My commentary on a variety of issues that interest me including gun rights, individual liberty, illegal immigration, politics, religion, taxes, aviation, judicial activism, journalistic bias and laziness, environmental activism, education, family, health, gardening, history, Scouting, genealogy, etc.
My employment is as an international airline captain. In real life, I strike fear into the US Department of Homeland Security as a rightwing extremist (in other words, I believe in God, go to church regularly, own a gun or two, oppose Al Gore and the environmentalist fraud, expect the government to aggressively enforce immigration laws, believe English should be established as the nation's official language, believe the US Constitution says what it says, seek a return to the limited federal government described in the US Constitution, and as a military veteran have sworn to support and defend the Constitution). To quote one of my heroes, Captain Moroni: "I seek not for power, but to pull it down. I seek not for honor of the world, but for the glory of my God, and the freedom and welfare of my country." (Book of Mormon, Alma 60:36) In my spare time, I serve on the local Boy Scout District Training Committee. I coach a 4-H Shooting Sports club (see 4-H link below). I also teach the Utah Hunter Education Course, the Utah Concealed Firearm Course, and various other gun safety classes including most NRA courses (see Firearm Training link below).
When the older woman was checking out at the store, the young cashier suggested that she should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags weren't good for the environment.
The woman apologized and explained, "We didn't have this green thing back in my earlier days."
The clerk responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations."
She was right -- our generation didn't have the green thing in its day.
Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled. But we didn't have the green thing back in our day.
We walked up stairs, because we didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks. But she was right. We didn't have the green thing in our day.
Back then, we washed our babies' diapers because we didn't have the throw-away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy gobbling machine burning up 220 volts -- wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing. But that young lady is right; we didn't have the green thing back in our day.
Back then, we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana. In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap. Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity. But she's right; we didn't have the green thing back then.
We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull. But we didn't have the green thing back then.
Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service. We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest pizza joint.
But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the green thing back then?
Obama, in his 2012 State of the Union speech, called for tax fairness. I also call for tax fairness, but my understanding of fairness is far different from his. For example, half of Americans pay no income tax. They think that’s fair. Politicians think that’s fair. I don’t.
There are some proposals to make taxation fair: • A flat tax. Everybody pays a fixed percentage of his income above some income level to avoid overtaxing the poor. • A “fair tax.” Everybody pays a fixed percentage of his spending – a sales tax – above some spending level to avoid overtaxing the poor. • A Value-added Tax (VAT). A tax is imposed on every level of production of goods. • Higher income taxes on the wealthy (based on some arbitrary income level to define the wealthy – a level which will inevitably be adjusted downward to extract ever more revenue). • Higher capital gains taxes. (Capital gains are the increase in face value of capital – assets which produce jobs. Much of the increase in the face value of capital is nothing more than inflation. Therefore, a substantial portion of a capital gains tax is a tax on inflation – not a tax on new wealth.) • Higher taxes on businesses. (This scheme is flawed. Businesses don’t really pay taxes. They only write the check to the IRS. Businesses always pass their costs, including taxes, on to the consumer.) • Elimination of the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) which was initially focused on the wealthy. However, because of inflation, it now affects millions who are not wealthy. A few in Congress occasionally suggest elimination of the AMT or at least some inflation protection, but the congressional thirst for revenue always overrides the suggestion of overhaul.
Here is what I think.
Taxes must be fair – I cannot challenge that objective. What few are saying, however, is that taxes must also be visible – taxpayers and non-taxpayers alike must see and be intellectually and emotionally impacted by the total cost of government.
Most of our taxes are buried in the cost of goods and services – we have no idea what portion of the cost of that Big Mac can be attributed to multiple layers of corporate income taxes, excise taxes, import duties, payroll taxes, fees, regulatory costs, etc. It would be helpful if the wrapper on that Big Mac said something like, “This BigMac cost you $3.95 plus sales tax. $1.87 (47.3%) of your cost of this sandwich constitutes various forms of taxes paid by McDonalds and by the chain of our suppliers. Add to that your sales tax. If you don’t like paying these hidden taxes through higher costs of goods and services, contact your elected representatives.”
The closest we can come to each person paying his fair share would be for each person to pay the cost of the services and benefits he personally receives from the government. For example: • Everyone benefits from police, fire, and military protection. Divide the total cost of those services by the total population and the result is each person’s fair share. • Those who travel on streets and highways benefit from them. Taxes on fuel are already in place to pay for those roads. Since the users of the roads are paying the road taxes, it’s fair -- so long as no portion of that revenue is used for anything else. • Mass transit, such as trains and city busses, is in place to move people and goods where they want or need to go. Because they are not buying fuel for their own vehicles, they don’t pay the cost of building and maintaining highways. But, they should be paying the full cost of their choice of transportation. The total cost of providing mass transit must be divided among the users according to how much they use the service. To be fair, they should not expect non-mass-transit users to help pay their transportation bill through taxpayer subsidies. • Society, individuals and families benefit from education and training. Determine the value of society’s benefit from an educated workforce and electorate. Let’s assume that the value to society in general is 50% of the total cost of education Divide that portion of total cost of education by the total population and the result is each person’s fair share. The remaining 50% of the cost of education is the fair financial obligation of the individual and the family they should not expect someone else to pay that bill for them (although charitable persons may voluntarily do so). • Everyone benefits from having shelter and food to eat. There are many government programs that ensure even the most poverty stricken in America live better than did kings 200-300 years ago. To be fair, those who benefit from these social programs should pay the cost of the benefits they receive plus the bureaucratic overhead. It is not fair to tax their neighbors to pay for these benefits. I acknowledge that there is a small portion of those who depend on the aid of others because, due to disability or temporary conditions, need help. It is a God-given duty and blessing for individuals to help those in need and there are countless charities in place to help us do so. Government is not the answer!
Now consider the global financial crisis. Some blame it on Obama. Some blame it on Bush. But, the real cause of the crisis is fairness.
Most developed nations have put in place very expensive social programs that are supposed to eliminate or reduce poverty. Yet, the portion of people in poverty continues to be stagnant or even rise. All these social programs do is to reward dependency. The producers of the world are forced to subsidize generations of dependent societal parasites. That's not fair to the taxpayer nor to those who are dependent!
Some believe that the bankers of the world have created the financial crisis by hoarding money and controlling nations. The truth is, the dependent class, with the encouragement of the political class, has consumed the wealth of the world, replacing it with national debt, and have produced nothing in return. As Bill Whittle says, "It's all gone."
If we really made taxes fair, those who are dependent on government (and we all are, to some extent) would pay the cost of that dependency. When people discover the true cost of their dependency, they will find ways to become more independent where feasible and possible. They will learn to do for themselves, their families, and their neighbors, what they should be doing anyway.
The cost of government will plummet -- probably to about 5-10% of what it is now, leaving more money in everyone’s wallet at the end of each month. That newly liberated money will be used to improve each person’s way of life and more people will find resources to donate to charity to help those who truly are dependent on others.
I think that’s fair. Does anyone have the courage to make it fair?
Our huge public debt ultimately reflects our lack of individual restraint. But we can do better. — Lawrence W. Reed
Americans have been spoiled by a generation of extravagant federal spending made possible by an orgy of irresponsible borrowing. Now the party is over and the pain of long-lasting and unpopular austerity must come. — Zach Bogue, US Army veteran
The budget should be balanced; the treasury should be refilled; public debt should be reduced; and the arrogance of public officials should be controlled. — Cicero (106-43 BC)
Government is the only enterprise in the world which expands in size when its failures increase. — Janice Rogers Brown, Associate Justice, California Supreme Court
My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. — Thomas Jefferson
The primary reason for government growth (and the "incumbent advantage") is that we've yet to convince people to refuse to be bribed with their own money. — Boyd K.
Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone. — Frederic Bastiat
The multiplication of public offices, increase of expense beyond income, growth and entailment of a public debt, are indications soliciting the employment of the pruning knife. — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Spencer Roane, 9 Mar 1821
Any plan to reduce our deficit substantially must reflect American values of fairness and shared sacrifice. — Barrack Obama
Would you be willing to give up your favorite federal program if it meant never having to pay the income tax again? — Harry Browne
Senate Bill 34 is a very good piece of legislation being considered in Utah this year. This bill prohibits the central government from regulating an agricultural product that remains in Utah after it is made, grown, or produced in Utah.
If is not interstate commerce, it is no business of the central government whatsoever. (According to the US Constitution, counterfeiting of currency, treason, slavery, and certain infringements on the right to vote are, and should continue to be, the only federal crimes -- not counting the countless violations of the Constitution committed by the central government).
I urge everyone in Utah to study and aggressively support SB.34 and all other legislation that pushes the central government back to its limits defined by the US Constitution. All other States should follow our lead.
Solve a debt problem with more debt? Yeah, that oughta work!
The national debt is now as big as the entire US economy! And nobody in Washington seems to care! Few voters seem to even know about the problem. Of those voters who do, most don't seem to care so long as they get their government cheese.
Washington clearly is out of control.
The lack of restraint is so severe that I am convinced that a "Balanced Budget Amendment" will not help. Congress, the Whitehouse, and the federal courts will ignore the amendment just like they ignore everything else in the Constitution unless it's convenient.
An 18-percent-of-GDP limit, as proposed in at least one Balanced Budget proposal is essentially a guarantee to spend 18% -- regardless of whether that level of spending is legal or justified! This is not a limited-government policy! I don't want it etched in Constitutional stone that the Federal State will be 18% of the national economy!
Dr. Walter Williams calls the proposed balance budget amendment a "cop out". I agree. It does not require Congress to eliminate unconstitutional, unnecessary, or unwise programs. It only caps that spending at an arbitrary level. That spending will continue to fund activities that are not the constitutional purview of the central government (education, health care, social services, intrastate commerce, running car companies, gun control, war on drugs, energy, funding state and local projects, etc.).
Sad history shows that politicians have little regard for the Constitution. There must be immediate and extremely unpleasant consequences for any congressman or president who ignores any limits imposed by a balance budget amendment or anything else in the Constitution. We already have legislation that requires a balanced budget. A balanced budget law enacted by Congress and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter in 1977 requires that "Beginning with fiscal year 1981, the total budget outlays of the Federal Government shall not exceed its receipts." How's that working out? Without teeth, the law is worthless.
Because of its out-of-control spending, the United States of America is long overdue a USSR-style collapse. Nevertheless, power-hungry politicians are either in pathological denial, desire the collapse, or simply don't care.
The vast majority of federal spending is unconstitutional and immoral! The primary cause of this crisis is the complete and utter disregard of the US Constitution, particularly the 9th and 10th Amendments. I also say the bulk of federal spending is immoral because it necessitates and justifies theft of property (earnings of taxpayers) for redistribution to persons (including and especially federal bureaucrats) who have not earned, and do not deserve, that stolen wealth. It is also immoral because recipients of that stolen loot are deprived of incentive and necessity to achieve and only grow bitter because they don't get enough stolen wealth.
The central government only cost 2-3% of GDP up until about 100 years ago except for periods of war. (For example, in 1910, GDP was $33,400 million and total federal spending was $839.9 million or 2.5% of GDP!) Yet, it provided all the services the people needed and asked for! Why, then, must government hog 20% of GDP to provide services that are best handled by a free market and by the people themselves -- if they are needed at all?
Obama said, "We don't need a constitutional amendment to do our jobs. The Constitution already tells us to do our jobs and to make sure the government is living within its means and making responsible choices....We don't need more studies. We don't need a balanced budget amendment. We simply need to make these tough choices." While he was actually asking for more debt to fund unconstitutional spending, those words are exactly correct. Obama clearly did not really mean that the nation's leadership should follow the Constitution as written and intended. What he meant was that Congress do his will and follow the Constitution as he wants it to be twisted.
2 - The entire central government must immediately be audited to identify and permanently eliminate all agencies, programs, laws, rules, regulations, policies, judicial rulings, executive orders, etc. which violate the original intent of the Constitution.
3 - All politicians who propose, or vote for, anything which violates the original intent of the Constitution must promptly and permanently be removed from office and forfeit any and all retirement compensation or benefits.
4 - All judges who make ruling that are inconsistent with the original intent of the Constitution must promptly and permanently be removed from the bench and forfeit any and all retirement compensation or benefits.
5 - All further attempts to increase the debt limit must be soundly rejected.
Congress passed, and the President signed, legislation that expands the powers of the so-called Patriot Act to authorize the indefinite detention -- without trial -- of Americans on American soil.
I am ashamed to say that my own senior senator (Republican Orin Hatch) voted for this monstrosity as did my Representative (Democrat Jim Matheson).
The Constitution has been in crisis for well over 100 years -- under every President, Congress and Supreme Court. A few politicians and judges have had a hand in slowing the nullification of the Constitution; but nobody can stop it except informed and wise voters.
The founders wrote a Constitution that gives us an opportunity and the means for rebellion and change in government every two years. We call that opportunity an election. Every two years we can throw out the entire House of Representatives! But, we don't -- even though we all despise the work they're doing (or not doing). Every four years, we have the opportunity to change the President and his entire administration thereby profoundly changing the way bureaucrats treat our rights. But, we often don't -- even though we all despise the work they all are doing (or not doing). Every two to four years, each State has the opportunity to vote out a senator. In six years, we can purge the entire Senate! But, we don't -- even though we all despise the work they're doing (or not doing).
Our founders gave us the tools needed for a peaceful and orderly overthrow of a tyrannical government. Yet, the uninformed partners with the selfish among us to persistently elect and reelect the wrong people!
I shudder when I watch Jay Leno's "Jay-Walking" excursions wherein he explores how utterly ignorant many Americans are.
Congress has the lowest approval rating of any entity imaginable. Yet, we persistently reelect over 90% of the most corrupt, anti-Constitution, anti-liberty, big-government incumbents we all disapprove of! Many people call for term limits in an effort to get the government back under control. But, as another writer said, this is a cop-out. The fact that some politicians remain in office too long is no reason to also boot out the statesmen our nation needs. We voters have a profound moral obligation to elect and reelect only the best to public office. We are failing in that role.
Williams Institute is a LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Trasngender) organization established to advance sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy through rigorous, independent research and scholarship. It disseminates its stands to judges, legislators, policymakers, media and the public. Because it is an activist organization, it was never intend to be unbiased in its "research." As a national think tank at UCLA Law, the Williams Institute is largely funded by taxpayers.
It recently claimed that wedding arrangements and tourism by same-sex couples and their wedding guests added between $12 and $13 million to the Iowa economy over two years in 2009 and 2010. The study, released Wednesday, also reported that the increased spending on weddings likely added between $850,000 and $930,000 in tax revenue in that State during that two-year period. There reportedly were at least 2,099 same-sex weddings in the year following the decision to legalize marriage equality in April 2009. Of these couples, over half came from other states to wed in Iowa. The study estimates that out-of-state couples account for about $2.2 million of the spending.
The Institute's story did not disclose the methodology behind finding the numbers the reported.
Now, a little history:
Marriage is a formal relationship established by God -- not government. Religions and cultures of all kinds around the world have consistently established marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. In some cases, that religious bond has included multiple spouses of the opposite sex.
Relatively recently, the government got involved with marriage. This involvement has its roots in racism. Laws were passed requiring couples to obtain a marriage license prior to the marriage. The intent of these laws was to restrict intermarriage among races -- particularly Blacks with Whites. Marriage laws also establish age and other restrictions. By those racist laws government interjected itself into private family affairs to the point where it now tells parents how it can raise children and can confiscate children with no legal basis other than a rumor or lie.
Since it grabbed control of marriage away from churches and families, broken families have become the norm (beginning with California's introduction of no-fault divorce which makes it impossible for the spouse who wants to stay married to have a voice in whether the marriage is dissolved).
Then, along come activists for the homosexual agenda. Although homosexuals have always had the full right to marry a person of the opposite sex, they demanded a new right -- the right to marry a person of the same sex. Most States have laws against such relationships. In fact, some State constitutions clearly establish that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Many States refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in States with same-sex marriage.
Currently, a few States allow same-sex marriages: Massachusetts (thank you very much Mitt Romney), Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont. Washington, DC also recognizes same-sex marriage. Generally, a majority of the People rejected the idea of same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage in each of those three States came about only by judicial ruling -- against the will of the People.
How's that for democracy?
After the judicial rulings in the above-listed States, only the legislatures of Connecticut and Massachusetts changed their laws to comply with the rulings imposed by a handful of lawyers in black dresses. The remaining jurisdictions (Iowa, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and the District of Washington) have same-sex marriage imposed by judicial ruling.
Now, Williams Institute claims Iowa benefits financially from same-sex marriages performed in that State, but which likely are not valid in the State in which the couples live. These marriages are also not valid for federal purposes.
A question I have on all this is: What value or price do judges in Iowa place on democracy? Apparently, democracy in Iowa is worth something less than $6.5 million per year.
The root of all this is morality and truth. There are two types of truth: absolute truth and relative truth.
Absolute truth comes from natural law and from God. When God (or nature) reveals a truth, it does not vary. That truth applies equally to all of creation.
Relative truth is whatever a person says it is. What is true for one person may not be true for another.
Because of the influence of the aggressive activism of a tiny minority of mankind, God's absolute truth of marriage as between opposite sexes has morphed into a relative truth of marriage is whatever anyone wants for whatever reason or for no reason whatsoever.
I say that those who are sexually attracted to persons of the same-sex deserve all the respect due to any other son or daughter of God. However I reject their behavior when it violates God's counsel and commandments -- just as I reject heterosexual behavior which violates God's teachings. Both have need of repentance.
Activists in and out of government are imposing this corruption of absolute truth upon society with the force of law. Government is forcing those who believe homosexual behavior is immoral to accept that immoral behavior as if it were moral and wholesome. And, government is giving that behavior its stamp of approval at taxpayer expense. Government has no right or authority to redefine morality.
As mentioned above, marriage has been a family and/or religious rite for most of human history. Only relatively recently has one needed government permission to marry. It has done so for two primary reasons: social engineering (something politicians and bureaucrats love to do, but do horribly) and revenue.
I believe that marriage is one of many issues where government does not belong. Where government intrudes, it invariably makes things worse. Politicians and bureaucrats do a horrid job of defining morality.
Government must get out of the marriage business and restore it to families and religion where it historically worked just fine. As far as the government should be concerned, a marriage should be viewed as nothing more than a legally-binding private contract made between consenting adults -- not to regulate who people can marry. The only role government should have is to provide a mechanism whereby the marriage contract can be enforced and to protect the rights of the persons involved (ie property rights or to restrict marriage of children).
As long as government interjects itself into defining marriage, I defend the right of individuals and organizations such as churches (eg California's Prop 8) to voice their opinions on that definition. Ultimately, politicians and judges need to learn to respect the voice of the voters.
So, what's next for government-sanctioned marriage? How far will government go to redefine morality? Legalized polygyny? Legalized polyandry? Legalized marriage between children and adults? Legalized marriage between siblings? Legalized marriage between parents and their children? Legalized marriage between humans and animals? Legalized marriage between humans and trees or other inanimate objects? Preposterous, you say?
Just you wait and see. The horse is out of the barn. Without a moral and spiritual revival, it is too late to close the barn door on government-controlled marriage.
Federal regulation cost American businesses a shocking $1.75 trillion in 2008, more than individual and corporate income tax burdens combined. Those costs of doing business are passed on to consumers in higher prices for goods and services.
Clearly, something horribly amiss in the regulatory process.
On Wednesday, the House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on HR.10 / S.299, the REINS Act (Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act), which puts the brakes on costly federal regulation by directly holding our elected officials responsible for their actions.
The Constitution entrusts our elected representatives in Congress with legislative power, not unelected, unaccountable federal bureaucrats!
The REINS Act helps to correct this problem. Whenever an agency seeks to finalize a new "major" regulation (one with an economic impact of $100 million or more) Congress must first vote to approve it, and the President must sign it before it can take effect. While I believe all regulations must be specifically approved by elected representatives, HR.10 / S.299 is an important small step in the right direction.
Unfortunately, the REINS Act won’t be a silver bullet to stop every costly regulation, but it will ensure that when a major new regulation takes effect every citizen will know exactly who voted for it and will be able to hold them accountable.
If I were able to amend this legislation, lower the threshold from $100 million to $1 million. I would also include a requirement that all existing regulations with the same $100 million economic impact also go through the same congressional and executive scrutiny if not abolished within 180 days of enactment of HR.10 / S.299.
Congress must rein in excessive federal regulation beginning with the REINS Act. HR.10 / S.299 must become law immediately.
Caitlin Joan Halligan has been nominated by President Barack Obama to fill a federal judicial vacancy on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - the second highest court in the US. This makes this nomination especially sensitive.
All reports that I’ve seen indicate that Halligan possesses all the skills and knowledge to qualify her as a judge. However professional competence is only part of a judge’s job. Fidelity to the judicial oath of office -- defense of the Constitution -- is a key to determining whether a candidate is fit to be a judge.
Regarding previous presidential nominees, I have pointed out that it is essential that all federal nominees be examined closely to determine their loyalty to the US Constitution. This is especially true for the Supreme Court and for the DC Circuit. A judgeship on the DC Circuit is often a stepping-stone for appointment to the US Supreme Court.
It is extremely unfortunate that, since the virtual political assassination of Judge Robert Bork in 1987, presidents have typically avoided nominating judicial candidates who have written or ruled on controversial issues or high-profile cases. In other words, nominees have not been tested. Halligan is one of those unknowns.
In my research, I found one issue that concerns me: While solicitor general for the state of New York, Halligan initiated a lawsuit to hold gun manufacturers liable for crimes committed using illegally obtained guns. Halligan's scheme to annihilate the firearms industry with senseless lawsuits clearly shows she is willing to put her liberal ideology above the law and justice. But most importantly, she put her liberal ideology above the Constitution.
No judge must allow ideology influence his/her judgment. Instead, every judge must use the Constitution to guide his/her decisions. Not flawed judicial precedents. Not foreign law. Not ideology. Not politics. Halligan must be examined to determine whether she is capable of putting her personal and political ideals aside -- and clearly willing to do so without hesitation. The court is no place for political agendas. Politics must be confined to the legislative branch and the administration.
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. 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.
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 and 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!
Like all other federal nominations, I urge the Senate to reject the nomination of Caitlin Joan Halligan as US District Judge if there is any indication whatsoever that she will not be 100% true to the original intent of the US Constitution. If she cannot give a satisfactory explanation for her assault on gun manufacturers and how that could have affected affected my Second Amendment rights, I will consider a vote for her to be a vote against my gun rights.
Remember the outcry stemming from S&P's down grade of the US credit worthiness? Well, let's have a closer look (Note: These figures are several days old. The Numbers are worse today.):
Current status:
• US Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000 • Federal budget: $3,820,000,000,000 • New debt: $1,650,000,000,000 • National debt: $14,271,000,000,000 • Recent budget cut: $38,500,000,000
Now drop 8 zeros and pretend it's your household budget:
• Annual family income: $21,700 • Money the family spent: $38,200 • New debt on the credit card: $16,500 • Current outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710 • Total budget cuts: $385
When it is broken down like this, it makes it easier to see how much trouble we are in!
Our huge public debt ultimately reflects our lack of individual restraint. But we can do better. — Lawrence W. Reed
Government is the only enterprise in the world which expands in size when its failures increase. — Janice Rogers Brown, Associate Justice, California Supreme Court
My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. — Thomas Jefferson
The multiplication of public offices, increase of expense beyond income, growth and entailment of a public debt, are indications soliciting the employment of the pruning knife. — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Spencer Roane, 9 Mar 1821
Americans have been spoiled by a generation of extravagant federal spending made possible by an orgy of irresponsible borrowing. Now the party is over and the pain of long-lasting and unpopular austerity must come. — Zach Bogue, US Army veteran
Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone. — Frederic Bastiat
The budget should be balanced; the treasury should be refilled; public debt should be reduced; and the arrogance of public officials should be controlled. — Cicero (106-43 BC)
People look at me and say, "What are you talking about, Joe? You're telling me we've got to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?" The answer is, "Yes, I'm telling ya." - Joe Biden, US Vice President and economic idiot (No wonder we're in such trouble!)
It's the Democrats whose position is that the only problem in Washington, D.C., is the peasants aren't sending enough cash in for the king to spend. — Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform
We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with. - Dr. Ron Paul, Congressman
Would you be willing to give up your favorite federal program if it meant never having to pay the income tax again? — Harry Browne
I'm puzzled by all this talk about the wealth gap.
On one end of the spectrum, we have creative people who produce new products and services that people are willing to pay for, people who are willing to invest their own time and money to get those products and services into the market, people who invest in themselves by getting a good education, and leaders who can put all that together to create wealth.
On the other end of the spectrum, we have people whose knowledge, skill, and motivation are saturated by the act of opening a can of beer or filling out an application for public assistance.
Is there a gap? Yup. A big one. But the gap isn't simply wealth.
Most of us are somewhere between. We who are in between don't have what it takes (sometimes it includes luck) to be in the upper crust, but we're far too motivated to be on the bottom. We get along fine, so long as the government stays out of our lives and doesn't foul up the economy.
For some bizarre reason, there are those (represented by the likes of "Occupy Wall Street" selfish, childish protesters) who feel that this spectrum of wealth is unfair, that wealth must be taken by force from those who have earned it and "redistributed" to those with no motivation or talent.
I have earned my place in the economy. I have two college degrees. I have considerable technical training in my field of employment. I have a good job. But, I have not done what it takes (including being lucky) to rise to the top as did Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. Financially, I've had some tough times, but with the support and sacrifices of my wife, I got through them. In the end, I have what I've earned and I'm satisfied with that.
As a follower of Jesus, I give at as much time and money to charity that I feel I should and can -- far more than the national average -- and even more than typical liberals and Democrats. I am deeply annoyed by those who give less than I do, yet demand that the government force me to give more -- especially to support those who are societal parasites -- not truly needy.
So, somebody, please tell me why is the so-called wealth gap unfair?
What is unfair is that the current tax code is designed more to manipulate the behavior of Americans than to raise money to run the government.
What is really unfair is the claim that the wealthy are not paying their fair share in taxes when half of American households pay no income taxes at all! These people have no skin in the game when it comes to taxation. They have everything to gain in voting for more taxes on the other half to pay for their own government handouts.
More than a wealth gap, what we have is a morality and character gap. Half of this nation has no morals or sound character. Fix that, and the wealth gap will shrink significantly.
I've heard many stories over the years from coworkers who flew Air Force One, coming into regular contact with the first families. Wild Bill for America confirms how the presidents and their wives treated the military and law enforcement.
Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficial… the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding. — Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis
At Penn State University, Jerry Sandusky, a former assistant to longtime football coach Joe Paterno, has been indicted with 40 charges related to the child sex abuse of eight boys over 15 years. One of the victims was as young as 7. Many of the alleged offenses took place on the Penn State campus. Paterno and University President Graham Spanier were fired because trustees felt they did not do enough to alert law enforcement authorities after an alleged assault by Sandusky in March 2002.
Now enters a courageous Utah woman named Elizabeth Smart. As a 14-year-old girl, Miss Smart was the victim of kidnapping and months of child rape. She was finally rescued and appears to have gone on to live a remarkably healthy life, although I suspect she still suffers deeply from her ordeal.
Today, in response to the Penn State scandal, Miss Smart called for the president of the United States to declare a national emergency to rescue children who are victims of sexual abuse and exploitation.
There is no question that those who abuse children -- especially sexually -- deserve harsh penalties. But, I disagree with Miss Smart that the President or anyone else in the central government has a roll in this issue.
The US Constitution gives authority to the central government to deal only a couple of crimes. Child or sex abuse is not among them. The Tenth Amendment clearly states that all powers and rights not specifically delegated to the central government are retained by the States and the People.
If we, the People, expect to ever regain control of the central government, we all must stop demanding Congress and the President fix every problem for us.
I admire Miss Smart's strength after the horrible crime she suffers from. Instead of asking the President declare a national emergency (which only enables the central government to grab even more unconstitutional power), I suggest she lead a campaign to address the issue with state legislatures and governors nationwide. That is the appropriate level to address this sort of crime.
Be very careful what you wish for, Miss Smart. You might get it.
"A person’s rights are best secured by conceding the very same rights to every other person under the same jurisdiction." — Balint Vazsonyi
"For something to truly be considered a right, it must apply to every member of society equally." — Timothy B. Lewis of the Constitutional Freedom Foundation
The Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, commonly referred to as the "Lautenberg Amendment" to the Gun Control Act of 1968) prohibits possession of a firearm or ammunition by persons convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence or who are under a restraining order for domestic abuse. This legislation was passed in 1996 by an overwhelming majority of Congress, including a self-described defender of the Constitution named Orin Hatch.
Of course, I heartily condemn domestic violence and I support appropriate punishment for those who are convicted of such a cowardly crime.
However, I object to this law for the following reasons: ▪ Most of the powers of Congress are listed in Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution. The 10th Amendment clearly warns that the central government has no authority beyond what is specifically delegated to it by the Constitution. Therefore, the central government has absolutely no authority or right to stick its nose into the vast majority of criminal acts – especially domestic violence. Nearly all crimes are matters of State or local law – never national! ▪ The central government has absolutely no authority or right to distort and abuse the commerce clause in order to regulate who can possess arms. ▪ The central government has absolutely no authority or right to distort and abuse the commerce clause in order to regulate the purchase of arms or ammunition by any person from any seller within their own State. That clearly is a local or intrastate transaction -- not an interstate transaction! ▪ The "Lautenberg Amendment" violates Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution ("No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.") in that it retroactively punishes non-felons for relatively minor crimes committed prior to enactment of the Lautenberg bill. ▪ Congress is specifically restricted from regulating the use and ownership of arms by the Second Amendment. There is absolutely no loophole allowing Congress to restrict arms for those convicted of domestic violence or any other crime or otherwise regulate arms in any way. ▪ The prohibition against the free exercise of a constitutionally-enumerated right is an extreme (cruel and unusual) punishment for a misdemeanor. If a crime is so severe as to warrant the termination or suspension of a constitutionally enumerated right, it certainly should be severe enough to warrant a felony conviction. ▪ An assault is an assault. To make the punishment more severe simply because the victim is a family member (or a person of another race -- so-called hate crime) is, again, cruel and unusual. ▪ Parents have been convicted for simply spanking their own children. Americans have even been convicted for intrafamily verbal confrontations with no physical contact! ▪ The "Lautenberg Amendment" potentially affects every soldier, police officer or any other person who has, or will have, a conviction of domestic violence.
The "Lautenberg Amendment" is only a few words of many thousands of pages of federal law, regulation, and policy which are outside the authority given to the central government through the Constitution.
As an elected official of the United States, every member of Congress took 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....." By voting for the Lautenberg Amendment (and most other legislation) nearly every member of the Senate violated their own oath – including a self-described defender of the Constitution from Utah named Orin Hatch.
The right to arms of all non-felons must be restored by immediately repealing the Lautenberg Amendment. This is bad law!
Congress must immediately reverse this egregious Congressional crime against the people of the United States!
Some of the States are trying to enact constitutional amendments that say human life begins at conception
Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), chair of the Democratic National Committee, said Thursday that this effort is "an extreme and radical step."
Apparently, in her tiny little mind, 42 million induced abortions per year (most of which are performed because the pregnancy is merely inconvenient for one or both of the parents) is not "extreme and radical."
If secularists like Debbie Wasserman Schultz can believe that life on Earth started with a single cell, why won't they believe that life starts with the union of two cells in the womb? But, they won't. In fact, because they don't respect life, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and her fellow abortion advocates have endorsed and enabled more human death than Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Hitler, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Stalin combined!
A mother's womb should be the safest possible place for a child of God. Sadly, due to people like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, it is not. Can there possibly be anything more "extreme and radical" than killing the most innocent among us -- an unborn child, fresh from heaven -- to atone for the behavior of his or her parents?
A person's a person, no matter how small! (Dr. Seuss, Horton Hears a Who)
Is there not any behavior that embarrasses or shames us Americans anymore?
Some argue that keeping induced abortion available and legal saves the lives of many pregnant women. But, consider this: Abortion is 100% fatal for the child regardless of whether the abortion is legal!
I belive in a woman's (and a man's) right to chose. I also belive she (and he) must accept and live with the concequences of her (his) choices. Surely, consenting adults understand that a natural consequence of sexual relations is pregancy. Those who are not willing to live with that consquence have a moral obligation to behave in a way that eliminates the posibility of pregancy. Those who chose to behave in a way that results in pregnancy must live with that choice -- not destroy the result of that choice. Abortion is most often nothing more a safety net for irresponsible behavior. We no longer teach or advocate responsible behavior.
There's nothing extreme or radical about efforts to protect unborn children. The instant a sperm fertilizes an ovum, that cell has a different genetic make-up from any of the mother's tissues (or the father's) making it a different and separate individual from the mother. A woman's time to make the choice is before conception, not after she has created this new life!
I’m reminded of a story I heard many years ago. An Indian boy asked his grandfather, the old tribal chief, "What is the conscience?" The old chief replied, "The conscience is a three-cornered stone inside the heart. Every time you do something wrong, that stone turns and makes the heart hurt. If you do lots of bad things, you eventually wear off the rough corners of that stone and you no longer feel pain in your heart for doing wrong."
That is what we have done in America. We have destroyed our own consciences with regard to nearly every moral issue. Our nation is filled with men and women who
...walk in the vanity of their mind, having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness. (Ephesians 4:17-19)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz is just one more piece of evidence that poltics today is not a struggle between Democrats or Republicans or between liberals and conservatives. Politics today is a struggle between good and evil.
There must never be a compromise with evil. A compromise with evil only moves the people farther in the direction of evil and away from the good. Very few of the "good" politicans and voters understand or care about that very simple truth.
We have the government we deserve. We need smarter voters.
Posts
When the older woman was checking out at the store, the young cashier suggested that she should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags weren't good for the environment.
