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.

Gabrielle seems to misunderstand what a "right" is. A right is something one is free to have or do as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. For example, I have a right to freedom of speech. (I do not have the right to require that somebody listen to me.) My exercise of the right of free speech does not cost anyone else anything -- unless I lie about somebody or otherwise cause someone undue harm by my speech or I expect/demand someone else pay for the broadcast of my speech at his expense.

Basically, if a good or service costs effort, time, or money to produce, I do not have a right to that good or service unless I pay for it. When I expect somebody else (ie a taxpayer) to pay for a good or service I want or need, I am infringing on that taxpayer's rights. It does not matter whether I infringe on that taxpayer's rights directly or I allow/expect/demand another entity such as government to do that infringing for me. I think what Gabrielle really wants to see is charity. Charity is where a person, or group of persons, voluntarily help those who have a need they cannot pay for. Charity is how people got health care long before insurance and coercive government came along.

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 Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) in the US Constitution establishes the Constitution, constitutional federal statutes, and international treaties as "the supreme law of the land." This clause can be used by an unscrupulous president coupled with an irresponsible senate to turn US soverignty over to the UN. I believe those conditions are currently satisfied. I am not confident that even Utah's own most excellent senators and constitution defenders Hatch and Bennett have the courage or integrity or respect for the Constitution to oppose such a move. If the courts do anything on freedom's side, it would likely be only to declare some small, relatively meaningless, aspect of the overall treaty as unconstitutional. Any upcoming election would come too late. I see no other safeguard short of armed rebellion.

The clause reads, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

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.”

Related 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!

If you cross the North Korean border illegally you get 12 years hard labor. If you cross the Iranian border illegally you are detained indefinitely. If you cross the Afghan border illegally, you get shot. If you cross the Saudi Arabian border illegally you will be jailed. If you cross the Chinese border illegally you may never be heard from again. If you cross the Venezuelan border illegally you will be branded a spy and your fate will be sealed. If you cross the Cuban border illegally you will be thrown into political prison to rot. If you cross the Mexican border illegally, you get jailed. Those who the US border illegally get:
• a job
• a drivers license
• a social security card
• welfare
• food stamps
• credit cards
• subsidized rent or a loan to buy a house
• free education -- in their native language
• free health care
• lobbyists in Washington
• full citizenship for their "anchor-baby" children
• billions of dollars worth of public documents (and even congressional and Whitehouse websites) printed in your language
• the right to carry their country's flag while they protest that they don't get enough
• and, in far too many instances, they can vote!

Many Americans claim we need the cheap labor and that these invaders do work that Americans won't do. Just how cheap is that labor when one considers all the additional costs listed above? All this must change!

• 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 illegally 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:

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 they 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 or a mall or a restaurant." Of course, sane people would never consider doing such a thing, but it certainly seems to be a fantasy for anti-gun activists. 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.

It is sad that many anti-gun people project their own violent fantasies on the rest of us and therefore feel obliged to limit the freedom of us all.

Recommended reading:

Gun Facts (free!)

Hickock45 on the importance of reasonable and effective gun control: