Texas Blinked

You may wonder what I mean when I say, "Texas blinked." Texas had a bill that passed the House and moved to the Senate that would make it illegal for TSA officers to grope people while they are (unconstitutionally) patting them down in airports (for now) and possibly in train stations in the near future.

Shortly after the bill was sent to the Texas Senate, U.S. Attorney John Murphy sent a letter to the Senate that said that if the bill were to pass and if Governor Perry were to sign it into law, the federal government would seek to have an "emergency injunction" on the law to keep it from going into effect. Before the injunction were imposed, the TSA would cancel all flights in and out of Texas and impose a "No fly zone" over Texas. The reasoning for this? The TSA claims that it couldn't ensure the safety of the passengers or flight crews if they didn't go through the "screening" process. Under this faulty logic, no flights should enter U.S. airspace from any foreign nation because the TSA didn't screen those passengers or flight crews. Of course we know that this isn't the case but why let the facts get in the way.

In the offending letter, Mr. Murphy claimed, "Texas has no authority to regulate federal agents and employees in the performance of their federal duties or to pass a statute that conflicts with federal law."

First of all, the States created the federal government and nowhere in the Constitution is there a provision for the TSA. Federal laws are not supreme regardless of what unelected judges say. Federal law is only supreme when the federal law carries out a constitutionally enumerated power, see the previous sentence.

If the previous paragraph is rejected, which it will be by most federal officials and those who buy into the "supremacy clause" of the Constitution, the fourth amendment dictates searches of people and property conducted by federal officers and employees. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Before a TSA thug gropes a passenger is a warrant served? Of course not, therefore, when a TSA thug gropes a passenger, they are breaking the law. If a passenger objects to the unconstitutional grope, they are forbidden from boarding their flight and in some cases, they are questioned by law enforcement.

Back to the Texas story. Shortly after the letter was sent to the Texas Senate, the bill was pulled and will not be voted on. This is why I say that Texas blinked. Texas said that the TSA couldn't grope their citizens anymore and the federal government said, "Yes we can. What are you going to do about it?" Texas wet their pants and begged the feds to forgive them for acting out.

What is the difference between us and 1937 Germany? Nothing. When does this stop? Do you take the train or drive instead? What will you do when this starts taking place at train stations and bus depots? When the TSA expands to trains and buses will you stand up and tell them to back off or will you take it like a sheeple? How long can you expect to be "free" if you refuse to stand up for your freedom now? Wake up and smell the tyranny.

Bread and Circuses

Towards the end of the Roman Empire, an entitlement program was introduced that we refer to as "Bread and Circuses." The basics of the program was food was given out and entertainment was provided to the lower class in the Roman cities in order to keep the peasants happy. As the misery increased, the amount of food and entertainment that was required to keep them happy had to be increased. This eventually led to the fall of the Roman Empire because people left the countryside to partake in the "free" goodies which resulted in food shortages.

Fast forward to our present day here in the United States of America and we have "bread and circuses" on a grander scale. What is our modern "bread and circuses" you ask?

The "bread" is welfare, WIC, foodstamps, medicare, medicaid, free school lunches/breakfasts, reduced school lunches/breakfasts, public housing, section 8 housing, low income housing, etc. Any program that takes from one person and "gives" to another who didn't earn it in order to provide food, shelter, or medical services falls into the "bread" category. Notice how the "assistance" that is provided is just enough to keep those receiving it from starving but not enough to help them become self reliant (those who want to be self reliant are outweighed by those who will not work to better their station in life). The result is increased taxation of the productive which leads to less employment and more people requiring "assistance" and the cycle continues.

Now for the "circuses." The "circuses" aren't always government funded in their entirety or at all. In our modern age, people no longer have to travel to great coliseums in order to be entertained. You don't even have to leave your house to be entertained for the most part. Because of wealth transfers in the form of welfare, unemployment, or social security disability (even if the person is capable of working) people who don't work can still go to movies, sporting events, and many other events in order to entertain themselves thanks to the productive. If they don't want to leave their "home" they can; and many do; buy a T.V. and DVD player to entertain themselves at the taxpayer's expense. The fun doesn't stop there though, because of government theft (see my previous posting on plunder), they also have the money to pay for cable or satellite service to keep them entertained. Of course what "circus" would be complete without a touch of reality? Hence the introduction of reality TV. We're not content with watching movies or TV shows like they used to be. Now we can watch "normal" everyday people on TV thanks to shows like Survivor, Big Brother, American Idol, The Bachelor, The Bachelorette, The Amazing Race, etc.

I am reminded of the Brad Paisley song "Celebrity"

Someday, I'm gonna be famous,
Do I have talent? Well, no.
These days you don't really need it,
Thanks to reality shows.

Those lyrics sum up the reality TV craze. Thanks to people like Woodrow Wilson and FDR, we got the "bread." With the popularity of reality TV, we have the "circuses" in full force. With the invasion of 20+ million illegal aliens, we have the barbarians. The fall of the modern day Roman Empire is taking place right now despite the few that are trying to stop it from happening. The problem is that in order to stop the impending doom, everybody will have to deal with a little pain to get back to the road of liberty. This will not happen because, as a society, we are weak and lazy. But people like Mike Church, Kevin Gutzman, Ron Paul, Tom Woods, and others will continue to fight for freedom and liberty even when we are called names and insulted.

Plunder

In reading Frederic Bastiat's "The Law" There is a section about "plunder" or as we would call it, theft. There are two kinds of "plunder;" legal and illegal.

Illegal plunder is just what it sounds like; the use of force or threat of force by a private person or group to take what is yours, whether money or property.

Legal plunder is a little more tricky. Legal plunder is when the government uses force or the threat of force to take money from you to give to someone else. The tricky part comes in what the money is used for. Before I read what "legal plunder" entailed, I only thought of welfare, food stamps, WIC, and any other entitlement program which gives money to those who did not earn it. While those are types of legal plunder, they are only the tip of the iceberg. Subsidies, public schools, progressive taxation (this means that if there must be a tax, everyone should pay the same percentage no matter how much they make), protective tariffs, minimum wages, etc. In addition to those examples that Bastiat gave we can include Pell Grant's, subsidized student loans, guaranteed home loans (Fannie and Freddie), medicaid, paying farmers not to grow anything on their farms, etc.

Why am I bringing this subject up at this time?

Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI-1) has recently introduced his budget plan which has been called, "The Path to Prosperity: Restoring America's Promise." In his plan, Ryan has budget projections all the way to 2051 which eventually will balance the federal budget and start paying down the national debt. While I applaud what his apparent goals are; cut federal spending and paying down the debt, it is unrealistic and cements into law legal plunder in the "social safety net." When the health care bill was introduced with its budget projections of 10 years out, many who opposed it called BS when the cost projections were released because the government can't reliably predict budgets or spending on government entitlement programs unless they restrict services by rationing. So when Rep. Ryan introduces a budget plan that plans out 40 years, why should we all of a sudden think that this is reliable. Not only can the government not guarantee revenue into its coffers, but one Congress cannot dictate the actions of another. Therefore, Rep. Ryan's budget plan can be passed by the House and Senate and then signed by the President, and a future Congress can shoot the mainline and double the spending if they want.

This means that the only thing that Rep. Ryan's budget would do is admit to the parasites that the establishment GOP has given up on getting rid of any of the entitlement programs that are in place. If this is the best that the GOP can do, we are doomed.

Violating Libyan Sovereignty

The United Nations today, March 17, authorized the use of force to impose a "No Fly Zone" (NFZ) over Libyan airspace; see the following link; http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/03/17/uk-libya-idUKLDE71Q0MP20110317. Of course, the United States will be expected to help enforce the NFZ through the treat of violence if it is violated. If the U.S. military were to take part without a declaration of war by Congress, this would be unconstitutional. This never stops the government from doing something that they want to do, but with the new crop of "Tea Party" congressmen claiming to swear fidelity to the Constitution, you would expect them to hold true to their oath. Since this news just broke this afternoon, we will wait and see if they demand that war be declared before we take any sort of military action, but I won't hold my breath that war is declared before we invade Libyan airspace.

Now some may wonder why it is a bad idea to enforce the NFZ, after all, Gaddafi is killing his own citizens who are protesting against him.

The first reason I oppose involving ourselves into Libyan politics, after all that is essentially what it comes down to, is we are broke. We can't afford the war in Afghanistan or Iraq so what makes anyone think that we will suddenly be able to afford a third military incursion; even if it is only billed as simple air missions?

Second, who are we to tell any other, sovereign, nation how to run their country. As long as they aren't disrupting our ships, both military and civilian, and they aren't trying to invade us, we should leave them alone. By the way this is is called non-intervention, not isolation.

Who among us would stand for any other nation who tried to tell us how to run our country and then used military action to enforce it? What make the U.N.'s or our actions any different? Those who would claim that the protesters would be able to set up a democracy that would write a constitution that would mirror ours or come close don't understand the underlying tone of the protesters. The type of government that is likely to come out of a disposed Gaddafi would be one of Sharia law. Dictators like Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein had more of a secular government not a Sharia law type of government.

Instead of going around the globe looking for monsters to slay, we should mind our own business and try to keep invaders out of our country instead of "democratizing" the rest of the world.

Nullification

In a Washington Post article on Jan. 26, 2011 titled "GOP invokes 1700s doctrine in health care fight," some legal analysts/scholars have either missed the point or need to go back to school and learn about the founding again.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/26/AR2011012604912.html

The first area I have a problem with is as follows:

"The efforts are completely unconstitutional in the eyes of most legal scholars because the U.S. Constitution deems federal laws 'the supreme law of the land.' The Idaho attorney general has weighed in as well, branding nullification unconstitutional."

The problem with deeming the Constitution the "supreme law of the land" would suggest that the United States Constitution was binding on the federal and state governments which is false in the respect that most people think today otherwise, why would the individual states have their own state constitutions. The U.S. Constitution is binding only on the federal government inasmuch as it tells the federal government what specific powers they have been granted by the states. The only part of the U.S. Constitution that restricts the individual states is Article I section 10, which lays out areas that the states are forbidden to take part in. A couple of areas that the individual states are restricted according to the Constitution is in making treaties or coining money.

So as you see, the Constitution cannot be the supreme law of the land in the way that most people think because we would no longer have a federal government, we would have a national one where the central government would dictate to the states in all facets of life. Although we are living in a situation like this for the most parts, you have to remember that the states created the federal government, no the other way around.

"'There is no right to pick and choose which federal laws a state will follow,' wrote Assistant Chief Deputy Attorney General Brian Kane."

This statement is an example of one individual who needs to learn about the founding and the roles the individual states had in forming the federal government. Again, first came the states; then came the federal government. The problem we have today, is that the states have allowed the federal government to enact laws which were blatantly unconstitutional, and because they were popular, the states kept their mouths shut and let the federal government take power that they had no right to take without an amendment. Of course, the Supreme Court didn't help in all this. The Supreme Court is not made of perfect people, justices come to the court and "interpret" the Constitution and justify their rulings by twisting and turning words and phrases so they say what they want them to say. If they can't do that, they cite some document or letter that someone important wrote and say, "See, this is why Congress can do that." even when it isn't in the Constitution anywhere.

"'A lot people say, if the Supreme Court decides that it is constitutional, you have to live with it. My feeling is, the people should have the final say,' [Republican Sen. Scott] Beason [of Alabama] told The Associated Press on Tuesday. 'Frankly, the only recourse people have is for the states to try to flex some sovereignty muscle.'"

The only problem I have with this statement is in the last part of the first half of the quote where Mr. Beason used the term "the people" in saying who was the final arbiter in determining which laws are constitutional. I would replace "the people" with the states after all, it is the states that created the federal government, not the people. The preamble of the Constitution is misleading when it starts out "We the people" instead of "We the States." If it were truly "We the people" why didn't everybody have a say so in what the Constitution said and if it were to be ratified?

"'He[Thomas Jefferson] was at the Constitutional Convention,' [Idaho Republican Sen. Monty] Pearce said. 'He understood how this whole thing was going to be set up.'

"Actually, Jefferson was far away, in France, as the framers met in 1787 in Philadelphia to replace the Articles of Confederation."

While Jefferson wasn't physically at the Federal Convention of 1787, he was aware of what was happening before it started and when it concluded. Jefferson wrote a letter against ratifying the Constitution and that letter was used to urge against ratifying in the Virginia ratification debates. But this is just a side note.

"And his beliefs on nullification were nothing more than his opinions - there's no such mention in the Constitution, said David Gray Adler, a constitutional scholar who directs the University of Idaho's McClure Center for Public Policy Research."

Amazing that Mr. Adler would take this position when it is the left who twisted Jefferson's words to justify why school prayer was unconstitutional as well as every other "religious" prohibition in public. You can't have it both ways. Either Jefferson knows a little something about the Constitution or he doesn't. By the way, to all you people who say that an individual state can't have a state religion because of the first amendment, why did Connecticut have a state religion into the early 1800s? The answer is because the Constitution, which includes the amendments, dealt with the federal government not the state governments.

"'There's nothing in the Constitution to suggest that the states are superior to the federal government,' Adler said. 'We have a long string of Supreme Court decisions that reject their theory.'"

There is nothing in the Constitution that suggests that the states are inferior to the federal government either and since the Constitution is binding on the federal government, this means that any power not granted to the federal government or prohibited to the states are retained by the states. This may seem familiar because it is, essentially, the tenth amendment. Since nullification, or secession, isn't specifically discussed, one way or the other, in the Constitution, those options are still valid.

The rest of the article claims that nullification hasn't worked in the past. The first example used was the 1832 tariff hikes that had South Carolina threatening secession. What happened? The tariff rates were reduced. Another pre-Civil War example was the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 and Wisconsin's nullification of it. This is completely false as Wisconsin refused to abide by the law and even went as far as freeing a man that was in the custody of the federal government. If that is an example of nullification not working, I hope that all acts of nullification were as unsuccessful as that.

The other example was the school desegregation in the 1950s in Arkansas where the federal government sent in the army to force the desegregation of Arkansas schools.
While I don't agree with the ideas of segregation, the federal government has no say in the affairs of the states. But this shows how things got turned around as a result of the Civil War, or as I like to call it, the War of Northern Aggression. As a result of Lincoln's invasion of the south, the federal government started to think that its powers were limitless and could impose its will on the states but an in depth discussion of Lincoln's War is best saved for a later date. Just remember, nullification and secession are both valid and legal options no matter what "legal scholars" may say.

Decepti-Cons and RINOs

Apparently the RINOs and Decipti-Cons are unable to take the job of cutting the budget seriously because as terrible as I thought the Republican's "Pledge to America" was when it proclaimed to cut the budget back to 2008 levels; the latest news from the Republican leadership makes it worse. You may be wondering how it can get any worse since that small of a cut is a drop in the bucket but trust me it is worse than expected. Those who were the cheerleaders of the Republican party and assured us that the Republicans had learned from their mistakes share part of the blame. The plan to cut the budget back to 2008 levels as laid out in the "Pledge to America" seems to have a few hidden disclaimers in it. Those disclaimers are as follows:

1) Budget cuts don't include cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, "security" funding, or non-discretionary funding.

2) Budget cuts will be phased in and will be fully in place in 2015.

3) These budget cuts are subject to change without prior notice or warning or if we don't have the stones to go through with it or if we lose power or if we have a Decepti-Con in the White House that will rubber stamp anything we want or if the next Decepti-Con president can think of some way to put us deeper in debt.

Alright, now that those disclaimers are out take another look at the first disclaimer. Notice that the cuts won't apply to Social Security so that black hole will continue to be insolvent. Medicare see the previous sentence. Medicaid, we can't expect the individual States to take care of their own poor so we'll do it for them for a small fee.

As offensive as those three are, the fourth area that is off limits is "security" funding. What, pray-tell, could that cover? Of course that will include most of the budget from defense to TSA. I know that defense spending is supposed to be the sacred cow of the Republicans but we can cut defense spending without risking our safety and security. Why do we "need" a sizable defense budget? If you ask any of the RINOs and Decepti-Cons, when we're completely out of Iraq; except for the bases that we will hold "just in case" and the permanent security force left on the ground; and once we are almost through with Afghanistan, we will bomb Iran into the stone age and set up a government that we approve of in our quest to bring democracy to every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the world. In addition to defense, security funding will include the Department of Homeland (in)Security, ICE, Border Patrol, TSA, FBI, and any other agency that may remotely be tied to "security."

Now the second disclaimer is so blatantly offensive that it doesn't need to be expounded upon further.

The last disclaimer isn't one that will actually be said but anyone who has been following politics for more than a couple years and who is honest know that the Republican leadership has the back bone of a jellyfish and doesn't have the guts to withstand the pressures of the "mainstream" media. For some reason; probably because they don't really believe in a limited government; anytime the Republicans are criticized for wanting to cut spending, they are unable to make a principled and coherent argument as to why they are cutting spending or why they want to reduce taxes or any other idea that may get us ever closer to obeying the Constitution.

When will the Decepti-Cons take their oath seriously and err on the side of liberty? When will the establishment Republicans see the error of their ways in fighting never-ending wars and imposing our will around the globe? When will the Republicans do what is necessary and defund 90%+ of federal agencies and departments, most of which are unconstitutional regardless of what the Supreme Court has ruled? When will Republicans yell, "Stop!" at this runaway freight train that is the federal government?

It would be nice if this were to happen, but truth be told, the establishment Republicans, RINOs, and Decepti-Cons don't really want a limited government, they want to be in charge of the government and will only pay lip service to limited government only inasmuch as it keeps them in power. When they see it as a liability, they will scuttle those views in favor of a large, overbearing government.

The Constitution is Read in the House

In one of the most meaningless, feel-good measures ever, those who have betrayed our trust and violated their oath, read the Constitution from beginning to end on the floor of the House this morning to kick off the 112th Congress.

You may ask, "What's wrong with reading the Constitution? Shouldn't our elected officials be reminded of what the document says?" The problem with reading the Constitution is most of the Congressmen, this isn't their first term in office. They should already know what the document says. Also, even though they should know the entire document, they should try to abide by Article I which deals with Congress (both House and Senate) and not pay lip service to it. In another worthless gesture, Speaker Boehner put in place some rules concerning the filing of bills. Each bill must include where in the Constitution they get the authority for the bill. Why am I skeptical? Whether it is a bill offered by a Democrat or Republican, they will cite one of three clauses; a) Commerce clause b) Welfare clause or c) Necessary and Proper clause. They will use the Commerce clause the most because they have been able to justify to the Supreme Court in any abstract way that almost all laws impact interstate commerce. The only ruling in recent years that I can think of was the domestic violence law that was passed in the '90s. Shockingly, the Supreme Court did actually strike that law down and said that it did not fall under the stated reasoning that was given why it fell under the Commerce clause.

Ever wonder why the federal government is involved in education? The abstract reasoning is that educated children will be able to get a job and will then be able to participate in interstate commerce. This is also why the federal ban on firearms in schools was passed. Congress claimed that if children worried about someone bringing a firearm (or any weapon) to school, they would have a harder time learning and would therefore not get as good of a job and would be less likely to participate fully in interstate commerce. In Dr. Kevin Gutzman's book "Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution" there are many examples of abuses that have been perpetrated on the document by the tyrants in D.C. Another great book is one that Dr. Gutzman co-authored with Dr. Thomas Woods called "Who Killed the Constitution." I have read both books as well as a number of other books on the founding and the founders. If you don't have time to do a lot of reading, Mike Church has made a few documentaries on the Declaration of Independence, the time between the Declaration and the Constitution, and the writing and ratifying of the Constitution. All three are audio documentaries and the last one also comes as a DVD.

If we could get Congress to do more than pay lip service to the Constitution, we would be on the road to restoring our liberties.

Thomas Paine said in "Common Sense" in 1776, "Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one;..."

You be the judge as to what point we are at in regards to government and evil. Are we closer to the necessary evil or the intolerable evil? The answer to that question depends on whether you are comfortable with a larger or smaller government. My answer to my own question may be obvious to those who know me but for those who don't know me very well, I am of the opinion that we are dangerously close to government being an intolerable evil. In some respects, the federal government has passed the point of being an intolerable evil and some of the State governments are toeing the line of being an intolerable evil too. Until more people start to view the government as oppressive, people like me will have to do all we can to educate those around us to come to our side.

Reducing Federal Spending

There has been a lot of talk over the past year about federal spending and the "national" debt. Those typically on the left, or socialists as I call them, want to increase taxes on the "rich", keep the taxes the same for the "middle class", and lower the taxes for those at the low end of the income bracket. Those on the "right" typically are OK with everyone getting a tax break although they don't see any problem with the tax structure i.e. increased percentage imposed as you make more money. The flaw in both sides is that the rich can afford to pay more in taxes because they are rich but they both will argue on how much is too much.

There are those who say cut taxes but don't mention anything about cutting spending or will suggest cutting a couple million dollars out of a multi-trillion dollar budget which is a drop in the bucket. The areas of the budget that should have cuts made differ depending on which side of the aisle you are on. For most Democrat/Socialists defense is the only option and for most Republicans/Decepti-Cons defense is the sacred cow that cannot be touched under any circumstance. The only place that both sets of people tend to never want to touch is Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; it is these entitlement programs that are bankrupting the Republic and need to be done away with as soon as possible while still fulfilling the promise that was made to the elderly and those who are nearing retirement age.

Now you may think that I am just one of those heartless bastards who want granny and grandpa to die a slow, painful, and agonizing death because they can't afford there medicine, doctor visits, or a place to live much less food if it weren't for their government benefits. If you assume that, you are wrong. Medicaid should be abolished on the federal level completely and if the individual States want a program like that they are free to do so but if they go bankrupt because of it they don't get bailed out for their poor choices. Social Security and Medicare can both be phased out. In both cases there would be a cut-off date where anyone born before the date will be eligible when they reach retirement age or they may opt out if they so desire. Those born after the cut-off date would not be eligible to receive Social Security or Medicare but they will be young enough that they will have the opportunity to plan for their own retirement there will be some who were born after that date who have already paid into the system that may ask, "What about the money that I already paid in?" Unfortunately, they will never see that money again because the government doesn't have the money to give back. Life sucks sometimes get over it.

Although Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are a significant part of the federal budget, there are areas and agencies that can be eliminated either by abolishing the agency or defunding it which would have the same effect. Many of the agencies or bureaucracies that are in existence are unconstitutional and should be abolished anyway regardless of what the Supreme Court or some federal judge may say. The Constitution does not need to be interpreted by some nitwit with a law degree who studied "constitutional law." In constitutional law courses don't teach the Constitution all it does is teach case history which is opinions of judges who ruled in the past.

If you visit you will be able to get a list of all federal agencies, a list so long that they had to have a tab to click on for each letter in the alphabet except Q-X-Y-Z. If you go through these lists, most of the agencies can be eliminated posthaste. Among the first agencies I would eliminate immediately would be Agriculture, Education, Energy, the EPA, FDA, forestry, parks, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Developement, OSHA, Labor, FCC, FEC, and BATFE. In addition, I would reduce the funding for the DEA, Transportation, Commerce, State, and Justice. These cuts alone would reduce federal spending significantly.

Another huge cut I would make would be foreign aid and funding for the United Nations, NATO, and the IMF. These all would be cut immediately and completely. If people want to contribute their time and money to help those in need, they are free to do so without the coercion of the government. When individuals choose to give, they tend to make sure that their money and time will be put to good use instead of giving money to another government whether corrupt or not. When we give money to another nation, with the money, the United States feels that they are then entitled to tell the nation on the receiving end of the funds transfer what to do and how to run it's country and they may feel they have to listen to us politely or risk getting cut off in the future. With us no longer giving other nations money, they are free to tell us to mind our own business; after all, who are we to tell another country what to do. If Israel wants to bomb Iran, who are we to say no. Israel has its own interests to think about. In addition to cutting all foreign aid, I would also start closing military bases overseas and bring the troops home. In an age when we can deploy troops around the world in a matter of hours, and a Navy that is always out to sea in all corners of the globe, we don't need to occupy any foreign nation. Some may call me an isolationist, I say I am a non-interventionist.

One of our great founding fathers warned of being drawn into foreign entanglements. We were also warned that when we ally ourselves with another nation, we also get their enemies. Lastly, we were also warned not to go searching abroad for dragons to slay. It would be wise for us to take heed and follow the advice of our founders. If you are believe that we should be involved in conflicts across the globe, then at least you should demand an official declaration of war. If you want to allow Congress to give that power to the President, the Constitution must be amended to strip them of that power and give it to the President but I warn you, that in doing so, you give the President almost dictatorial powers.

Disclose Act

Over the past couple of weeks there has been more talk about Congress passing the Disclose Act. This would, in effect, give the federal government the ability to say what is acceptable both in print and online through the FCC. I don't think that I'm being paranoid in saying or thinking that this will be used more strictly against those who are critical of the government than those who paint a favorable picture of the government. I know I'm beating a dead horse in asking the question, "What part of 'Congress shall make no law...' don't they understand?" If there was one type of speech or print that they would have wanted to protect over another, it would have been political speech. I don't think they would think political speech was more important than any other speech but if you look at what the Brits tried to do in the lead up to the revolt and during the war, you can understand why the amendments that ultimately became our Bill of Rights were so important. The States had just finished fighting a war that freed them from a tyrannical government that violated those rights.

If you read the third amendment, it deals with "quartering" troops. This may seem like an odd amendment to us but that was a concern to our founders. Why? That was an injustice that was forced upon the colonists before and during the revolution. Read all amendments and ask yourself, why were they so important that the founders felt the need to state unequivocally that these were areas that the federal government could not make laws about. The emphasis is federal government for a reason. The Constitution is directed only on the federal government not the States. The fourteenth amendment, contrary to popular opinion, does not make the amendments and provisions applicable to the States this is why they have their own State constitutions.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns

Mayor Bloomberg(NYC) and his anti-gun cronies in the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) are at it again by trying to get Congress to close the "gun show loophole." What is the gun show loophole? First lets look at what a loophole is in regards to the law. A loophole is also known as a law. So if someone is claiming that they want to close a loophole they are trying to change the law to make a legal action illegal in the future. So closing the "gun show loophole" means that they are trying to get an action that is currently legal to become illegal. What action is that? They want to ban all private firearm transfers so that any firearm that is purchased at a gun show would have to go through a background check. This may seem like a harmless action but it costs money and will not stop anyone who is not legally able to own a firearm from buying one. Criminals do not go to gun shows in order to obtain a firearm, they will either steal them or buy them from another criminal.

Another gift from this bill that MAIG wants passed is anyone who wants to put on a gun show must, at least 30 days before the show submit to the State's Attorney General (AG) a list of vendors who will be selling or offering to sell anything at the show or face a fine or imprisonment. Who is a vendor? Anyone who sells or offers to sell a firearm or firearm related product either on site or off site to an individual. This means that if you are at a gun show with a friend shopping for an AR-15 but can't afford to buy one at the show and that friend offers to sell you his AR-15; the law has been violated and the person putting on the gun show can be subject to a fine and/or imprisonment. It doesn't stop there either, you and your friend could be subject to a fine or imprisonment also.

If this law were to pass and become law, I would tell the feds to go to hell. They do not have the authority to regulate gun show no matter what they say. Article I section 8 says that Congress has the authority to "Regulate Commerce ... among the several States ..." not within or throughout the States. This part of the "Commerce clause" has been twisted and abused for the past 80 years or more. This part of Article I section 8 was put in place because when the Articles of Confederation were in effect, each individual State could and would place taxes and tariffs on goods anytime they crossed their borders. The Commerce clause was put in the Constitution to stop this practice from occurring. As I have stated in a previous posting, all federal laws regulating intrastate commerce are unconstitutional and many of the federal laws regulating interstate commerce are illegal as well.

If you go to the website for MAIG http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/home/home.shtml and look at the mayors in this group, you will notice that many of the large cities in the United States are represented. If you also look at the crime rates in these cities and their gun laws you will notice that the crime rates are high and their gun laws tend to be restrictive.

The head of the group is Mike Bloomberg. In his city of New York City, he has acted like a king in his laws. He has, in the past, sent private investigators to other States to carry out straw purchase of firearms and then sued the gun shops, in a NYC court, even though they did nothing wrong. In doing this the ATF told him that his actions could have jeopardized ongoing undercover investigations. Some gun shops agreed to more oversight because they couldn't afford the legal costs of fighting the lawsuit. All of the gun shops that were targeted were small shops, do you think this was an accident? Virginia was one of the States that was invaded by Bloomberg's henchmen, as a result of the actions of Bloomberg, Virginia passed a law that would make it illegal for this to happen again. In addition to this, Virginia sent a letter to Bloomberg telling him to run New York City and leave Virginia's business to Virginia. Being the conceited billionaire mayor, he thinks that he can do anything he wants even if he isn't supposed to.

One of the other mayors on the list is the mayor of Washington, D.C. I his city, there had been a total handgun ban until the Supreme Court ruled that it violated the Second Amendment of the Constitution. Before the ban was overturned, the crime rate in D.C. was much higher than the national average as the population was in a steady rate of decline. When the ban was overturned, the city council and the mayor have done everything in their power to make the handgun regulations as restrictive as possible in order to keep as many of their residents unarmed as possible. Since the end of the ban, the crime rate has started to decline but the laws are still so restrictive that semiautomatic handguns are still banned because of the D.C.'s definition of what a machine gun is.

You'll also find the mayors of Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, Atlanta, Cleveland, Portland and others.

Finally a Response From My Representative

Now that our health care industry has been nationalized and taken over by the Kremlin on the Potomac, I have finally received a response from my non-representing representative. Of course with the amount of emails and calls he received, he most likely sent out an email that went to everyone. However his email is full of half truths, manipulations, and lies all the while not touching on the constitutionality of the bill.

His letter is as follows:

Dear Mr. Bergstresser:

Thank you for contacting my office regarding healthcare reform. On Sunday, March 21, 2010, the Senate's version of healthcare reform (HR 3590) and the reconciliation package (HR 4872) passed out of the House of Representatives, both with my support.

During the campaign and throughout the last year, it has become increasingly apparent that Americans can no longer tolerate the status quo when it comes to affording healthcare in this country. Double digit increases to insurance rates are bankrupting families, small businesses and our nation. Insurance costs for small businesses have increased 129 percent over the last 10 years and Oregon's insurance rates have gone up almost 20 percent per year for the past 7 years.

Many of my concerns in November about cost containment in the House version of healthcare reform have been addressed in the combined final healthcare package. The subsidy levels to help lower income individuals afford healthcare are more appropriate and approximately $200 billion below what was included in the House healthcare bill. These levels continue to taper off in the out years as rising insurance costs continue to moderate. The number of folks added to Medicaid is reduced in the Senate version to a more reasonable 138 percent of the federal poverty level to encourage more personal responsibility in our healthcare. I lobbied aggressively for reductions in premiums for individuals who practiced healthier lifestyles and I authored a strong comparative effectiveness research (CER) piece of the bill. CER would give an independent authority the ability to foster solid, peer reviewed research into the best diagnostics, treatments and healthcare delivery. The research CER makes available will help doctors and patients have the best information to make their own healthcare decisions. Both of these elements are included in the final healthcare package.

More significantly, I and a few others refused to sign onto the final reform package until Congress and the Administration pledged to stop the Medicare reimbursement discrimination against Oregon and other states that provide high quality, low cost healthcare as the result of an antiquated reimbursement formula dating back 40 years. Currently, Oregon, which practices quality, cost effective medicine, receives half the reimbursement rate of inefficient areas on the East coast. We won the battle. Legislative language was included in the bill, along with a signed letter and personal guarantee by the President, that will move our system from one that encourages waste and unnecessary tests and procedures to one that reimburses health care providers like Oregon based on successful health outcomes. These changes will dramatically reduce the cost of healthcare nationally.

The new Medicare reimbursement methods will mean more doctors will be willing to see and treat seniors who rely on Medicare. Seniors will see an immediate $250 rebate on prescription drug costs. The legislation also provides for a 50 percent discount on brand name drugs and eventual closing of the Medicare Part D prescription drug donut hole by 2020.

Effective immediately, this bill eliminates co-pays or deductibles for preventive care under Medicare or new private plans. Health insurers may not drop people from coverage because they are sick, refuse coverage to children with pre-existing conditions, or impose lifetime or annual limits on coverage in new plans. There will be a temporary risk pool for uninsured that may have pre-existing conditions and temporary reinsurance for 55-64 year old retirees until exchanges are available. Young people up to 26 years of age will be able to stay on their parents' health plan. There will be new investment in training primary care doctors, nurses and public health professionals to take care of the expanded population that now have access to healthcare. By 2014, these benefits will be available to all Americans through state exchanges that allow consistent regulation and decreased costs.

The final package is also much friendlier to small businesses. In this legislation, 96 percent of small businesses are not subject to providing healthcare for their employees. Larger businesses (over 50 employees) are encouraged to provide healthcare but in a much more flexible and affordable way. The only requirements large businesses must adhere to are deductibles per individual must not exceed $2,000 and the cost per employee must not exceed 9.5 percent of a family's income. Small businesses with low average payrolls are eligible for tax credits up to 35-50 percent for healthcare costs if they choose to provide healthcare for their employees. Businessmen and women are also allowed to deduct the full cost of their insurance for the first time and the exchanges allow small businesses to pool their collective associations' buying power to give them the same ability as large employers to negotiate advantageous insurance rates.

Finally, the healthcare package attacks the rising cost of healthcare on our national budget and debt. According to the impartial Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the package reduces the national deficit by $138 billion in the first 10 years. Furthermore, the CBO estimates that the deficit will be reduced even more as the positive aspects of the health care overhaul affect different parts of the health care industry and economy. The CBO also feels the federal budgetary commitment to healthcare will decrease during the decades following the 10 year budgetary window.

I consider these all strong, positive reasons to vote for the healthcare reform proposal. There is more work to be done as we flesh out some of the outlines in the reform. The bottom line is that this work begins to address the desperately needed transformation of our 40 year old healthcare delivery system which is on the brink of implosion. If we like our current healthcare, we need to make these changes to be able to afford it in the 21st century.

I will continue to fight for the policies that best reflect the needs of the 5th Congressional District of Oregon. For more information on the final health care package, please visit my website at http://schrader.house.gov.

Sincerely,
KURT SCHRADER
Member of Congress

My response to his letter is as follows:

"Many of my concerns in November about cost containment in the House version of healthcare reform have been addressed in the combined final healthcare package."

If he was concerned about the costs why is it he voted for the bill without the "cost containment" in it. Notice in the beginning of the letter he says that he voted for both versions of the bill.

"The subsidy levels to help lower income individuals afford healthcare are more appropriate and approximately $200 billion below what was included in the House healthcare bill."

The word "subsidy" is also known as money that is taken from contributers and is redistributed to the non-contributer/zero liability people. This may offend some people; if it does, suck it up. What is a non-contributer or a zero liability person? These are not interchangeable terms. A zero liability person is not always a non-contributer, however a non-contributer is always a zero liability person. When you file your taxes, if you get everything you paid in back or if you get more than you paid in back, you are a zero liability person. The non contributer is the person who sits on their ass all day and gets government assistance without having to work for it. So the tax payer funded "healthcare" ended up being less than they started. Well isn't that nice of them; my taxes will still go up but not as much as they first expected. Thanks for thinking of me.

"The number of folks added to Medicaid is reduced in the Senate version to a more reasonable 138 percent of the federal poverty level to encourage more personal responsibility in our healthcare."

Even when people are able to make a living, even with the increased taxes, the feds will continue to give them "free" healthcare through the Medicaid program. I have a novel idea, lower the tax rates to everyone and they will be able to be more independent. Oh that's right, this isn't about helping people, it's about more control over all of our lives.

"I lobbied aggressively for reductions in premiums for individuals who practiced healthier lifestyles..."

This is just the first step to controlling what we eat and our activities. How far of a leap is it to expect that in the coming years they will require everyone to exercise and eat the kinds of foods that they approve while they outlaw foods that aren't considered contain the proper nutritious value. While I am not opposed to healthy living or eating or exercise, I am opposed of government micromanaging our lives. It's a liberty thing, they wouldn't understand it.

"The new Medicare reimbursement methods will mean more doctors will be willing to see and treat seniors who rely on Medicare. Seniors will see an immediate $250 rebate on prescription drug costs. The legislation also provides for a 50 percent discount on brand name drugs and eventual closing of the Medicare Part D prescription drug donut hole by 2020."

This paragraph and the previous one are especially offensive. The previous paragraph talks about "ending the Medicare reimbursement discrimination against Oregon and other states..." Why shouldn't Oregon and other States take the lead and take responsibility for our own senior's who were sold the bill of goods called Medicare. Show the rest of the States that we are more efficient than the federal government and start the dismantling of the beast. Medicare Part D was one of the ways that Bush showed how he wasn't a conservative but was at best a Decepti-Con and at worse, a RINO.

"Effective immediately, this bill eliminates co-pays or deductibles for preventive care under Medicare or new private plans. Health insurers may not ... refuse coverage to children with pre-existing conditions, or impose lifetime or annual limits on coverage in new plans."

What is wrong with paying a co-pay or deductible for preventative care? Why are those visits so expensive? Because people stopped paying for them and instead let insurance companies pay for them which means more paperwork and more people to process the paperwork. I know a doctor that used to charge $35 for a regular check-up but after years of increased costs and inflation finally raised the cost to $54 per check-up. Talk about breaking the bank. This means that you may have to forgo going out to dinner one or two times for each visit. As for the last part about preexisting conditions, you can usually still get coverage for everything else. After all these evil health insurance companies are still trying to make money too. When did profit become an bad word? If you take out the profit, you take away the motivation too. As for dollar limits on coverage; at some point you are more trouble than you are worth. Would you rather be dropped next time it comes to renew your policy? If you show that you're a good customer who isn't overusing your insurance, you will be more likely to be seen as a valued customer and your rates may actually decrease.

"Young people up to 26 years of age will be able to stay on their parents' health plan."

Since when did we consider a 26 year old a child? At 23 I was just getting out of the military and the last thing on my mind was moving back in with my Mom. If, at 26, you can't make it on your own, or at least buy your own medical insurance, you probably are at best a zero liability person and at worst a non-contributer. Get off your ass and do something productive for a change. On a side note, if you are trying to get assistance for college and are under the age of 25, you need to have your parent's income filled in order to fill out the forms completely. I oppose government involvement with paying for you to go to college. The only exception is veteran's benefits.

"...In this legislation, 96 percent of small businesses are not subject to providing healthcare for their employees. Larger businesses (over 50 employees) are encouraged to provide healthcare but in a much more flexible and affordable way. The only requirements large businesses must adhere to are deductibles per individual must not exceed $2,000 and the cost per employee must not exceed 9.5 percent of a family's income."

It's nice to know that in this bill small businesses don't have to provide healthcare insurance for their employees. I have read and reread the Constitution and I can't find anywhere in there that gives the federal government the authority to tell businesses what benefits they have to provide for their employees. I know they use the "Commerce clause" as the catch all in regulating any and all aspects of business but their reasoning, if they were to see what was meant in the wording and why the Constitution was written with the words and phrases as they are. "Regulate Commerce ... among the several States" does not mean that you meddle in every aspect of commerce but make sure that the individual States aren't imposing taxes or tariffs anytime that a product crosses its borders. This means that federal minimum wage laws are unconstitutional as are the all federal agencies that regulate any aspect of intrastate and many aspects of interstate trade. This includes this area of the bill, specifically, and the entire bill generally.

"Finally, the healthcare package attacks the rising cost of healthcare on our national budget and debt. According to the impartial Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the package reduces the national deficit by $138 billion in the first 10 years."

The reason that they are able to make the claim of a deficit reduction in the first ten years is because the bill will not be fully in place until 2014 so anything money that is supposed to put the money aside to run this bill will help show a cost reduction. Notice how the CBO isn't saying what the second ten years will do to the deficit.

If you notice in the letter Mr. Schrader doesn't mention the fact that everyone will be required to purchase healthcare insurance or face a fine. The last I saw, the fine for not having the proper amount of health insurance is $2000 or 2.2% of your income. So now just because you are alive, you will be required to purchase a good or service even if you do not want to. Even if you decide to set up a Health Savings Account (HSA) you will be required to buy health insurance or you risk facing a fine. If you refuse to pay the fine you will be sent to jail.

Why do people like me and millions of others oppose the health care bill? We value our freedoms and liberty and think that we are better equipped to take charge of our lives instead of relying on the government. I am not calling for violence but I am advocating for anyone who wants to stand up to a tyrannical government and tell them to back off.

Liberty Died with Socialized Medicine

Sunday liberty died in a 219-212 vote in the House of Representatives. Late last week it was reported that Rep. Peter DeFazio had switched to a no vote on the health care reform bill but in the end all four Demarxists voted in favor of the bill and in doing so, put a stake through the heart of liberty. Before the ink was dry on Tuesday, when Dear leader signed the bill into law, a number of State AG's filed suit in federal court saying that the bill was unconstitutional. Most say that it is because of the federal mandate that all individuals must carry an "acceptable amount" of health insurance regardless of whether they wanted it or not.

If the courts do not strike the bill down as unconstitutional our last hopes to get rid of this monstrosity will come either in the mid-term election in 2010 and 2012. This is not the only way to get rid of this tyranny though. Our last, best, hope, to reign in the tyranny of the federal leviathan is if at least 34 States call for an Article V convention; or a Constitutional Convention also called a Con-Con. In the past when this remedy was brought up, those who called for it were either laughed out of polite society, called kooks, or were accused of wanting to see the libs take over and rewrite the Constitution into a Marxist utopia. Lately, though, more and more people are changing their minds to the idea. What is bringing these people over to our way of thinking? This health care bill helped with a big push. Why would we be afraid that the libtards would take over the Con-Con when they are running rough-shod over us already? Nazi Pelosi and her ilk have been doing as they damn well please since 2007 when they came into power and now that Dear leader is in the White House, they don't have to worry about any of their bills being vetoed. So tell me again why having a Con-Con is a bad idea.

On April 9th Mike Church is holding an Article V symposium at the Sirius/XM studios in Washington D.C. Those who will be attending will be a who's who of modern day patriots. Dr. Kevin Gutzman, Dr. Thomas Woods, Rep. Susan Lynn of Tennessee's State house and others. Some will be attending in studio and others will be calling in on the phone. The point for holding this symposium is to get as much information out to those who are still on the fence or who may still hold out a little opposition to a Con-Con.

I, personally, have been on board for holding a Con-Con for almost a year and would love to see my State as one of the States that signed on to it. However, I know that with the current make-up of the legislature in Salem, the chances of getting them to sign on is somewhere between slim and none. What is giving me some hope is that there is a number of State representatives that are, for the first time in years, going to have a challenger running against them this November.

The stake may have gone through the heart of liberty but we may be able to revive it soon. If we are unsuccessful, we can change the name of our nation from the United States of America to the United Socialist States of America.

My email to Rep. Kurt Schrader

With the looming vote for the government to take over our health insurance, I have called in to my non-representing representative. Because the people in the office claim that Rep. Schrader is still undecided on how to vote and won't make a decision until he reads the entire bill, I felt it necessary to send him an email so he has a permanent record as to how I feel about the issue. I have called and emailed Schrader before on a variety of issues and have yet to receive any kind of response from him. I will now wait and see if he decides to respond to my message.

This the message that I sent to Schrader.

Mr. Schrader,
I am email you to tell you to vote "No" on the current health care reform bill. I have a number of reasons that I oppose the bill in its current form but I will limit this email to the top two reasons.

My first reason for opposing the bill is because Congress does not have the constitutional authority to take over or interfere with any part of health care or health insurance. There is one exception to this statement and that is to properly use the Commerce Clause by breaking down any and all barriers that prevent people in one state from purchasing health insurance in another state. You may not think that this would do anything to insurance rates but think about any other type of insurance that you are able to buy, including life insurance. The reason that auto, home, and life insurance rates are able to remain low and competitive is because you can chose from a number of companies across the nation.

The second reason I oppose the current health care reform bill is because no matter what anyone thinks, this will result in either health care rationing or increased taxes on everyone so that those who get hardship waivers are able to get medical insurance. If we want to see what happens when health care is rationed, we only have to look to Canada of the United Kingdom. When it comes to increased taxes to pay for health insurance, these increased taxes will result in increased unemployment. This fact is one of the basics of economics. To see the results of increased taxes you only have to look at Michigan and California to see what happens when politicians view their constituents as a source of never ending revenue.

I urge you to carefully consider the points that I have made when you make your decision on how you vote for the health care bill. I will leave you with this last statement, if you vote in favor of this health care reform bill I will work tirelessly to make sure you do not get re-elected in November.

If Nazi Pelosi and Dear leader are to be believed, I should know how Schrader votes this weekend even if he decides not to respond to my email. If the vote doesn't happen this weekend, other Demarxicrats have said that the vote may not take place until after Easter. Anyone who may be reading this post, keep calling and emailing your representative and urge them to oppose this bill. The senate switchboard number is 202-224-3121. Remember to be courteous and respectful even when the socialists don't deserve it.

Definitions

There may be some questions about the definition of certain words or phrases that may be used in my ranting and raving. In order to get my point across, I feel it is necessary to define them. Because I may interject new words or phrases, I will from time to time, come back to this posting and add to it instead of creating a new posting. The definitions posted aren't arranged alphabetically or chronologically but the list shouldn't be all that long and should be easy enough get through. When I add new words and phrases after the initial posting, I will separate them by putting a date above them to let you know when they were added.

Decepti-Con. This is a term created by Mike Church, who is a conservative host on satellite radio. Decepti-Cons people who claim to be conservative and claim to desire to reduce the size of government but really only want to manage the current size of government. I will sometimes use the word instead of RINO to describe someone as a Decepti-Con as both are very similar.

RINO. A RINO is a Republican In Name Only. An example of a RINO was Senator Gordon Smith who lost his bid for re-election in 2008. He would vote with the Democrats on a regular basis in order to show how bi-partisan he could be. Olympia Snow and Susan Collins are also current RINOs but hopefully they will be replaced soon.

Nazi Pelosi. Her real name is Nancy Pelosi and is the current Speaker of the House of Representatives. She has been acting like a Nazi ever since she took control of the House in 2006 and started running roughshod over the Constitution ever since. If you disagree with her then she bitches and complains that she knows what is best for the "American People" no matter how much opposition she runs into.

Dear leader. Chairman Maoboma. Franklin Delenobama. All are phrases describing Obama. He has been trying to ram through his agenda ever since taking the oath of office on January 20, 2009. He acts like Hitler, Mao, and Roosevelt depending on the situation. When he tries to coerce the public to sign onto one of his agendas, he is acting like FDR. When he sends the union thugs after those who disagree with him he is acting like Hitler. When he uses the federal government and people in his administration after dissenters, he is acting like Mao. Just like FDR, though, he doesn't give a damn about the Constitution and doesn't think he is bound by any of the limitations that the document places on the federal government or, specifically him or his office.

Robert "liar, liar" Gibbs. He is the White House spokesman. He is the mouthpiece of the propaganda wing of Obama and his administration.

Kremlin on the Potomac. This is the term given to Washington, D.C. The Kremlin part has been given because the seat of the Soviet Union was located in Moscow and was named the Kremlin. The Potomac part is because D.C. is located on the Potomic River between Maryland and Virginia. Since both sides of Congress act like they are guided by the Communist Manifesto instead of the Constitution, they "rule" us from the Kremlin on the Potomac.

Nanny State Strikes Again

A state assemblyman from Brooklyn, NY introduced a bill in Albany that would ban the use of salt in restaurant cooking. The wording of the A 10129 states, "No owner or operator of a restaurant in this state shall use salt in any form in the preparation of any food for consumption by customers of such restaurant, including food prepared to be consumed on the premises of such restaurant or off of such premises."

The author of the bill, Felix Ortiz, said that the salt ban would allow restaurant goers to decide how salty they want their meals to be. He went on to say, "In this way, consumers have more control over the amount of sodium they intake, and are given the option to exercise healthier diets and healthier lifestyles" What would happen if a restaurant chooses to ignore the salt ban? Of course in true nanny fashion, there would be heavy fines imposed of $1000 per violation.

One question I have in regards to this new proposed legislation. Will this ban all salt in the recipe or will a little salt be acceptable? The reason I ask this is because many recipes require that salt be added in order for the recipe to turn out. Cookies require salt. Soups, stews, and chowders all call for salt in one form or fashion. What about breads and cakes. Almost any dish that is cooked needs some salt in some form or fashion and at some level. But don't listen to anyone who cooks for a living or for pleasure.

Who thinks this is a great idea? You guessed it, the dictator-in-chief, Mayor Michael Bloomberg. For those who don't know about Bloomberg, he is one of those people who pours salt on his Saltine crackers. Apparently he doesn't subscribe to the idea of, "What's good for me is good for thee."

Besides the issue of government micromanaging the lives of New Yorkers and anyone else who visits the state, my biggest beef with this proposed legislation centers on those of us who don't add salt to their meals after they are cooked. If I don't add salt when the food is being cooked or baked, I will not add it after it is completed. When I get fries at a fast food place I will typically tell them to either go light on the salt or no salt on the fries. Do I want the government to get involved and tell them they can't put salt on the fries? Hell no!

I have a novel idea, those who want to lower their salt intake, don't go out to eat as much or find a place that offers low salt dishes. Believe me, if there is a market out there for a restaurant that caters to those who want to limit their salt intake, one will pop up and will be successful without government intervention, if not, it will fail.

Oh, and one more question. If it were to become law, would the new law pertain only to salt by itself or would it include any seasoning or spice that has salt in it? Seasoning salt, garlic salt, onion salt, celery salt,lemon pepper mix, taco seasoning, Italian seasoning, and the list goes on. What do these items have in common? They all have some sort of salt in them. Will this proposed law include butter and margarine? They have salt or sodium in them. Instead of trying to ban a naturally occurring substance, why don't you let us make our own decisions and live with the results of our own choices. If someone has health problems because they eat too many foods that are high in salt, don't blame the salt; blame the person who made irresponsible choices.

Call me crazy, but I think that people should start taking more responsibility for their actions and choices instead of playing the victim. Shut up and take responsibility for yourself.

Shrink the Government or Manage it?

The question that has been posed by Mike Church on a number of occasions is whether Republicans want to dismantle the federal leviathan or simply manage it? Today (2-25) I was listening to Sean Hannity. A caller made a comment that was made at the health care summit by Sen. Coburn dealing with creating an agency of "patients" that check up on doctors. The caller then said that all this will do is make doctors look over their shoulders. Sean asked if the doctors are doing what they're supposed to be doing, why should they be worried? This is the type of mind set that we have to change. Sean and others like him, both famous and not so famous, miss the point of shrinking the government not expanding it.

Forgetting the point that the government's involvement in health insurance is unconstitutional, creating another government bureaucracy expands the role that the federal government plays in our lives.

I oppose the Patriot Act whether it is overseen by a Republican or Democrat. Sean and others like him ask why I oppose it if I have nothing to hide? That isn't the point. Do you trust the government to always follow the rules? The Germans thought that they could trust the Nazis when they started keeping tabs on them. A government will start out passing laws by saying that they are for your safety. When people oppose the new "safety measures" the question of, "What do you have to hide?" is always raised. A couple years after the Patriot Act was passed and signed into law, there was a caller to a local Portland radio show that compared the new powers given to the government under the Patriot Act and Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. The host of the program asked the caller to give examples of when the Patriot Act was abused. Of course the caller couldn't provide any examples and was promptly dismissed as a naysayer. As it usually happens, the next few callers railed against the caller and anyone else who didn't agree that the Patriot Act would make us safer. How can you compare Bush to Hitler after all?

Why do I oppose increased government involvement in my life? Although Bush was no conservative and I didn't think he would abuse any of the provisions contained in the Patriot Act, you can never count on subsequent political leaders to be so restrained. If you think I'm wrong, look at the current leadership in the Senate and House as well as the current president. Think that it can't happen to us in the United States? Look at what happened in the first year of the Obama administration. Nationalize the banks-Done. Take steps in nationalizing private companies-GM and Chrysler-Done. Nationalize credit-Working on it. Nationalizing health care-Working on it. Class warfare-Already started.

Now I ask again, do you want to shrink the size of the government or just manage it? If it is the latter, choosing between you and a Democrat is like deciding whether you want your leg amputated above or below the knee. What's the difference. If you want to shrink the size of government you are a true conservative. If you just want to manage the government you are a Decepti-Con.

Glenn Beck the Decepti-Con

Debra Medina is one of three candidates running for governor of Texas on the Republican ticket. Her opponents are Rick Perry, who is the current governor, and Kay Bailey Hutchinson, U.S. Senator. Last week Glenn Beck had Medina on his radio program. This would usually be a great way to reach out to a larger audience and gain support both locally and nationally. Apparently Mr. Beck didn't approve of Ms. Medina's idea of a limited federal government and States' rights. This is apparent in the questions she was asked and the way Mr. Beck and his employees laughed and mocked her after they got off the phone with her but continuing to broadcast. This was wholly unprofessional and disrespectful. For this, I am labeling Glenn Beck as a Decepti-Con.

You may ask what a Decepti-Con is. A Decepti-Con is a person who claims to be a conservative but is only interested in managing the federal leviathan,not shrinking it. They give lip service to State's rights but when it comes to the implementation of State's rights, they criticize those who try to take steps to shrink the federal government and return the power back to the States and the people.

For his actions in throwing Debra Medina under the bus I am calling out Glenn Beck as a Decepti-Con and showing him as being a fraud and a disgrace to the 9/12 project. If Beck were to see the error of his ways and make a public apology to Ms. Medina on both his radio and T.V. shows, I would be willing to consider taking him off the list of Decepti-Cons.

Answer to Mike Church's Question

Mike Church today (2-3) asked what we were going to do about shrinking leviathan? What are we going to do to shrink the size of government? Apparently a number of people have complained via email that they have relatives that have government jobs. “What do you want to do; let them lose their jobs? Are you going to feed them when their job is eliminated?” To those people I say, “Let them get a real job. If they are worth a damn, they can get a real job in the private sector. If they can’t get a real job, then maybe the reason they have a government job is because they can’t make it in the real world. “What about (fill in the blank), they’re a teacher in the public school system. What do you want to do, fire them too? Who will teach the kids?” Have you seen the state of the public schools? Are you telling me that with all the money that is sunk into them that they are doing a good job in teaching the kids? Why is it that more parents choose to send their children to private schools or are home schooling them? The public schools are a sinkhole. Why is it that many teachers are against merit pay? Once a teacher gets tenure, it is almost impossible for them to get fired. And then you wonder why the schools are failing. “Me thinks they doth protest too much.” Why is it that government bureaucrats continually say that we aren’t funding education enough and just one more tax increase will fix the problem? I have been hearing that same old song and dance since I was in school back in the mid-80’s. If it is really only one more tax increase, why is it that when the taxes do go up, you still need more money? How many non-teachers do the schools employ? How many non-school buildings are “owned” by the school districts? If the school superintendent is in charge of a failing school system and you get rid of them; why would you hire a replacement that was fired for the same reason?

My answer to the King Dude’s question of the day, start abolishing government agencies and start firing government employees. Those who have the ability to make something of themselves will find a new, productive job. Those who can’t make it in the real world will either have to learn to be productive or they will have to rely on the charity or others.

Measures 66 and 67 passed thanks to all the dumb asses

To say that I opposed measures 66 and 67 would be an understatement. Today (Jan. 26) was the day of this vote. To let those who don't know what these ballot measures do, I'll give a very brief summary.

Measures 66 and 67 would increase taxes. One would increase the corporate minimum tax and the other would increase income taxes on those making over $125,000 for single filers and $250,000 for couples.

One of the facts that are conveniently left out is that many small businesses file their taxes as income taxes. Oh and this increase in income taxes would be on receipts not profit. These ballot measures came about in an effort to stop the dumb asses in Salem from imposing these taxes on us just for the hell of it. They claim it's to help balance the budget to fund schools, public safety, and other "essential" services. Instead of trying to turn the State of Oregon into the Michigan of the west by raising taxes, how about if the jackasses in Salem live spend the money that is taken from us instead of stealing more of our money.

As an individual household, I have to be able to survive with what my wife and I make at our jobs. If I need more money, I can't go to my neighbor and take money from him just because I can't live within my budget. Why in the blue fucking hell can't the stupid shits that claim to run the State and the Nation do the same? The reason is because they can always count on the lazy bastards that refuse to get off their asses and make something of themselves and instead expect the government to wipe their asses for them. After all, they can't be troubled to be productive in society.

Ayn Rand wrote a book called "Atlas Shrugged" in the 1950's. Lately that book has been flying off the shelves at book stores and libraries. Do you know why? Maybe you should read it. Or if you're too lazy or stupid to do that, you can listen to it as an audio book.

Who is John Galt?

It is long past time that those who have the ability stand up and yell "STOP!" If those who are constantly demonized by the government and the non-contributors where to stop producing, what would you do? Who would provide for you? Get off your ass and do something productive.

Who is John Galt?

Do you not want to be successful? Obviously you don't or you wouldn't live like you do and then expect those who have what you want to give you what they earned. You dumb asses in Salem and Washington, D.C. are nothing but looters. You do nothing for the money you steal from the productive and then demonize us for working, earning and being successful. Then when you need more money, you try to bleed us even more.

Who is John Galt?

Their is a movement in this nation that is taking hold. It isn't moving fast but it is moving nonetheless. What is this movement? Going Galt. You hear whispers of liberty and freedom. Less government intrusion and more free markets. Those all sound good, but do you really want to live without a government safety net? Do you know what that entails? Have you given it any thought? Just think about it. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education, food stamps, WIC, welfare, public housing, and government subsidized housing. Can you live without these as backup plans? This is why measures 66 an 67 passed.

I'm not giving a pass to Republicans either. The establishment Republicans have sold out what they claimed were their principles for 30 pieces of silver. They were willing to jettison their beliefs for increased power or to retain their power. What good is it if you are no better than the Democrats? We may not go down the road to socialism as fast as the Dems but many Republicans are still going down that road. If the people are given the choice of Democrat and Democrat-lite they're going to go for the real thing.

Why do you think Gordon Smith lost his bid for re-election in 2008? It wasn't because people wanted that socialist dip shit Merkley. Look at the results for the election. If I remember right, Merkley won by less than 10,000 votes. The third party candidate who ran on the Constitution Party ticket received almost 80,000 votes. I was one of those who voted third party. Why? Because their wasn't a lot of difference between Smith and Merkley. I may be registered as a Republican, but that is only so I can vote in the primaries. I do not owe my vote to you just because you are a Republican and I will no longer vote for the lesser of two evils. I will not vote for a RINO just as I won't vote for a lib or a socialist.

There may be hope

With the Senate taking a test vote to kill our medical industry last night I decided to see what the opposition to my non-representing representative had to say about it. When I visited his site on facebook, I noticed that there was a link to an article published in the WestLinn Tiddings dated November 12, 2009. In this article, both Kurt Schrader (D) and Scott Bruun (R) were interviewed. Mr. Schrader espoused his flawed ideology about how socialized medicine would keep costs down and wouldn't allow the health insurance companies deny anyone because of preexisting conditions. The two points are contradictory unless the ultimate goal is to push all private health insurance companies out of business.

Mr. Bruun's view of the House's version of socialized medicine is vastly different and would be a more hands off approach to the issue. Mr. Bruun used some language that is a little disturbing like "bi-partisan" and "tax incentives." Some language was right on such as "reducing the Medicare/Medicaid cost shift onto private insurance" and "allowing for purchase of private insurance across state lines" and "fixing our tort system to reduce costs related to defensive medicine."

I know that Medicare and Medicaid are black holes when it comes to government spending. The federal government has to cut Medicaid completely. First they do not have the authority to run or manage this monstrosity. Medicaid, if it were to remain, falls under the ninth and tenth amendments and therefore fall under the individual States to run if they decide to have this program. Medicare is a completely different situation altogether. Those that are receiving Medicare benefits were promised that this program would be there when they reached a certain age. For those who are receiving those benefits or are about to receive the benefits, they must keep them. The federal government needs to impose a cutoff. Those who were born before the cutoff have to rely on either themselves or their State to pay for their medical costs when they get to retirement age. Those who were born after the cutoff have the option to receive Medicare when they reach the age where they are able to receive them or they may choose to opt out.

As for Scott's comment about buying health insurance across state lines, this is the first politician from the left coast, that I have heard or read, who has uttered those words. For that I must applaud him. I can't say who I will support for Oregon's fifth congressional district. I can say with certainty that it will not be Mr. Schrader, he is too liberal. As for Scott Bruun, only time will tell if I put my hat in the ring for him or someone else that is running for that seat. As of now, I can say that Mr. Bruun's stock with me is rising.