Safety "Experts" vs Gun Safety

I came across some safety brochures by LAW Publications today and thought they might be useful in my gun safety classes. However, upon closer examination, I found flawed information that casts doubt on the credibility of these publications. Here are some examples in only one brochure:

Myth: Their We Can Work Together To Stop Violence brochure says, on page 2, "Think especially hard about having a weapon of any kind in your home. A firearm is more than forty times as likely to kill or injure a family member than it is to prevent a crime from being committed."

Fact: Their "more than forty" number is a cherry-picked and flawed fact from a single flawed and cherry-picked study (Arthur L. Kellerman, Protection or Peril: An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home, New England Journal of Medicine, 1557-60 1986). That study's sample is so small it cannot be correlated to the nation as a whole with any meaninful significance. Of the 43 deaths reported in this study, 37 (86%) were suicides -- people who, lacking a gun, would likely have picked another means of exit. Other deaths involved criminal activity between family members (ie drug deals gone bad). Kellerman admits that his study did "not include cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm." He also admitted his study did not look at situations in which intruders "purposely avoided a home known to be armed." This is a classic case of a “study” conducted to achieve a desired result -- make guns look evil.

Fact: In his critique of Kellerman's “study”, Dr. Gary Kleck (Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, 1991), a Criminologist at Florida State University, notes that the estimation of gun ownership rates were “inaccurate”, and that the total population came from a non-random selection of only two cities. According to Kleck's analysis of FBI, CDC and other major violence studies and databases, the presence of a gun in the home is much more likely to prevent a crime without bloodshed than hurt a family member.

Fact: In another book, Targeting Guns (1997), Dr. Kleck, reported that guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year -- that's 6,849 every day! Often the gun is never fired and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed.

Fact: Every day, 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes are prevented just by showing a gun. In less than 0.9% of these instances is the gun ever actually fired. (Source: National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics, BATF estimates on handgun supply).

Fact: You are far more likely to survive a violent assault if you defend yourself with a gun. In episodes where a robbery victim was injured, the injury/defense rates were: Resisting with a gun, 6%; Did nothing at all, 25%; Resisted with a knife, 40%; Non-violent resistance, 45%. (Source: British Home Office – not a “pro-gun” organization by any means).

Fact: Of the 2,500,000 annual self-defense cases using guns, more than 7.7% (192,500) are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse. When a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of rape attacks are completed, compared to 32% when unarmed. The probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women offering no resistance than for women resisting with a gun. (Sources: Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey and Smith, T: 2001National Gun Policy Survey of the National Opinion Research Center: Research Findings. National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago, Dec 2001)

Myth: LAW Publication's We Can Work Together To Stop Violence brochure says, on page 2, "If you absolutely believe in owning a firearm of any kind, make sure that they are properly and safely stored away. They should be unloaded, trigger-locked, and put in a protective gun case with the ammunition stored separately."

Fact: A personal protection firearm is useless if unloaded, locked and separate from its ammunition. Perhaps that is LAW's intention -- to make it useless.

Fact: 15 states that passed "safe storage" laws saw 300 more murders, 3,860 more rapes, 24,650 more robberies, and over 25,000 more aggravated assaults in the first five years. On average, the annual costs borne by victims averaged over $2.6 billion as a result of lost productivity, out-of-pocket expenses, medical bills, and property losses. "The problem is, you see no decrease in either juvenile accidental gun deaths or suicides when such laws are enacted, but you do see an increase in crime rates." (Source: Prof. John Lott, Safe Storage Gun Laws: Accidental Deaths, Suicides, and Crime, Yale School of Law, Mar 2000)

Fact: Only five American children under the age of 10 died of accidents involving handguns in 1997. Thus, the need for “safe storage” laws appears to be low. (Source: Prof. John Lott, Safe Storage Gun Laws: Accidental Deaths, Suicides, and Crime, Yale School of Law, Mar 2000).

Fact: In Merced, California, an intruder stabbed three children to death with a pitchfork. The oldest child had been trained by her father in firearms use, but could not save her siblings from the attacker because the gun was locked away to comply with the state's "safe storage" law. (Source: Sierra Times and various wire services, Sep 2000).

Fact: California has a trigger lock law and saw a 12% increase in fatal firearm accidents in 1994. Texas doesn't have one and experienced a 28% decrease in the same year. (Source: National Center for Health Statistics, 1995)

Fact: Trigger locks are perhaps the worst possible way to secure a firearm! A safe gun owner and user never allows anything inside the trigger guard or near the trigger unless his sights are on the target and he has made the decision to fire -- and then, only his finger goes in there. Even with a trigger lock properly installed most firearms can still be loaded and cocked. The simple act of removing a trigger lock from such a loaded and cocked firearm can bump the trigger with disastrous results. No one should ever suggest or recommend the use of a trigger lock! Ever! There are far safer ways to secure a gun such as free cable locks distributed by Project Child Safe.

Fact: Legitimate gun safety experts and shooting organizations, including the National Rifle Association (NRA), teach that all firearms must be kept out of the hands of unsupervised children and irresponsible persons such as criminals and addicts. That objective can be safely accomplished in many cases without locks. Although he kept them out of reach of small children, my father never locked up his rifles. His guns never hurt anyone because he taught his family proper respect and handling of firearms.

Fact: While seldom-used arms such as a hunting rifle should, indeed be stored separately from its ammunition, a personal-defense firearm must be readily usable if it is to be of any use at all. Most violent encounters are, by definition, vilolent -- they occur with little warning and are over in seconds. There is rarely time to fumble around in a darkened bedroom looking for keys and locks and ammo. That very insanity, imposed by the District of Columbia, resulted in last year's landmark "Heller" Supreme Court decision.

Myth: On page 4 of We Can Work Together To Stop Violence, LAW Publications suggests to, "Organize a community weapons exchange or drop off program...."

Fact: According to the federal government, gun "buy-backs" have "no effect" on crime or gun accidents. (Source: Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising, National Institute of Justice, July 1998)

Fact: "Buy-backs" remove no more than 2% of the firearms within a community. The firearms that are removed do not resemble guns used in crimes. "There has never been any effect on crime results seen". (Source: Garen Wintemute, Violence Prevention Research Program, University of California, Davis, 1997)

Fact: Up to 62% of people trading in a firearm still have another at home, and 27% said they would or might buy another within a year. (Source: Jon Vernick, John Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, Sacramento and St. Louis studies)

Fact: More than 50% of the weapons bought via a gun "buy-back" program were over 15 years old. Most guns turned in are simply inoperative junk. On the other hand, almost half of firearms seized from juveniles are less than three years old -- new, working guns that are very unlikely to be turned in on one of those so-called "buy-back" programs. (Source: District of Columbia buyback program).

Fact: Forensic testing on guns that are turned in have found some to be crime guns and, because these "buy-back" programs usually trade a gift card or a toaster for guns with no questions asked, the person who committed the crime with that gun is never caught. That's a mighty fine crime prevention plan, eh?

Fact: "They [gun "buy-backs"] do very little good. Guns arriving at buy backs are simply not the same guns that would otherwise have been used in crime. If you look at the people who are turning in firearms, they are consistently the least crime-prone [ed: least likely to commit crimes]: older people and women." (Source: David Kennedy, Senior Researcher, Harvard University Kennedy School Program in Criminal Justice, in an appearance on Fox News, 22 Nov 2000)

Fact: According to a variety of sources, the actual effect of gun "buy-back" programs is to: Disarm future crime victims, creating new social costs; Give criminals an easy way to dispose of evidence; Cause guns to be stolen and sold to the police, creating more crime; Encourage people who are most vulnerable yet unlikely to commit crimes (elderly, women, etc.) to sell their guns; Encourage people to buy cheap guns or worthless and sell them to the government for a profit; Keep stolen guns from being returned to their rightful owners.

Myth: On page 4 of We Can Work Together To Stop Violence: "Youth organizations and schools need your support in keeping guns an dother harmful weapons out of the lives of children and teens...."

Fact: The shooting sports can be a wholesome and perfectly safe activity for youth and their families. Several youth organizations (4-H, Boy Scouts, countless schools, etc.) conduct shooting sports activities wherein participants learn safety, leadership, personal responsibility, equipment maintenance skills, etiquite, marksmanship, and physical and mental discipline unmatched in nearly any other sport.

Fact: The shooting sports are among the safest. Most other popular sports for children and teens result in a higher rate of hospitalizing injuries than do the shooting sports. (Source: American Sports Data, Inc.)

Fact: Boys who own legal firearms have much lower rates of delinquency and drug use and are even less delinquent than non-owners of guns. (Source: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, NCJ-143454, Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse, Aug 1995)

Fact: Instead of turning "guns and other harmful weapons" (ie archery equipment) into forbidden fruit, why not advocate youth programs that are effective in teaching the responsible use of these technologies. It is my opinion that firearm training is as important for the safety of our youth as is sex education. Both programs should be responsibly taught in our schools.

Fact: The brochure does have some good information. I commend their recommendation, on page 2, to get firearm safety training from a certified instructor and to ensure that children know "what to do to if they should come in contact with a firearm or other dangerous weapon..." Training is the key to safety -- not locks and bans.

Recommended book (free download):

Gun Facts

Corruption and Political Campaign Finances

Like most Americans, I am deeply concerned by the incredible volume of money that funds political campaigns. It is absurd that a presidential campaign will spend several hundreds of millions of dollars to get a job that pays only $400,000 per year. This phenomenon is typical of political office.

Naturally, there is no way that this ready and steady flow of money cannot be accompanied by corruption. The funding of political campaign is an excellent opportunity for individuals, organizations, and businesses to buy the attention of a politician.

The laws are full of loopholes (intended and unintended). They allow wealthy candidates such as Bloomberg, Romney and Perot to buy their way into office while possibly better candidates have no chance of winning because they have no chance of ever matching the opponent's spending.

The playing filed favors the incumbents. I believe a substantial portion of incumbents need to be removed from office -- but I don't think term limits are the answer. Controlling the money and the power and influence it buys is the best answer to cleansing corruption from politics.

There have been many attempts by both legislatures and courts to regulate campaign finances and even advertising outside the control of a candidate. However, as usual, politicians and judges often mess things up more than they fix them. Such is the case with campaign finances.

No campaign finance law has ever helped to control corruption in politics, to move unworthy incumbents out of office, or to protect the rights of the people. As with other laws, only honest people obey the law anyway.

Here is my humble solution:

• Ban all anonymous contributions -- require full verification of the identity of each and every donor.
• Ban all financing and advertising which can be connected in any way to foreign nations, foreign-owned or controlled businesses, citizens of foreign nations, etc. -- especially illegal aliens or organizations thereof.
• Require all individuals, organizations, businesses, and labor unions to disclose in their political advertising how much of their company is controlled by foreign nationals, or if this isn’t possible, how much of their financing or control comes from foreign nationals.
• Ban all Political Action Committees (PACs) controlled by, or behalf of, any group of politicians or candidates other than registered political parties.
• Limit all Political Action Committees controlled by, or on behalf of, any individual politician or candidate to managing and expending resources solely for that politician's own campaigns. All resources not used by any candidate's campaign and PAC must be donated to charity within 90 days of the conclusion of each campaign season.
• Allow unlimited contributions from US citizens, legal US residents, US organizations, US businesses, and US labor unions.
• Limit each candidate's spending of personal plus immediate family funds to be no more than the annual salary of the elected office he is seeking.
• Limit the total campaign spending by any candidate plus that of his PAC to be no more than 10 times the annual salary of the elected office he is seeking. All funds in excess of this amount must immediately be donated to charity.
• Limit the total campaign spending by a political party on behalf of a candidate to be no more than 50 times the annual salary of the elected office he is seeking. All funds in excess of this amount must immediately be donated to charity.
• Limit the total campaign spending by any entity other than a political party or candidate on behalf of a candidate to be no more than 5 times the annual salary of the elected office he is seeking. No entity may establish any alter ego nor provide resources to any other entity to circumvent this provision. All funds in excess of this amount must immediately be donated to charity.
• Mandate full and immediate public disclosure of every donation and its donor. All contributions must be to a specific candidate's campaign or to a registered political party.
• Require all individuals, organizations, businesses, and labor unions to certify, before giving or spending in elections, that they are in compliance with these requirements.

Recommend book:

Glenn Beck: Common Sense

On Keeping Religious Values out of Politics

It often seems that all the demons from Hell (yeah, I'm talking about you, Democrats) are shrieking about those politicians who dare posses religious values -- let alone be guided by those values. So, what did our founders say about religious values in government?

Samuel Adams wrote, "Religion and good morals are the only solid foundation of public liberty and happiness." (letter to John Trumbull, 16 Oct 1778)

Gouverneur Morris, another founder, said, "[F]or avoiding the extremes of despotism or anarchy....the only ground of hope must be on the morals of the people. I believe that religion is the only solid base of morals and that morals are the only possible support of free governments. [T]herefore education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man towards God."

Elias Boudinot, yet another founding father: "Good government generally begins in the family, and if the moral character of a people once degenerate, their political character must soon follow."

Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence said, "[T]he only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be aid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments. Without religion, I believe that learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind."

Noah Webster, another founder: "[T]he Christian religion, in its purity, is the basis, or rather the source of all genuine freedom in government. . . . and I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of that religion have not a controlling influence."

Again, Noah Webster: "The moral principles and precepts contained in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. . . All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible."

George Washington, president of the Constitutional Convention, First President of the United States of America, Father of our nation: "Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society."

Benjamin Franklin, Signer of the Declaration of Independence: "[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."

Eliminating God from politics can be both good and bad. I've been to 124 nations during my 37-year career as a military and airline pilot. I've seen good countries. I've seen bad. I've been in places I never want to visit again. The worst include those that cut God out (ie most of Africa and Communist nations such as China and Russia). A bit better are those that impose a narrow view of God (ie Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Iraq). The nations that offer the most individual freedom and opportunity are those that acknowledge and encourage religious expression. Of these, the most freedom (especially religious freedom) exists in Christian nations -- most notably the USA.

I believe the founders of our nation established the best possible balance of keeping religion out of politics while encouraging the positive values religion brings. Of high importance in the minds of the founders (as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution) was individual human rights. The government they designed and described in the Constitution was crafted specifically to preserve those individual rights (which they beloved come from the Creator -- rights, in most other nations come from the king).

Over the past 100+ years we have been on a steady march toward pushing religious values out of politics and replacing those values with collectivism (imposing the rights of the state and those who control the state as opposed to fostering individual human rights).

This collectivism (driven by Democrats and enabled by liberal/moderate Republicans and assisted by the government school system) has resulted in an army of over 3.5 million bureaucrats (Think about that -- one government bureaucrat for every 100 people! And, the current health care reform bill is a collectivist's dream -- it will add 111 new bureaucracies!) administering trillions of dollars in feel-good social programs that have done nothing to lift people out of poverty. To fund that monstrosity, our amoral politicians have imposed a level of taxation that makes it difficult for individuals to be charitable -- impossible for some. Collectivists have imposed excise and corporate taxes and feel-good regulations that make our domestic products non-competitive with imports -- driving jobs and entire industries out of the country and leaving our own people unemployed.

Real people are being hurt by this big-government collectivism and its push to fund social programs designed specifically to make us dependent on the collective (big government) and its social programs (welfare, health care, Social Security, etc.). The right of the individual to make his own way and to help his neighbor have been pushed aside because half his income (Much of the taxes you pay are hidden from you because they are imposed on manufacturers and service-providers, then passed on to you in the higher price of the goods and services you buy.) is taken to fund the collective. Imagine how much good you could do for your neighbor if the collective didn't take half your money! All this has happened because a majority of the people, and the people they elect, have lost their moral compass (God). No, we shouldn't take religious values and morality out of politics.

Not so long ago, when a man sinned, he felt guilty and went to his clergyman to confess. His pastor guided him through the process of repentance. Today, when a man sins, he feels guilty and goes to this therapist for help. The therapist either gives him drugs to chemically suppress his guilt or helps him to overcome his feelings of guilt by convincing him that guilt is bad -- not to overcome the act or thought that caused the guilt. Collectively, we have ceased to become a moral people. As a nation, we have ceased follow the teachings of our religions. Instead, we have allowed or asked the government to take away our guilt by doing for us the good we should be doing ourselves. And, government is happy to oblige -- for a fee: half our earnings and all our individual responsibility and liberty.

"In a state-run society the government promises you security. But it's a false promise predicated on the idea that the opposite of security is risk. Nothing could be further from the truth. The opposite of security is insecurity, and the only way to overcome insecurity is to take risks. The gentle government that promises to hold your hand as you cross the street refuses to let go on the other side." — Theodore Forstmann

So, why do we ask politicians and government bureaucracies take care of doing good (which they never will) in our place instead of insisting we do it ourselves?

Recommended book:


What Would the Founders Do?: Our Questions, Their Answers

Another Democrat Attacks Republican Principles

Today, I came across a rambling and bitter blog complaining about Republicans and our opposition to the government takeover of health care (and other private-sector enterprises such as car manufacturing, banking, and insurance. She believes that our opposition is un-Christ-like. Her essay reveals a frighteningly shallow understanding of the principles of liberty on which our nation was founded and an even more shallow understanding of Christ-like charity. I say "frighteningly" because she has the power of the vote. Here is my response to that essay:

The writer said, "I don’t get how a huge group of Mormons are so against their own president and speak so harshly of him and are so judgemental [sic] of him...."

I don't know anyone who is against the president himself. Democrats can say we're racist all they want, but that'll never make us racists. The bottom line is that we oppose his irresponsible and unconstitutional big-government agenda. The man (with no demonstrated valid birth certificate) currently residing in the Whitehouse is but one of the many politicians who have strayed far beyond their Constitutional limits. It is that extreme deviation from the Constitution we oppose, not the man per se.

She said, "[d]on’t we learn from a young age that 'We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law'?" and places her trust in our "God-inspired government".

Yes, and we also believe those same kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates also must obey, honor, and sustain the law. In fact, our politicians at all levels (as do law enforcement officers, military servicemen, and attorneys) swear an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same...." Any student of the US Constitution knows that it establishes a strictly-defined and limited federal government and delegates to that government limited powers to perform only those specific functions while retaining to the sovereign States and the people all other rights and powers. Over the past 100+ years, the federal government has reached far beyond the limits established by the Constitution (this usurpation of power accelerated sharply about the time of the enactment of the 19th Amendment).

As for her trust in our "God-inspired government" -- whoa! I see absolutely no inspiration in the way our government is running! I believe the Constitution and the form of government it mandates are God-inspired. But, our government has stayed far from that document. Over the past 100+ years, our courts, Congress, and administration have become cesspools of corruption. That is not a "God-inspired government"!

She went on to say it is a sin that we Republicans don't accept (the blogger prefers the term, "freak out") the notion that we should legislate health care for all.

I, on the other hand, agree with God when he said it is a sin to steal (Exodus 20:15). It is a sin for me to steal from another to pay my own health care bills. It is no less a sin to ask other people with guns (the government) to do the stealing for me. The Constitution does not authorize anyone to tax (legalized plunder) one person to pay another person's bills for health care, food, lodging, child care, transportation, or any other personal need or want. Such coercion is hardly Christ-like. Yet, that is what Democrats and far too many Republicans advocate.

She pointed out that "the Prophet speaks of helping others and serving others and that that is what the government welfare system does".

If that's "what the government welfare system does", why has it done nothing to reduce the portion of Americans who are in poverty? Government programs have only enabled the hereditary dependency on the dole for generations. And, I challenge the writer to cite where any prophet has endorsed the government welfare system or lauded any success it might have had. Please note that, as in funding a government-subsidized or government-managed health-care industry, the government welfare scheme relies entirely on government theft of private property (some call that process "taxation") for its existence.

She claimed it is un-Christ-like to be unwilling to "help with their tax dollars or even just speak kindly about people in need, like illegal aliens or gay people, because they think all their rights are being taken away and that they shouldn’t have to give their hard earned time or money".

I am offended that anyone would call me "un-Christ-like" simply because my understanding of charity does not include the concept of force or the threat of force (which is what taxation requires). In addition to faithfully donating my tithes and offerings to the Church, I share my income and time with various charities outside the church. In fact, I donate more to charity in a few months than our current vice president, Joe Biden, has during his entire political career (averaging a generous average of $369 to charity per year) and our current president during all but the last five years of his career (averaging a generous average of 1% to charity per year prior to 2005). This charitable generosity is typical of Democrat politicians. They prefer to be generous with somebody else's money -- not their own.

Advocates of big-government social programs such as government-run welfare and government-run health care (including the blogger) say they are are necessary because individual "greed gets in the way". The problem with that stand is that those advocates assume that all of us are tiny little selfish souls requiring coercion just like they are. They don't know, understand, or care that a a substantial portion of us do give -- and give a lot! And such was the case before big government started stepping in. Now too many are like the blogger and expect big government to do everything at somebody else's expense. Don't judge us Republicans by that Democrat selfishness! Nevertheless, their property is theirs and it is their right to use it however they wish -- and it is a primary role of government to protect that right to be selfish or generous with one's own property.

The author noted that, "Jesus would have given to the poor and helped the needy – well that’s what socialism does and what the Democrats want to have happen."

Yes, Jesus helped the poor and needy in his day. He would do so today. He expects us to do likewise and has established a couple of ways to do that such as asking (not demanding by threat of government force) for Fast Offerings and other forms of charity. A true disciple of Christ gives of himself and his own resources out of love for the Savior and love and concern for one's fellow man. But, Jesus would never force any one to give. I recall learning that in our preexistence, there was a war in Heaven over whether we should be forced to do good. Jesus was opposed to that concept. Socialism, which you seemed to believe Christ taught, is imposed by the State. The United Order -- which some erroneously liken to Socialism -- was entirely voluntary as are all other offerings in the Church.

She acknowledges that "free agency is a God-given right....And my free agency is that I want to have universal health care. That’s my choice. It’s also the choice of millions within the Democratic Party."

What a profound misunderstanding of free-agency! She actually believes she has a right to have me pay for her "universal health care"! Nobody has a right to infringe on the rights of others -- except, apparently, the blogger. She wants the government to deprive me of my right to use my property (hard-earned fruits of my labors) on her behalf! Government's role is to protect my rights -- not infringe on them to supply to her something she did not earn. If she gets any help from me, it be because of my sense of charity -- not because I am a victim of legalized theft.

She reminds us that Jesus said "if you love me feed my sheep" and therefore asks, "doesn’t it make sense that the US government should mandate health care for everyone?"

She seems to believe He was speaking of establishing soup lines for the poor. She should know better. Jesus was teaching Peter about meeting the spiritual needs of His flock -- not giving them a bowl of soup. Even so, He gave that instruction to Peter and, by extension, to the members of His church -- not to the government! No, it does not "make sense that the US government should mandate health care for everyone" based on taking that one teaching out of context!

My non-church charitable giving includes a hospital foundation that pays for the care of people who have no insurance and cannot afford to pay for health care. That is charity. Letting the government take money from me to pay those same bills is not charity!

That blog seems to be quite bitter toward Republicans. I suggest the writer compare the difference in charitable giving between members of the two major political parties. She will find that we Republicans are hardly the sinful, compassionless people she seem to believe we are. Instead, we understand that true charity provides personal satisfaction and joy and brings eternal rewards while helping those in need. Delegating "charity" to the government and it's forced paying of somebody else's bill brings absolutely no reward to the "giver" in this life or the next.

According to a study published a couple of years ago, the average Republican donates 30% more to charity than does the average Democrat. Republicans are also more generous at donating time and blood. Democrats, on the other hand, seem to favor government-paid-and-controlled "volunteer" organizations such as AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps. Sure, they might do some good, but extracting my money to fund any government-run program just isn't charity!

If we Republicans weren't subjected to so much forced charity, we'd have more resources to be truly charitable and Democrats would have more resources to spend on their selfish selves.

All that said, I challenge anyone to identify at least one government program program (ie Medicare, Medicaid, SCHP, Social Security, Veterans Administration health care, public education, postal service, airport security, border control, Congress itself) that is, or has been, run efficiently and wisely for any significant period. Does anyone really believe that a government-run health care will be any better?

Recommended book:

Who Killed Health Care?: America's $2 Trillion Medical Problem - and the Consumer-Driven Cure

No UN Small Arms Treaty!

When Senator Hilary Clinton was nominated to be Secretary of State, I wrote to warn my senators that a vote in her favor would be considered a vote against gun rights in the United States. Nevertheless, both my self-described pro-gun-rights senators were among 98 of 100 senators who voted to confirmed her.

As I expected, the US Stated Department, under the leadership of Secretary Clinton, has agreed to a timetable for a UN Gun Ban.

The UN’s “Small Arms Treaty” is nothing more than a massive global gun control scheme, designed to register, ban and confiscate firearms from law-abiding citizens. The ratification of this treaty will likely create an international gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.

The treaty will likely be designed to force national governments to enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding citizens cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to buy a firearm legally. The United Nation’s “Small Arms Treaty” would also likely ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic firearms.

The authors of the US Constitution wisely provided for Senate confirmation of all presidential nominees. The purpose of this process is to protect the US Constitution and the liberties it guarantees from an activist and power-hungry administration and from activist nominees such as Hillary Clinton. Therefore, Senators must make all decisions regarding presidential appointees based not only on the nominee's professional qualifications but more importantly on his/her respect for the Constitution and not on whether he/she is politically correct (politically cleansed).

On taking office, every Senator takes the following oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

Senators do not take an oath to any political ideology, political party, party leader, king, or president. They take an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." In recent decades -- and especially during the current administration -- the Senate has done a horrible job in protecting the US Constitution because Senators make their decisions based on political ideology or convenience -- not the nominee's qualification or his/her potential effect on liberty.

Every Senator must begin to undo the damage inflicted on the nation and the US Constitution by their vote to confirm Secretary Clinton. They must aggressively fight against ratification of any UN “Small Arms Treaty.”

Recommended book:

Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control

Is Capitalism To Blame For Our Current Financial Crisis?

In the 14 January issue of Iron County Today, Luke Perry condemned capitalism and its leading proponent, Adam Smith. Mr. Perry even blamed the current economic crisis on capitalist greed of the last decade.

I suggest Mr. Perry study capitalism a bit more and compare it with the economic model we actually have in the United States and elsewhere in the world. In doing so, he will find that our economic model is actually built on the teachings of John Maynard Keynes, a leading proponent of government intervention in the economy.

We have a financial crisis because government policies and regulations have imposed the will of politicians (mostly attorneys seeking power over the lives of others -- not businessmen familiar with the workings of capitalism) upon every aspect of business.

Capitalism exists when one entity creates a product or service that a consumer wants or needs at a price the consumer can afford and at a price that enables the producer to make a profit so he can buy another capitalist's product or service. Capitalists discover or create a market, then satisfy that market. Jobs are created in the process enabling more people to have the means to buy goods and services from capitalists.

When allowed to flourish, capitalists almost always have competitors which encourage competition. Completion drives prices down and encourages innovation and efficiency. Capitalists who fail to efficiently produce a quality product or service at a competitive price tend to go out of business.

Unfortunately, thanks to the teachings of Keynes, few capitalists are truly allowed to practice pure capitalism. Government bailouts and subsidies have insulated large corporations and corporate leaders from the consequences of failure and poor decisions and therefore are rarely held accountable by stockholders and corporate directors. Irrational regulations and subsidies intended to protect the interests of certain politicians and their supporters have impeded the smooth operation of capitalism for many, many decades.

There is a limited role for government regulation of business. Adam Smith identified that role when he expressed his concern over monopolies: government must protect the individual rights of the people from unrestrained monopolies. I also accept a government role in protecting individual rights (that is a primary role of government, after all) in other aspects such as setting reasonable safety and health standards.

The Constitution authorizes and requires Congress to ensure interstate and international trade flow smoothly. Beyond that, interventionist politicians, such as Chris Dodd and Barney Frank (a couple of the real authors of our current financial distress), have absolutely no right nor Constitutional authority to impose their will on business. If Mr. Perry wants to place the blame for our financial problems, he needs to look at the politicians (such as Chris Dodd and Barney Frank) who stifle capitalism and competition and at the voters (victims of today's government schools) who keep returning the same corrupt politicians to Washington.

Recommended book:

The Fair Trade Fraud

If George Bush Was Such An Idiot...

A friend passed the following to me and I just had to post it here. It relates to the unprecedented journalism bias and it's unwillingness to properly inform the voting public.

Although I twice voted for him, I’m hardly a die-hard George Bush fan, just posting this in the interest highlighting today's profound lack of journalistic integrity and objectivity.

• If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

• If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

• If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

• If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

• If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

• If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

• If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?

• If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

• If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?

• If George W. Bush had been so Spanish-illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

• If George W. Bush had misspelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of what a dunce he is?

• If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?

• If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether he actually got what happened on 9-11?

• If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you have made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

• If George W. Bush had created the positions of 32 or more Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America, would you have approved?

• If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

• If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

• If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

• If George W. Bush had spent more than all the Presidents combined since George Washington, would you have approved?

These are Obama's accomplishments in 11 months. With the assistance of our nation's news media. So, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive?

Recommended book:

Taking America Back: A Radical Plan to Revive Freedom, Morality, and Justice

Another Victim of Political Pandering to Illegal "Immigrants"

A few nights ago, sheriff's deputy in Utah was murdered by illegal "immigrants". This is only one of countless serious crimes committed by people who simply don't belong here!

Meanwhile, politicians think we voters and taxpayers are stupid enough to believe that we need "comprehensive immigration reform". "Comprehensive immigration reform" is actually a deceptive name for a plan that gives the nation away to people like the two cowards who committed the crime mentioned above.

What we really need is full enforcement of existing laws with the full assistance of local and state law enforcement agencies. The only "comprehensive" reform needed is in the corrupt and traitorous halls of Congress and in the Whitehouse -- a moral and ethical reform that restores the US Constitution and the rule of law.

For decades, Congress and the Whitehouse have been grossly negligent in adequately protecting our borders from an overwhelming invasion of illegal aliens. This negligence has resulted in a situation which is rapidly becoming irreparable. Further delay in courageously attacking the problem will only further exacerbate the problem. If this invasion is allowed to continue, I have serous concerns about which language will be dominant in this nation, which constitution will guide our laws, and which national flag will fly over our government buildings.

But the blame also lies at the state and local level because politicians at this level also lack the courage and integrity to do what is right regarding those invade our borders. Utah, for example, only charges in-state tuition rates to the children of illegals while legitimate residents must wait a year for that benefit!

• The Whitehouse must immediately enforce all immigration and border-control laws. Congress must immediately give the Administration all resources needed to do so.
• Congress and the Whitehouse must immediately establish an adequate barrier to illegall crossing our border with Mexico through increased border patrol agents, increased use of technology, formal use of volunteer “Minutemen” monitors (President Bush erroneously called them vigilantes), and armed military troops. Mine the borders if necessary!
• Congress must deputize all local, state, and federal lawmen to enforce immigration laws. All local law enforcement agencies nationwide must participate in the 287G program that offers training and certification to officers to enforce immigration laws.
• The Administration must stop jailing border guards for doing their jobs!
• State legislatures and Congress must immediately establish felony criminal penalties and loss of business licenses for employers who hire illegal aliens. Employers must be required to verify each employee thorough a computerized Social Security ID base.
• Employers must be required to pay the costs of all government services provided to illegal immigrants in their employ. Without an economic incentive to stay in the US, the illegals will go home -- no deportation is necessary.
• State legislatures and Congress must immediately establish felony criminal penalties for anyone who offers humanitarian aid to illegal immigrants except as necessary to ensure their prompt and safe return to their own nation.
• Congress and the Whitehouse must immediately stop the practice of giving citizenship to anyone born in the United States unless one or both parents are already US citizens.
• Congress must establish increased penalties including felony criminal sentences coupled with immediate deportation for those who are caught entering the Unite States illegally.
• State legislatures and Congress must immediately ban all government aid to illegal immigrants including any form of welfare, medical care, and reduced/no-cost education.
• Congress and the Whitehouse must immediately pass legislation making English the official language of the United States.
• All local, state, and federal government agencies must immediately cease to provide services and publications in any language other than English for anyone who has been in the country for more than 1 year.
• All local, state, and federal government agencies (especially congressmen) must immediately terminate all government functions (including non-tourism websites and all election materials) in any language other than English.
• The United States does not need “guest-workers.” This term has only been developed to obfuscate the fact that our government has been grossly negligent in controlling an invasion by foreign nationals. If Congress is to establish a guest-worker program, guest-workers must be limited to stays of not more than 6 months in the US with at least 6 months outside the US before applying for another guest-worker visa.
• Amnesty for current illegal aliens must be offered only to those who have no criminal record and who speak and read English and only after paying a substantial fine and only after all current applicants for legal entry are processed. Until then, they must go home!

How bad is illegal immigration? Nearly 3,000 new invaders cross our borders every day and the numbers are accelerating! It is estimated that ten percent of Mexico's population now lives in the US! Fifteen percent of Mexico's labor force is working in the US! In 2005, Mexico received a record $20 billion in remittances to family members from migrant workers living in the US! That is equal to Mexico's 2004 income from oil exports and dwarfs its tourism revenue! Immigration is out of control, and Congressmen (ie Harry Reid, D-NV who long ago traded his eternal soul for temporary political gain) say we're racist if we citizens are concerned! (If you don't have a legitimate argument and know you are wrong, just call the other side nasty names.)

The last US president to have any courage whatsoever on the issue was Eisenhower! I expect nothing less from our current president! The mere existence of congressional and Whitehouse websites in Spanish is proof enough that US politicians hold no loyalty to US citizens and legal voters.

Other than restoring the slave class (Didn't we fight a war over that issue?) in our nation, what do congressmen and presidents gain by giving amnesty to those who violate our borders?

Congress and the Whitehouse must stop stalling and act now! Every state's legislature and governor must demand the federal government do so.

Recommended book:

The Truth about Tolerance

Why Do Cops Have Guns?

A couple of nights ago, a lone sheriff's deputy was shot and killed in a neighboring county by illegal "immigrants". She had made a felony stop (unrelated to the citizenship of the felons) and was killed before she could even get her pistol out of her holster. Today's news included a related story discussing the long time it can take for backup to arrive. The story focuses on the very long delays a rural cop can expect, but even a few seconds can be too long. Most violent crimes are over in an instant.

If, as the story explains, a cop can expect a long delay before backup arrives, then surely a citizen should also be prepared for the possibility of a long delay before a law enforcement officer shows up in a time of need. That is not to say that our local and state law enforcement agencies don't do a good job -- they do. But they can't be everywhere all the time. It is a fact that they often arrive after the violence is over and all they can do is draw chalk outlines, take pictures, file reports, and investigate the crime.

The courts have consistently ruled that the police have no obligation to protect individuals. For example, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the US Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. By a vote of 7-to-2, the Supreme Court ruled that Gonzales has no right to sue her local police department for failing to protect her and her children from her estranged husband.

Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable for citizens, like cops, to have the best tool available for self-defense (a gun) so he can take care of himself until the police arrive. Cops don't carry guns so they can shoot criminals. They carry guns to protect themselves. The same purpose applies to citizens.

Recommended reading:

Dial 911 And Die

The following video clip shows why police response is sometimes slow -- the system is sometimes jammed up by idiots unnecessarily using up our emergency services:

The TSA and Whole Body Scanners

I won't be surprised if this commentary puts me on a TSA terrorist watch list. But, here it comes:

A man whom I respect a lot, Dennis Prager, recently wrote to advocate more use of whole body scanners.

As an airline pilot, I typically spend about 16 days a month traveling by air (yes, we airline employees are subjected to the same screening as everyone else). So, I understand where he's coming from, but if he saw as much of airport security as I do, I think he'd change his mind.

I've been subjected to the whole body scanners on multiple occasions. Yes, the scanners are effective in finding foreign objects carried by by people who are not a determined threat (they once caught me with one of those little Burger King salt packets in my front left pocket -- nothing carried under or in the clothing gets past 'em).

But, they're expensive, incredibly inefficient, and will not stop a determined threat (more on that later)! It takes several minutes to process each passenger in each scanner. It is unreasonable to expect to process even half the passengers using this method. And it doesn't stop evil-doers from shifting contraband from their body to their luggage -- and current technology still lets a lot of contraband get through in the luggage. Likewise, It doesn't catch contraband carried inside the body -- a practice long employed by smugglers. A determined, savvy, and organized adversary will always defeat whatever technology the TSA chooses to deploy.

TSA claims that the whole-body scan is not an intrusion on privacy. If that is the case, why not post everybody's scan on the Internet with names and dates? Start with Janet Napolitano! If these scans are not an egregious intrusion, why are many scanner operators worried about violating child porn laws?

Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) said, "Nobody needs to see my wife and kids naked to secure an airplane." Yet, in the name of "security", we are losing against the surveillance state, all because of the "systemic failure" of the federal government (as Obama himself recently called it).

If we continue to allow it -- or even ask for it -- the government will continue stripping away our privacy and liberty, all to foil the last attack, but the terrorists will continue to circumvent any of their silly, yet freedom-crushing "security" measures.

Judge Andrew Napolitano explained, "Airline travel is safer today because pilots have guns, cockpit doors are like bank vaults, and the passengers have become courageous. All this was done by individuals in the private sector, not by the government. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if the feds had not stripped us of our natural rights to keep ourselves safe—by keeping and bearing arms—9/11 would never have happened."

I have experienced the superior airport screening process used by Israel and by El Al. I am always impressed. They know how to identify evil people. Sure, they'll confiscate dangerous things when they find them, but their focus is on identifying dangerous people. You see, it is people, not things that pose a danger to us. There is nobody in TSA who is smart enough or trained enough to do what Israel's screeners do.

Silly ideas like banning bottles of water and the in-flight use of airplane toilets should give one a clue about how far in over their heads the TSA really is. Whole body scanners are an unreasonable and an inadequate solution to a transportation security system that is more eyewash and a government-jobs program than it is security.

It's time for airport screeners to stop focusing on things and focus on people instead. Just like gun control and the criminal use of guns, evil people are the problem -- not the inanimate things they use to hurt us.

The goal of terrorism is to cripple a population by instilling fear. Our adversary has succeeded in that goal -- with the full cooperation and support of our central government. By giving up individual freedom and rights in the name of security -- especially when it is a false security -- we have handed victory to our enemies. Our politicians must be replaced because, like the terrorists, they have used fear to gain power over us.

We should be ashamed by our cowardice and unwillingness to fight for liberty.

"Those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Recommended book:

Freedom in Chains: The Rise of the State and the Demise of the Citizen

How's Big Government Working For Ya?

According to Ronald Reagan, "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."

Recommended reading:

Glenn Beck: Common Sense

Gun-Free Zones Kill Again!

Once again, a bad guy has proven the absolute folly of "gun-free" zones such as schools, churches, federal buildings, and court houses. This morning, it was a federal court house in Las Vegas.

The courts, including the US Supreme Court, have repeatedly ruled that the police have no obligation to protect individuals or even groups. In fact, it is not reasonable to expect them to do so. Violent crimes are typically over long before police have a chance to respond. All the can do is collect evidence. Additionally, we don't want a nation where police are so prevalent that the can stop all crime before it happens.

One of our most basic human rights is our right to protect ourselves and our families from harm. Gun-free zones (ie military installations, most schools, most churches, federal buildings, many businesses, and even court houses) by definition deprive law-abiding citizens of the most effective means of self-protection -- a gun. These disarmed potential victims are left completely vulnerable to attack by those who, by definition, disobey laws such as gun bans.

Experience and reason clearly indicate that gun-free zones do nothing but assure criminals, and now terrorists, that they will find unarmed victims defenseless against a homicidal rampage. The only people who have guns in gun-free zones are criminals and maybe a cop or two.

I hold the authorities who establish gun-free zones just as accountable for the deaths and injuries as the shooter himself. It is foolish to assume that disarming good people makes bad people behave as they should. It is my firm opinion that any person, government, agency, business, school, or any other entity that creates a gun-free zone must provide absolute security and safety for all who enter therein. I can't quite decide whether gun-free zones are an illusion or an hallucination. But I do know they are evil.

Utah's legislature is one of countless government entities that have established gun-free zones and/or have provided for businesses, churches, and government agencies to establish gun-free zones. I believe the Utah legislature and Congress must promptly pass legislation requiring all entities that establish gun-free zones also provide absolute security to include armed guards and full screening for weapons.

We must no longer tolerate any attempts to disarm law abiding citizens with silly schemes that criminals will never obey. Tragically, there will be shootings in "gun-free" zones again, but they will happen with, or without any gun laws anyone can think of. Disarming victims is not the solution!

Recommended book:

More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws

Gun-Control Fear-Mongering Again!

I recently read an op-ed by Martin Gottlieb entitled "In wake of conceal/carry, new stats worth a look" wherein the writer tries to paint concealed handgun license-holders as one breath away from committing a killing spree. As is usual with the establishment media, Gottlieb uses arguments based on the same tired anti-gun themes and relies on the long-discredited Violence Policy Center (VPC) for "facts" on gun control and gun violence. This is like the three little pigs relying on the wolf for learning the best way to build a wolf-proof house.

For example, Gottlieb starts by quoting a biased Associated Press (AP) article: "In the last two years, 24 states, mostly in the South and West, have passed 47 new laws loosening gun restrictions". A more accurate statement would be, "In the last two years, 24 states, mostly in the South and West, have passed 47 new laws restoring the Constitutionally-guaranteed human right of self-defense. Doing so in all states and at the federal level is long overdue".

Gottlieb's use of "statistics" from the VPC is typical of lazy journalism. He apparently is unwilling to check those facts. Were he to do so, he would learn that concealed firearm permit holders are generally commit less crimes than do the population in general (Gun Facts, pages 49-54). In fact, they are statistically less likely to commit crimes than police officers! Overall, in Gottlieb's home state of Ohio, less than one half of one percent of licenses have been revoked for any reason - a staggering small number which is at the fingertips of any journalist willing to properly research the issue. Gottlieb never mentions it because the number shows that the system is working and that license-holders are truly honest law-abiding citizens.

One of the favorite arguments of the anti-gun crowd goes like this: "Gun laws are so lax that there is nothing to stop me from going down and buying a gun and a backpack full of ammo, then shooting up a school." In making that statement, gun control advocates reveal their own propensity toward violence and lawlessness. You see, the vast majority of gun owners never consider shooting up schools. Only criminals and gun-control advocates think that way. Criminals and crazy people think of shooting up schools, because they are, well, criminals and crazy people. Gun control advocates think that way because they are, well, crazy people who don't trust themselves to not become criminals. They wrongly assume that the rest of us have the same criminal propensities as they do.

Recommended reading:

Gun Facts (free!)

Hickock45 on the importance of reasonable and effective gun control:

Betrayed by Congress...Again

I am deeply disappointed that both the Senate and the House have again voted to violate the US Constitution and the individual rights it protects by passing sweeping bills that impose its elitist will on the health care and health insurance sectors of private enterprise thereby exceeding the authority delegated to Congress by the States and the People.

As expected, the one thing that congress should do to control health care costs -- meaningful tort reform -- is not addressed in its 2,000 page legislation!

We commoners (whom congressmen purportedly represent) expected and demanded every congressman to fight to kill this anti-liberty legislation with all the power they could muster. I am deeply disappointed that legislator opposition to these bills was largely invisible or week or altogether non-existent. Simply making a short speech on the floor of the House or the Senate was not enough effort. Attaching a few small amendments to the bills was not enough effort. Simply casting a "no" vote was not enough effort.

I am disappointed that a majority (perhaps all) of congressmen owe their loyalty to their party and to party leaders and not to the US Constitution which they have sworn to defend. I am disgusted that many congressmen accepted bribes from party leaders in exchange for their votes.

I urge every congressman to take every possible step to see that this legislation never gets out of negotiations between the House and Senate.

Otherwise, we voters will remember this betrayal at the ballot box.

I LIke Guns

Home Depot and its Anti-Gun Policy Hurt People!

On the night of 17 December, two employees of the Home Depot in Washington City, Utah were violently attacked and injured. The employees who were assaulted could easily have been killed or permanently disabled Thursday night.

Regrettably, Home Depot prohibits employees from possessing the one instrument best suited to self defense -- a gun. It is my opinion that any entity (such as Home Depot) that refuses a person the right to self defense must be held criminally and civilly responsible for any harm resulting from that refusal.

Most States, including Utah, have in place a process of training and certifying concealed firearm permit holders to ensure that they can carry a self-defense firearm safely and that only persons with good judgment are certified. It is time for Home Depot to recognize that simple fact and allow its employees the means to protect themselves. Failing that, Home Depot has a moral obligation to provide each employee with an armed bodyguard to ensure their safety.

Because it failed to protect its employees and because it prohibits them from protecting themselves, Home Depot owes a huge apology and substantial compensation to the employees who were harmed in their anti-gun store on Thursday night.

Recommended reading:

America Fights Back: Armed Self-defense in a Violent Age

Get Government out of Health Care!

If you think health care is expensive now (one study claims $7,600 per year per person), wait to see what it costs when it's "free!"

I defy anyone to name one program that is run by the government that runs well and is cost-effective. The root of socialism (which is what many want for our health care system) is covetousness. Instead of working for a health care program similar to mine, the have-nots simply want me to pay for a comparable program for them. They want me to pay their bills! Some power-hungry politicians, such as Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama, simply want control of the biggest sector of the nation's economy and use that power to bribe voters.

Eight-five percent of this nation has health insurance and full access to the world's best health care because they work for it and earn it. That success story is far better than government's performance in nearly any area one can imagine. To presume that government can fix anything, let alone health care is preposterous. There is absolutely nothing about our current health care that government can or will improve except to comply with the US Constitution and butt out and allow the free market to recover. The15% without health insurance can largely be resolved by a government with the integrity to enforce immigration law. The remaining uninsured will be cared for by charity, as they have in the past, if government will allow the workers of this nation to keep the money they work hard to earn.

We have the best health care system in the world. The world comes to US for health care when they can't get it at home -- including from industrialized nations such as Canada and the UK where health care has been nationalized. The world comes to US for innovations in medicine. Our doctors (including one of my neighbors) and nurses travel around the world at their own expense (or at the expense of charitable organizations) to share their expertise with developing nations. In spite of this, power-hungry politicians say our health care system is broken and in crisis and only they can rescue it. The solution is simple to fix whatever health care "crisis" we might have:

• Determine what is actually wrong and fix only that -- don't use problems or perceived problems as an excuse to nationalize the entire health care and health insurance industries! Whatever problems exist in the health care and health insurance industries are typically caused by excessive government interference in the free market.
• Get the lawyers out of the health care business! Litigation with outrageous lawsuit awards and settlements is one of two primary causes of high health care costs. We must have tort reform that will make ambulance chasers like John Edwards find honest work. Make it possible for medical practitioners to make decisions based on good medicine rather than on avoiding frivolous and excessive litigation.
• Eliminate laws that unnecessarily interfere with the free market -- particularly in the health insurance business. Allowing competition (not imposing competition from government as suggested by Nancy Pelosi) in the market will drive down insurance rates.
• Establish tax-free health savings accounts similar to IRAs.
• Make the cost of health insurance 100% tax-credit for individuals as well as employers.
• Make charitable giving a 100% tax-credit (perhaps then, even stingy people such as Barack Obama and Joe Biden will give a meaningful amount to charity). In the tax code, establish a special category of charity that would pay for medical treatment of those who cannot afford their own health care.
• Stop giving anchor-baby citizenships and enforce immigration laws to force illegals out of the country. Ban tax-exempt status for any entity that gives aid to illegals. Ban the tax-deductibility of all donations given to any entity that gives aid to illegals. Impose a 100% income tax on any entity that employs illegals. These simple steps will eliminate the burden of a substantial portion uninsured health care consumers.
• Many of the uninsured in the US have a low-risk of needing health care (ie college students). They are driven out of the insurance market because insurance companies are required by law to pass the cost of high-risk persons on to low-risk customers. Consequently, college students and other low risk, low-income potential customers avoid the insurance market. Congress must restore the free market and allow insurance companies to charge premiums based on risk. Congress must allow the people to help those in high-risk categories through charity.
• Stop paying unmarried woment to have babies.
• Eliminate all unconstitutional national programs and agencies (including Medicare, SCHIP, Medicaid, etc.) and eliminate all direct and indirect federal funding of non-profit organizations (including Planned Parenthood, AmeriCorps, ACORN, etc.) and cut taxes accordingly. That will allow consumers to keep their own hard-earned money to actually pay their own bills.
• Require all congressmen and retired congressmen live with the same health care benefits the rest of the nation enjoy.

These are simple steps that Congress can and must do immediately that will shrink government, restore liberty to the people, and provide an environment in which the health care and health insurance industries can improve themselves through the free market.

Like most Americans, I prefer getting my health coverage through private insurance rather than the federal government. That’s because, as other nations have shown, government healthcare always results in higher costs, rationing, and lower standards of care.

I have a right to make my own healthcare decisions that are consistent with my ethical and religious convictions. I do not want politicians and bureaucrats dictating the health care and insurance decisions of myself and my employer and imposing (at my expense) procedures (ie abortion) that are contrary to my ethical and religious convictions. Especially in these difficult economic times, I flatly reject any new government healthcare plan that imposes new taxes or burdens on individuals or businesses.

I am appalled that even congressmen from my own state are willing to "reform" (expand government's role in) health care. I view this betrayal the same as a football player who knowingly moves the ball toward the opposing team's goal. He may not move the ball as fast or as far as the opponents might, but he is helping the wrong team to win nevertheless. There is no healthcare legislation under consideration that can possibly be fixed by any amendment or compromise whatsoever.

All federal healthcare legislation must be killed immediately! No legislation is infinitely better than bad legislation with amendments that only make it less bad. There's nothing in it that's worth fine-tuning. There's nothing on the margins that could improve it. There is no need for an alternative plan! Introducing an alternative plan accepts the flawed premise that the health care and health insurance business is broken. It's not. What's broken is government! Besides, there is no constitutional authority for Congress to do what it proposes to do to health care and health insurance!

Every congressman must fight against the power grab that is underway over health care and health insurance. There can be no compromise! Any compromise is a compromise with evil and an attack on individual liberty!

Congress must restore free-market health insurance. Once Americans have freedom of choice again, state legislatures will start competing to repeal their corporate welfare mandates. Insurance companies will compete to provide better coverage at lower prices. All Americans should have free market choices in health insurance -- not government-mandated coverage! No American should have to pay corporate welfare benefits through their insurance premiums, or have to go without insurance. Our politicians should just fix the problems politicians created!

Recommended reading:

America's Health Care Crisis Solved: Money-Saving Solutions, Coverage for Everyone

My government speaks to me in Spanish!

I recently applied for a new passport. When it arrived, it came with a notice describing my new passport -- in Spanish!

In order to become a citizen of the United States, an immigrant must "be able to read, write, speak, and understand basic English."

With very few exceptions, one must be a US citizen to receive a US passport.

Why then, does the State Department feel it necessary to publish documents in Spanish for passport applicants such as the one I received today?

Why are most, if not all, government documents published in Spanish and English versions? I understand why we need to make some language accommodations for tourists and business travelers. I even understand why we need to make temporary language accommodations for legal immigrants.

Why do the Whitehouse and most, if not all, congressmen have websites in in Spanish and English? This is even true of congressmen who claim oppose illegal immigration and amnesty for illegals! Surely, they aren't pandering for the vote of those who have invaded our border with Mexico!

According to a recent poll, 80 percent of Americans believe English should be the official language of the nation. Nearly 90 percent believe it's important for immigrants to speak English. More that 75 percent believe employers should have the right to require their employees to speak English while on the job.

Indeed, English is the language of success in this nation. Columnist Michael M. Bates said, "Our common language is a basis for our cultural unity. It's far from the only language spoken in the United States, but certainly it's the primary one. For folks wishing to advance here, knowledge of it is essential. We do immigrants no favors by bending over backwards trying to accommodate them in their native language, hindering their adapting to a new culture."

Without English, immigrants will always be second-class citizens. Hindering the adaptation of an immigrant to a new culture only benefits those who seek to exploit others by creating a permanent underclass in our society such as businesses seeking so-called "cheap labor" and politicians who seek more human dependence on government "entitlements." Our politicians are creating a new slave class!

Teddy Roosevelt had it right when he said: "We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language."

If we can't establish English as the nation's official language now, who will be required to learn what language if we allow 20-30 million illegal workers to become voters?

If we can't control our illegal immigration problem now, how will we control the problem if we allow 20-30 million illegal workers to become voters?

If we can't terminate the nation's "anchor baby" scam now, what will life be like in the United States if we allow 20-30 million illegal workers to become voters?

If we can't eliminate taxpayer-funded education, health-care, benefits, and entitlements for illegal immigrants now, where will the money come from to pay for those programs if we allow 20-30 million illegal workers to become voters?

If we can't control employers who give jobs and under-the-table wages to illegal immigrants now, what the job market be like if we allow 20-30 million illegal workers to become voters?

If we can't get Congress, the Whitehouse, government agencies, and even presidential candidates to take down Spanish-language websites now, will politicians need (or be allowed) websites in English if we allow 20-30 million illegal workers to become voters?

We need congressmen and a president with the courage to immediately do what is right for the future of our national sovereignty, culture, and integrity. We clearly don't have that now.

I expect Congress to immediately pass legislation to allow employers to mandate English in the workplace. Congress must immediately establish English as the official language of the United States and require all government functions be done in English. Congress must immediately ban all government services and documents in any language other than English except as necessary to serve temporary legal visitors to this nation and elderly members US indigenous peoples.

Every congressman and the President must set the example by immediately and permanently taking down their non-English websites.

Recommended reading:

The Truth about Tolerance

EPA says your breath is an 'endangerment' to human health!

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has declared carbon emissions (CO2) to be an 'endangerment' to human health and has claimed jurisdiction over the regulation of carbon emissions.

Since we operate an overwhelmingly carbon-based economy and since all life is carbon-based, the EPA will be regulating practically everything! This is the most intrusive grant (grab) of power to any government agency since the creation of the Internal Revenue Service.

I invite the EPA to take a look at some basic grade-school science:

The atmosphere is made up of nitrogen (about 78 percent), oxygen (about 21 percent) and several other gases (less than two percent). Planet-killing carbon dioxide comprises only 0.038 percent of the atmosphere (only 3.4 percent of which is man made)! Man could double his CO2 output and the effect on the atmosphere's CO2 levels would be insignificant by any rational measurement.

Here's some more grade-school science for the EPA bureaucrats: Animals (that includes us humans) inhale air and use the oxygen content to support life and then exhale CO2. Carbon dioxide is a natural product of life! Plants consume that atmospheric CO2 (they must have it to live) and exhale oxygen. If man's production of CO2 is a pollutant (as claimed by environmentalists and even the courts and the EPA), then, by the same logic, surely oxygen -- the waste left over from photosynthesis -- is also a pollutant.

I assume that if EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson needed CPR to save her life, she would not want rescue breathing performed on her since the rescuer's breath would contain the CO2 she has ruled is an 'endangerment' to human health.

Self-proclaimed environmentalists, such as those who infest the EPA and the Department of Interior, generally seem to be people who don't know about science, don't understand economics, and won't do the math.

I have long contended that we no longer have a republic (as established in the US Constitution) nor a democracy (as claimed by those who do not follow, read, nor understand the Constitution). Instead, our government is a tyranny of bureaucracy. Meanwhile, our representatives in Congress continue to empower this bureaucratic tyranny by passing legislation which delegates too much power to, and fails to reign in, power-hungry bureaucrats and by ignoring and even endorsing bureaucratic excesses. The current EPA power-grab over all things carbon is but one example.

Congress must amend existing clean air laws and restore their original intent by excluding CO2 from EPA control and strictly limiting the power of the EPA (better yet, eliminate that rogue agency altogether).

Judge Louis Butler: Another Unfit Obama Nominee

Another radical, anti-gun judge, Louis Butler, has been nominated for the federal judiciary. Sadly, he has been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Butler is simply the latest of several admitted leftist and activist judges handpicked by Obama for coveted lifetime posts. He is so radical that he was twice rejected by the people of Wisconsin (which is, by the way, one of the most liberal states in our union).

Butler opposes the rights of gun owners. The right to bear arms in the Wisconsin Constitution expressly notes that this right is for personal security and "any other lawful purpose." But in State v. Fischer, Judge Butler was the deciding vote in 2006 to hold that a Wisconsin statute barring carrying a concealed weapon for any purpose, at any time, including in a vehicle, does not violate this right to personal security that the voters of Wisconsin chose to expressly protect in their state constitution. So he ignored the state constitution in order to impose his anti-gun views on the people of Wisconsin.

Following the 2008 US Supreme Court Heller decision on the Second Amendment, Butler said, "Gun control may ultimately be decided, and the new appointees can tip the very balance of the court. [The] background, personal beliefs and policy decisions of the justices selected will influence how they will vote on the difficult cases before them."

Butler clearly is a radical activist who wants to move the courts and our country in a new direction -- further away from the Constitution.

The authors of the US Constitution wisely provided for Senate confirmation of all presidential nominees. The purpose of this process is to protect the US Constitution and the liberties it guarantees from an activist and power-hungry administration and from activist judges such as Louis Butler. Therefore, Senators must make all decisions regarding presidential appointees based not only on the nominee's professional qualifications but more importantly on his/her respect for the Constitution and not on whether he/she is politically correct (politically cleansed).

On taking office, every Senator takes the following oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Senators do not take an oath to any political ideology, political party, party leader, king, or president. They take an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." In recent decades -- and especially during the current administration -- the Senate has done a horrible job in protecting the US Constitution because Senators make their decisions based on political ideology -- not the nominee's qualification or his/her potential effect on liberty.

Clearly, the Senate must expedite confirmation of presidential nominees who have a solid record of applying the original intent of the Constitution and halt consideration of all nominees from any administration who do not respect the rule of law or who are hostile to any individual liberty guaranteed by the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Compromise is giving in to the enemies of liberty. There must be no compromise!

I urge the Senate to oppose the nomination of Louis Butler as US District Judge for the Western District of Wisconsin. I consider a vote for him is the same as a vote against the Constitution and my gun rights.

Recommended Book:

Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws