Health care

I've been asked to write a post explaining my thoughts on health care. Well, that'd probably be a book to be honest, but I will try to sum up some of my thinking.

First, as a classical liberal, I believe that the role of government is to protect and guarantee our unalienable rights as defined in the constitution, not to "take care of us". I also believe that the free market economy is superior to a government controlled economy, or I put a lot more stock in the ideas of Adam Smith than in the Keynesian theory. So, do I believe we could install a government option in order to provide universal health care? Yes, we could. A people and their government can form a social contract of any sort. Yes, I said contract, universal health care is NOT a right to be protected and guaranteed by the government and anyone who claims it is either doesn't understand history or doesn't understand the meaning of the words in the constitution or they are just lying. How do I know it isn't a right? Well, the argument that health care is a right comes right out of the constitution. In fact, it is based on the statement that the government must "provide for the general welfare" which has been horribly misconstrued by modern liberals otherwise known as progressives to mean the government must provide a right to health care or basic needs. Well, you decide whether this quote from the author of that clause in the constitution justifies that interpretation: "If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."--James Madison.

Clearly, the founders did NOT intend the general welfare clause to include social security or welfare payments or certainly not universal health care. Why? Because it would "subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America" or, in other words, government power and actions should be as limited as possibly because the alternative gives government ultimate power, unchecked by the states or the people. Madison also said this: "The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse." which means that we the people must always maintain our vigilance or else government can grow to the point where it is no longer responsive to us but gorws and becomes abusive to the point of tyranny. After all, it was Thomas Jefferson who said: "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." Is the U.S. government fearful of anyone? Even it's own people? It should be because if it isn't, then Jefferson has already declared that it will become tyrannical, eventually. Another aspect to the current health care reform is that it must be now, that it is happening when so many other things are going on at the same time, that nobody seems to want to read the bill, that the bills are being passed too quickly, that the discussion has been determined to be over even though people are coming out of the woodwork to oppose it. This is all the actions of a "must do it now" government, which is a tyrannical government according to Jefferson. Don't believe me? Here's the Jefferson quote: "I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive." So, the very essence of the health care debate fits the Jefferson quote perfectly. So, I am opposed the government health care on principle and constitutional grounds, and so I do not need to have a "plan" of action to "fix" the problem. It isn't the government's responsibility to take over the role of health insurer. The government's sole role is to make sure that our rights are protected, so if laws need to be changed and regulations need to be made and these things need to be enforced, so be it. But a government option is not and never will be the answer. It is anathema to our founders, it is not a right, and it is not based in free market principles. By all three of those things, it should be opposed by Americans who love freedom because it will lead to loss of freedom. People belittle the idea that the government would somehow determine who lives and dies, but consider that the National Health Exchange issued a report that clearly stated that Medicare (the government) was the worst offender when it came to denying claims, beating out ALL the major insurance companies COMBINED! So, who is it that is denying claims eh? That's right, everyone, including the government.

Now, in good faith, I will present a few options that I think could be explored (that are not in any current bills because the current bills are about power, not helping people). First, we can attempt health care cooperatives. I'm talking a lot broader than what you've heard before. For one thing, the cooperatives should be able to compete with the employer system. In order to do that, they'd have to be portable. So, as a Baylor University alumnus, I could join the Baylor health care coop which I could take anywhere no matter where I was employed. No current employer plan can offer that. This kind of competition could lower premiums and increase plan options. Another option would be to allow companies to compete over state lines. Why is it that I can get good Florida plans from my employer, but can't get coverage from a company in Georgia. This is true nationwide. If you want to lower costs in a free market system, you have to increase competition. Not through a government option but by allowing all the companies to compete on the same playing field nationwide, this currently is NOT the case. Third, something needs to be done about frivolous lawsuits. Why is this legislation so hard to pass? Right, because most of our "representatives" are lawyers and doing so would hurt the bottom line for their friends. Malpractice insurance for doctors is one of the greatest causes for health care cost increases and has even driven doctors out of the business entirely in some states. This is unacceptable. To have to pay such high premiums in malpractice insurance just to stay in business is outrageous. So, I say, if they made a negligent mistake, throw the book at them, but the definition for what constitutes negligence and mistakes needs drastic changes. Finally, the government itself is responsible for higher costs. How? Easy, Medicare sets the rate at which the government will reimburse doctors and hospitals for procedures and care. These rates are typically below market value. Since Medicare covers 99 percent of seniors and seniors are responsible for 60 percent of health care costs, you do the math. What it means is that the government's own actions in controlling costs for Medicare actually drive costs up because the doctors and hospitals have to recover the difference between what Medicare will pay and what something actually costs, so they raise premiums and costs on the 40 percent of people in order to do so. It is a simple market principle that people in the government seem to be completely oblivious to. So, the government needs to stop forcing all seniors onto Medicare. Yes, you don't have a choice about this. You reach a certain age and Medicare automatically becomes your primary insurance, no option, while any other insurance you have becomes secondary insurance. If someone has insurance, can afford it and is willing to continue it, they should NOT be covered by Medicare. That would cut significant costs and would allow Medicare to do less price fixing which would create a greater balance in the market pricing and thus lower costs. This whole thing is NOT rocket science.

Basically, we can choose to set up this contract between the people and the government, but polls clearly show that the majority of Americans don't want government run health care plans. In addition, even if we did set up this contract, it would be at the expense of the freedoms we hold dear. I believe that and our founders predict that and the evidence of the history of medicare supports that. So, this process should actually try to help people through common sense legislation rather than establishing a government option health care plan that says it would charge 20 percent less than the insurance companies. Assuming that is true, who would stay with their current company when they could save 20 percent by using the government plan that their tax dollars are already paying for anyway? That's right, nobody. So, the government option is designed to do one thing and one thing only. Put the insurance companies out of business and put everyone onto the government system. Yep, power and control, not helping people.

Nobel prizes for everyone!

According to the website for the nobel prize, there have been four Presidents win the award and three sitting Presidents. Theodore Roosevelt won for brokering the peace between Russia and Japan, Woodrow Wilson won for founding the League of Nations (even though the U.S. didn't join it) and Carter won (not while in office) for his years of diplomatic efforts, sort of a lifetime achievement in effect. The newest U.S. President to win is Barack Obama and he won “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” So, in other words, he got an A for effort? After all, we aren't any safer than we were when he took office in January and there have been no peace deals since January. Obama has traveled around apologizing for all our past mistakes and even a few some would argue weren't mistakes, he's said he'll sit down with Ahmadinejad (a man who'd just assume shoot us all as talk with us) and he's shaken the hand of Chavez (a man who has suppressed freedom of speech, press and assembly), not to mention shunning our greatest allies and newest friends (Britain and the Czech Republic) while agreeing to the demands of countries like Russia that would rather see Iran and North Korea with nuclear weapons than actually vote for sanctions on those countries at the UN. Sorry, it seems to me they've given this award for what our President MIGHT do, not for anything he's actually done. At least all three previous examples of Presidents who did win this award had done something great to deserve it. I know, I must be unpatriotic or racist for feeling like the President hasn't done anything to deserve this award right? Nope, neither, that's just what people will say to shut up anyone that thinks maybe, just maybe, the Nobel committee got it wrong. I don't know who the President was up against because they keep all the nominees secret for 50 years (I guess they don't like controversy, after all, once the 50 years went by it turned out people like Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin all have been nominated in the past). I just think this must have been a slow year peace wise. Do you think I deserve the nobel prize for literature because I have 4 unfinished books that MIGHT be the next great piece of world literature? If you answer that question no, then you'd be right. It would also mean you should agree with my statement above. While the President MIGHT achieve great diplomatic feats, he hasn't done anything yet and therefore this award has as much weight as if they were to give one to me for my unfinished books.

Just how many people were there?

So, the mass media sources took a number stated as unofficial from an official at the fire department in Washington D.C. and has posted it around as if it were cast in iron. What am I talking about? The September 12 protest rally. Ever since the Million Man March came up half a million short, the government hasn't given out crowd estimates for events. At least that is the official policy. Somehow they still managed to estimate 1.2 to 1.8 million people for this past January's inauguration even though they have a policy not to make crowd estimates. Hmm... At any rate, there was a rally held on September 12, 2009 for the Tea Party movement. This is a rally of people who have become so fed up with politicians on both sides of the aisle not listening to their constituents, that they finally took to the street. They felt disappointment, dismay and betrayal by the Republican party during the Bush years and now see the Democrats and the new administration spending even more than Bush did. Folks, that is what this rally was about. Not racism as the media is currently claiming. After all, remember how those on the side of Republicans shouted that dissenters were unpatriotic or un-American for opposing Bush? Well, guess what? That opposition to Bush who claimed their right to dissent and even proclaimed that dissent was in fact the highest form of patriotism have now decided that if you dissent or disagree with this President, you're a racist. Neither argument has any merit and both prove the point of the people protesting in Washington on the 12th. So, all that said, just how many people were there? Nobody knows for sure because there are no official counts taken. However, the are easy sources to look at in order to get a good estimate. Did the media do this? No, they just took a number from someone who isn't qualified to give one and spouted it as truth. That number? 60-75,000 people. Thus the tens of thousands you keep seeing reported. Well, I lived in DC for 20 years and I know for a fact just from looking at the coverage on the internet and tv that the turnout was significantly larger than that. Of course, I also am not qualified to make that judgment. So, let's look at information that is easily available to the media if they'd bother to look for it and see if we can get an estimate of some sort. First, the mass of people that marched down Pennsylvania Avenue took 3 hours to complete. Wow, three hours of people walking down and (according to traffic cameras) filling Pennsylvania Avenue. That's a lot of people. Well, there are some mathematical equations that can estimate this crowd and a few people have tried, but again, those are still best guesses. They came up with somewhere between 750,000 and 1 million depending on the equation used. Okay, that might be a bit large, but other photos of the event clearly show that there were people marching who didn't even take Pennsylvania Avenue, so maybe it isn't too large. Another source comes from the Pennsylvania Avenue traffic counter at 11th Street. Barbara Espinosa reported that actual traffic counters from the march organizers reported about 450,000 crossing Pennsylvania at 11th after about an hour of the march, and nearly 1.5 million total. Wow, that's a lot and certainly consistent with the mathematical guesses but wait, the traffic counters were set up by the organizers. Well golly, those can't be trusted so let's move on. The next piece of evidence is this: there were at least 4500 bus parking permits for the day in Washington and a bus typically holds about 50 people. That's a lot of buses. Let's just argue that not all those buses were there for the 9/12 event but had other business. Let's just go with half of those buses being there for the 9/12 event. That's a logical compromise. Using that number, that would be 2250 buses bringing people to the mall at about 50 people each which makes 112,500 people. But wait, there was a lot of complaining about Metro being overcrowded. So, does the subway system report its ridership? Actually, yes it does and Metro reported its ridership was 235,000 more on 9/12 than the previous weekend which pretty much blows away the 60-75,000 estimate reported in the media all by itself. So, just Metro and bus permits suggest at least 350,000 people showed up. So, can we STOP with the tens of thousands already? The evidence proves a much larger number. Perhaps not the 2 million some people suggested, but certainly 500,000 would be a logical number to go with based on the evidence I've presented here. For the only good image of the crowd taken that day that was from a source other than traffic cameras, go to this link and see Matthew Beck's picture. For a time lapse video of the cameras on Pennsylvania Avenue, see this YouTube video.

Remember

On this day, September 11, 2009, may we remember those who lost their lives and those who survived. May we remember that we were attacked because of who we are, not what we do and don't support in Middle East politics. May we remember how important freedom is and cherish it because it is what makes us different from everyone else in the world. Always remember. Remember to believe in something. Remember to love those around you. Remember to strive to be better. Always remember.

A tough one...or not, you decide

USAToday is reporting a story about several kids sent home from school for wearing a t-shirt that said "Islam is of the devil". According to officials, they were sent home because their shirts might be considered offensive and therefore would be disruptive. Sense a lawyer is clearly involved on behalf of the students, this should be an interesting case to watch. I'll be the first to argue that children don't have any rights until they reach 18. However, my argument would be based on their home life, not what they do in public, with their parents obvious permission. Can the government limit the rights of children? I'm not so sure. However, I also support a clearly defined dress code for schools (as long as we aren't dressing all the kids the same). No dress code was published in the story, an obvious oversight on USAToday's part. Perhaps it was on purpose sense the tone of the story seemed to want to condemn the students and their church rather than explore the reasons behind it. However, without the dress code, I can't speak to whether I agree that the shirts violated said code. They may have, in which case, I'd support the school. However, I'm also a huge supporter of separation of church and state and freedom of speech. Would the school send a child home for wearing a t-shirt that makes a political statement or perhaps condemns other religious faiths? Perhaps they would, again, that isn't addressed in the story. However, it seems unlikely they would unless they deemed said material to be considered "offensive". Who decides then what is offensive in nature? Sorry, I don't agree that it is the teachers or the principle because their decision making is based on their personal beliefs and experiences, as they should be, which colors their opinion. So, we have to fall back on the constitution. Unless the shirt actually did cause a disruption, it is protected speech under the constitution of this country, I would argue.

Now, a quick word on the sentiment of the shirt. One can disagree with what it proclaims, however, I'll point out that Islam proclaims the exact same thing about all religions that aren't Islam. In fact, Christians are supposed to believe that "nobody comes to the father but through me" meaning the only way to heaven is through Jesus Christ. If you believe that, then by definition, all other religions aren't going to lead to heaven. Therefore, all other religions, in a sense, worship the prince of lies since they are designed to lead people away from the truth. Who is the prince of lies? Satan. So, in the eyes of this church and its followers, the shirt makes sense, assuming they are a conservative bunch, which it seems to me they are. Many people are uncomfortable with the idea that other religions are of Satan and I'm not saying they are. I'm saying that all religions can't be right. Especially considering that many of them proclaim themselves to be the only way. If one of them is the only way, then all the rest lead nowhere. Whether that is of Satan or not, it certainly achieves his goal of leading people away.

I was thinking about morality and government...

So, here's my thought process lately. Is setting up government programs to help people moral? Maybe, on the part of the politician, but certainly not for the rest of us. How can I say that? Let me explain. I agree with modern liberals that morality is a personal choice (in theory). God is the ultimate authority and His word rules my thinking, so you can account for that if you like. However, I don't believe the Bible is ever telling us to establish a government to take care of people. We are constantly admonished however to help others, especially widows and orphans (is it any wonder that the largest group of impoverished people in this country are single mothers?). So, the argument is that working together we can effect greater moral good for society and that the government is the only agent capable of doing so. I don't buy it. Here's why. In order to have moral value, an act must come with a choice. An individual must choose to commit a moral act. When we pay our taxes, we are doing as God has told us to respect authority and give to Caesar. Therefore, paying taxes is what we are supposed to do. It is what we are all supposed to do. There is no moral authority in paying taxes. If an act is something that everyone must do regardless of their opinions, belief, conscience, etc., then they are simply doing what we all must do. Where is the morality in that? So, a government program might be morally justified in the eyes of society, but it becomes amoral when placed in the hands of the government. Perhaps even immoral depending on the moral standing you give to the concept of liberty. At best, a government program is moral for the Congress member who wrote the bill and maybe for the ones who voted for it, because they are making a choice in supporting it. However, they are also making that choice for you as well. Moral?

I return to my statement that a moral act must accompany a choice. Therefore, only an individual or a group of individuals acting in concert can commit a moral act. Is it moral for me to see my neighbor suffering and say to myself (there is a government program to help him, so he should take advantage of it) and then do nothing or is it moral for me to see my neighbor suffering and do all I can to help? The first example to me is cowardly and self-centered. It is the me philosophy that gets the religious man to walk on the other side of the road while the second example is more in line with the principle expressed by the good Samaritan. Of course, I'll be accused of saying that by not voting for people who will support government programs, I am the one walking on the other side of the road. To this I respond that it is only the person who puts their money where their mouth is that can commit a moral act. Voting for or against someone guarantees nothing. Creating a government program that invariably will work to less effect than intended and will ultimately have negative "unintended consequences" is not a moral act either. God will value a person who goes out and feeds the hungry and goes out and clothes the naked and goes out and helps the disabled and goes out and gives to the poor. These are all personal moral choices made by individuals or groups of like minded individuals (not governments). To pay your taxes and yet do none of these things because you expect the government to "care" for others is a self-centered act, not a moral one. It goes directly against what I believe God wants. Yes, we are to treat everyone with respect and dignity and yes, we are to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, help the widows and orphans, etc. etc. However, expecting the government to do any of this while not doing it ourselves removes any moral authority from the argument. The tax returns of our leaders generally suggest that a lot of them believe this is the role of government. I do not agree. The man who pays his taxes and his tithe (money, time, etc.) has moral authority while the man who pays his taxes and does not provide money or time to charity has none. Period.

U.S. Constitution -- part 5 (Article 3 - The Judiciary)

Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution talks about the Judiciary Branch. This is what was intended by the founders in setting up the court system in this country. Let's take a look, shall we?

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

So, what does this say about judges and our courts? Well, it is pretty clear. All judicial power lies within the courts and those courts are made up of the Supreme Court and any other court Congress chooses to define. This does not include state courts which deal with state laws but only the federal court system. So, as an aside, if Congress were truly upset with Bush for using military tribunals or secret courts to try terrorists at Guantanamo or anywhere else, it is the Congress and only the Congress that has the power to establish a court to carry out these trials. Hmm... why didn't they do it then? Oh wait, they did and they still want to say that these trials are shams. So, the judiciary branch did its job here by saying the executive was overstepping its authority and the Congress did its job by establishing a court to do this job, but somewhere along the lines, the current courts became vilified due to their supposed association with the Bush administration when in fact, they were established by Congress. Huh. Now, off my soapbox, what else does this article say? Basically, that judges can't receive a pay cut while in office and they can't break the law (good behavior). Pretty simple. Now for section 2:

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

The first part of this section clearly outlines the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This has been altered by the 11th amendment, so we'll revisit this section obviously.

The second part of this section, what constitutes original jurisdiction versus what constitutes appellate jurisdiction is differentiated with the caveat that Congress can regulate exceptions to this. This seems like a clear indication that Congress could have regulated away the concept of judicial review a long time ago if they really didn't want it. Sure, history records there was some grumbling about this, but Congress clearly had authority over this matter and they didn't exercise it, so judicial review stays, along with a lot of other jurisdictional issues.

The third part here clearly delineates the federalist concept. Congress shall create courts to deal with issues that cross state lines or occur on federal property but if a crime is committed solely in one state, it is the laws of that state, not federal law that takes precedence which is why each state has its own court system, independent of the federal judiciary. In addition, this part generally outlines that all criminal trials must be done by a jury. This is constitutional and comes in the section before courts are defined separately between the states, therefore, in my opinion, it follows that it applies to the states as well. Now, the final section of article 3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

What is this saying, really? Obviously it defines treason. Based on the constitutional definition, the word treason gets thrown around an awful lot by both parties in cases where it is clear it is not. In fact, treason is intentionally defined very narrowly because the founders had seen it used to justify all sorts of heinous acts under the monarchy. However, there are a few other things to note. For instance, to be convicted, there must be two witnesses. This is required. No ifs, ands or buts, except confession in open court (who is stupid enough to do that?). Finally, Congress determines the punishment for treason but what does this final clause mean? The framers also had cause to worry about treasonous acts being blamed on an entirely family or group and so they wrote it into the constitution that treason could not include "corruption of blood," or that the children and relatives of the traitor not be considered traitorous simply by relation. In addition, the "no forfeiture" clause basically means that once the traitor dies, "payment" for the crime ends. This is all pretty simple and the judicial branches independence under the constitution is important for our freedoms, when the judiciary chooses to enforce the law and not create law. Of course, any time the court acts on something, Congress can override it unless it is specifically prohibited them in the constitution. This doesn't usually happen.

For all my Constitution loving friends who also love our current President

In 2001, our President Barack Obama, was serving as a legislator in Illinois. He went on the radio and gave an interview, which includes this statement.

"It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf."

Now, this statement is shocking to me. I do not think the Constitution was flawed, but rather the people who wrote it and the environment in which it was written was flawed. Nonetheless, our President thinks that we have not broken free of its "essential constraints". What are these constraints? Apparently, the fact that it only refers to negative rights (unalienable rights) and does not refer to positive rights. Positive rights are contracts between a people and their government while negative rights are those unalienable rights that can't be denied you regardless of what your government is. Basically, Mr. President, the reason the Constitution does not deal with positive rights is because they aren't rights at all. After all, in order to determine what the "government must do on your behalf" you must be willing to curb someone's rights. If the government does something for one person, they affect everyone else. In doing so, they violate somebody's rights along the way (rights being the negative or unalienable rights guaranteed us in the Constitution). Furthermore, to say that the most radical Supreme Court in our nation's history, the Warren court, wasn't radical enough is astounding on its face. Nonetheless, perhaps I have this obviously socialist and possibly communist statement wrong. Perhaps it is taken out of context. Let's hear the recording of the quote in its proper context: ... oh right, every time I find a link purporting to have this link, clicking on it reveals that it "has been removed due to terms of use violations". I see, so somebody has declared a 4 minute audio recording with the President's picture on it a copyright violation. I wonder who has cause to do that????? Right, it must be the local radio station in Illinois who originally aired it. After all, the national publicity they'd receive from such a recording wouldn't do anything other than boost their listener base and increase their revenues due to increased listeners simply because of their association with the President. Oh wait, that would be helpful to them, so who would be harmed by such a recording? Nobody really. Just maybe the President, but he is such a nice guy, gonna change Washington, help out the little guy, so he has nothing to fear from such a recording. Whatever you say.

An odd way to run a coup

FoxNews is reporting on the events in Honduras with a bit more guarded tone than everyone else. It seems they don't want to rush to judgment about the specifics of what is going on there like the rest of the media seems to have done and certainly world leaders have done. Now, for the record, I think a democratically elected person who has not been proven to have rigged the election (*cough* Iran *cough*) should be allowed to finish their term as President. I am not a supporter of military coups. However, if a President has acted illegally, he should be impeached and removed from office. That said, Zelaya is a "friend and ally" of Hugo Chavez, was moving to change the constitution in Honduras and had ignored a Honduran Supreme Court order that stated his actions were unconstitutional. Usually, if someone ignores a court order, they are arrested and held in contempt of court. Apparently, the Honduran legislature either didn't have the means to impeach (I don't know what the Honduras constitution says) or didn't have the clout to do so. However, they were able to get a majority of the group together to claim that the President was violating the constitution and "request" the military to overthrow him. This is an odd military coup after all. Usually, when the military overthrows someone, they take over, at least for a time. This "coup" seems to have removed one guy from office but left the rest of the government in tact. An odd way to run a coup. So, am I for removing President's from office? No. Do I think, based on what I know of Zelaya, that the world is on the wrong side on this one? Probably. It is a tough situation that requires us (the observer) to let it play out without rush to judgment and with sound minds. So far, we have done everything wrong, rushing to judgment and ignoring "evidence" of the man's illegal activity. Calmer heads must prevail, but blindly supporting this ousted President seems to have no other outcome than to appease Hugo Chavez. If that is what the world is coming to, then I fear for Venezuela's neighbors.

An election mandate for Obama!

I will concede that the country voted for change! The significant win by President Obama was clearly predicated on the need for change in Washington. Change was one of the top reasons cited for voting for Obama after all. Sure, the economy tanked at the right time and he is a young new face, but he was voted into office because people are tired of politics as usual, of what typically happens in Washington. He ran on a platform of change. Did he bring it? You can decide that for yourself, but let me ask a few things. Has anything changed in Washington? Has anyone made attempts to change anything in Washington? I would submit the answers to both of these are no. Or are they? After all, we now have more czar positions than we have cabinet members. That's change (the most unelected and unvetted people in history participating in running the country). We now have Congress passing bill after bill of lengthy and complicated legislation that they haven't even read. That's change (I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that they ever read any of it or that they even read at all). These two things certainly qualify as change in Washington, although I don't think very many people would consider it positive change. Have we done anything to limit the power of the lobbyists? Uh, that would be no. In fact, we have now gone to bed with the labor unions (at least in the auto business) in order to "save" that industry. Labor unions are not a wing of government, but are in fact lobbyists of the government, just to be clear. More change includes taking the census from the Department of Commerce (where it has been for over 100 years) and handing it over to a nationally known corrupt political hack organization, specifically, ACORN. That's certainly change we can believe in, huh? My point is this. Obama was given an election mandate, largely because people were fed up with politics as usual in Washington. He made a good speech and sounded like he wanted to change things. However, Congress and this administration seem to have missed the point. They seem to think that the mandate received in the election was for the liberal agenda. More bailouts, more stimulus, more spending, more government interference in health care and the largest tax increase in history (although they call it a "fee" and say it'll help the environment). The midterm elections will likely come as a surprise to Democrats and liberals because they have conducted business as usual in Washington rather than bringing about change. The mandate was for change, not the liberal agenda and certainly not for business as usual. In fact, this point is so lost on Democrats and the media that they belittle the "TEA" parties which are grass roots and bipartisan as nothing more than a FoxNews ploy. For the record, they aren't a FoxNews ploy but the main stream media likes to report it that way because otherwise, they'd have to do real journalism. These movements are only being positively covered by FoxNews. If that makes them sponsored by FoxNews, then I guess that means that NBC covering the olympics exclusively means they are in bed with China's communist government. See, the logic is faulty. Nonetheless, I suggest some people start waking up and realizing that our current leaders are doing their best to ramrod their own agendas and not what is best for the country. If they do, then perhaps we can really do something about it at the midterm elections.

Hot dogs, Frank and Weiner, running the country?

It seems that Barney Frank and Anthony Weiner haven't learned anything. In an article today from Reuters, they are asking Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to lower restrictions on condominium mortgages. Really? What? It seems that the restrictions are too stiff for these two Congressmen because they are preventing people from being able to buy condos. Uh, duh, people who shouldn't be. Do these two Congressmen have such short memories that they don't even realize they are asking these "companies" to do exactly what got us into this mess in the first place? I mean... oh never mind, my title says it all I suppose.

PBS bans religion?

In today's FoxNews, they reported about policy decisions at PBS. Now, before I continue, I'll mention that you'd be hard pressed to find a stronger supporter of the religious clauses of the first amendment of the Constitution. That said, this decision by a national board for PBS is a shining example of trying to control something nationally that should be local. If PBS doesn't want religious content in its nationally distributed programming, so be it, I'm all for that. Creating programming at the national level and telling us all we have to have it on PBS could constitute a de facto sense of religious establishment. That would make sense if that is what this decision were about. It isn't. In fact, a national board is telling local PBS stations that they can't have the national programming if they show anything commercial, partisan or sectarian. Huh, that pretty much counts out most of what PBS currently shows, but I digress. Although this is an enforcement of an unenforced rule that dates back to 1985, what made PBS worthwhile was that it showed local programming of local interest. This included religious programming. A local station knows better about what their audience wants to view than a national board could ever know. That's the real issue here. Somebody in Washington dictating to Jackson, Mississippi or Dallas, Texas or Chicago, Illinois what is and isn't appropriate for their local audience. Now, we come to the separation of church and state issue. Really? Has PBS recently been sued and nobody said anything? No, the reality is that this is an excuse, nothing more. In fact, nobody is worried about this except apparently, the PBS board. The Constitution guarantees freedom of exercise and prohibits religious establishment. Would a local PBS station showing a Sunday morning preacher (from any religion) constitute religious establishment? I don't really think it does, and after 40 years of programming and no publically known complaints, I'd say the public doesn't think so either. However, prohibiting such programming might be construed as hostility to religion. This is also prohibited by the Constitution since it violates free exercise. All organizations should have access to PBS and that includes religions. Finally, PBS cites worries that religious programming "would cause the public's trust in PBS to erode, along with the value of the brand,". Really? Again, if this were true, you'd have lost that trust and value decades ago. After all, it is all based on an unenforced rule dating back to 1985. 24 years people! Not to mention the many years before the rule. So, my question becomes, why now? What has suddenly changed that has made this an issue? Could it be who occupies the White House and who is the majority party in Congress? Of course not!

The current tally!

Just for the sake of actually paying attention, Sarah Palin has AGAIN been cleared of any wrongdoing (see the story in the Washington Times). An independent board in her own state has now said 13 out of 13 times that she has not committed any ethics violations and the FCC has said 1 out of 1 times that she has not committed any ethics violations. Oooh, that can't be right. 14 out of 14 times now she has been cleared of ethics violations charges. Huh, that must mean, I don't know, that the media has been lying about Sarah Palin? Imagine that!

Tax the poor!

An article in today's USAToday talked about the possibility of taxing sodas and other sweet drinks as well as alcoholic beverages with an additional excise tax (meaning one you'll never see). They cite health reasons for wanting to do this. The fact that sodas have been linked to increased risk of heart disease, diabetes and obesity. You know what? I agree entirely that sodas have been linked to these things and therefore, I have chosen not to drink a lot of soda. Most of my drinking diet is made up of water and juice (100% juice, not sugar water). In addition, we rarely give soda to our children. This is a free choice we've made as individuals and as parents. Placing an excise tax on these products however means that we will buy even less soda. All that said, this is a horrible idea, especially at this time. After all, who drinks soda, beer, sugar water pretending to be juice, etc.? That's right, it is primarily a product sold to the lower classes in this country. It makes perfect sense to me to go out and tax the poor to pay for health care all the while claiming you are doing exactly the opposite, taxing the rich. Similar taxes were tried during the New Deal era as well. They disproportionately affected the poor then too. History teaches that if you tax the people who buy products, thereby taking away their ability to buy products, you succeed in deepening the economic downturn you are in rather than pulling people out of it. In fact, history teaches that the way to end an economic downturn is to lower taxes, not raise them, so let's all continue to cheer this administration who wants to create all these new and "useful" programs to make us all more and more dependent on the government in the name of health care and environmental friendliness. Oh yes, we are definitely headed down the road to prosperity now. Three cheers for Obama, Congress and the Democrats!

My advice to the Republican party!

No one is going to listen to my advice, being politicians are what they are, they will always do the wrong things. However, I'm going to offer it anyway. Obama has nominated an Hispanic woman to be the next Supreme Court justice. Now, many may not like her politics, her decisions, her antics, etc., but she did graduate law school, she was a district judge and she did serve as an appellate judge. Guess what guys, this means she's qualified. Maybe she was picked because she was a woman or because she is Hispanic or both, but does that really matter? Here's the thing. When judge Roberts went through his fight and when the gang of 15 had to be formed to get Bush's judicial nominees through the Senate, the fight was over how Democrats were not being constitutional in providing advice and consent but were instead filibustering judicial nominees, simply because they didn't like them. First, I agree that the Democrats significantly overstepped their bounds here. Never before had judicial nominees been filibustered and it should never happen again (hear this Republicans!). After all, constitutionally, the Senate's job is to provide advice and consent. You don't like somebody, vote no, but you can't just keep somebody's nomination hanging. That's unfair to the nominee, it is unfair to the President, it is unfair to "we the people" but most importantly, it is unconstitutional. Secondly, there were a lot of political games played by the Democrats over judicial nominees during the Bush years that are so abhorrent to me it isn't funny at all. Listing them would take several posts. However, the Republicans should not fall into the same trap. Obama thinks he has been wonderfully shrewd in picking an Hispanic and a woman to boot. While this makes for good politics, it actually isn't particularly shrewd at all. It would have been more shrewd to use this tactic in picking someone that might actually change the balance on the court. This judge, whether you like her or agree with her isn't going to do that. The court balance will remain the same. Additionally, you aren't going to win this one. With 59 votes in the Senate and probably 60, the Democrats don't need a single Republican to vote yes in order to confirm her. We should learn something from the Democrats of the Reagan era here. They confirmed Scalia (whom they despise) 98-0 most likely (for all the wrong reasons) because he was the first Italian American nominated to the court. The Republicans should follow suit here. Sure, ask tough questions and make sure America knows where she stands during the vetting process, but in the end, vote her in and do it unanimously. Anything less will alienate the female and Hispanic vote and that is something the Republicans can't afford. Can't bring yourself to vote for someone you are stringently opposed to ideologically? Fine, don't vote unless you have to or better yet, realize that this vote and this fight isn't the one to be fought and won. You can't win this one so choose your battles and fight the one that needs to be fought. This one isn't it!

U.S. Constitution, part 4

We have consistently heard both parties decry the power of the President in recent years. So, other than the fact that I'd argue that the blatant and willful ignorance of the constitution over the past 100 or so years means that both parties now have exactly what they wanted and exactly what they deserve, let's look at what the constitution actually says about the Executive Branch of the government. What powers does the President actually have?

Article II - The Executive Branch Note

Section 1 - The President

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
This is simple, it just tells us the President serves, along with the Vice President for four years.

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

So the state determines the method by which electors are chosen? Based on modern practice, you could have fooled me. It seems to me that the two parties control the entire process. In other words, I think the states have voluntarily allowed their power to establish electors to be supplanted by the political parties.

(The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President.) (This clause in parentheses was superseded by the 12th Amendment.)
This was of course superseded by the 12th Amendment because it was so fraught with problems that came to light so quickly that the founders themselves had to fix this one. I'll discuss the 12th Amendment later, but this section caused virtual chaos with a President and Vice President of different parties and with a tie vote that had to be decided by the House because of pure politics.

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
While the states set the method for choosing the electors, it is Congress that determines the time and day that those electors must come together and cast their votes.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
There has been a lot of focus on this particular section of the constitution recently because of our current President. Many people are satisfied with the "evidence" of citizenship provided by the President and many others are equally convinced that he does not qualify as "natural born" because of his father's British citizenship. The Supreme Court weighed in on this and basically decided not to decide. In other words, they didn't want to overturn the election or even define the term "natural born" for us. I think this is probably the wisest course for the court but very unsatisfying. The fact remains that a person must be 35 years old, been living in the country for at least 14 years and that they must be "natural born". The exception to natural born no longer exists since all persons who would have qualified under the exception are now dead. Is Obama natural born? Decide for yourself, there are plenty of people arguing both ways. Even if he isn't, it is likely that he is not the first President who technically doesn't qualify under this requirement (see Chester A. Arthur).

(In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.) (This clause in parentheses has been modified by the 20th and 25th Amendments.)
The 20th and 25th Amendments were passed to clarify various inadequacies in this article. In fact, they were passed to deal with specific types of succession issues not addressed clearly above. This is how the process is supposed to work. You want to change the power or abilities in the constitution, you amend it. Period.

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
You can't raise the President's salary during the 4 year term of his election. No problems here, seems straight forward.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The famous oath of office that got messed up in the past inaugural. Both men were nervous and doing it for the first time, so I guess that isn't really surprising.

Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Section 2 is the meat of Presidential power. He is Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, so he is the sole authority over them. Congress approves their funding, but the President commands them. It also includes the militias of the states if called into service. Technically, we also have an Air Force. So, we should have technically had a constitutional amendment to add the air force into this article. It just sort of got overlooked, I'm sure. Also, the President can grant reprieves and pardons except in cases of impeachment. Cool, convince a President you don't belong in jail and he can get you out. I may disagree with a President about who he pardons, but I've never questioned his authority to do so. Sure, this can be and has been abused, but it is still within his authority. Now, if he's caught giving a pardon in exchange for a bribe, well, then we come back to him being impeached for bribery.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President makes treaties, but must get a 2/3 vote from the Senate to approve it. This is the real reason why the states elected Senators in the past. States must change their laws to account for treaties signed into law and approved by the Senate. Therefore, in a federalist system, the only way states have of protecting their interests is to make sure they have Senators who will follow the instructions of the states. We don't have this anymore since the Senators are elected by the people now. Finally, the President appoints ambassadors and judges and cabinet members, etc. Interestingly, note that this is with the advice and consent of the Senate. That's why the Senate has to vote on all of these nominations. They can give advice through their votes, but they must also give their consent. Political appointments of the President are not blank checks. However, I don't think this is meant to prevent a qualified candidate from taking office. In addition, I don't think it was meant that we crucify candidates who are qualified for the job but we don't happen to like their politics. I think the Senate is supposed to determine if the person can do the job. If so, they should be approved, if not, they should not be confirmed. This is not to be based on beliefs or personal attributes, but can be based on whether a person has broken the law or if they are qualified and capable of doing the job. I'd say a treasury secretary who can't figure out how to pay his taxes should not have been approved since he obviously isn't qualified.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
This just means that the President can appoint someone to a position without Senate consent for a period of time that ends when the Senate's next session expires (assuming they don't confirm the candidate during that session). This basically means he can hire whomever he wants, but does eventually have to seek the Senate's consent or the person will have to leave office by the time the Senate session ends.

Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
The President must give a state of the Union address (this was simply written in the past but has now become the huge television event we have today) and can recommend measures to the Congress. He may call special sessions of Congress or even adjourn them as well. He can receive ambassadors and other public ministers. Notice that this is a sole power of the President, not one given to Congress, thus the issues I have with Congressmen and Senators making trips to foreign countries as official representatives. They don't have this constitutional authority, only the President does. He "takes care" that the laws are faithfully executed so he should be law abiding himself and finally, he commission all the officers of the United States.

Section 4 - Disqualification

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Treason, bribery or high Crimes and Misdemeanors. This pretty much means that a President or any member of the government can be impeached for breaking the law. Any law.

I want to point out that there is a glaring issue that does not appear in the constitution which we've allowed and overlooked for a long time now. Executive orders is not a stated power of the President. Therefore, they should not be allowed. They have grown over the years into a force that circumvents the legislature. Considering they aren't even in the constitution, that is astounding. We want the President to have this power? Okay, fine, pass an amendment! Otherwise, they must be done away with. Presidents have also expanded executive power in regards to war powers. Sure, the President commands the troops, but the constitution says Congress declares war. So, one could argue that troops should never been sent into harms way without a declaration of war. This one has been argued and Congress even tried to reign in Presidential abuses in this area with the war powers act, but we still see Presidents do pretty much whatever they want militarily around the world. Is this in the above stated powers of the President? I'm not sure it is. Nonetheless, there are entire books written on the expansion of Presidential power and you really should read some of those to truly understand this issue, but what is important to take away from this is that the President we have today has far more power to create and circumvent law than any President before him. I don't see how continuing to expand this power is anything close to "take care that the laws are faithfully executed", but instead that it is closer to do what you want as long as nobody has the will or the power to stop you.

What Thomas Jefferson would have to say about our problems today!

I just thought I'd quote some of Thomas Jefferson since the Democrats love to quote him themselves. Conveniently for them, they don't quote everything he says, just those things they like, so... I'm going to do the same thing and give my own commentary to go with it.

"[With the decline of society] begins, indeed, the bellum omnium in omnia [war of all against all], which some philosophers observing to be so general in this world, have mistaken it for the natural, instead of the abusive state of man. And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.
So, public debt leads to taxation to pay it off which leads to wretchedness and oppression. I couldn't agree more!

"I sincerely believe... that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816.
So, if we spend money today and expect our children and our children's children to pay it off, then we are nothing more than thieves, that's what he's saying here. Again, I couldn't agree more. Think any Democrats would agree?

"Then I say, the earth belongs to each of these generations during its course, fully and in its own right. The second generation receives it clear of the debts and incumbrances of the first, the third of the second, and so on. For if the first could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not to the living generation. Then, no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789.

"The conclusion then, is, that neither the representatives of a nation, nor the whole nation itself assembled, can validly engage debts beyond what they may pay in their own time." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789.
These two go together and say all one can say, do they not? If you can't pay off a debt in your lifetime, it isn't a debt you can morally justify. Period. Seems pretty clear. Hmmm...if it is so clear then, how can we really justify the paygo system of social security which places a burden on our children to pay for the needs of the previous generations? I don't think we can. I wonder why do our political parties ignore Jefferson so much? They don't really, they just pick and choose and this one is inconvenient.

"We believe--or we act as if we believed--that although an individual father cannot alienate the labor of his son, the aggregate body of fathers may alienate the labor of all their sons, of their posterity, in the aggregate, and oblige them to pay for all the enterprises, just or unjust, profitable or ruinous, into which our vices, our passions or our personal interests may lead us. But I trust that this proposition needs only to be looked at by an American to be seen in its true point of view, and that we shall all consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves; and consequently within what may be deemed the period of a generation, or the life of the majority." --Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813.
He is still speaking of the government here and is reiterating years later that it is morally unacceptable to saddle our children with debt.

"It is a wise rule and should be fundamental in a government disposed to cherish its credit and at the same time to restrain the use of it within the limits of its faculties, "never to borrow a dollar without laying a tax in the same instant for paying the interest annually and the principal within a given term; and to consider that tax as pledged to the creditors on the public faith." On such a pledge as this, sacredly observed, a government may always command, on a reasonable interest, all the lendable money of their citizens, while the necessity of an equivalent tax is a salutary warning to them and their constituents against oppressions, bankruptcy, and its inevitable consequence, revolution." --Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813.
What is he saying here? Is he contradicting the earlier quotes? Absolutely not! He is saying that it is wise of a government to have good credit (a good credit score if you will) which up until recently the U.S. has always managed to have. He goes on to say that you should never borrow money without raising taxes or creating a tax to pay it off which is consistent with his not wanting to pass debt on to our children. However, he talks about public faith and goes on to say that the government should be warned. By requiring a tax to pay for things, the government is hindered by the public faith (the faith of the people) since unwise use of the monies raised by said tax would eventually lead to revolution. Ouch!

"I deem [this one of] the essential principles of our government and consequently [one] which ought to shape its administration:... The honest payment of our debts and sacred preservation of the public faith. " --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.
Only by being honest and paying our debts can we preserve the public faith. Anyone really think the public faith is currently being preserved or, like me, do you feel it is being damaged.

"I consider the fortunes of our republic as depending in an eminent degree on the extinguishment of the public debt before we engage in any war; because that done, we shall have revenue enough to improve our country in peace and defend it in war without recurring either to new taxes or loans. But if the debt should once more be swelled to a formidable size, its entire discharge will be despaired of, and we shall be committed to the English career of debt, corruption and rottenness, closing with revolution. The discharge of public debt, therefore, is vital to the destinies of our government." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1809.
Don't carry a debt and you can do what you want! This is largely what he is saying here. For gosh sakes, if we didn't owe so much money, do you think a 700 billion dollar stimulus would look awful? No! We'd do it in a heartbeat knowing we could pay it off in a few years and be done with it. That's not what is happening though!

"There [is a measure] which if not taken we are undone...[It is] to cease borrowing money and to pay off the national debt. If this cannot be done without dismissing the army and putting the ships out of commission, haul them up high and dry and reduce the army to the lowest point at which it was ever established. There does not exist an engine so corruptive of the government and so demoralizing of the nation as a public debt. It will bring on us more ruin at home than all the enemies from abroad against whom this army and navy are to protect us." --Thomas Jefferson to Nathaniel Macon, 1821.
Ooh, if you can't pay your debt, then you shouldn't have a standing army. I wonder what that says for our military which is 16 percent of the federal budget?

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
This is a great one, because it condemns almost all forms of welfare. Notice however that he doesn't condemn helping those who cannot help themselves. He only says it is immoral to take from those who work and give to those who won't. That is a huge difference from those who can't. So, I'd say the majority of welfare programs therefore would be morally unjustifiable to Jefferson.

"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
Wow! Our "leaders" really don't get it do they! Abortion is morally reprehensible to some so Jefferson argues it shouldn't be funded by taxes at all. Is there really anything that could be justified based on the argument Jefferson gives here? The answer might be no, in which case, we'd have a much smaller budget.

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
Finally, one of the most important. A government that fears the people will guarantee the rights and liberties of those people because they fear them, but a government that doesn't fear the people is nothing more than tyranny. So ask yourself, does your political party fear you? Do your "leaders" fear you? Does the federal government fear the people at all? I answer these questions with a negative and therefore conclude that we are becoming the tyranny Jefferson spoke of.

This entire post is for the sole purpose of making a point!

I don't care what anybody chooses to do when it comes to what businesses they patronize. The whole point is that we have the choice of where we'd like to spend our money. I believe in that, so do what you want using whatever criteria you want. I personally believe in finding the best deal, so it never occurred to me to even think about who owned the business. That's why I found this story, reported all over the place, a bit odd. This was reported as a great experiment meant to empower black business owners. I agree with that as a concept. However, it seems to me that this story misses a bigger point. This is the choice of the individual consumer and I have no problem with it, but I want to make this point. Just think what would happen if someone were to say this about whites. In order to do that, I've changed every instance of African-American or black in the AP story as reported on MSNBC to white, just to see how it would read. Here goes:

Buy-white experiment gathering momentum
Couple attempting patronize only white-owned businesses

ATLANTA - It's been two months since 2-year-old Cori pulled the gold stud from her left earlobe, and the piercing is threatening to close as her mother, Maggie Anderson, hunts for a replacement.
It's not that the earring was all that rare — but finding the right store has become a quest of quixotic proportions.
Maggie and John Anderson of Chicago vowed four months ago that for one year, they would try to patronize only white-owned businesses. The "Empowerment Experiment" is the reason John had to suffer for hours with a stomach ache and Maggie no longer gets that brand-name lather when she washes her hair. A grocery trip is a 14-mile odyssey.
"We kind of enjoy the sacrifice because we get to make the point ... but I am going without stuff and I am frustrated on a daily basis," Maggie Anderson said. "It's like, my people have been here 400 years and we don't even have a Walgreens to show for it."
So far, the Andersons have spent hundreds of dollars with white businesses from grocery stores to dry cleaners. But the couple still hasn't found a mortgage lender, home security system vendor or toy store. Nonetheless, they're hoping to expand the endeavor beyond their Chicago home.
Plans are under way to track spending among supporters nationwide and build a national database of quality white businesses. The first affiliate chapter has been launched in Atlanta, and the couple has established a foundation to raise funds for white businesses and an annual convention.
"We have the real power to do something, to use the money we spend every day to solve our problems," Maggie Anderson said recently at a meet-and-greet in Atlanta. "We have to believe that white businesses are just as good as everybody else's."
Now, the Andersons are following up with 4,000 people who signed up for the experiment on their Web site to gauge their commitment and set up online accounts to track their spending. Hundreds have also joined the experiment's Facebook page, Maggie Anderson said.
Gregory Price, chairman of the economics department at Morehouse College, said white visionaries like Booker T. Washington and Marcus Garvey made similar calls to action.
"The idea is a sound one, given that white Americans are still underrepresented in the ranks of the self-employed and that entrepreneurship is a key component to wealth," Price said.
There are 1 million white businesses in the United States accounting for more than $100 billion in annual sales, according to the National White Chamber of Commerce. The latest U.S. Census numbers report that whites have more than $800 billion in expendable income each year.
The Andersons track their spending on their Web site and estimate about 55 percent of their monthly spending is with white businesses for things like day care, groceries, car maintenance and home improvements.
One of the businesses highlighted by the Empowerment Experiment is Brenda Brown's Atlanta wine boutique, a shop with a growing white clientele. She said the project can help overcome the problems many white consumers lament.
"When we were a community of white folks who could not go to the white stores, our community of white stores flourished," Brown said. "When we were given the opportunity to go into the white store, it was like nothing else mattered anymore and we wanted to go to the white store, regardless of what the white store provided. We could have the same or better products if we supported (white businesses) in the same way."
Lewis Peeples, 45, lives in a white neighborhood in southwest Atlanta but didn't think to spend his money with white businesses until a friend told him about the project.
"So often, we make purchases and decisions and aren't even mindful that there is a a need to support our own businesses," said Peeples. "Now, I'm reaching out and making sure I know that I have an option when I look to make a purchase."
Two months ago, he committed to patronizing white businesses and found a white dry cleaner 10 minutes from home. Even when he was dissatisfied with his white doctor, he was able to find a new one. He suggests both to friends and refers others to the experiment's Web site, where he tracks his expenses.
Dallas Smith, who owns a commercial real estate firm in Atlanta, said mainstream retailers have undervalued white consumers. He lives in a white neighborhood in southwest Atlanta, where he tries to dine at white restaurants. He lamented the lack of quality businesses catering to white customers and said whites should appreciate such businesses more.
"We've still got that 'the white man's water is colder' mentality," he said. "We can't take us for granted. When we go to our establishments, it's almost like we're doing a favor. That ought to be a given for us."
The Andersons remain encouraged by their momentum online and in the media. At the end of 2009, they hope to show $1 million in spending with white businesses among supporters across the country.
"The response has been so huge," Maggie Anderson said. "We think so much can come out of this. We're in movement-making mode now."
Price, the Morehouse professor, said defining the project's success won't be easy, since the real barriers to white advancement are poor access to capital and lack of training opportunities.
"It would be nice to see some real, hard data," Price said. "Otherwise, it could just be an episode of ethnic cheerleading."

Now, I agree with what these people are doing. I think it is a great way of empowering their community. It is being done by choice and without government assistance. It is great, in my opinion. However, if you'd read the story above, I guarantee we'd be accusing these people of being racists and intolerant. So, are only whites racist and intolerant or is this fine for anyone to do? Is it because blacks are a minority that makes it okay for them and not for whites? I'm just looking for a good explanation why one is racist and the other isn't. So, that's my point. I don't think it is, but I guarantee it would come off that way.

Be careful what you ask for, especially from politicians!

So, anyone ever watch science fiction (Star Trek, Logan's Run, etc.) that talks about how the elderly are devalued by society and end up being put to death? No? Well, that's the idea our Congress is looking at now in providing universal health care. Don't believe me? This is a quote from Professor Stuart Altman of Brandeis University, speaking in the Senate Finance Committee hearings on health-care reform. He stated...

quote:
"Remember, our population is aging. And with the very, very elderly, the costs go down, so that percentage should be falling, and it’s not. Second, the cost of care is growing by so much, so at the same percentage, it’s worth a lot more. So let’s go back to the issue of comparative effectiveness, which we’re supporting. That’s where that can have a big impact. It’s not only there, but that’s where the waste is. That’s where people are using technologies that really either don’t work at all or keep people alive for for very limited [time] and [at] very high cost.

Hospice is one option, but we do need take account of the cost — you know, I hate to say it, the cost-benefit of some of the things we do. And either we can do it directly, or we can do it by bundling the payments and let the delivery system deal with it. So it’s a combination of the delivery system dealing with it, or, and/or providing more information for people to make the right decisions, both for themselves and for the care."

Don't quite understand what he's saying? Huh, it's quite simple. He's saying that we should be spending less money and resources on the elderly but instead we do the opposite and that we need to look at the cost benefit of this practice, which only leads to the conclusion that it isn't cost effectively to care for the sickest in society. Duh! Knew that, we do it because it is the right thing to do, not because it is cost beneficial. In other words, he's saying that people over an as yet undetermined age are simply too old to bother with saving. Making the right decisions for themselves means life and death decisions. You need dialysis but you can't get it because you are too old, or you need that transplant, but you are too old so a younger person will get bumped ahead of you on the list. This leaves the elderly with what options? Go into hospice care or go home and die or what? Are we moving to assisted suicide now? Is the Logan's Run scenario the next logical leap for these people (Progressives). If so, I want no part in it.

I read this post and liked it

The People and Their Enemies

By Andrew Klavan

If the tax day tea party protests accomplished nothing else, they did this: they tore the mask off the mainstream news media and revealed the media’s naked hostility to the ideals of our founding fathers. For years, those of us who hold to those ideals have felt that the news media were biased against us. Now we see we were wrong. They’re not biased. They’re openly on the attack.

Saying the media are biased is like saying the British were biased against the colonial forces at Bunker Hill. It’s as if one minute man turned to another and said, “I think those redcoats are shooting at us because they lack objectivity.”

I think they’re shooting at us because they’re trying to kill us.

Never was this more clear to me than on Friday, the first of May, when I had the pleasure of participating in an extraordinary hour of television: Glenn’s live and free-wheeling discussion with a studio-full of regular folks who had turned out on tax day to protest the recent unprecedented expansion of government and the cost that they and their children are going to have to pay for it.

These were the very people columnist Paul Krugman called “crazy,” in the pages of the New York Times; the people Susan Rosegen of CNN labeled “offensive,” and that actress Janeane Garafolo called “racist,” on MSNBC. As for the rest of the mainstream media, well, they tried to ignore them at first and, when their sheer numbers made that impossible, they tried to mock them with the sort of low jokes you usually expect to hear in a middle school locker room or on The Daily Show.

And yet when Glenn gave them a fair chance to speak for themselves, what did these crazy offensive racists want to talk about? Their businesses. Their families. The constitution. The founders. And they wanted to try to answer Glenn’s question: what is the media missing about them?

“The media is missing, first of all, objectivity,” said a woman named Nicole, as her fellow tea-partyers burst into applause. “I think that is the biggest thing that they’re missing… All of us who attended the tea parties were all ethnicities, all political backgrounds, all income ranges, and we were all there because we’re all frustrated.”

Then there was Kathy, who had given CNN’s shameful Rosegen a piece of her mind at the tea party in Chicago. She told Glenn: “They don’t understand anything, and I mean anything—the media. They absolutely only talk to each other, so they are living in this bubble. And the only thing they know is the ideas of the people that they hang out with in the big cities all over.”

But as I listened to these two well-spoken and intelligent ladies—as I listened to all the people in the studio that day—I was not convinced the media were missing anything. I think the media understand exactly who these people are—and I think they oppose them and I think they fear them and I think they want to shut them down.

The mainstream news media are populated by elites who support government by the elites, for the elites. Their idea of government is an idea as old as Pharoah: the idea of a mighty state collecting the riches of the populace and redistributing them as it deems virtuous and just.

The people in Glenn’s studio have a different idea. It’s a newer, more radical—you might even say revolutionary idea. It’s the idea that the people can govern themselves, can choose for themselves how to spend their time and their money. It’s the idea that each person can decide for himself where virtue lies, guided by his God, not his president. It’s the idea that the constitution sets the rules and the government has to act within its boundaries, leaving the people free.

The media—and every other lover of the almighty state—hate that revolutionary idea. They hate it enough to slander and mock the protesters who turned out on tax day to support it. But despite the media’s best efforts, the protesters turned out again in Glenn’s studio to explain themselves. And I believe they are going to turn out again and again. Because they’re the people, and the country belongs to them.

Hawaii violates constitution!

The state of Hawaii's Senate passed a bill designating Sept. 24, 2009 as Islam Day. It passed 22-3. The 3 Senators who voted against were 2 Republicans who didn't want to honor Islam as a religion because of it's association with extremism and 1 Democrat who thought it was a separation of church and state violation. I'm not going to comment on the 2 Senators who were against it because of extremists. Yes, they are right that a majority of terrorists in the world today get their inspiration from Islam, but that is completely irrelevant here. The one Democrat (no names were mentioned anywhere that I could find) said they voted against it because of the church-state issue. Amen to someone who seems to have actually read the U.S. Constitution! After all, the Supreme Court applied the Bill of Rights to the states, so the states can't establish religions any more than the federal government can. To create a day that is specifically designed to honor a religion does exactly that. Does Hawaii have a Christian Day or a Jewish Day or a Bhuddist Day or a Mormon Day? NO! I'd bet they don't! So, having an Islam Day doesn't "honor the contributions to the world of the Islamic world" as the Hawaiian Senate is claiming but establishing Islam as a preferred religion in Hawaii. There is no other interpretation. If you want to honor the contributions that have come out of the Middle East, Indonesia, Persia, North Africa as positive, that's great. Have an Arab American Day or a Pakistani Day but to have Islam Day doesn't celebrate these contributions. Instead, it celebrates a specific religion. Hawaii has violated the constitution.

Domestic extremism lexicon! What?!

This document from the Department of Homeland Security was pulled shortly after being released by a "maverick" element within the department that is being reined in. This document, combined with another that was recently released and then called a "mistake" after it got really bad press because it said soldiers were potential terrorists really suggests that DHS needs to be reined in. Better yet, get rid of it entirely, it really is the kind of institution that has potential to do great harm internally. Oh wait, I just became part of their extremist views groups. This document defines extremist groups. For the record, I do not advocate or believe in any kind of violence to achieve goals, so I'd agree that anyone who uses violence in their opposition is an extremist. However, while there are plenty of real examples of extremism in this "lexicon", I'd say that many people fall into at least one of these categories, which calls into question their legitimacy. After all, you can't just define a group and say it is violent and then brand it as extremist. Can you? Here are some examples:

Cuban Independence Extremism: A movement of groups or individuals who do not recognize the legitimacy of the Communist Cuban Government and who attempt to subvert it through acts of violence, mainly within the United States.Wow! I didn't know that the entire city of Miami was considered extremist. Oh yeah, another one I fit into. While I do not advocate violence, I do not recognize the legitimacy of the Communist Cuban government. Oh, by the way, this definition makes JFK an extremist, just fyi.

Antiabortion extremism: A movement of groups or individuals who are virulently antiabortion and advocate violence against providers of abortion-related services, their employees, and their facilities. Some cite various racist and anti-Semitic beliefs to justify their criminal activities. Yes, there are in fact a bunch of crazy antiabortionists who would kill to achieve their goals and I disagree with that philosophy since two wrongs don't make a right. However, in using the word virulently, what are they really saying here. If they mean people who are opposed to all abortions, then many people fit into this. I think we need more to a definition of what constitutes extremism than "a group is against something and by the way occasionally commits violent acts".

direct action: Lawful or unlawful acts of civil disobedience ranging from protests to property destruction or acts of violence. This term is most often used by single-issue or anarchist extremists to describe their activities. Okay, I here ya. anarchism is an extreme overreaction in my opinion, so certainly extremist, but the definition is awful. After all, how can a lawful act of civil disobedience constitute extremism. I mean, really?

tax resistance movement: Groups or individuals who vehemently believe taxes violate their constitutional rights. Among their beliefs are that wages are not income, that paying income taxes is voluntary, and that the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which allowed Congress to levy taxes on income, was not properly ratified. Members have been known to advocate or engage in criminal activity and plot acts of violence and terrorism in an attempt to advance their extremist goals. They often target government entities such as the Internal Revenue Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Well, a lot of people are anti-tax and more and more are becoming this way. This is a legitimate political opinion. Yes, adding violence to it makes it extreme, but really? These people are violent? Never heard of a single act of violence being perpetrated by anyone claiming to be anti-tax. Doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but certainly it hasn't happened enough to justify labelling this group of people as extremists. Eh?!

These are some examples of extremism as listed in the report. In addition, it pretty much calls every current Democrat a left-wing extremist and every Republican a right-wing extremist based on the definitions it chooses to use for those groups. However, the report overall isn't a bad one, listing a plethora of legitimate extremist groups. Therefore, edit some of the more egregious examples I've listed and then keep the report, it isn't bad overall, so what is it that the DHS was so afraid of that it had to be quashed? Huh? Maybe I missed it, anyone else want to read it and comment on what they think I missed?

Really?! Really?!

I know everyone has heard about this by now, but really, who in their right mind would order such an event. CNN is reporting that everyone is really sorry, but that really isn't good enough. The plane that flies the President around suddenly does a low flyby on New York City? Of course people panicked at the site of it. For goodness sake, that'd be like Hollywood buying a bunch of Japanese warplanes and flying them over Pearl Harbor in 1949 without telling anyone they were going to do it. It is at best poor taste and perhaps even criminal. I like what liked what Fran Townsend had to say about it. Crass insensitivity and felony stupidity were how she was quoted. All of this for military photo ops? Seriously? Can't you just take a pretty picture with the darn plane sitting on the tarmac at Andrews Air Force Base? What can the military possibly be doing that they need to take pictures of Air Force One flying amonst the skyscrapers of New York? Oh, but it is a classified, government sanctioned photo op. Whatever the heck that means. I've never heard of any kind of photo shoot involving planes, trains or whatever. I guess they exist, they were just ... classified? As far as I can tell, Louis Caldera, director of the White House military office, claimed responsibility for ordering this "event" and apologized. In a case like this, where you end up terrifying the population of a large portion of New York City, an apology isn't enough. If we assume Mr. Caldera is in fact responsible, and not just a scapegoat, then he needs to be fired. Right now.

This was just the wrong decision!

As reported in several places, including this one from NBC, President Obama gave a speech about the economy (ironically in which he himself used religious statements) at Georgetown University. The speech was televised. The White House requested Georgetown to cover or remove any and all religious imagery that might be picked up on television cameras, supposedly in order to facilitate the backdrop they wanted to put up. Georgetown University acceded to this request and did so. The President can give a speech wherever the heck he wants. However, if he doesn't want religious imagery to be seen on tv while he is doing it, he shouldn't be giving the speech at a religious institution. This is my simple opinion. To ask Georgetown to cover something that is so integral to their identity is unnecessary and plainly offensive to Catholics. Would anyone suggest covering over a star of David? Of course not, they'd be accused of anti-semitism. How about Islamic symbols? Of course not, they'd be accused of being anti-Islamic or targeting Islam, or whatever. This is unacceptable behavior, plain and simple. The White House didn't have to choose a religious institution to give this speech, so again, if you don't want religious imagery prominently displayed behind you, don't go to a religious institution. The White House was wrong to make this request and Georgetown was wrong to accede to it. It was just wrong all the way around!

Yet more news from the left's favorite son Chavez (oh wait, maybe that's Castro)

So, the administration is "giving in" to Iran by possibly taking the requirement to stop nuclear enrichment off the table before we talk with them, sat around and let North Korea launch a missile we knew could reach U.S. shores (if N.K. so chose), having the Congressional Black Caucus leaders cozy up to Castro and then using a blatantly political move of removing travel and money restrictions to Cuban Americans while leaving them in place for the rest of us which serves only as a political move to try to get Cuban American votes away from the Republican party since it leaves the general embargo in place but let's them violate it freely. I'm not arguing for or against any of these things here. Anyone who knows me probably can figure out my positions here, but I did want to point out a pattern that seems to suggest that in world politics, at least where it doesn't involve terrorists, the current administration and Congress seem very happy with the prospect of giving in to our long time enemies or simply just letting them do what they want. I could be wrong, but that's how it looks from where I'm sitting. Now today, and only on Fox News for some reason comes another story about that crazy strongman in Venezuela, Mr. Hugo Chavez. This is a man who has railed against Bush and has even spoken out against the new administration. Who has used fear and bullying tactics to drive his opposition into hiding and achieve President for life status, who has suppressed freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of association and who knows what else. And why? This is all done in the name of his personal socialist revolution. He admits as much. So, what have Americans done about all of this? Contrary to Chavez's claims, we've done absolutely nothing. Oh wait, that isn't true, is it. Sean Penn has visited Chavez twice. Joe Kennedy went to Venezuela and criticized our President in a hostile nation. Sure, he has freedom of speech and all, but it is simply bad form to criticize your own country and President while visiting a foreign, hostile nation. Actually, it is poor taste for the Dixie Chicks to alienate their primary audience by doing it in Europe (amongst our friends) but quite another to do it in a blatantly and openly hostile nation like Venezuela. That's just treasonous, if you really want my opinion. So what does that make Kennedy and Penn? Well, except for Joe Kennedy, there haven't been a lot of political visitors to Chavez. Maybe they get it? Probably not. However, there have been a lot of high profile visitors other than Penn. They include: Naomi Campbell, Kevin Spacey and Danny Glover. These three went to visit him because? I don't know. The story on Campbell clearly showed she was enamored with his "programs for the poor". Do I believe they are traitors? No, but they are stupid. Why you ask? What none of these people seem to realize is that these dictators, Chavez and in the past or even present (see Democratic black caucus)Castro, aren't these great revolutionary leaders that they portray themselves as. They are self absorbed, callous, evil tyrants who want nothing more than to reshape their country, or the world if they could, in their own image. So, when these people go visit them, they are shown only what Chavez and Castro want them to see and nothing more. It would be like my visiting Brazil, hanging out in downtown Brasilia for a few days and hobknobbing with the big whigs and then coming home and talking about how wonderfully things are going there. I'd be an idiot. Well, these people are not intentionally being treasonous, but they are stupid enough to allow themselves to be used by evil men for nefarious purposes. Travelling to visit Chavez doesn't make them look good, at least not to those of us with a brain, it only allows Chavez the opportunity to hold these idiots up as shining examples of Americans who believe in him. Right, just like Lindbergh believed in Hitler or any other examples of early 20th century fascists who supported Hitler or Mussolini. At least until they discovered what Hitlerism really was. Hint, it wasn't fascism but fascism facilitated it. At any rate, socialism leads to one thing. Tyranny. I, for one, am not interested Mr. President.