In Support of Freedom and Our Constitution

Health Care Cost

2010-03-22T13:14:00.000-07:00

It's all in the presentation:

"The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the legislation will reduce the deficit by $143 billion over 10 years." Story
"It will reduce our deficit by more than $100 billion over the next decade, and more than $1 trillion in the decade after that." Pres. Obama speech
"The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that it will lower the cumulative deficit by $138 billion over the next decade, and by $1.2 trillion in the decade after that." Story
"The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the legislation awaiting the president's approval would cut deficits by an estimated $143 billion over a decade." Story

None of the above stories mention how much taxes will increase, but this one does: "In all, the bill would generate $409.2 billion in additional taxes by 2019." Story

So, by taking $409.2 billion from the American people over the next ten years, the government can reduce the deficit by up to $143 billion. Something tells me that if you gave me $409.2 billion, I could find a way to reduce the deficit by $409.2 billion over the next ten years.

Ronald Reagan on Socialized Medicine

2009-08-14T08:46:00.000-07:00

Listen to an address from Ronald Reagan about national healthcare here, courtesy of youtube.

As we set ourselves to celebrate freedom, Congress sets itself to take freedom away

2009-07-02T20:11:00.000-07:00

The 4th of July holiday is about independence, freedom. As we're making plans to celebrate our freedom this weekend, Congress is working on it's own plans to limit that freedom.

Both the U.S. Senate and House are working on health care legislation. In at least one proposal, federal law would require us to have health insurance. In other words, if you didn't pay for health insurance, you would be breaking the law and you would pay a $1000 fine (per year). Story

This is an outrageous attack on our freedom being sold as a blessing.

The only thing the federal government has a constitutional right to make us pay for is taxes. The taxation power is specifically set out in the Constitution. In fact, it took a constitutional amendment to allow the income tax.

Congress has no constitutional authority to force people to purchase health insurance, especially under penalty of fine, and neither does the President.

It makes me wonder why the mainstream media, which relies so heavily on the First Amendment, doesn't care more about the Constitution. Just think what would happen if a reporter asked Senator Ted Kennedy or President Obama: "What provision in the Constitution are you relying on for the authority to require people to purchase health insurance?" Just think what would happen if a reporter asked this question for any of the recent headline making legislation coming out of Congress in the past year. The question doesn't have to attack like a cross-examining attorney; it is an honest inquiry. You can bet a politician, even though sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, will avoid a direct answer, knowing the Constitution provides no such authority, and say something like it is imperative for us to take care of the American people and provide affordable health care for all Americans. If this question were asked to enough elected official during network television news programs without honest answer, more people would realize the lack of authority, and I believe more people would be troubled by the government's actions.

In all seriousness, if the federal government gets away with forcing us to spend our money on something it deems important, what else could it force us to purchase? For example, could the government say everyone who owns a car must own at least one car that gets 30 mpg or at least one car that runs on an energy source other than gas? Maybe the government wouldn't do that for political reasons, but what would legally stop it?

This legislation will limit our freedom is other ways too. Employers will be required to provide health insurance plans. That means companies that don't current offer health insurance plans will either offer lower salaries, increased prices for goods and services, or both. Insurers will be required to accept new enrollees regardless of their current health status without the ability to charge higher rates. That means the rates for all people will increase. It also means smaller companies will face a more difficult time managing risk, which will result in the largest insurers dominating, which in turn will limit insurance plan options. In the end, we'll be paying more for insurance, more in taxes, more for consumer goods and services, and have fewer health plan options, while the federal government will have more money and more power.

By the way, don't be fooled on the comparisons to required auto insurance. Most importantly, auto insurance is required by state law, not by federal law. The federal government is limited in its power by the U.S. Constitution; States are not.

Taxation is not the answer

2009-06-27T22:05:00.000-07:00

Time magazine blames Proposition 13 for California's current fiscal problems. Story. Proposition 13 was passed by the voters of California over 30 years ago, setting limits on property tax increases. As Time and politicians would have the public believe, the problem is a shortage of money, which can simply be fixed by taxing the people more.

The truth is California still has some of the highest property tax rates in the nation, despite Proposition 13. It also has one of the highest sales tax rates in the nation.

California's real problem is decades of electing politicians who spend more money than they have. And now, even if the face of financial ruin, they still want to spend more money than they have.

The federal government has decided the California model is an exemplar to follow. Spend, spend, spend, whether the government has the money or not, in order to achieve important social goals. In order to pay for it, just tax, tax, tax.

One day, at this current spending pace by the federal government, our nation will be facing the same problem facing California today. Yet, the federal government seems unable to learn from history unfolding right before our eyes.

Freedom suffers when the people are in financial bondage.

California Same-Sex Marriage Decision

2009-05-26T15:29:00.000-07:00

The same court that used public policy to alter the meaning of the California Constitution in requiring California to accept same-sex marriage (post) has now decided not to use public policy to overturn the express will of the voters.

"In their 136-page majority ruling, the justices said it not their job to address whether the ban is wise public policy, but to decide whether it is constitutionally valid, while 'setting aside our own personal beliefs and values.'" Story

I applaud the court for upholding the rule of law.

Well, that didn't take long

2009-05-19T18:18:00.000-07:00

On April 29, 2009, I wrote:

Legislation will be passed that favors GM's new business model versus other car companies, such as mandatory percentages of green cars and high gas mileage vehicles.

Today, President Obama announced he would do just that. We just lost some freedom today, and some people cheered. Not me.

Stories:
GM bankruptcy plan eyes quick sale to gov't.

Obama's new rules will transform US auto fleet (excerpt below)

Some soccer moms will have to give up hulking SUVs. Carpenters will still haul materials around in pickup trucks, but they will cost more. Nearly everybody else will drive smaller cars, and more of them will run on electricity. The higher mileage and emissions standards set by the Obama administration on Tuesday, which begin to take effect in 2012 and are to be achieved by 2016, will transform the American car and truck fleet.

The new rules would bring new cars and trucks sold in the United States to an average of 35.5 miles per gallon, about 10 mpg more than today's standards. Passenger cars will be required to get 39 mpg, light trucks 30 mpg.

That means cars and trucks on American roads will have to become smaller, lighter and more efficient.

Constitution, Contracts, and Chrysler

2009-05-13T21:15:00.000-07:00

I read an excellent piece in the Wall Street Journal today by Todd Zywicki entitled: Chrysler and the Rule of Law, The Founders put the contracts clause in the Constitution for a reason.

Here's a snippet from the article:

The rule of law, not of men -- an ideal tracing back to the ancient Greeks and well-known to our Founding Fathers -- is the animating principle of the American experiment. While the rest of the world in 1787 was governed by the whims of kings and dukes, the U.S. Constitution was established to circumscribe arbitrary government power. It would do so by establishing clear rules, equally applied to the powerful and the weak.

Fleecing lenders to pay off politically powerful interests, or governmental threats to reputation and business from a failure to toe a political line? We might expect this behavior from a Hugo Chávez. But it would never happen here, right?

Until Chrysler.

For the rest of the article, go to http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124217356836613091.html

What Does the Government Really Want? (Part 2)

2009-05-01T19:38:00.000-07:00

The government has lent billions of dollars to banks recently. The government even asked banks that didn't need extra capital to partake to help restore confidence in the eyes of the public. Of course, as always happens, the government wants to control the activities of organizations that take federal money. Some bankers have quickly realized that they don't like the government's current involvement and they fear what other requirements may be imposed in the future. There is a simple, but not always easy, way to escape the bonds of debt--pay off the debt. Some of these banks are ready to pay off their debts now, but the government won't let them. Astoundingly, the banks have to get permission from the government to pay a debt owed the government, and the government has been taking its sweet time approving those requests. Story

Recently, news broke that the government doesn't want the loans repaid. The government wants to force these banks to give the government stock in the bank instead, making the government the majority shareholder in some instances. The phrases "bait and switch," "hostile takeover" and immoral come to mind. Story

It is worth noting that corporations have an obligation to maximize the profit for its shareholders, while the President's goal is to "spread the wealth around," i.e. taking from the "rich" and redistributing it to the middle class. How can a government controlled company meet both goals?

Socialism is government control of industry and the economy. Americans would not stand for an announcement from the government that is buying Wal-Mart or Microsoft or Disney. The government shouldn't even be investing in these companies. But now, in the name of the public good, the government loans money and turns the loan into a controlling ownership interest.

Could you imagine your mortgage company forcing you to remodel your house against your will by declaring itself the majority owner of your house by forcibly exchanging the money you still owe on the mortgage for an ownership interest in your house? It's preposterous of course, yet that's essentially what the government is telling banks.

This is not constitutional.
This is not the proper role of government.
This is what can happen when too much power falls into the hands of a central government.

As has been said many times, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have."

What Does The Government Really Want? (Part 1)

2009-04-29T20:00:00.000-07:00

The stated purpose of the government bailout has been to help stabilize the economy--an appealing end even among those who disagree about the means. What if the real purpose is to control the economy.

GM is struggling greatly as a company. Last Fall, GM asked for a government bailout. Some warned that throwing money at GM would be throwing money at a losing cause and that GM's proper course was bankruptcy. They also warned GM would be back in a few months for more money. The government ignored these warnings and provided GM with a $13 billion bailout. Story. As predicted, a few months later, GM was back with its hands out for another bailout. To date, GM has received 2 multi-billion bailouts and wants a third and now the government is suggesting that GM might need to go into bankruptcy. Story. This seems like a colossal government failure and it is, unless the government really wanted control.

While the taxpayers will bear the burden of paying for the lost bailout money, the government now controls a major automotive company. The government fired the CEO. And the government plans to force the company to build more "green" cars and less trucks, without regard to which vehicle makes more money for the company. ("GM was also told in no uncertain terms that it must learn to make money on smaller cars–not just trucks and sport-utility vehicles." Story) So now the government owns a company and has a business model not on making a profit, but on changing society. And when the company continues to fail from an economic standpoint, the government will continue to prop it up with taxpayer money and offer incentives and rebates to people who buy their cars. Legislation will be passed that favors GM's new business model versus other car companies, such as mandatory percentages of green cars and high gas mileage vehicles. Energy prices will be forced higher through government regulation, making the higher price of green cars seem more appealing. And somewhere, Atlas shrugged.

This is part of what Obama means when he says he wants to "rebuild America."

Related stories:
Government Motors?
GM could become leaner, government-owned company
GM told to prep for bankruptcy filing: report
U.S. Squeezes Auto Creditors
Bankruptcy Leads Possible Plans for GM, Chrysler
Is Obama's Green Push Forcing GM to Shed a Profitable Brand?
Obama adds 'green' to bailout terms
Obama to GM CEO Wagoner: You're Fired!

Government for the Gull-ible

2009-03-15T20:33:00.000-07:00

Words of wisdom in the face of mounting government handouts:

“In our friendly neighbor city of St. Augustine great flocks of sea gulls are starving amid plenty. Fishing is still good, but the gulls don’t know how to fish. For generations they have depended on the shrimp fleet to toss them scraps from the nets. Now the fleet has moved. …

“The shrimpers had created a Welfare State for the … sea gulls. The big birds never bothered to learn how to fish for themselves and they never taught their children to fish. Instead they led their little ones to the shrimp nets.

“Now the sea gulls, the fine free birds that almost symbolize liberty itself, are starving to death because they gave in to the ‘something for nothing’ lure! They sacrificed their independence for a handout.

“A lot of people are like that, too. They see nothing wrong in picking delectable scraps from the tax nets of the U.S. Government’s ‘shrimp fleet.’ But what will happen when the Government runs out of goods? What about our children of generations to come?

“Let’s not be gullible gulls. We … must preserve our talents of self-sufficiency, our genius for creating things for ourselves, our sense of thrift and our true love of independence."

"Fable of the Gullible Gull,” Reader’s Digest, Oct. 1950, 32
__________________________________________

"The practice of coveting and receiving unearned benefits has now become so fixed in our society that even men of wealth, possessing the means to produce more wealth, are expecting the government to guarantee them a profit. Elections often turn on what the candidates promise to do for voters from government funds. This practice, if universally accepted and implemented in any society, will make slaves of its citizens.

"We cannot afford to become wards of the government, even if we have a legal right to do so. It requires too great a sacrifice of self-respect and political, temporal, and spiritual independence. ...

"Whenever we get into a situation which threatens our self-reliance, we will find our freedom threatened as well. If we increase our dependence, we will find an immediate decrease in our freedom to act."

Marion G. Romney, October 1982 (Speech).

Big Brother 2.0: Big Mommy and Daddy

2009-03-02T08:58:00.000-08:00

Here's a headline from last Wednesday worth spreading around:

Boxer Seeks to Ratify U.N. Treaty That May Erode U.S. Rights
Sen. Barbara Boxer is pushing the Obama administration to move forward with ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, a controversial treaty that has never gained much support in the U.S. Story

Spending Policy

2009-02-25T19:30:00.000-08:00

President Obama laid out 4 areas his administration will focus on during his address to Congress this week: the economy, education, energy/climate change, and health care. Speech. He could have limited himself to one: spend like no one has ever seen before.

He pledges to cut the budget deficit, now at about $1 trillion, in half by the end of his first term. Considering that the federal budget deficit has never exceeded $500 million in the history of America until this year, that should be easy for someone who wants to trim the deficit. Story. In 2007, the deficit was less than $150 million. He also pledges to get the economy going again, by pressing forward with increased government spending that history has shown does not work - and we will be paying for it in higher taxes and higher inflation.

He wants the federal government to improve education. The federal government has no Constitutional authority over local schools. Story. This is the classic, "I work for the federal government so I must be smarter than local leaders" attitude. What qualifications does he and his administrative have that make them more qualified than local people to make educational decisions, especially since anything out of Washington will likely be a one-size fits all approach. So far his plan calls for more early childhood education, loosely known as government subsidized day care for kids under 5, and lower college costs through government subsidies.

He wants to the government to spend money to support the development of energy more cost-efficient than oil, and to speed up the process, he's going to use a cap-and-trade system to force the price of oil higher. The purpose is to prevent enough man-made, oil induced, climate change to save the Earth. In a recent poll, climate change came in last in what people thought the President should focus on, with only 31% of those surveyed in favor of it. Candidate Obama said a cap-and-trade program would bankrupt the coal industry. Story. Aside from the anti-global warming arguments, for someone who is so intent on taking government action to aid the economy, it's almost comical that he would simultaneously undermine it in this way.

The federal government's most expensive cost is "health and human services." The only other costs that are close are defense spending, social security, and payment of interest on national debt. Chart. And we want to add the cost of national health care?

One thing President Obama didn't mention in his speech is that the recently passed stimulus bill funnels billions of dollars to state governments on condition that the state governments maintain or increase their own spending for the long-term. This is a key reason why some Governors are balking at taking the money. Story; see also Story.

I guess now I understand why President Obama plans to take 4 years to get the budget deficit "down" to figures higher than we've ever had in history. So much to spend, so little time.
___________________________________
Oh yes, President Obama actually said "Not because I believe in bigger government — I don't."

National Health Insurance Care

2009-02-15T13:57:00.000-08:00

Some in our federal government would like to nationalize the health care system. Indeed, the recent 'stimulus' bill took some steps in that direction. Story. The basic philosophy is that everyone should be able to have health care regardless of ability to pay. Americans have already adopted a similar idea on a local level with respect to fire and police service.

Proponents of a national health care system believe or at least claim a superior system both in terms of caring for the needy and in the level of care for Americans generally. But we don't have to debate the merits of these claims -- they have already been proven false. The United States government already administers a national health care program -- for veterans. Consider for a moment, do you know of anyone who claims the VA system is superior or preferable to privately funded care? Is VA care the kind of health care Americans want? Is there any factual basis for believing a national health care system for everyone would be better than what the national veterans health care system provides?

Dr. Phil McGraw of The Dr. Phil Show recently exposed serious deficiencies in the care the VA system is giving vets (without ever referring to a national system for all Americans). Show. For example, vets who are suicidal and come in for care without an appointment are sent home and put on a waiting list for care. I mention Dr. Phil because he identified a key flaw in a government run health system. When you see a doctor in a private health care system, the doctor's economic incentive is to give you good care since that's how he makes money. By contrast, when the government gives care, it loses money (since it's the one paying for the care), so the government's incentive is to minimize the care given. In other words, the government has a similar incentive as a health insurance company to save costs, but without the threat of competition.

How Much Can You Inflate a Balloon Before It Pops?

2009-02-13T21:27:00.000-08:00

Our current and past President, along with our Congressmen over at least the last 6 years, are perhaps more guilty than any private citizen when it comes to living beyond one's means and going into debt for things that ultimately will cost more than can be paid back.

A report has the U.S. debt at $65.5 trillion. (Story) This debt has nearly doubled in the last 6 years, and the current amount exceeds the gross domestic product of the entire planet. This figure represents all money owed by the U.S., even if the payment isn't due today. For example, this amount includes all the social security checks that the government has promised to pay out in the future, but doesn't currently have the cash on hand to cover those future payments. Um, can I get my check now?

Oh yeah, the short term plan to pay for the 'stimulus' package is through a special tax called inflation. In simpler terms, we're going to print more money, which will make the money we already have worth less.

Tip of the Iceberg

2009-02-11T11:04:00.000-08:00

Only 10% of an iceberg is visible above water. This 10% may be appealing to look upon. The remaining 90% lies hidden from sight and presents the true danger to passing ships.

In much publicized news, the President ordered that bonuses for CEOs of companies receiving bailout funds would be capped at $400,000. This cap on CEO bonuses is the tip of the iceberg. It may be appealing to put limits on the pay of people who are receiving taxpayer money. Yet, we can be sure, that the government's regulation of private companies that receive bailout money will far exceed this salary issue.

The government is not merely acting as a bank lender who puts conditions on a loan to help protect the investment; the government has placed itself in the position of a major stockholder or member of the Board of the Directors that has the ability to meddle in the companies' ongoing operations. This is not the proper role of government.

Obama Domestic Policy and the Founding Fathers

2009-01-25T19:51:00.000-08:00

In his inauguration speech, President Obama twice referred to staying true to the "ideals" of our Founding Fathers, meaning the U.S. Constitution, although he never named the Constitution, instead calling it our "founding documents" and a "charter."

Here's the domestic policies President Obama espoused in his speech. For a moment, don't ask yourselves whether you think the policies are good or bad, just ask yourselves whether they represent the ideals in the Constitution.

The federal government will:
1) "Create new jobs"
2) "Build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines"
3) "Raise health care's quality and lower its cost"
4) "Harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories"
5) "Transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age"
6) Help "families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified"
7) With regard to spending, "spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day"
8) Keep a "watchful eye" on the free market
9) Do not favor "only the prosperous"
10) "Extend opportunity to every willing heart [for] our common good"
11) "Role back the specter of a warming planet"

Here's my take.
1) It is not the purpose of the federal government to create jobs. That is the responsibility of private industry.
2) It is the responsibility of cities and states to build roads and power grids, not the federal government. Why should the federal government pay to build a road in your hometown?
3) What arrogance to believe the federal government can improve the quality of health care beyond what private industry has done. The federal government has a long history of making industry worse by meddling, not better. If one believes government is a better answer to quality, then it appears to me that person wrongly believes socialism is superior to capitalism.
4) He's going to run private business and tell them how to operate? President Obama's plan is not about encouragement - it's about force.
5) Why should the federal government run our local elementary schools?
6) Yes, like social security. Ironically, President Obama mentioned no plan to do anything about social security, which almost every politician and person in America is doomed to fail in its current state.
7) Yes, I too believe spending our way out of debt is the answer to our economic woes. :)
8) The government already had a watchful eye on the market. In fact, some argue the government's involvement in the market is what contributed to the problem.
9) This is simply a different way of saying President Obama plans to raise taxes on the rich and give that money to people who don't pay federal income taxes.
10) Our forefathers saw America as a land of opportunity for every willing heart because there was no federal government getting in the way, not because a federal government promised opportunity or tried to grant it.
11) I won't repeat my posts related to global warming here.

I believe President Obama was right when he said, "America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebearers, and true to our founding documents," even though his actions show he does not believe it. He has a vision for America, and it is not grounded in the ideals of the Constitution.

Obama vs. JFK

2009-01-20T12:30:00.000-08:00

John F. Kennedy said: "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country."

Barack H. Obama said in his inauguration speech today: "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified." Speech

Yes, Obama is bringing change. Now is the time we are supposed to ask what our country can do for us, and according to Obama, it is the government's responsibility to provide it.
________________

Obama said at least one thing in support of freedom:

"America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebearers, and true to our founding documents."

It's very sad, however, that he's rejected his own words and decided not to remain faithful to the ideals of our forebearers and true to our founding documents.

When Less Is More

2009-01-05T12:05:00.000-08:00

The Heritage Foundation has a series of research articles on how to stimulate the economy. (List) In two words, the general answer is less government--lower permanent tax rates and reduced government spending--though our political leaders are proposing the opposite.

Here is a sampling of the titles of the articles:

Learning from Japan: Infrastructure Spending Won't Boost the Economy (Article)
Permanent Tax Relief - Not Tax 'Holidays' - Stimulates Economic Growth (Article)
Why Government Spending Does Not Stimulate Economic Growth (Article)
More Transportation Spending: False Promises of Prosperity and Job Creation (Article)
Lessons on How NOT to Stimulate the Economy (Article)

Merry Christmas!

2008-12-24T11:10:00.000-08:00

Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free ...

For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Galatians 5:1, 13-14

If The Bailout Feels Good, It Must Be Right

2008-12-20T07:40:00.000-08:00

President Bush just authorized $17 billion in loans to three American automobile companies. Story. Notably, the people didn't want this bailout. Story. Congress did not approve the bailout either. Story. Yet, President Bush thought he should step in and act to keep the automakers running until at least March so that the new President will have a chance to take more action. Story.

I have yet to see or hear a news story explaining where the President of the United States derives the authority to make loans. The Constitution grants the power to spend and the power to make laws to Congress. The President's role is to approve or veto acts of Congress, or even to lobby Congress for the passage of certain laws. See Constitution, Articles I & II. It is not the President's purview to take over the role of Congress when Congress fails to act in the way he desires. If Congress wants to bailout the auto industry - it has that power, whether or not it's a good idea; the President does not.

Sovereign Piracy

2008-12-18T12:12:00.000-08:00

Somali pirates have been in the news a lot recently -- seizing a Saudi oil tanker and its crew, seizing a Greek oil tanker and its crew, seizing a Ukrainian ship carrying Russian tanks and its crew, and even going after an American cruise ship, to name a few incidents.

Each of these affected nations has the sovereign right to do something about this problem without permission from any other country. Yet, the United States, of all countries, is operating under the idea that permission from the United Nations is the way to go. The U.N. gave its approval, but what if it hadn't? (Story) Simply put, other nations have no right to vote on actions that the United States determines is in its best interest to protect its people. Yet sadly, we appear to be voluntarily giving away our sovereign independence.

The Government Will Save Us - Just Trust It

2008-11-22T14:11:00.000-08:00

Obama has a plan to save the economy. It's the kind of plan that's been tried before and not worked. It's classic big government - the diminisher of freedom.

So what is the big plan to save the economy?

"Obama said his plan would rebuild roads and bridges and modernize schools while developing alternative energy sources and more efficient cars." Story

Huh?

Oh yeah, Obama forgot to mention he was going to implement this plan even if the economy didn't need saving. In other words, his plan has little to do with the economy. The current economic situation just provides a nice cover for bigger government spending. Story

There is a way to stimulate the economic that promotes freedom, reduces the role of government, and that has worked before. Let the private sector keep more of its own money so that it can use that money to create jobs.

Sadly, Obama isn't the only government official lacking this understanding. In a survey taken by elected officials, only 16% correctly answered this question: why "free markets typically secure more economic prosperity than government's centralized planning?" Story

A New Twist on Government Welfare

2008-11-14T11:04:00.000-08:00

The recession just officially started and already, some the city governments of Atlanta, Phoenix and Philadelphia want a federal bailout -- $50 billion in fact. The purpose? Prevent government layoffs and pay for public works projects. So instead of cutting costs, these cities want to increase expenses by $50 billion. Story

By the way, Phoenix, the largest of these three cities, has a $3.7 billion budget for the current fiscal year. (Budget) So these cities are asking the federal government for enough money to cover their entire budgets for several years.

Genesis 25:29-34

2008-11-13T19:50:00.000-08:00

The federal government has two answers to all our problems: spend and regulate. Like a doctor who prescribes antibiotics for a patient that has a virus (antibiotics don't work on viruses), government officials throw money at problems and impose new rules to make it appear like they're doing something useful, when the true solution is to simply let the virus run its course and allow the body to heal itself. A sad truth is that the Great Depression was Great because of the government's policies and reaction to the problem. Now, the government is riding to the rescue again to stave off an economic crisis. It's amazing that the people involved in creating the problem, both on the government and the business side, are the ones who are deciding how to fix the problem. As the saying goes, those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
____________________________
"Our economic order is not perfect, because it is operated by imperfect human beings, but it has given us more of the good things of life than any other system. The fundamental reason is that our economy is free. It must remain free. In that freedom ultimately lies our basic economic strength. ... Yet, these basic American beliefs, principles, and attitudes are threatened today as never before. ... They are threatened by well-meaning but uninformed people who see the shortcomings of our economic system and believe they can legislate them out of existence. They try to reach the promised land by passing laws. They do not understand our economic system and its limitations. They would load it down with burdens it was never intended to carry. As their schemes begin to break down, more and more controls must be supplied. Patch is placed upon patch, regulation is added to regulation and ultimately, by degree, freedom is lost -- without our desiring to lose it and without our knowing why or how it was lost. Our heritage of freedom is threatened by another group -- self-seeking men who see in government legislation a way to obtain special privileges for themselves or to restrain their competitors. ... They would bargain away their birthright for a mess of pottage. They would learn the value of freedom only after it was gone." Ezra Taft Benson (1964)

"For the Greater Good"

2008-11-11T13:50:00.000-08:00

In Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Albus Dumbledore admits to Harry that for about two months when he was young, Dumbledore and another great wizard were "[t]wo clever, arrogant boys with a shared obsession." Dumbledore wanted glory. He wanted power. He imagined himself as a "glorious young leader[] of [a] revolution." He was willing to do wrong "for the greater good." Deathly Hallows, p.714-16.

In his victory speech, Barack Obama called for a "new spirit of sacrifice" while he remakes the nation. "And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were." Speech. Barack Obama intends to limit American's freedoms for the greater good, as he sees it. More commonly, we refer to this misguided philosophy as the ends justify the means. He has already laid out some of these plans: paying higher taxes because it is "patriotic" (story); redistribution of wealth (story; audio on economic justice); imposing the most aggressive cap and trade system currently proposed, which will bankrupt the coal industry (story); driving up energy costs by mandating use of energy sources other than oil to put an "end to the age of oil" (story). Other restrictions on our freedom are sure to come.

Give Me All Your Money! It's Only Fair.

2008-10-13T15:35:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama says the intent of his tax plan is to "spread the wealth around." Video. His running mate, Joe Biden, calls the plan "fairness." [VP Debate] Sarah Palin calls the plan "redistribution of wealth." [VP Debate] The Wall Street Journal calls the plan "welfare." Story.

The Wall Street Journal points out that under the Obama plan, many Americans would not only have a $0 federal tax liability, they would receive a check from the federal government. So they're not just getting a tax break, they're getting free money from the rich.

This is simply socialism under a different name. Freedom loving people do not want socialism, so the proponents of socialism use more palatable names like fairness to sway opinion. I favor tax cuts -- I oppose repackaged socialism.

Where's the Beef? The U.N. Took It Away

2008-09-27T22:25:00.000-07:00

* Caution: satire ahead

September 30 Update: "Meat must be rationed to four portions a week, says report on climate change"

Loud and prominent voices (including McCain and Obama) proclaim we must act to stop and reverse harmful man-made climate change. To accomplish this, we are told, man must reduce the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane gases. Of course, this campaign requires restrictions on our freedom: higher taxes, increased regulation, decreased use of oil (including oil produced in America), etc.

Now the U.N.'s top expert on climate change has announced that we should eat less meat in order to combat global warming. Story. His justification is in part premised on methane gas being many times more harmful than carbon dioxide, and cattle produce large amounts of methane gas.

Ironically, one of my son's former teachers, who believes in harmful man-made global warming, specifically rejected the idea that cattle could be causing it. Apparently the teacher missed the day in college when cattle were discussed in her global warming class. (I wonder if that class is popular among football players?)

Once we eat less meat, global warming will be curbed and the Earth's melting glaciers will remain intact. It is interesting to note, though, that at least one glacier was not as large historically as it is today. In Switzerland, numerous human artifacts have recently been discovered where a glacier has recently receded back, showing that man had walked and even hunted in that area in the past. Story.

This raises an important question: Why was the Earth warmer then than it is today when we are in an allegedly catastrophic epoch of man-made global warming?

Perhaps some of the artifacts found give us a clue. They were made from leather. Leather comes from cattle. Cattle cause global warming.

Now there is an obvious response for correcting man-made global warming. We must close Texas, with all its cattle ranches and oil production, before the Earth gets as warm as it used to be.

So every time you take a sip of milk or bite into a juicy steak or hearty hamburger, remember that you are contributing to the global warming crisis. The U.N. says so.

Eat mor chikin!

Constitution Weak

2008-09-19T20:26:00.001-07:00

It's a sad irony that during Constitution Week, our federal government would go to unprecedented lengths to inflict itself into the economy, interfere with capitalism, and saddle the entire American people with debt in excess of at least 700 billion dollars in order to bail out financial institutions. Story

I guess I just never saw the part of the Constitution that allows the federal government to be the world's largest insurance company.

Incidentally, the bailout works out to about $2,300 per person living in the United States. That's kind of like finding out your credit card bill suddenly had an extra $100 per month payment (per person in your family) due for the next two years that the credit card company imposed just so it could pay off the debt of credit card holders who can't make their payments.

Oprah and Sarah

2008-09-08T20:35:00.000-07:00

The nation is buzzing about Sarah Palin, and many viewers of the Oprah Winfrey show would like Oprah to have the Vice Presidential candidate as a guest. For now, Oprah has declined. She openly supports Barack Obama.

Is this fair? Should a television talk show host be able to support the Democratic candidate and exclude the Republican candidate?

Of course Oprah should be able to choose her guests and choose her topics. The people--the consumers--have the freedom to watch or not watch. The government would have no business requiring Oprah to host Sarah Palin in the name of fairness and I have not heard anyone suggest otherwise.

Yet, that is exactly what Democrats in Congress would like to do with respect to talk radio: reinstitute the "fairness" doctrine, which conveniently would only apply to radio, so that radio stations that air conservative talk radio shows would be required by law to give equal time to liberal talk radio shows.

For more on the fairness doctrine, refer to my March 12, 2008 post "Government Mandated Air America"

What Makes America Great? Taxes on the Rich

2008-08-28T20:19:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama promised tonight: "I will cut taxes for 95 percent of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class."

What does this mean? The 30% of Americans who don't pay federal taxes still won't. The other 65%, who currently pay about 40% of America's federal tax revenue, will pay less. The remaining 5%, who already pay 60%, will pay more.

Why? Barack Obama believes that government programs and subsidies are the way to fulfilling the American dream.

I believe the American dream comes from freedom, including freedom from obtrusive government interference in economics, and not through government redistribution of wealth.

I believe that businesses should create jobs, not the government, and that when businesses are creating jobs, the country is more prosperous and more free. I have seen and heard over and over again that when businesses have fewer profits (for example, because of higher taxes), they have less money for employees. As a result, employees lose their jobs. When they lose their jobs, they have less money to purchase goods. When they purchase fewer goods, the profits of businesses suffer, and more employee cutbacks occur. I just can't recall a time where higher taxes on the rich has stimulated the economy or helped create more jobs.

Grizzly Welfare

2008-07-27T16:20:00.000-07:00

PBS recently had a show on the plight of the Grizzly Bear in America. In Yellowstone, people intentionally left food for the bears so that they could see the bears up close. After generations of handouts, the bears forgot how to fend for themselves. As a measure to help the bears relearn to take care of themselves, the handouts stopped. Some warned against this, fearing it would kill the bears. In fact, some bears were killed, but not from starvation; some sought to scavenger (steal) food from communities, which led to being shot. The others relearned to fend for themselves, which required work.

When the bears could get food from humans without effort, they eventually lost their independence, that is they forgot how to survive on their own. A similar phenomenom happens to people who receive handouts (welfare) from other humans over a long period of time without engaging in effort -- they become dependent on the handouts. Some fear that cutting off the handouts will be devastating for those receiving the handouts. Unfortunately, there may be some, like the bears, who turn to crime as a result, but most will learn to support themselves again.

The fact is that in both cases, the long-term handouts were the cause of the problems, not the solution.

The Burden of Big Government Is Very Taxing

2008-07-27T16:01:00.000-07:00

The East Valley Tribune newspaper printed the following editorial on our taxes. (Article) I thought it was worth quoting here.

Government paid tab - at last

July 16 was Cost of Government Day, according to Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. The average American worked until July 16 to pay a share of all the costs government imposes on us which now consume 53.9 percent of national income. This is the latest in the year that the day has fallen since 1992.

Perhaps you've heard of Tax Freedom Day, when we would (finally) be finished paying all our taxes if government had taken every single bit of our income until that day. Norquist and his organization have refined the calculation a bit by including the extra costs the government imposes on us through regulations, price supports, tariffs and a whole host of interventions into the economy.

As compared with when President Bush assumed office in 2001, federal spending consumes three more days of your life, while federal regulations (which had remained stable for the previous four years) take another full day. State and local spending consume another six days just since 2003.

Can government that takes more than half the national income produced be sustained much longer?

Happy Independence Day!

2008-07-04T11:04:00.000-07:00

I want to acknowledge my thanks and gratitude to the men and women of our nation who have fought and are fighting to preserve the independence of our nation and our freedoms. A nation that is unwilling to fight for its freedom is unlikely to keep it for long.

Also, for more information about the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, click here.

The Liberal Constitution

2008-07-01T18:39:00.000-07:00

In the last few weeks, the United States Supreme Court has issued three major decisions by a 5-4 vote. In all three cases, Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer have voted as a block. Here is how they read the Constitution:

The Constitution gives noncitizen enemies of the United States captured in foreign lands and held as prisoners in Cuba the right to habeas corpus.
The Constitution protects rapists of children from receiving the death penalty for their crimes.
The Constitution does not give or protect a homeowner's right to have a functioning gun at home for self-defense.

Back in 2005, these same four also said:

The Constitution does not prevent a city from using the power of eminent domain to take away someone's home and give it to a commercial developer so that the city can collect more tax revenue.

In three of these four 5-4 decisions, the liberal wing got their way since they were joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy. Only the gun right decision did not fall the way of these liberals justices. Notably, these four justices believe the Constitution only protects the right to own a gun if you are part of a State organized militia.

Amazingly, I have heard liberals refer to the current make-up of the Supreme Court as conservative!

It's only going to take one more liberal justice to effectively change the Constitution from an ensign of freedom to a binding policy statement subject to the changing liberal attitudes of the day.

Making Karl Marx Proud - Again

2008-06-19T11:57:00.000-07:00

It turns out Democrat Congresswoman Maxine Waters isn't the only elected socialist in Washington. Democrat Congressman Maurice Hinchey of New York exclaimed yesterday:

"We (the government) should own the refineries." "Then we can control how much gets out into the market." Story

It's very sad that people who dishonor our freedom and our Constitution serve in Congress and that most major television newstations and newspaper completely ignore stories like this.

Carbon Gore Print

2008-06-17T16:30:00.000-07:00

Al Gore pushes policies that would limit our freedoms, while enriching him.

This article speaks for itself: Energy Guzzled by Al Gore's Home in Past Year Could Power 232 U.S. Homes for a Month: Gore’s personal electricity consumption up 10%, despite “energy-efficient” home renovations.

Enemy Combatants on Foreign Soil Have Constitutional Rights?

2008-06-14T16:58:00.000-07:00

By a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court made new law. The five justices in the majority explained, “It is true that before today the Court has never held that noncitizens detained by our Government in territory over which another country maintains de jure sovereignty have any rights under our Constitution.” Opinion, p. 41. Yet, the Court did just that in its decision—extending the privilege of habeus corpus to foreigners held at Guantanamo Bay. (The privilege of habeus corpus entitles a prisoner to an opportunity to come before a judge to argue that there is no basis for imprisonment.)

After spending dozens of pages recounting the history of habeus corpus, the Court focused on one case from the World War II era where habeus corpus was not extended to Germany enemy combatants capture and held on foreign soil. Instead of following the decision in that case, the Court found that the detainees in Cuba were sufficiently different to justify the exact opposite result. The differences: the Cuba detainees argue that they are not enemy combatants, the German detainees were subjected to a process to determine the right to hold them, and the United States occupies Guantanamo Bay indefinitely while it occupied Germany only temporarily. Opinion, p.36-41. In truth, the Guantanamo Bay prisoners do (or did) have a process to determine the right to hold them, although the ones who brought the case to the Supreme Court had not gone through that process yet.

The folly of the Court’s decision is aptly addressed by the two dissenting opinions. Justice Scalia reminds us of the detainees previously released from Guantanamo Bay that went on to kill Americans and others after their release and describes in detail the legal error in extending the scope of this constitutional right to enemy combatants. Chief Justice Roberts explained the practical folly of the decision. Instead of going through the procedures that Congress had already set up, District Courts will now have to create new procedures that are not likely to give the detainees any additional procedural rights beyond what they already had.

Most notably of all, Chief Justice Roberts made this important observation:
“So who has won? ... And certainly not the American people, who today lose a bit more control over the conduct of this Nation’s foreign policy to unelected, politically unaccountable judges.” Roberts Dissent, p. 27-28.

The Fruits of Socialism Breed Hunger

2008-06-07T16:29:00.000-07:00

Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe has been seizing land from whites in the name of undoing past white rule. According to Mugabe, most of his people "warmly welcomed" this destruction of freedom, while his actions "elicited wrath" from those who lost their land.

I can't help but be reminded of a political philosophy espoused by many American politicians and receiving some support from Americans themselves that we should take property (through high taxation) from the rich to benefit the historically disadvantaged and poor generally.

Here's the fruits of Mugabe's socialism: Zimbabwe has gone from "Africa's one-time bread basket into a nation where millions go hungry." Story
_________________________________

"You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves."
Ronald Reagan (quoting William J.H. Boetcker)

Making Karl Marx Proud

2008-05-23T19:48:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, U.S. Congresswoman Maxine Waters of California (Los Angeles area) told oil company executives, "And guess what this liberal will be all about. This liberal will be about socializing ... would be about ... basically taking over ... and the government running all of your companies." The ellipses are pauses, not omitted text.

You can watch and listen to her here. Her statement is about 1:09 into the video.

I wish Representative Waters would point out which part of the Constitution grants Congress the power to take over oil companies.
___________________________________

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." United States Constitution, Article VI, excerpt.

Unconstitutional Marriage of Judges and Gay "Rights" Advocates

2008-05-15T11:46:00.000-07:00

The State of California says its Constitution requires the allowance of gay marriage. It's a sad day for constitutional law when judges change the meaning of its Constitution to suit their personal preferences.

You will hear from gay marriage advocates that this is about equal rights. Really?

"current California statutes grant same sex couples who choose to become domestic partners virtually all of the legal rights and responsibilities accorded married couples under California law" (p.3, fn. 2, Court's Opinion)

Or is it about acceptance, and not the Constitution?

"because of the long and celebrated history of the term “marriage” and the widespread understanding that this term describes a union unreservedly approved and favored by the community, there clearly is a considerable and undeniable symbolic importance to this designation" (p.103, Court's Opinion)

"designation [of domestic partnership] available to same-sex couples impinges upon the fundamental interest of same-sex couples in having their official family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that conferred upon the family relationship of opposite-sex couples" (p.105, Court's Opinion)

"As discussed above, because of the long and celebrated history of the term “marriage” and the widespread understanding that this word describes a family relationship unreservedly sanctioned by the community, the statutory provisions that continue to limit access to this designation exclusively to opposite-sex couples — while providing only a novel, alternative institution for same-sex couples — likely will be viewed as an official statement that the family relationship of same-sex couples is not of comparable stature or equal dignity to the family relationship of opposite-sex couples." (p.117-118, Court's Opinion)

They're not going to miss it.

2008-05-14T19:36:00.000-07:00

In the Jimmy Carter era, people were taxed by as much as 90% of their income. I guess you could have called these exorbitant rates a windfall profits tax. In the Ronald Reagan era, income tax rates were dramatically reduced and the economy boomed. Despite this simple economic lesson, some politicians continue to desire to forcibly take money from one person to hand to another, after the government has kept its own cut of course.

One of the latest plans is a tax "surcharge" on people making more than $500,000. According to House Representative Mike Ross of Arkansas, "someone who earns $2 million a year would pay $5,000. ... They're not going to miss it." Story

In other words, Mike Ross believes the government should take your money since he believes you don't need it. And this ignores the fact that the taxpayer is likely already paying a few hundred thousand dollars a year in income taxes.

The government does need to raise funds to function, the purpose of which is to secure our freedoms. But the mindset of taking money from people because the government believes it can put it to a better use or nobler cause is contrary to freedom and the proper role of government.

As The Wind Blows

2008-05-08T12:39:00.000-07:00

Some politicians speak about restoring America's standing in the world. Their theory is America's activities and interests should be aligned with the rest of the world and that America should be a leader or example in promoting those activities and achieving those interests.

Sometimes we see a similar theory in action on a national level, as political leaders stick their thumbs in the air to see which way the wind is blowing, that is, check opinion polls to see what the popular view of the day is for American citizens. From an international standpoint, politicians applying this ideology would lean on the policies of other nations to decide America's course.

Doing what's popular has a certain appeal, but is that what made America great? Think about what we tell our kids. Do we tell them to do what's popular or do what's right?

America must stand by her principles and do what's right, not what's merely popular. America should be a leader in the world by holding up our Constitution and our freedoms and must not bow itself to the political, economic, social and military interests of the world's socialists, communists, and dictators.

Tribute to Matt Groening

2008-04-25T12:36:00.000-07:00

May I recommend a very funny and relevant Simpsons episode. It's from a Halloween special many years ago and its title is Citizen Kang. It features a presidential race between Clinton and an older Republican war veteran and even includes a third-party candidate from Texas.

In the episode, aliens Kang and Kodos kidnap the two party nominees and then disguise themselves as the candidates to ensure that one of them (the aliens) will be elected President. Then they can use their position to enslave the human race. Homer reveals their diabolical plot to Americans right before the election. The third-party candidate enters the scene, but the unmasked aliens remind the voters that America has a two-party system, so voting for a third-party candidate would be a wasted vote. The voters oblige, electing Kang as their new leader, who promptly enslaves everyone as planned.

To view the episode, click here.

Banning Edison to Save America

2008-04-17T19:38:00.000-07:00

In December 2007, Congress passed a massive energy bill that included a provision banning the incandescent light bulb in a few years. (Story) Why? Because it's inefficient. Apparently, by banning the common light bulb in America, America can reduce man-made global warming, thus preventing or reducing the damage to all mankind that man-made global warming poses. I highly recommend this article describing the ironic true consequences of this ban. Sadly, this infringement on our freedom passed without the amount of negative publicity it deserved.

Contrast the light bulb with three rights American's still have:

Alcohol, which kills an estimated 75,000 Americans a year; (Story)
Tobacco, which kills an estimated 430,000 Americans a year; (Story)
Elective abortion, which kills an estimated 1,274,000 unborn Americans a year. (Story)

The number of light bulb related deaths in America was not readily available.

(These statistics are admittedly a few years old, but they are sufficiently recent for the purposes of this post.)

Incidentally, Senators Clinton, Obama, and McCain all had a chance to vote on the light bulb ban. When the final bill passed the Senate, none of these three Senators voted, presumably because they were campaigning. However, this bill was introduced into the Senate (with the light bulb ban) months earlier, and Senators Clinton and Obama voted yes at that time. As the bill went through the amendment process, Senators Clinton and Obama also voted yes on every major amendment (as far as I can tell). Senator McCain never even voted on any part of the bill that became law (as far as I can tell).
____________________________________
"I'm going to teach them about values and morals. If they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby." Barack Obama, speaking about his teenager daughters a few weeks ago and why he supports elective abortions.

Going Down the Wrong Road

2008-04-09T21:08:00.000-07:00

I recently learned about a city with over 200,000 residents that spent $18,000 to pave a dirt road. The notable part is that the road construction cost $180,000, and the federal government paid the other $162,000 (90%).

The federal funds came from the "Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement" program, which paid out about $9 billion from about 1993 to 2003. This program is supposed "to help fund regional and local efforts to achieve compliance with national air quality standards set under the Clean Air Act." (See Article)

This city also received over $5.7 million in funds from this federal program to pay for a "pilot program to study the use of an automatic vehicle location system to pre-empt traffic signals," "construct dual left turns and add auxiliary lanes in all directions," "construct multi-use path," and install a "Fire/Police Department signal system integration and variable message signs." The total cost of those projects was nearly $10 million, and the city paid almost $4.3 million.

I simply cannot comprehend how the federal government paying 90% of the cost of paving a city road or paying millions of dollars toward normal city planning and development issues is constitutional or wise.

Not So Golden Handcuffs: The Bondage of Welfare

2008-04-03T21:18:00.000-07:00

Some people have the opportunity to have a job that pays extremely well. A number of those have grown so accustomed to their large salaries that they salaries that they become bound to their careers at the cost of their families, their personal interests, and even their happiness to preserve their economic standard of living and to afford the debt they have gotten into for large homes, nice cars, and fancy home accessories. This condition is referred to as being bound by golden handcuffs.

Other people have a job that pays very little or don’t have a job at all. A number of these people receive welfare from the government: unemployment benefits, medical care, food stamps, discounted public housing, etc. Welfare benefits provide temporary, emergency relief for some recipients. But for so many others, government welfare is a lifestyle defined not by need, but by income. For example, it was recently reported that about 1 in 10 people in Ohio and Arizona receive federally funded food stamps and almost 1 in 6 are eligible for food stamps in those two states. (In Ohio, unemployment had increased by about 20%, but food stamp use had increased by about 100%.) Think about that -- the federal government is willing to give away food to one out of every six people at taxpayers' expense! To the extent government is involved in helping the truly needy, local cities and states are in a much better position to do so than the federal government both from a practical and constitutional standpoint.

Not only is welfare a burden on the taxpayers, government welfare harms the recipient by decreasing initiative, building up false senses of entitlement, removing accountability, weakening work ethic, destroying self reliance, eliminating gratitude and limiting freedom. Those who accept this lifestyle often become bound to it, unable or unwilling to change to break free of its grasp.

The American dream is founded on the virtues of hard work, self reliance, accountability, initiative and gratitude, the very virtues government welfare steals away. As a result, government welfare usually doesn’t save people from poverty; it keeps them in poverty.

Happy April's Fool Day!

2008-04-01T15:52:00.000-07:00

"My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you I just signed legislation which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing begins in five minutes. "

Ronald Reagan (Said during a radio microphone test, 1984)

Not Worth the Paper It's Printed On

2008-03-29T15:45:00.000-07:00

The weakening of the value of the American dollar is a threat to our property rights and our freedom. As the value of the dollar drops, the value of our savings accounts drop, prices increase, the entire economy suffers, and we are all worse off. Those on fixed incomes, whether old or young, whether from public or private sources, are hit especially hard as their limited buying power dwindles.

The question, therefore, is what is the principal cause of the falling dollar? The federal government and its monetary policy.

Inflation lessens the value of money and occurs when the government prints money faster than the corresponding growth of the nation’s assets, whether that printed money comes in the form of new dollar bills or IOUs (promissory notes or T-bills) issued by the U.S. Treasury to cover deficit spending. In essence, inflation is a tax borne by the people to support government overspending. Rather than control the cause of inflation, our government uses the Federal Reserve Board to manipulate the effect of inflation.

To recover the health of the dollar, our government needs to get its financial house in order: reduce overall spending; stop deficit spending; pay down the national debt; and cure this ill instead of merely managing the pain until the patient dies.

“Manifestly nothing is more vital to our supremacy as a nation and to the beneficent purpose of our Government than a sound and stable currency.” President Grover Cleveland

*Special acknowledgement for this post goes to Ezra Taft Benson, former United States Secretary of Agriculture, who addressed these same issues about 40 years ago.

Happy Easter!

2008-03-23T00:33:00.000-07:00

"He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay." Angel of the Lord to Mary Magdalene. Matthew 28:6

"If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. ... Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever; but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." Jesus the Christ. John 8:31-36

"For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another." Paul, the Apostle. Galatians 5:13

McCain Chose Politics, Power Over Constitution

2008-03-22T19:24:00.000-07:00

When Sandra Day O'Connor retired from the United States Supreme Court, the President nominated John Roberts to replace her. His legal credentials were outstanding. But he was a traditional Republican. For most Democrat Senators, that was sufficient reason to vote against him. However, at the time, the Republicans controlled the Senate and had the majority vote needed to confirm his appointment. So the Democrats planned to filibuster, specifically, block the Senate from voting on Roberts by denying Republicans the 60 votes needed (out of 100) to end debate on the issue. The Democrats had done this before on other matters, essentially requiring a 60% supermajority to approve matters rather than the constitutionally designed 51% majority. This time, the Republicans were game for the fight, ready and able not only to get the 60 votes needed to end debate, but also to eliminate the 60 vote rule altogether -- until McCain stepped in.

McCain led a group of 14 Democrat and Republican Senators who agreed to support the 60 votes needed to end debate on Roberts as well as on future Republican Supreme Court nominees (with some conditions), but oppose an end to the 60 vote rule. Importantly, Roberts would have been confirmed even without McCain's political deal; McCain didn't save Roberts, he merely saved the unnecessary 60 vote cloture rule. McCain's maneuver gained him political power within the Senate at the cost of the Constitution.

The direct constitutional effect of McCain's power play falls upon our Nation's Courts of Appeals. There are presently many judicial vacancies on the Courts of Appeals that need to be filled, but using the 60 vote rule, the Democrats in the Senate have blocked the President from filling those positions for the past seven years because they don't want Republican judges. They want judges who will uphold their agenda, even at the cost of setting aside the Constitution. If the 60 vote cloture rule had been abolished, the open appellate court positions would have been filled by judges who support the Constitution. Instead, the positions remain open and liberal judges continue to dominate in the courts.

McCain knew this would be the effect of keeping the 60 vote cloture rule, yet decided a Senate policy was more important than the Constitution.

McCain is a leader in the Senate. As such, he could have led the fight to end the 60 vote cloture rule, which would have resulted in more judges who honor and support the Constitution for what it says rather than what judges would like it to say. Instead, McCain led the charge to undermine this effort.

Our Country deserves people who will stand up for our Constitution, not ones who will turn their backs on it for power.

Charity Comes From Freedom

2008-03-14T19:04:00.000-07:00

America is full of voluntary givers. These people donate property they have worked to earn. The Asian tsunami disaster and Hurricane Katrina are excellent examples of Americans privately donating tremendous amounts of money and other resources to worthy causes. Some large employers partner with private organizations, such as the United Way, to allow their employees to voluntarily payroll deduct contributions to the poor and needy. Other groups accept nonperishable food, sometimes in lieu of payment for services, for donations to food banks. Some famous people and groups, like Oprah, Bill & Melinda Gates, Bono, Angelina Jolie and even American Idol, donate large sums of their own money and help raise money from others. This is charity.

Yet some people would have the government tell you how much to give and for what causes, usually with no or little accountability by the recipient. (It's amazing how often those receiving unemployment checks quickly find a new job once the checks stop coming.) Money you have worked for that you could have used to freely and charitably contribute to the cause of your choice (or used any other way you desired) is taken by government for its causes of choice, which include causes intended to secure votes.

For example, the economic stimulus tax rebates that are in the mail are also going to people who didn't pay any federal taxes. Imagine how you would react if a neighbor asked you for money so he could spend it on himself to help stimulate the economy. Thanks to Congress, he doesn't have to ask; your tax dollars are already in the mail to him. This is socialist redistribution of wealth and an attack on freedom.

Some may argue that the federal government needs to be in charge of welfare because otherwise people wouldn't voluntarily give enough and the money wouldn't go to where it's needed most. The reality is everyone has different opinions, including those working for the government, on who needs financial assistance and how much. For those that feel the government would make a better decision than they would, they should be (and are in fact) free to donate their money to a government agency so that it can distribute that money. You should also be free not to turn over your property to the government for redistribution to someone else.

Sadly, often the people in favor of expanded federal government welfare programs are those who voluntarily give less than others. ABC's John Stossel reported on a study on charitable giving in America that found that conservative headed families give about 30% more than liberal headed families, even though conservatives actually make slightly less money, and that church attending people are more likely to give to non-religious charities than those who do not attend church. See his articles and videos: Are Americans Cheap? Or Charitable? and Who Gives and Who Doesn't.

Charity comes from voluntarily giving your own property, not from giving away someone else's property that was forcibly taken from him.

"When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it -- without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud -- to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act is plunder is committed. ... How is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong." Frederic Bastiat

Government Mandated 'Air America'

2008-03-12T12:41:00.000-07:00

What political party has the reputation (deserved or not) for supporting the 1st Amendment right to free speech? What political party works to stifle the free speech rights of the opposition?

The fundamental purpose of the guaranteed freedom of speech is to allow us to freely speak out against the government. Some in Congress are obviously growing tired of being spoken out against and are talking about reinstituting the unconstitutional "fairness doctrine." In short, the fairness doctrine requires radio stations to give equal time to people with opposing viewpoints. For example, a radio station would be required by law to balance a 30 minute discussion opposing illegal immigration by airing a 30 minute discussion favoring illegal immigration.

On the whole, conservative talk dominates liberal talk on the radio, while liberal talk programs dominate conservative talk programs on television. Although both mediums, radio and television, use the public airwaves, the fairness doctrine only applies to radio.

The fairness doctrine is nothing less than an unconstitutional effort by liberals to limit the influence and free speech rights of conservatives who speak out against those liberals and their policies. If there were only one radio station in this country, one could argue that every view point should have a turn to talk. But there are dozens of radio stations all across this country and their content is dictated by the free market. Not long ago, liberal leaning people funded and launched "Air America," a liberal talk station broadcasting in many markets across the nation. In almost every market, Air America has failed because radio listeners don't listen to it in sufficient numbers for it to make advertising money. Since Americans wouldn't voluntarily listen to it, some in Congress want to force it upon us. If reinstituted, the ultimate effect on talk radio will mirror the effect Title IX has had on college athletics.

Title IX requires colleges to offer as many athletic scholarships to women as it does to men. Because of economics, colleges did not respond by adding women's scholarships until they matched the current number of men's scholarships--colleges cut men's scholarships and men's sports teams. Even men's sports with a great tradition at a given college have been cut in an effort to equalize men's and women's scholarships. In college sports, men's football and men's basketball are the money makers. The profits from those two sports subsidize all the other sports programs.

Under the fairness doctrine, radio stations would not simply add liberal talk programs; they would be forced to cut conservative talk programs as well, even if the conservative talk program was more popular and thus made more money than the liberal talk program. The profits from the top money making conservative talk programs, like the Rush Limbaugh show, would be funneled to support the liberal talk programs. This is a violation of the 1st amendment and an improper intrusion of government into the affairs of private businesses.

President Bush gave a speech yesterday on his plan to veto any proposed fairness doctrine legislation. His speech provides some additional excellent points on this issue. Story

Congress should not violate the Constitution and limit our freedom to speak out against the government and especially against government officials who work against that right.

Change Reagan Would Not Believe In

2008-03-07T23:06:00.001-08:00

Here's a brief comparison of actions by Ronald Reagan and proposed "change" Barack Obama believes in.

Taxes
Reagan cut taxes on the rich (and greatly improved the economy as a result).

Obama wants to increase taxes on the rich.

"The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." Ronald Reagan

Enemy Foreign Countries
Reagan pushed the strategic defense initiative, known as SDI or Stars Wars, which was a plan to shoot down Soviet missiles from the sky, to the frustration of the Soviet Union. He also referred to the Soviet Union as the "evil empire."

Obama opposes missile defense systems and weaponizing space. Video

Welfare
Reagan cut welfare in the face of opposition.

Obama seeks to increase spending on welfare programs.

Problem Solving
"Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem." Ronald Reagan

"[T]here is no problem we cannot solve, no destiny we cannot fulfill.” Barack Obama

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" Ronald Reagan

Obama on Reagan
While Obama praised Reagan's ability to get Democrats to vote for him, he clarified: "I didn’t say I liked Ronald Reagan’s policies." Story

The thing is, most Americas who were around for Ronald Reagan's presidency did like his policies, as evidenced in part by his winning 49 of 50 states in the 1984 election, and revere him as a great president. Story

For more on Obama's ideas of change concerning taxation and the economy and his plan to fight global poverty with our tax dollars, I highly recommend two articles entitled Obama's Gloomy Big Government Vision and The day socialism comes to America.

Ronald Reagan fought for freedom and achieved great success. In the fight for freedom, Reagan provided a model to follow, not one to change.
_____________________________

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free." Ronald Reagan

A Little Less Freedom Today in California

2008-03-07T07:43:00.000-08:00

A California court has ruled that children in that State cannot be homeschooled unless the parent has a teaching credential. Story; Related Article

Supporting the Constitution

2008-03-06T19:51:00.000-08:00

Our Constitution set up a federal government of limited powers. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this key principal and declares that the only powers the federal government has are those delegated to it by the Constitution--all other powers rest with the States or the people.

Article I of the Constitution sets out the powers of the Legislative branch (Congress); Article II sets out the powers of the Executive branch (President); Article III sets out the powers of the Judicial branch (Supreme Court). Yet our federal government has instituted many programs and laws beyond the scope of the powers of the Constitution, with the blessing of the Supreme Court, which has also granted itself powers not delegated by the Constitution.

Back during the Great Depression, Franklin D. Roosevelt pushed the "New Deal," which consisted of many new federal welfare programs intended to help Americans and the economy. At first, the Supreme Court followed the Constitution and found that FDR's programs were unconstitutional. Eventually though, after one judge changed his mind and another judge retired, FDR's previously unconstitutional programs suddenly became constitutional by a slim majority. The New Deal failed to pull the country out of the Depression, but it did greatly increase the scope of the federal government, well beyond the limited powers delegated by the Constitution.

The acceptance of the New Deal was a major shift away from constitutional principles that has allowed the federal government to continue to grow virtually unchecked. Today, the federal government has become so large and gained so much power not delegated by the Constitution that when politicians propose a national health care system, no one talks about the fact that the Constitution does not give the federal government the power to create a national health care system. If the Constitution does not give a power to the federal government, the Constitution says the federal government does not have that power.

No one says they do not support the Constitution. Instead, they call it a "living document," which means federal judges can adjust the Constitution to accommodate changing desires of society (whether or not those desires represent the will of the majority of citizens). This is why the appointment of Supreme Court Justices and Federal Appellate Court is such a charged topic today: it only takes 5 Supreme Court Justices or a single federal appeals judge to declare a new constitutional principle. The "living document" theory allows people to claim they support the Constitution while simultaneously undermining it by altering provisions to fit their desires, ignoring provisions they do not like, and even adding provisions that are not there.

The framers of the Constitution provided a way to amend the Constitution, and it was not through judges. Article V describes how first both Houses of Congress or a Convention of individual State Legislatures pass a proposed amendment by a 2/3rds supermajority and then 3/4ths of State Legislatures have to also vote in favor of the change. This procedure allows changes to be made, while protecting the Constitution from the ever shifting values of those holding office, including judges. The beauty of this system is that if the people really want to change something, they can, even if that means changing a previously adopted amendment, such as was done when the 21st amendment repealed the 18th amendment.

Sadly, there are those in government today who not only support the "living document" theory, but also claim the Constitution should not be messed with through the Article V amendment process. This erroneous argument was forwarded by Congressmen opposed to an amendment to the Constitution regarding same-sex marriage. Not surprisingly, those same people would not oppose a judge changing the Constitution by declaring that the Constitution requires the allowance of same-sex marriage.

Sometimes when politicians claim they support the Constitution, they mean they support expanding the scope of their favorite amendments, while working against amendments they oppose. For example, some claim enemy combattants or prisoners of war from foreign countries deserve due process rights under the 5th amendment, but seek as much federal power as possible contrary to the 10th amendment or oppose the rights to bear arms and freely exercise religion guaranteed by the 2nd and 1st amendments.

Here is a simple test: If someone claims he or she supports the Constitution, but does not support limited federal powers, he or she does not support the Constitution. That person may love our country and honestly feel that expansive federal power is in the best interests of our country and that person may strongly believe in certain civil liberties, but that person does not support the Constitution, for the Constitution was purposely designed to limit federal power in order to "secure the Blessings of Liberty."

I support the Constitution, including its amendments, as it is written and as it was intended. I support limited federal powers, as laid out in the Constitution. I support amending the Constitution, if desired, through the process described in Article V. I support following the Constitution, even if the results are inconvenient. I do not believe political, social, and economic ends should be achieved through means contrary to the Constitution.

"What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body." Thomas Jefferson

Standing for Freedom

2008-03-03T19:49:00.000-08:00

Our nation's Constitution and the freedoms it secures are dear to me. They make America great. I affirm the self-evident truths that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. There are many in our country that speak out in support of our Constitution and our freedom, and more are needed. I am grateful for these people, and I commit to join them in this great cause.

"I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live up to what light I have. I must stand with anybody that stands right; stand with him while he stands right, and part company with him when he goes wrong." Abraham Lincoln