child who is already often lost and trying to find themselves, then add in an adult who is teaching such a sensational, taboo subject matter, you are likely to push children to a choice that they are not mentally prepared to make. The curiosity of children of this age, along with the information being passed to them, will lead them to experiment, just to see what the fuss is about. How can that be considered proper?

It seems that Leftists are working to bring the decision (and the fight) to the children of our country. We consistently see the lowering of the age in which we start talking about controversial subjects. First it was 18 years of age, then 16, now we are down to 14 years and younger! We must understand that children are still learning the world and maturing mentally and are simply not prepared to deal with subjects of this magnitude. Do I think that children of a certain age should be made aware of the impacts of sexual promiscuity, of course, to a point. However, let's be honest, the promotion of an alternative lifestyle and "cruising the park for partners" is not sexual education, its the promotion of sexual risk. It's the perverse pushing of social agendas on those ill equipped to deal with the repercussions of their choice. However, from a leftist stand point, it's a viable tactic. Indoctrinate the minds while they are young and impressionable to further the cause in the future. After all, who really hears the subject matter when it's a small child making the speech.

Kevin Jennings is a vile human being who has no right being around children, much less having the charge of protecting their safety. This man should be removed this position, and any position involved with the care of children, immediately. It's one thing to educate about sexual topics, it's another thing to push ideals and agendas thru the children of America. I know many adults that wouldn't be comfortable discussing things of this nature, however, we allow this group (GLSEN) and other to push it on the children. It's time to take a stand and demand that this guy be removed from office. These topics are the responsibility of the parent, not a stranger, to discuss with their children. If these topics are to be introduced and discussed, they must be made with an age appropriate audience.

Again, this is not a commentary on homosexuality. I would have the same reaction if the topic was made to "straight" children of this age and pushed the idea of "cruising for partners" and promotion of promiscuity. If this is a lifestyle that you choose, when you are mentally prepared to make such choices, more power to you. It's not for me to agree or disagree, but as long as it doesn't not infringe upon my rights or freedoms, then I do not care what you choose to do within your bedroom. The topics that GLSEN brings to America's youth are not educational, not commentaries on tolerance, but simple pushing of practices and lifestyles that have no business being pushed on impressionable minds. This guy, and his organization, make me sick.

Football? They can legislate football?

2009-12-09T13:29:00.001-06:00

Wow! In a time when almost every move our congress is making is being questioned on the grounds that they don’t have the power, this story from Komo news is released.

That’s right folks, the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee has approved legislation that would force the NCAA to determine a national champion by playoff only, stating that the current BCS system is unfair.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I hate the BCS system. It’s hard to understand and I do believe it can be unfair, but is this really the thing that we want our congressional representatives working on? In addition, what the hell even gives them the right to think that they can pass legislation on something that has no bearing on national affairs?

Congress, you want to know why America is starting to think you are imbeciles incapable of leading? You wonder why your constituents think you are out of touch with reality? You need to look no further than your actions today. We have the looming health care fiasco, jobless rates approaching 17%, a failed stimulus bill costing the taxpayers billions, government take over of private industry, and yet you find it necessary to take time out of your day to legislate this?’

I’m embarrassed that it was Texas Rep Joe Barton quoted in this article, but you know, Texas is a football state who takes the game very seriously. However, our elected officials have more pressing matters at hand than the determination of how to pick a college football championship team. Moreover, this is yet another example of the Fed sticking it’s nose some place it has no right and trying to exert authority in areas outside it’s jurisdiction. Come on Congressmen (women), our country took a left hand turn down Shit Ave last November. How about you guys trying pumping the brakes and see if you can’t get us turned around and back on the right path? What’s next? You going to pass a law dictating how American Idol can pick it’s finalist??? I wouldn’t be surprised if you did.

Why is the Tiger Wood’s story newsworthy??

2009-12-08T16:02:00.001-06:00

Recently, Tiger Woods crashed his Cadillac Escalade resulting in some minor injuries. Unless you live under a rock, I’m sure you’ve heard all the speculations and rumor surrounding this unfortunate accident by now. It’s been about the only thing being covered by the main stream media as of late. Even Fox News is releasing stories about potential causes linked to Tiger’s scandalous doings.

My question: Who really cares? So Tiger crashed his car, it happens to about 6 million Americans each year according to the statistics. So what if the crash was caused by an angry wife who recently found out that Tiger had been cheating on her. If he was cheating, he deserved to be chased out of the driveway with a golf club, it’s even almost fitting. Again, who really cares? What does this have to do with me and how does it affect my life? Simple answer, it doesn’t! Sure, there are 100’s willing to jump on the bandwagon and claim that this more evidence of our moral decline, but this is a story of one man. Others wish to talk about Tiger’s lost endorsements and impact it will have to his career, but again, I DON’T CARE! Nothing Tiger does, or doesn’t do, in public, in his private life, or in any other aspect has any impact on me.

What this story does do is detract from the issues that are facing America today. Personally, I think that the current administration should be helping pay for Tiger’s divorce attorney due to the fact that it’s taken the media attention off of them and their current back room dealings. Thanks to Tiger’s silly miscalculations in judgment, America’s attention has been diverted for the short term.

Everyone, we still have a government trying to force an albatross of a health care upon it’s people. We have a president, who on one hand condemns those that attacked us on 9/11, but in the same breath calls the perpetrators members of “one of the world’s greatest religions”. A religion, that by it’s very nature, preaches hatred and death to American citizens, or infidels. He claims that there “has been no delay or denial of resources necessary to conduct this war”, yet refuses to acknowledge that it took him months to even talk with General McChrystal, then only allowing him a portion of the resources requested. We have a government intent on raising the taxes imposed upon it’s citizens while claiming that a failed stimulus packages is providing for an economic rebound, even tho our adjusted jobless rate is now sitting at roughly 17%. We have the issue of “"Climate-gate”, where it has been found that the so-called “facts” of global warming have been skewed, falsely reported, or in some cases, just plain fabricated, to support a broken theory aimed at trying to control the populace. Last, but not least, our government now wants to taken the broken TARP program and redirect the funds to a poorly attempted job recovery effort.

Folks, we still have a lot of turmoil ahead of us. There is still a major fight for our freedoms and prosperity brewing. We must not be taken off course by the story of a famous golfer crashing his luxury SUV. Don’t fall under the switch and bait tactics of the media and keep your eyes on the real issue, our dwindling way of life at the hands of our current government. Okay, we’ve all taken note, passed our judgments on Tiger around the water cooler, but now it’s time to start paying attention again. In the grand scheme of things, this story has no consequence, so stopped fanning the flames.

Tea Parties: Should they organize on a national level?

2009-12-04T14:54:00.005-06:00

Ken Vogel recently posted an interesting article on Politico.com regarding the perceived unrest within the Tea Party movement alive in America today. Within this article, he points to some of fracturing and disagreements within local movements and alludes to the idea that the Tea Party movement should organize at a national level, rather than being the independent movement that it is today.

I completely disagree with this idea. The beauty, the pure force of the Tea Party movement, is the fact that it is individual based. These parties are for the common man, one who is fed up with the high tax and spend that congress has taken as the status quo, individuals who have grown weary of big government forcing health care, bail outs, and cap and trade down their throats against their will. The reason that Tea Parties have such a voice is that they are derived of people, and issues, specific to the locale of specific parties presence.

Should the Tea parties begin to organize nationally, I agree that they will have a louder voice, but will that voice be as effective? Once you start to organize at a national level, people must now start to make compromises to “achieve a unified front”. Won’t that detract from the true purpose of the movement itself? The issues that affect the constituents of Vermont, for example, may differ slightly from those of Texas. If the party were nationally organized, whose ideals will win out to be the policy of the movement? The answer is simple, the area with the most active members. Isn’t that exactly the thing that the tea parties are expressing outrage at? Shouldn’t the people have the ability, and the right, to protest those things that most directly affect them?

The impact that the Tea Party movement is having is to force our representatives to listen to what we, the people, have to say. To remind them that they work for us, that they represent US. Should we organize nationally, then who do we aim our voices to? Since it’s a national voice, it will be aimed at no specific representative, but to the congressional body as a whole. I see this as being less effective than the current movement. Now, the Texas Tea party aims it’s anger and opinions to the Texas state representatives. As all the calls are coming directly from the people who elect them to power, then they will be more likely to listen. If it were a national voice, then what would force these senators when the opinions are coming from people outside of their districts. Yes, some of the opinions will be consistent (smaller government, less taxation, etc), but not specific to the issues that face geographic areas.

Again, the pure beauty of the Tea Party movement is that it is made up of like minded individuals speaking out on the governmental injustices that affect them. The core of it’s effectiveness is that it is comprised of people who refuse to compromise their ideals any longer. Tea parties are making a difference, you need only to look at the recent elections held in New Jersey and New York. I urge you to remain strong and stay the course. I know it can be frustrating for your phone calls and letters to go unanswered. I know that you can be disheartened to protest the albatross that is Universal Health Care, only to see your representatives to continue to ram it thru, but believe me, your voice is being heard. Congressional members are starting to worry about their jobs and for the first time that I can remember in my short life, the Republicans are starting to unite and vote against measures that YOU disagree with. You need only to look at the near unanimous vote against first health care iterations and the stimulus bill. Only RINO’s (Republicans in Name Only) went against the vote. Use these gatherings to become informed of the issues and continue to raise your discontent. Tea Parties are making a difference at the local and state levels and that is where the true power lies.

Letter from Sen. John Cornyn (R. Tx) regarding the Harry Reid health care bill

2009-11-20T10:45:00.001-06:00

Sen. Cornyn's Health Care Reform Alert

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Last night, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid released his 2,074-page health care bill, which Senate Budget Committee analysis shows will cost American taxpayers $2.5 trillion when fully implemented over ten years.

Until we have had a chance to read the full 2,074 page Reid Bill, it’s impossible for Americans to fully grasp what the Majority Leader has cooked up behind closed doors. It is my hope that Sen. Reid will afford all Americans the same courtesy that he had: ample time to study the legislation and deliberate the best way to proceed.

What we do know so far, as reported by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), is that this bill will have a wide, negative impact on Americans across the board – from seniors on Medicare to small business owners to future generations of Americans who will be footing the bill. The bill will increase taxes on all Americans by nearly half a trillion dollars and breaks the President’s pledge not to raise taxes on working families earning less than $250,000—at a time that unemployment is at a 26-year high.

While CBO has not been given time to analyze the Reid bill’s impact on premiums, every other independent analysis to date has found that Reid’s new mandates and taxes will increase health care premiums on American families. The Reid bill increases taxpayer spending and liability for health care over the next ten years—instead of reforming our already insolvent entitlement programs. It will gut the already insolvent Medicare program by $464.6 billion, hurting access to care for seniors. It includes a government-run public option that will, according to CBO, have premiums higher than private plans and cause millions of Americans to lose the coverage they currently have. The largest expansion of Medicaid since it was created means the Medicaid program will be the only coverage option for 60 million Americans. It will also impose $28 billion in punitive taxes on employers who do not comply with Washington’s new job-killing mandates.

These initial findings are troubling, to say the least. My staff and I will be pouring over the 2,074 pages, assuming we are given the time to do so. You can access the full text of the Reid bill from my web site:http://cornyn.senate.gov/public/?p=HealthCareReformHQ.
It is essential that Congress take the time get health care reform right. If the President and Majority Leader are more interested in getting health care reform right for all 300 million Americans than they are in putting a political feather in their cap for the midterm elections, this shouldn’t be an issue.

** Rednex Note – Get involved. Write your congressman and let them know that the American people want the time to analyse this bill. Don’t let the government take your rights without a fight.

Republicans: A historical primer and plead

2009-11-18T13:27:00.001-06:00

Many people who know me, know that my libertarian leanings have led me to disagree with the Republican party on many things. However, when it comes to the two party system in America, the Republican party comes the closest to matching my ideals, and with whom I usually side, on most issues. That being said, with each passing day, I grow more and more discouraged and distrustful of the current day party. I can no longer say that they closely represent my ideals, because it’s become almost impossible to differentiate Republicans from the Democrats. It’s almost impossible to tell where Republicans draw the moral line and where their beliefs actually lie. It’s for this reason, I’ve decided to give a short historical primer on the party in hopes that people, as well as those that call themselves Republican, will know from where they came.

Democrats and liberals alike love to paint the Republican party as “the party of old rich white men”. You need only listen to any interview with that nut job Janeane Garofalo to hear how Republicans are nothing but racists and minority haters, as shown in this quote she made to Bill Maher in October:

It's obvious to anybody who has eyes in this country that tea-baggers, the 9-12ers, these separatist groups that pretend that it's about policy – they are clearly white-identity movements. They're clearly white power movements. What they don't like about the President is that he's black – or half black (applause) – and they, what also is shocking is that people keep pretending that that's not really the case with these people.

It's very weird that whenever this comes up in conversation, so few people are willing to say that yes it is racism, straight up racism. And the Republican Party has been willing to carry water for racists in this country since about the 1950s

However, she shows the depth of her ignorance in this statement. The Republican Party was born in the 1850’s by a group of anti-slavery activists. The “Great Emancipator” himself, Abe Lincoln, was the first Republican voted into the White House. It was also the Republican party of this day that passed the 13th (outlawing slavery), 14th (granting African-Americans equal protection under the law), and 15th (securing African-American voting rights) amendments.

Along with belief of “Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Speech, Free Men”, the core Republican beliefs are as such (as taken from the GOP site):

Power and ingenuity of the individual to succeed thru hard work, family support, and self discipline
Value of voluntary giving and community support over taxation and forced redistribution
Government must be limited so that it never becomes powerful enough to infringe on the rights of the individual
Low taxes as individuals know best how to make their own economic and charitable choices
Free market support of logical business regulation that encourages entrepreneurs to start business to enjoy fruits and satisfaction of self-made successes
Preservation of national strength and defense while working for peace, freedom, and human rights

These are, at their core, beliefs and values I agree with. While my libertarian mind may disagree on how best to ensure them, they are the same. However, it seems to me, that the Republican party has abandoned these principals. We saw this with George Bush’s implementation of the first auto bailout, the Republican congress’s increased agreeance of tax and spend, and the list goes on. So concerned with bi-partisanship and political correctness, the Republican party disregarded their core values and deserted those that elected them to represent. Today, it’s almost impossible to tell who is Republican and who is Democrat on speech alone. I ask, why is it so important to concede and compromise your beliefs to reach a “middle ground”? If you stick to your principals, the people will follow. I believe this is precisely why the party is a shadow of it’s former self. Having abandoned the values that made the people believe in them, they left the people with no hope. They went so far off course, that the American people, looking for any method of direction change, placed this socialist Manchurian candidate in power today. Sure, now they start to unite, but my trust in them is gone.

It’s for this reason that I believe we should remind those in Congress who they work for and vote them all out!! Democrats and Republicans alike need to be reminded that they work for us, the people. That they were sent to D.C. to represent our wants and ideals. With current direction, Republicans are starting to unite and rally against the so called “change” that Obama is bringing, but I fear it may be too little, too late. A message must be sent, a message that states, We are in control. Do as we ask or you will be fired! Yes, there are good Republicans in office today, but cherry picking which stay and which go will not send the resounding message required. We must turn over the leadership and let them know that we will no longer tolerate their abuse. Our founding forefathers had the insight to give us the most powerful weapon of all, the power of the vote. We can take back control of our nation with this weapon, but we have to be willing to use it.

To end, I offer you three quotes:

"Now more than ever, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption."

James Garfield, 1877

“So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men.”

Voltaire

“People often say that, in a democracy, decisions are made by a majority of the people. Of course, that is not true. Decisions are made by a majority of those who make themselves heard and who vote -- a very different thing”

Walter H Judd

I urge each of you to become involved. The effects of the decisions of today will have impact for decades to come. It is your duty as an American to openly discuss, question, and comment on all policies and opinions. Use this forum if you so desire. If you like what I say, comment and let your voice be heard so that others will know they are not alone. If you disagree, then I offer you to do the same. Debate and comparison of ideas is the only way to affect change. Those who don’t understand the issues, cannot intelligently decide on them. I am not close minded. If you believe me to be wrong, then show me where, but be prepared to acknowledge my arguments as well. As stated by Judd above, it is only the majority that makes themselves heard that decide. For too long, too many have kept a silent voice and the time for that to change is now.

Universal Healthcare: Is it even constitutional?

2009-11-17T13:21:00.001-06:00

There are many things within the healthcare proposal that have seen the limelight of debate: Should there be a public option, will illegals be covered, does a person have the right to keep current insurance, but of all these things, I think we are missing the most important debate. Is universal healthcare constitutional?

Grounds: Right to Privacy and due process.

As discussed in a earlier post, Section 1401, Pg 503 gives the government health care center undisputed access and authority to pull information from any government source. In addition, Section 1651, Pg 734 allows, for law enforcement sake, the Attorney General to receive from the Director of HHS, all medical information when requested and Section 431, Pg 195 allows the HC administration access to all financial and personal records. What impact do these sections have on a persons right to due process and to privacy? In Griswold vs. Connecticut, the US Supreme Court recognized a constitutional right to privacy. In addition, Whalen vs. Roe, the court validated the duty to avoid unwarranted disclosure of personal information is rooted within the Constitution and the right to privacy. It went on to state that “privacy involves two types of interests: individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters, and an interest in protecting one’s independence in making certain decisions”. (William H. Roach, Medical Records and the law)

So with these two court decisions, we have precedence showing that we have the right to privacy in accordance with our medical information. If the HHS uses our medical history to substantiate, or adjust, our health insurance allowance under a federal plan, then how is this not considered unconstitutional? Likewise, with our medical records, financial information, etc being made available without written consent, on what grounds does the US government have access to this information? If not charged with a crime or illegality, then it would seem that the government has no right. One could claim that by signing up for the government plan, you provide your consent for access, but under the healthcare plan, subscribing to the plan is not an option, but a mandate. If we are forced to enter into this plan, then by proxy, we are being forced to provide consent. Where would this abuse stop?

Grounds: Usurping of Federal Privilege via the Commerce Clause

Many healthcare proponents have cited Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, more commonly known as the Commerce Clause. This specific power granted to the Fed, allows for the “regulation of commerce with foreign nations, among several states, and with Indian tribes.” Using this clause, proponents content that the Fed has the power to regulate healthcare, as it deals with citizens of the US across all state borders; in addition, as health care comprises 1/6th of our GDP, regulation has a direct impact on economic affairs. However, there are two major issues with this argument.

David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey cited two important court cases in the Washington Post: United States vs. Lopez (1995) and United States vs. Morrison (2000). In these two cases, the US Supreme Court rejected the notion that the commerce clause allowed the Fed to regulate non-economic activities, simply because, thru causal effects, they might have economic impact. Judge Andrew Napolitano, expounds on this in his recent Wall Street Journal interview, by stating that the “practice of medicine consists of the delivery of intimate services. In most all instances, this delivery occurs in one place and does not move across state lines. One does not go to a doctor to engage in commerce, but to improve one’s health”.

In addition, the application of the commerce clause is hypocritical when it comes to this issue. Judge Napolitano continues in above article, to detail how Congressional regulation has allowed states to erect barriers that the commerce clause was expressly written to tear down. In all states, Health insurance issuers are prohibited from selling policies to people in other states. This artificially drives up health care cost, by disallowing the act of competition and individual policy creation. Thereby, using this definition, its easy to see how the commerce clause would not apply to the health care debate. How can proponents claim that this clause is the provision allowing the creation of universal health care, while on the other hand, the lack of the clause’s enforcement is a primary reason that health care insurance costs are so high?

Grounds: Precedence of Roe vs. Wade

Ironically, a liberal agenda piece may actually be the guiding factor in determining the constitutionality of the universal healthcare plan.

In the 1960’s, the US Supreme Court created the right to privacy, and using that right, struck down a series of state/federal regulations of personal conduct, namely, the Roe v Wade (1973) abortion case.

While not abortion specific, the US Supreme Court established a constitutionally mandated zone of personal privacy that must be made free of government regulation. The court explained this rationale in Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992) by stating:

"these matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and the mystery of human life."

If Roe v Wade upholds that a “right to abortion” holds true as a“choice central to personal dignity and autonomy”, then it would also seem to hold true that a person’s choice in intimate medical care would be covered under the same statue? How could the inability to regulate fetal life within one’s own body, suddenly be found doable for the inclusion of medical devices, procedures, etc. If the government cannot interfere or regulate a person’s physical body in the case of abortion, then it would likewise be unable to force a regulation in the terms of health care.

Rivkin and Casey state in another Wall Street Journal article that the weakness of the healthcare debate is shown via the principal of one size fits all approach. Proper health care is uniquely individual as it is based on unique lifestyle choices, genetics, predispositions. That under the health care proposal, the government seeks to a regularity in the application of governmental power with regards to health care practice. By establishing this regularity, it will serve to limit the individual choice, taking primary decision away from the patient and their doctor, thus making the system constitutionally weak.

Grounds: Improper Taxation

Lastly, within the healthcare bill, Section 313, Pg149-150 provides for a 2-8% tax on any employers who does not provide for the public option, while Sec. 401.59B, Pg 167 provides for a personal tax on any individual without health care. Given the government’s right under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution to collect taxes, how could this be an argument for unconstitutional grounds?

First, Ernest Christianson explains to us in a Tax.com article that Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution forbids direct tax that is not apportioned among several states according to their numbers. In addition, Article 1, Section 9 states that “no direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion with the Census or Enumeration herein”. So given this, how is Congress pushing this tax thru with the healthcare bill?

Well, Sen. Baucus has claimed that the tax imposed on the uninsured is an "indirect tax” or an excise tax and doesn’t have to be apportioned. However, Christian explains to us the error in this thinking, in that excise taxes are levied on a “thing”, not a person. That a tax imposed directly on a person is akin to an income tax. In addition, since this tax is levied only on those that fail to come under the plan, it is an unfair tax on action, which is beyond congressional authority.

In Bailey v. Drexel Furniture (1922), the Supreme Court established that Congress could not impose a “tax” to control behavior or conduct that it could regulate under the commerce clause. In this case, the issue stemmed around the utilization of child labor, but the same precedent could be held for health care. Since the tax included in the bill is only applied to those that choose not to participate, it is, in essence, a penalty for non-compliance. Given the above shaky case for health care under the commerce clause, the precedent would hold true here. As congress has no ability to regulate health care under the commerce clause, then neither does it have the authority to penalize the conduct (inaction) of citizens for non-participation.

Conclusion

For all the arguments against Obama Care, this is one argument that I would like to see more publicized. Lawyers are usually so quick to jump into the fray, but strangely, constitutional lawyers have been silent on this one. Could it be that the Obama Administration is the lawyers saving grace, or is it that they too are scared to speak out against Pres. Obama for fear of back lash. I know that the question has been raised to both the President, Speaker Pelosi, and others, but the idea of the bill being unconstitutional is always brushed off. I find that a travesty and feel that we, the people, should demand an answer. Why even go thru the debate and arguments if it can be found that the bill would not be legal under our founding documents.

Of all mistakes, Lack of Leadership is the Biggest

2009-11-16T12:34:00.007-06:00

We are a country in trial now. We are in the midst of a politico cause financial disaster, a unemployment rate of 10.2% to 17.5% (depending on calculation method used), and a nation that now borrows it’s living expenses from foreign countries. We need a leader! We need a president that is willing, and able, to guide us thru these times and tribulations, but sadly, we are left with no captain at the helm.

I’m not sure we should be surprised. America was so caught up by the showmanship and speech of our current president, so excited by his claims of “hope and change”, that they failed to fact check his resume. They failed to find that, not only was he not qualified for the position, but that he also lacked the leadership characteristics to prepare him for the job at hand. The American people hired this man because he was “likeable” and “well spoken”. His victory was one of stardom, not record.

Pres. Obama’s only claim to legitimacy is his three years spent as a senator and time as a state senator. During that time, he was absent for 314 of 1300 roll call votes (24%), often putting him in the worst 10% of congress. As a state senator for Illinois, 129 times, our current President chose to vote “present” . While, this only represented ~ 3% of his votes, its a flag for his leadership. These were not insignificant bills, but politically contentious issues which included votes on partial-birth abortions, the ability to seal court records of victims of rape and sexual abuse, and protection of a child if surviving an abortion attempt. For a man who campaigned on a promise to “tackle and address” the tough issues, I don’t see how this fits his declaration.

One would also assume that at least some foreign policy experience would be needed to fill such an important office, but Pres. Obama has none. One need only look at some of his recent policy decisions/actions, to see his lack here as well.

Great Britain
As our strongest, most loyal ally, one would expect the President of the United States to treat the UK with respect, but Pres. Obama has snubbed them at every turn. From the returning of the Churchill Bust, to the undiplomatic reception of PM Brown, to the narcissistic offering of an IPOD of his speeches to the Queen, our president has shown nothing but contempt to our friends across the pond.

Honduras
In spurn to a Latin American ally, Latin American Honduras, President Obama quickly condemned and sanctioned the country of Honduras for diplomatically, and legally, removing President Manuel Zelaya from power after his attempts at an unconstitutional power grab. After a 15-0 Honduran Supreme Court decision (of which 8 members were of Zelaya’s own party) to remove the President Zelaya under article 239 of their constitution, the Pres. Obama's reaction was to cutoff aid to this invaluable ally and deny political visas to it’s leaders. As a lone example of democracy in this region, an ally on our war on drugs, and a $5B annual export country, we should take a stand and defend the actions of this Honduras, but instead, we have abandoned them.

Poland & Czech Republic
In an effort to placate Russia, Pres. Obama pulled out of the missile defense shield to be deployed in Poland and the Czech Republic. In a hopes to win Russia’s support in negotiating with Iran, Obama stated that “”the initiative was aimed at the wrong enemy, Iran” just shortly before we learned of Iran’s development of weapons grade plutonium and enrichment. Talk about a timing miscue of ultimate proportion! While this move does not severely harm our allies, due to their involvement with NATO, it is a definite mistake to abandon allies who went to grave political sacrifice to allow this defense. Leadership is not throwing your friends and allies under the proverbial bus. Worst off, we made this concession and gained nothing in return. No promise of help from Russia, no pressure on Iran, no concession on Russia's part at all. For the return of nothing, we abandoned friends.

Iran
Even French Prime Minister Sarkozy showed public contempt for our president over his handling of the Iran nuclear announcement. When Pres. Obama called for proposals for dialogue, PM Sarkozy responded with:

"What good has proposals for dialogue brought the international community?" More uranium enrichment and declarations by the leaders of Iran to wipe out a UN member state off the map."

Who thought we would see the day when the French would be lecturing us on taking soft handed approaches to hard subjects? This may very well be the biggest insult of all.

In addition, Iran flaunts it’s arrogance directly in the face of our leader. After Obama states “Iran has been put on notice” during a speech in Pittsburg, Iran’s response was to test two ballistic missiles capable of carrying warheads 1,200 miles. Pres. Obama: You threw down the gauntlet and it was picked up and used to slap you in the face. Where do you leave this country when your words carry no fear, no slight of retribution. Our country is being threatened, yet you do nothing!

Afghanistan
General McChrystal, Obama’s commander in Afghanistan, has requested an additional 40,000 more troops else America risks failure in the theater. A request that is seconded by McChrystal’s superiors. However, our president has done nothing with regards to this request. For a president who campaigned on the idea that victory in Afghanistan was paramount, how can you go for over 70 days without talking to your military commanders. You can find time to unsuccessfully campaign to bring the Olympics to your beloved Chicago, to hold town halls with citizens of foreign countries, but yet you have no time to make a decision, when indecisiveness puts the sons and daughters of America in harms way? You, a man of no military background or service, think you know better than a general how best to handle conflict? A true sign of leadership is knowing when to defer and trust the decisions of those who know. It’s time you used your backbone and allowed our military what it requires. Waffling and delaying on decisions that put this countries sovereignty at risk are not the leadership we need.

Presidential cabinet
Another true sign of leadership, is the people that person chooses to surround himself/herself with. Again, you fail in this regard. You have chosen tax frauds and cheats as your top advisors. Kathleen Sebelius, Tom Daschle, Nancy Killefer, Ron Kirk, and worst of all, Timothy Geithner. Please tell me how you think it’s a good idea to put a man in charge of the Treasury, who himself is unable to properly pay his taxes. Have you no vetting process for your advisors? Do you not consider character at all in your appointments? My fear is that you do not. It’s not hard for a man of questionable character to associate with others of the same character. Again, America was blind and should have seen this with your associations of Saul Alinsky, Rev. Wright, and others.

Failure in your own policies
Lastly, the most appalling lack of leadership, is the fact that you are unable to even usher in your own policies. You promised this countries people transparency and openness, yet your shoved the $787B stimulus package down our throats via your doom and gloom speeches that drove the Dow below 7000. You stated action had to be immediate, with no time for oversight, yet when the bill was passed, you went on a three day vacation before signing it into law? Where was the urgency then? You preached health care, but you haven’t even guided your team for it’s proposal. Instead, you allow Pelosi, Reid, and Bakkus to outline YOUR agenda. You state falsities of “no illegals covered” when there are no provisions to protect against it. You state that the bill will not cost us one dime, but the CBO states that it would add $249B to the deficit, for an overall cost of $1.5T. When asked by a blogger “Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies under your health care plan?”, You, yourself, stated “You know, I have to say, I’m not familiar with the provision you are talking about”. If you don’t understand, or know, the provisions of your own healthcare plan, then how are you leading? To say I disagree with the policies your agenda is forwarding is a gross understatement, but atleast I would have some respect for you if you stood up and directed the policies in your name. I can respect someone who leads, even if in opposition to my beliefs, but you sir, have shown no such determination.

Lastly, as the American people start overwhelming uniting in opposition to your policies and direction via tea parties, you aren’t even aware that they are demonstrating. How can a leader be so out of touch with his people? However, rather than facing the critics and leading, you choose to attack and start a war with Fox news? In fact, you release the hounds on anyone that opposes, or speaks out, against you. You label them racists and bigots. I don’t care that you are black (half-black?), all I care about is your steering this country towards a cliff. I guess that makes me a racist, but then again, I was never aware that socialism was considered a race.

This country needs a leader and that is not Barack Obama. We are at time of crisis and we need someone that lift us out and expounds on our virtues, reminding us of why this country is great, not tour the world apologizing for us. A leader that will not stand by and politely listen while a dictator bashes his country, but one with the fortitude to walk out or refuse the handshake of a dictator. A leader that believes in the country he leads, it’s place as a shining light in this world, and not someone who bows before rulers of enemy nations. We need a leader and I pray that we will find one come the next election. Just like we hired you with a lack of experience, we can fire you for the same reason.