Sunday, November 29, 2009

Please stop forwarding hoaxes and rumors to me!

Like almost everyone else with an email account, I get more spam than legitimate emails. Among the spam are countless chain emails forwarded to me by well-meaning people I know. Many of these are hoaxes and rumors which an endless chain of senders fail to verify.

For example, for several months there has been a flood of emails regarding HR.45 and S.2099 -- bills before Congress. These two bills are getting a lot of people fired up, but the bills are actually of no concern.

HR.45 is an enhanced "assault weapon" ban and is currently stuck in committee with no co-sponsors. Because Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid fear the gun vote more than they do Sarah Brady, this bill is going nowhere fast.

S.2099 was a bill that would have required gun owners to list their guns in their tax returns and pay a tax on each one. This bill expired without passing 9 years ago and consequently is no threat.

I commend everyone for being concerned about their favorite issues (so long as they are adequately informed). More specifically, I commend the millions of people worldwide who are concerned about preserving gun rights. But we all need sound information to avoid annoying our congressmen (and other recipients of our email alerts) with invalid concerns.

For non-gun issues, we need to check out rumors at sites like,, and Only when we know the contents of the email are factual and relevant should anyone judiciously forward them to others.

Regarding gun rights, I suggest everyone to go to to sign up for daily email alerts from the NRA so they get gun rights information from a reliable source rather than rely on rumors and hoaxes. Also, when we get emails regarding some threat to our gun rights, we need to check 'em out by going to the NRAILA website to "search" for the issue and verify it before forwarding or writing to Congress.

While we're on the subject of gun rights, join the NRA! Without their efforts, backed up by an overwhelming membership, we would have already lost everything and may yet loose not only our gun rights, but all other rights that are enforced by an armed citizenry.

"Americans need never fear their country because of the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation." — Thomas Jefferson

"When the government fears the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." — Author Unknown

Saturday, November 28, 2009

The victim culture

Over the years I've collected substantial information about my family tree. Here is what I've learned about my heritage that goes back over many generations:

My ancestors were conquered by the armies of the Arabs, Assyrians, Babylonians, Danes, Egyptians, English, French, Germans, Greeks, Irish, Moors, Norwegians, Romans, Scots, Swedes, Spanish, Turks, and Welsh.

Their possessions were plundered, their women raped, their children kidnapped, and their lands taken.

They were wrongfully imprisoned, enslaved, tortured, maimed, and blinded.

They have been ruled over by tyrants, kings, queens, judges, emperors, presidents, republicans, democrats, whiggs, even a bullmoose.

They died of disease, war, starvation, accident, murder, and even old age. They were executed without a fair trial.

They were persecuted, even driven from their homes and families because of their race and religious beliefs.

They have endured and overcome illiteracy, deep poverty, and oppression.

They were single parents and were raised in single-parent families. Some were orphans.

Who am I? I am a white Anglo-Saxon citizen of the United States of America. Ironically, many of these conditions have affected my ancestors right here in the "land of the free, home of the brave."

The point is: We all can look back into our heritage and see man's inhumanity to man as well as the effects of nature on man.

Does that make us victims of the hardships our ancestors endured? Only if we believe we are victims of the past.

Unfortunately, some members of certain groups seem to believe that they are the only ones who've had trials in their family history and therefore feel entitled to apologies and compensation from the rest of us. They believe they need not take responsibility for their own future because of evils done to persons long dead.

Victimization is not a condition imposed on one person by another. It is only a condition a person accepts, even seeks.

That is not to say that we don't have challenges in life. However, if we take responsibility for our own lives and choices, we can be students of the past -- but we need not be victims of the past.

It is up to each of us to do the best we can with the hand life and circumstances have dealt us. We all can attain success by making the best possible choices and by giving a hand to those who stumble.

The choice is mine. The choice is yours. It is not the choice of some oppressor of the past.

Recommended book:
Uncle Sam's Plantation: How the Welfare Bureaucracy Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can Do About It
Uncle Sam's Plantation: How the Welfare Bureaucracy Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can Do About It

The lunacy of banning guns in schools

An overlay map showing the extent of gun-free school zones (see 18 USC 922(q)) shows how the law places anyone carrying or transporting a gun at high risk of continually committing a federal felony. Yet, this prohibition does nothing to stop crime of any kind, especially in school zones.

What the law does do is provide a safe work environment for criminals bent on harming school teachers and their students. This law has left millions of school employees and children defenseless. I believe the banning of guns in the hands of good people is criminal and that criminal act must be punished! Anyone who establishes a gun-free zone must provide absolute security and safety or be held fully liable and culpable for any violence suffered at the hands of a criminal who ignores the gun prohibition.

Fortunately, Utah law allows persons who are trained in the safe handling of firearms and in the laws related to the use of deadly force and who pass a background check to obtain a permit to carry a concealed firearm. In Utah, this permit allows the carry of a concealed firearm within these gun-free school zones -- including the classroom.

To me, common sense says the best and most cost-effective control on violent crime, whether at home, the workplace, school, or church, is the presence of law-abiding, trained citizens as provided by the Utah concealed firearm permit process. The cops invariably arrive just in time to do nothing more that conduct an investigation and hold a press conference.

Banning guns on the campuses of public schools and colleges will not keep guns off the campus. Criminals, by definition, do not obey the law -- even gun laws! If a disgruntled student or teacher chooses to shoot up the campus he or she does not care whether guns (or any other weapon) are banned or whether he or she has a concealed firearms permit.

Crimes and upset students are a behavior problem -- not a gun problem. Statistically, more crimes are averted or stopped by the mere presence of a gun than are committed by a gun -- even on college campuses. Statistically, per capita violent crime is highest in those cities and states that have banned guns. Guns are generally banned in all school zones nationwide, yet school shootings still happen. Why? Bad guys don't obey laws -- even gun laws! (Even in Great Britain and Australia, where handguns are completely banned, the criminals still manage to get them.) Imagine the difference if the bad guys knew that there was even a 1% chance of encountering a teacher or other adult trained in the use of a gun and carried it. Utah law allows for that added level of security.

Recent high profile murders in schools in Canada and the US prove that “gun-free school” laws are a delusional scheme to make hoplophobes feel good but do not deter criminal attackers. Instead they seem to lure psychopathic killers seeking to harm others, while minimizing the risk that they may encounter an armed victim. The Columbine shootings happened despite numerous state and federal laws being violated by the killers. In response, Colorado added more gun ban laws. The federal government then enacted “gun-free school” laws. Experience shows that they did no good.

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

I discourage engaging into a hostile environment or situation. However, the ability of a school employee to carry a firearm may mitigate such situations and will, at the very least, afford individual protection for the carriers themselves. If those carriers have control or responsibility over a classroom full of children, that same protection will tend to encompass those children as well. The weapon must be under the carrier's control at all times. It must be maintained quietly and discreetly.

I recommend that if an employee (armed or not) is in her classroom or other securable location and becomes aware of a violent situation that she immediately close and lock her classroom door after gathering all adjacent students into the classroom. This will be her and the students' shelter. If that employee has access to a firearm she should only engage the intruder if her classroom shelter is breeched.

In the wake of the nation's recent rash of school weapon incidents, a couple of concealed firearms instructors in Salt Lake have begun a policy of allowing school employees to attend their concealed firearms classes at no charge. Like them, I offer my Utah concealed firearm instruction at a discount to all school employees in Utah's Iron county as well as to college students over age 21 in Iron county.

Biased news reporting again -- this time on the militia

In today's news is a story about the rise of the militia movement in the US. The article refers to the concerns of the militia members: "imminent economic collapse and social chaos incited by federal bailouts and other forms of intrusion by a tyrannical government."

The news article refers to a left-wing "intelligence" assessment by the federal Department of Homeland Security (DHS) which labeled me as a right-wing extremist and potential terrorist because I am a military veteran (and swore to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic), favor limited government, oppose illegal immigration, attend church services regularly, and oppose abortion. The DHS reports implies that since I have these characteristics, I am racist because I didn't vote for a black man who has opinions radically different from mine. Apparently, the news reporter has the same viewpoint as the DHS regarding my racist and terrorist proclivities.

The caption under the accompanying photo (also shown above) says that the rise of the militia movement "coincides with advent of a black Democrat in White House." The timing is only coincidental and the reporter and editor know it. The militia movement is not about race! It is all about individual liberty and opposition to a Marxist president, an out-of-control Congress, and a bloated government with millions of bureaucrats.

I am in no way condoning nor sympathizing with the radical fringe in the militia movement who are racists or who, like Timothy McVeigh, have criminal intent. Nobody in the news business or in the DHS has a right nor evidence to say I am another Timothy McVeigh.

I have never known any militia member to be as bigoted, narrow-minded, and illinformed as a substantial portions of so-called journalists.

By the way, who are the militia? According to Title 10 of the US Code, "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American....[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." — Tench Coxe, ally of James Madison and member of the Continental Congress (Freeman's Journal, 20 Feb 20, 1778)

"Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." — George Mason

Recommended book:
Origin of the Second Amendment: A Documentary History of the Bill of Rights
Origin of the Second Amendment: A Documentary History of the Bill of Rights

Friday, November 27, 2009

New Congressional Scam!

I appreciate receiving email and snail mail from my congressmen regarding issues they are working on.

Lately, however, they have been sending me emails requesting money purportedly to fight issues they are working on such as the Democrat plan to take over the health care and health insurance industries. I am smart enough to recognized these emails as nothing more than a well-disguised solicitation for campaign funds.

We taxpayers already pay congressmen a handsome salary with benefits and a retirement plan we commoners can't even dream of.

Congressmen do not need more money to fight the issues. They are already paid very well to do that and they aren't doing a very good job of it!

I expect all congressmen stop disguising campaign contribution solicitations as solicitations for funds necessary to do their job. That only annoys me and I will not pay.

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

Monday, November 23, 2009

Missing in Action in the Fight For Gun Rights

A critical gun-rights case has been appealed to the US Supreme Court in the ongoing civil-rights struggle to restore our Second Amendment rights nationwide (McDonald v. City of Chicago

A large bipartisan group of state legislators and other elected officials from all 50 states have signed an amicus curiae, or "friend of the court," brief supporting the NRA’s position that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

The amicus brief bears the signatures of 891 state legislators, governors and other elected officials. I was deeply disappointed to see that the names of my own governor and legislators (Gary Herbert, Dennis Stowell, and Evan Vickers) are missing from this document which is an important weapon in our fight to restore individual liberty.

Friday, November 20, 2009

Obama and the Great Wall of China

On the 18th of November, Barack Obama wrapped up a visit to China with a visit to ancient fortifications built to keep foreigners from invading China. The Great Wall of China was built to help China preserve its identity, sovereignty, borders, culture, and language.

Ironically, while Obama was walking on that wall, back home, his nation continued to be overrun by invaders passing through a porous border -- and he wants to grant amnesty and even citizenship to those invaders! The identity, sovereignty, borders, culture, and language are being destroyed while he fiddles!

"In most modern politics, unfortunately, it may truly be said that those who make history never know history." — GK Chesterton (1874-1936)

What is it about politicians in general, and liberals in particular, that make them unable or unwilling to learn from history?

Recommended book:
America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It
America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It

Reject David Michaels as Head of OSHA!

David Michaels is a radical left-wing ideologue who supports junk science. He is one the nation's foremost proponents of allowing junk science to be used in jackpot-justice lawsuits. He wants to reverse the Supreme Court’s Daubert decision limiting the use of junk science. Michaels also seeks to ban useful products from the workplace based on imaginary risks.

On 18 November, the Senate Health Committee approved Michaels to head the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The vote occurred with no discussion, and no hearing was even held on his nomination, although hearings have consistently been held on nominees in the past, even for far less controversial picks. Only two Senators -- both Republicans -- had the courage and wisdom to vote against the Obama nominee.

Michaels views "gun violence" as a "public health" issue that demands more and stronger regulation. He wants to ban guns in and near workplaces, and could use his position at OSHA to do so. As more and more government officials, such as Michaels, view private gun ownership as a public health menace, it seems logical to them to use the powers of government to urge or even require employers to forbid workers from possessing guns on company premises, up to and including parking lots, ostensibly for the protection of co-workers.

OSHA already has earned a reputation of radical leftist anti-business and anti-liberty activism. For example, OSHA has authority to regulate the working conditions of various job categories associated with firearms and their use (security guards, hunting guides, sporting goods stores, shooting ranges, etc.) and could, in that capacity, do much to infringe Second Amendment liberty. For example, in mid 2007, OSHA quietly tried to implement new regulations that would have essentially banned ammunition. They came within hours of accomplishing that goal! With Michaels at the helm, OSHA will grow even more dangerous!

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. Therefore, Senators must make all decisions regarding presidential appointees based not only on the nominee's professional qualifications but more importantly on his/her respect for the Constitution and not on whether he/she is politically correct (politically cleansed).

On taking office, every Senator takes the following oath:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
Senators do not take an oath to any political ideology, political party, party leader, king, or president. They take an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." In recent decades -- and especially during the current administration -- the Senate has done a horrible job in protecting the US Constitution because Senators make their decisions based on political ideology -- not the nominee's qualification or his/her potential effect on liberty. In fact, Senator Orin Hatch wrote to me a few months ago that he believes a president should have whomever he chooses!

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!

OSHA is an agency that desperately needs a leader with sound judgment and who knows, understands, and respects the US Constitution. David Michaels does not fit that description. He must be rejected!

Monday, November 16, 2009

The English Language vs Congressional Courage

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

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

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

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

The EEOC took action against 200 businesses this past year because they simply wished to require their employees to speak English on the job! This campaign of federal government harassment must stop! Small businesses in America will be wrecked if the EEOC is allowed to enforce this further dismantling of America!

Fire crew supervisors are getting laid off because they don't speak Spanish! I'm not surprised. It was only a matter of time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I expect Congress to immediately pass legislation to allow employers to mandate English in the workplace and to establish English as the official language of the United States and require all government functions be done in English. Every congressman and the President must set the example by immediately and permanently taking down their non-English websites.

Get the Federal Government Out of Education

From its omission from the US Constitution, it is clear that the founders never intended for the Federal government to have a role in education. According to the 10th Amendment, that role is retained by the states and the people.

One area that the Constitution does allow Congress to regulate is interstate and international commerce. In order to stick its nose in education and to establish the Department of Education, Congress has said that in as much as educated people are involved in interstate and international commerce, they can therefore regulate education. This is only one of countless abuses of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

Congressional and Federal meddling in education is not authorized by the Constitution and therefore is unconstitutional. An ignorant public (says a lot about our Federally-controlled education system and the radical leftist influence of the NEA (National Education Association)) and a colluding Supreme Court have allowed this abuse of the Commerce Clause to continually expand Federal intrusion into individual and states' rights. It must stop.

Congress must immediately abolish the Department of Education. Congress must immediately cease all mandates on the states regarding education. The states must immediately strictly limit the NEA to the role of representing teachers as a labor union only.

Recommended book:
Whoever Controls the Schools Rules the World
Whoever Controls the Schools Rules the World

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Reject David Hamilton for 7th Circuit Court of Appeals

I am deeply concerned by the direction in which the federal judiciary has gone in recent decades. Far too many judges have been nominated and confirmed based on some divisive "litmus test" such as gun rights or abortion rights. The only correct "litmus test" that should be applied is a deeply-held respect for the US Constitution and those laws and precedents that fully comply with the original intent of the Constitution.

I have no idea what "litmus test" Obama used in selecting David Hamilton for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, but clearly was not sound judgement or respect for the rule of law.

Judge Hamilton, a district court judge, is Barack Obama's nominee to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. That very court has cited Judge Hamilton for abusing his power as a judge.

Hamilton was initially appointed by President Clinton to a district judgeship in Indiana in 1994. ABA gave him a “not qualified” rating.

Over a period of 7 years Hamilton proceeded to issue a series of rulings preventing Indiana from implementing its informed consent (a statute materially identical to a law held valid by the US Supreme Court) law which would have given women information about abortion's risks and alternatives. The 7th Circuit Court, (the very court to which he has now been nominated), overturned Hamilton's rulings and issued a statement rebuking him for holding up the law.

In 1994, the 7th Circuit rebuked Judge Hamilton for denying a Rabbi the right to display a Menorah as part of an Indianapolis holiday display.

Judge Hamilton stated in a 2003 speech that the role of a judge includes writing footnotes to the Constitution: "Judge S. Hugh Dillin of this court has said that part of our job here as judges is to write a series of footnotes to the Constitution. We all do that every year in cases large and small." In explaining this statement to Senator Orin Hatch, Judge Hamilton wrote that he believes the Framers intended judges to amend the Constitution through evolving case law. This is an extremely dangerous attitude! The Constitution belongs to the people -- not to unelected judges!

In 2005, Judge Hamilton prohibited the Indiana House of Representatives from praying if Jesus's name was mentioned, but said praying in Allah's name was perfectly fine! He ruled that prayers to Jesus were sectarian and unconstitutional while stating that prayers to "Allah" were acceptable.

He also is one of the most lenient judges in America when it comes to crime and criminals.

In 2007, Judge Hamilton used his opinion to request clemency for a police officer who pled guilty to two counts of child pornography. The 32 year old officer had engaged in "consensual" sex with two teenagers and videotaped his activities.

In 2008, the Seventh Circuit faulted Judge Hamilton for disregarding an earlier conviction in order to avoid imposing a life sentence on a repeat offender.

Senators must make all decisions regarding judicial nominees based on the judge's professional qualifications and his/her respect for the Constitution -- not on whether he/she is politically correct (politically cleansed).

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

The Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate must expedite confirmation of judicial nominees who have a solid record of applying the original intent of the Constitution and halt consideration of all pending judicial 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.

The Senate must demand the president nominate only "originalist" judges who will not impose their own (or the president's) agenda on their decisions. Compromise is giving in to the enemies of liberty. There must be no compromise!

David Hamilton has demonstrated a history of being an unfit judge. Instead of being elevated to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, he should be removed from the bench.

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Instant Gratification and the Economy

Sadly, I can't think of much to say in encouragement regarding the current global financial crisis -- not because the financial situation is so dire, but because I don't expect governments to do the right thing to fix it. Likewise, I don't expect the people do demand the right thing of their politicians.

We all want instant gratification in everything we do. Far too often, we seek that gratification without considering the long-term consequences. That applies to eating an extra serving of ice cream (short-term gratification) and adding another 1/4 pound of never-to-be-lost weight. It applies to using the ol' credit card to buy that ice cream to add to the never-to-be-paid-off debt. It applies to banks lending money to people who cannot or will not pay it back and calling that loan an asset which is then sold to some investor. It applies to that investor (gambler) who knows that since the risk is higher, the potential for return might be higher. It applies to labor unions that make demands on employers that jeopardize the very survival of the employer. It applies to individuals and businesses that declare bankruptcy to shed some debt, but never change the behavior that got them into financial trouble. It applies to politicians who pass legislation designed primarily to satisfy everyone's desire for instant gratification while building government power over our lives.

Whether at the individual, corporate, or government level, our natural desire for instant gratification drives the way we make our decisions. That desire for gratification can be a positive motivation for growth and prosperity -- if tempered with good judgment.

Until we learn to control our desire for instant gratification, I don't see a way out of the mess we are in. However, I believe that those who have followed the instructions of the prophets (get out of debt, get an education, store some food, pay tithing, keep your family strong, etc.) will generally do fine.

I believe D&C 130:20-21 applies to everything in life, including the global financial crisis and our individual ability to survive it (and many businesses and even some banks as well): "There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated. And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated."

I am a potential terrorist!

Our government considers me to be a "rightwing extremist."

IN April, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), under the leadership of Secretary Janet Napolitano, warned law enforcement officials about a rise in "rightwing extremist activity," labeling citizens opposed to new firearms restrictions, returning veterans and conservatives as "rightwing extremists" and associating them with white supremacists and violent antigovernment groups.

Yes, it appears that the Obama Administration, and especially the DHS, is trying to demonize and suppress political dissent. According to a report from the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis Assessment, gun-owning servicemen (who have sworn to defend the US Constitution) returning from duty in Iraq and Afghanistan are a risk to our nation's safety and security. This is particularly true if they aren't fond of gun and ammunition control, abortion, increased federal power and taxation, loss of US sovereignty, universal "volunteer" service, enviromentalism, or of people illegally sneaking across the US border. If they appreciate the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"), they are likewise potential terrorists.

Napolitano's concern, it appears, is true God-fearing, Constitution-loving Americans - not extremist terrorists from the Middle East. Not left-wing extremists who have bombed the Pentagon and police stations, then gone on to teach at university.

The DHS report came on the heels of a report in Missouri which made similar mischaracterizations in March, saying those who follow third party candidates like Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin and Libertarian Bob Barr should be suspect. The Missouri Information Analysis Center’s (MIAC) warning to law enforcement was compiled with the help of the DHS!

This sort of attention on anyone for political reasons is reminiscent of Stalinist Soviet Union, is petty, vindictive, evil, extremely dangerous to liberty, and must be opposed at all costs.

Actually, I kinda relish the idea that the government is afraid of the citizens. That's the way it's supposed to be -- not the other way around!

Government's concept of charity and volunteerism is wrong!

Statistics indicate that Democrats and Liberals, on average, contribute substantially less time and money to charity and volunteer activities than do Republicans and Conservatives. For example, President and Mrs. Obama donated about 1% of their income to charity during the years 2002 through 2004. (Virtually everyone in my relatively conservative circle of friends give to charity at ten times that rate on less than one-third the income of the Obamas.) Vice President Biden is even more stingy with his wealth.

To complement their personal stinginess, Democrats and Liberals, on average, seem to be much more likely than Republicans and Conservatives to prefer to see government filling the role traditionally filled by charity. I am astounded by the arrogance of such people whose concept of charity is forced redistribution of the hard-earned money of somebody else while accumulating power to themselves.

I believe tax policy and law should be designed to encourage self-reliance rather than reliance on government. Tax law and policy should also encourage free and generous giving of time and money to traditional charity.

But the president and many in Congress want the opposite -- they wants to punish traditional charitable giving by increasing taxes on givers!

The Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act (GIVE) continues to pull volunteerism away from traditional charities and into government control. The GIVE Act dramatically increases funding for AmeriCorps and other volunteer programs that could be done more efficiently by traditional, non-government charities. GIVE also establishes a goal of expanding from 75,000 government-supported volunteers to 250,000 -- an unacceptable growth in government size and influence.

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

Instead of supporting GIVE and other programs which expand the reach and power of government, Congress must work vigorously to enhance the tax incentives for charitable giving of time and money to non-government-affiliated charities.

I am fed up!

The United States built its greatness because it was founded on the ideals of free enterprise and individual sovereignty and responsibility.

The nation has lost its greatness because its citizens have elected politicians who do not honor and defend the US Constitution. Instead, politicians in the past several decades have dedicated their careers to pandering to voters who seek dependence instead of independence. This has resulted in layer upon layer of horrid legislation that punishes individual success and responsibility and rewards slothfulness. The result is a serious government-created financial crisis.

The politicians now take advantage of this crisis to impose their will on what remains of free enterprise and capitalism at the expense of the American worker. In the end, this series of so-called "bailouts" will likely cost several trillions of dollars yet have no positive effect.

I urge Congress to oppose all these economic "stimulus" bills except for legislation that is strictly limited to the following:
• Impeach every politician who voted for, or supported, legislation contributing to the current economic crisis and every politician who voted for the current bailout schemes and who vote for future bailouts.
• Politicians created the economic mess we are in. To presume that politicians can fix it by adding more government, regulations, and spending is ludicrous. Congress must immediately undo all legislation that put the nation into this crisis (ie regulations that are essentially Soviet-style central planning schemes telling auto manufacturers what kind of cars they can sell, legislation that endorses and even mandates lending to persons who cannot pay their debts, etc).
• No bailouts! Instead, require all businesses that are struggling (ie auto industry, financial industry) go into bankruptcy to resolve their difficulties.
• Taxpayers are burdened with a bloated, expensive government. Therefore, Congress must immediately begin a phase out of all federal agencies, laws, rules, executive orders, and policies that have no reasonable basis in the US Constitution. Most of these programs negate the independence and responsibilities of individual Americans and are, in fact, roles that are better filled by individuals themselves, families, charities, and communities. This reduction in government must be coupled with a corresponding cut in taxes and an honestly balanced budget. Ban deficit spending except in times of Congress-declared war.
• Half of each American's labor goes to paying for government and for expenses imposed by government regulation. Congress must immediately scrap the entire tax system as it exists today and replace it where the total federal revenue comes solely from import duties plus one of the following: a flat per-capita tax assessed on the states or a flat tax assessed on the income of all US citizens (regardless of income) and residents with no deductions or credits except for a small per-capita personal exemption and a substantial credit for charitable giving (to enhance the flow of funds for replacing the government's inefficient and unconstitutional programs). (Every family must feel the bite of taxation so that every American feels the need to keep watch over the cost, power, and influence of government.) All other federal taxes which are essentially invisible to the taxpayer/consumer (corporate, excise, Alternative Minimum Tax, fuel tax, user fees, etc) must be eliminated. Corporate, excise taxes, etc are invisible to the typical voter and he does not comprehend the impact of the cost of government on him personally. If he has to write a flat-rate check each month, he'll begin to understand how much government costs him. There must be no taxes on savings or investments.
• Eliminate all programs that reward failures and punishing success and eliminate all rules and regulations that unnecessarily impede prosperity (ie oil development, nuclear energy, coal/timber exploitation).
• Taxpayers carry a heavy load to subsidize feel-good programs that never pay for themselves. Therefore, Congress must immediately eliminate all subsidies for anything that needs subsidies or is non-viable without subsidies such as National Public Radio, art that is created by "artists" with no talent, alternative energy (solar and wind power), electric and hybrid cars, and ethanol and other bio-fuels.
• Invaders from other nations are taking jobs that are desperately needs by Americans and imposing a financial burden on taxpayers by draining our social services programs and schools. Drive all illegals out of the nation by imposing extremely harsh penalties on employers, individuals, charities, communities, and states that provide work or any other support to these invaders. Congress must establish English as the official language and abolish all government forms, websites, and services in any other language except indigenous languages for persons born before 1940.
• Abolish the NEA (National Education Assn) and government schools. Transfer existing schools to private entities such as churches, parent groups, or businesses who would institute quality schools etc. Issue vouchers to parents to send children to private or commercial schools of their choice.
• Forget about man-caused climate change. It isn't happening! Feed Al Gore and all other environmental extremists to the polar bears to ensure the survival of the bears.
• Mandate that every congressman certify that he has personally read every word of every bill before a vote can be called.
• Mandated that all legislation be limited to only one subject with no amendments that are not reasonable related to the bill.
• Mandate that all new laws and agencies have an automatic sunset not later than 10 years.
• Eliminate voice votes in Congress and require that every vote put every congressman on the record.
• Eliminate earmarks and pork.
• Add one more line to every federal ballot: "None of the above". If a majority of voters nationwide pick this opting, Congress would be disbanded and all congressmen and staffers terminated with no right of returning. A new election would be scheduled to give the nation a fresh start under strict guidance of the Constitution.
• Congress must require all voters to provide a government-issued photo ID that is based on verified US citizenship and pass a basic civics test before voting in any federal election.
• Congress must ban all campaign contributions from anyone who is not a registered voter.

If you can't tell, I am fed up!

Support the troops!

The conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq have resulted in an alarming number of servicemen charged and convicted of serious crimes. Almost none of the cases involve criminal intent.

Instead, they involve young men and women doing a tough job in a harsh and hostile environment with extremely poor senior leadership against a terrifying enemy that hasn't the courage to wear a uniform.

Our armed forces have become so crippled by bureaucrats-wearing-stars-in-nice-clean-offices that the men and women in the trenches must each have their own attorney in tow to ensure their split-second life-or-death decisions are always in perfect compliance with the ideals of those bureaucrats-wearing-stars-in-nice-clean-offices.

What our soldiers, sailors and airmen need is leadership -- not bureaucratic Monday-morning quarterbacks. That leadership (and honest, unconditional support of the troops) needs to start with the commander-in-chief.

The Republicans don't deserve to be the majority party

I think many Americans and, especially, the politicians have taken their eyes off the ball with what's most important in our elections.

I agree the war on terror is important as is supporting the troops and their mission in Southwest Asia. But, this election is about the same issues as other elections: values and morality.

• It is about preserving the Constitution and the individual liberties it guarantees such as freedom of speech (including for conservatives, students and talk radio and the muzzling effect of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act), freedom of religion (including for Christians), the right to keep and bear arms (it's not just about hunting or other sporting purposes), the right to life (abortion should not be simply another form of birth control).
• It is about the protection of this nation from foreign invaders (illegal immigrants) who are unwilling to assimilate into our society.
• It is about protecting our freedoms and sovereignty from the UN other anti-American entities (ie IANSA).
• It is about demanding that the President, all Federal judges and all members of Congress to understand and live up to their oath to support and defend the US Constitution as written.
• It is about ever expanding government and its intrusiveness.
• It is about Congress' abuse of the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) in the US Constitution in order to circumvent the 10th Amendment and to intrude into areas never authorized or intended by the Constitution.
• It is about the 14th Amendment giving citizenship to freed slaves in 1868 -- not children of illegal immigrants in 2006.
• It is about requiring Americans to be responsible for their own welfare whenever possible -- no more "entitlements" for able-bodied people who won't work -- make them do the work that we supposedly need "guest workers" for!
• It is about pressing "1" for English and "2" for Spanish.
• It is about voters who need ballots and other government forms printed in languages other than English.
• It is about judicial activism.
• It is about forcing Boy Scouts to accept atheism and homosexuality.
• It is about protecting our children from indoctrination and our industrial base from destruction by terrorists (ie Al Gore) working under the banner of environmentalism.
• It is about the systematic destruction of the family which is the basic unit of society.
• It is about a dumbed-down education that produces graduates, even college graduates who are functionally illiterate -- especially with regard to our heritage and the plans our nation's founders had for us. Instead, our students are systematically brainwashed and indoctrinated in socialism and atheism at taxpayer expense.

I could go on, but suffice it to say that the war on terror is a mere side show when compared to the importance of all these other issues to America's future.

Just a few years ago, the people gave Republicans the majority in order to accomplish these goals. The Republicans failed the people and promptly lost the majority. They demonstrated that the Republican party does not deserve to be the majority party. Any Republican who loses his or her race loses because they have taken their eye off the ball. Any Republican who wins only wins by the power of incumbency. The Republican party has no moral compass -- just like th eDemocrats.

The voters are the problem

Let me begin this rant by claiming that 53% of all statistics are made up.

Given that disclaimer, I have determined that:
• One-third of voters get their news and information through careful study of issues and political candidates through newspapers, radio and TV news, non-fiction radio and TV programs, books and magazines and discussions with other voters (including persons with opposing viewpoints) on a variety of issues.
• One-third of voters get their news and information from Jay Leno and David Letterman monologues, Hollywood sages (ie Barbara Streisand, Sean Penn, Pamela Anderson and Michael Moore), professional racists (ie Kweisi Mfume, Louis Farakhan, Al Sharpton, Cynthia McKinney, Ray Nagan and Jesse Jackson) and Marxist anti-American college professors and government school teachers.
• Finally, one-third of voters don't get any news or information at all!

Consequently, the two-thirds of voters who make poorly informed choices in the voting booth are out-voting those of us who put in a little effort before voting. That is the primary reason we have our terrible government with excessive taxes and corrupt politicians. Too many voters cast votes based on their personal selfish interests as opposed to what is best for the nation as a whole. We have the democracy we deserve.

It is my opinion that this problem might best be fixed with a voter test. The questions need not be difficult. For example, if you don't know your mayor's name or who pays for welfare handouts (working people and other taxpayers) or who is next in line for the presidency if both the president and vice president die, you don't get to vote. My voter test would help to reduce the number of ill-informed votes that cancel the voice of responsible voters every election.

Some argue that such a test would be discriminatory. Yup -- against ill-informed voters. If more people of one race fail the test than another, that is not a race problem, it's voter-preparedness problem! If an immigrant needs to pass a basic civics test (in English) to become a citizen, why shouldn't I be expected to also pass a basic civics test to vote?

In the Declaration of Independence, our nation's founders declared that all men are created equal. By that, they meant that we all have the same God-given rights and that there should be no aristocratic class nor commoner class. Specifically, their declaration was directed to the King of England and their view that he was nothing more than another mortal man with no right to enslave his subjects.

Like King George III, the self-anointed kings in US political office, bureaucracies, and courts believe they are better equipped to make our decisions and impose government programs (at our expense) to deny us freedom to make personal choices. At the same time they seek to build and preserve their own power and wealth -- just like King George.

Freedom comes to those who know truth and live its standards. Every man has the right to be free from enslavement, free to make his own choices in life and suffer the consequences thereof as envisioned by the founders. Everyone should have the blessing of freedom. But they have no right to harm the rights of others.

I see voting as a mixture of a right and a responsibility -- just like using a firearm or driving a car. Those who cannot or will not exercise the right responsibly must have that right restricted in order to protect the rights of everyone else. Restricting the right of irresponsible persons to vote (defined as those who don't study the issues and candidates enough to make an informed choice) would ensure that they do not harm the rights of everyone else by their poor choices.

Unfortunately, it'll never happen because certain politicians (ie Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Cynthia McKinney, Harry Reid, John Conyers, Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer, Frank Lautenberg, John Kerry, Dianne Feinstein, Richard Daley, Joseph Biden, John McCain, etc.) rely on a constituency consisting of a sizable portion of idiots to stay in power.

Many people fret about low voter-turnout. Personally, I think that's a good thing. If a person is too lazy to vote, he's also likely too lazy to have an informed opinion. Some propose some sort of incentive to vote such as a lottery as proposed in Arizona a while back. I think that's a bad thing. Again, if a person needs to be bribed to vote, he's likely too lazy to have an informed opinion. Inducing people to vote for the purpose of entering a lottery is contrary to the civic rights, privileges and duties inherent in our citizenship.

It makes me shudder when I watch Jay Leno's "Jay-Walking" excursions wherein he explores how utterly ignorant many Americans are.
Speaking of voters...if I had my druthers, I would raise the voting age to 26. If you're still covered by your parents' insurance policies, you're not an adult. The only exceptions to the rule would be young people serving in the military. I would also require those people who aren't old enough to collect Social Security to prove they pay income taxes. If there is a screwier notion than allowing those who pay no income taxes to vote for those in a position to force those of us who do pay them to pay even more for the benefit of those who don't pay any, I don't want to hear about it. ... Finally, I would insist that anyone who wishes to cast a ballot prove he can read English by passing a basic civics exam. If you don't know who George Washington was and you have no idea what the Bill of Rights is, you have no God-given right to cancel out the vote of someone who does. I mean, for crying out loud, you have to pass a written test and prove you can parallel park to get a driver's license. In order to vote for our political leaders, shouldn't you have to prove anything beyond the fact that you're still alive and breathing -- or, in the case of Chicago elections, that you were ever alive and breathing? — Burt Prelutsky

A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins. — Benjamin Franklin
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.
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
I honestly don't care if a well-informed voter makes a carefully reasoned vote that is contrary to mine--we need everybody's good ideas to make democracy in our republic work best. But those who don't know or understand the issues or the consequences of a candidate's agenda really need to stay home on election day for the good of the country.

We have the problems we face today primarily because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.

The US Constitution does not grant rights

Not one right is granted by the US Constitution. Not one.

The Constitution does nothing more than describe our form of government and delegate to it certain rights and powers from the people.

The Constitution need not list a right in order for that right to exist. It does, however list a few of our rights, such as the right to keep and bear arms, to ensure everyone understands the rules. But, the Constitution does not grant those rights -- it simply guarantees the rights we were born with, and prohibits the government from infringing them.

The founders based the Constitution on the concept that all personal rights exist inherently and are granted by "the Creator" -- not the king. This is opposite to the principle on which most other governments are based where rights are presumed to be gifts from the king (or the government). Only in those other governments are the rights of the people restricted to those that are listed.

For example, the right to drive a car is in the Constitution is in the 9th (The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.) and 10th (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.) amendments.

It is not up to the citizen to prove the Constitution grants him a right, but rather up to the state to prove where it was granted a "certain power."

Where does one find the "power" of the state to license travel or any mode of travel as regards a private citizen? If you cannot find it there, that means the state is illegally licensing privileges that they have no power to do, but are usurping, illegally, the rights of the citizen. Licenses and permits turn the Constitution on it's head making the rights of individuals into privileges that flow from the State rather than the other way around.

This concept of rights makes many people (most notably, liberals) uncomfortable, since they don't understand it or prefer a system where they can be the king and control every aspect of people's lives.

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Ban Gun-Free Zones

Last week, an Army officer/psychiatrist went on a shooting a rampage that killed 13 people and left more than 30 wounded in the worst mass shooting ever at a military base in the United States. This mass-murder was near Killeen, Texas where dozens were shot in a "gun-free" restaurant in 1991. The courts, including the US Supreme Court, have repeatedly ruled that the police have no obligation to protect individuals or even groups. In fact, it is not reasonable to expect them to do so. Violent crimes are typically over long before police have a chance to respond. All the can do is collect evidence. Additionally, we don't want a nation where police are so prevalent that the can stop all crime before it happens.

One of our most basic human rights is our right to protect ourselves and our families from harm. Gun-free zones (ie military installations, most schools, most churches, federal buildings, many businesses) by definition deprive law-abiding citizens of the most effective means of self-protection -- a gun. These disarmed potential victims are left completely vulnerable to attack by those who, by definition, disobey laws such as gun bans.Ironically, there are few gun-free zones as gun-free as a military base. Everyone is disarmed and defenseless except a few MPs (but only when on duty) and those bent on harming others (any time they want). As last week's Fort Hood shooting spree indicates, the hope that gun-free zones work is foolish.

How was Nidal Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, able to gun down so many trained soldiers? Because the government thinks its better to keep it’s armed service members unarmed! That’s right. Our military men and woman are banned from carrying the weapons they are trained and trusted to use in the heat of combat. President Clinton authored this asinine policy back in 1993 when he declared all military bases “gun-free zones.” But because of Clinton’s ingenious policy of an unarmed armed forces, this psychopath methodically executed soldier after soldier before a local traffic cop could arrive on the scene.

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

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

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

Sunday, November 8, 2009

CO2 Emissions from cooling towers?

When people ignore or don't understand science, economics, history, mathematics, or human nature, politicians and other grifters (eg, environmentalists) can sell 'em anything -- including global warming. When a few people start to catch on to the scam, the politicians and other grifters fool 'em again by simply changing the name to something like global cooling or climate change. Fortunately for the politicians and grifters, at least half the people never catch on to the game.

Because they apparently assume everyone can be conned, I was insulted by an article posted last month by The Mother Earth News (TMEN) use of a photo of the steam coming from power plant cooling towers (the story implies that the photo is of a coal-fired plant but it could also be a nuke but that is immaterial) to illustrate CO2 emissions. As any science-aware 4th-grader knows knows, the steam (H2O) shown in the photo does not contain CO2. TMEN had to use a photo of steam because a photo of modern smoke stacks would dramatically show nothing that would be editorially useful! Since TMEN apparently assumes its readers are scientifically illiterate, a misleading photo is apparently justified.

TMEN's egregious misuse of such a photo illustrates either profound editorial laziness or profound ignorance or an assumption that TMEN readers are idiots or a deliberate intent to mislead its readers into the false belief that one of the cleanest sources of energy (nuclear) is evil or all the above.

I wrote TMEN to address the inappropriateness of the photo as an example of CO2 emissions. The response: "Maybe the towers on the left are smokestacks." They aren't. The term, "blissful ignorance" seems to be a part of the job description at TMEN.

The web page also proudly mentions a Sierra Club announcement of the 100th cancellation of a proposed coal-fired power plant since 2001. There is no mention of a cost-effective and reliable replacement for the loss of 100 coal-fired power plants.

The real direction this anti-energy campaign is taking is back to the stone age when our ancestors did not have the technology we enjoy today which relies totally on reliable, abundant, and cheap fossil-fuel and nuclear energy.

How will the United States will look once nature's cyclical global cooling kicks in and no one will be able to afford to heat their homes because of carbon taxes introduced to prevent global warming?

TMEN and the Sierra Club should consider the simple fact that, without cheap and reliable energy from energy sources such as coal and nuclear to build them, there will be no electric or hybrid cars or solar panels or wind-powered generators. No solar panel or wind turbine is capable of generating the energy necessary to build its own replacement at a reasonable cost. It takes coal, gas or nukes to do that kind of real work. It takes thousands of acres of wind turbines and/or solar panels to produce sporadic energy equal to the capacity of the steady and reliable output of one coal-fired power plant. What is a bigger eyesore -- a thousand windmills or steam coming out of 5 cooling stacks? Which process is honestly more environmentally friendly -- gas and coal or solar and wind?

If TMEN and their allies are really worried about CO2 emissions (which, according to geological history, legitimate science, and common sense, does not cause earth's natural climate changes), TMEN should be pushing for nukes -- their CO2 is zero! The real direction this anti-energy campaign is taking is back to the stone age when our ancestors did not have the technology we enjoy today which relies totally on reliable, abundant, and cheap fossil-fuel and nuclear energy. Self-proclaimed environmentalists generally seem to be people who don't know about science, don't understand economics, and won't do the math. TMEN editors and writers, please stop listening to that buffoon and science midget Al Gore and do your homework!

Alernatve Energy is a Bad Alternative

Another environmentalist-imposed environmental disaster was recently in the news. This time, it is a wind farm in central Utah. Why does the article say nothing about the heavy government (taxpayer) subsidies necessary for this project to even begin? This is but one more example of profoundly lazy news reporting -- or worse, complicity with radical environmentalists and pandering politicians. Wind power, solar power, bio-fuels (including ethanol), and electric and hybrid cars are all economic failures. They would not exist without taxing the people to force these technologies into the market. They also are environmental disasters in that they not only are ugly eyesores (as Senator Edward Kennedy said of wind power). They simply displace the pollution somewhere out-of-sight-out-of-mind.

Then in August, the local newspaper proudly carried an announcement that the 17-acre, 100-kilowatt "SunSmart" solar farm completed earlier this year near St. George, Utah earned a "Smart Energy Innovation Award." The reporter admits that this solar project, like all on-the-grid solar and wind systems "is unlikely to pay itself off at current power rates." This, even after applying a significant government subsidy at taxpayer expense! Without taxpayer subsidies, the $100 million solar project at Nellis AFB (which saves the base only $1 million per year in electric costs -- that's 100 years to pay back the investment) that Mr. Obama so proudly displayed a few months ago. Another factor which reporters and alternative-energy advocates do not address is the substantial toxic waste resulting from the manufacture of solar system components.

The St. Geroge solar project is typical in that it is an economic scam and an environmental disaster. The next day, ironically, the same local newspaper carried an article about the installation of a new 40 megawatt gas turbine (which covers only a few hundred square feet) to provide electricity to the same community. I'm confused. Isn't that solve-all-energy-problems solar system so proudly heralded in The Spectrum supposed to take care of all our energy needs? As the article on the new gas turbine clearly illustrates, when you really need to get some work done, do it the old fashioned way -- with nukes, coal, oil, or gas.

The United States is the richest nation on the globe with regards to available energy resources. Our fosil and nuclear energy can be used cleanly and safely. And thus it is! The fact that we are not energy-independent is a simple and natural consequence of extremely bad political decisions influenced by activist "environmentalists" whose real objective is destroying capitalism and freedom.

As a taxpayer, I'm sure getting tired of paying for these "government incentives." Except for remote applications where running traditional power lines is cost-prohibitive, Congress must stop subsidizing industries that are not economically viable such as solar and wind power and electric and hybrid cars (There's a $7,500 tax-payer-funded subsidy for Chevy Volt buyers!). Not only is each of these non-viable, they are also environmental disasters. At the point of use, they seem clean ("green"), but in reality, they only displace the pollution someplace out of sight of the user. People who favor these "green" scams don't care about science, don't understand economics, won't do the math, and enjoy having the government force other people to pay their bills for them. It is time for politicians, journalists, environmentalists, and voters to learn something about science and economics and muster the courage to say "BS"! All government subsidies of "alternative energy" scams such as solar and wind power and electric and hybrid cars must cease immediately.

2009 Western Governors' Meetings on Climate Change

In June, 2009, as Utah's Lieutenant Governor Gary Herbert (now governor) attended a series of Western Governors' meetings on climate change (radical environmentalists can't make up their minds whether Earth is warming or cooling). Herbert has expressed skepticism over whether man's role in global climate change is settled. He sides with thousands of scientists who disagree with Al Gore on climate change.

Anyone who was awake during those basic science and geography classes back in grade school knows that Earth has always gone through climate cycles. They know that the planet was warmer during the Viking era a thousand years ago than it is today. They know about Lake Bonneville which covered much of Utah and Nevada. They know much of North America was covered with 4,000 feet of ice just a few thousand years ago. They know that the oceans were once 500 feet lower than they are to day and that man's CO2 did not cause sea level to rise to where it has been for the past several thousand years.

The point is that Earth's climate has always gone through cycles because of its relationship with the Sun -- not man. To presume that man has the power to affect global climate one way or the other is the epitome of arrogance and ignorance. The temperature has dropped over the past 10 years while the radicals are whining about global warming!

The radicals who want ever more control over our lives -- especially Obama and Gore -- are very selective about the "facts" they choose to use in imposing their agenda on the people by fostering fear and panic on a largely ignorant government-educated public. Anyone who has been outdoors long enough to be remotely aware of the incredible power of the Sun (which also goes through cycles) to heat and illuminate the earth is far more powerful even than Al Gore's power to illuminate minds. To presume that man is so powerful he can affect climate in spite of solar and Earth climate cycles is the epitome of arrogance and ignorance.

How will the United States will look once nature's cyclical global cooling kicks in and no one will be able to afford to heat their homes because of carbon taxes introduced to prevent global warming?

I applaud Governor Gary Herbert for staying awake in those science classes through which the radical environmentalists and Al Gore slept. Man-caused global climate change is a scam! Herbert is one a few Republican politicians who have the courage or knowlege to say so!

The Alternative-Energy Scam

The idea that one can save energy by using tax credits is a scam perpetrated on the taxpayer.

I acknowledge the fact that sometimes alternative energy is necessary, such as a home or cabin located miles from the nearest power line. Other than that, most, if not all, alternative forms of energy (solar, wind, ethanol, etc) require significant taxpayer subsidies to be viable. In 2007, American taxpayers subsidized government-preferred energy sources to the tune of nearly $17 billion!

The notion that these subsidies are free money is naive and selfish. Somebody else had to work (ie give up his personal time) to produce the funds to subsidize that solar panel on your roof and that hybrid car in your garage.

Most forms of alternative energy, in addition to being a burden on the taxpayer, simply displace the resulting pollution to somewhere else. For example, the chemical processes necessary to create your "clean" solar energy result in considerable waste that is extremely toxic.

Without subsidies, alternative-energy sources cannot pay for themselves within their expected life time. No alternative-energy source cannot produce enough reliable, inexpensive energy to even replicate itself. Only cheap, abundant energy from coal, gas, petroleum, hydro, or nuclear sources can produce an alternative-energy devise.

Some alternative energy sources (ie ethanol which needs more energy to produce than it produces) are simply wasteful.

I oppose taxpayer-funded subsidies for all so-called alternative sources of energy as well as other products that require subsidies to be commercially viable (ie that hybrid or electric car that lugs around a ton of batteries that will become expensive-to-replace toxic waste in a very few years). I am unalterably opposed to politicians using my tax money to support these marketplace failures!

Much talk has centered on the creation of so-called "green" jobs. Our delusional president has promised to create thousands of them out of thin air. "Green" jobs are those in industries, such as "renewable" or alternative energy, that are not viable without substantial infusion of money (green) at the expense of the taxpayer. "Green" jobs are a cruel joke played on a science-illiterate government-miseducated populace by science-illiterate politicians and activists. It is the biggest scam ever attempted. An we, the people, are falling for it. Hard.

Congress must muster the courage to take immediate and aggressive steps to eliminate subsidies and mandates for all technologies that are not viable in a free market. And, of course, if a technology is viable in a free market, it needs no subsidies nor mandates.