Ol' Buffalo Blog

A sailor's life belt

2012-02-10T07:28:00.002-07:00

Academy Award Nominee Gary Sinise makes a moving Spoken Word Performance, honoring one of our brave servicemen from WWII.

Getting around (through) the "gun-free" school zone

2012-02-08T14:06:00.008-07:00

Federal law (18 USC 922(q)(2)(B)(ii)) bans firearms within 1,000 feet of a school. I suppose the intent of this legislation is noble -- to protect school children. However, it ignores the simple fact that those with violent criminal intent, by definition, ignore and disobey the law, no matter how noble the law may be.

This is one of our countless laws that prohibit harmless behavior simply because someone doesn't like it (malum in se -- eg, peaceful possession of a firearm). We should only have laws which prohibit and punish behavior that is inherently wrong (malum prohibitum -- eg, shooting school children).

Countless (probably millions) responsible, innocent Americans have unknowingly violated this federal law for at least three reasons:

1 - They don't know about the law or
2 - They can't see the invisible lines that define that 1,000-foot federal "gun-free" zone
3 - It is virtually impossible to navigate a typical city without encountering the 1,000-foot perimeter of a "gun-free" school zone.

Utah has a similar law.

To cure this problem in Utah, SB.249 has been introduced in the 2012 Utah Legislative session. It will eliminate criminal liability for law-abiding persons who enter a school zone with a firearm. This bill will not affect any criminal penalties for criminal behavior with a firearm. This liberty is already exercised by persons with concealed firearm permits. I know of no situation where this has been a problem. It is, therefore, evident that the possession of a firearm does not cause responsible people to go berserk in school zones.

Absent any threatening behavior, a person with a gun is no more dangerous than a person with a car.

SB.249 is a small forward step toward restoring our pre-Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I urge the legislature and the governor to enact this bill immediately.

Related commentary:
▪ The lunacy of banning guns in schools
▪ Stop arbitrary gun bans near schools
▪ Gun-free school zones
▪ Enact HR.2613 (Citizens Protection Act of 2011) immediately!
▪ End federal gun-free zones!
▪ Yet another deadly gun-free zone
▪ Gun-free zones kill again! (1)
▪ Gun-free zones kill again! (2)
▪ Gun-free zones kill again! (3)

We want a dictator

2012-02-02T11:19:00.008-07:00

As I watch the Republican presidential candidate debates, one thought that persistently comes to my mind is that the election process has evolved to the point where it is designed only to pick the best dictator. The same goes for the candidate selection process in the Democrat Party.

Nobody is examining candidates of either party to determine each individual's core beliefs and principles which will influence their decisions and their willingness/ability to receive counsel from wise and informed advisors. Nobody is exploring their results as a leader. Instead, the probing from debate moderators is designed to reveal whether candidates already have the desired pre-established decisions ready for immediate implementation – without seeking advice from appropriate experts or Congress.

Clearly, everyone should have some decisions already firmly established -- some lines in the sand. For example, I expect that a married president would already have firmly in his mind and heart that he would never engage in sexual activities with a subordinate. I would expect him to have the firm intent and courage to veto any legislation that is not in full compliance with the Constitution. But, that has hardly been the focus of any question posed by a debate moderator.

Instead, questions have been designed to determine how well candidates have formulated the way in which they will rule as dictator, if elected.

I would like to hear a candidate respond, if asked, "What is the capital of Trashcanistan?" that he doesn't really care what the capital of Trashcanistan is, but would seek appropriate knowledge and advice to wisely deal with Trashcanistan in a constitutional manner should the need arise.

Sadly, by today’s criteria, in the minds of news media, political party leadership, debate moderators, and the voters, such a candidate would be labeled indecisive. And, we want decisiveness at all costs -- a dictator.

What we really need are candidates for every elected office in the land who have sound character based on moral principles, who have the necessary organizational skills to assemble the best possible team of advisers, a firm resolve to follow and defend the Constitution, and who understand and live by the principles of liberty. We need leaders who know how to surround themselves with competent and moral advisers to whom they delegate and from whom they demand accountability (Obama's selection of Eric Holder as Attorney general comes to mind as an extremely poor example). We need voters who insist on, and recognize, these qualities. The current political selection process does a horrid job of finding and electing those candidates. But, it does a very fine job of electing people eager to impose their will on the rest of us -- dictators.

The Green Thing (plagiarized from Author Unknown)

2012-01-30T10:22:00.003-07:00

The Green Thing

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?

Tax fairness

2012-01-27T12:40:00.008-07:00

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

Check out a more detailed version of the US Debt Clock.

Ban federal regulation of intrastate agriculture and commerce

2012-01-23T02:48:00.005-07:00

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.

Don't raise the debt ceiling! Cut spending!

2012-01-11T11:09:00.009-07:00

Obama reportedly is about to ask for yet another increase to the debt ceiling in a "matter of days."

Didn't we just do that a few short weeks ago?

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.

The solution is simple:

1 - Baseline budgeting must be abolished.

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.

Check out a more detailed version of the US Debt Clock.

Congress and the President assault liberty again

2012-01-03T09:18:00.011-07:00

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).

This is what Americans get when people vote for candidates based on party label and race (you know who you are). In fact, Democrat politicians have such a low confidence in Democrat voter judgment and intelligence that they demand that ballots include party labels so that Democrat voters can vote correctly.

We desperately need smarter voters -- voters who understand that government exists to secure our rights -- not to cradle us.

Is the Constitution in crisis?

2011-12-17T20:15:00.010-07:00

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.

Homosexual marriage, money, and morality

2011-12-10T08:33:00.022-07:00

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.

We need smarter and wiser voters.

Congress must approve bureaucratic regulations!

2011-12-06T00:41:00.004-07:00

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 Halligan may be unfit to be a judge

2011-12-05T12:13:00.000-07:00

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.

Land of the freebies, home of the enslaved

2011-12-03T10:21:00.004-07:00

"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

"Would you be willing to give up your favorite federal program if it meant never having to pay the income tax again?" — Harry Browne

We need smarter voters.

Compare national spending and debt with your own

2011-11-30T14:31:00.011-07:00

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

We need smarter voters.

Check out a more detailed version of the US Debt Clock.

Glenn Beck interview with Michelle Bachmann

2011-11-30T09:53:00.003-07:00

The wealth gap

2011-11-28T09:31:00.007-07:00

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.

First families and Secret Service secrets

2011-11-21T10:39:00.004-07:00

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.

Thomas S. Monson: "Celebrate America" 17 Sep 2002

2011-11-20T15:14:00.001-07:00

Perfect fix for ObamaCare.

2011-11-16T10:51:00.004-07:00

Another demand for federal intrusion

2011-11-14T20:44:00.010-07:00

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.

Congress vs Gun Rights

2011-11-07T09:33:00.010-07:00

"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!

Saving children is extreme and radical!

2011-11-05T21:50:00.014-06:00

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.

Live free or die

2011-10-31T18:54:00.001-06:00

Obama buys votes with a student loan scam

2011-10-28T03:55:00.016-06:00

Obamao's student loan fraud: He thinks he can buy the votes of college students at a mere $4 to $8 per month.

He's probably right. After all, many of today's students and graduates are incapable of rationally processing information because they are getting worthless degrees in bitterness and victimhood (ie "Liberal" Arts such as Women's Studies, Social Inequality Studies, Black Studies, Gender Confusion Studies, Native American Studies, Diversity Studies, Sensitivity Studies, and other Pitty-Me Studies.)

See "Occupy Wall Street" for an assembly of these people with an unemployable education.

While I would expect Obamao to exploit his "useful idiot" support base, his scheme is a slap in the face of those who have paid or are paying their student loans as contracted. It is a slap in the face of those who managed to work their way through college (as their parents did), without debt. Obamao is implying that the responsible students are fools.

If Obamao really wants to fix the problem he needs to work with Congress to get the central government out of education:
• The skyrocketing cost of education parallels the introduction and growth of the US Department of Education.
• The soaring cost of education is fueled by easy student loans. Students and parents perceive borrowed money as free money and fail to wisely shop for the best value in education. Colleges exploit this distortion of the free market knowing students and parents don't look at the total debt that will be accumulated.
• The plummeting quality of education began with the introduction and growth of the US Department of Education.
• The central government has no constitutional authority to intrude into education.

The 53 percent of taxpaying Americans (which includes college graduates with real degrees) do not owe college students anything. Obamao has no right or legitimate authority to write a check at the expense of those hard-working 53%. Instead, today's college students and graduates owe it to themselves and to society to grow up! This isn't an economic problem. It's cultural.

Immunization Paranoia

2011-10-27T16:02:00.011-06:00

Ask anyone who has survived travel to third-world countries (as I have - 125 nations so far) and especially those who survived places like Hanoi Hilton. We will tell you that immunization has saved our lives. A trace of mercury in some vaccines is nothing compared to the diseases we're exposed to in under-immunized nations or those which our unimmunized ancestors faced.

In my nearly 40 years of global travel, I have always felt safe in coming home to my children (and now my grandchildren) knowing I'm not a vector for something that could kill them and, if I am, they are immunized against whatever I'm most likely to be carrying.

Today, I was asked, "If the vaccinations work, why would the vaccinated fear an unvaccinated me?"

Because I am vaccinated, I have no fear of disease in places like Africa and South Asia. I therefore am certainly not afraid of Americans who aren't vaccinated. My lack of fear is a natural consequence and benefit of my choice (and that of my parents) to accept vaccination.

I oppose mandatory vaccination of the general civilian population. I support the right of parents to deny vaccinations for their children. But, rights imply responsibilities and choices imply consequences. Like me and my choice, the unvaccinated and their parents also must accept the natural consequences of their choice. Such consequences include disease and, if the Public Health Service announces incidences of a potentially dangerous communicable disease, self-imposed family quarantine -- even if not showing symptoms of illness.

We, who are vaccinated, don't fear you. But, consider this: One out of 20 children with measles -- a very common disease during my childhood -- gets pneumonia. For every 1,000 children who get the disease, one or two will die from it. (The side-effects of a measles vaccination are insignificant by comparison.) The unvaccinated have a moral obligation to not be a potential vector of such dangerous illnesses to infect others who are unvaccinated. And, the unvaccinated would certainly would be wise to fear each other!

Those who chose to not immunize their children must acknowledge and appreciate that their unimmunized children have significant protection from epidemics that never happen because most other parents immunize theirs.

My generation was the last to see an epidemic in America. I had classmates who were crippled by polio. That disease killed an uncle. I remember my mother taking us to Doctor Bunderson to get shot over 50 years ago. Today, I wonder whether those primitive-by-today's-standards shots are a factor in the inconvenient allergies and arthritis I have today in my 60s. But I do know that whatever inconveniences I suffer today have been a small price to pay to avoid a wheelchair or death.

History shows that lack of immunization is an excellent form of population control.

S.1691/HR.58, the Firearms Interstate Commerce Reform Act

2011-10-22T00:36:00.004-06:00

The nation's gun laws are outdated and overly restrictive. To a large extent, they violate one of the fundamental rights protected by the US Constitution.

Senators Mark Begich (D-Alaska) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) have introduced S.1691, the Firearms Interstate Commerce Reform Act. A companion bill, HR.58 is in the House. The legislation allows for the interstate sale of firearms and removes several antiquated and unnecessary restrictions imposed on interstate firearms transactions.

"Current laws restricting interstate commerce of firearms not only lag behind common sense and new technology, they are unfair and burdensome," Sen. Begich said. "This legislation cleans up decades-old laws that are unnecessarily restricting the rights of Alaskans and other Americans to purchase and sell firearms."

"Utahns and Americans everywhere have a right to bear arms, and this legislation ensures that onerous and outdated restrictions on everyone’s Second Amendment rights are no longer in place," Sen. Hatch said. "By removing these restrictions, we can ensure that the constitutional freedoms we seek to protect remain intact."

"The National Instant Criminal Background Check System has made many restrictions enacted in 1968 obsolete. It’s time to bring the law into the 21st century. This important legislation will modernize and streamline interstate firearms transactions. The NRA and gun owners across the nation thank Senators Hatch and Begich for their leadership on this issue," said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action.

The Firearms Interstate Commerce Reform Act removes a number of restrictions from the Gun Control Act of 1968, which only allowed licensed dealers to sell rifles and shot guns to residents of a different state under a lengthy series of conditions. The restrictions were supposed to prevent buyers from evading “background checks” available at the time, which were mainly carried out through state laws requiring local police chiefs to issue firearms permits.

However, since 1998, all people buying firearms from dealers in the US have been subject to computerized background checks under the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS); a system much more sophisticated and advanced than what was available in 1968. As a result, the complex system of laws currently restricting the interstate commerce of firearms is outdated.

The irony of current law is that it never did anything to control the behavior of criminals who, by definition, don’t obey the law! It only makes life harder for responsible Americans.

Among other features, S.1691/HR.58 would restore the right of individuals to buy handguns, as well as rifles or shotguns, from licensed dealers in another state, subject to the background check requirement. The buyer and dealer would still have to meet in person and comply with the laws of both states.

S.1691/HR.58 is a small, long overdue step toward restoring the rights of law-abiding Americans with regard to firearm purchases. Congress and the acting president must ensure that it becomes law immediately.

HR.2349, The Veterans' Second Amendment Protection Act

2011-10-22T00:28:00.006-06:00

Federal law establishes several categories of persons who are restricted from possessing firearms and ammunition. Theoretically, the purpose of this legislation is to keep guns out of the hands of irresponsible persons. It is obvious that persons with criminal intent will obtain and use a gun regardless of the law. The true result of the law is that it makes gun ownership and use more difficult for responsible persons.

Among the categories of restricted persons is for those who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent. Congress wanted to ensure that rights are protected through due process of law and that only after appropriate evidence is presented and a judge is satisfied that an individual is incapable of making appropriate decisions regarding the use of a firearm should his rights be forfeited.

The Veterans Administration (VA) has an egregious policy of submitting names of veterans to the FBI for inclusion in the NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) firearms purchaser background check database when this reporting is unjustified and without due process. For example, the VA has been submitting the names of veterans who have a fiduciary appointed to manage their financial affairs as "mental defectives" who are then permanently prohibited from possessing or having access to firearms and ammunition.

The VA’s disgraceful practice is a purely bureaucratic decision – not a judicial one as required by the law! It does nothing to protect the veteran’s rights. It only punishes honorable men and women whose only crime was to volunteer to serve their country. It is a shameful assault on the veteran as well as on the intent of Congress.

It is not uncommon for a veteran with minor memory issues or problems such as compulsive buying or gambling to have themselves declared mentally incompetent to manage their own affairs and turn over control of their financial affairs to a spouse or relative to manage for them. Even if such an arrangement and diagnoses is temporary -- such as in the case of a severely wounded veteran undergoing long-term rehabilitation or comatose patients -- once the name is submitted to NICS, it is virtually impossible for them to ever regain right to arms.

The VA’s hostile policy has cause irreparable and unjustified harm to America’s war veterans. It must be stopped. The damage must be reversed immediately.

Appropriate legislation has been languishing in both houses of Congress for several years in spite of bi-partisan efforts to get it moving. Congress, therefore, is at least as culpable as are the nameless VA bureaucrats.

Last week, the House passed HR.2349 which contains language which is a small step toward repairing this assault on our veterans. The Veterans' Second Amendment Protection Act specifies that only veterans who have been adjudicated to be a danger to themselves or others are to be submitted for inclusion in the NICS database. This simple adjustment could restore firearms rights to as many as 100,000 veterans who have had their names unreasonably submitted to NICS.

This important reform is long overdue. I urge Congress and the acting president to aggressively work for immediate passage of HR.2349 with the Veterans' Second Amendment Protection language intact.

The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

2011-10-21T19:22:00.011-06:00

HR.822, the "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011" is a small but long-overdue step toward the restoration of the Constitutional right of Americans to self-defense by enabling concealed firearm permit holders to exercise their right to self-defense while traveling outside their home states.

Just a few years ago, the right of responsible Americans to carry a concealed firearm was all but lost due to decades of anti-liberty legislation and court rulings. Of course, not one of those laws affected the behavior of criminals. Today, forty-nine states have laws restoring, to some extent, the right of responsible adults to carry the best means of defense against those criminals – a gun.

Statistics from this restoration of the right to carry a concealed firearm show that civilians carrying guns tend to be more responsible in the use of their guns than law enforcement. The portion of licensed civilians who violate the law is statistically insignificant.

FBI data shows that states with right-to-carry laws have significantly lower violent crime rates. The seven states with the lowest violent crime rates are right-to-carry states.

Other statistics indicate that permit-holders from States with little or no training requirements are just as safe and conscientious as permit-holders from States with severe training and screening requirements. In fact, there is a strong movement to reduce training requirements and even permits altogether because legislatures are learning that training and permit mandates don't really matter. Besides, the people they should really be focusing on -- criminals -- don't bother with permits.

So, the claim that some States make that nobody else's permit is good enough is not valid. The bottom line is that those states most likely reject the permits of other States primarily because they lose revenue from reduced sales of their own permit -- not because permits from other States are somehow unsafe.

There is no rational justification for one State refusing to recognize the permits of another. This is a willful violation of the Second Amendment rights of visitors from other States. It must be stopped. HR.822 is intended to do just that.

HR.822 recognizes the significant impact of landmark Supreme Court cases which found that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental individual right to keep and bear arms and that the protections of the Second Amendment extend to infringements under state law.

HR.822 would establish interstate recognition of lawfully issued carry permits, just as they recognize driver's licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards.

HR.822 will not create a federal licensing or registration system; establish a minimum federal standard for the carry permit; involve the federal bureaucracy in setting standards for carry permit; or destroy permitless carry systems such as those in Arizona, Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming.

I am unalterably opposed to the central government telling the States what they must and must not do except where absolutely necessary to enforce the US Constitution. Gun rights is clearly one of those fundamental Constitutional issues.

I therefore urge every congressman and the acting president to aggressively fight for immediate and overwhelming enactment of this legislation.

Camels

2011-10-16T15:55:00.005-06:00

Look at the camels first and then read the message below.

This is a picture taken from directly above these camels in the desert at sunset. When you look closely, you can see that the camels are the little white lines in the picture. The black images you see are just the shadows!

Sometimes, our "problems" seem to be as big as the shadows; but they are relatively small.

Diversity education

2011-10-10T13:11:00.005-06:00

I enjoyed a recent Cowboy Libertarian commentary on so-called "diversity" education (women's studies, gay-lesbian-transgender studies, ethnic studies, etc.) In his broadcast, he wondered about the utility of such an education.

I feel it necessary to point out that there is indeed a huge market for graduates of "diversity" education. Graduates go to work for the government. They can't find work anywhere else. But, the government has lots of influential positions for them. Government creates more such positions all the time.

College-level diversity programs are designed to prepare people to destroy traditional American and Christian values. They can best do so as government bureaucrats and politicians.

That is a key reason why the government -- all levels of government -- is so screwed up.

As the Cowboy Libertarian, Pat Dorinson, says, voters need to educate themselves and stand up to call a stop this madness in our colleges and universities. Ban the use of taxpayer money to fund "diversity" education!

Bigoted "Christians"

2011-10-09T06:09:00.011-06:00

I have long suspected that key people at AFA (American Family Association) as well as several other high-profile evangelical Christian individuals and organizations (eg Robert Jeffress of the First Baptist Church of Dallas) harbor and foster profound ignorance regarding Mormons (including Mitt Romney) and their devotion to Jesus. AFA's Bryan Fischer has confirmed my suspicions regarding bigotry at AFA.

It is true that Mormon understanding of the character and person of God the Father and His son, Jesus, differs from the mainstream Christian view which was developed by a committee (Council of Nicaea) assembled by a pagan emperor (Constantine). However, Mormons do believe in our Heavenly Father, His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit and that they are separate persons (Acts 7:55, Matthew 3:17, John 20:21) who are one -- united -- in purpose (John 10:30). Mormons devoutly accept Jesus as their Savior. Mormons claim that their understanding comes from Scripture and divine revelation -- not from a committee.

It is perfectly acceptable and prudent to challenge candidates such as Romney on issues and character, as do many Mormons. But, Mr. Fischer should really be ashamed of his ignorance, bigotry, and intolerance regarding those who are not of his own narrow-minded faith.

Non-Mormons who would vote against Romney because he is Mormon are just as wrong-headed as Mormons who would vote for Romney because he is Mormon. They are just as wrong as blacks who voted for Obamao because he is half-black and non-blacks who voted against him because he is only half-white.

Study what the Constitution says about a religious test for political office (Article VI, paragraph 3). You see, one need not be any brand of Christian to hold office in the United States. One need not even be Christian at all! In fact, one could be Moslem or even Atheist!

Study Romney's stand and history on issues important to you. Study his character. These are the proper measures of a political candidate.

I have long supported AFA because its efforts on certain issues parallel my own concerns. Due to Mr. Fischer's bigoted remarks regarding Mormons and the First Amendment, I can no longer support that organization.

Nevertheless, I support AFA's right to say what ever it chooses so long as it is not slanderous or dishonest -- the First Amendment even protects AFA bigots. AFA will have to do so without my support.

Search Engine Submission - AddMe

Capitalist pig

2011-10-07T09:27:00.015-06:00

Over the past several days, selfish and deluded young Marxists have been emulating their deluded old hippie parents of the '60s by protesting success.

What these people fail to understand is that the successful people they disdain create jobs for millions.

What these people fail to understand is that the corruption in corporate boardrooms is in compliance with, and fostered by, the egregious regulations created by Marxists in Congress.

Toward Congress -- and the Marxists they elected -- is where they should be directing their anger. They also should be marching outside the White House in protest of Obama's failed and destructive policies.

If it weren't for competitors like Steve Jobs, Bill gates would probably still be selling MS-DOS and personal computers would still be running on 8088 processors, 64 kB of RAM and a single 5.25-inch floppy drive.

Steve Jobs made life better for all of us -- even those of who have never owned one of his products.

That is the beauty of a free market and capitalism.

Except for politicians and other thieves, in a free market, nobody can get rich unless they provide a product or service that people want and need at a price they are willing to pay.

If the protesting anti-capitalist punks had their way, we'd all still be counting on our fingers to compute.

Now, guess which protester in the cartoon below represents the 53% of Americans who pay taxes and which protester represents the 47% of Americans who are parasites.

Rush on baseline budgeting -- the biggest scam in DC

2011-09-30T11:19:00.004-06:00

What we need is reverse baseline budgeting: The budget baseline for all government programs and agencies must decline by at least 10% per year until they are completely phased out -- unless those programs and agencies are specifically and clearly authorized by the US Constitution.

You say you want a revolution

2011-09-26T13:15:00.017-06:00

I am amazed at the portion of people -- of all political persuasions -- who are disgusted by government. Yet, they keep sending the same riff raff back to congress, the state legislature, or city hall. After all, the guy who represents me is okay; it's all the others who are bums.

I am amazed at the number of gun owners who say, "they'll have to pry my gun from my cold dead hands" and who are prepared to bury their guns in the event of increased gun control including registration and confiscation. (At that point, haven't they effectively lost their guns anyway?)

I am amazed at the portion of people who say they are willing to join a civil war to throw off a tyrannical government. They are only waiting for the signal.

Then there are those who are resigned to fate or prophecy and believe there is no point in even talking about resistance to the inevitable. They fail to understand that God wants us to make good decisions -- not to bring to pass terrible predictions.

None of these people understand that the Constitution gives us the power of revolution. Every two years, we can replace the entire House of Representatives and a third of the Senate. Every four years, we can throw out the President and his entire administration. In six years, we can have an entirely new government! If that's not revolution, what is? We can foment the same revolution at the state and local levels. We don't.

We need voters who are willing to put aside selfish interests to vote for self-reliance and liberty. We desperately need voters who know at least as much about issues and candidates as they do about Amazing Race American Idol, Survivor, and Dancing with the Stars.

Anyone who isn't part of the revolution is part of the problem.

The high cost of "renewable" energy

2011-09-25T15:10:00.016-06:00

Robert J. Michaels, PhD is a professor of economics at California State University, Fullerton, and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. He is also a senior fellow at the Institute for Energy Research.

On 22 Sep 2011, Dr. Michaels testified to Congress regarding the cost of so-called "renewable" energy. The statistics he quotes are astounding.

For example, here is the cost to the taxpayer of federal subsidies for various sources of energy:

Note that the solar bar is not to scale. Imagine how high is would be, compared to the others energy sources, if it were drawn to scale!

Isn't it interesting that when Obamao and other "green" advocates tout green technologies, they never talk about the true cost?

Why doesn't the news media ask hard and meaningful questions about cost and subsidies when they publish "news" articles about alternative energy? Is it ignorance, laziness, collusion, or all three?

What kind of voter, when he at last has some facts, would vote for politicians that advocate such nonsense?

It's incomprehensible that liberals in government love to champion green energy projects as the future of energy production even though, to an educated mind, most are only viable with billions in government subsidies.

There is a reason that private investors have not flocked to alternative energy: The technology has not reached a point where it makes economic sense. Almost nobody is willing to spend his own money on alternative energy without substantial money extracted by government force from the pockets of his neighbors!

Congress must immediately stop subsidizing anything especially "green" anything. In general, products and services are best regulated by a free market. When bureaucrats, politicians, and other central planners try to push technologies into the market, they invariably do so inefficiently and at a much higher cost than necessary.

It's both logically and historically fallacious to conclude that, because something is desirable, government should subsidize it. -- Don Boudreaux

People who favor these "green" scams don't seem to care about science, don't seem to understand economics, won't do the math, and enjoy having the government force other people to pay their bills for them. Few politicians have the sense to take the time to study the issue before committing taxpayer money to these money-pits. It is time for politicians, journalists, environmentalists, and voters to learn something about science and economics and muster the courage to say no!

Black hole

2011-09-24T16:26:00.001-06:00

Redistricting time

2011-09-24T12:21:00.006-06:00

Here in Cedar City, we have no voice in who represents us in Congress. We are always outvoted by voters in Salt Lake. So, we in southwest Utah have a congressman who votes with Pelosi 93% of the time. I can't see how such a congressman represents Utah, let alone southwest Utah. But, the big-city voters of Salt Lake do that to us.

I don't know that a rural vs urban argument in districting is valid. There is something else going on.

Most of us who live outside Utah's big cities still live in cities, albeit smaller ones. The same can be said of all states. I don't live on a farm. Nobody in my family lives on a farm. Other than needing farm products to live (food, clothing), I am no more or less affected by "rural" issues than is a denizen of Salt Lake. We who don't live in big cities share the same issues such as roads, crime, schools, recreation, high taxes, over-regulation, commerce, immigration, taxes, national defense, civil rights, clean water and air, etc.

Everyone has their differing ideas on how each of those various issues should be solved and who should do it. Differences in "how" and "who" are shown by the colors red and blue on election maps. Since nearly all of us live in cities, there must something other than living in cities per se going on that causes big cities to be red and almost everywhere else to be blue on the election map -- even in Kalifornia.

I think the root of that difference is values. Big cities tend to attract those who are dependent on government because big cities have the government offices that provide support for the dependent. Big cities have the government offices (bureaucrats also vote) that provide government services to the dependent. That concentrates society’s parasites and bureaucrats in the big cities. Both groups naturally vote to perpetuate their gravy train. That turns the big-city map red. It disenfranchises those who pay for – not profit from – big government no matter where they live. It is not good.

So, I support a redistricting plan that breaks up the big cities with a goal of reducing the influence of voters who depend on big government. Many redistricting ideas have been proposed for Utah. Of those ideas, it looks to me like the Rep. Sumsion_05 map spreads out the big-government (red) vote best.

Of course this redistricting plan might backfire on us small-government advocates. What if the number of big-city voters out number small-city and rural voters in all districts instead of just one as is the case now?

Feds seek to ban the public from more public land!

2011-09-23T20:59:00.004-06:00

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposes to close to target shooters 486,000 acres which are within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDMN). Presently, an estimated 63 sites in the national monument are used by shooters for their recreational activity.

The plan also addresses other issues of importance to shooters and hunters including the designation of roads and trails for motorized vehicles and areas that could be managed as wilderness.

This plan appears to be similar to other federal designs for other states including Utah.

I find it troubling that I must remind the BLM, Congress, and everyone else in the federal government that public land does not belong to radical environmentalists nor to the BLM or any other government entity. Public land belongs to the public. The BLM must respect that ownership. The BLM's only role is as a steward to manage the land for the benefit of the public -- not for a handful of bureaucrats and radical environmentalists!

I support and urge immediately turning over to the applicable states all federally-managed lands not needed and used "for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings" as specified in Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution. Pending that act:

I oppose any effort to designate any new area withing the SDMN or any other federally-managed land in the US as wilderness, wildland, or any other new restriction on public use.

I oppose any new restriction on hunting or on the possession and use of firearms within the SDMN or any other federally-managed land in the US.

I oppose any new restriction on any other reasonable form of recreation within the SDMN or any other federally-managed land in the US.

I oppose any new restriction on the reasonable exploitation of natural resources within the SDMN or any other federally-managed land in the US.

I oppose any new restriction on reasonable grazing within the SDMN or any other federally-managed land in the US.

I oppose the closure of any roads or trails within the SDMN or any other federally-managed land in the US.

I support and urge permanent removal of all current unreasonable restrictions (including road and trail closures) on public use of the SDMN and all other federally-managed land in the US.

Reckless spending

2011-09-21T14:50:00.002-06:00

Check out a more detailed version of the US Debt Clock.

Look what we get from government schools

2011-09-19T10:33:00.009-06:00

I'd hate to have anyone like MsMaxy74 working for me. I'd hate to have anyone like her renting an apartment from me. I'd hate to have anyone like her borrow money from me. Why? because she thinks she is entitled to have anything and everything I've worked for -- with no effort on her part.

Now, I'm gonna do some stereotyping:
● Assuming she has enough motivation to vote, my guess is that she voted for Obamao.
● I'm guessing that she is a product of at least 3 generations of government dependency.
● I doubt she knows her biological father and I doubt her mother knows for sure who the biological father is.
● MsMaxy74 complains that she has to pay rent (to a capitalist who worked hard to earn the money to buy, and pay taxes on, the apartment in which she feels entitled to live rent-free). I suspect that her rent is subsidized by the taxpayer.

Politicians whose constituency consists of societal parasites such as what MsMaxy74 appears to be should be ashamed of themselves. But, these politicians seem to be proud of pandering to such parasites.

Now, I am all for voluntarily helping those who genuinely need help. In fact, my own donations to charity in both time and money are well above the national average. But, I reject the idea that politicians would force me to be charitable through taxation and redistribution of my income.

I oppose any government role in charity whatsoever other than a tax deduction or tax credit for those who give. Government aid is nothing more than legalized theft (taxes) from working people to redistribute to society's parasites.

A careful study of the Scriptures shows that Jesus expects individuals -- not governments to care for those in need. When we substitute government for our personal obligation of charity, we forfeit the blessings associated with charity and we fail to be obedient to God's command to serve.

I challenge MsMaxy74 and everyone like her to muster sufficient dignity and self-reliance that they too help those who need help instead of broadcasting their selfishness on YouTube for all the world to see.

Bill Whittle: What we did right about 9/11

2011-09-16T21:23:00.002-06:00

Read Dennis Prager: Lessons from 9/11? What Lessons?

Obama's jobs (tax) "plan"

2011-09-13T01:59:00.028-06:00

As expected, President Obamao's ideas for stimulating taxes -- umm, the economy and jobs are wrong. Equally wrong is the willingness of congressional leaders to work on legislation that build on Obamao's wrongheaded ideas. Why? Because few in Washington know anything about jobs or where they come from. Fewer care to know.

If Congress and the President (and his teleprompter) truly want to do anything positive about jobs and the economy, they must think like businessmen and employers -- not like statists, regulators, central planners and attorneys. Those who cannot or will not think like businessmen and employers (or at least respect them and their needs) must be replaced!

The nation desperately needs legislation to:

▪ Permanently eliminate the minimum wage. This will make it feasible for businesses to hire workers whose productivity isn't worth paying the minimum wage.
▪ Permanently eliminate the alphabet soup of other regulations and agencies that increase the cost of labor and production such as the Clean Air Interstate Rule, Davis–Bacon Act, Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Energy, Department of Labor, Department of Transportation, Economic Development Administration, Energy Policy Conservation Act, Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration, ObamaCare, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Small Business Administration, etc. None of these have any authority in the Constitution. All these regulations and agencies impede prosperity. Their roles can be better handled at the state and local level. A permanent and substantial cut in the size, power, and cost of government will facilitate a permanent and substantial cut in taxes. With more money left in their paychecks, Americans will spend more resulting in an immediate demand for more business productivity (jobs).
▪ Permanently eliminate the corporate income tax. (Congressman Louie Gohmert of Texas has submitted his own "American Jobs Act" which would actually create substantial numbers of jobs by eliminating both all corporate taxes and the alternative minimum tax.) This will enable US businesses to better compete with imported goods. Foreign producers do not pay the US corporate income tax -- a significant reason imported goods are often cheaper than our own. Note that corporations don't really pay taxes anyway -- they simply add that expense to the product or service they sell so that we, the consumers, ultimately pay all taxes imposed on corporations.
▪ Permanently lift all restrictions on development of domestic oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear energy. Open up all natural sources of energy that has been arbitrarily and necessarily locked up such as the coal in Utah's Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. Businesses need affordable and reliable energy to create jobs. So-called "green" energy is not affordable nor is it reliable. It honestly isn't even "green!"
▪ Permanently eliminate all subsidies and focused tax breaks. Subsidies only push inefficient and unwise businesses and technologies into the marketplace. Allowing a free market to pick winners and losers is always better than central planning.
▪ Permanently stop bailing out businesses, unions, nations, and individuals that fail. This only encourages weakness, poor leadership, and failure.
▪ Permanently ban collective bargaining for public-sector unions. This will sharply cut the cost of government, restoring much of the taxpayer's hard-earned income. The fact that public-sector unions have the ability to elect the politicians against whom they bargain for compensation and benefits should inspire great concern in the minds of all voters.
▪ Permanently close the borders and shores to the invasion of illegal immigrants. Abolish anchor-baby citizenship for children of illegals. Make it extremely difficult for illegals to find work. Make it impossible for them to find any taxpayer-funded aid such as education, health care, etc. This will free up the jobs that Americans allegedly won't do.
▪ Permanently eliminate incentives for Americans to not work such as extended unemployment compensation, food stamps, housing assistance, etc. These programs not only violate the Constitution, they violate human dignity and remove the incentive to do the jobs Americans allegedly won't do.
▪ Permanently abandon the student-loan scandal that only enslaves students with unmanageable debt. Without easy student loan money pouring in, colleges would have to lower prices to compete for students. Among things they'd have to cut would be worthless courses and degrees as well as buildings and other structures designed to be monuments rather than places of learning. Without easy student loan money pouring in, students (and parents) would be more conscientious with how they spend their education money. All that would be a very good thing. Whether it's buying a car, a home, or an education, at the time of purchase, people tend to look as loans as free money and pay more than they should. Instead, offer 100% tax credits for education from Kindergarten through graduate school and trade schools. This will make it easier for Americans to prepare for the future.
▪ Permanently abandon taxation (including taxes on capital gains) on all investments whether they be savings accounts, stocks, real estate, etc. Elimination of the ongoing uncertainty of tax law will allow Americans to plan for the future -- especially business growth and job creation.
▪ Permanently return airport security screening to the private sector. Nationalizing this function obliterated an entire sector of the free market. There are few functions that are best done by government. All else must be done in the private sector.
▪ Permanently withdraw from, and condemn, Agenda 21, Law of Sea Treaty, and other UN schemes that adversely affect US sovereignty and prosperity.

The Phoenix Center reports that

Even a small 5% reduction in the regulatory budget (about $2.8 billion) will result in about $75 billion in expanded private-sector GDP each year, with an increase in employment by 1.2 million jobs annually. On average, eliminating the job of a single regulator grows the American economy by $6.2 million and nearly 100 private sector jobs annually. Conversely, each million dollar increase in the regulatory budget costs the economy 420 private sector jobs.

According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, government employs 8% of workers in the United States. -- and many of those bureaucrats are paid twice what their counterparts are paid in the private sector. That is far too much government at far to great a cost. This is an unconscionable burden on the private sector.

Congress' escalating penchant for central planing and social engineering over the past 100 years has come to a head. A primary cause of the current economic and employment crisis is the uncertainty in the economy created by fickle fiscal policies of the legislative and executive branches of the central government. Businessmen are unwilling to invest in the future because nobody in the private sector can forecast what congressmen and bureaucrats will do next to make life even more difficult for businesses and consumers.

Three-fourths (74%) of Americans in a recent poll recognize that businesses and consumers are over-regulated. 73% see that "every time the federal government mandates a new regulation on America’s large and small business, the prices of American made good and services like gasoline and food go up." The only way that Congress and bureaucrats know to deal with such over-regulation is, you guessed it, more regulation! (One recently imposed regulation covers the proper disposal of lip balm at farms. That regulation is written in three parts to cover coastal-state farms, inland farms, and midwest farms! Lip balm! We're outta control!)

I recently met a businessman who said he needs to expand and he needs to hire new employees. But he dares not. He has no idea how much each new employee will cost him due to additional costs of mandatory benefits (ObamaoCare) and regulations.

Businessmen must have a stable, predictable, and favorable regulatory and tax environment if they are to thrive. Instead, Congress and the bureaucracies it has created are hostile to the free market. No amount of government spending (AKA "stimulus") can possibly fix that. The only fix is for Congress and bureaucrats to get out of the way! Now!

Obamao's entire "new" proposal to create jobs by spending more money confiscated from the productive sector of the economy must be rejected. His proposal of temporary tax cuts paid for with permanent tax increases is an assault on the economy and the businesses and consumers that drive it -- not to mention common sense. Once again, Obamao reveals his profound disrespect for, and understanding of, basic economics. At a cost of $447 billion, America can ill afford another half trillion dollars of deficit spending on a program that isn’t going to work.

Ron Paul interview in 1988

2011-09-11T22:25:00.004-06:00

Twenty-three years and he still makes a lot of sense! How many other politicians have held true to their ideals for so long (especially Mitt Romney)?

Another reason I drive Fords

2011-09-10T17:13:00.001-06:00

Davy Crockett - Not yours to give

2011-09-09T17:25:00.005-06:00

How in the world did we arrive at the point where we self-described Christians believe that charity originates from the tax collector?

The text below is from The Life of Colonel David Crockett, by Edward Sylvester Ellis (Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1884)

Crockett was then the lion of Washington. I was a great admirer of his character, and, having several friends who were intimate with him, I found no difficulty in making his acquaintance. I was fascinated with him, and he seemed to take a fancy to me.

I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support – rather, as I thought, because it afforded the speakers a fine opportunity for display than from the necessity of convincing anybody, for it seemed to me that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make one of his characteristic speeches in support of the bill. He commenced:

"Mr. Speaker – I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. This government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the War of 1812 precisely the same amount. There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor; but if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of, but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is no debt. The government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much of our own money as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Like many other young men, and old ones, too, for that matter, who had not thought upon the subject, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett to move a reconsideration the next day.

Previous engagements preventing me from seeing Crockett that night, I went early to his room the next morning and found him engaged in addressing and franking letters, a large pile of which lay upon his table.

I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what devil had possessed him to make that speech and defeat that bill yesterday. Without turning his head or looking up from his work, he replied:

"You see that I am very busy now; take a seat and cool yourself. I will be through in a few minutes, and then I will tell you all about it."

He continued his employment for about ten minutes, and when he had finished he turned to me and said:

"Now, sir, I will answer your question. But thereby hangs a tale, and one of considerable length, to which you will have to listen."

I listened, and this is the tale which I heard:

Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. When we got there, I went to work, and I never worked as hard in my life as I did there for several hours. But, in spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them, and everybody else seemed to feel the same way.

The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done. I said everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so; for, though they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I did, there were a few of the members who did not think we had the right to indulge our sympathy or excite our charity at the expense of anybody but ourselves. They opposed the bill, and upon its passage demanded the yeas and nays. There were not enough of them to sustain the call, but many of us wanted our names to appear in favor of what we considered a praiseworthy measure, and we voted with them to sustain it. So the yeas and nays were recorded, and my name appeared on the journals in favor of the bill.

The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up, and I thought it was best to let the boys know that I had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not made me too proud to go to see them.

So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddlebags, and put out. I had been out about a week and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and was about turning his horse for another furrow when I said to him: "Don't be in such a hurry, my friend; I want to have a little talk with you, and get better acquainted."

He replied: "I am very busy, and have but little time to talk, but if it does not take too long, I will listen to what you have to say."

I began: "Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and – "

"'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.'

This was a sockdolager... I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

"Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the Constitution to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is."

"I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question."

"No, Colonel, there's no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?"

"Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which anybody in the world would have found fault with."

"Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?"

Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said:

"Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did."

"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution."

I have given you an imperfect account of what he said. Long before he was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong. He wound up by saying:

"So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you."

I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

"Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it full. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said there at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot."

He laughingly replied:

"Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way."

"If I don't," said I, "I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say, I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it."

"No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you."

"Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name."

"My name is Bunce."

"Not Horatio Bunce?"

"Yes."

"Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me; but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend. You must let me shake your hand before I go."

We shook hands and parted.

It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

I have told you Mr. Bunce converted me politically. He came nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been before. He did not make a very good Christian of me, as you know; but he has wrought upon my mind a conviction of the truth of Christianity, and upon my feelings a reverence for its purifying and elevating power such as I had never felt before.

I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him – no, that is not the word – I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted – at least, they all knew me.

In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

"Fellow citizens – I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only."

I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation as I have told it to you, and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

"And now, fellow citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

"It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit of it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so."

He came upon the stand and said:

"Fellow citizens – It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today."

He went down, and there went up from the crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.

I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.

"Now, Sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. I have had several thousand copies of it printed and was directing them to my constituents when you came in.

"There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men – men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased – a debt which could not be paid by money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."

Teamster president Jimmy Hoffa vs me

2011-09-06T15:00:00.009-06:00

I am a 25-year union member (Teamsters). Teamsters union president Jimmy Hoffa, Jr. is at the head of my union. I have long acknowledged that when it comes to politics, Hoffa does not speak for me!

Yesterday, in a Labor Day speech, he was was openly hostile to me and my First Amendment "freedom of speech, [my] right [to] peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Why? Because I am a small part of a grassroots movement that opposes runaway government which includes runaway compensation for public-sector union workers. He says that because I want the people to wrest control of the government from professional politicians and unions, I am anti-worker. Hoffa is wrong. He is hungry for the perpetuation of the power he and other union leaders have over, and through, big government.

I, on the other hand, support leaders like Captain Moroni who said,

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 contrast to Captain Moroni's moral strength, here's a sample of what Hoffa had to say yesterday:

We gotta keep an eye on the battle that we face, a war on workers, and you see it everywhere in the TEA Party. And, there's only one way to win that war, the one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know, what, they got a war, they got a war with us and there's only going to be one winner, it's going to be the workers up in Michigan and America. We're going to win that war....Let's take these son of bitches out [TEA Party] and give America back to an America where we [politically powerful unions] belong.

Hoffa seems to believe that the only people who count are union workers -- especially public-sector union workers. Public sector union workers have the unique ability to elect the politicians who will negotiate "against" the unions. Hence, the bloated compensation packages that public-sector workers enjoy and which are bankrupting local, state, and federal budgets.

Hoffa ignores that simple fact that most workers in this nation are non-union -- by choice. Most workers in this nation are private-sector workers, not the public-sector workers Hoffa was addressing. He ignores the simple fact that most workers are also taxpayers who are forced to support Hoffa's overpaid public-sector union workers. And we are tired of it. Hence the TEA Party movement. (By the way, TEA stands for Taxed Enough Already. Aren't you?)

Politics today is not a struggle between Republicans and Democrats or between Liberals and Conservatives. It is a struggle between good and evil. Hoffa's words are a sample of that struggle. His is one of a legion of demons railing against liberty, self-responsibility, and goodness.

Thanks to Hoffa's profane comments, I am on the edge of resigning from my union.

Rand Paul Speaks at Cato University 2011

2011-09-06T14:59:00.002-06:00

Free trade

2011-09-04T15:43:00.002-06:00

A federal day of service?

2011-08-28T15:55:00.004-06:00

At his inauguration, Obama called for a day of service. Now, he has called for Patriot's Day (September 11) to be a day of service.

Only a person who has never been in the habit of service to his fellow man calls for service. Only a person who is not in the habit of giving to charity calls for government to assume the role of charity. Only a man who must be forced to do a good thing believes we need government agencies to manage volunteerism.

Most Americans serve. We serve through our religious organizations, Little League, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Jaycees, PTA, 4-H, the USO, the hospital, dinners and auctions for those with costly injuries and illnesses, blood drives, the widow next door, women's shelters, homeless shelters, animal shelters, Habitat for Humanity, thrift stores, fire departments, police and sheriff's departments, search and rescue, Civil Air Patrol, Community Emergency Response Teams, Red Cross, amateur radio, rape and suicide hotlines, libraries, schools, tutoring, family history libraries, tourism offices, the food bank, Meals on Wheels, soup kitchens, Master Gardener, Girls' State, Boys' State, wildlife and wildlife habitat conservation, Hunter Education, trail and park maintenance, veterans organizations such as Veterans of Foreign wars, American Legion and Disabled American Veterans, community organizations such as Lions Clubs, Elks Lodges and Kiwanis Clubs, Special Olympics, Toys for Tots. We even pick up the trash in the streets. And that's just a sample of what Americans do locally. We travel all over the nation and the globe at our own expense for opportunities to serve. We give more effective help to those affected by war and natural disaster that do all the governments combined.

Service is not a one-off event on a day chosen by a president. It is not a photo-op for pandering politicians. Unlike politicians, we serve when the press isn't around. Unlike politicians, we serve until we are beyond tired and dirty. We serve on more far days that those selected by the president. We don't serve because a president or any other mortal tells us to. We do it because we are Americans and because we are children of God who try to do His will.

Politicians like Obama will never understand let alone see it. People who are dependent on government by habit and family history -- not true need -- will never understand it. None of these will never acknowledge the work that we Americans do without being asked because they think that only things that are government-controlled are important.

HR.822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act

2011-08-28T11:49:00.010-06:00

Most of the United States have enacted shall-issue concealed firearm permit legislation. This means that if an applicant meets specific standards (most importantly pass a background check), the issuing authority must issue the permit. Some states still issue permits on an arbitrary basis (eg after contributing to the sheriff's campaign fund). A handful of states correctly require no permit at all (Vermont, Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming, and more soon) to exercise this Constitutionally-guaranteed right.

Some states, such as my own State of Utah, recognize permits of all jurisdictions. This recognition facilitates the nation-wide travel of responsible persons with guns. Unfortunately, a few jurisdictions don't recognize the permits of other jurisdictions. To resolve this dilemma, federal legislation (HR.822) has [again] been introduced to require all states to recognize the permits of other states -- just as they recognize driver's licenses of other states.

I have mixed feelings about HR.822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act. I'd like to have my Utah permit uniformly honored throughout the nation (and world). However, I'm tired of the central government imposing its will on the states -- no matter how noble the cause may seem. But, I do like to see the central government enforce the Constitution for a change.

Instead of H.822, I'd like to see all states unconditionally honor the Constitutionally-guaranteed right of all responsible persons to carry and use arms for any lawful purpose including self-defense. This recognition must be extended to all citizens and legal residents of all states and territories of the US.

Instead of a concealed firearm permit (which, in too many jurisdictions, is issued arbitrarily if at all) I suggest using the driver's license as ID. Whenever a person has a life event or condition that voids his right to arms (ie violent felony, addiction, adjudicated insanity, illegal alien, etc.), he gets a new driver's license or substitute government photo ID with an obvious color-code to indicate he is a restricted person. When and if a restricted person demonstrates to a judge that he has reformed his behavior for a reasonable period, he is issued a new driver's license with the color-code removed.

When purchasing a firearm, the presentation of a driver's license without the color code would be all the ID necessary to buy a gun -- no FBI/NICS/Brady background check would be necessary to determine whether the sale should proceed. The only paperwork necessary would be for the seller to document that he checked the ID.

It is incumbent upon all voters to lobby their political leaders to make this happen.

Kosher Gun Laws
by Charles Heller

1 - If you use a gun in criminal violence, your rights can be severed.
2 - If you are adjudicated criminally insane, your rights can be severed.
3 - If you are under age 18, your right to keep and bear arms come through your parents.
4 - You are responsible for the results of every shot you fire.
5 - If you attempt to infringe on the constitutional rights of any person, you should pay a heavy fine and go to prison.

Idiots in government jobs

2011-08-23T09:39:00.007-06:00

From the "You can't make this stuff up" department:

No comment necessary or implied.

What is a free market?

2011-08-20T15:05:00.026-06:00

Throughout my blog, I often refer to a free market. What is a free market?

Wikipedia defines a free market thus:

A free market is a market free from state intervention. However, the term is also commonly used for markets in which economic intervention and regulation by the state is limited to tax collection, and enforcement of private ownership and contracts. It is the opposite of a controlled market, in which the state directly regulates how goods, services and labor may be used, priced, or distributed, rather than relying on the mechanism of supply and demand. Advocates of a free market traditionally consider the term to imply that the means of production is under private, and not state control or co-operative ownership.

In free market capitalism, a wannabe producer comes up with an idea for a product or service. He goes through the process of developing his idea, then marketing it. If people like it or need it and it is selling for a price consumers are willing to pay, they will buy it. If they don't like or they can't afford it or they think it is overpriced, they will not buy it. The sale is concluded only if the value the seller places on the product or service matches the value the buyer places on it.

There are occasions where cost of production alone is so high that the product or service is so high that most or all consumers will reject it. Good examples include most things in the so-called "green" industry and so-called "organic" farming. "Green" and "organic" products and services are almost always more expensive than non-green and non-organic products and services. Most consumers do not value the differences enough to pay the difference in cost -- especially when considering that "green" and "organic" products and services are typically inferior in quality and unavailable inn quantities sufficient to satisfy the demand existed.

In a free market, producers who do sell goods and services at a price consumers are willing to pay at a price from which they can earn a profit become more wealthy. As he attracts more customers, he hires employees to help him meet the growing demand. This is the only legal and ethical process by which wealth is created. Most of the wealthiest people in the nation achieved that status because they thrived in a free market. As they accumulated their personal wealth, they created millions of jobs. Many of their employees and investors also became very wealthy.

In a free market, producers who attempt to sell a product or service that is too expensive or which consumers don't want will go out of business. If a a producer gets too greedy, competitors will enter the market with similar or better competing products and services driving the price back down. This free-market competition protects the rights of the consumer.

Think about the last time you went to a store. When you checked out, what did the clerk say? Probably, "Thank you." Why? Because the clerk, as a representative of his employer, valued your money more than he valued the product or service he sold. Hence, he made a profit. What did you say in response? Probably, "Thank you." Why? Because you valued the product or service you acquired more than you valued the money you gave up. The free market is based on the values consumers and producers place on money, goods, and services.

In a free market, businesses that don't satisfy consumer expectations and otherwise poorly-run businesses lose market share due to high costs or poor quality. Businesses must serve their customers and use resources wisely. If they don't, they go into bankruptcy to reorganize and come out a better business or they simply go out of business.

Now, what happens when government gets involved?

Sometimes, government imposes an outright ban on certain goods or services. These bans are based on the values of politicians, judges, lobbyists, and bureaucrats -- not the values of consumers. Sometimes, these bans are wise, more often not. Examples of things that have been banned or will/might soon be banned from the free market or taxed out of existence:

▪ Toilets that flush
▪ Pesticides that actually kill pests
▪ Conventional light bulbs
▪ Coal and petroleum as a source of energy
▪ High-octane gasoline
▪ Traditional ammunition
▪ Unpasteurized milk
▪ Herbicides that actually kill weeds
▪ French fries fried in lard (now you know why they don't taste as good as you remember)

Sometimes, government forces certain goods or services into the market. These actions are based on the values of politicians, judges, lobbyists, and bureaucrats -- not the values of consumers. Sometimes, these actions are wise, more often not. Examples of things that government has forced in to the market:

▪ Ethanol (other bio-fuels coming soon)
▪ Solar and wind power
▪ Safer toys and baby cribs
▪ Reduction in exhaust emissions and other pollutants
▪ Detergents that no longer clean because phosphates are removed
▪ Electric and hybrid cars
▪ Smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles that are less capable (ie smaller carrying capacity)
▪ Low-flush toilets (because of these new toilets, sewers in some cities no longer have enough water to carry waste to its destination)
▪ Seat belts and crash helmets
▪ Safety and tempered glass
▪ Digital TV
▪ Compact fluorescent lights
▪ Car seats for infants and small children
▪ Lead-free paint

Some of these products were forced into the market by regulation and others through subsidies and other mechanisms addressed below. Consumers prefer a toilet that flushes and would continue to use them given the option. Therefore, the government banned them because the government didn't like the consumers' choice. Consumers with families prefer a large station wagon because it provides comfort for adults and room for children, pets, and luggage or other items. The government imposed fuel-economy standards because the government didn't like the consumers' choice. So, car manufacturers quit producing large, comfortable station wagons in order to meet government-mandated efficiency standards. The consumer response? Now they drive even less efficient, more expensive vehicles such as the Ford Expedition or Chevy Suburban -- trucks!

Other products are forced into the market through subsidies. Ethanol, for example is heavily subsidized by federal tax dollars. In fact, corn farmers say they make more money selling their crop to ethanol producers than to food producers because, with the subsidy, they make more money. Therefore, the taxpayer is basically helping to pay somebody else's fuel bill.

When looking at the price of solar or wind generation of electricity, it is a rare consumer who finds the cost reasonable when compared with the return on the investment. However, with state and federal rebates (and even many electric company rebates), the cost to the buyer is lowered enough to convince him to buy. Therefore, the taxpayer is basically helping to pay somebody else's electric bill.

Electric and hybrid cars have many characteristics that make them unsuitable for most people including limited range, cramped size, limited carrying capacity, and purchase price. However, when enticed with state and federal rebates totaling as much as $12,000 and up, some consumers are lured into the purchase. Therefore, the taxpayer is basically helping somebody else to buy a new car.

One aspect of a free market that seems to get bad press is price-gouging. When there are shortages in a particular product or service, those who need that good or service tend to bid up the price. While many shortages are caused by government regulation and central planning, other shortages are caused by war or natural disasters. For example, after a city has been destroyed by war or nature, there is a sharp increase in demand for food, water, construction materials, medicine, clothing, tents, generators, vehicles, construction equipment, and skilled labor. The demand drives up costs. Consumers respond by saying that the price increase is unfair. But, what the price increase does is attract producers of needed goods and equipment as well as skilled labor to the site of devastation thereby accelerating recovery. Only a free market can accomplish this movement of goods and services efficiently. Government involvement in disaster recovery is always a...disaster.

The government interferes with the free market by designating certain businesses as legal monopolies. This monopoly status eliminates the free market forces that drive innovation and consumer protection.

The government interferes with free market capitalism by establishing a minimum wage and, increasingly, minimum employee benefits. These added costs can make the cost of producing products so expensive that a business can no longer compete successfully -- especially against goods imported from nations without artificially high labor costs. Some businesses are reluctant to hire the additional staff necessary for expansion because they can't forecast labor costs in a fickle regulatory and tax environment.

Sometimes, governments prop up failing businesses instead of allowing them to reorganize through the bankruptcy courts or even close the doors. These bailouts are at the expense of the taxpayer. Therefore, the taxpayer is basically protecting the jobs of overpaid, incompetent employees and management.

Who decides to override the free market and purge some things from the market and force others in? Politicians, bureaucrats and lobbyists.

Central planning was a characteristic of the former Soviet Union. Central planners decided who would produce what at what price. The result was inferior goods and services that nobody wanted. When I was growing up back in the '50s and '60s here in the free market of the United States, we considered such central planning silly, inefficient, and unresponsive to the needs of the people. Yet, here we are. In spite of the failure of the Soviet Union do to, in large part, central planning we have allowed our government to plan our market for us.

All this is based on the arrogant assumption by America's elitist ruling class that we commoners can't make appropriate decisions on anything without the intrusion of the government.

The proper role of government is to protect the rights of the people. In the case of commerce, its role is nothing more than to protect the consumer from impediments to the free market and from harm such as fraud and gross negligence. Beyond that, the government needs to butt out!

Businesses that are controlled by, or propped up by government almost always receive increased government aid when they fail. Such businesses have incentives to waste resources. Consequently, the free market tends to be pro-social because it serves society, while state-controlled business tends to be anti-social, because it's wasteful and coercive.

The United States no longer has a true free market. Instead, we have a modified free market that is regulated and subsidized by central planners. We have, consequently, given up a significant portion of our liberty. Free-market advocates often have difficulty distinguishing between the principles of a free market and the advocacy of a free market. Saying one is pro-free-market is not the same as understanding and practicing the principles of a free market. The latter is not common among politicians or voters or even businessmen.

We gotta get smarter voters.

Search Engine Submission - AddMe

Colbert and Mormons

2011-08-17T18:00:00.003-06:00

Disposable society

2011-08-17T11:23:00.004-06:00

We live in a disposable society. It seems that over the years, we have learned that nothing is permanent.

▪ Throw away unborn children.
▪ Throw away the old computer.
▪ Throw away your spouse.
▪ Throw away the dirty diaper.
▪ Throw away the traditional family.
▪ Throw away that empty water bottle.
▪ Throw away the Constitution and the principles it was built on.
▪ Throw away the empty toothpaste tube.
▪ Throw away the influence of religion in society and in our lives.
▪ Throw away your worn out socks.

They're all the same. Throw 'em away.

RomneyCare

2011-08-13T22:16:00.005-06:00

Mitt Romney continues to refuse to repudiate the healthcare system he set up in Massachusetts. Yet he says he wants to repeal ObamaCare, which is a carbon copy of RomneyCare.

I'd like him to convince me that had he won the 2008 election, we wouldn't still have ObamaCare, but with his name instead of Obama's. Then, maybe I'll believe him when he says he wants to repeal ObamaCare.

Somebody had to say it

2011-08-13T17:47:00.012-06:00

Somebody had to say it. Fortunately, Newt has the boldness to say it.

It's about time that a politician called out the "news" media on their inability or unwillingness to focus on the real issues that affect the nation. When questioning politicians they don't like, they ask "gotcha" questions. When questioning politicians they do like, they ask "softball" questions. They rarely ask the questions that we voters need asked to get the information essential for an informed vote.

During the same debate, Byron York asked Michele Bachmann, referring to her evangelical Christian faith, "As President, would you be submissive to your husband?" What kind of question is that? Does York have evidence that Mr. Bachmann would manipulate her? Or, that he manipulates her now as a congresswoman? I wonder if York is merely projecting his own behavior as a manipulator within his family and as a manipulator of the "news."

A couple of examples of "news" media malfeasance from the last presidential election:
● One day, Sarah Palin was a governor minding her own business and that of her State. She had no aspirations for national office. The next say, she was a candidate for Vice President of the United States. Katie Couric expected Palin to immediately step out of her role as a governor and present herself as a politician who had prepared for national office for years. So, Couric asked "gotcha" questions. Nobody in the "news media" has ever asked a "gotcha" question of Obama.
● The national "news media" descended on Wasilla, Alaska to get dirt on Governor Palin. Nobody in the "news media" has ever looked into Obama's background other than to read the books he claims to have written. We still don't know anything about Obama beyond what he has not chosen to seal. Those who want to know about his past are given derisive names, such as "birther."
● Although she had years of public service as a mayor and a governor, Sarah Palin's experience was challenged. Obama, on the other hand, voted "present" while serving in the Illinois legislature. He had barely been elected a US Senator when he began his run for the Whitehouse. His service in both legislative offices is entirely without merit. (The same can now be said about his tenure in the Whitehouse.) Yet, his level of experience has never been questioned by anyone in the "news media."

News reporters and editors around the world are so lazy or inept in their reporting that they often regurgitate everything in press releases word-for-word as if it were entirely truthful -- if they agree with the message -- without taking even a second to read the press release and examine its egregious flaws. This parrot-style reporting is typical of the profoundly lazy, biased, and dangerous reporting in today's "news" media. Instead of recycling propaganda as news simply because it feels good, I expect news reporters and editors to do thorough research on every story before going to press.

The fact that the news media, in general, consciously neglects to tell the whole story about certain candidates and issues certainly doesn't help inform. Instead, they focus on sensational, irrelevant, and trivial "news." News reporters no longer even try to hide their biases. The horrible government we have can be traced directly to the egregiously ill-informed electorate and to the selfishness of some voters who are simply voting for whomever will give them the biggest chunk of somebody else's money. (Selfishness is the root of socialism.) Power-hungry politicians have made it far too easy for layabouts and ignorant people to vote. The "news media" is an active participant in this ignorance pandemic.

The lazy news media in general seems to revel in ignorance on the part of voters as much as it does lazy reporters. And that's exactly what post-turtle politicians like Obama are counting on.

There are very few in the so-called "news" media who aren't weasels or lazy or both. I have just about as much respect for most news reporters as I do for most members of Congress. Zero! If I only wanted to get mindless propaganda, I'd get it from Oprah and Bill Maher. If the top dogs in the "news" media (eg Wolf Blitzer, Katie Couric, Nancy Grace, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Chris Wallace) want my respect, they must do it the old-fashioned way: Earn it! Report what we, the people, need to know -- not what you want us to know!

And, as Newt suggests, ask meaningful questions of all candidates.

Row a little faster

2011-08-12T15:39:00.010-06:00

The above cartoon presumes that Obama understands that a free market creates jobs. I'm unconvinced that he understands that simple concept. His history (what we know of it) indicates that he, like all good Marxists, believes jobs are created by government central-planners and bureaucrats.

What Obama, nearly all Democrats in Congress, and too many Republicans in Congress fail to understand is that businesses are not hiring because:
▪ They don't know how much an employee will cost them under the nation's current fickle tax environment. If they have figured out the cost, they can't afford to hire.
▪ They don't know how much an employee will cost them as ObamaCare is phased in. If they have figured out the cost, they can't afford to hire. (The cost of health insurance at my employer went up $238/month/employee this year. They passed that cost on to the employees. That is only an interim increase. Once our new labor contract goes into effect, the employee share of health insurance will go up another $400/month/employee. Thank you very much, Obama/Pelosi/Reid and all the other partisan cowards who pushed that unconstitutional legislation through over the objections of the people.)
▪ They don't know how the unending reckless federal spending and resulting federal deficit and federal debt will affect the economy and, consequently, their ability to find consumers willing or able to buy products and services.
▪ They don't know how new regulations will affect the products and services they want produce. Will their products and services be required to meet irrational standards or even be outlawed? If they have figured out the cost, they can't afford to hire.

The Commerce Clause of the US Constitution requires and empowers Congress to "regulate" interstate commerce. At the time of the founders, the word "regulate" was understood to mean that the Congress was to ensure trade between the several States flowed smoothly, unimpeded by State tariffs and differing currencies and standards. Over the past 100 years, the government use of "regulate" has evolved into government central planning and restrictions on all trade -- even intrastate trade. This usurpation of power has even evolved to where the central government even controls what a farmer grows on his own farm for his own use! Imagine the stifling effect heavy-handed regulations have on a businessman's business decisions!

For some reason, Congress, the Administration, and far too many consumers believe that business is evil, that captains of industry are solely in the business of accumulating wealth at the expense of the consumer. Consider this: no businessman can possibly make money unless he provides a product or service that the consumers want at a price the consumer is willing to pay. If a businessman fails to do that, somebody else will step in to satisfy that consumer demand -- in a free market. If a business sells a product or service that harms the consumer (eg tainted dog food from China), informed consumers will stop buying that product or service and move their money to a competitor -- in a free market. (Government regulation did not stop the importation or sale of that dog food. Consumer demand and the desire of businesses to hold on to their market resolved the problem as soon as it was discovered. Government intervention came after the problem was resolved.)

Ironic, isn't it? The very people who hold the key to economic recovery -- businesses -- being forced out of participation in any recovery by the government, whose job is to protect a prosperous business environment.

Congress and the Administration must come to grips with the simple fact that the Commerce Clause requires the central government to provide a regulatory and tax environment where commerce can flourish -- where businessmen are accountable to the consumer, not to bureaucrats. Ultimately, it is up to the voters to elect wise and ethical people to Congress and the Whitehouse. Until that happens, we are all doomed to go over that waterfall.

Government gone wild: The national debt

2011-08-09T17:02:00.014-06:00

Why in the world are the Left (including the mainstream news media) and most in the Middle (self-proclaimed moderates who can't make up their minds between good [liberty] and evil [big government]) so bent on excoriating and delegitimizing those who want to do something about this: the TEA Party and Constitutionalists?

Why is the Oprah- and American Idol-addicted public so stupid as to cooperate with the excoriation and delegitimization of those who want to do something about this: the TEA Party and Constitutionalists?

Last week Congress passed and the president signed into law the Budget Control Act of 2011. That very day, US debt shot up $239 billion -- the largest one-day bump in history. That this so-called debt reduction bill included only $21 billion in spending cuts in the first year, as opposed to an immediate $1 trillion debt ceiling increase over the next year! Is there even one Democrat voter paying attention to this?

The alleged spending cuts are, in reality, only symbolic cuts in the future increases in federal spending that the government pre-plans through what is called "baseline budgeting." Nothing is ever really cut. Only the rate of growth in government power and spending is cut. You could say the whole thing is a scam. Is there even one Democrat voter paying attention to this?

On Friday, as projected by some and feared by many, Standard and Poor's reacted to these series of events by downgrading the US credit rating, which politicians swore would not happen! The Left (including the mainstream news media) has the gall to blame the downgrade on the TEA Party -- not on the nation's disastrous fiscal mess.

We gotta get some smarter voters!

Check out a more detailed version of the US Debt Clock.

Obama Forges a Debt Deal ... With Terrorists?

2011-08-02T17:48:00.034-06:00

The derisive use of names is closely related to the use of profanity. Both are a manifestation of a poor vocabulary and an inability or unwillingness to think before or while speaking. They are signs of an uneducated and uncouth person.

Referring to Congressmen (mostly Republicans) who resisted further expanding the nation's excessive debt, Representative Mike Doyle (D-PA) said:

We have negotiated with terrorists. This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money....They have no compunction about blowing up the economy to get what they want...

Not to be outdone, Vice President Joe Biden reportedly added:

They have acted like terrorists.

Other labels used include "The Tea Party Taliban," "Hezbollah faction" of the GOP, "suicide mission," "cannibals," "zombies," and "vampires."

Georgetown University professor Michael Eric Dyson accused the Tea Party of "putting a gun to the president's head" on the debt ceiling. Former White House "green czar" Van Jones likewise said:

When any faction in America that would put a gun to the head of 310 million people and say 'if you don't do it our way we will blow your dreams away, we will blow a hole in the American economy,' that is un-American and that is not how we do business and we refuse to bow down to those kind of bully tactics.

(Hmmm. As I recall, after the January assassination attempt on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (another thirteen people were also injured and six others were killed including a federal judge), Democrats were condemning the harsh rhetoric from the Right.)

Jim Treacher's (AKA Sean Medlock) response to the Democrat claims of terrorism:

So we're terroists for "holding the country hostage"? Okay, then: For what you're doing to future generations, you are pedophiles. Own it.

After watching the above video, see my previous comments on the debt crisis and why I'm disappointed in the surrender of the "terrorists" (Republicans) and the perpetuation of big-government that is the debt-ceiling "compromise."

New York Times:

There is something you should know about the deal to cut federal spending that President Obama signed into law on Tuesday: It does not actually reduce federal spending. By the end of the 10-year deal, the federal debt would be much larger than it is today. Indeed, both the government and its debts will continue to grow faster than the American economy, primarily because the new law does not address federal spending on health care.

The debt deal authorizes the federal government to borrow another $2.1 trillion on top of the $14.3 trillion it already owes. It supposedly includes $2.5 trillion in cuts. However, those are cuts from a projected baseline in which the national debt grows by $10 trillion during the next decade! Only a politician can say that over $7 trillion additional debt over the next 10 years is less debt!

Moreover, the vast majority of the "cuts" are not scheduled to take effect for years, raising serious doubts about whether they will happen at all.

Nevertheless, Lieutenant Colonel Alan West, US Representative for Florida gives this perspective on the compromise:

Before conservatives go criticizing this agreement consider what would have happened if Pelosi, Reid and Obama were still in control.

Most Republicans and all Democrats in Congress fail to understand that one cannot compromise with evil (eg big-government advocates). Such compromise always moves in the direction of evil (eg big government) albeit not as quickly as evil (eg big-government advocates) desires. The Republican party consistently shows why it does not deserve to be the majority party. Except for a handful of the TEA-party caucus, Congress betrayed us all. The mainstream "news" media is complicit.

Every voter in the nation needs to look at the list of congressmen who voted for the debt deal. If your representative and/or senator voted for this legislation to perpetuate the growth of federal debt, you owe it to yourself, your posterity, and the nation to vote them out! Especially if you voted for them primarily because of the color of their skin or their party label rather than for their principles!

If, on going into the polling booth in 2008, you knew and agreed with Obama's principles and agenda and those of his allies in Congress and therefore cast an informed ballot, I can accept that. On the other hand, if you voted for the current president to prove you're not racist, in 2012 you need to vote him out to prove you aren't an idiot.

Check out a more detailed version of the US Debt Clock.

Ray Stevens: Obama Budget Plan

2011-08-02T00:56:00.004-06:00

Check out a more detailed version of the US Debt Clock.

Enact HR.2613 (Citizens Protection Act of 2011) immediately!

2011-08-01T04:37:00.007-06:00

For over 20 years, law-abiding Americans have been prohibited from having a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school. The Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990 has made federal criminals of nearly every responsible gun owner in America because it is impossible to travel around any town without crossing the invisible boundaries of these thousand-foot school zones.

It took a wild, malicious, irresponsible stretch of the Constitution's interstate commerce clause (sadly, typical of Congress since Wickard v. Filburn, 1942) to justify this law. It is past time for Congress and the Whitehouse to undo the damage done to liberty by the distortion of the commerce clause in general and by the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990 in particular.

Any reasonable person understands that if government disarms all the law-abiding citizens from defending themselves and their loved ones the only people who will have arms, and the will to use them, will be the bad guys. We have seen it time and time again – shootings in schools, churches, and even military bases where laws prohibit law abiding citizens from exercising the constitutionally-protected right of having and using arms. In each and every case attackers were able to kill with impunity because there was no one there that was prepared (armed) to stop them.

People don't die because they have a gun. People die because they are denied the ability to defend themselves by anti-liberty, anti-responsibility legislators and presidents! It is past time for politicians to stop empowering the criminal and place the power back where it belongs – in the hands of responsible armed citizens!

As much as they want to help, we can't bet innocent lives on having a police officer around every time those innocent lives are in danger. We must be prepared (armed) to take care of ourselves until the police arrive. The law must never restrict our right to do so – but, since 1990, it does.

HR.2613 (Citizens Protection Act of 2011) is a small step in restoring sanity and the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It will restore our right to responsibly have a firearm where 20 years of history shows we far too often need it most – the schools.

Congress and the Whitehouse must take every possible step to see that HR.2613 (Citizens Protection Act of 2011) becomes law immediately.

When I vote, gun rights are extremely important because it is how I judge a politician's respect for the Constitution and for responsible Americans.

Congressional spending and penis size

2011-07-29T11:00:00.010-06:00

One million of your tax-dollars was spent on a study entitled "The Association between Penis Size and Sexual Health among Men Who Have Sex with Men."

This study, which was pushed by Homosexual Lobby lapdogs in Congress and ran for five years, was subsidized by the National Institute of Health using your tax-dollars.

Their findings are even more ridiculous. In fact it is very hard to believe this was the result of legitimate academic research at all. They found that Homosexuals with smaller genitals are routinely the submissive member in their perverse "relationships", and that those with larger anatomy were more likely to be "on top."

You and other taxpayers are forced to pay for this nonsense!

Every day, allies of the radical homosexual agenda use government resources to force their perversion upon the public.

At a time when the Liberals are telling us that the debt ceiling must be raised rather than balance the budget, they’re spending one million dollars studying the size of Homosexual genitals!

Do not raise the debt ceiling for this nonsense! Stop the spending -- especially on perversion! Cut all spending that is not constitutional!

(BTW, I hypothesize that congressmen who vote for unconstitutional legislation or who fail to rescind unconstitutional legislation have tiny pee-pees. How about a study on the issue?)

Check out a more detailed version of the US Debt Clock.

Sheriff Mack: Nullify we Must, and Nullify we Will!

2011-07-27T16:34:00.005-06:00

Amazon.com Widgets

New fashion rage in police mug shots

2011-07-25T17:39:00.007-06:00

These are actual police photos.

Just think about this for a second: Did you ever see anyone arrested wearing a Bush T-shirt, or for you older guys, an Eisenhower, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, or even Nixon, or Bob Dole shirt?

There must be a message here.

Your tax money at work

2011-07-24T16:45:00.005-06:00

What clause in the Constitution justifies spending my taxes on programs such as this?

How can any intelligent person possibly fail to understand why this nation is over its head in debt?

Fox's Ainsley Earhardt vs Mormons

2011-07-20T00:24:00.004-06:00

Ainsley Earhardt says that Mormons (Mitt Romney and I) are not Christians. It is true that our understanding of the Trinity does not come from councils convened by the pagan emperor Constantine (eg the Nicene Creed). Instead, our understanding comes from Biblical study and divine revelation.

Anyone who pays attention to disaster relief knows that we lead in providing assistance to those who are affected by disasters. What is unchristian about that?

Our first Article of Faith says, "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost." What is unchristian about that?

Our third Article of Faith says, "We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel." What is unchristian about that?

Our fourth Article of Faith says, "We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost." What is unchristian about that?

Our sixth Article of Faith says, "We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth." What is unchristian about that?

Our eighth Article of Faith says, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God." What is unchristian about that?

Our ninth Article of Faith says, "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." What is unchristian about that?

Our thirteenth Article of Faith says, "We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul -- We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things." What is unchristian about that?

Unlike Ainsley Earhardt, our eleventh Article of Faith says, "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." What is unchristian about that?

Ainsley Earhardt needs to study the Mormon faith enough to make an intelligent and truthful statement. She must examine her own heart for a kernel of Christian respect for the beliefs of others. Then, Ainsley Earhardt must broadcast a sincere apology and and explanation of our reliance on Jesus for our salvation.

If Ainsley Earhardt doesn't like Mitt Romney (a Mormon) for president (I don't either), she should attack him on principles and values. That is where Romney the Chameleon is vulnerable. While he certainly knows how to talk the talk, his history on values do not mirror the values held by a large segment of America -- especially devout Mormons and other Christians.

I expect Fox and all its reporters to broadcast news (facts) and carefully-considered commentary (opinion) -- not ill-informed bigotry. It is biased "news" and commentary broadcasting like this incident that results in poorly-informed voters and, consequently, horrid, corrupt government. Fox and Ainsley Earhardt you can and must do better!

Medicaid caught encouraging fraud

2011-07-19T22:32:00.003-06:00

Undercover journalist James O'Keefe (of ACORN fame) caught, on video, an Ohio government worker helping a "drug dealer" commit Medicaid fraud.

This is just one more reason to scrap Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Commerce, National Endowment for the Humanities, Department of labor, Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, Drug Enforcement Agency, Transportation Security Administration, National Endowment for the Arts, Subsidies for AMTRAK, alternative energy and Planned Parenthood, etc -- the whole corrupt and unconstitutional alphabet soup of the central government.

Doing so would return the cost of the central government to 2-3% of GDP as it was 100 years ago. Budget and debt-limit crisis solved.

Few Americans seem to understand that our nation's founders built into the Constitution a mechanism for peaceful revolution -- to overthrow the government and replace it with a new one. We can throw out all of the House of Representatives and 1/3 of the Senate every two years and the president every four years. Thus, in six years, we can have an entirely new government free of corruption and bloat!

But we don't. Ninety-eight percent of the House and 90% of the Senate gets reelected in a typical year! Why? because the voters are idiots!

In the image of God

2011-07-19T19:18:00.013-06:00

A few years ago, I had layover for a day or two in Rome. My crew and I took advantage to the situation to see some of the sights including the Coliseum and St. Peter's Basilica. The Basilica and other buildings in the Vatican contain significant portions of the world's most priceless art. One of these pieces of art I was privileged to see was Michelangelo's "Pietà."

In 1972, a mentally disturbed visitor attacked the statue with a hammer, breaking chunks of stone from the images of Jesus and his mother, Mary. That damage was repaired long before I saw the statue, but I recall there was considerable outrage over the attack. Why the anger? For two reasons:
▪ Pietà is a priceless, irreplaceable example of Renaissance sculpture by the great master, Michelangelo Buonarroti.
▪ The focus of this statue is an image of Jesus, the Christ, son of God.

I'd like to focus on that second reason for outrage. Is not that image simply a chunk of rock that is special only because has been chiseled into a certain shape? So, why the concern over a mere rock? People were angered because an image of Jesus was damaged.

The Christian world is filled with images of what countless artists believe Jesus looked like. But again, they are mere images on canvas or in stone.

Now, consider Genesis 1:27:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Like Adam and Eve, each of us is an image of God. Is not, therefore, each human body at least as sacred as that chunk of rock on which Michelangelo chiseled?

Consider the many ways that recent generations have desecrated this sacred body and image of God given to us by our Creator: Tattoos, piercings, bizarre jewelry, freakish hair, obesity, poor hygiene, irreverent attitude/behavior, and immodest dress -- all of which detract from, rather than enhance, the natural beauty of our image of God.

Mankind has devised many other ways of showing gross disregard for the image of God: Abortion, rape, assault, slothfulness, murder, homosexuality, consuming harmful and addictive substances, and pornography.

The Apostle Paul taught the significance of the body and the danger of purposefully defiling it:

Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. — 1 Corinthians 3:16-17.

As a society and as individuals, we have much repenting to do if we are to give at least as much respect to our God-given image of God as we do to a man-made image carved from a chunk of stone. We all must make the necessary effort to lift those around us who struggle with the desecration of God's image.

A balanced budget amendment vs the elephant in the room

2011-07-15T15:36:00.102-06:00

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)

Because of its out-of-control spending, the United States of America is long overdue a USSR-style collapse. Nevertheless, power-hungry politicians -- mostly in the Democrat Party -- are either in pathological denial, desire the collapse, or simply don't care.

At our current rate of government growth, the Congressional Budget Office projects the federal debt to reach 90% of GDP (Gross Domestic product) by 2020 and more than 200% in 2050! Meanwhile, the petulant acting president and other Democrats are opposing billion-dollar cuts when they should be cutting trillions!

Only a politician can believe that all money belongs to the government to use as it sees fit and that workers may be allowed to keep some of their earnings. Only a politician or a bureaucrat can claim that a reduction in the rate of growth of government is a cut in government! (Learn about baseline budgeting.)

Only the acting president and his delusional allies in Congress believe that runaway government growth, spending, and debt is necessary, sustainable, and affordable. Where in the world does the acting president think the money to pay for government will come from when it is destined to consume more than twice what taxpayers produce?

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!)

Solve a debt problem with more debt? Yeah, that oughta work!

Although everyone is talking about the debt crisis, nobody in either political party is talking about the elephant in the room: 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.

Since the 1930s, rational politicians have suggested a "balanced budget amendment" to the US Constitution to force politicians to make rational decisions regarding federal spending (as if Congress and the Administration would comply with that amendment any more than they do the rest of the Constitution).

Included in the suggested amendment would be a cap on federal spending and revenues -- say 18% of GDP except in time of war or national emergency. (In the post-WWII era, spending has generally hovered around 20% of GDP. If the central government were returned to its constitutionally-defined and limited size, it would only cost 2-3% of GDP during peacetime!)

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! Private enterprise provided the seed money, leadership, and labor for projects we are now accustomed to turning over to bumbling government bureaucrats and corrupt politicians. Today, the acting president believes that "at a certain point you’ve made enough money" and businessmen have no right to create wealth by providing goods, services, and jobs that people want and need.

Therefore, I am convinced that the 18% restriction does not go far enough. That is still nearly ten-times too much room for unwise and unconstitutional spending in that 18%. Just because we spend that much does not mean that we should!

An 18% limit 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!

The 18% GDP cap may require some minor spending cuts here and there, but it won't compel fundamental reforms or phase-outs of countless unconstitutional programs like Medicare, which has made medical care more expensive, even for the elderly. And it fails to return most powers to the states or individuals, as the Ninth and Tenth Amendment requires.

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, gun control, war on drugs, funding state and local projects, etc.) while giving short shrift to duties the Constitution specifically requires of the central government (national defense, protecting States against Invasion, etc.). So, any balanced budget amendment must be worded very carefully in order to force a return of the central government to its constitutional bounds.

Another aspect: 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.

The proposed Balanced Budget Amendment, as with the current balanced budget legislation:
• Ignores the clear limitations already imposed by the Constitution.
• Substitutes those limitations for the permanent enshrinement of a government bloated to a whopping 18% of GDP.
• Says nothing about how GDP is to be calculated.
• Says nothing about what is to be counted in the official budget.

The effort to control spending and the central government must begin with evaluating exactly what the central government should be doing -- then limit it to those roles as intended by the Constitution and its writers. Nearly all of the specific "enumerated" Legislative Powers of Congress are spelled out in Article of I Section 8 the Constitution. I find twenty powers listed in Article I, Section 8 and a couple others elsewhere in the Constitution. Nothing else is the business of the central government and these powers and responsibilities must be returned to the States and the People!

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

Much of the problem is the plethora of amendments that often turns a simple bill of a few paragraphs into a 1,000-page monster. Therefore, included in a balanced budget amendment must be a requirement that all legislation be limited strictly to one subject. Utah has such a constitutional restriction (Utah Constitution, Article VI, Section 22) and it works very well.

I believe that any balanced budget amendment must include a requirement that all current and future federal programs, agencies, laws, rules, policies, and judicial decisions face, at most, a ten-year sunset unless they are specifically renewed by appropriate legislation and are determined by at least 3/4ths of both houses of Congress to be in full compliance with the limits imposed by the original intent of the the US Constitution. Many agencies and programs should be cut immediately. Here are some of my ideas for federal cuts:

Agency or Program / Phase Out
• Agency for International Development / Immediately
• AmeriCorps / Immediately
• Amtrak subsidies / 1 year
• Bailouts / Immediately
• Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms / Immediately
• Bureau of Land Management / Immediately (see Constitution, Article I Section 8 clause 17 for limits on federal property)
• Centers for Disease Control / Immediately
• Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives / Immediately
• Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) / Immediately
• Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) / Immediately
• Corporation for Public Broadcasting / Immediately
• Davis-Bacon Act / Immediately
• Death gratuity for members of Congress / Immediately
• Department of Agriculture / Immediately
• Department of Education / 1 year
• Department of Energy / Immediately
• Department of Commerce / Immediately
• Department of Health & Human Services / 1 year
• Department of Housing & Urban Development / Immediately
• Department of Labor / Immediately
• Department of Transportation / Immediately
• Drug Enforcement Administration / 1 year
• Economic Development Administration / Immediately
• Economic stimulus schemes / Immediately
• Energy Policy Conservation Act / Immediately
• Energy Star Program / Immediately
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) / Immediately
• Earned Income Tax Credit / Immediately
• Essential Air Service / 1 year
• Federal Emergency Management Agency / Immediately
• Federal Reserve / 1 year
• Food and Drug Administration / 1 year
• Food stamps / 1 year
• Gun control / Immediately
• Head Start / Immediately
• Housing Assistance
• Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
• Medicaid / 1 year
• Medicare / 20 years
• Minimum Wage and other Price Controls
• Most federal criminal laws / Immediately
• Most federal law-enforcement agencies / Immediately
• National and Community Services Act / Immediately
• National Endowment for the Arts / Immediately
• National Endowment for the Humanities / Immediately
• National Forest Service / Immediately (see Constitution, Article I Section 8 clause 17 for limits on federal property)
• National Institutes of Health / Immediately
• National Park Service / Immediately (see Constitution, Article I Section 8 clause 17 for limits on federal property)
• National Public Radio / Immediately
• National School Lunch Program / 1 year
• ObamaCare / Immediately
• Peace Corps / Immediately
• Planned Parenthood / Immediately
• Presidential Campaign Fund / Immediately
• Regulation of intrastate commerce / Immediately
• Renewable energy standards / Immediately
• Renewable energy subsidies / Immediately
• Sarbanes-Oxley Act / Immediately
• S-CHIP
• School breakfast and lunch subsidies
• Small Business Administration / 1 year
• Social Security / 20 years
• Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) / 1 year
• Tacit approval of illegal immigration / Immediately
• Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF)
• Transportation Security Administration / 1 year
• United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change / Immediately
• US Fish and Wildlife Service / Immediately
• Vehicle, light bulb, toilet, etc. efficiency standards / Immediately
• War on Drugs / Immediately

Before you say that I am a hard-hearted scrooge for wanting the termination of these federal programs, let me say that my life-long habit of charitable giving is far above the national average. I am deeply annoyed by those who are far less charitable than I and prefer to have the government extract even more money from me to support government-approved but ineffective "charities."

None of the above federal agencies and programs add to the nation's GDP (Gross Domestic Product); they only sap it. I'd prefer immediate termination of all the above federal agencies and programs. I only extend the termination of some agencies and programs to give individuals, States, and charities time to adjust to the elimination of unconstitutional federal powers and the sudden reduction in the size of government. A Ron Paul fan has an even longer list of 150+ agencies and programs to be considered for elimination.

There is no room in the Constitution for any of the above agencies and programs. There is no room in the Constitution to overhaul or reform any of the above agencies and programs. They all must be eliminated as soon as we can "wean" people from the long-entrenched programs. Most of the above agencies and programs can be eliminated in less that a year. The rest must be frozen at current levels, and receive no further increases or expansion of scope. Sunset dates must be set upon all programs which do not currently have closure dates. Each year a real reduction in funding to these programs must be legislated, with a straight line year-by-year diminishment of the program to its demise. There is no program listed above that should exist 20 years from now.

None of the above federal activities have any constitutional authority. Most these functions are the role of individuals, families, charities, communities, and the States. The remainder shouldn't exist at all!

Would you be willing to give up your favorite federal program if it meant never having to pay the income tax again? — Harry Browne

The acting president is correct when he says. "Any plan to reduce our deficit substantially must reflect American values of fairness and shared sacrifice." But his idea of sacrifice is directed in the wrong direction. He wants achievers to sacrifice by paying more taxes to support the government and non-achievers. Where is the "social justice" in that? The correct focus of sacrifice must be to sacrifice unconstitutional government agencies and jobs. This means that the few remaining government workers must sacrifice all compensation greater than that earned by non-government workers in comparable occupations. This means that non-achievers (except those who, due to disability, cannot care for themselves) must sacrifice by earning their own way in life instead of demanding that achievers support them though unconstitutional government programs.

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 Phoenix Center reports that

Even a small 5% reduction in the regulatory budget (about $2.8 billion) will result in about $75 billion in expanded private-sector GDP each year, with an increase in employment by 1.2 million jobs annually. On average, eliminating the job of a single regulator grows the American economy by $6.2 million and nearly 100 private sector jobs annually. Conversely, each million dollar increase in the regulatory budget costs the economy 420 private sector jobs.

Clearly, our economy urgently needs a sharp reduction in the size and power of government. We currently have one bureaucrat for every 100 people. That is far too much government. If my ideas are adopted, many of these federal employees will become unemployed during a tough time for our economy. But, the economy is in crisis primarily because we can't afford the size of government we have. With unemployed government workers on the street, unemployment will rise. However, the immediate drop in the cost of government and the reduction in government impediments to success will restore the ability of the free market to do what it does best -- create prosperity and lift people out of poverty.

The various government attempts to eliminate poverty have clearly failed to reduce the rate of poverty. Through government scams such as "The New Deal," Social Security, and "The Great Society," the government has "redistributed" wealth and power primarily to itself and its bureaucrats -- not to those actually in need. When government gets out of the way, achievement is properly rewarded through the free market. When success goes unpunished, Americans have the resources needed to take care of themselves, their families, and their neighbors. Power-hungry politicians and bureaucrats presume that typical Americans are as selfish as themselves. However, when government stays in its proper limits, America's traditional charitable generosity is unleashed to care for those who struggle financially.

The present federal budget crisis is very simple to address successfully. All we need is politicians with the courage, integrity, and wisdom to comply with the Constitution. The limits the Constitution places on the government is the only balanced budget provision necessary! There is no need whatsoever for a balanced budget amendment! Returning the central government to the size, power, and influence it had prior to the Morrill Act of 1862 (adjusted for population growth and inflation) is a good start. Merely limiting government to 18% of GDP does little to resolve the violation of principles by today's current lack of restraint.

The acting president 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.

Now, the acting president 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. Nevertheless, the words he spoke, as quoted above, were technically correct. Congress and the Whitehouse must follow the Constitution which entails making the "tough choices" outlined above in order to restore the Constitution and return to the limited government mandated therein. That means a lot of sacred cows must be sacrificed.

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

My concern is that (the Balanced Budget Amendment) might limit our ability to rely on the plain text of the 1787 Constitution as presently amended. - Howard Phillips, past Constitution Party nominee for President

Check out a more detailed version of the US Debt Clock.

Search Engine Submission - AddMe

3-D Printing?

2011-07-14T18:26:00.000-06:00

Wow!

Undocumented. Unafraid.

2011-07-05T13:12:00.006-06:00

A majority of Congress and the president are cowards and traitors when it comes to enforcing immigration laws and controlling our borders.

State legislators, governors, mayors, and even church leaders have joined in tolerating -- even aiding and abetting the invasion. Those who have invaded our borders know it -- as do those will invade tomorrow:

Our nation's "leaders" leaders won't even do something about people who openly proclaim their unlawful presence in this nation! These people are proudly confessing their defiance of the law -- with no legal consequences!

The last time this nation took illegal immigration seriously was during the Eisenhower administration!

Have we, as a nation decided to simply cede our sovereignty to Mexico?

Does anybody care anymore?

Happy Independence Day

2011-07-04T09:40:00.009-06:00

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed... - Declaration of Independence

The Other Guys: The Signers of the Declaration of Independence.

It is essential that we remember that today's holiday is not named "The Forth of July." Its correct name is "Independence Day!" (5 USC § 6103)

It is also essential that we understand why we declared independence from Great Britain. If you answer "taxes" was the reason on a school exam, you should only get a score of about 5%. It was not just about taxes as our modern government schools teach us. Take a few minutes today to read and study the Declaration of Independence. Count -- and study -- the reasons the founders gave for independence. How many of these grievances apply in the US today?

Do we again need to reject a government that has grown at least as oppressive as King George's government in 1776? I contend, yes. If we, as voters and citizens, don't begin to cast wise and informed votes, everything our nation's founders fought for will very soon be lost.

Happy Independence Day.

The US government and the sale of guns to Mexican drug cartels

2011-07-01T17:58:00.004-06:00

Here is John Stewart's satirical take on BATFE's Operation Fast and Furious:

Some questions I feel compelled to ask are:

• Why are Representative Darrell Issa and Senator Charles Grassley virtually alone in investigating this scandal?
• Why does every other congressman apparently endorse or at least tolerate the arrogant defiance of, and refusal to cooperate with, Congress by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF)?

Congress supposedly represents the people. Therefore, DOJ and ATF are, as usual, defying the people of the United States!

Voters, is this really the change and transparency that you expected from the current administration and for which you voted?

Soccer and illegal immigration

2011-06-27T16:28:00.004-06:00

Over the weekend the US men's soccer team played Mexico in an international Gold Cup final in Los Angeles and lost, 4-2.

To add insult to injury, the crowd was pro-Mexican The awards ceremony was in Spanish. And, the US team and anthem were booed all around.

Is there anyone in Washington DC who understands and cares about the gravity and urgency of our nation's illegal immigration problem?

Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution says, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion...." How are we doing on that?

Our borders and immigration laws must immediately be vigorously enforced! Mine the borders if necessary!

Absolutely no citizenship, legal-resident status, amnesty, or guest-worker status for anyone who has ever crossed our borders illegally!

Terminate the nation's "anchor baby" scam now!

Ban taxpayer-funded education, health-care, benefits, and entitlements for illegal immigrants!

English must be established as the nation's official language of the nation and all government functions, publications and websites (except tourism and very few State Department functions) must be only in English!

Establish federal felony criminal penalties for any person -- including federal, state, and local government officials -- or organization which offers sanctuary to illegal immigrants.

The federal government must cooperate with -- not sue -- state and local governments to identify and deport all who have invaded our borders!

Again: Is there anyone in Washington DC who understands and cares about the gravity and urgency of our nation's illegal immigration problem?

Most cops are good, but....

2011-06-27T08:12:00.015-06:00

A few days ago, Emily Good was witnessing a traffic stop in Rochester, New York. She videotaped the work of three police officers in that incident. She was arrested for that egregious act! Her video is below.

It appears to me that the camerawoman did absolutely nothing wrong. The Rochester, NY officer, on the other hand, was way out of line. If he's not doing anything wrong, he should have no fear of being recorded or photographed while doing his job. To claim that he felt unsafe with her standing behind him is nothing more than a pretense to impose undue control over a bystander.

In order to to be able preserve their own lives in a hostile occupation, police candidates are typically selected and trained to have a certain level of assertiveness and to make snap life-and-death decisions. Unfortunately, in far too many individuals, this assertiveness grows to the point where they believe they are the law rather than law enforcers. In this case, the arresting officer believes his unreasonable "police order" is the law and that the camerawoman therefore needs to be jailed.

But, it gets better: The second video below is from a Rochester, New York, neighborhood meeting in support of Emily Good, the woman arrested for videotaping a traffic stop from her front yard. Rochester police sent four squad cars to ticket the cars of meeting attendees who parked more than 12 inches from the curb! Yes, they even brought a ruler. Coincidence? I doubt it. This clearly is police harassment and intimidation of the subjects of the Duke of Rochester (mayor)!

Emily Good should, and probably will, receive a nice settlement from the city at the expense of the cities' taxpayers. The taxpayers and other citizens of Rochester must express their outrage by holding their elected officials accountable for this incident at the next city council meeting and at the next election.

All officers involved in this ongoing incident (like most police officers; law-enforcement supervisors; local, state and federal elected officials; and judges) need thorough remedial training in the rights of the people as guaranteed by the federal and state constitutions (which they have sworn to honor). They each need to carefully consider the objectives of Oath Keepers and understand why the organizers of Oath Keepers feel their organization is necessary in the "land of the free and the home of the brave".

In addition to training in the Constitution, the officer who arrested Emily Good, those officers present who did not protest the arrest, and those officers who ticketed cars for being 1/2 inch too far from the curb must all be given a few weeks off without pay so they can have time to consider their attitude toward the rights of the people and the proper purpose of law. They each owe the camerawoman a very sincere personal apology and flowers.

If police are to ever earn the respect and cooperation of the people they are supposed to serve, they must do a lot better than this.

Stalin must be proud.

Democrat plan to lower energy prices

2011-06-23T08:43:00.004-06:00

Environmentalists are people who don't know science, don't care about economics, and won't do the math.

SWAT teams from the Department of Education?

2011-06-15T22:13:00.011-06:00

SWAT teams from the Department of Education (DOE)? (This story is a must-read! You won't hear or see it in the mainstream news.) The Department of Education conducting armed no-knock raids?

We have over 57 federal law-enforcement agencies, and now, of all people, the Department of Education has guns and SWAT teams?

Is this really the police state we want?

SWAT teams should be used only in cases that are sufficiently critical to public safety that each officer involved is willing to give his own life to protect public safety. Instead, we're using SWAT teams tens of thousands of times per year in this country for relatively minor things such as to grab a few ounces of pot as evidence -- and people are dying for those few ounces of pot!

In fact, just last month, the home of Jose Guerena, an honorably discharged Marine and war veteran, was the object of a typical SWAT raid. Guerena correctly responded to the chaos of his door being kicked in by grabbing his gun for self-defense and the defense of his family. He never took a shot, probably because he recognized the intruders as police officers. There is no report that he even pointed his rifle at the intruders! Nevertheless, he was gunned down by 71 shots from Pima County Arizona SWAT officers. Why the raid on his home? Undisclosed persons suspected he might be involved in drug trafficking. No evidence of criminal activity was found during the raid. If it isn't worth dying over, it isn't worth shooting over.

In the case linked at the top of this blog entry, a DOE SWAT team invaded a home to seek (unsuccessfully) evidence of student-loan fraud on the part of the home owner's ex-wife! Somebody could have died in that senseless raid! If it isn't worth dying over, it isn't worth shooting over.

Is this really the police state we want?

We gotta get some smarter voters -- voters who vote on character, principles, and knowledge rather than party labels, skin color, and "entitlements". There is no other blood-free way to regain control of the federal government.

Orrin Hatch and his flag amendment

2011-06-15T17:40:00.009-06:00

Utah's senior senator, Orrin Hatch, has again brought up his desire for a constitutional amendment to protect the flag.

That seems fine on the surface. But, the flag is simply a piece of cloth. A precious symbol, yes, but a piece of cloth nevertheless.

A constitutional amendment to protect the flag is simply another amendment to a document that nobody in Washington pays any attention to. It is the Constitution that needs protecting -- not the flag!

If Hatch wants show he is serious about keeping his job, he needs to do a better job of protecting the Constitution from presidents and presidential appointees.

He needs to do a better job of reversing the growth of government.

He needs to stop and repeal all legislation that violates the Constitution - and he has voted for plenty of unconstitutional legislation and anti-Constitution presidential appointees in 35+ years.

He needs to stop denigrating Republican voters who vote for constitutionalist candidates over Republican-party-machine candidates. (Shouldn't all political candidates be consitutionalists?)

After Senator Hatch get that important stuff done, he can start fussing over symbolic things.

Hatch has had 6 terms in the Senate to do all these things. It's interesting that he has only begun to even pay lip service to the Constitution since the ouster of Senator Bob Bennett -- because he is afraid of his constituents. Hatch seems to care about the principles that are important to constitutionalist voters only when he afraid of losing power.

His bringing up the flag amendment again only shows how badly we need Orrin Hatch to retire.

Congressman Don Young Urges Producing American Energy & Opening ANWR

2011-06-08T12:32:00.002-06:00

A British politician warns us about our transformation into Europe

2011-06-05T05:13:00.003-06:00

Overturn Kentucky v King and restore our Fourth Amendment rights!

2011-06-03T04:02:00.010-06:00

The recent US Supreme Court ruling in Kentucky v. King in essence revokes Americans' Fourth Amendment rights by allowing law enforcement to enter citizens' private property without a warrant.

Regarding this outrageous ruling, Judge Andrew Napolitano said:

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the right to be left alone. It requires that the government can only come on to private property without the consent of the occupant if it has a search warrant. And search warrants may only be issued by judges, and judges may only issue search warrants after they have found probable cause of a crime on the property.

This new ruling compromises Americans' Constitutional rights by removing certain restrictions on government agents entering a residence without first obtaining a warrant. This constitutes one of the greatest threats to the American rights and liberties since King George III. We fought a war (beating the most powerful nation on Earth) over this sort of government behavior!

The Supreme Court has only compounded the current and egregious anti-Fourth-Amendment practices of asset forfeiture and extremely dangerous no-knock warrants (no-knock police raids have grown in use from 2,000 to 3,000 raids a year in the mid-1980s, to 70,000 to 80,000 annually, says Peter Kraska, a professor of criminal justice at Eastern Kentucky University who tracks the issue).

We are law-abiding citizens. We do not want criminal activity to run rampant in our communities. But, more importantly, we also do not want government authorities to wield police-state power over responsible citizens. That is why we cherish the protections the nation's founders wisely built into the Constitution.

The Fourth Amendment protects our privacy rights and our private property from unwarranted searches and seizures. Congress and the President must enact immediate legislation that will supersede the Supreme Court ruling in Kentucky v. King and to protect all responsible Americans from asset forfeiture and no-knock police raids.

Chastity: What are the limits?

2011-06-03T02:02:00.002-06:00

"Courtship is a wonderful period. It should be a sacred one. That is the time in which you choose your mate. Young men, your success in life depends upon that choice. Choose prayerfully the one who inspires you to your best and always remember that no man injures the thing he loves. . The seeds of a happy marriage are sown in youth. Happiness does not begin at the altar; it begins during the period of youth and courtship." — David O. McKay (Ensign, Jan 1974, p 36)

Every study of the subject has shown that living together before marriage is not good. In each case, they found:
• higher divorce rate - up to 46% higher
• lower quality of life - rates of depression and abuse are at least three times higher for unmarried couples than married ones
• cohabitation does not lead to marriage - only 21% were still together after only five years, even if they got married during that time
• commitment sidetracked - men said they were less likely to get married when they can simply live with a woman and enjoy the same benefits, then walk away with no liabilities.
— "The National Marriage Project" by Rutgers University

"No pressure, no diamonds." — Thomas Carlyle

Entitlement

2011-06-03T00:09:00.001-06:00

"The language Congress uses to describe their spending is corrupt beyond redemption. Think about the term entitlement. If one American is entitled to something he didn't earn, where in the world does Congress get the money? It's not Santa or the Tooth Fairy. The only way Congress can give one American a dollar is to first take it from another American. Therefore, an entitlement is a congressionally given right for one American to live at the expense of another. In other words, Congress forcibly uses one American to serve the purposes of another American. As such, it differs in degree, but not kind, from that uglier part of our history where black people were forcibly used to serve the purposes of their slave masters." — Walter E Williams, Economist, 1 Jun 2011

Nobody can say it any better than that.

Memorial Day

2011-05-29T13:54:00.022-06:00

Since the United States ended the draft in 1972, Americans, in general, have lost touch with the cost of freedom -- military service. Before then, a majority of America's young men spent time in one of the nation's armed forces. Today, less than 1 percent of American families shoulder the burden of fear and sacrifice of military service, and they shoulder it for the entire nation. Here is the natural result:

A couple of years ago, on or about Veterans' Day, our bishop asked all veterans to stand and be recognized. Of a congregation of some 400, only about a half dozen stood. A generation ago, at least half the men would have been on their feet along with some of the women.

I think that our nation has paid a very dear price by isolating itself from those who wear the uniform. Few know or understand the toll on those who serve and especially on their families. Additionally, because few Americans share the burden, today's servicemen spend a far portion of their service in actual combat than any armed force in history.

All Americans can think about is barbecues, car races, and Memorial Day sales. I hear people greet each other with, "Happy Memorial Day." To those of who have served and to those of us who have lost family and friend to war, it's not a happy day. It's a solemn and sacred day.

In memory of my fallen brothers and sisters in arms and the families they left:

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. A man who has nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance at being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. - John Stuart Mill

Our debt to the heroic men and valiant women in the service of our country can never be repaid. They have earned our undying gratitude; American will never forget their sacrifice. - President Harry S. Truman

They fought together as brothers-in-arms, they died together, and now they sleep side by side. To them we have a solemn obligation. - Admiral Chester Nimitz

They hover as a cloud of witnesses above this Nation. – Henry Ward Beecher

Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. – John 15:13

On this Memorial Day, I highly recommend reading Six Seconds to Live and Ask me about my son’s sacrifice.

Thousands of soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Guardsmen have been killed in the War on Terror. The Freedom Alliance Scholarship Fund honors the bravery and dedication exhibited by Americans in our Armed Forces who have sacrificed life or limb defending our country by providing educational scholarships to their children. Please support the The Freedom Alliance Scholarship Fund.

The people of WalMart

2011-05-28T04:54:00.003-06:00

Why don't I get to see people like these at the Walmart where I live?

The measure of a presidential candidate

2011-05-25T04:23:00.027-06:00

A far-too-common flaw in those who seek political office is that they spend too much time talking and not enough time listening. I expect that of a liberal, since they rarely are interested in facts and other forms of truth. But this failure to listen also afflicts those who pretend to be conservatives (ie Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, John McCain, etc.). These "conservatives" typically show up at a TEA Party rally or an NRA Annual Meeting just in time for their turn to speak, then vanish. They never stick around long enough to hear what other speakers are saying, let alone what the audience has to say. Consequently, all they know about issues is what their handlers feed them. Romney is probably the most guilty of this behavior of any politician I've personally listened to. And it shows.

In predicting a general apostasy from the Church, the Apostle Paul wrote

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. — 2 Timothy 4:3-4

It seems to me that Romney and most other politicians expect the masses to have "itching ears" when it comes to politics just as they do with the Gospel. It appears that Romney, like Obama, finds plenty of "itching ears" in his audiences.

Some friends and relatives are annoyed by the fact that I do not support Mitt Romney for president. These sheeple support him for one reason: they are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) as is Romney and as am I. I, on the other hand, find that a candidate's status as a member of any church is immaterial for political office.

...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. — US Constitution, Article VI

I cannot support or vote for a former LDS bishop and stake president (LDS lay positions in which Romney once served) whose record on moral issues (marriage, abortion, homosexuality, etc) is inconsistent with the standards of his church, the will of God, the will of the majority of the People, and even the values expressed his party's platform.

Mormons who support Mitt Romney for president need to stop and consider the adverse attention his political baggage imposes on the Church. I don't think the Evangelical concerns about Romney are as much about the Mormon faith itself as it is about his personal betrayal of essential Christian moral principles. One must wonder how much that betrayal harms the image of the Church.

Perhaps key to his chances of winning the Whitehouse, Romney's history on moral and big-government issues so closely parallels Obama's, most voters may see no reason not to vote for the incumbent! In fact, I believe that had Romney won the 2008 election, we'd still have ObamaCare, but with a different name. (I assume Romney might have been a bit better for the economy, though, and we might not have new Supreme Court Justices quite as radical as Sotomayor and Kagan.)

Romney's stated (but not demonstrated) stand on some of the more controversial issues (abortion, gun control, homosexual marriage) has shifted in his effort to pander to conservative Republicans. Nevertheless, he continues espouse big-government, anti-liberty, anti-self-reliance ideas such as carbon taxes, government-mandated health care, gun-control, government subsidies, and man-made global warming. His willingness to fall for (or endorse) the global-warming scam is troubling.

About a year ago, Connor Boyack wrote:

The label of “flip-flopper” may very well be appropriate, but an analysis of Romney’s positions across the board and over time lend more support to the critique that he is rather like a political chameleon, changing himself to blend in with whatever environment he happens to be in. Indeed, to determine Romney’s political affiliation at any given moment, one need only determine to which audience he is addressing himself in hopes of winning a popular vote. Thus, his foundation-less platform has morphed as he courted voters first in Massachusetts, then later across the nation.

I will not vote for or support a candidate based on his religious affiliation (especially if his actions are grossly incompatible with the moral stands taught by his religion) any more than I will for the color of his skin or his political party affiliation. These three criteria are invalid measures of a candidate. Any voter who thinks they are valid measures is part of the problem and should be ashamed.

Instead, I vote based on principles found in the word of God as revealed though His prophets and in the nation's founding documents. I expect political leaders to be similarly guided by principles -- not by "itching ears."

Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual - or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country. — Samuel Adams (Boston Gazette, 1781)

The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all. — John F. Kennedy

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. — Thomas Jefferson

Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost. — John Quincy Adams

Americanism is a question of principles, of idealism, of character: it is not a matter of birthplace or creed or line of descent. — Theodore Roosevelt

Mitt Romney is the worst kind of politician. He has absolutely no foundation based on principle. This chameleon tailors his message based on what is politically expedient. Some argue that he is the only person who can beat Obama. Pundits claim that independent voters will only respond to a pandering "moderate" like Mitt Romney. They said the same thing about their favorite "conservative" John McCain. How did that work out? Independent voters, like Conservatives, don't want a weak-kneed panderer, they want someone who is guided by principle even if they don't always agree with them (ie Ronald Reagan)!

Although he can speak coherently without a teleprompter, Mitt Romney does not measure up.

Everyone wants to vote for the best and most qualified man, but he never runs for office. — Will Rogers

Hell, I never vote for anybody, I always vote against. — WC Fields

Walgreens betrays an employee and its customers

2011-05-23T07:57:00.006-06:00

Walgreens has chosen to terminate Pharmacist Jeremy Hoven after he fired his handgun to foil an armed robbery and a potentially deadly hostage situation at the store. He was fully and legally justified in his actions. Unfortunately those actions apparently annoyed his employer, Walgreens.

I respect property rights. I respect the right of Walgreens to establish whatever policy it chooses with regard to its property.

However, Walgreens has a hoplophobic anti-self-defense policy and Walgreens fails to provide adequate armed security to take the place of self-defense. I therefore consider Walgreens stores to be an unsafe place to spend my money and time.

Think about this Walgreens management: If Jeremy Hoven were still working at the Benton Township Walgreens, those two wannabe armed robbers would be very unlikely to return to that store. Since Hoven has been terminated, that store has been widely publicized as an easy target!

Until Jeremy Hoven is restored to his job with full back pay and an award for his heroism and Walgreens' anti-gun policies are rescinded nationwide, I will exercise my right to no longer patronize Walgreens' unsafe stores, including the new Walgreens in Cedar City, Utah.

I am sharing my concerns with my readers and other friends and family.

Civil Asset Forfeiture is Unconstitutional and Evil

2011-05-22T20:40:00.004-06:00

Civil asset forfeiture is government seizure of property or cash owned by individuals who are only charged with a crime. Law enforcement agents can seize a piece of property if they merely suspect it was used in a crime, whereas its owner must prove innocence to get it back. This is an inversion of justice and a gross violation of the Bill of Rights. Congress and each state legislature must immediately:

• Require full Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment protection for all federal proceedings against owners of personal property.
• Permit seizures of criminal profits only upon criminal conviction of its owner.
• Permit seizures of legally-owned property only if its owner is convicted of a crime, to pay for fines, court costs, or restitution.
• Withhold federal funds to all state and local law enforcement agencies that engage in civil asset forfeiture.
• Enforce the 14th Amendment's requirement that “no person shall be deprived of...property, without due process of law” by allowing victims of state and local seizures to contest forfeitures in federal court.

Courts have failed to protect the property of persons who have never been convicted or even charged. Law enforcement agencies have even taken exploited asset forfeiture for profit and to fund/equip their departments. Congress must ensure civil asset forfeiture is immediately abolished.

Goodwin Liu is an enemy to the Constitution

2011-05-18T17:23:00.011-06:00

Perhaps the most important role for a legislator, president, or judge is to know and strictly follow the US Constitution. For this reason, the Constitution requires that all federal judges be confirmed by the US Senate. The Senate's job is to ensure that presidential nominees, especially judges, intimately know and consistently follow the Constitution.

As far as has been disclosed to the People, Senators do not take an oath to any political ideology, political party, party leader, king, president, or even the desires of constituents! They take an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" (ie most Obama nominees).

Goodwin Liu has been nominated to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I am satisfied that he is not fit for that position because of his anti-Constitution history.

• Liu believes in a "living Constitution." In other words, the Constitution means whatever he wants it to mean. He said, "I think that [originalism is] nice in theory, but the reality is...the job of courts really involves...an awareness of the evolving norms and social understandings of our country." Liu also wrote: "For too long, liberals, progressives and moderates have been defensive about how the Constitution should be interpreted." Anyone who has read and studied the US Constitution knows that it has a built-in mechanism for adaptation -- an amendment process. There is nothing in there that authorizes any judge to do the amending!
• He finds it "difficult to grasp" that foreign law should not be used to interpret the US Constitution.
• Liu would impose homosexual marriage. He submitted an amicus brief in favor of gay marriage and called the majority of California voters a "narrow and ultimately temporary majority."
• He would create a "Constitutional" right to welfare and consequently a right to the earnings of hard-working taxpayers. He believes that "judicial recognition of welfare rights depends on socially situated modes of reasoning...."
• Liu is so soft on crime that he is opposed by a bi-partisan majority (42 of 58) of California DAs (District Attorneys). The DAs cite: "[Liu's] views on criminal law, capital punishment, and the role of the federal courts...[as cause for] the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate to reject this nomination."
• He was highly critical of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. For example, Liu believes that "because [Roberts] would sit with life tenure" Senators should inquire about specifics on their views of so called "gay rights," "abortion rights," "the environment, "home grown marijuana," "environmental laws," "affirmative action," professional associations, and a host of other issues which are properly addressed by the People through their elected representatives -- not by judges. I counter that by demanding that "because [Liu] would sit with life tenure" Senators should inquire about specifics on his views of the "Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land," who has authority and responsibility to amend the Constitution, and whether those who don't work have a right to the fruits of the labors of the workers.

Liu clearly is a radical activist who wants to move the courts and our country in the wrong direction -- further away from the Constitution and toward judicial tyranny.

Every Senator has a sworn obligation to take every possible step to ensure that Goodwin Liu is never confirmed for any federal judgeship. Every Senator has a sworn obligation to demand that the president henceforth nominate only persons who know and follow the Constitution for judicial and administrative positions.

I consider a vote for Liu is the same as a vote against the Constitution.

"He who does not punish evil commands it to be done." — Leonardo da Vinci