Defund, nullify, and repeal ObamaCare

The so-called Affordable Care Act (AKA ObamaCare) must be defunded, nullified, and repealed immediately for the following reasons:

1 - There is no authority in the US Constitution for this legislation.
2 - The political trickery required to enact this bill is among the worst corruption and disregard of the People in the history of American government.
3 - In order to pass this bill, Democrat leaders had to bribe legislators with taxpayer money.
4 - ObamaCare has already caused the costs of healthcare and healthcare insurance to soar (average premium prices next year that are 30% or 40% higher).
5 - The legislation has already caused the the loss of full-time jobs.
6 - ObamaCare is spawning many thousands of new pages of incomprehensible federal bureaucratic regulation and policy.
7 - The legislation imposes new taxes upon an already over-taxed America.
8 - ObamaCare relies on, and enlarges, one of the most oppressive agencies in the US for its implementation -- the IRS.
9 - Democrat political leaders (most notably Obama) are playing favorites by waiving/exempting ObamaCare mandates for Congress and other elites.
10 - It has many provisions totally unrelated to healthcare and health insurance.
11 - It fulfils a major Communist goal -- the nationalization of private enterprise.
12 - Most Americans don't want it -- especially those who are paying attention to what ObamaCare does to the economy and Liberty.

The Affordable Care Act must be immediately defunded, then repealed in its entirety (especially all earmarks/pork found in the bill). It must be replaced with wholesale deregulation of healthcare and healthcare insurance.

Instead of government regulation of these sectors of the market, I urge the establishment of an industry safety, consulting, and certification organization similar to UL (Underwriters Laboratories) to ensure the protection of the consumer.

Instead of government-forced redistribution of wealth via healthcare and healthcare insurance, I urge the encouragement of traditional American charity to provide for those who cannot afford quality health care. That necessitates government taking significantly less money from the earnings of Americans so they can be afford to be charitable.

Just as important: The governors and legislatures of every State must protect their constituents by nullifying ObamaCare through refusal to comply with any of its provisions and by prohibiting the enforcement of its unconstitutional provisions within the borders of each respective State.

I will actively work for the removal from office any member of Congress who does not vote to immediately and permanently kill ObamaCare. I will stand behind any politician with the courage and integrity to eliminate ObamaCare and all other government oppression.

Open carry backfires again

With the liberation of Illinois, concealed carry of firearms is now legal in all 50 states, although some jurisdictions in some states persist in imposing such arbitrary and onerous restrictions that concealed carry is relatively rare in those states.

Open carry is legal in most states, although good manners dictate a preference to exercising the right to concealed carry so as to not frighten the easily-frightened (Liberals).

While far from dangerous, I think that open-carry is generally silly, but I nevertheless honor that right. Further, I find open-carry for the purpose of making a political statement to be harmful to the cause of gun rights. As described in Grant Cunningham's essay, what has happened at Starbucks is one small example.

Also, unmannerly open-carry has resulted in legislative hostility.

For example, it is virtually impossible for commoners to obtain a concealed-carry permit in many local jurisdictions in California. That left the People with only two options: 1 - Go into the public ill-equipped for self-defense or 2 - Open carry. Because of their neutrality and public refusal to be hostile to gun rights, Starbucks seemed to be a favorite gathering place for open-carriers over the protest of the above-mentioned easily-frightened. As expected, exercising the open-carry option caused the above-mentioned easily-frightened to wet their pants. The result: One of the most openly hostile-to-Liberty legislatures on Earth took away the right to bear arms openly in California.

In Utah, gun-rights advocates thought they were doing a good thing when they open-carried (including unnecessary open carry of AR-15s and other long arms) to the state capitol for gun-rights rallies and even into legislative committee meetings. The predictable result: The above-mentioned easily-frightened on legislative committees and in the executive mansion to wet their pants and long-sought improvements in gun rights were killed.

Sometimes, gun-rights activists (I am one) are their own enemies. Open-carrying gun owners owe the people who own and work at Starbucks a huge apology.

Rights misunderstood again!

Utah's Governor Gary Herbert doesn't understand the concept of rights. The same is true of reporters and editors at Deseret News. That was again highlighted today in an article that touched on Herbert's rejection of a bill that would have restored the right of responsible adults to carry a concealed firearm. Dangerous people would still have been prohibited form possessing a firearms -- concealed or in the open.

The reporter, like most Americans apparently misunderstands the concept of rights. That misunderstanding stems from the notion that rights come from government. That notion differs sharply from what the founders understood when they wrote our founding documents. They wrote that our rights come from our Creator -- not from the ruling class.

The article said, "The bill would have given Utahns the right to carry...." and "It would have changed the law to allow Utahns to pack a gun...." (Emphasis added.)

That wording is misleading and wrong. HB76 would not have given any rights nor allowed anyone to do anything. The bill would have simply restored the natural right for responsible adults to carry the best means of self-protection without a permit (government permission). That right was taken away by government only because we elected the wrong people to public office. (Because of his unwillingness to restore that right, it is quite apparent that Herbert is among those who must not be trusted with power.)

Why is it important that the right of responsible adults to carry a concealed firearm without a permit be restored? Because government agents persist in unlawfully harassing and arresting responsible adults who openly carry a gun! (Consider that not all adults can get a permit for reasons beyond their control such as age.)

We need smarter voters -- and reporters and editors.

Is the military draft coming back?

Our all-volunteer military has some big advantages -- in peacetime and brief episodes of limited conflict where whe dominate overwhelmingly. I am proud to have served for 23 years in that all-volunteer military where I cherished the honor of serving alongside good, well-trained men and women who all wanted to be there. I defended the all-volunteer concept in a college term paper while I was an ROTC cadet during the anti-VietNam war era of the late '60s and early '70s.

But, the all-volunteer concept has isolated most Americans (especially most politicians) from the wartime sacrifices borne by servicemen and their families.

A very serious consequence of having an all-volunteer military over the past 22 years has been a tiny portion of America's finest bearing the burden of executing the nation's foreign policy while the rest of America goes to the mall.

Thanks to perpetual war, that tiny portion of America is worn out, spiritually broken, divorced, dismembered, and dead. I gotta agree with Congressman Charlie "Tax Cheat" Rangel on this one. Something needs to change.

I would change Rangel's universal draft proposal in a very significant way, though. He suggests a large portion of the draftees be placed in national civilian service. Inasmuch as most of "civil service" government is unconstitutional, I would oppose that idea.

However, inasmuch as Title 10 USC § 311 defines the militia of the United States as being all able-bodied males between ages 17 and 45, I would propose drafting every male meeting that description and running him through basic military training conducted by his state's national guard upon graduation from high school or upon reaching age 18, whichever occurs first. Upon completion of basic training, these draftees would be placed in inactive status in state-organized, non-federally-regulated/funded local "unorganized militias" for 12-24 days of unpaid muster (under supervision of the state's national guard) annually until age 45. They would be subject to immediate recall to augment a unit in the all-volunteer military (described below) whenever the need arises -- such as when decades of military adventurism degrades the readiness of, or recruitment in, the all-volunteer military (described below).

Those who volunteer for service in the all-volunteer military (active or reserve federal armed forces and the national guard unit) would be recruited, trained, and assigned according to current practice. These would continue to be the core of the nation's all-volunteer armed forces.

The saddest thing about bringing back the draft as generally understood is that, thanks to "equality," our future mothers will also be drafted and sent to fight and die in places where the people we pretend to "help" do not value peace, liberty, or our help. Inasmuch as women are not included in the 10 USC § 311 definition of the unorganized militia, they would not be subject to the above-described draft.

The society which scorns excellence in plumbing [military service] as a humble activity and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because it is an exalted activity will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy: neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water. -- John W. Gardner

More "tolerance" from the "tolerant" Left

Here are yet more stories about "tolerance" from the "tolerant" Left.

Before "In God we trust" was engraved on our money, our money said, "Mind your business". That seems like good advice to me. I believe we should be free to do what we feel is best so long as we cause no harm to others or infringe their rights.

I believe every businessman has a right to refuse service to anyone. I accept their right to limit their customer base based on any criteria they choose. For example, some businesses don't want customers who buy, sell, or carry firearms. I respect their beliefs by shopping elsewhere. I will not appeal to government to force those businesses to serve customers who buy, sell, or use firearms.

Government's only role with regard to businesses is to provide a regulatory environment -- with just enough regulation to protect the health and safety of the public -- in which businesses can thrive or die base solely on their own merits and their ability to satisfy their customers. Government only has a legitimate right to regulate discrimination in a private business if public money is involved (eg taxpayer subsidies for day-care provided to children of low-income parents).

But, not the Left. They believe they have a right to impose their will on everyone. For example, they believe they have a right to require others to take their pictures and bake their cakes for weddings -- especially when the photographer or baker feels that the conditions under which they would provide those services offends their religious beliefs.

In both of the above cases, the rejected customers had other options to satisfy their needs. But, in their quest for "tolerance" and "equality", their tool of choice to vent their bitterness and rage was to simply demand that government shut down the offending (in their minds) businesses.

The Left exploits anti-discrimination and anti-bullying laws to bully their opponents into submission and silence. They seem to believe that a silenced and cowed opponent is just as good as an ally. Why is that? Is it because they know they can't justify their agenda in a calm exchange of ideas?

Why won't the Left be at least half as tolerant and respectful of the ideals of the Right as they demand the Right tolerate and respect theirs? Is there bigotry on the Right? Yes, but they don't use intimidation, bullying, and government power to crush opponents into submission.

The fact that government was willing to accommodate Leftists in putting non-politically-cleansed businesses out of business reflects very poorly on the voters.

We need smarter voters.

More emotional anti-science lawmaking in California

California legislators are required to consider facts and science when making laws related to wildlife conservation. They are deliberately rejecting facts and science in their laws regulating lead-based bullets because they know the facts don't support what they're doing and they know that most California voters are clueless enough to let them get away with making emotion-based laws instead of fact-and-science-based laws.

Metallic lead has extremely low toxicity. It is lead compounds, such as those found in lead-based paint pigments, that are toxic. The lead found in the tissues of sick and dead condors is inconsistent with the metallic lead found in bullets and shot. Any bullets or shot in carrion consumed by condors are very unlikely to be what's harming the California Condor. But, these facts don't support an emotion-based lawmaking process and will be ignored in California.

Emotion is a terrible way to make law.

It through is revenue generated by the self-imposed 1937 Pittman-Robertson tax on hunters and other firearm owners -- $8 million in taxes on firearms and ammunition every day -- that funds most wildlife conservation efforts including the recovery of the California Condor. Ironically, it is those same sportsmen who are the target of this misguided legislation. I believe that all Pittman-Robertson funds must be cut off from jurisdictions that infringe the rights of the sportsmen who pay that tax.

California needs smarter voters.

Ad for ObamaCare

Conservatives waiting for "the call"

Who's gonna make the call? The Whitehouse? Congress? The Fed? The UN? The Red Cross? Liberals? RINOs? Hah!

Barry Soetoro (AKA Barrack Obama) won two presidential elections because Conservatives didn't want to vote for the Republican nominee -- the person most likely to beat Soetoro/Obama. So, they pouted and stayed home or voted third-party.

The same was true for the election of Bill Clinton. Unless Conservatives figure out from whence comes the "call" Colonel West speaks of, it will be true again for the election of Hillary Clinton and/or Joe "Shotgun" Biden.

Republican-party leaders need to come grips with the fact that Conservatism wins overwhelming votes as it did for Reagan. Pandering to Liberals is a failed idea.

More importantly, Conservative and Libertarian voters need to come to grips with the fact that we have a two-party system (I don't like it either). Every Conservative (Conservatives outnumber Liberals 2 to 1) needs to be actively involved in one major party or the other to help steer it in the right direction, nominate worthy candidates, and see that they win.

Waiting for the call that West speaks of is not a plan that's good for Liberty or the country. Conservatives must make that call themselves to themselves.

We need smarter voters.

Let's have a fair test of obamacare

It seems that only Democrats think obamacare is a good idea. So, here's my solution:

1 - Mandate obamacare and all its taxes, regulations, and other egregious warts only for registered Democrats, Democrat politicians and their staff, Democrat health-care providers, Democrat-owned/controlled businesses, and their entire families. They are the ones who want it, after all.
2 - Mandate that everyone else endure the extreme hardships of minimally-regulated, pay-for-it-yourself-or-through-charity, capitalist, free-market health care and minimally-regulated, pay-for-it-yourself, capitalist, free-market health insurance.
3 - Prohibit everyone from switching between these two plans.

Then, let's have a five-year test beginning 3 days from now to see whether Marx and Engells or Bastiat, Mises and Adam Smith have the best economic model for health care.

If my plan is adopted, my guess is that in about 3 days there will be absolutely no registered Democrat voters, Democrat politicians, or Democrat Party.

Common understanding of the Constitution vs judicial interpretation

When the nation's founders wrote our founding documents, letters to each other, and essays for public consumption (eg the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers and other writings such as Paine's Common Sense), they chose their words very carefully. They chose words of which the common man of the day understood the meaning.

To understand what the founders wrote, we must understand the meanings of those words as they understood them. It isn't rocket science. Most of the words they used have the same meanings today. The common meanings of a few of their words have evolved a bit and having a copy of Noah Webster's 1806 A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language and/or his latter 1828 dictionary at hand make it easy to understand what the writers meant.

Also, the founders seemed to have had a much larger vocabulary than most well-educated Americans have today, so even a modern dictionary can sometimes be helpful in understanding their writings -- even in reading the newspapers of the day.

Nevertheless, any American with the literacy we expected of a 9th-grader 100 years ago can read the US Constitution and interpret its original meaning.

Unfortunately, in 1803, US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison endorsed judicial usurpation of the sole responsibility and authority to interpret the US Constitution and all other federal, state, and local laws and to determine the constitutionality of legislation. "It is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is," he declared.

Because of the Marbury v. Madison opinion, the interpretations of the courts became supreme instead of the plain meanings of the words in the founding documents themselves. So, Christopher Langdell introduced his case law method in the 1870's wherein lawyers now study case law and must refer to libraries filled with legal precedents to divine what the courts "say what the law is."

Case law is based on what was opined by some judge somewhere in the past and often contradicts or overrides the legislated law and even the will of the People (both of which sometimes do need some overriding). Case law can be changed at the whim of any judge. Almost no law school teaches the Constitution (the supreme law of the land) anymore. They only teach case law which is nothing more than often-wrong, often-contradictory, and constantly-changing opinions of judges. Case law not a system of law that our founders understood nor would they agree with it. What case law does is protect an anti-Constitution power grab by imperialist judges.

Why should jurists feel compelled to defer to unconstitutional precedent that was born of the casting aside of constitutional precedent? — Selwyn Duke

Justice Marshall's statement that "It is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is" has become true only because of case law. The courts have so badly distorted and confused the true meaning of the Constitution with their own opinions, that it takes considerable research to learn what unelected imperialists in black robes want the Constitution to say. Most Americans are ignorant and/or lazy enough to allow the courts to get away with this usurpation of power -- even though they are often wrong!

Marshall's statement, which is accepted as the law of the land, conflicts with the US Constitution itself. The Constitution requires every officer of the federal, state, and local governments, whether elected, appointed, or employed, to swear an oath of loyalty to the Constitution and to defend it. Every public officer, every voter, and every member of a jury has a sacred duty and right to challenge, rescind, and/or nullify unconstitutional laws. Regardless of what Marshall and his adherents say, the court does not have final say in what the Constitution says. Yet, we meekly defer to Marshall's imperialist and arrogant usurpation.

That is not the heritage our founders created for us.

Phyllis Schlafly needs a bit of repentance

I have been one of Phyllis Schlafly's fans since I joined her in the fight against the so-called "Equal Rights Amendment" in the '70s. I treasure and read her books. I appreciate her daily three-minute radio commentaries on KSUB. I listen to every one of her Eagle Forum Live interviews. As usual, I enjoyed and profited from her latest interview with Jerome Corsi on why Romney lost the 2012 election. (I was an unwilling supporter of Romney's candidacy because he is far to Liberal.)

Although I value her priceless work, I am very troubled by a small portion of that Corsi broadcast which represents a too-frequent blemish in Mrs. Schlafly's otherwise terrific interviews: religious ignorance and bigotry.

As has happened multiple times in her past interviews, a caller commented on his reluctance to vote for Governor Mitt Romney because the caller believes we Mormons are not true Christians.

I am convinced that Mrs. Schlafly is sufficiently informed and wise to know that we Mormons are Christians. She surely knows that we Mormons depend on Jesus as our savior. She must know that we Mormons believe Jesus is the son of God. She knows that we Mormons accept and study the Bible as the word of God. Nevertheless, Mrs. Schlafly consistently allows callers and guests to perpetuate the myth that we are not Christians.

Mrs. Schlafly's apparently wilful failure to challenge the ignorance and bigotry of her callers and guests with regard to the Mormon faith is beneath her. It harms her credibility among those who know the truth and alienates priceless allies in her struggle for Liberty: Mormons.

Like Mrs. Schlafly, I have a few theological differences with persons of other Christian faiths. But I will never allow those theological differences to degenerate into bigotry and refusal to vote for, or support, good Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, and others with solid moral and political principles.

I urge Mrs. Schlafly to join the fight against religious bigotry by challenging and correcting guests and callers who allege that Mormons are not true Christians.

More tax credits for the "green" energy scam

I see that Representative Lowry Snow of St. George want to offer tax credits to those who buy electric cars.

I assume Representative Snow will generously pay for this credit out of his own pocket instead of forcing me (a taxpayer who cannot afford to buy a new car) to pay for it.

If electric cars and other so-called "green" technologies are truly viable products, they don't need subsidies.

If electric cars and other so-called "green" technologies are truly worthy of investment, every buyer should be willing and prepared to pay the full cost of purchase, operation, and maintenance (including replacement and disposal of exhausted batteries) instead of expecting me to help pay even part of the bill.

I oppose all subsidies and tax credits for any product or service. These subsidies and credits are simply another redistribute-the-wealth scheme which extracts money from one person to give to another (after skimming off a substantial portion to pay government bureaucrats to handle the transaction).

Any product or service that cannot succeed in a free market without government force -- including taxpayer subsidies and tax credits -- must be allowed to die. I urge overwhelming rejection of Snow's proposal and the prompt repeal of all other subsidies and tax credits including for CNG (Compressed Natural Gas).

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

Run-away-capitalism or run-away government?

Where do you draw the line, if there is any limit at all, on what you think taxes should be used for?

Where do you draw the line on what you think other taxpayers should be required to pay for your "quality of life" and that of your dog, if any?

Where do you draw the line on what you think you should be required to pay for my selfish "quality of life" or to pay for my mistakes or laziness?

Where is the limit, if any, on government providing non-essential services (essential services being protection of public health, life and limb, liberty, property) that are only used by a minority of the people and which should be involuntarily paid for by everyone?

At what point does a tax expenditure per individual benefited for non-essential services become unreasonable?

Where is the limit, if any, on government in general?

A neighbor answered, "The line with government spending should always be drawn within the budget."

Spending based on whatever the budget will allow is a horrible idea. But, that is what most politicians want to do! Unless we voters elect politicians with some powerful self-control (and we rarely do that), government budgets always expand to consume all the revenue plus a bit more. When budgets are based on revenue, setting spending priorities by whatever the budget allows invariably means spending on things we don't need.

When budgets are based on revenue, politicians persistently seek new forms of revenue (RAP tax, asset forfeiture abuse, RDA tax, hotel tax, restaurant tax, etc.) so they can spend even more. Why do the politicians want to spend more money? Because too many voters demand too many things that are not a proper role of government and/or that are better provided by private businesses, charity, neighborhood groups, families, and individuals themselves.

Instead of basing the budget primarily on revenue and spending as much as the budget allows, what we need to do is demand that politicians:
1 - identify what services the community (or state or nation) really needs,
2 - confirm that those needs are a proper role of government,
3 - set priorities on those needs,
4 - identify the cost,
5 - justify the cost to the voters, and only then,
6 - collect the revenue, and finally,
7 - complete the project.

Basing spending on whatever the budget allows does all of that backwards! For example, the RAP tax collects hundreds of thousands of dollars each year with a vague purpose: Recreation, Arts, and Recreation. Then, special-interest groups (which almost never represent a significant portion of the taxpayers or voters) bid for that money. The result is hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on projects and activities that most people would never approve if asked for an informed vote.

My neighbor asked me whether I use "government"-funded facilities and services.

Yes, I do use taxpayer-funded (they are not "government"-funded) facilities. Why? Because the injection of government into inappropriate areas pushes out charity and private enterprise so there are no alternatives to taxpayer-funded facilities.

For example, I use the aquatics center with maintenance and operating costs more than $9 per swimmer above what the swimmer pays to get in. I use the library with building, maintenance, and operating costs that likely amount to several dollars per book lent (I can't get an answer on that question from the library). I think that private enterprise could have filled both of those functions better at less expense. But, how can private enterprise compete with the deep pockets of a city with the power to tax?

I believe that many other local taxpayer-funded and subsidized functions would be better left to private enterprise including the golf course, Heritage Theater, Shakespeare Festival, skateboard park, and yes, a dog park.

Marx and Engels must surely be very proud of how dependent and demanding on government we have become.

I admit that I'm probably in a minority on the issue of limited government. I admit that none of the current candidates for municipal office agree with me. My stand on limited government and maximum individual liberty comes from years of studying the works of John Maynard Keynes, Karl Marx, and Friedrich Engels (they don't seem to agree with me, but with popular modern opinion and with our current municipal candidates) and Alexis de Tocqueville, Frédéric Bastiat, John Locke, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, Ezra Taft Benson, (with whom I do agree), profoundly expensive and wasteful public works projects, and my overall tax liability.

My neighbor claimed that run-away capitalism is a more serious problem that run-away government. He thinks that there is a limited amount of wealth available and the greedy have hoarded all of it, leaving little for the rest of us.

History suggests that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom. Clearly it is not a sufficient condition - Milton Friedman

I explained that wealth is constantly being created. Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations, described wealth as "the annual produce of the land and labour of the society". When anyone procues a product or service that another person needs or wants, he is creating wealth.

Unlike my neighbor, I don't see that capitalism per se is "monstrous". The greatest philanthropists were and are extremely successful capitalists. For example, the library I grew up using in Brigham City (and the books in it) was funded by that evil mega-capitalist Andrew Carnegie -- not taxpayer money. Carnegie funded libraries all over the nation. He did well, and he did good.

A proper role of government, as I mentioned before, is protection of civil rights. If an evil capitalist abuses an employee or a customer, it is appropriate for,
1 - the market to snub that business,
2 - a trade organization to censure that business and/or
3 - government to take appropriate steps protect the rights of the employee/customer.

To further protect civil rights, it is sometimes appropriate for
1 - an industry-controlled professional standards organization such as SAE, UL, or SAAMI (first choice) or
government (as a backup for choice #1)

to set and enforce reasonable standards for certain businesses and occupations.

For example, a demonstration of a certain level of competency should be expected of an engineer, airline pilot, or medical doctor and a license would be evidence of that competency. A business producing food or drugs should demonstrate proper methods of protecting public health and safety. Otherwise, those businesses and occupations need and deserve opportunities to succeed. Without capitalistic success, there is no employment, no wealth created, or even taxes to pay for dog parks and other government programs.

Money is a poor way of keeping score, but it is a far better measure of success than letting politicians and bureaucrats keep score and better better than leveling the income between achievers and non-achievers just to make it fair. Otherwise, what is the incentive for achievement?

My neighbor condemns the apparent unfairness of youth who graduate with 4 year degrees into $40k-a-year jobs. My answer: We have a surplus of college education. If we really needed all those college grads, there'd be jobs waiting for them.

Far too many college degrees are in fields for which there is little or no need (eg women's studies and other pity-me studies). Perceived "free" money in the form of federal student loans has encouraged the glut of worthless and surplus degrees and has been instrumental in the soaring cost of college education. As is usual, government meddling has only made things worse.

Instead of more college degrees (I have two of 'em, which I've never really used in the workplace, but I think that paying attention in classes like economics, physics, political science, chemistry, philosophy, history, geography, theology, etc. make me a smarter voter and distrustful of too much government), what we really need is more good tradesmen such as auto repairmen, plumbers, welders, cobblers, and carpenters.

College degrees and even graduate degrees are so common that they cheapen the accomplishment. Businesses and government agencies can demand college degrees when none is really needed. But, they pay the college grad only an amount commensurate with the profitability they produce for the employer. A college grad who cooks burgers because all the college-level jobs were taken by those with degrees that are in demand deserves no more compensation than the high school dropout doing the same job.

For example, I am an airline pilot. To get hired, I needed appropriate pilot certifications and a college degree. Do I really need a degree to operate a big truck with wings? No. A high school dropout with average intelligence and the proper attitude can learn to do what I do -- and I've worked with some of 'em. The degree is only required nowadays because somebody in HR said so. My qualifications as a pilot have no correlation with my college degrees.

Expanding on the differences between the haves and the have-nots, my neighbor said, "Then, on the other hand, you have individuals who inherit billions of dollars from their parent's hard work (Waltons) that are each capable of buying their own country." My response: That's their money. They earned it or inherited it. Their wealth does not stop the rest us from following their path with appropriate levels of talent and luck. Indeed, some of our current billionaires started their businesses with an idea and some room in the garage. It seems to me that it would be appropriate for my neighbor to review Exodus 20:17 ("Thou shalt not covet."). Exodus 20:15 ("Thou shalt not steal.") also applies to my neighbor in that we shouldn't expect government to do it on our behalf.

Unlike my neighbor, I believe that all should be taxed equally. Our incomprehensible tax code is based on two things:
1 - the covetousness of those who fail (see Exodus 20:17) and
2 - the desire of politicians and bureaucrats to manipulate behavior by giving some people tax breaks and passing the burden of funding government on to the rest of us.

Ten percent is good enough for God; it's more than enough to fund a combination of local, state, and federal government that stays within it proper roles (protection of public health, life and limb, liberty, and property). If we had that level of taxation, everyone would be free and able to
1 - keep more of his own money to buy goods and services from worthy job-creating capitalists,
2 - for parents who want to to leave the work force and raise their own children instead of shuttling them off to taxpayer-subsidized day care, and
3 - to donate to things like hospitals, libraries, Shakespeare Festivals, and dog parks of their own free will instead of by force.

There is no rational or fair justification for extreme tax rates for the wealthy just because the rest of us are jealous.

Somehow, we've got to get away from the idea shared by politicians, bureaucrats, and government-dependent voters that only they know how to best spend the money of hard-working Americans. We've got to stop expecting government to do what we should do ourselves through business, charity, neighborhood groups, families, and individuals.

Edward Snowden and what he means for our Liberty

Edward Snowden had access to secrets about government snooping into the personal lives of Americans. He reportedly revealed those secrets in violation of the law and of his conditions of employment. There has been much discussion about whether he is a villain or a hero. One thing is clear: He showed us how hard it is to be a government employee or contractor with ethics and a respect for the limits the Constitution places on government power.

Having been carefully redefined by court edict, every one of the Bill of Rights means only what the central government says it means -- not what the founders intended nor what a reasonable person would think it means. The same is especially true for our Ninth-Amendment rights.

With our blessing, the president, federal courts, Congress, bureaucrats, and their state/local counterparts have steadily taken upon themselves powers never intended by the Founders and not authorized in the US Constitution. To justify their usurpation, they pontificate about a "living constitution." We have hundreds of thousands of pages of mala prohibita laws that often are unconstitutional, irrational, contradictory, and indecipherable. Government has grown to the point where there is almost one government employee for every 7 Americans!

A nation of sheep, we have just enough liberty and get to keep just enough of our own paychecks to keep us complacent and to keep us from revolting.

But, get out of line as did Snowden -- even something as "dangerous" as failure to pay taxes or a student loan or smoke a joint or blow the whistle on government -- you can expect storm troopers to bash your door in during the dark of night. These days, the only difference between government and gangsters is that one declares itself legal. Nobody dares defy the monstrous government we have voted for and get away with it. It is to be feared as much as Stalin's USSR or Mao's China.

Ya got enough government yet?

Some of us have been a consistent voice of warning of for years or even decades. Others are a voice of warning when somebody they didn't vote for is in power. Most of us are sheep no matter who is in power. Too may just want to go to the mall.

Some think I'm silly when I say that we need smarter voters!

Taxation for entertainment and recreation?

It seems to me that the proper way to fund anything is to:
1 - identify a need,
2 - justify that need to those who will pay for and use it,
3 - establish a way to pay for it, and finally,
4 - get it.

Cedar City has a so-called RAP (Recreation, Arts, and Parks) tax. I begin by affirming that I am not opposed to recreation, arts, and parks. I just don't think that they are a proper role of government and therefore must not be funded by taxation. Worse, the way in which Cedar City pays for recreation, arts, and parks defies sound government.

The local sales tax is increased a tiny amount -- one penny of each $10 sale -- to fund RAP. So, our tourists and other visitors are forced to help our local economy and to help pay for the recreation, arts, and parks projects and events funded by RAP.

Contrary to the prudent justification and funding of government activities outlined above, what the RAP tax does is
1 - raise funds with no specific purpose -- only a vague "recreation, arts, and parks" purpose
2 - then, several special-interest groups bid for, and receive, all that "free" money.

That taxing process is backwards!

All candidates in this year's municipal election support the RAP tax. Clearly, those of us who are concerned about unrestrained government are in the minority. Everyone else needs to take a close look at the writings of Karl Marx and Frederic Engels to see from whence comes the idea that government should provide all the amenities the people want.

The RAP tax provides a pot of money that often goes begging for a project to be spent on. Instead, what citizens and their representatives should be doing is objectively evaluating what the community needs that cannot be satisfied by private enterprise. Then, citizens and their representatives must ask whether satisfying that need really should be a government function. (Is it really the government's job to provide recreation opportunities for people and their dogs?) Then, citizens and their representatives must justify that need. Then, citizens and their representatives must identify the cost. Then, citizens and their representatives must honestly measure the benefit of that cost. Only then should anyone start considering how much taxation is needed. The RAP tax goes through that process backwards and it costs us dearly every day.

Cedar City's RAP tax extracts hundreds of thousands of dollars from us and our visitors each year. Most of the projects the money funds benefit relatively small segments of the people who happen to be represented by, or participate in, relatively small but vocal special-interest groups. Those special-interest projects and events generally impose long-term maintenance and operation costs on local taxpayers which are not paid by the RAP tax but by ever-higher property taxes.

There are advocates of all sorts of recreation, arts, and parks projects in addition to the 14 parks and recreation properties the city already runs. They allege that such additional facilities can be established at no expense to the taxpayer. Yet, they expect to get "free" land from the city and "free" RAP money. Those clearly are at the expense of the taxpayer. Even if advocates of, for example, a dog park use donated money and labor to buy and develop land into a park, when they donate that park to the city, the taxpayer then must pick up the cost of maintaining operating, and policing it; any liability for injury; plus the loss of tax revenue on that property. No cost to the taxpayer? Get real!

The arts reportedly contribute $42 million a year to our economy. (Gambling generates a lot more than $42 million in Las Vegas and Atlantic City. That doesn't make the taxes it generates any more wholesome.) If the arts generate that much money, why do the arts need RAP money?

Assuming the $42 million number is accurate and valid, it strengthens my argument against the RAP tax. Anything that can generate that kind of money should be able to pay for itself and if the community as a whole (not a minority special-interest group) truly wants it, it does not need tax money.

One local example that should pay for itself is the Shakespeare Festival. They put on some excellent productions. They attract audiences from all over. As good as they are, they ought to be able to pay their own way. Yet, they are always coming to the taxpayer for money -- including a ton of money for a new theater! They are like a welfare queen -- always expecting perpetual subsidies. That dependent attitude degrades an otherwise fine contribution to the community.

RAP tax advocates say that the money that goes to these arts, recreation, and heritage organizations goes right back into the community, which means jobs and revenue for local businesses. They somehow think that without the wise intervention of government overlords and central-planners (RAP Tax Arts Advisory Board), that cycling of money would never happen. Just because beneficiaries of the RAP tax can't generate enough money to pay for themselves in a free market doesn't make it a good or necessary tax.

RAP tax advocates note that the tax burden is shared by visitors through hotel and restaurant taxes. They think that this therefore is "free" money to the community. However, just because RAP advocates can force our visitors to join us in paying a tax doesn't make it a good or necessary tax. Just because some of those visitors come from communities that also tax their guests doesn't make it a good or necessary tax. Consider that some of those visitors impose similar taxes to build stadiums, golf courses, and theaters so that millionaires play games, sing, and act.

RAP tax advocates argue that we have a lighter tax burden than other communities such as New York City and Los Angeles. (That's a bad thing?) Just because we aren't taxed as heavily as those in some other community doesn't make any tax a good or necessary tax.

I doubt there really is such a thing as a good tax. But, there are proper and necessary taxes for proper and necessary government purposes. The nation's founders, among others, explained that the proper and necessary role of government is to protect life, liberty, and property. In free societies, funding for those purposes are justified to the public before the tax is levied.

Contrary to paying for a need, the RAP tax is imposed without any expectation of a true need ever being identified and even before a want is identified by some special-interest group!

The RAP tax, I suppose was well-intentioned. But, citizens and local politicians alike seem to view it as free money to spend on nice-to-have "quality-of-life" things. However, the RAP tax does not provide a penny for operation and maintenance of those nice-to-have "quality-of-life" things. Consequently, local politicians must resort to other forms of higher taxes to maintain and operate those nice-to-have "quality-of-life" things. Nobody ever seems to think about paying for the cost of running those nice-to-have "quality-of-life" things.

Taxing the People to pay for entertainment and recreation of people (and dogs) is clearly not a proper and necessary role of government. If it is, I want a free indoor shooting range.

When government exceeds it proper and necessary role of protecting life, liberty, and property, it invariably infringes on free enterprise. Suppose, for example, an entrepreneur wanted to start a for-profit Shakespeare theater, swimming pool, golf course, hiking trail, skateboard park, library, or zumba class in Cedar City. How can that entrepreneur possibly succeed when faced with current or planned tax-subsidized competition?

Anything that is not a proper and necessary role of government must be left to private enterprise in a free market. If not, it will invariably compete with, and stifle private enterprise.

It has long been my observation that real estate agents and developers like to talk about government-run, taxpayer-funded "quality of life" because it sells real estate. The trouble is that nearly every one of those "quality of life" projects benefit a very small portion of the people who are required pay for them. Unless they come to understand the proper role of government, "quality of life" is a strong argument against electing estate agents and developers to public office and against putting them into appointed positions -- they're using taxpayer money to further their personal business opportunities.

Ironically, many of the supporters of the RAP tax and the downtown revitalization tax contradictorily want smaller government and lower taxes. It is remarkable how much of what they want comes right out of the Communist Manifesto. I challenge them to be more consistent and liberty-minded.

The act of compulsory forfeiture of property (taxpayer money) to subsidize that which is not self-supporting to the benefit of a small minority is legalized theft and I cannot support it in any form. The RAP tax is and always has been a cancer. It must be soundly rejected by the voters at the earliest opportunity.

By deriving its just powers from the governed, government becomes primarily a mechanism for defense against bodily harm, theft, and involuntary servitude. It cannot claim the power to redistribute money or property nor to force reluctant citizens to perform acts of charity against their will. Government is created by the people. No individual possesses the power to take another's wealth or to force others to do good, so no government has the right to do such things either. The creature cannot exceed the creator. — Ezra Taft Benson (The Constitution – A Heavenly Banner)

Among the natural rights [of the people] are these: first, a right to life; secondly, to liberty; thirdly to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. — Samuel Adams (1772)

Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to standing laws. He is obliged, consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this protection; and to give his personal service, or an equivalent, when necessary. But no part of the property of any individual can, with justice, be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people. In fine, the people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent. — John Adams (Thoughts on Government, 1776)

I believe that God has endowed men with certain inalienable rights as set forth in the Declaration of Independence and that no legislature and no majority, however great, may morally limit or destroy these; that the sole function of government is to protect life, liberty, and property, and anything more than this is usurpation and oppression. — Ezra Taft Benson (The Proper Role of Government, p 281-303)

God's law vs tyrany

God gave us a handful of laws that are designed help us to live happy and successful lives, to be of service to others, and to return to His presence. He gave us prophets and their teachings to help us to live that handful of goals.

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Honour thy father and thy mother.
Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness.
Thou shalt not covet.

Boy Scouts have a mere 12 laws to follow -- 15 words. They also are designed help us to live happy and successful lives, to be of service to others, and to return to God's presence.

A Scout is Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, and Reverent.

The US Constitution is only one page plus a few short amendments. (In my opinion, no piece of legislation and accompanying bureaucratic regulation and policy need ever take more paper than the Constitution.)

One can trace every one of the hundreds of thousands of pages of man-made laws we now must obey to one of two factors:
1 - Most people think God's law -- or any other law -- doesn't apply to them. So, ever more man-made laws, accompanying force, and ever-present taxation to fund their enforcement are imposed on everyone -- even on those who already comply -- with the assumption that everyone will eventually comply.
2 - Some people simply want to control others -- they are tyrants. And we allow them to take that control. A majority of us even vote to have them control our lives!

Those who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants. -- William Penn, 1668

We need smarter voters.

The proper role of government and whatever benefits it provides

Today, I was challenged by a reader that I benefit from many of the federal programs I oppose and that I therefore am a hypocrite. I hereby affirm that whatever total benefit I am presumed to gain from government falls far short of what I pay in taxes -- like most Americans. But, that isn't the point.

As I have often said, I oppose taxes for any purpose except to fund proper roles of government -- protection of life, liberty, and property. Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution lists federal authorities that meet those roles. The Tenth Amendment prohibits the central government from doing anything else.

Contrary to what the reader seems to believe, I do not seek nor personally benefit from government grants of any kind. I oppose the existence of any kind of special-interest grants -- even for causes I support, but for which I reject a government role -- because they not authorized by the US Constitution and they are clearly prohibited by the 10th Amendment.

I oppose federal ownership or management of land -- even for my personal recreation -- except as authorized in Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution.

I oppose the existence of most federal agencies because they not authorized by the US Constitution and they are clearly prohibited by the 10th Amendment.

It may be that some of my interests (ie roads, police, military, etc.) are supported through taxes. It is just as true that many things I oppose also are supported through taxes -- even things I find morally offensive. The bottom line about taxes as they currently are imposed and spent is that they are a means by which government manipulates the people in response to demands by special interest groups.

If taxes were scaled back to the minimum necessary to accomplish only the proper roles of government there would be no need for any federal personal or corporate tax. We all would have a lot more money in our pockets to pursue our own interests. I'm just arrogant enough to believe that I can spend the money I earn more wisely than can any politician or bureaucrat.

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

There are far too many in in the nation, and even here in our little town who say they want smaller government -- except for their personal pet government program (dog parks, one of my critic's favorite government programs, for example). Unlike them, I seek to be consistent and I am willing to give up my "favorite federal program". Is my critic? Not likely.

Most of what is currently done by government is better done by self, family, neighbors, private enterprise, charity, and volunteer service (I volunteer in five organizations). The Founders knew that. That is why they put strict restrictions on government. We ignore their inspired wisdom at great expense.

Bookmobiles and taxes

The Bookmobile is a joint effort between the Utah State Library and the county. It costs Iron County approximately $127,000 per year. My guess is that the cost of merely lending a book out of the Bookmobile is much higher than the cost of of the book itself. It'd probably be cheaper to simply give Bookmobile users vouchers to buy their own books from amazon.com.

Could you afford to buy your own books if you weren't taxed on nearly everything you do, own, buy, or sell? Almost nobody paid taxes 100 years ago. Instead, everyone paid their own bills instead of expecting government to force their neighbors to pay their bills. Those who needed help got it from family and charity -- not wasteful government. One hundred years ago we had all of the necessary government services we have today. They were provided mostly by volunteers -- just like we have today in Iron County. Volunteers are the backbone of our community -- not the paid government employees like those in the Bookmobile.

The Bookmobile seems like a nice service. But, economically, I suspect that it's a very wasteful and expensive service that serves a small but vocal special interest group -- kinda like those who demand the government provide dog parks, golf courses, skateboard parks, ice-skating rinks, and aquatics centers.

If each of those recreational opportunities were established and run by private business, neighborhood groups, or charity in a free market, they'd be much more efficient and better serve the needs of the People. They'd have to pay for themselves.

But, when run by the government at the demand of a vocal minority of the voters, they are expensive burdens on the majority that doesn't use them. (The cost of running Cedar City's parks and other recreational properties costs the average family of 5, most of whom never or rarely use them, about $600 per year.)

When run by the government at a taxpayer-subsidized loss, they force the entrepreneur and charity out of the market. No businessman or charity can compete with the deep pockets of the unwitting taxpayer.

I think it's interesting that those who get their desired government services always thank the government (above, the County Commissioners got the thanks). Nobody ever thanks the taxpayers who are forced to pay the bill.

We need smarter voters.

Introduction to the US Constitution by Dr. Larry Arnn of Hillsdale College

Redefinition of marriage and SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States)

Today, the US Supreme Court invalidated portions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and an amendment to the California Constitution (Proposition 8) defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. I have mixed feelings on these two rulings. The attitudes of some who celebrate these rulings is having disastrous consequences for family and marriage -- the crumbling foundation of a health society that already is in very serious trouble. Today, those people are dancing on the sincere, Constitutionally-protected religious beliefs of fellow Americans. I predict that next will come the legitimization of incestuous marriage between immediate family members (eg father to daughter or son, etc.), polygamous marriage, and other practices not generally accepted by today's society. On the other hand, today's SCOTUS opinions hopefully will play a role in pushing government back into its proper role -- that of protecting all of our God-given human rights rather than redefining or dictating arbitrary rights. But, homosexual-rights activists tend to vote exclusively for big government.

According my reading of the US Constitution, there is no legitimate role for the central government in defining marriage or identifying benefits related to marriage (US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 and the First and Tenth Amendments). From that standpoint, today's Supreme Court opinions are correct. If we, the People, really want the central government to have any role in marriage, an amendment to the Constitution would be appropriate. Otherwise, government must stay out of marriage and the family.

Today's DOMA opinion affects perhaps thousands of pages federal, state, and local law and regulation. The resulting bureaucratic and political nightmare has not yet begun. Experience tells me that laws and regulations will only grow even more oppressive, entangled, and incomprehensible. I believe the best course of action would to simply remove all legislation and regulation (including tax law) that benefits one class of persons (eg married) over another (unmarried) in any way. Today's SCOTUS opinions aren't really about homosexual marriage. They are about government treating one class of people differently from another.

Unlike the central government, the states might have some authority to define and regulate marriage where allowed by their respective constitutions. Although legitimized by the respective state constitutions, I generally hold laws defining marriage and family as unwise, unnecessary, and counterproductive. States are generally obligated to give "[f]ull Faith and Credit...to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." (US Constitution, Article 4, Section 1). Therefore, the majority of states which define marriage only as between a man and a woman, will likely soon be forced to acknowledge marriages performed in other states which do not conform to that definition.

For virtually all of human history, marriage was purely a family and religious contract or covenant. As a religious contract, marriage is protected by the First Amendment -- however the religious institutions (including atheism and secularism) chose to define it. As with other religious concepts, adherents of one religion (including atheism and secularism) have no right to impose their religious beliefs upon others by power of government or otherwise. I therefore reject the insistence of heterosexual marriage upon homosexuals just as much as I reject the insistence of homosexual marriage upon homosexuals.

I defend the constitutionally-protected right of all religions to define the standards of worthiness for their followers provided the rights of innocent persons are not violated. Therefore a religion that views premarital or homosexual marriage as sinful must be respected and protected. Likewise, a religion that views homosexual marriage as acceptable must also be respected and protected. However, neither must be forced or expected to endorse or practice a variation of marriage they find immoral or objectionable. Religious bodies have a constitutionally-guaranteed right to admit into full fellowship, or employ in a religious role only those persons who live the standards of conduct defined by that religion.

I believe that control over marriage should be entirely removed from government and returned to religious control except in cases where the marriage partners prefer a government-controlled marriage or a religion defines marriage in a way that is harmful to individual rights such as child marriage, forced marriage, or marital practices that are clearly harmful to society. Only in recent decades has government inserted itself into marriage (initially to preserve the purity of the white race) -- generally with very serious adverse effects, especially broken families, unwed parenthood, and multi-generational poverty. Government historically does a very poor job of defining and enforcing morality, yet we seem to keep demanding it. In my opinion, the only role in marriage and family for government is to provide a process recording of marriages where the partners so desire and for enforcing the marital contract where necessary such as divorce.

Marriage is a formal relationship established by God -- not government. Until very recent years, marriage has always been defined as the union of a man and a woman. I accept my church's stand that marriage is still the union of a man and a woman. I accept my church's stand that homosexual behavior is contrary to Scripture. I expect my constitutionally-protected right to hold such beliefs to be respected by all. However, it is none of my business, nor of government, how others choose to define marriage as a religious covenant. In some historical and current cases, the definition of marriage has been extended to include multiple spouses, but always of the opposite sex. Today's opinions regarding homosexual marriage deviate from the wisdom accumulated throughout human history from experience and from divine guidance.

The most troubling news today was that the Supreme Court seems to think that churches have no say in what defines morality. Churches, apparently, have no First Amendment rights (SCOTUS needs to read the First Amendment.) The central government is already imposing its will on moral issues in the churches (eg forcing churches to fund medical procedures and drugs they find immoral). Whence then, does the definition of morality come? From leftist judges, leftist politicians, leftist journalists, and leftist activists? Again, government (especially leftist government agents) does a very poor job of defining and enforcing morality. Those who denounced the churches for voicing a constitutionally-protected opinion on California's Proposition 8 and who rejoice today over the SCOTUS repudiation of the rights and role of the churches have no idea what they're doing to freedom of speech and of religion. It's gonna get a lot worse. I suspect that is what some activists want even more than homosexual marriage itself.

"America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within." — Josef Stalin

Whatever benefits some people think they are gaining from today's rulings will be only temporary, superficial, artificial, and, in the end, destructive to themselves and to those they love. One cannot defy God and gain happiness.

We need smarter, and moral, voters.

BTW: One lesson that the Left must learn from today's opinions is that a republican (representative) form of government protects the rights of minorities (eg homosexuals). Democracy -- the voice of the majority (eg Proposition 8) does not. That is why a republican form of government is mandated in the US Constitution (Article 4, Section 4).