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.
I am a retired international airline captain. In real life, I strike fear into the US Department of Homeland Security as a right-wing 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).
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.
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.
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 channels 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!
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, 84 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.
S.991 is a good start. It declares English the official language of the United States and then requires the Federal Government to conduct its operations, including all laws, public proceedings, regulations, publications, orders, actions, programs, and policies, only in English. It establishes a uniform language testing standard for naturalization that requires anyone seeking citizenship to be able to read and understand generally the English language text of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. And it requires that all naturalization ceremonies shall be conducted in English.
Every congressman and the President must set the example by immediately and permanently taking down their non-English websites. And, they must vote for S.991.
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 Congress and 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 far 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 immediately 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).
A good first step in reining in the EPA is Senator Murkowski's resolution of disapproval (SJ Resolution 26) that will prevent the EPA from wreaking economic havoc on the American people.
Every congressman must immediately stand for the rights of all Americans who have made it clear that they do not want "climate-change" legislation, especially when it comes from an unaccountable liberal bureaucracy.
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.
Last night, we got the first significant snowfall of the season. This gave me the opportunity to try out my nifty new snow blower. Meanwhile, world leaders are congregating in Copenhagen to discuss what to do about global warming, global cooling, climate change, or whatever they're calling it today (It's hard to keep up).
It is clear to me that the ultimate goal of the conference attendees is nothing more than self-enrichment, accumulation and centralization of power, and the return of us commoners to the stone age. These clowns seem to believe that the use of fossil fuel (petroleum, coal, and natural gas) is evil and all our energy needs can be met by a countryside littered with solar cells and wind turbines. They seem to think that I can remove the global-warming-caused snow from my driveway with a couple of solar cells! If that doesn't work, they expect me to move that snow with a shovel made of reeds (all snow shovels on the market are made through the exploitation of fossil fuel).
It gets even better. My aged concrete driveway is cracking and otherwise deteriorating due to the harsh winters caused by global warming. The creation of the cement to make concrete requires high heat from fossil fuel. Mixing that cement with gravel and water to make concrete requires fossil fuel. Delivering it to my home to pour a new driveway requires fossil fuel. Hauling away the old broken up driveway requires fossil energy. Since the Copenhagen conference attendees want to eliminate fossil fuel and since Henry Waxman and others in American politics (who know nothing about science and economics) want to tax fossil energy out of existence, I may soon be without a paved driveway -- let alone paved or snow-free streets in my town. (Why are political morons mostly from the land of fruits and nuts?)
How will the United States will look once nature's cyclical global cooling kicks in and no one will be able to afford to heat their homes because of carbon taxes introduced to prevent global warming?
When you need to get some real work done, you must have fossil fuel or a nuke (including to manufacture solar- and wind-power systems). There is no substitute.
What's the big deal about eliminating the use of fossil energy? It is claimed that the carbon emissions from my snow blower are what's causing climate change! Lets 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). The planet-killing carbon dioxide comprises only 0.038 percent of the atmosphere (only 3.4 percent of which is man made)! So, 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. 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 government agencies), then, by the same logic, surely oxygen -- the waste left over from photosynthesis -- is also a pollutant.
It is alleged that my SUV puts out about 19 tons of carbon dioxide annually, based on the assumption of 15,000 miles per year. Hmmm. Gasoline weights about 6.25 pounds per gallon. My Ford Bronco travels about 12 miles per gallon of gas. So, I burn about 1,250 gallons (7,812.5 pounds) of fuel per year. How in the world can my Ford produce 19 tons of carbon dioxide when I only feed it 3.9 tons of gasoline which is only part carbon (gasoline molecules also contain hydrogen)?
Having no desire to live in my own filth or that of others, I also naturally oppose any unnecessary pollution of our soil, air and water (even including the mucus and cigarette butts cads spit onto the streets and sidewalks). I abhor pollution (such as the 130+ tons of trash left behind at Obama's inaugural by his adoring worshipers) as much as anyone. But, to presume that man with his CO2 is more powerful in affecting weather or climate (no, they aren't the same thing) than ol' Mr. Sun and variations in Earth's orbit is the epitome of arrogance and manifests profound ignorance of basic science.
When people ignore or don't understand history, science, economics, mathematics, or human nature, politicians and other grifters (eg, environmentalists) can sell 'em anything -- including global warming. When a few people start to catch on to the scam, the politicians and other grifters fool 'em again by simply changing the name to something like global cooling or climate change. Fortunately for the politicians and grifters, at least half the people never catch on to the game.
The real direction the Copenhagen Conference and the anti-energy campaign is taking is back to the stone age when our ancestors did not have the technology we enjoy today which relies totally on reliable, abundant, and cheap fossil-fuel and nuclear energy. Self-proclaimed environmentalists generally seem to be people who don't know about science, don't understand economics, and won't do the math.
The "supremacy clause" of the US Constitution identifies the Constitution (and any laws made in pursuance thereof and all treaties made under the authority of the United States) as the supreme law of the land. It does not say that the central (federal) government is the supreme law of the land as power-grabbing big-government advocates would have us believe.
I just can't say it better than Sheriff Mack. See the video below.
Posts
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.
