More with the recalls. What is the truth?

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!

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

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?

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

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

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

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?

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

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!

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

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

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

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

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?