Feds seek to ban the public from more public land!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reckless spending

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

Look what we get from government schools

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Whittle: What we did right about 9/11

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

Obama's jobs (tax) "plan"

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

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

The nation desperately needs legislation to:

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

The Phoenix Center reports that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ron Paul interview in 1988

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

Another reason I drive Fords

Davy Crockett - Not yours to give

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He laughingly replied:

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

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

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

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

"My name is Bunce."

"Not Horatio Bunce?"

"Yes."

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

We shook hands and parted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He came upon the stand and said:

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

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

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

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

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

Teamster president Jimmy Hoffa vs me

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

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

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

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

I seek not for power, but to pull it down. I seek not for honor of the world, but for the glory of my God, and the freedom and welfare of my country. -- Book of Mormon, Alma 60:36

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rand Paul Speaks at Cato University 2011

Free trade

A federal day of service?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Kosher Gun Laws
by Charles Heller

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

Idiots in government jobs

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



No comment necessary or implied.

What is a free market?

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

Wikipedia defines a free market thus:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, what happens when government gets involved?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We gotta get smarter voters.





Search Engine Submission - AddMe

Colbert and Mormons

Disposable society

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

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

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

RomneyCare

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

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

Somebody had to say it

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Row a little faster

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

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

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

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

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

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