Friday, July 29, 2011

Congressional spending and penis size

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.

Monday, July 25, 2011

New fashion rage in police mug shots

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.

Sunday, July 24, 2011

Your tax money at work

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?

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Fox's Ainsley Earhardt vs Mormons

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!

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Medicaid caught encouraging fraud

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

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?

Dennis RodmanConsider 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.

Friday, July 15, 2011

A balanced budget amendment vs the elephant in the room

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, some 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
One subject at a time!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 Commerce / Immediately
• Department of Education / 1 year
• Department of Energy / Immediately
• Department of Health & Human Services / 1 year
• Department of Housing & Urban Development / Immediately
• Department of Interior / 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
• 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. - Barrack Obama
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

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

Undocumented. Unafraid.

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?

Monday, July 4, 2011

Happy Independence Day

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.

Friday, July 1, 2011

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

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?