Harris Sherman is an extreme environmentalist nominated by Obama and confirmed by the Senate to be Obama's Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and the Environment. Sherman will have total control over 190 million acres of America (the size of Texas) as custodian of the National Forests. National Forests are not National Parks. National Forests are intended to be productive lands for energy from oil and natural gas, electricity from coal, strategic metals for our military and the machines that do our work, lumber and paper, farming and ranching, road-building material, boating, hunting and fishing, other recreation, and much more. Harris Sherman is a proven enemy of what these federal lands are meant to provide to the nation and its citizens. He has been working to close roads in government lands to eliminate all economic development and visitor use, as recommended in the unfortunate "Clinton-Babbitt Roadless Rule" written by environmental groups in the 1990s. Several days ago I wrote to my congressmen regarding how this anti-human policy has adversely affected me any my family's access to land we had enjoyed for generations. The US Constitution requires Senate confirmation of presidential appointees. The purpose of this process is, in large part, to satisfy the requirements imposed by the oath every senator takes, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God." Sadly, most senators are mere rubber stamps in these confirmation votes, believing that the president should be privileged to surround himself with whomever he pleases -- no matter how anti-American-values they may be. Such is the case with Harris Sherman. Americans had little opportunity to examine Sherman's background before, during, or or after his confirmation hearing. Senators largely ignored his background and agenda altogether. In confirming Harris Sherman, every senator has failed to live up their oath of office. It's time for some brave Senators to call for reconsideration of the confirmation of Harris Sherman to be Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and the Environment. Obama and the Senate must immediately reconsider the confirmation and stop Sherman before he takes even more public land from the public. (30 Oct 2009)
At least 75% of the voters (both parties) are idiots. Educating our youth on government is an essential function of schools, but I’m not impressed with the civics education we’re providing to anyone. We’d need to educate the educators first, then get them to stop indoctrinating. The news media typically is a complete failure in providing helpful information about issues and candidates. Get-out-the-vote movements only bring out more people who have no clue what they're doing. I live in Cedar City, Utah with 30,000 residents. Our current city swimming pool is old and in bad shape and needs to be replaced. It is used by the public, 2 high schools and 3 middle schools. Last November, we voted for a $7 million dollar bond to help fund a $49 million dollar "aquatics center" that would make Disney proud. The three-pool complex will have three swimming pools (none of which are large enough to meet school requirements for competition, but one will have tides), a wadding pool, and a giant hot tub. Each dressing room will be larger than any of the pools. The balance of the $49 million is allegedly to be paid from city, state, and federal sources (that’s still money drawn from overtaxed Americans). The bond will supposedly be paid with pool revenues. But, considering the cost and the base of potential users, I'd say that's unlikely. The project is now under construction and it turns out that nobody really knows how much it will cost. In fact, the city council failed to include the architect’s share of the cost – nearly $2 million! Few voters knew any of this on election day – and still don’t know! The city council ignored the concerns and demands for better information expressed at council meetings by a handful of citizens. This month, had a primary election to pick who’ll be on the ballot this November for city council and mayor. Even after the huge city council snafu over the aquatics center, all incumbents are well on the road to reelection. The new mayor will be one of two men who come from the city council. So, the voters have failed to hold the city council accountable. That’s why I say 75% of the voters are idiots. We need a way to purge idiots from the voting pool. Democracy is a horrible way to make wise decisions. That's why our founders established a republic instead -- and back in those days, you had to be white, male, and wealthy in order to vote. I can't justify barring non-whites from voting, but the other two restrictions make some sense to me when voters are deciding how much of somebody else's money we're going to spend. We'll never get control of the government until the voting pool consists only of people who have enough skin in the game to pay attention to what they're voting on. (30 Sep 2009)
Sadly, I can't think of much to say in encouragement regarding the current global financial crisis -- not because the financial situation is so dire, but because I don't expect governments to do the right thing to fix it. Likewise, I don't expect the people do demand the right thing of their politicians. We all want instant gratification in everything we do. Far too often, we seek that gratification without considering the long-term consequences. That applies to eating an extra serving of ice cream (short-term gratification) and adding another 1/4 pound of never-to-be-lost weight. It applies to using the ol' credit card to buy that ice cream to add to the never-to-be-paid-off debt. It applies to banks lending money to people who cannot or will not pay it back and calling that loan an asset which is then sold to some investor. It applies to that investor (gambler) who knows that since the risk is higher, the potential for return might be higher. It applies to labor unions that make demands on employers that jeopardize the very survival of the employer. It applies to individuals and businesses that declare bankruptcy to shed some debt, but never change the behavior that got them into financial trouble. It applies to politicians who pass legislation designed primarily to satisfy everyone's desire for instant gratification while building government power over our lives. Whether at the individual, corporate, or government level, our natural desire for instant gratification drives the way we make our decisions. That desire for gratification can be a positive motivation for growth and prosperity -- if tempered with good judgment. Until we learn to control our desire for instant gratification, I don't see a way out of the mess we are in. However, I believe that those who have followed the instructions of the prophets (get out of debt, get an education, store some food, pay tithing, keep your family strong, etc.) will generally do fine. I believe D&C 130:20-21 applies to everything in life, including the global financial crisis and our individual ability to survive it (and many businesses and even some banks as well): "There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated. And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated." (26 Sep 2009)
It seems to me that a bureaucrat should be a skillful administrator over the office he is hired to run. He is, where necessary, trained in technical or scientific skills such as law enforcement or forestry or human services. He should be dedicated to serving the nation in his role as intended by the representatives of the people (Congress). Instead, it is my observation that a typical bureaucrat lacks the drive, competitiveness, and imagination that characterize those who make a career of business and private enterprise. They seek not success, but a career with little risk of failure. Those bureaucrats who actually have some motivation are too often motivated not by performing their role in government as intended by Congress, but seek to impose their will -- their mark -- on society. They are, in reality, political activists -- not bureaucrats -- hired at taxpayer expense to intrude on the rights and needs of the people. For example, a person whose formal training is as a forester and is hired to manage public lands shirks his job as an administrator of multiple-use land as intended by Congress and finds ways to shut out ranchers and the public such as by closing roads and banning specific activities such as shooting no matter how safe that activity may be. A person who is hired to run an office tasked to help the poor and the abused excel at tearing families apart. (One of the more notable examples of this type of abusive bureaucrat is the tearing apart of hundreds of innocent families in April of 2008 in San Angelo, Texas simply because those families did not practice a bureaucrat-approved religion and lifestyle.) We have political activists in environmental agencies who have banned herbicides and pesticides more toxic than cow's milk. Consequently, homeowners cannot effectively control ants and dandelions in their own yards! The same political activists seek to ban the one thing that lifted man out of the stone age -- the exploitation of energy. Where would man and his technology be without coal, oil, and nuclear energy? Would it be practical or even possible to build even one of those ugly, unreliable, inefficient solar or wind farms or an environmental disaster such as battery-powered cars without cheap oil, coal, or nuclear energy? No! But that's where political-activist bureaucrats are taking us! Perhaps the most dangerous bureaucracy of all is the government education system where, instead of educating, they indoctrinate, thereby creating new generations of conscience-free political activists to fill the nation's bureaucracies. Congress has failed in its essential role to provide oversight over the laws and entities it creates. To bureaucrats, Congress delegates seemingly unlimited power to interpret the will of Congress and to write regulations according to that interpretation. Bureaucrats are rarely, if not never, held accountable for deviating from the will and intent of Congress and the people. Thousand-page legislation is not written by congressmen or congressional committees. That legislation is written, read, and understood almost entirely by political-activist bureaucrats and lobbyists. Few congressmen seem know or understand the effects of the legislation they introduce or vote on. They don't even seem to care until they get a flood of letters and phone calls. Only then does a typical congressman do something about the legislation -- usually to offer token amendments to those huge bills (often unrelated to the bill itself). I often hear the argument over whether the nation's political system is a democracy or a republic. We are neither. The nation's political system is nothing more than a bureaucracy run by unaccountable political-activist bureaucrats. Even Congress itself is so run! (22 Sep 2009)
Nevada Senator Harry Reid's bullying has been exposed by a free press. Unfortunately, Reid is not alone in his disdain for unfavorable press. I suspect that few politicians (both sides of the isle) really endorse free speech and a free press as guaranteed by the First Amendment. They do, however appreciate and enjoy the sort of puppet press that Obama (and Democrats in general) has. Very few in Washington can withstand the scrutiny of a free press. When the press is free and the people can freely speak their minds about issues they care about, politicians scurry for cover like cockroaches when a light is tuned on. The fear of a free press and free speech is why we have the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act. It's why talk radio is doomed unless the people rise up as they have over health care "reform" and as they did over immigration "reform." It's why BO (Barack Obama) even wants control over Internet content (like they have in China, Saudi Arabia, and other "free" nations). (2 Sep 2009)
The Obama administration, far too many in Congress, and many in the news media think that if I am not a fellow Socialist, I must be a "right-wing extremist." They attack anyone who doesn't agree with their radical agenda. The attack dogs have been officially set loose on anyone who dares disagree with the Socialist and pro-abortion propaganda of the ObamaCare health plan and the news media is eagerly cooperative if not complicit. Even moderate Democrats aren't safe from being demonized if they step out of line. Speaker Nancy Pelosi even likened those of us who oppose ObamaCare to Nazis carrying Swastikas! As Americans, we have a God-given, constitutionally-protected right to free assembly, free speech and public dissent! Yet, the Democrats have a coordinated attempt to delegitimize public dissent and may even silence talk radio. All this strikes at the very heart of our constitutional guarantee of free speech! White House spokesman Robert Gibbs smirks and says the growing protest is "manufactured anger." Well, he’s wrong. My anger is a natural response to what Congress and the Whitehouse are doing to my country, my liberty, my wallet, and my grandchildren’s future! I'm angered that the White House is urging Americans to snitch, Soviet-style, on their friends and Internet contacts if we say anything "fishy" about ObamaCare in our personal emails or in our "casual conversations" about it. This outrageous attempt to bully Americans into silence and compliance is symptomatic of the animosity our nation's leadership holds toward people of faith and patriots who love this country yet fear its government. Since Congress and the Whitehouse think they can intimidate me by calling me a "rabid right-wing extremist," I will wear that name as a badge of honor! I’m angered that Republicans are doing virtually nothing to fight this concerted attack on liberty. I’m angered that moderate and conservative Democrats allow themselves to be cowed and bribed into cooperating with the Socialist attack on our nation. Why are there so few politicians who aggressively fight a condition where those of us who love our country must be afraid of, and angered by, its government? Because they are cowards or because they are part of the conspiracy. (7 Aug 2009 )
As I see it, there are three categories of voters:
1. Those who seek to destroy traditional values such as traditional family, right to life, individual liberty, individual responsibility, religion, Constitution, etc.
2. Political illiterates who get their news (if any) primarily from “Saturday Night Live,” Jay Leno monologues, People Magazine, and “American Idol” (see YouTube and Media Malpractice to see how well-informed these voters are) and who seek to have somebody else pay their bills.
3. Those who understand and cherish traditional values such as traditional family, right to life, individual liberty, individual responsibility, religion, Constitution, etc., who get their news from reliable news sources and who study and discuss issues and candidates before voting, and who want to keep the fruits of their labors so they can pay their own bills. Although his selection of Governor Palin as his vice-presidential candidate gave him a chance of winning, Senator McCain lost his run for the Whitehouse because he chose to campaign to voter categories 1 and 2. He ignored us in category 3 and turned Governor Palin loose to campaign to category 3 too late in the campaign to save himself. I simply cannot understand why any politician (including Senator McCain) would want to have a constituency that comes from category 1 or 2. Yet, those are the politicians who are currently in power in Washington DC and in many of the States only because they do a better job of fighting for their constituency and campaigning for their constituency’s votes than do politicians whose constituency is category 3. (1 Aug 2009)
The "Cash for Clunkers" program, or "Car Allowance Rebate System", was signed into law last month by Barack Obama and officially started July 1. This new federal stimulus program lets customers trade in old gas guzzlers for a $3,500-to-$4,500 reduction in the price of a new fuel-efficient car. "Cash for Clunkers" is just one more of endless socialist schemes that forces me to pay somebody else's bills. Why do we hard-working voters allow the government to extract, by threat of force, money from our paychecks to subsidize somebody else's new-car purchase or health care or grocery purchase, or any other socialist scam? When will voters put an end to this nonsense? We must vote out every politician who doesn't visibly and aggressively fight against any and all of the so-called "stimulus" bills! (13 Jul 2009)
A lot of us tax-paying peasants are really getting frustrated by the sharp left turn this nation has taken. We are even more frustrated by the fact that we apparently have no representation in Washington, DC. Where is my representative my who fights:
• Against amnesty for illegals?
• Against “guest-worker” scams?
• Against “sanctuary” cities that harbor illegals?
• Against all unconstitutional laws, regulations, policies, judicial decisions, and agencies?
• Against the protection of property rights (Kelo decision, Clean Water Act, etc.)?
• Against all movement toward government-managed health care in any form (except for military and veteran care)?
• Against taxes, rules, and regulations that harm individuals and businesses by giving an advantage to foreign entities that are not bound by the same taxes, rules, and regulations?
• Against the bailout scam that is bankrupting the nation?
• Against the climate change scam?
• Against presidential claims that we are not a Christian nation?
• Against seating a president who refuses to prove he is a US citizen, let alone US-born?
• Against subsidies for non-economically-viable technologies such as solar and wind power, electric and hybrid cars, and ethanol and other “alternative” fuels?
• Against restrictions on nuclear energy, coal, and petroleum development?
• Against so-called hate-crime legislation which is nothing more than criminalizing free speech?
• Against other restrictions on free speech (ie “Fairness” Doctrine)?
• Against legitimization of deviant lifestyles (ie gay marriage)? What’ll be legitimized next? Pedophilia? Bestiality? Polygamy?
• Against earmarks and pork-barrel spending?
• Against judicial activism and against judges who judge by considerations other than the supreme law of the land, the US Constitution?
• Against the political corruption of the census and the election process by organizations such as ACORN?
• Against bringing any bill to a vote until every congressman has certified in writing that he has personally read and understands every word of that bill?
• Against any amendments that are not directly related to a piece of legislation?
• Against all new taxes (including the carbon-tax scam), laws, regulations, policies, executive orders, and agencies unless they include an automatic sunset not later than 10 years?
• Against voice votes in Congress and require that every vote put every congressman on the record?
• Against the silencing of the churches under the fictitious "separation of church and state"?
• Against the misuse and distortion of the Constitution's commerce clause?
• Against all programs that reward failures and punish success?
• Against subsidies for feel-good programs that never pay for themselves such as National Public Radio and art that is created by "artists" with no talent?
• Against all gun control (which has done nothing to reduce violent crime anywhere in the nation) going all the way back to include the Gun Control Act of 1934?
• Against government-run "volunteer" programs (ie AmeriCorps, Peace Corps)?
• Against statehood for Washington DC?
• Against a news media that literally is the public-relations arm of the current administration?
• Against an unaccountable Federal Reserve?
• Against a culture of entitlement and in favor of a culture of independence and responsibility?
• Against international agreements and treaties that abridge our God-given, constitutionally-protected liberties?
• For the traditional Republican party platform?
• For free enterprise?
• For the US Constitution?
If any foreign power were to impose the current political agenda on this nation, I would expect every congressman and the president to fight against that imposition with all the strength the nation could muster. Sadly, the president and all but a handful of congressmen seem to be perfectly content, even eager, to accomplish these goals from within.
For some bizarre reason, Republicans are almost always merely reacting to the Democrat agenda. When Democrats propose something dangerous to our liberty, the Republicans respond with an alternative that is slightly less dangerous. Instead, what Republicans should do is fiercely oppose the Democrat proposal. The result of this Republican behavior is a steady slide down the muddy slope of Marxism -- exactly as the Democrats intend.
I can count on one hand the number of congressmen (who are the subject of scorn and derision even by members of their own party) who have the courage to aggressively fight even one of these attacks on our nation and on our individual liberty. When my own congressmen join them? (18 Jun 2009)
I, like Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, oppose punishing anyone, especially Judge Jay Bybee, for good-faith, well-considered decisions made while in office. Any such move to punish judges or members of a past administration simply because their stands differ from those in currently in power is purely political. The recent DHS (Department of Homeland Security) identification of persons considered dangerous to the leftist agenda also raises deep concern (see my 14 Apr 2009 comments below). The punishment of anyone for political reasons is reminiscent of Stalinist Soviet Union, is petty, vindictive, evil, extremely dangerous to liberty, and must be opposed at all costs. (22 Apr 2009)
In Mr. Obama's speech on taxes on April 15, he used line after line and sentence after sentence to divide and label Americans. Rather than uniting the country and treating everyone with the same policies, he chose to divide America so he can impose his agenda before people have a chance to realize what's happening. Mr. Obama said, "Many have lost a job; many are fighting to keep their business open. Many more are struggling to make payments, to stay in their home, or to pursue a college education. And these Americans are the backbone of our economy, the backbone of our middle class." Why is it that only the middle class is the backbone of the economy? What about the lower class, struggling for any type of work? What about the upper class who actually run companies and create jobs? Mr. Obama continued by saying, "They need a government that is working to create jobs and opportunity for them, rather than simply giving more and more to those at the very top in the false hope that wealth automatically trickles down." We do not need (and cannot afford) the government to create jobs! That is not the role of government. Jobs are created by the private sector in response to the demand for goods and services by the citizens. What we really need is for government to get out of the way of job creation and economic success! Congress and the Whitehouse must immediately eliminate all laws, regulations, and subsidies which hinder the safe and efficient exploitation of our nation's resources (land, oil and other minerals, timber, and labor). Congress and the Whitehouse must immediately eliminate all laws and regulations which exceed the authority granted to the federal government by the US Constitution. This will do more to create legitimate jobs than any make-work power-grab scheme created in the Whitehouse or Congress. (16 Apr 2009)
Apparently, our government considers me to be a "rightwing extremist." The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), under the leadership of Secretary Janet Napolitano, is warning law enforcement officials about a rise in "rightwing extremist activity," labeling citizens opposed to new firearms restrictions, returning veterans and conservatives as "rightwing extremists" and associating them with white supremacists and violent antigovernment groups. Yes, it appears that the Obama Administration, and especially the DHS, is trying to demonize and suppress political dissent. According to a report from the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis Assessment, gun-owning servicemen who have sworn to defend the US Constitution returning from duty in Iraq and Afghanistan are a risk to our nation's safety and security. This is particularly true if they aren't fond of gun and ammunition control, abortion, increased federal power and taxation, loss of US sovereignty, universal "volunteer" service, or of people illegally sneaking across the US border. If they appreciate the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"), they are likewise potential terrorists. Napolitano's concern, it appears, is true God-fearing, Constitution-loving Americans - not extremist terrorists from the Middle East. Not left-wing extremists who have bombed the Pentagon and police stations, then gone on to teach at university. The DHS report comes on the heels of a report in Missouri which made similar mischaracterizations last month, saying those who follow third party candidates like Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin and Libertarian Bob Barr should be suspect. The Missouri Information Analysis Center’s (MIAC) warning to law enforcement was compiled with the help of the DHS! I call on Congress to demand the immediate termination of everyone in the Department of Homeland Security, including Secretary Janet Napolitano, who had a hand in producing this egregious anti-liberty document. (14 Apr 2009)
Statistics indicate that Democrats and Liberals, on average, contribute substantially less time and money to charity and volunteer activities than do Republicans and Conservatives. For example, President and Mrs. Obama donated about 1% of their income to charity during the years 2002 through 2004. (Virtually everyone in my relatively conservative circle of friends give to charity at ten times that rate on less than one-third the income of the Obamas.) Vice President Biden is even more stingy with his wealth. To complement their personal stinginess, Democrats and Liberals, on average, seem to be much more likely than Republicans and Conservatives to prefer to see government filling the role traditionally filled by charity. I am astounded by the arrogance of such people whose concept of charity is forced redistribution of the hard-earned money of somebody else while accumulating power to themselves. Now, the president wants to cut the charitable deduction that taxpayers can take off their taxes. I believe tax policy and law should be designed to encourage self-reliance rather than reliance on government. Tax law and policy should also encourage free and generous giving of time and money to traditional charity. But the president wants the opposite -- he wants to punish traditional charitable giving by increasing taxes on givers! Of course, I can see where he's going: More control over the people. He has proposed (and the House has approved via the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act [GIVE]) legislation that continues to pull volunteerism away from traditional charities and into government control. The GIVE Act would dramatically increase funding for AmeriCorps and other volunteer programs that could be done more efficiently by traditional, non-government charities. GIVE also establishes a goal of expanding from 75,000 government-supported volunteers to 250,000 -- an unacceptable growth in government size and influence. Instead of supporting GIVE and other programs which expand the reach and power of government, Congress must work vigorously to enhance the tax incentives for charitable giving of time and money to non-government-affiliated charities. (25 May 2009)
According to the Center for Responsive Politics the top ten recipients of AIG campaign contributions in Congress are Chris Dodd (D-Conn) $281,038; Charles Schumer (D-NY) $111,875; Barack Obama (D-Ill) $110,332; John McCain (R-Ariz) $99,249; Max Baucus (D-Mont) $90,000; John Kerry (D-Mass) $85,000; Nancy Johnson (R-Conn) $75,400; John Sununu (R-NH) $69,049; Hillary Clinton (D-NY) $61,515; Joe Lieberman (I-Conn) $57,900; and Charles Rangel (D-NY) $53,582. Everyone of these politicians must return those funds to AIG before they criticize the payment of bonuses to AIG employees. In fact, Every politician who has ever received campaign contributions from any entity receiving, or potentially receiving, "stimulus" funds must immediately return every penny of those contributions before voting for further, apparently perpetual, "stimulus" legislation. (22 Mar 2009)
“If you don’t return it on your own, we will do it for you,” warned Sen. Chuck Schumer, referring to the $165 million in bonuses contractually paid to employees of the 80% taxpayer-owned (nationalized by a socialist Congress) insurance company AIG. Schumer proposes to accomplish this with a specially-targeted 91% tax. Other Democrats have proposed similar targeted taxes. This AIG bonus scandal is just one more example of how poorly though-out this entire "bailout" scheme has been. It is just one more manifestation of how "bipartisan" is the party (Democrats) that most cries out for bipartisanship yet disdains bipartisan debate on major issues such as this. There can be no other possible explanation for any current or past "bailout" other than to impose excessive and incompetent government control over the free enterprise system that made the United States the most wealthy nation in history, speed up about the deliberate destruction of our Constitution and our republic, and to bankrupt the nation. I am deeply disappointed that my own congressman is a part of, and voted for, this fiasco. I will, of course, remember this when he's up for reelection. The cure for our national outrage is not merely, as President Obama is demanding, that AIG be prevented from paying its executives. Nor is it acceptable to ask Americans to keep throwing their tax dollars at failed companies and their leaders. The answer is an old fashioned one: AIG and other troubled companies should choose between receivership or bankruptcy. It should not be allowed to choose more bailouts from the already over-taxed taxpayer. It is past time for the politicians who contributed to the financial crisis by legislating easy credit and ignoring signs of trouble to admit they were wrong, to resign from office, and to forfeit any retirement and other benefits. Likewise for all in Congress who have voted for the [apparently perpetual] bailout bills. (18 Mar 2009)
According to the Washington Times, the Obama administration is moving to end or reduce the federal program in which many airline pilots are trained and authorized to carry firearms while on duty. According to the article, these men and women are reported to have the best behavior of any federal law enforcement agency. This effort by the Obama administration and/or TSA (Transportation Security Agency) bureaucrats to reduce or eliminate armed pilots must be opposed at all costs. In fact, the program must be enhanced to encourage even more pilots to participate. (17 Mar 2009)
The government has no business getting involved in volunteer programs such as AmeriCorps, Peace Corps, etc. Putting any such 'charitable' organizations under the government only further bloat government size, power, and cost. Instead of fostering 'volunteerism' at the government level, Congress must work to immediately reduce the influence and cost of government in our lives. All congressmen and the Whitehouse must aggressively oppose HR-1388, the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education (GIVE) Act and any other similar legislation. (16 Mar 2009)
Congress has been out of control and out of touch for so long (decades) and it seems to be expected and normal. The so-called "stimulus" bill is but one more example of legislative constipation of the brain and diarrhea of the pen. The fact that the president and Congressional "leaders" are eager to pass the 1,000-page "stimulus" disaster without giving congressmen or constituents a chance to read it proves that they only have evil intentions that would never pass muster if conducted in the open. How can the majority of congressmen (especially their "leaders") possibly sleep at night? To avoid this sort of legislative assault on common sense, liberty, justice, and the taxpayer, Congress must immediately abandon this bill in its entirety. Instead, it must immediately pass the "Read the Bills Act" and the "One Subject at a Time Act". (13 Feb 2009)
Yesterday, a group of the nation's most liberal lawmakers met secretly -- literally behind closed doors -- then announced that they had reached a "deal" on the so-called "stimulus package". Republican lawmakers (including Members of the House-Senate Conference Committee) were excluded from this deal-making session! How can anyone possibly support a "deal" on the largest spending bill in history when the opposition is not even allowed into the room? Senator John McCain said, "If this legislation is passed, it'll be a very bad day for America." House Minority Leader John Boehner said on Friday, "90 percent of a bad idea is still a bad idea." Congressman Gene Taylor, a Democrat from Mississippi, put it all in perspective when he observed, "The nation borrowed $800 billion between the Revolutionary War through Gerald Ford's presidency. In one vote, the nation is going to borrow another 800 billion. This is nuts." Even economist Martin Feldstein, who initially supported a "stimulus plan" is singing a different tune and wrote in The Washington Post, "It would be better for the Senate to delay legislation for a month, or even two....We cannot afford an $800 billion mistake." The entire process in jamming together this massive pork bill is shameful. The fact that Congress and the president are willing to throw this much money at pork with no regard for its effects on the taxpayer, the nation, or the economy is shameful. In fact, I am ashamed that at least one of my own congressmen supports this disaster-in-the-making. Voting will be conducted before Congress even has a chance to read this monstrosity! Most of the nation's elected officials don't even know what's in it! I expect Congress to vote no unless every congressman has read and understands every word of this bill. Every congressman must take every possible step to ensure this harebrained idea of spending our way out of financial trouble is abandoned entirely and immediately! (12 Feb 2009)
Congressional micro-management of the financial and other markets has wrought profound damage to the economy. Congressional mistakes have finally surpassed the ingenuity of the American people in size and scope. Government has gotten so big and so intrusive that its incompetence is about to topple the global economy. Congress has been running our nation's businesses for decades, and now that the business and financial landscape is obviously broken, Congress presumes it's smart enough fix it too? Preposterous! Congress must immediately desist in its harebrained scheme to spend its way out of this crisis. Instead, it must immediately undo the overreaching regulatory and taxation morass that has crippled and punished individual and business success for the past several decades. (6 Feb 2009)
The harebrained "stimulus" solution to our economic problems is exactly the type of disastrous big-government policy that created the crisis in the first place. Passing it will certainly prolong the suffering. This big-government disaster-in-the-making will only further devalue our dollar, increase our national debt, and continue our country's descent into socialism. This "stimulus" package nothing but a socialist repudiation of our nation's values. Our country is already over $10 trillion in debt, with tens of trillions in unfunded liabilities on top of that. Our economy cannot survive this type of continued limitless spending and reckless disregard for free market principles. The only way out of any financial crisis -- whether individual, family, business, or government -- is self-discipline. The current "stimulus" proposals are the exact opposite of self-discipline! Congress must reject any "stimulus" bill that involves spending of any kind! (4 Feb 2009)
The United States built its greatness because it was founded on the ideals of free enterprise and individual sovereignty and responsibility. The nation has lost its greatness because its citizens have elected politicians who do not honor and defend the US Constitution. Instead, politicians in the past several decades have dedicated their careers to pandering to voters who seek dependence instead of independence. This has resulted in layer upon layer of horrid legislation that punishes individual success and responsibility and rewards slothfulness. The result is a serious government-created financial crisis. The politicians now take advantage of this crisis to impose their will on what remains of free enterprise and capitalism at the expense of the American worker. In the end, this series of so-called "bailouts" will likely cost several trillions of dollars yet have no positive effect. I urge Congress to oppose all these economic "stimulus" bills except for legislation that is strictly limited to the following:
• Impeach every politician who voted for, or supported, legislation contributing to the current economic crisis and every politician who voted for the current bailout schemes and who vote for future bailouts.
• Politicians created the economic mess we are in. To presume that politicians can fix it by adding more government, regulations, and spending is ludicrous. Congress must immediately undo all legislation that put the nation into this crisis (ie regulations that are essentially Soviet-style central planning schemes telling auto manufacturers what kind of cars they can sell, legislation that endorses and even mandates lending to persons who cannot pay their debts, etc).
• No bailouts! Instead, require all businesses that are struggling (ie auto industry, financial industry) go into bankruptcy to resolve their difficulties.
• Taxpayers are burdened with a bloated, expensive government. Therefore, Congress must immediately begin a phase out of all federal agencies, laws, rules, executive orders, and policies that have no reasonable basis in the US Constitution. Most of these programs negate the independence and responsibilities of individual Americans and are, in fact, roles that are better filled by individuals themselves, families, charities, and communities. This reduction in government must be coupled with a corresponding cut in taxes and an honestly balanced budget. Ban deficit spending except in times of Congress-declared war.
• Half of each American's labor goes to paying for government and for expenses imposed by government regulation. Congress must immediately scrap the entire tax system as it exists today and replace it where the total federal revenue comes solely from import duties plus one of the following: a flat per-capita tax assessed on the states or a flat tax assessed on the income of all US citizens (regardless of income) and residents with no deductions or credits except for a small per-capita personal exemption and a substantial credit for charitable giving (to enhance the flow of funds for replacing the government's inefficient and unconstitutional programs). (Every family must feel the bite of taxation so that every American feels the need to keep watch over the cost, power, and influence of government.) All other federal taxes which are essentially invisible to the taxpayer/consumer (corporate, excise, Alternative Minimum Tax, fuel tax, user fees, etc) must be eliminated. Corporate, excise taxes, etc are invisible to the typical voter and he does not comprehend the impact of the cost of government on him personally. If he has to write a flat-rate check each month, he'll begin to understand how much government costs him. There must be no taxes on savings or investments.
• Eliminate all programs that reward failures and punishing success and eliminate all rules and regulations that unnecessarily impede prosperity (ie oil development, nuclear energy, coal/timber exploitation).
• Taxpayers carry a heavy load to subsidize feel-good programs that never pay for themselves. Therefore, Congress must immediately eliminate all subsidies for anything that needs subsidies or is non-viable without subsidies such as National Public Radio, art that is created by "artists" with no talent, alternative energy (solar and wind power), electric and hybrid cars, and ethanol and other bio-fuels.
• Invaders from other nations are taking jobs that are desperately needs by Americans and imposing a financial burden on taxpayers by draining our social services programs and schools. Drive all illegals out of the nation by imposing extremely harsh penalties on employers, individuals, charities, communities, and states that provide work or any other support to these invaders. Congress must establish English as the official language and abolish all government forms, websites, and services in any other language except indigenous languages for persons born before 1940.
• Abolish the NEA (National Education Assn) and government schools. Transfer existing schools to private entities such as churches, parent groups, or businesses who would institute quality schools etc. Issue vouchers to parents to send children to private or commercial schools of their choice.
• Forget about man-caused climate change. It isn't happening! Feed Al Gore and all other environmental extremists to the polar bears to ensure the survival of the bears.
• Mandate that every congressman certify that he has personally read every word of every bill before a vote can be called.
• Mandated that all legislation be limited to only one subject with no amendments that are not reasonable related to the bill.
• Mandate that all new laws and agencies have an automatic sunset not later than 10 years.
• Eliminate voice votes in Congress and require that every vote put every congressman on the record.
• Eliminate earmarks and pork.
• Add one more line to every federal ballot: "None of the above". If a majority of voters nationwide pick this opting, Congress would be disbanded and all congressmen and staffers terminated with no right of returning. A new election would be scheduled to give the nation a fresh start under strict guidance of the Constitution.
• Congress must require all voters to provide a government-issued photo ID that is based on verified US citizenship and pass a basic civics test before voting in any federal election.
• Congress must ban all campaign contributions from anyone who is not a registered voter.
If you can't tell, I am fed up! (26 Jan 2009)
Our politicians have made it far too easy to register to vote and to vote. It's wide open to fraud and to idiots. We need to require every voter to pass a civics test comparable to that administered to new citizens before he can even register to vote. (We oughta require the same test of all politicians, too.) Then, at each election, every voter must show a government-issued photo ID and pass a basic test on the candidates and issues that are on that election's ballot. After voting, every voter must dip a finger in permanent die so he can't vote again. (22 Nov 2008)
Utah's Senator Bob Bennett thinks, "Each party needs to recognize that the electorate is always changing." He's dead wrong. The Republican party leadership has changed. It has lost its moral and patriotic compass. The electorate has not. We're still here. The core constituency of the Republican party wants to see Congress, the judiciary, and the president to adhere to the US Constitution. Even most every-day Democrats want that! Not even our own Republican senators from Utah faithfully respect and adhere to the Constitution when casting their votes or sponsoring legislation. Three or four years ago, I warned both Bennett and Hatch that the Republicans were on an imminent fall from relevance. I told them that because of Republican behavior in Congress, the Republican party did not deserve to be the majority party. When Bennett and the rest of the Republican caucus read and follow the Constitution, they'll find themselves dominating Washington. Wake up, Senator Bennett! (9 Nov 2008)
Republicans in Congress suffered major losses during this election for one reason: They failed to stand up for conservative principles over the last two years. I, like many freedom-loving citizens, have tried to tell Congress what we expect of our elected representatives. But, we have been ignored by the Republicans in Congress and in the Whitehouse. And the nation has lost as a result. Here are a few of my grievances:
• Republicans failed to oppose big government policies promoted by congressional Democrats and the White House and even introduced several of their own
• Republicans chose to play it safe, blend in, and compromise again and again with the enemies of the Constitution (compromise never protects values nor protects liberty) it only drifts ever farther from that precious document
• Republicans failed to create a compelling message based on conservative principles
• Republicans backed a trillion dollar bailout of bankrupt institutions destroyed by corrupt and incompetent managers
• Republicans ignored the threat to the democratic process posed by voter fraud
• Republicans ran up vast deficits and continued to support and indulge in wasteful earmark spending
• Republicans failed to eliminate federal laws which infringe Constitutionally-protected liberties such as speech (ie McCain-Feingold) and gun rights (ie guns in national parks)
• Republicans helped nationalize the transportation security industry, eliminating tens of thousands of non-government jobs
• Republicans failed to eliminate unconstitutional federal agencies such as the Department of Education
• Republicans gutted constitutional liberties in the name of national security and safety (warrantless wiretaps, no-fly lists, gun control, etc)
• Republicans enacted the largest new unconstitutional entitlement in decades -- the prescription drug program
• Republicans passed unconstitutional social-engineering schemes like "No Child Left Behind"
• Republicans started an un-provoked and un-declared war
• Republicans participated in, and allowed, the crucifixion of a presidential candidate (Romney) solely because of his religion
• Republicans failed to fight for prompt confirmation of non-activist judicial appointees who know and respect the Constitution
• Republicans supported amnesty and citizenship for millions of people who have invaded our borders
• Republicans failed to establish English as the official language of the nation
• Republicans have fallen for the "climate change" scam
• Republicans failed to resolve the energy crisis by pushing for drilling for oil in ANWR and off-shore
• Republicans failed to resolve the energy crisis by pushing for elimination of subsidies for non-viable energy technologies such as wind, solar, and ethanol as well as hybrid and electric cars
• Republicans failed to resolve the energy crisis through regulatory relief for more nuclear energy and more oil refineries
• Republicans agreed to go on a long vacation while constituents were stuck at home due to soaring fuel prices
• Republicans said nothing while Pelosi, Reid, et al repeatedly blamed the nation's liberal-caused ills on conservatives
• Republicans refused to expose the Obama/Democrat media groupies and public relations team (ABC news, CBS news, CNN news, NBC news, NPR/PBS news, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, etc) and at least one Republican (Lott) even called for silencing the only alternative -- talk radio
• Republicans (especially McCain) ignored and lost the conservative base of the party to reach out to moderates and liberals -- and didn't get those votes either
• Republicans failed to expose the extreme agenda of Obama and other Democrats
• Republicans failed to demand proof that Obama is eligible (natural-born citizen) to be president as required by the US Constitution
• Republicans cowered when Obama and his supporters preemptively cried racism in response to every challenge on legitimate issues
• Republicans (most notably, Ted Stevens) succumbed to personal corruption
• Most of all, Republicans have ignored the Constitution and the limited government it demands
This strategy of failure is exactly what cost Republicans control of Congress in 2006 and now it has forced the GOP deep into the political wilderness. Due to Republican negligence, our nation will be further irreparably harmed by the Marxist changes about to be wrought under Obama and the strengthened Socialist Democrat Congress. If Republicans are going to act like Socialist Democrats, why does the party even exist? Because of it's inept leadership (of which my own congressmen are a part), the Republican party has consistently demonstrated that it does not deserve to be the majority party. Yet, millions of conservative, freedom-loving Americans do not want their representatives in Washington to be a permanent minority. We need more conservative leaders in the Senate who will boldly stand up for the Constitution, our national security, our economic freedom, and our values. We need more conservative leaders who will do everything in their power to stop President-elect Obama and the Democrats in Congress from taking away even more of our individual liberty with socialist policies and heavier tax burdens. We need leaders who will put the interests of the American people ahead of their own political careers. (6 Nov 2008)
Senator Ben Cardin thinks the government has the responsibility to make sure broadcast content is balanced. Does he really believe that it is the government's business to decide what's balanced and what news and commentary we should be exposed to? Does he really believe that some anonymous bureaucrat or political appointee has the will or ability to be fair? Just look at NPR/PBS for an example of how fair and balanced government broadcasting can be. Ain't happening. The opportunities for liberal news and commentary are already satisfied by taxpayer-subsidized NPR/PBS as well as by commercial ventures ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC and even allegedly fair and balanced FOX. Even on radio stations with largely conservative talk programs, listeners are exposed to hourly or semi-hourly news from those same liberal news networks and Obama media groupies. Additionally, an attentive listener to conservative talk radio will find considerable criticism of both major political parties. Republican politicians get just as much (if not more) criticism on Limbaugh's show, for example, as do Democrats. Therefore, the critical thinking found on conservative talk radio provides a built-in balance rarely found on the major news networks, NPR/PBS, or Air America. Even conservative politicians such as Senator Trent Lott want to shut down talk radio because they don't care to have the light of talk radio exposing their political misdeeds. The imposition of the will of government agents on that coverage should make anyone who values an open government as well as free speech shudder in terror. Besides, a comparison of the audience size of NPR/PBS plus Air America with the market enjoyed by conservative clearly indicates that liberals don't want to be bothered by facts or news and opinions from talk radio hosts and callers. And that's why they voted for a still-unknown presidential candidate of undisclosed origins with radical associates and beliefs solely because of the color of his skin. (6 Nov 2008)
The election of 2008 has closed with depressing news. Barrack Obama has won the campaign after outspending John McCain by an extremely large margin. During the campaign, there were frequent charges of racism from Obama and his supporters. I seriously doubt that a significant number of votes were cast against Obama because of race or, conversely, that a significant number of votes were cast against McCain because of his age or the sex of his VP nominee. However, after looking at polls, I am convinced that a significant number of votes were cast for Obama only because of his race and for no other apparent reason. CNN says 96% of blacks voted for Obama! Racism still lives, but only in the hearts and minds of some (not all) members of some (not all) minority groups. The rest of us have grown up and moved on. But, but we'll all suffer the consequences of that racism for the next 4 years and beyond. And, I believe a majority of those who voted for Obama will regret their choice when they finally learn his radical agenda which was so carefully obscured and ignored during the campaign. A supportive and leftist news media was largely complicit in this obscuration of Obama's agenda. The Republican leadership must also share responsibility for Obama's win because they failed to place blame for many of the nation's ills where it rightfully belongs -- on the Democrats. And, McCain hardly represents the core of the Republican party so he had great difficulty getting support of his own party's voters. Because of media complicity and Republican incompetence and neglect, few Americans know much about who Obama really is. Regretfully, they will soon find out. Perhaps we conservatives will now be able to wake up Republican leaders to the problems within their own party. Hopefully more Americans (maybe even some politicians) will be inspired to read and understand the Constitution and the principles of individual liberty that we are about to lose to Obama's agenda. (4 Nov 2008)
I am outraged by the stratospheric compensation awarded to typically incompetent and/or corrupt corporate officers. In my observation, a typical CEO rarely stays at one company for more than 3 or 4 years. Instead, he moves on before anyone discovers how truly incompetent he is. This movement corresponds to the true reason he seeks new positions: Running a successful business isn't his goal -- his objective is to build his stock portfolio by negotiating substantial stock options as a part of his compensation. Due to the huge stock portfolio he quickly accumulates, he, along with the Board of Directors (who typically follow the same pattern I'm describing for CEOs) control a significant portion of the stock (and stockholders' vote) and overrule any stockholder attempt to control runaway executive compensation and inept leadership. Consequently, CEOs and members of the Board of Directors are essentially unaccountable for their performance and judgment. Nevertheless, just in case incompetence is discovered before an executive moves on, he negotiates a nice fat severance package (aka Golden Parachute) that ensured he's well-compensated even when fired. Sadly, everyone at the senior management level is in on this scheme, so the fox (Board of Directors) is watching the henhouse. One of the most evil ways executives influence their compensation is to give themselves huge bonuses for downsizing (eliminating the jobs of their employees while claiming that the only "essential" employees are those at the senior executive level) -- even while the company drifts into failure and bankruptcy. Then, to top it all off, when the company begins to struggle under the corrupt and incompetent management, they expect the taxpayer to bail out the company! So, here's my solution:
• No corporate executive (VP and above and members of the Board of Directors) should receive any compensation whatsoever so long as any employees have been "downsized"
• No corporate executive should receive any compensation whatsoever in any year in which the company does not make an after-tax profit
• Regular pay to executives must never exceed 50 times the total compensation earned by the company's lowest-paid full-time employee
• Any and all executive compensation in excess of the above "regular pay" (ie bonuses, stock and stock options, forgiven loans, housing, limos, company cars, expense accounts, perks, benefits, etc.) must be subject to a 150% tax (100% paid by the executive and 50% paid by the company) unless such compensation is held in escrow for at least 10 years and the company is profitable and at full employment for the entire ten-year period.
I simply can't think of any other plan that would better hold corporate executives accountable. (19 Oct 2008)
The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) appears to be hi-jacking our electoral system. Powerline.com went so far as to write: "It is reasonable to ask whether ACORN is in fact a criminal conspiracy to subvert the voting rights of Americans." ACORN's actions, which are currently under investigation in 12 states, may actually strike at the very heart of the freedoms we cherish and enjoy in the United States of America! Simply put, if the voter registration allegations against ACORN are true, that means thousands of fraudulent votes could be cast in pivotal swing states and make a farce of our entire electoral process! Congress must be called back into session immediately and emergency legislation must be passed that simply states that voters must produce a valid state or federal ID at the polls or have their votes counted only provisionally until legitimacy can be verified. Anxiously await to hear from your regarding what you will do to ensure every voter in the upcoming election is a legitimate voter, a US citizen, and has not cast multiple ballots.(12 Oct 2008)
Google apparently sees great potential in wind and solar power -- but they want the taxpayer to pay for their scheme. Wind and solar currently represent only six percent of the renewable energy we produce and seven percent of the total energy we use. The portion of energy from wind and solar would be nearly zero without wasteful and unconstitutional taxpayer subsidies. Today, natural market forces are bringing gasoline prices down and Congress has had the rare good sense to let the ban on offshore drilling expire. We're finally making some progress on energy, which is why we can't allow Google to dictate a national energy policy that will benefit the company at the expense of taxpayers. Polls show that 70 percent of Americans support offshore drilling and the environmentally conscious development of America's energy reserves including ANRW. That's a solid, practical plan. Google's proposal would set us back and likely cause energy costs to spike. They're just the latest in a line of corporate rent-seekers who want the federal government (taxpayer) to pay for their projects. One of the key initiatives in this new plan, after all, is Google's own recently announced electricity grid. American taxpayers are not interested in seeing their tax dollars subsidize Google's latest investment. I strongly urge you to do everything you can to reject this ridiculous proposal. Like most Americans, I want a sensible energy policy that will make full use of all our domestic energy resources, including alternative and renewable fuels that can stand on their own merits -- without subsidies. I want more US energy reserves such as Alaska oil and Utah coal taken off the "don't touch" list and lower taxes on energy to keep retail prices down. But most of all, I want federal energy strategies that put the American taxpayer first, not the business interests of Internet billionaires like Google. (9 Oct 2008)
Several financial institutions including banks and quasi-government agencies are in crisis. Congress helped to create this debacle with the Community Reinvestment Act, poor tax policies, hastily designed mark-to-market regulations, and spectacular negligence with regard to the systemic risks posed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Rather than addressing those core problems, Congress has proposed a disgraceful plan which instead snatches $700 billion from the pockets of hard-working Americans, the vast majority of whom had no part in this horrific play. In 2004, Republicans held an oversight hearing on Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac. They warned us about this crisis back then, but professional bigots Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, and other Democrats charged racism. Franklin Raines, the disgraced thief Democrat CEO of Fannie Mae, insisted the loans were "riskless." It turns out that the Republicans were correct. Now, the very same politicians who created the situation wherein home loans were given to high-risk borrowers (Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd, et al) and who took large bribes (campaign finance contributions) from now-shaky agencies and financial institutions are pushing hard for an outrageous bailout at the expense of those of us who acted responsibly. ("These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.'' -- Representative Barney Frank, 2003) Democrats created a climate of crisis around this mortgage mess. Their answer, as always, has been to seize even more power and ever more taxpayer money instead of holding themselves accountable. When the government tries to run or even fix the economy, it always fails. There is no doubt that the current financial mess needs to be fixed. But, Congress and the Whitehouse must allow the free market to repair itself. Congress and the President have no legitimate Constitutional authority to do otherwise. The one thing that Congress must do, however, is to do something about corrupt and/or incompetent corporate executives. I urge Congress to impose a 100% income tax on all executive compensation (pay + benefits + stock options + stock + bonuses + forgiven loans + etc) above $400,000 unless it is deferred for a minimum of 10 years and the company is still in sound financial condition at the 10-year point. Additionally, there must be a 100% income tax on ALL executive compensation in any year in which a company has downsized its workforce or has not restored former workers from a previous downsizing. I urge Congress to oppose all efforts to spend my money on rescuing any company, organization, or agency involved in giving loans to high-risk borrowers. (29 Sep 2008)
Congress must immediately get out of the way of a wise energy policy by doing the following:
1 - Eliminate all subsidies for alternative energy technologies that are not viable without taxpayer support (solar, wind, ethanol, bio-diesel, hybrid and electric cars, hydrogen, compressed natural gas, etc.) and leave that development strictly to private enterprise at some future date should alternative energy sources ever become economically viable.
2 - Remove restrictions that impede the safe expansion of nuclear energy including reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel.
3 - Remove restrictions that impede the safe construction of new oil refineries and pipelines.
4 - Remove restrictions that impede the safe development of offshore and on-shore oil deposits including ANWR.
5 - Eliminate all "carbon credit", "cap and trade" and other "climate change" scams. (9 Sep 2008)
I understand that Governor Sarah Palin (and vice-presidential candidate) is a long-time member of the Wasilla Assembly of God Church. As she must surely know, the Assemblies of God have long been at the forefront of the religious bigotry and un-Christ like hostility toward the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) of which Governor Mitt Romney is a member and lay leader. I also understand that the governor is, or has been, a member of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, another organization which is so hostile toward Mormon athletes that they are excluded from membership. Since she is affiliated with these organizations, Governor Palin must describe what she will do as Governor, Vice Presidential candidate, and as Vice President to eliminate the religious bigotry in in her religious circles and in the nation. (6 Sep 2008)
When it became clear that Senator John McCain would be the Republican nominee for the office of president, I felt a sense of doom not unlike what I felt when Senator Bob Dole was the nominee a couple of elections ago. I started looking around the political scene to see who I thought would be a good vice presidential candidate to put some hope and viability into the McCain campaign. Several weeks ago, I settled on Alaska's Governor Sarah Palin as the best person to fill out the McCain ticket. I was pleasantly surprised when McCain announced his agreement with my pick. Now, this humble little family is thrust into the spotlight with a couple of warts including an unwed, pregnant teenage daughter and a handicapped infant. I am very concerned about the psychological effects on the Governor's family by being suddenly thrust onto the front pages of the world's newspapers. Her husband seems to be very uncomfortable in a suit. I suspect that he, like me, feels much more comfortable in jeans or Carharts. I can't imagine the distress her daughter is suffering by being the most famous unwed mother since Mary, mother of Jesus. I assume that the Governor has already recognized the internal conflicts that each member of her family is facing. I strongly urge her to have a good marriage and family counselor work with her family on a daily basis until each person has adapted to the sudden changes and notoriety they now face. Without such care, I fear that her family will be torn apart -- or worse in the face of a hostile news media and her political enemies. (5 Sep 2008)
The other day, I heard someone say, "The Democrats are evil. The Republicans are stupid." I can't argue with that, but I'd add that, due to their unwillingness to apply their party platform or listen to the will of the people, the Republicans do not deserve to be the majority party. (4 Sep 2008)
After considerable internal turmoil, I have made one of the toughest choices of my life. For the first time since my first presidential election in 1968, I will likely not vote for the Republican candidate. Here's why:
• The McCain-Feingold Incumbent-Protection Act is an obvious, full-frontal attack on the First Amendment
• Keating Five debacle from 1987 that cost depositors and taxpayers $160 million
• Gang of 14 enabled Republicans to show their true colors (yellow streak down the back)
• Desire to destroy gun shows by outlawing private gun sales at such events and eventually a total ban on private gun transfers as well
• Voted for Lautenberg's ex post facto Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban of 1996 which denies gun rights for mere misdemeanor violations
• Teamed up with monarchist Ted Kennedy on the "guest worker" scam and to give amnesty/citizenship for illegal immigrants
• McCain's campaign website is published in Spanish (Does he think there are legitimate voters who can't read English?)
• "Cap and Trade" scam and McCain's gullibility on man's effect on climate change
• Support for wasteful alternative energy scams which are viable only with heavy taxpayer subsidies
• The Republican party has failed to support and defend the US Constitution and does not deserve to be the majority party or to hold the Whitehouse
Selecting a commoner such as Sarah Palin for VP is a small step in the right direction. But, the above issues leave me no choice but to vote for Chuck Baldwin. If my vote for a third-party candidate throws the election to the Marxist Obama, so be it. I, like Juan McCain, must vote my principles. (1 Sep 2008)
Congress, under Democrat leadership has chosen to go on a 5-week vacation. Considering that Congress, under Democrat leadership, has earned a sewer-level approval rating, I'm sure that vacation is well-deserved. I also am on vacation. I'm in my first week of a long-planned three-week vacation that included travel to visit relatives, scenic areas, and historical sites. Unfortunately, due to the egregious behavior and myopic partisanship in the anti-free-market Democrat leadership of Congress, I can no longer afford the energy cost of taking my family on our long-planned three-week vacation. Congress must immediately be called back in to session to do the following:
• Lift all restrictions on environmentally-sound oil exploration and production in US lands and coastal waters
• Lift all restrictions on building new oil refineries
• Lift all restrictions on new nuclear power facilities
• Lift all restrictions on reprocessing spent nuclear fuel
• Lift all restrictions on environmentally-sound coal exploration and production in US lands
• Lift all restrictions on new, environmentally-sound coal-fired power facilities
• Eliminate tax subsidies for all non-viable energy programs such as electric and hybrid cars, wind-powered energy, solar energy, and bio-fuels such as ethanol
• Scrap all plans for a windfall tax on oil companies -- any such tax will only punish oil company owners (ie retired school teachers whose retirement fun is invested in oil company stocks) and will be passed on the the consumer in the form of higher fuel costs.
American jobs, productivity, progress, safety, health are all founded on the wise use of energy. The incompetent Congressional meddling in the free market, especially in energy, is costing millions current and future jobs. Even my own employer (in the transportation industry) is currently cutting jobs specifically because of the cost of fuel. The arrogant belief in the Democrat-led Congress that their own generous, paid vacation is more important that the relatively short, sometimes un-paid, vacations of common citizens is offensive and appalling. Congress members believe they can get away with it because they believe we common citizens are stupid. (According to presidential wannabe Obama, all we need is proper tire inflation!). Well, perhaps the Democrat constituency is stupid. But the rest of us aren't. Either call Congress back into session immediately to set things right, or dismiss Congress entirely for the remainder of the current Congressional term and prohibit the reelection of all incumbents. (5 Aug 2008)
It is reported that the Democrat Senate of the 110th Congress passed 94% of bills without debate or roll call vote. It is this lack of responsibility that gives the current Congress a 91% disapproval rating. The article indicates to me that the federal election ballot needs to have one more option for the voter: "none of the above." We need a box to check off (or a chad to punch or a button to push) if we think it's time to entirely disband Congress and start over. My plan would require 3/5ths of the voters of 3/5ths of the states to send the entire Congress packing. After Congress has been thus purged, nobody who has served in Congress more than two terms would be eligible to run for re-election. (28 Jul 2008)
How in the world did we get to the point where not a single candidate for president or vice president has a a basic understanding of the Constitution, limited government, personal liberty and responsibility, the economy, consequences of unfettered immigration, basic science (climate), etc.? Our political lunacy starts with the electorate. A third of the voters get their news and information from stand-up comedian monologues. Another third vote with absolutely no information beyond their own selfish interests. The remaining third are being outvoted by idiots! No wonder politicians focus their pandering on idiots and social parasites -- that's where two-thirds of the votes are! I say it's time to administer a simple Jay Leno-style "Jaywalking" civics test to every voter before he/she gets to vote. The political scene will be cleaned up in just one election cycle! (22 Jul 2008)
The rising price of gasoline is hurting every family and business in America. Congress (approval rating 12%) is directly responsible for the high price of oil because it panders to radicals who oppose rational and wise use of petroleum, coal, and nuclear resources which can safely, cleanly and economically provide all the energy we need. We are tired of Congress doing nothing but bowing down to the radical anti-capitalism environmentalists! Ethanol, solar, wind, and hybrid vehicles are not viable solutions (If they're viable, why do they need subsidies to survive?) and all subsides for these economic failures must immediately cease! The only thing that some in Congress (ie Maxine Waters, Socialist of California) want to do is to nationalize the oil industry (as if Waters knows how to do anything other than run her mouth, let alone run an oil company). Congress is unwilling to acknowledge its role in this crisis many members instead blame the oil companies, the free market (speculators), and the Whitehouse. Congress wants to further regulate the free market (speculators) when what it really ought to do is regulate itself and downsize big government. It is time for Congress to get out of the way and allow the wise use of America's energy sources (coal, oil and nuclear). This clearly can be done without materially affecting our environment. Congress should put our families and commerce first, ahead of the radical environmentalists, socialists, and their own selfish interests! (17 Jul 2008)
In Sunday School today, we discussed the various types of governments (monarchy, republic, democracy, theocracy, etc.). We seem to be getting away from being a republic or a democracy. If we were a true republic our elected representatives would vote for what we want, not for what we don't. And we can't be a democracy, since it seems like these days minority rules. After the class was over, I realized what form of government we have. It's neither a republic nor a democracy nor a blend of the two. What we have is a bureaucracy. Both the Whitehouse and Congress are run by civil servants (bureaucrats) -- not the elected politicians. The bureaucrats conspire with special interest groups to write the legislation. Congressmen merely vote on whatever legislation the bureaucrats puke up, usually with no clue what the legislation contains. The president signs the legislation -- likewise clueless. Generally, legislation establishes or continues some bureaucracy, funds that bureaucracy, and authorizes that bureaucracy to make whatever rules the bureaucrats think they can get away with. The bureaucrats rule. And, you can't fire them like you theoretically can fire a politician. There aren't more than a handful of politicians who dare stand up to the bureaucrats. (8 Jun 2008)
How I wish that the Republican leadership would pay attention to Utah Senator Bill Hickman's message. The Republicans failed to lead when given the opportunity. They bowed to the will of Democrat bullies such as Ted Kennedy. They spent like drunken sailors. They failed to defend our borders against millions of foreign invaders and even tried to give those invaders amnesty and citizenship! They failed to fight for smaller, constitutional government. In fact, government grew in size, power, and oppression during their period of majority. They lost the confidence of the people and, consequently, the latest election as well as the upcoming election. The Republican party has proven that it does not deserve to be the majority party. And, the Republican "leadership" (especially Utah's Hatch and Bennett) simply does not even seem to care! The "leaders" of Republican party obviously has no idea how deep in trouble the party is. Heck, the party is even are running a Democrat as its presidential candidate! (8 Jun 2008)
Without a doubt, Congress is an absolute embarrassment. The voters hold lower regard for the Congress than even the President and used car salesmen! Congress carelessly passes mammoth bills that none of them have read. Sometimes printed copies aren't even available when they vote! Often no one even knows what these bills contain, or what they really do, or what they will really cost. Additions and deletions are made at the last minute, in secrecy. They combine unpopular and unwise proposals (that almost nobody wants) with popular measures that few in Congress want to oppose. (This practice is called “log-rolling.”) Votes are held with little debate or public notice. An excellent example is the recent passage and veto override of the outrageously bloated Farm Bill. Congress must immediately adopt legislation similar to Downsize DC's Read the Bills Act (RTBA). By requiring bills to be read before a quorum in Congress, the legislative process will slow down -– something American citizens and taxpayers desperately need. Urgent, national priorities will be addressed, but Congress won't have time for pet projects and pork. The final amended bill passed by both the House and Senate would be the bill the President signs or vetoes. It would also be the same version posted on the Internet for seven days before Congress votes. If pages are missing from a bill, it would be caught before passage, not after. I urge every congressman to cosponsor and work for immediate enactment of the Read the Bills Act. (27 May 2008)
With the price of gasoline now soaring above $4 per gallon (the entity profiting the most is, of course, the government), it is obvious to us commoners that we are well into a crisis. This crisis is a direct result of congressional micromanaging of the energy industry and the meddling of radical environmentalists. Here is what I believe Congress and the Whitehouse must do immediately:
• Immediately eliminate all tax subsidies for "alternative" energy (bio-fuel, solar, wind, hybrid cars, etc.). If an energy source is not viable without an infusion of tax dollars, it must be allowed to die.
• Immediately establish a regulatory environment that is friendly to expeditious development of nuclear energy.
• Immediately establish a regulatory environment that is friendly to expeditious exploitation of domestic coal.
• Immediately establish a regulatory environment wherein new and expanded refineries can be expeditiously built.
• Immediately remove the irrational bans on oil drilling in coastal, Alaskan, and other known oil deposits.
• Immediately instill rational thought into the national energy policy and into environmental regulations.
• Reject and ignore the radical environmentalists and listen to those who have sensible ways to restore energy independence while preserving the environment.
• Immediately allow the free market to work and cease to blame the oil companies for this, or any previous, energy crisis (the Maxine Waters socialist rant this week about nationalizing the oil industry is especially troubling)! (23 May 2008)
Today, I received a GOP fund-raising email in which, over Senator McCain's signature, is the following sentence: "If we fail to elect conservative Republican leadership in Washington, D.C. and all across the country, we face a return to the Democrats' tried-and-failed liberal policies that embrace higher taxes, more government spending, socialized medicine, and surrender in Iraq." I am a 59-year-old lifelong conservative Republican. I fully agree with that statement. However, I have watched the party drift with noconservative Republican leadership for a decade and I wonder what conservative Republican leadership it refers to. The statement about electing conservative leadership clearly does not apply to Senator McCain since his record is NOT one of conservatism. The party has nominated presidential candidates who talk conservatism while compromising away conservative principles (ie Bush, Dole, Bush, McCain). The party's current presidential nominee defies his oath to support and defend the Constitution by supporting legislative infringement of the first and second amendment and votes for ever bigger, more intrusive government. The party's current presidential nominee supports amnesty and citizenship for tens of millions of invaders of our borders. The party's current presidential nominee has consistently voted for bigger, more intrusive government. When the Republican party, Senator McCain (and my own senators from Utah) prove by acts, not talk, that they are indeed conservative (look to the Constitution for guidance), I will provide my full support to the party. Until then, my support will go only to a few candidates who have earned the conservative label and a few organizations (ie NRA) that have been silenced by McCain's legislation. The party had its chance to lead, but proved that it does not deserve to be the majority party. The "leaders" of Republican party obviously has no idea how deep in trouble the party is. (22 May 08)
I'm feeling demoralized. I feel like we who cherish the Constitution, and the individual liberties it protects, have lost. I still had a spark of optimism until it became clear that the Republican Party will again nominate a RINO as its presidential candidate. I haven't felt so depressed and lost about a presidential election since the day Bob Dole was nominated. The fact that an extremist, yet empty suit, like Obama can rack up the support he has says volumes about the intellect of the typical American voter. But, it's not just the presidential race that bothers me. There isn't but a handful of true believers in the Constitution in Congress. Fewer still in the federal judiciary. Not even the congressmen from my relatively conservative Utah can be counted on to defend our Constitution, the cultural integrity of the nation, or its borders. Almost anyone in politics could be the poster child for term limits, yet it is nearly impossible to vote them out of office. The root of the problem is that idiots and selfish voters outnumber the thoughtful and informed liberal, moderate and conservative voters combined. Or, as one of my economics professors once said, "The masses are asses." Why bother to vote when my vote will be cancelled by someone who, if he has any information at all, gets his news from MTV or Jay Leno monologues (not that the lazy and biased mainstream news media is any better)? Talk radio does not, and cannot, reach those who, by choice, personal neglect, or intellectual laziness, remain in the dark. And, the education system, controlled by the NEA, certainly has no interest in educating the electorate. We've made it far too easy to register to vote and to vote. And we're on the road to make it even easier. The only solution I can come up with is that we desperately need a voter test. Before the blue-haired lady at the polling place hands a ballot to a potential voter, he must pass a basic civics test and an English test. No potential voter should get a ballot if he or she can't name the three branches of the federal government and their constitutional roles, the name of the current president and vice president, the name of his state's governor, and who pays the bill for all government giveaways (taxpayer) -- in English. Purging the voter list of idiots is the only hope I have for this nation. That simple change alone will turn this nation around in one election cycle. But, nobody in politics has the courage or character to even propose such a test. So, I'm feeling demoralized. (11 Mar 2008)
There is at lease one commentator who says that Senator Clinton is ineligible to be president because she's a woman. In describing the president, the Constitution uses the pronouns "he" and "his". It uses the same masculine pronouns in discussing legislators and judges as well so women presumably are ineligible for those offices as well. I contend that this use of the masculine gender to refer to people in general is the way English was used up until the feminist movement of the '60s and '70s (ask your 7th-grade English teacher) and referred to both sexes. That use of the masculine gender in writing is still correct -- but not politically correct. My read is the Senator Clinton meets the Constitutional standards to be president. But, she'd still be destructive to our Constitutional freedoms and must be defeated. (29 Feb 2008)
The conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq has resulted in an alarming number of servicemen charged and convicted of serious crimes. Almost none of the cases involve criminal intent. Instead, they involve young men and women doing a tough job in a harsh and hostile environment with extremely poor senior leadership against an enemy that hasn't the courage to wear a uniform. Our armed forces have become so crippled by bureaucrats-wearing-stars-in-nice-clean-offices that the men and women in the trenches must each have their own attorney in tow to ensure their split-second life-or-death decisions are always in perfect compliance with the ideals of those bureaucrats-wearing-stars-in-nice-clean-offices. What our soldiers, sailors and airmen need is leadership -- not bureaucratic Monday-morning quarterbacks. That leadership (and honest, unconditional support of the troops) needs to start in the office of the man who sent our youth to war -- in the Whitehouse. (13 Feb 2008)
Fifty-five senators and 250 representatives have signed onto a brief that urges the justices to strike down the ban and assert that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own guns for their protection. I am disgusted by the fact that Congress has the power and responsibility to terminate the DC gun ban, thereby putting DC in compliance with the Constitution and making the Heller case moot. Instead, Congress chooses to pass the buck to the Supreme Court. This is but one more example of Congress' failure to do its job by allowing presidents, judges, and even un-accountable bureaucrats to do the job of the legislative branch. Every congressman must immediately take every step necessary to ensure Congress fully complies with its Constitutional role, yet never overstep it's Constitutional authority. This practice of allowing other entities to legislate is unacceptable. (8 Feb 2008)
The number of candidates seeking the Whitehouse is rabidly dwindling. On the Republican side, the race is basically down to Senator John McCain, Governor Mitt Romney, and Governor Mike Huckabee. I often wonder if the Mormon question is shaving a few votes off every Romney primary. Even McCain's mother and Huckabee himself have taken indiscrete shots at Romney's religion. With a few exceptions, pilots (like GIs) tend to be a politically conservative bunch. Recently, when our in-flight conversations have turned to politics, nearly everyone I've flown with for the first time says they'd never vote for Romney because of his religion. When I challenge that remark by asking why and with a disclosure that I also am a Mormon, they get a rather sheepish look. Throughout my 30+ years of flying, nearly everyone on my crew has learned that I'm a Mormon and they go away from the experience knowing that I'm not all that bizarre. Once the conversation gets started into Mormonism, they actually get interested in learning about our beliefs and ask some pretty good questions. I think too many people are getting little to no accurate information about the church -- and fewer still actually seek out enough information to make a fair judgment on us. And, an awful lot of the misinformation comes from the Huckabees (Baptist ministers) of the world. A friend shared a video clip with me a few days ago emphasized that point. Bigotry is always rooted in ignorance. Our nation's schools would do well to include a class on world religions as a part of its civics curriculum. A little knowledge about each other's faith would go a long way toward inspiring respect for each other. (31 Jan 2008)
Several organizations have been warning about problems (imagined, potential, and real) with computerized voting. Computerizing the election process seems like a good idea, but I also have some concerns:
• Some of the systems provide no backup process in case of failure, tampering, or challenge.
• I've seen reports that there is no way of checking some of the systems to see whether programmers have biased the software.
• I see it as a step toward lowering our elections to the level of voting for American Idol contestants based on a song and a dance.
I believe voting and voter registration needs to be made more difficult -- not easier. I suggest a drug/alcohol test followed by a very simple civics test before the blue-haired ladies at the polling place give a voter his/her ballot. Sample test questions would include:
• "What is the name of your governor and what is his political party?"
• "How many branches are there in the federal government and what are they?"
• "Who pays for government programs such as WIC, Food Stamps, and Medicaid?"
• "What document establishes the structure of the federal government?"
My guess is that two-thirds of the voters would be prohibited from voting by such a simple civics test and the quality of the people we elect will be immediately and substantially improved. Alas, most politicians and the ACLU (and other Marxists) will vigorously oppose such a voter test. BTW, have you noticed the correlation between government bloat and women's suffrage? (Not a topic for discussion with one's wife.) (20 Jan 2008)
As in years past, I expect that Utah's 2008 legislative session will see proposed legislation that could have the effect of elevating a misdemeanor to felony status. Federal law permanently strips a citizen of his right to possess a firearm if he has any sort of felony record, even if his felony was non-violent, and even if nobody was harmed by his actions. When Congress passed this law in 1968, it was aimed at murderers, rapists, armed robbers, and other truly dangerous criminals who constituted the bulk of convicted felons at the time. Nowadays, all sorts of minor acts can result in a felony conviction, which in turn automatically results in a permanent loss of one’s gun rights. One attorney who specialized in helping people overcome unjustified Brady Law rejections estimates that as many as 1/3 to 1/2 of American males could be subject to being barred from owing a firearm because of a stupid, but minor act committed as a youth. For example, Martha Stewart was convicted of a felony a few years ago for having allegedly told a fib to a federal investigator regarding a questionable stock trade. She’s now permanently barred from even touching a firearm or ammunition. While I don’t condone Ms. Stewart’s actions, I don’t see why she should be permanently prohibited from having a self-defense weapon or from hunting. Every year, the Utah Legislature considers several bills that would confer felony status on relatively minor offenses. Until the federal gun laws get changed, I will view any such legislation as a form of back-door gun control and I urge every legislator and the governor to oppose it. It is time for legislators at the state and national level to call a halt to creating new felony crimes and federal crimes. (2 Jan 2008)
Whereas the Republican Party, Republicans in Congress (including my own from Utah), and Republicans in the Whitehouse have:
• demonstrated negligence and lack of leadership in respecting the Constitution in its legislative agenda (even while in the majority),
• failed to ignore, discredit, and marginalize the pompous bullies in Congress such as Ted Kennedy,
• failed to repeal or amend the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act to comply with the First Amendment,
• failed to protect freedom of religion from those who distort and misuse Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state",
• failed to protect military chaplains who perform their religious duties in the manner prescribed by the church which ordained them,
• failed to repeal or amend all federal laws and regulations to comply with the Second Amendment,
• failed to acknowledge that the Second Amendment protects an individual right and is not about the sporting use of firearms, but personal protection and protection against tyranny,
• failed to protect the citizens of Washington, DC from unconstitutional gun laws,
• failed to repeal the "Lautenberg Amendment" which voids the gun rights of persons with certain misdemeanor convictions,
• failed to reign in the out-of-control Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives,
• failed to guarantee the right of law-abiding citizens to posses firearms on all public federal lands such as National Parks,
• failed to impeach federal judges who persistently legislate from the bench,
• failed to execute Social Security reform,
• failed to prohibit abortion as a means of birth control,
• failed to preserve the sanctity of traditional marriage and family,
• failed to protect Americans from "hate crime" and other thought-control legislation such as ENDA
• failed to stop congressional misuse of the Constitution's Commerce Clause to encroach on states' rights and individual freedoms,
• failed to control federal spending by eliminating "earmarks" or "pork-barrel" spending,
• failed to stop spending tax money on programs for which there is no Constitutional authority or mandate,
• failed to repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT),
• failed to terminate federally subsidized flood insurance for persons who knowingly build or rebuild in flood plains,
• failed to ban federal spending on the reconstruction of New Orleans and other communities in flood plains,
• failed to ban direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs,
• failed to eliminate unconstitutional and unnecessary federal agencies such as the Department of Education,
• failed to protect our children from indoctrination and our industrial base from destruction by terrorists (ie Al Gore) working under the banner of environmentalism,
• failed to read and understand legislation before voting,
• failed to enact a Constitutional line-item veto authority for the President,
• failed to eliminate or consolidate the more than 50 federal law-enforcement agencies have been created since 1900,
• failed to refuse to give up sovereignty to the United Nations and to remove the nation from "foreign entanglements" such as the UN,
• failed to defend our borders and enforce existing immigration laws,
• failed to free Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Campean and restore their jobs with full retroactive pay and benefits,
• failed to establish that the intent and language of the 14th Amendment was about giving citizenship to freed slaves in 1868 -- not children of illegal immigrants and invaders in 2007 and failed to terminate that practice immediately and retroactively,
• failed to establish English as the nation's official language, yet maintain websites in Spanish,
• failed to remember and follow the oath taken by all Congressmen to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic [and to] bear true faith and allegiance to the same",
• the Party is very likely to nominate a presidential candidate who does not have a clear history of consistently supporting these same principles, and
• generally lost their way, abandoning the traditional Republican Party platform and the US Constitution,
I therefore resolve to refuse financial support to the Republican Party and refuse to vote for certain Republican candidates. Instead, while I remain a registered Republican, my money and votes will continue to go to individual candidates (some of whom are not Republicans) who respect the Constitution, to selected organizations muzzled by McCain-Fiengold, and to the Constitution Party. If my support of a third party or a third-party candidate delivers an election to socialist Democrats, so be it. There must never be a compromise between that which is clearly is right and that which is clearly is wrong. It is time for Republican leaders and Republican politicians to wake up and pay attention to what is right. (29 Dec 2007)
Today, I received Happy Hanukkah greetings from a Jew. As a devout Christian, I thanked him for wishing me a Happy Hanukkah and returned the greeting. How I wish that our politicians weren't so beholden to the bigoted minority who so fear religion and religious diversity that they won't respect or appreciate the religious beliefs of others. It is that rejection of religion that is the root of all the social ills, including the breakdown of the traditional family, in this nation. Our nation's leaders, including legislators and judges, must reject the efforts of bigots to gut the First Amendment by banning religious expression from the public square. Happy Hanukkah. (4 Dec 2007)
Over the past few days, I was referred to a couple of YouTube videos featuring left-wing author Naomi Wolf wherein she ticks off a list of 10 steps toward tyranny. (To see and hear a couple of her speeches, go to YouTube and search for her name.) She correctly says that the US is on that road to tyranny. Top on her list is "Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy". She gives the current administration's use of terrorism as that enemy and attacks some of the methods Bush is allegedly using to fight terrorism. She notably ignores the use by other individuals and groups of the global warming scam to accomplish the same goal of mind and people control on a far grander scale. One crucial step toward tyranny that she omitted, but which is as important as any of her top-ten is gun registration and gun confiscation -- something that has been happening to varying degrees throughout the US for decades. The lady talks a good talk, but I'm suspicious of where she's headed. I'm concerned by her extremely brief mention that among her supporters is MoveOn.org, an organization that is hardly a champion of individual liberty and small, limited government. To disarm the few listeners and readers who have the rare ability of critical thinking, she cleverly tosses out a small token admiration for Ron Paul and the Second Amendment. In her speeches, she's mostly going after the Bush administration (not without cause), dropping that word, "impeach". Other than impeaching Bush, she doesn't say what she thinks needs to be done to stop tyranny in general. Apparently, his impeachment will solve all the world's problems. His impeachment, or at least emasculation, is obviously the primary purpose of her new book and her speaking tour. I think she's a wolf (that is her name, after all) in sheep's clothing. (26 Nov 2007)
The US Constitution clearly prohibits any religious test for public office. Those who would vote against Mitt Romney or anyone else because of his/her religion does not know or respect the Constitution -- even if, as some pinheads erroneously claim, Mormons are not Christians. Far too many voters are idiots (see my 14 Nov comments on that topic below) and will readily and happily believe such misinformation from the likes of professional bigots like Al Sharpton. The longest-lasting and probably most important effect a president has is who he nominates for the Supreme Court. I think Romney will pick justices who read, follow, and honor the Constitution. Someone who has a long-standing record of respect for the Constitution such as Tancredo or Paul would be nice, but they're not competitive. Sadly, many of the other Republican candidates are likewise inconsistent on key issues (ie Giuliani on gun rights). Of those who are likely to win the nomination, Romney is probably the closest we're going to get. The talk he's been talking since his entry into the presidential race is what I want to hear. But, it's inconsistent with the rest of his entire life -- including political life. Even more important, his past stand on abortion is inconsistent with the stand he should have had when he held a high office (stake president) in the Mormon church. His inconsistency is the only reservation I have about him and the most serious challenge that opponents can throw at him. I believe in repentance. But, is Mitt's change of heart on crucial issues a true change? Or, is it political pandering? I hope his conversion is sincere. Maybe we can spend some time hunting together and I'll find out. Maybe Bruce Barton was right when he said, "When you're through changing, you're through." (23 Nov 2007)
What this nation needs is a voter's test. Far too many idiots and ill-informed people are getting their hands on ballots. And, that is why we have the government we have. The test need not be hard, but it must discriminate against stupid people. The test must be printed -- and answered -- in English. It would ask simple questions such as "What is the name of your state's governor?", "What are the three branches of the federal government?", "Who pays for the various welfare programs?" (that'd be the taxpayers), and, in reference to the cases of Mitt Romney and JFK, "Does the Constitution allow the religious discrimination against some political candidates?" A voter must score 100% on the voter's test to pass. Maybe we oughta administer the same test to all politicians as well. (14 Nov 2007)
I want to know why we are always expected to pick the lesser of two evils. Why can't the Republican party simply put up candidates who, by word and deed, support and embody the party platform? The fact that we have filled Congress with RINOs and will likely nominate a RINO for the Whitehouse is the only reason the Dumocrats have any power at all. We will lose the Whitehouse because we are seemingly incapable of nominating a true Republican for the presidential race. (29 Oct 2007)
In each new Congress since 1995, Rep. John Shadegg of Arizona, has introduced the Enumerated Powers Act (HR-1359). The Act has yet to be enacted into law. In fact, only a handful of congressmen have had the moral courage and respect for the Constitution necessary to cosponsor this bill. The bill would require Congress to specify the basis of authority in the US Constitution for the enactment of laws and other congressional actions. Congress has reached far beyond the limits specified in the US Constitution resulting in the establishment countless unconstitutional federal programs and the unconstitutional imposition of mandates on the states and local governments. Every congressman must immediately begin to live up to his or her oath of office to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States". HR-1359 is a small step in the right direction. (23 Oct 2007)
The First Amendment to the US Constitution clearly says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." This amendment was adopted to ensure that there would be no state-sponsored religion as was the case in England and even in some American colonies. Our founders never intended for the First Amendment to ban religion from the public square. However, there is an ever growing movement to impose the religion of atheism upon the nation. The only reason this movement has any traction is because of the public's gross ignorance of the US Constitution and the total disregard for the Constitution among federal legislators and judges. I have learned that a low-level employee of the US government (Architect of the Capitol Steven Ayers) bans the use of religious wording in official documents. He claims his motive for banning “God,” "Lord,” or similar words was they may offend someone. A lot of what comes out of Washington is offensive to me, but I believe in free speech and freedom of religion. Mr. Ayers must cease his censorship of religious words. (9 Oct 2007)
It is clear to me that neither of the two major political parties has the ability or intention of representing the people of the United States nor of respecting, preserving, and abiding by the original intent of the US Constitution. Both major parties are infested with politicians who will sell their souls (and give away my tax money) to stay in power or to achieve even greater. Both parties are full of morally bankrupt men and women who see pork and earmarks and accepting unethical gifts as a way of life. Nearly every Republican in office and nearly every Republican candidate for president are ideologically left of Franklin Roosevelt. Nearly every Democrat in office and nearly every Democrat candidate for president are ideologically left of Vladimir Lenin. Disaffected Democrats want somebody even farther left than the MoveOn-guided Socialists who predominate in the Democrat run for the presidency. The political viability of the Democrat party is not threatened, but guided, by these leftists. Conversely, disaffected Republicans want to see the nation run in strict accordance with the original intent of the Constitution. These people are derisively referred to as radical right-wing conservatives. Almost nobody in Congress ever asks, "Is this bill Constitutional?" Certainly, the President never does. Unlike the Democrat party, the viability of the Republican party is, indeed, threatened by the disaffection of those of us who want to see a course correction back toward the Constitution -- and the Republican leadership seems totally unaware or unconcerned by this threat. We Constitutionalists are consequently left searching for a viable politician outside the big two parties. And, our political campaign contributions will follow that search. I predict that unless all Republicans in Congress band together to fiercely defend, and return to, the Constitution and unless the Republican party nominates a presidential candidate who has a solid history and platform of defending, and returning to, the Constitution, a substantial portion of Republicans will vote for a third-party candidate as it did for Ross Perot and the 2008 election will be a Democrat landslide in Congress, the Whitehouse, state legislatures and governor mansions. (24 Sep 2007)
Intelligent and educated people show respect for others by turning off their cell phones when attending important meetings. Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, on the other hand, answered a cell phone call from his wife while speaking before the National Rifle Association! That tells me that the mayor has no respect for the NRA, NRA members, and the gun owner vote. Is Rudy going to pull that stunt during a state-of-the-union speech? That's hardly presidential. If Giuliani is nominated as the Republican candidate, my vote will very likely go to a third-party candidate. (22 Sep 2007)
There is a procedural vote in the US Senate today to grant Congressional representation to residents of the District of Columbia. In other words, to add a new Congressman to the US House of Representatives, representing DC residents. That might sound fine, except for one thing: it is clearly and unambiguously unconstitutional! As Minority Leader Mitch McConnell noted, “It contravenes what the framers wrote, what they intended, what the courts have always held, and the way Congress has always acted in the past. And to vote for it would violate our oath of office, in which we solemnly swear to support and defend the Constitution. If the residents of the District are to get a member for themselves, they have a remedy: amend the Constitution. But the members of this body derive their authority from the Constitution. We are its servants and guardians. And we have no authority to change it on our own.” Article 1, Section 2, states: “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States.” Every resident of a state, therefore, is entitled under the Constitution to congressional representation. Yet no similar representation is accorded to the residents of areas that are not so designated. One of these areas, in particular, is mentioned explicitly later on in the same Article. The framers clearly envisioned the federal city as a separate entity from the states, as an entity they themselves would control. James Madison, the Constitution’s primary author, explained why in Federalist 43. The seat of government couldn’t be in one of the states, he said, because of the potential benefits that would accrue to that state, either material or in reputation, as a result of that distinction. Moreover, lawmakers themselves should not be dependent on the good favor of any one state or its residents to carry out their business. A third reason, perhaps even more relevant in a time of terrorist threats, is that the District’s independence would allow it to relocate if need be. Every Constitution-respecting congressman must reject this move to give Washington DC its own congressman. (18 Sep 2007)
In his 17 September commentary in the Anchorage Daily News, Dan Bonney seems to think that low voter turnout is, in itself, a bad thing. He wants to use the Permanent Fund Dividend to bribe more people to vote. A 100% voter turnout would be nice -- if all those people have sufficient understanding of the candidates and issues to punch their ballots wisely. Unfortunately, we already have far too many un-informed and under-informed people at the polls. That's why we have the egregious taxes and horribly corrupted and over-intrusive government we now have! Instead of bribing people to vote, I favor a voter test. Each voter should be able to correctly answer simple questions such as: "What is the name of your governor?" "What are the three branches of government?" "Who pays for government programs?" If a potential voter can't answer such basic questions -- in English -- he or she has no business influencing the direction of this nation. To use the PFD (or anything else) to bribe even more village idiots to vote is, well, idiocy! (17 Sep 2007)
One of the most hateful men in Congress, Edward Kennedy, wants to establish a police state of the united States by saddling the nation with a hate crimes bill. I am disappointed (but not surprised) that Kennedy is so cowardly that he has attached this bill to the Senate Defense Reauthorization Bill rather than let this hate crimes bill stand on its own merits. The Congress and the President must reject all efforts to criminalize speech or thought in any way. My specific concerns about Kennedy's hateful hate-crime legislation include:
• Speech bans are a political weapon used by those in power to silence their opponents and politically unpopular minorities.
• Hate speech bans don’t work. Genuine racism and false hatreds exist in this world. But bans on hate speech won’t solve the problem.
• Hate speech bans are unconstitutional. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled against speech bans.
• Speech bans will be used against the very minorities they were meant to protect. Speech bans silence some to protect the feelings of others. But when the government has power to silence expression that power can be wielded against the very people who once enjoyed its protection.
• Speech bans chill legitimate and valuable speech. Under the threat of possible indictment, the people will refrain from discussing controversial but important ideas. Speech bans greatly reduce the possibility of healthy, democratic change.
• Speech bans are offensively paternalistic. They presume we can’t think for ourselves, reject racist or hateful ideas for ourselves, or deal with the hurt caused by others’ free expression. Speech bans especially condescend toward the minorities they portray as helpless victims whose feelings must be sheltered from ideas they can’t combat in a free intellectual market.
• Speech bans permit government to do something an individual could not morally do. Speech bans would empower government to silence individuals by force. This is immoral whether it’s one person silencing another person or the government silencing a fringe group of dissenters.
• Bible-believing Christians could become criminals simply because they speak out about their beliefs.
• Hate-speech laws are thought-control laws and bear an extremely close resemblance to the thought-control of the Catholic Inquisition.
• To assume a crime is more serious because some prosecutor or legislator believes the perpetrator is a bigot trivializes crimes (and their victims) committed by non-bigots.
I therefore oppose any so-called hate-crimes legislation. Congress and the President must ensure all so-called "hate-crime" legislation is rejected immediately and completely. Particularly, Congress must reject Kennedy's hate-crime scheme. (20 Jul 2007)
Hate crimes laws are actually "thought crimes" laws that violate the right to freedom of speech and of conscience and subject individuals to scrutiny of their beliefs rather than focusing on a person's criminal actions. Hate crimes laws will have a chilling effect on people who have moral or religious objections to behaviors such as homosexuality. Evidence of a person's beliefs will be used against any individual who is even suspected of committing a crime. Even Rep. Artur Davis, who supported a similar bill that passed the House in May, admitted that under this law a minister could be charged with the crime of incitement if the minister preached that homosexuality is a serious sin and a person in the congregation left church and committed a crime against a homosexual. The White House called this bill "unnecessary" and "constitutionally questionable," pointing out that "State and local criminal laws already provide criminal penalties for the violence addressed by the new Federal crime." I am disappointed that the sponsors of this legislation are so cowardly that they have attached this bill to the Senate Defense Reauthorization Bill rather than let this hate crimes bill stand on its own merits. Congress and the Whitehouse must reject all attempts to criminalize thought, even if that thought is hateful. (12 Jul 2007)
The growth of talk radio fills an information void left by a liberal news media that considers the newsworthiness of the latest antics of Paris Hilton greater than the heroism of Marines in Iraq. The growth of talk radio is a natural response to a lazy news media that places more importance on a cutesy entertainment format and pretty faces on empty heads than on substantive information. The growth of talk radio is a peaceful rebellion against the emergence and relentless growth in an all-powerful nanny state that intrudes into and controls ever more of our lives and infringes on more and more of our individual liberties yet refuses to do the jobs it was intended to do. The growth of talk radio manifests the public dissatisfaction with the effects on the nation and its people caused by the lack of understanding of, and respect for, the limitations on government imposed by the US Constitution. This lack of understanding and respect for the Constitution is pervasive in in all three branches of the federal government. The growth of talk radio is the antidote to politicians and news readers who consider their constituents and audience to be stupid sheep incapable of understanding basic issues such as protecting the nation from an invasion of illegal immigrants. The fact that talk radio is predominantly conservative is evidence that liberals are satisfied with getting their news and information from MTV, Jay Leno and Catie Kouric monologues, trite sound bites from bloviating politicians such as Ted Kennedy. The failures of liberal talk show programming is evidence that liberals are happy with a government that controls every aspect of their lives relieving them from responsibility for the control and direction of their own lives. The response to these phenomena by liberals is to silence talk radio. They claim that they want to infuse balance into talk radio. What they really want to do is to shut of the light that is shining on the dark ways of bloated big government and of politicians who defy the Constitution. Even some purported conservatives in Congress such as Trent Lott are uncomfortable with their constituents knowing the facts and information disclosed by talk radio hosts and listeners. Reviving the Fairness Doctrine would be nothing short of reinstituting bureaucratic control over free political speech, at a time when the courts are finally undoing unconstitutional regulations like McCain-Feingold. Government should not be in the business of rationing free speech. Congress and the Whitehouse must reject any effort to restore the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" or to otherwise intrude on the free flow of political speech and information. Instead, Congress must immediately repeal all laws, such as those found in the McCain-Fiengold Act, that infringe on the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. (29 Jun 2007)
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has thumbed her nose at the Constitution and our nation’s laws. Her recent trip to Syria was intended specifically to embarrass the President and was also an obvious attempt to set up separate relations with a terrorist government, a regime with whom we have severed diplomatic ties. She even alleged (lied about) successes which were false! Speaker Pelosi's actions are no joke. Her actions are not a laughing matter or simple "bad behavior." Her actions are a violation of the Logan Act, and give aid, comfort and encouragement to America's enemies around the globe. Speaker Pelosi must not be allowed to get away with blatantly undermining US foreign policy by meeting with the leader of a country that supports terrorism. Why aren’t our national leaders calling for a full investigation of her actions, or censure or even impeachment? This nation is in the midst of two wars authorized by Congress. For Ms. Pelosi to flout the Constitution in these circumstances is not only shortsighted; it may well be a felony, as the Logan Act has been part of our criminal law for more than two centuries. It is time to enforce the law! Speaker Pelosi must immediately be investigated with the same zeal and tenacity Patrick Fitzgerald showed when he dogged Lewis "Scooter" Libby even though no underlying crime had been committed... the same zeal and tenacity that liberals are now showing as they ridiculously pursue President Bush and the Attorney General over the totally legal firings of U.S. District Attorneys. (12 Apr 2007)
The question is frequently raised as to whether Mitt Romney's religion (he's a Mormon) should disqualify him as a presidential candidate. A recent poll indicated that 12% of voters (15% of Democrats, who claim to be so fond of "diversity") believe Romney's Mormon religion is a reason to disqualify him from being President. Ignorance is the root of bigotry. It would appear that many Americans have an egregious lack of knowledge and understanding of the Mormon religion. I suggest they get some solid information about the Mormon church from a source other than another religious bigot. May I remind all the religious bigots (most of whom profess to be Christians but don't act Christian) out there that the US Constitution (a document too few Americans, including politicians, read and understand) specifically says, "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." That includes, Catholics, Moslems, Protestants, Buddhists, Atheists, Jews, and even Mormons (who clearly are Christians). Suppose Romney's politics matched your own perfectly and his opponent were the opposite in nearly every aspect. Would you still oppose the Mormon? Although a Mormon myself, I'm not ready to support Governor Romney for president. My reservations are based on his historical stand on certain critical political issues -- not his religion. Personally, my vote will be for the candidate who best represents what I feel is best for the future of the nation and whose record best demonstrates support and defense of the US Constitution. BTW, isn't it interesting that of the current front runners for the Republican nomination, Romney is the only one who hasn't had multiple wives? (2 Apr 2007)
I thank my House Representative, Jim Matheson (Democrat), for his courage in opposing this week's irresponsible legislation to set a withdrawal date for the conflict in Iraq. This bill is irresponsible because it lets our enemies and allies alike know that radical leftist segments (the same crowd that pressed for our surrender in Viet Nam) of our nation are willing to surrender to terror. It is an egregious effort by Congress to again micromanage our military efforts from their comfortable offices on Capitol Hill. The bill is also irresponsibly packed with pork unrelated to the war, but designed to bribe fence-sitting, but unscrupulous representatives into voting for surrender. This bill clearly is motivated only by hatred and bitterness in some circles toward the president -- not of for a concern for what is best for the United States, Iraq, or the world in general. Governor Mitt Romney correctly observed, "Democrats in Washington have established a dangerous policy that essentially provides the enemy a planning calendar with a date certain surrender. By voting for such a policy, they have jeopardized our chances for success and endangered the mission of establishing democracy and defeating the terrorists in Iraq." Again, thank you, Representative Matheson, for your courage. (24 Mar 2007)
I oppose the House resolution related to the troop surge in Iraq. The anti-war actions of Congressional Democrats is clearly intended to ensure a defeat in Iraq for the sole purpose of embarrassing Bush -- not for any other reason. Reports are now coming to light regarding anti-Vietnam-war-style abusive treatment of our servicemen and service women. The selfish and childish anti-Bush actions of Democrats in Congress are the direct cause of this abuse. (15 Feb 2007)
I am shocked that Speaker Pelosi would think that she should have personal use of a C-32 (a Boeing 757 configured for 45 passengers in business-class seating and a crew of up to 16) which costs as much as $22,000 per hour to operate. Her predecessor flew on a much cheaper, but still luxurious C-20 (a Gulfstream III which seats about 12 passengers and five crew members). If a C-20 was good enough for Speaker Hasert, it's good enough for Speaker Pelosi. Her request for a C-32 must be rejected. (8 Feb 2007)
I am very concerned about the latest federal "hate-crime" bill introduced in the US House of Representatives, This bill is a dangerous threat to Constitutionally protected rights. HR-254, introduced by Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas, (ironically, one of the most hateful people in Congress) would make certain types of speech a federal offense. So-called "hate crimes" legislation is dangerous for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the blatant unconstitutionality of such laws. "Hate crime" laws would allow federal "thought police" to interfere in the law enforcement authority of states and localities -- something our founders were clear was not to be allowed. HR-254 would require every state to pass and enforce "anti-hate" laws. It would outlaw stating a "bias" against certain "federally protected" groups such as homosexuals. So-called "hate crime" laws could even used to categorize the Bible as "hate literature" and preaching from it would be "hate speech" because of references to religious teachings on homosexuality or other harmful behaviors. Bible-believing Christians could become criminals simply because they spoke out about their beliefs. To assume a crime is more serious because some prosecutor or legislator believes the perpetrator is a bigot trivializes crimes (and their victims) committed by non-bigots. I therefore oppose any so-called hate-crimes legislation. Congress and the President must ensure HR-254 and any other so-called "hate-crime" legislation are rejected immediately and completely. (5 Feb 2007)
SB190, sponsored by Senator Gene Davis (D-Salt Lake) would make animal cruelty a felony offense. We recently brought into our home a dog that had previously lost a leg to a shotgun blast. As the owner of such a dog, I cannot condone abuse or cruelty toward animals. While I am repulsed by mistreatment of animals, I am also unalterably opposed to making such behavior a felony offense. I predict that if enacted, this change will be misused by "animal-rights" activists against farmers, butchers, hunters, state wildlife management employees, gardeners who are trying to protect their apple trees, and even pet owners. (I wonder if that is the true intent of Senator Davis.) There seems to be a rapidly growing feel-good movement in the legislature (particularly among Democrats from the big city) to elevate every little offense to a felony. There is also a movement to humanize animals and endow them with the same rights as man while dehumanizing humans and diminishing their rights. These movements must be stopped immediately. I cannot accept the proposal to elevate animal abuse to the level of a felony so long as this society condones the dismemberment and killing of millions of unborn humans every year. Ironically, the people who favor harsh punishment for animal abusers also oppose fully informing pregnant women and girls about the nature of abortion and the human characteristics of the child they intend to kill. These same people even oppose informing the parents of pregnant girls of the pregnancy and the abortion. Only when the animal-rights hypocrites get their priorities in order with regard to human rights can they legitimately ask for such legislation. The legislature and the governor must reject SB190 and any other attempt to elevate non-felony crimes to the level of a felony. (3 Feb 2007)
Violent crimes (murder, rape, aggravated assault, robbery, kidnapping, etc.) have been felonies for a long time. I am concerned by the trend, in recent years, to felonize all sorts of relatively minor acts. Utah's HB70 is another effort to felonize relatively minor acts. This bill deals with “assaulting a police officer”, elevating this offense from a class-A misdemeanor (which it currently is) to a 3rd-degree felony. Bear in mind that “assault” does not mean striking someone, or tackling him to the ground, or kicking him, etc. That’s known as "battery", or "assault and battery". What HB70 deals with is simple assault, which can actually be a very minor act involving zero physical contact and no injury. Utah's legislators must amend HB70 to make it clear that is is dealing with physically attacking a person the perpetrator knows to be a police officer. (19 Jan 2007)
The "Fairness Doctrine" was a federal regulation imposed by the Federal Communications Commission from 1949 to 1987. It required broadcasters to present both sides of a controversial issue. While the rule was in place, radio and TV stations could face hefty fines if their stations aired controversial statements on public affairs without providing equal time to opposing viewpoints. This 38-year restriction was in direct opposition to the freedom of speech intended by our founders and which they protected with the Constitution and its First Amendment. When this rule was dropped in 1987, it led directly to the rise of talk radio that enabled average citizens to have their voices heard across America. Today, liberals are enraged by the fact that their message has failed to find a profitable market in the free-enterprise system and want to use what they call "fairness" to silence those voices which have found an audience. So, they want to restore the so-called "Fairness Doctrine". The intent of this kind of legislation is to silence the voice of free speech heard today on talk radio. Any effort now to return to the "Fairness Doctrine" would reverse 20 years of free speech rights enjoyed by citizens. This is fundamentally a First Amendment question. The "Fairness Doctrine" was not appropriately named; it was unfair in inhibiting broadcasters' and callers' free speech rights. It is not "fair" to impose any restriction on freedom of speech. Congress and the Whitehouse must reject any and all "Fairness Doctrine" bills as would effectively silence the voice of free speech heard today on talk radio. (18 Jan 2007)
The US Senate is poised to pass Senate Bill 1 (section 220), which would effectively restrict many organizations from providing constituents with information on bills in Congress. Apparently, the cowards in Congress are tired of getting constituent mail, e-mails and phone calls, and Senate Bill 1(Section 220) is designed to keep information from constituents that might inspire them to call or write their senators. This (as well as the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill ( is NOT the way to address the egregious ethical behavior that plagues Congress. And every senator knows it! Like the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill, this bill is nothing but a scheme to protect the incumbents in Congress! I would think that Senators would welcome the opportunity to hear from their constituency. Instead, Congress is like a bunch of cockroaches scurrying for the darkness of voter ignorance. Trying to control the information voters receive from various groups -- liberal or conservative -- is just plain wrong and is contrary to the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. Congress and the Whitehouse must reject Senate Bill 1 (Section 220). (11 Jan 2007)
I've noticed an interesting phenomenon during the aftermath of recent elections. When when the Democrats lose, they blame voter fraud and irregularities and they accuse the Republicans of stealing the election. When Republicans lose, they look inward to see what they did wrong and what they need to do to correct their course. (11 Nov 2006)
Some Republican leaders are blaming this years election losses on an anti-incumbent movement. I believe that analysis is wrong, even dishonest or delusional. Nobody gets voted out if he or she is doing what the voters sent him or her to do. Democrats succeeded in this election only because of an arrogant and politically tin-eared Republican establishment in Washington. In the handling of key issues (including those listed below) the White House and Congressional Republicans displayed incompetence and even failed in getting the word out on accomplishments!
• This was a repudiation of waging a politically correct war with one hand self-tied behind your back. We need a new approach in Iraq, and elsewhere, that better ensures winning and defeating the terrorists or at least better reporting on our progress there. Perhaps today's Rumsfeld resignation is a step in the right direction. Even though most Americans support the effort, they are frustrated with the progress. American generals, not American lawyers should be running the war. No American soldier's life is worth a mosque. And, if Iraq won't step up to the plate and fight for their own freedom from terrorism, what are we fighting for? You're either all in...or get out.
• They failed to execute meaningful follow-through on Social Security reform. Instead, Republicans strapped the biggest "entitlement" program on our backs since Lyndon Johnson (A senior prescription drug program that we cannot afford).
• The conservatives who came into power in 1994 determined to clean up the corruption in Washington, yet they became as corrupt as the people they had run out of town. Republicans in Congress failed to stop practices (such as earmarking in the appropriations process) that let corruption run free. They squandered our tax money on these "earmarks" like drunken sailors.
• When scandal hit, they handled it badly and winked at a committee chairman's attempt to use the Congressional page school as a teenage brothel recruitment program.
• Republicans went to great lengths to ignore and alienate their base on illegal immigration. They let our nation become infested with countless millions of illegal aliens and would have us believe the solution is a 700 mile fence along a 2,000 mile border. 33% of America's prison populations are non-citizens and 95% of LA's outstanding murder warrants are for illegal aliens!
• They failed to establish English as the official language. The Republican Whitehouse and many Republican Congressmen even accommodate illegals by posting websites in Spanish!
• They failed to protect the traditional family.
• Instead of reducing the size and power of the federal government, the actually grew the government!
• Republicans failed to get the UN under control and seat an ambassador to that body.
• They neglected to impeach renegade federal judges.
• They failed to stop Congressional misuse of the Constitution's Commerce Clause to encroach on states' rights and individual freedoms.
• They failed to restore basic personal freedoms such as freedom of religion, property rights (Kelo v. City of New London), freedom of speech (repeal McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform), and gun ownership.
For all of this Republicans deserve to be punished by the voters. The Republicans in Congress proved that they don't deserve to be the majority party. They continue to ignore the constituency that elected them. The Republicans lost not because the Democrats are better, but because Americans, even the most radical Democrats, hold the Republicans to a higher standard. And they failed to live up to that standard. It's bad when anyone in public office betrays their trust, but particularly bad with a conservative, because a primary principle of conservatism is the preservation of the moral order. When conservatives misbehave and betray the trust, it goes to the very definition of who we are. It goes to our very character. And that's why it is so egregious. I think that is why people were so grossly offended by it. And it shows in the election returns. As Casey Stengel said, "Most ball games are lost, not won." This wasn't the country saying it wanted to go further left; it was the country saying Republicans had already taken the country too far left. This wasn't about taking the country in a new direction; it was about correcting the GOP's course. This wasn't swing voters swinging over to the left. This was conservative voters swinging back to the right. Congressional Republicans must completely purge the feckless and inept Republican leadership and hope that a punished and chastened Republican party will learn from this painful lesson that they can no longer betray or ignore their political base. (8 Nov 2006)
The US Constitution gives very specific and narrow responsibilities and authority to Congress and the Federal government. One area of authority given to Congress is to regulate interstate and international commerce. The US Constitution grants no authority to enact criminal legislation at the federal level except for postal fraud, counterfeiting, piracy, and treason. According to the Tenth Amendment, the federal government of the United States has the power to regulate only matters specifically delegated to it by the Constitution. Whence, then, does Congress presume to get its authority to enact criminal legislation? Usually by misusing the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Congress has no authority in defining, prosecuting or punishing crime except for very specific crimes: postal fraud, counterfeiting, piracy, and treason. Congress must immediately cease to misuse the Commerce Clause and rescind all federal legislation enacted through this misuse. That legislation is unlawful anyway! (5 Nov 2006)
One of Utah's candidates for the US Senate, Roger Price (Personal Choice Party) said to the Gun Owners of Utah, "The misconception that US Citizens have constitutional rights, including our right to expressive conduct, suggests that another person or group of persons may give our rights to us or take them away by means of Constitutional changes or legislation. That is wrong! We individual humans (all mankind) have unalienable rights, not constitutional." As Mr. Price said, the US Constitution does not give or establish any personal right -- instead, it guarantees those rights by restricting the government from infringing on the rights given to us by our Creator. Sadly, due to our collective ignorance stemming from our grossly inadequate government schools, few Americans understand this concept, or most other concepts upon which the Constitution is based. Our founders believed that rights come from our existence as sons and daughters of God. Most governments infringe on those rights by allowing the king to control them. Our founders reversed that process by establishing that rights are inherent in man and man may establish governments and delegate to them only the rights necessary for government to function. This delegation of personal rights and authority in no way diminishes the citizen's rights. However, due to the neglect and ignorance of our voters, we are, indeed, losing rights by selecting politicians who usurp our rights. To illustrate our founder's concept of personal rights, Mr. Price has a page on his website quoting an essay by Rich Lowry on the right to privacy. Mr. Price takes issue with Mr. Lowry's claim that the US Constitution does not guarantee a right to privacy. It is true, as Judge Robert Bork said, the Constitution does not specify a right to privacy. But that does not mean that this right does not exist. The right to privacy is simply one of the countless unalienable rights bestowed upon us by our creator, most of which are not enumerated in the Constitution. It is true that this right to privacy has been erroneously and maliciously construed by the courts to justify immoral acts, such as elective abortion. But the right to privacy (and all other inherent rights) is just as real as any right specifically enumerated in the Constitution. I applaud Mr. Price's desire to "remove all laws of oppression or suppression, not amend them with other laws!" We desperately need people in Congress who understand and will fight for the US Constitution, who will fight to reverse the attacks on our rights, and who will put most current legislators into retirement. (4 Nov 2006)
The leadership (the most radical 5-10% on the left) of the Democrat Party is completely out of touch with the values and goals of mainstream Americans in general, and Utahns in particular. I challenge anyone to identify even one Republican member of Congress who is so out of touch with American values as those Democrats who will take chairmanship of the most powerful committees in Congress (Boxer, Conyers, Dingell, Frank, Leahy, Rangel, etc.) and leadership of the House (Pelosi) and Senate (Reid) if the Democrats win the majority. Unfortunately, neither the remainder of the Democrat Party nor the majority of the Republican Party has the will and courage to fight that radical leftist turn. That radical left is poised to take control of Congress in just a few days. I have asked my Democrat Congressmen, Jim Matheson, what he will do to to fight this extreme-leftist takeover of our nation. His silence has been telling. If, before election day, I do not hear his plan to fight the radical leftist takeover of Congress, I will be obliged to vote against him. (31 Oct 2006)
I think many Americans and, especially, the politicians have taken their eyes off the ball with what's most important in this (2006), or any other, election. I agree the war on terror is important as is supporting the troops and their mission in Southwest Asia. But, this election is about the same issues as other recent elections: values and morality.
• It is about preserving the Constitution and the individual liberties it guarantees such as freedom of speech (including for conservatives, students and talk radio and the muzzling effect of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act), freedom of religion (including for Christians), the right to keep and bear arms (it's not just about hunting or other sporting purposes), the right to life (abortion should not be simply another form of birth control).
• It is about the protection of this nation from foreign invaders (illegal immigrants) who are unwilling to assimilate into our society.
• It is about protecting our freedoms and sovereignty from the UN other anti-American entities (ie IANSA).
• It is about demanding that the President, all Federal judges and all members of Congress to understand and live up to their oath to support and defend the US Constitution as written.
• It is about ever expanding government and its intrusiveness.
• It is about Congress' abuse of the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) in the US Constitution in order to circumvent the 10th Amendment and to intrude into areas never authorized or intended by the Constitution.
• It is about the 14th Amendment giving citizenship to freed slaves in 1868 -- not children of illegal immigrants in 2006.
• It is about requiring Americans to be responsible for their own welfare whenever possible -- no more "entitlements" for able-bodied people who won't work -- make them do the work that we supposedly need "guest workers" for!
• It is about pressing "1" for English and "2" for Spanish.
• It is about voters who need ballots and other government forms printed in languages other than English.
• It is about judicial activism.
• It is about forcing Boy Scouts to accept atheism and homosexuality.
• It is about protecting our children from indoctrination and our industrial base from destruction by terrorists (ie Al Gore) working under the banner of environmentalism.
• It is about the systematic destruction of the family which is the basic unit of society.
• It is about a dumbed-down education that produces graduates, even college graduates who are functionally illiterate -- especially with regard to our heritage and the plans our nation's founders had for us. Instead, our students are systematically brainwashed and indoctrinated in socialism and atheism at taxpayer expense.
I could go on, but suffice it to say that the war on terror is a mere side show when compared to the importance of all these other issues to America's future. The people gave Republicans the majority in order to accomplish these goals. They have failed. They have demonstrated that the Republican party does not deserve to be the majority party. Any Republican who loses his or her race this year will have lost because they have taken their eye off the ball. Any Republican who wins will win only by the power of incumbency. (19 Oct 2006)
The portion of Congressmen who have the courage to do what is right and what the nation needs is extremely small. The Republicans were voted into the majority because people grew unhappy with the direction the Democrats have taken the nation. Did that switch in parties make a difference in the direction of the nation? Not a bit. Few Republicans stand up to the bullies in Congress such as Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, John McCain, and John Conyers and bullies outside Congress such as George Soros, Jesse Jackson, James Carville, Howard Dean, Al Sharpton, and Michael Moore. As a lifelong Republican, I have sadly concluded that the Republicans in Congress have demonstrated that they do not deserve to be the majority party. They have a bit over a month to prove otherwise. (26 Sep 2006)
There is a move in Arizona to turn the election process into a lottery. Inducing people to vote for the purpose of entering a lottery is contrary to the civic rights, privileges and duties inherent in our citizenship. In my opinion, the voting process already includes too many participants who are ignorant of the issues and the agendas of the candidates. Too many voters already cast votes based on their personal selfish interests as opposed to what is best for the nation as a whole. The voting process clearly already has too much corruption and fraud. To turn elections into lotteries will only exacerbate these problems. If a person needs the incentive of a lottery to vote, he or she doesn't take voting seriously. And I don't want anyone who doesn't take his or her vote seriously to vote against me. I don't see either a high voter turnout or a low voter turnout as inherently a problem, so long as those who vote do so with a reasonable understanding of the consequences of their vote. Instead of a lottery, I favor a voter test. Each voter should be able to correctly answer simple questions such as: "What is the name of your governor?" "What are the three branches of government?" "Who pays for government programs?" If a potential voter can't answer such basic questions -- in English -- he or she has no business influencing the direction of this nation. Congress must take immediate steps to prohibit any reward for voting, including a lottery. (20 Jul 2006)
In 1996, US Supreme Court Justice stated, "What secret knowledge, one must wonder, is breathed into lawyers when they become Justices of this [Supreme] Court, that enables them to discern that a practice which the text of the Constitution does not clearly proscribe, and which our people have regarded as constitutional for 200 years, is in fact unconstitutional? ... Day by day, case by case, [the Court] is busy designing a Constitution for a country I do not recognize." To help repair this serious problem US Representative Todd Akin has submitted the "Judicial Conduct Act". The Judicial Conduct Act provides certain specific definitions of the grounds for impeachment of federal judges and of the termination of their terms of office due to lack of "good behavior." Specifically, this Act would designate that the entering or enforcement of orders and decisions in contradiction of the original understanding of the United States Constitution or, based upon judgments, laws, agreements, or pronouncements or foreign institutions, governments, or multilateral organizations, are impeachable offenses. One of the greatest threats to our nation and its Constitution arises if the other two branches of government continue to fail at holding the courts accountable to their Constitutional mandate, its inherent restrictions, and their own oath of office. Judges who legislate from the bench subvert our republican form of government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and threaten all these legislative aims. Therefore, we must immediately call for an end to Judicial Activism. Congress and the Whitehouse must immediately hold Federal judges accountable for their actions by enacting and enforcing the "Judicial Conduct Act". (22 Jun 2006)
The Republican Governor of Maryland, Robert L. Ehrlich, expressed his intolerant attitude toward those who hold different views from himself concerning homosexuality and homosexual marriage by firing a state Metro board member, a Catholic, who stated that his religious beliefs were opposed to homosexuality. The employee reportedly was not on the job, but expressing his personal opinion on his own time on a talk show. I find it strange that he would say his administration promotes tolerance, but is intolerant to those who hold different views. It is disturbing that the thought police have so thoroughly penetrated Maryland that "diversity" means acceptance of anything but mainstream Christianity. The dismissed employee must immediately be re-instated in his position on the Metro board and be allowed to express his personal views just as the governor allows those who hold a different view of homosexual behavior to express their views. The homosexual sourpuss who complained, Metro board member Jim Graham, must be reprimanded or terminated for his insensitivity toward non-homosexuals. (16 Jun 2006)
According to a recent AP article, just 33 percent of the public approves of Bush's job performance. Just one-fourth of the public approves of the job Congress is doing. A majority of Americans now say they want Democrats rather than Republicans to control Congress (51 percent to 34 percent). Even six of 10 conservatives say America is headed in the wrong direction! It is so bad that GOP pollster Whit Ayres admitted that "It’s going to take some events of significance to turn this around. I don't think at this point you can talk your way back from these sorts of ratings." The GOP cannot recover from this by compromising with Ted Kennedy, John McCain, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Arlen Specter or any other liberal on any issue including immigration, gun rights, activist judges, taxes, pork-barrel spending and homosexual marriage. Republican Congressmen must immediately take a courageous stand for what is right and refuse to betray the mandate proclaimed by the voters of the red states and the red counties. And, they must effectively explain their agenda and their results to the American people. Don't rely on leftist news readers such as Judy Woodward and Katie Couric to say how great the GOP is. Otherwise, the Republican party does not deserve to be the majority party and is doomed in the coming election. (23 May 2006)
Let me begin this rant by claiming that 53% of all statistics are made up. Given that disclaimer, I have determined that one-third of voters get their news and information through careful study of issues and political candidates through newspapers, radio and TV news, non-fiction radio and TV programs, books and magazines and discussions with other voters (including persons with opposing viewpoints) on a variety of issues. One-third of voters get their news and information from Jay Leno and David Letterman monologues, Hollywood sages (ie Barbara Streisand, Sean Penn, Pamela Anderson and Michael Moore), professional racists (ie Kweisi Mfume, Louis Farakhan, Al Sharpton, Cynthia McKinney, Ray Nagan and Jesse Jackson) and Marxist anti-American college professors and government school teachers. Finally, one-third of voters don't get any news or information at all! Consequently, the two-thirds of voters who make poorly informed choices in the voting booth are out-voting those of us who put in a little effort before voting. That is the primary reason we have our terrible government with excessive taxes and corrupt politicians. We have the democracy we deserve. It is my opinion that this problem can best be fixed with a voter test. The questions need not be difficult. For example, if you don't know your mayor's name or who pays for welfare handouts (working people and other taxpayers) or who is next in line for the presidency if both the president and vice president die, you don't get to vote. My voter test would help to reduce the number of ill-informed votes that cancel the voice of responsible voters every election. Unfortunately, it'll never happen because certain politicians (ie Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, Cynthia McKinney, Harry Reid, Conyers, Chuck Schumer, Frank Lautenberg, John Kerry, Dianne Feinstein, Richard Daley, Joseph Biden, John McCain, etc.) rely on a constituency consisting of a sizeable portion of idiots to stay in power. I honestly don't care if a well-informed voter makes a carefully reasoned vote that is contrary to mine--we need everybody's good ideas to make democracy work best. But those who don't know or understand the issues or the consequences of a candidate's agenda really need to stay home on election day for the good of the country. (20 May 2006)
Lobbying reform sounds like a good idea. Who could be against it? But "reform" means different things to different people, and there's the rub. What does lobbying "reform" mean to the political elites in Washington? It apparently means a chance to silence the American people. Yes, they don't want to hear from you and me. Members of the governing class seem to prefer the American people be silent, so we don't interfere with "governing." Does that definition of "reform" sound good to you? After analyzing the 50-page bill, Dick Dingman of the Free Speech Coalition warns, "While Members of Congress beat their chests about their righteousness and the need to root out lobbying corruption, the bill they are considering is fraught with potential problems for innocent parties, including many nonprofit organizations.... [HR 4975] would criminalize a citizen's failure to register as a lobbyist. The definitions as to who is required to register are, and will continue to be confusing. Now, persons contacting the Hill on legislation, or contacting the Executive Branch on matters of policy, can be threatened with criminal prosecution. This is a trap for the American public who does not carry a lawyer on retainer. The likely effect will be to chill contact with government -- just what they want." Yes, the governing class wants you and me to leave them alone. HR 4975 is not the kind of reform I want. Silencing the American people by criminalizing a citizen's failure to register as a lobbyist is absurd. You and I shouldn't have to "register" to be allowed to contact our Congressmen's offices. The US House will vote on the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act (HR 4975) on Thursday, April 27, 2006. I strongly urge a "no" vote (while I'm still allowed to speak). Then, repeal the McCain-Finegold Act. (26 Apr 2006)
Republicans in the Whitehouse and the Congress are failing to live up to the mandate of the recent elections. They are not adequately pushing conservative agendas and ideals. They are not adequately explaining to the public what those ideals are and why they are important. Instead, they are allowing the liberals to stay on the front page. Republicans are allowing themselves to be forced into compromise or defeat. Consequently, the Republican party does not appear to deserve to be the majority party. The only meaningful Republican successes since the 2000 election seem to have been 2 Supreme Court appointments. (24 Apr 2006)
Congress continues to demonstrate either ignorance or apathy regarding what recent elections were about. Most Congressmen refuse to acknowledge that we demand change:
• Smaller government,
• Cut taxes and stop spending tax money on programs for which there is no Constitutional authority or mandate,
• Restore and protect individual liberties including the right to keep and bear arms,
• Stop illegal immigration and deport all illegals,
• Stop handouts to able-bodied non-workers including illegals,
• Stop the processes whereby incumbents are routinely reelected contrary to the will of the people and to good of the nation,
• Preserve the sanctity of traditional marriage and family,
• Stop runaway judicial activism and impeach all activist judges,
• Learn to distinguish between the best interests of the nation as expressed by the voice of the majority and the moral destruction demanded by the screams of the ultra-liberals,
• Have the courage to do what is right,
• Remember and follow the oath taken by all Congressmen to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic [and to] bear true faith and allegiance to the same",
• Refuse to give up sovereignty to the United Nations. (17 Apr 2006)
Congressmen have largely grown out of touch with the realities of life in the United States. The only reality most Congressmen seem to know is that of wealth and greed, since that is that class of people who seem to get Congress' ear. In an attempt to control the corruptive influence of wealthy donors, Congress has passed legislation such as the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002. Unfortunately, what this sort of legislation has consistently done is muzzle the common man. We commoners don't have the financial clout of the likes of George Soros, so we try to express our opinions through groups such as the NRA, Americans for Tax Reform, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, and the National Taxpayers Union. Instead of campaign finance reform, what this type of legislation has really done is to further concentrate the influence of powerful political insiders and to make it harder for thoughtful citizens to vote out those politicians who are harmful to our nation and to individual liberties. Vote "YES" for free speech. (10 Apr 2006)
Thanks to CSPAN, I have followed the recent Supreme Court confirmation hearings. I am disgusted by what I've seen. I am convinced that the judicial confirmation process is broken. The blame clearly lies with the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee. Their focus during the hearings has been on political issues (the role of Congress, not the courts) rather than on judicial competence, temperament and integrity. The antics and comments of some Democrats were shameful and juvenile -- especially Senators Kennedy and Biden. All Senators, particularly the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee need to remember what Adlai E. Stevenson, a Democrat, once said, "Howling is not a substitute for thinking." (24 Jan 2006)
It seem that the loudest voices against Bush judicial nominees are most concerned about maintaining abortion as a contraceptive option. (This nation has killed some 40 million babies since the Roe v Wade ruling in 1973.) States have made many legislative attempts to restrict abortion, only to be overruled by liberal judges. However, as far as I've been able to determine, there is no legislation that guarantees a right to abort a baby -- only judicial rulings. My simple solution is to challenge the so-called "freedom of choice" crowd in Congress and state legislatures to introduce legislation that would guarantee a right to "choice". If their stand on abortion is so good such legislation will pass on its merits and the friends of abortion will no longer need to seek out radical judges with poor judgment. Pro-life Senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee must make this point should abortion be brought up in any judicial confirmation hearing. And, I challenge pro-abortion congressmen to introduce legislation that will guarantee a woman's right to abortion and stop hindering the confirmation of qualified federal judicial nominees. Stop using the courts to make laws! (16 Nov 2005)
It is becoming increasingly clear that a substantial portion of Republicans in Congress, especially the Senate, don't have the courage to stand up to the bullying of a handful of shameless Democrats on key issues such as the handling of judicial nominees and even Senate rules that don't square with the US Constitution. In recent elections we in the "red" states have sent a mandate to Washington which is being ignored. I have become convinced that the Republican Party doesn't deserve to be the majority party. (19 Apr 2005)
This morning, I heard a rather unsettling bit on the radio. It seems some 95% of respondents to a poll felt it would be wise to conduct a thorough inventory of Whitehouse property after the Clintons and their staffs leave. It's rather sad that our nation's political leadership has dropped to such a low level that we can't even trust them to not steal the furniture, dishes, and silverware. I think the poll is right on -- count everything, right down to the toilet paper and bath towels. We can't trust these people. And to think that they are among the brightest and most promising people in this nation! Sad. Very sad. (17 Dec 1999)
Return to Top