Living Large in the Permian Basin

Two Exceptional House Freshmen

2011-02-18T21:39:00.000-08:00

The two I have in mind are not exceptional in my opinion for any special speech or special award since becoming a member. They are exceptional to me because they won election into the US House from the grassroots efforts. Neither of them have ever been elected to any city or state office, and yet they won an election to a national office. The following paragraphs are brief biographies of the two I find exceptional.

Renee Jacisin Ellmers (born February 9, 1964) is the U.S. Representative for North Carolina's 2nd congressional district. She is a member of the Republican Party. Ellmers defeated seven-term Democratic incumbent Bob Etheridge by 1,489 votes, confirmed after a recount. Renee Ellmers was born in Ironwood in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. When she was a child her family moved to Madison Heights, near Detroit, where her father took a job in the auto industry. He worked with General Motors until he retired.

After graduating from Madison High School, needing to work her way through college, Renee trained as a Medical Assistant. For the next eight years, working full and part-time jobs, she attended Oakland University, graduating with a Bachelor of Science degree in Nursing.

A year later, working as a Surgical Intensive Care Nurse at Beaumont Hospital she met her husband, Brent, a graduate of the University Of Indiana School Of Medicine.

After their son was born, while visiting family in Cary, NC, Renee and her husband decided to move to North Carolina. She worked with her husband as Clinical Director of the Trinity Wound Care Center in Dunn. Renee Ellmers became involved in politics after the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which she opposed.

Dan Benishek, M.D. (born April 20, 1952) is the U.S. Representative for Michigan's 1st congressional district. He is a member of the Republican Party. Dan Benishek was born in Iron River, Michigan. His father worked for the Civilian Conservation Corps and then in the iron mines of Iron County. Dan's father died in a mining accident in 1957 and Dan’s mother, with the help of family, raised Dan and his brother, Tim.

He graduated from West Iron County High School in 1970. Dan went on to earn a B.S. in Biology from the University of Michigan in 1974 and graduated from Wayne State Medical School in 1978. Dan completed a Family Practice internship in Flint at St Joseph's Hospital. He completed his General Surgery residency back at Wayne State in Detroit. He has served as a general surgeon in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula in a private practice since 1983. He has worked part-time at the Oscar G. Johnson VA Medical Center in Iron Mountain for the past twenty years. Dan and his wife, Judy, currently live in Crystal Falls. They have five children and two grandchildren. Dan Benishek formally announced his candidacy on March 16, 2010. Bart Stupak's "yea" vote for H.R. 3590 fueled an outpouring of support for Benishek, who had no internet presence aside from a basic website the day the bill was passed; he received more than $50,000 in unsolicited donations in the first 48 hours after Stupak's vote for the bill on March 21, 2010.

So you see I have picked two who are yoopers by birth and conservatives by choice. Each of them were not blessed with being born into a wealthy family. They worked hard and took advantage of opportunities no other nation has to achieve success as a surgical care nurse and as a general surgeon. The achievements would not have catapulted them into winning House seats without getting support from some good people. In Dr Benishek's campaign a friend of mine, rottdawg, assists him greatly. In Renee Ellmer's campaign another friend of mine, Lori Byrd, assists her greatly. Now I have never met in person either one of these people, but I know them from communications on the internet. I like and respect both of them, and believe the feeling is mutual. The work they are doing for Dan and Renee has limited the time they now have to write blogs, but it's wonderful that they are doing a terrific job for them.

In addition to being yoopers, they share something else in common. They both had to face some close votes that almost defeated them. There are some who believe in a set of unwritten rules that have to do with how you get accepted as an electable candidate. In my opinion these folks are elitists with a shallow view of core principles. They will tell you that only someone who has run for an office and been elected to that office in their city, county, or state need apply for any national office. Only after serving as an elected official at the local level can you acquire the proper skill set of knowing how to go along to get along, how to engage in 'pay to play' arrangements with special interest groups, and how to play 'let's make a deal.' If you disagree with their views about an electable candidate, then they mock you, suggest you are mentally ill, and accuse you of consciously choosing to get Ds elected by your support for any candidate who is a noob. As my Governor has recently wrote the attitude of elitists to the rest of us has gotten us Fed Up.

I hope you take a moment to watch the vids below. The first one is especailly good with reminders by Dan of what kind of folks lived in Michigan UP in a bygone era. Cold Warrior may also appreciate his observation that people have and need to become more active at the grassroots level of the Republican Party.

Cross-posted at

That Was Then - This Is Now

2010-10-09T11:02:00.000-07:00

Donna Brazile

In 1994 and 2000, there were 24 black G.O.P. nominees. And you didn't see many of them win their elections.

J.C.Watts OK-04 is the only black GOP to serve from Jan. 1995 to Jan 2003. This district is R+18.

I do not like the condescending tone of Donna Brazile, but the history is what it is. I want this election in 2010 to be be better than the 1994 tide. I am going to be very disappointed if Tim Scott is the only black GOP candidate who is elected. This year we have 14 black GOP nominees. How many and which ones can we support and help them win their election? I do not have all the answers. Let me know what you think. I think we can write about how worthy our nominee is for the seat or write about how unworthy the incumbent is to remain in that seat. In either case when we do it often enough it will have an effect on the top links that you see with a Google search on the candidate's name. The idea is to have positive links at the top for our guy, and negative links at the top for the opponent.

There is an undercurrent of sentiment among some black Republican conservatives that very few, maybe only 1, black GOP candidates are getting serious Republican support. I do not want to believe this, but perhaps each one of us needs to do what we can do in support instead of relying on the NRCC and RNC. We can't sit back and see if the NRCC and RNC make all the right moves, and then wring our hands blaming the NRCC and RNC on Nov.3 that only one black GOP candidate won the day before. I have listed below each of the 14 nominees, and a short summation of how partisan the district is and when and circumstances of incumbent's first election to the seat. I want to believe that a really great candidate can overcome some obstacles, but I do realize the obstacles are just too great in some instances.

  Tim Scott SC-01 (Republican Congressman Henry E. Brown, Jr. 4 January 2010: Announced retirement open seat) This district is R +10

  Allen West FL-22 vs Ron Klein (First elected: 2006)This district is D+1

  Ryan Frazier CO-07 vs Ed Perlmutter (First elected: 2006)This district is D+4

  Bill Randall NC-13 vs Brad Miller (First elected: 2002) This district is D+5

  Charles Lollar MD-05 vs Steny Hoyer This district is D+11

  Bill Marcy MS-02 vs Bennie G. Thompson (First elected in Special Election, 13 April 1993, re: resignation of Congressman Mike Espy, 21 January 1993) This district is D+12

  Marvin Scott IN-07 vs Andre D. Carson (First elected: 11 March 2008 in a Special Election called to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Congressman Julia M. Carson (his grandmother) on 15 December 2007) This district is D+14

  Chuck Smith VA-03 vs Bobby Scott This district is D+20

  Charlotte Bergmann TN-09 vs Steve Cohen (First elected: 2006) This district is D+23

  Star Parker CA-37 vs Laura Richardson (First elected in a special election to fill the vacancy resulting from the 22 April 2007 passing of Democratic Congressman Juanita Millender-McDonald: 21 August 2007) This district is D+26

  Stephen Broden TX-30 vs Eddie Bernice Johnson This district is D+27

  Robert Broadus MD-04 vs Donna Fern Edwards (First elected in a Special Election, 17 June 2008, held to fill vacancy caused by the resignation of Congressman Albert Wynn, effective 1 June 2008) This district is D+31

  Isaac Hayes IL-02 vs Jesse Louis Jackson, Jr.(First elected: 12 December 1995 in Special Election re: resignation of Congressman Mel Reynolds, 1 October 1995) This district is D+36

  Michel Faulkner NY-15 vs Charles B. Rangel This district is D+41

Almost Heaven West Virginia

2010-05-10T07:58:00.001-07:00

When John Denver penned those words in his song I am sure he was not referring to the political landscape of West Virginia. On Tuesday May 11th, West Virginia has its primary, and I intend to pay attention to the results. I have met some people from West Virginia, but I have never lived in the state so feel free to correct any errors I make. The West Virginia congressional delegation consists of four Democrats and one Republican. After this November it would be nice to have a West Virginia congressional delegation of three Republicans and two Democrats, and I think that is unlikely to happen.

I would think from previous history that West Virginia is the safest place for an incumbent to run for office of any state in the country. They have Senator Robert Byrd who was first elected in 1958, fifty-two years ago. Next we have Senator Jay Rockefeller who was first elected in 1984, twenty-six years ago. In the third congressional district we have Nick Rahall who was first elected in 1976, thirty-four years ago. In the first congressional district we have Alan Mollohan who was first elected in 1982, twenty-eight years ago. In the second congressional district we have Shelley Moore-Caputo who was first elected in 2000, ten years ago. Shelley is the daughter of Arch Moore, a former three term Governor of West Virginia.

West Virginia reminds me of United Kingdom House of Lords in the appearance of being entitled to a seat by nobility. This entitled mindset has been around for a long time, but the intent of the US Constitution is not to have membership in the Congress as a lifetime career. Every two years each member of the US House, and one-third of the Senate can be voted out of office. Membership in the US Congress is a tour of duty instead of a lifetime career. West Virginia is a very pro-union state for unions like the UMW and the teamsters. I am not so certain that the solidarity is that strong among the rank and file for the unions of the federal employee IRS and ATF agents. The folks in West Virginia do not care much for the authorities in the federal government or in the business community, and they have a Scots-Irish tendency of fighting against "the man". In normal times the UMW leaders suggest the candidate to support, and they go along with it because the issues do not affect them. These are not normal times, and the votes that make premiums for their health insurance go up, and make coal more expensive for power plants to purchase are issues that do directly affect them. The fact that these are not normal times provides some hope that Nick Rahall and Alan Mollohan will be voted out of office in either tomorrow's primary or in November.

Charles In Charge

2010-04-21T13:43:00.000-07:00

Charles Djou is a Republican running for the vacant US House seat in Hawaii's first congressional District. The state Office of Elections called a Special Election for Saturday 22 May 2010 to fill this vacant seat. There is no primary. The candidate receiving the most votes in the Special Election will fill the remainder of Congressman Abercrombie's term which ends in January 2011. Actually ballots will be arriving at the state Office of Elections on May 1st because they are using mail-in ballots instead of voting sites to vote in this special election.

I encourage everyone who lives in this district to vote for Charles, and if you know someone else who lives in this district please encourage them to vote for Charles Djou. At first glance at the map it would appear the demographics of an urban Honolulu congressional district are just not good for a Republican. We really need to stop thinking like that. This particular House seat is winnable for Charles Djou because the constituents here see the same thing as everyone else sees. The Ds in Washington DC are not doing anything that is helpful to the folks living in Honolulu. More taxes are going to cause more damage to a tourist industry that is suffering enough already. Hawaiians live as far away as you can get in the US from Washington DC, and they do not want to have to give away more power to the federal government over how they live.

Jerry Burris wrote an interesting piece in the Honolulu Advertiser about this election. Here is an excerpt of it:

The intense interest of the national parties, most unusual for Hawai'i, is an indication of how close things are in Washington. One vote here or there can make a big difference. Republicans, particularly, are licking their chops because it would be a huge PR victory to win a GOP seat in a traditionally Democratic state and in the home state of President Obama, to boot.

Democrats are offering voters a nice choice between the generally more liberal Hanabusa and the somewhat more conservative Case. But this could be a problem, if the two split the vote (throw in another handful of votes going to other lesser-known candidates) and then Djou slips though the middle in this winner-take-all contest.

Watch for a more active presence by major Democratic figures, including Sens. Daniel Inouye and Dan Akaka, who have endorsed Hanabusa. Case, who doesn't have that kind of heavyweight backing, uses those endorsements to show he is not part of the "status quo."

It ain't over 'til it's over, so let's support Charles Djou

Throw Da Bums Out...Or Not

2010-04-17T06:05:00.000-07:00

There are a dozen sitting Republican US Senators running for re-election in 2010. As incumbents they have a built-in advantage of more money, more campaign support from Senate colleagues whose
term are not up this year, and more support from the RNC and the NRSC than any primary challenger will have. It comes as no surprise that incumbents almost never lose in a primary or in a general election. However tea-partiers have made enough noise already to make 2010 a different kind of election year.

I don't know if they will make enough of a difference to get any of these incumbents primaried, but I suspect they might. There are some who might think that it is as simple as electing in the primary the candidate with the best voting records that keep with the core principles of keeping the size and scope of the federal government limited, keeping the size and scope of the federal debt small, and keeping the size and scope of the federal taxes small. I wish it was that simple.

Everything starts with precinct committeemen. They are the folks who determine who are going to be slated for all local, state, and federal elections. The US Senators are supposed to be the
voice of their state, and to vote with the best interests of their states being their top priority. So you actually need to elect conservative Governors and state legislators if you want
the US Senators that are conservative.

It's true that many incumbent US Senators are not doing what they are supposed to be doing in terms of the best wishes of the Governor and state legislators from where they are elected. They get enamored with power and their measure of success is based on how many more people call them for help. A better measure of success would be based on how many more people are no longer in need of any help. The longer that a person serves as a US Senator the more prone they are to become remote and detached from their state and more enamored with personal power. I am only aware of two of these dozen even getting challenged in the primary, John McCain of AZ and Bob Bennett of UT. It is wrong to simply be against an incumbent senator if you have no challenger who you are for. Another thing to recognize is how difficult it is to have a very conservative senator from a state that has elected a very liberal governor and state legislators.

Here are the twelve incumbent Republican Senators running for reelection.

BENNETT, Robert, (1933 - ) Senate Years of Service: 1993-

BURR, Richard M., (1955 - ) Senate Years of Service: 2005-

COBURN, Thomas Allen, (1948 - ) Senate Years of Service: 2005-

CRAPO, Michael Dean, (1951 - ) Senate Years of Service: 1999-

DeMINT, James W., (1951 - ) Senate Years of Service: 2005-

GRASSLEY, Charles Ernest, (1933 - ) Senate Years of Service: 1981-

ISAKSON, Johnny, (1944 - ) Senate Years of Service: 2005-

McCAIN, John Sidney, III, (1936 - ) Senate Years of Service: 1987-

MURKOWSKI, Lisa, (1957 - ) Senate Years of Service: 2002-

SHELBY, Richard C., (1934 - ) Senate Years of Service: 1987-

THUNE, John, (1961 - ) Senate Years of Service: 2005-

VITTER, David, (1961 - ) Senate Years of Service: 2005-

Are We Looking In The Wrong Places?

2010-04-13T12:47:00.000-07:00

I know it is way way to early to start talking about who will be the Republican candidate in the 2012 General election. The most important elections are happening in 2010, and we need to win seats in the US Congress and win offices in the states this year. Having said that, right now is a very good time look toward a process of grooming excellent candidates to run in 2012. I do not think that we do a very good job of looking in the right places for our future leaders.

In universities an athletic director looks at winning programs to find new coaches. The Kentucky WildCats basketball program was never going to get a head coach that had not been a successful coach elsewhere. The Republican Party should be thinking like this when they consider a presidential candidate, but they do not. They look at individual qualities a person has of making speeches and getting news written about them by the MSM. They do not consider if they came from a place that has a winning program.

Let's take for example the latest straw poll that was taken at the SRLC. Here are the names and political places they worked.

Newt Gingrich District of Columbia

Mike Huckabee Arkansas

Gary Johnson New Mexico

Sarah Palin Alaska

Ron Paul District of Columbia

Tim Pawlenty Minnesota

Mike Pence District of Columbia

Mitt Romney Massachusetts

Rick Santorum District of Columbia

The list of nine people includes four from the place with the longest losing record, District of Columbia. The state of Alaska has the worst debt level in the US, Massachusetts has the second worst debt level, and New Mexico has the ninth worst debt level. Minnesota is not a state that people are rushing to live in.

Now before I suggest some names of people to groom, here is a list of successful states.

Utah

Arizona

Texas

Idaho

Wyoming

Nevada

I listed the fastest growing states in the US. Except for Texas, there are no sea ports and beaches luring people to move to these states. The states are attractive to people who do not want to pay high taxes and do not want to leave their children with high debts. A lot of people are waking up to realize the federal government needs to be going in a new direction where taxes and debts are not so high. Let's take each of these six states one at a time.

UTAH
Utah is fastest growing state with a 2.5% rate of increase.
It ranks 38th in debt and 35th in taxes. The Governor of Utah is Gary Herbert.

Gary is a conservative Republican who received the highest ranking yet for a Utah Governor by a local conservative group, GrassRoots.

ARIZONA

Arizona is the second fastest growing state with a 2.3% rate of increase. It ranks 45th in debt and 40th in taxes. The State Treasurer of Arizona is Dean Martin.

Dean is a fiscal conservative Republican who recently said

Unfortunately today, government defines success by the number of people they're helping. That's a mistake. Success should be defined by the number of people who no longer need our help.

TEXAS
Texas is growing at a 2.0% rate of increase. It ranks 48th in debt and 32nd in taxes. The Governor of Texas is Rick Perry.

Rick is a conservative Republican who recently had this to say in a speech to SRLC.

A fair tax structure, predictable regulatory structure, a legal system that doesn't allow oversuing and an accountable school system that yields skilled workers.
That's it. That's it. Then get out of the way and let the private sector do what the private sector does best. What is government's role? It's as the servant, not the master.

IDAHO

Idaho is growing at a 1.8% rate of increase. It ranks 37th in debt and 27th in taxes. The Governor of Idaho is Butch Otter.

Butch is a conservative Republican who became the first governor to sign into law a measure requiring the state attorney general to sue the federal government over any such insurance mandates.

After signing the law he said

What the Idaho Health Freedom Act says is that the citizens of our state won't be subject to another federal mandate or turn over another part of their life to government control.

WYOMING

Wyoming is growing at a 1.8% rate of increase. It ranks 32nd in debt and 25th in taxes. The Speaker of the Idaho House is Colin Simpson.

Colin recently had this to say when he announced his plan to run for Governor of Idaho.

I’m a financial conservative and understand the boom and bust cycles of Wyoming’s economy. I know the way to protect the state is to protect and build the financial reserves we’ve created.

Simpson said he would challenge the federal government’s use of the Endangered Species Act to block energy development in the state.

He said
there are ways to protect wildlife without hurting the energy industry.

NEVADA

Nevada is growing at a 1.8% rate of increase. It ranks 44th in debt and 39th in taxes. Former federal judge Brian Sandoval is running to become the next Governor of Nevada.

He was asked by a reporter recently

What specific steps would you advocate to promote greater economic diversity and broadening of Nevada’s economic tax base?
The answer to promoting greater economic diversity and broadening Nevada’s economic tax base lies in keeping our tax climate attractive and our tax burden low. I think that most Nevadans would agree that our future depends on being a state where people want to do business. We have to be as good as or better than our competitors and that is especially true when it comes to economic development and diversification.

So now you have a different list of potential candidates for President than one normally sees. The only one on this list that has even been considered is Governor Rick Perry. It's OK because there still is plenty of time before we have to have a decision on a candidate. I just think we are doing it wrong when we only look at who is appearing on the Sunday morning talk shows and delivering speeches to decide. The most important factor is if the person has any experience in a winning program. All of the six people I have listed have experiences in winning programs for their state. Now we just need to apply the winning strategies that work for them at the federal level of leadership.

A Texas Six-Shooter and Florida Special Open Thread

2010-04-09T09:03:00.000-07:00

Eddie Zamora

Rob Curnock

Jaimie Martinez

Quico Canseco

Jim Duerr

Steven Broden

Ed Lynch

These are maps of the US House congressional districts in Texas with a runoff election, and the US House congressional district with a special election. I provided the maps, photos, and names of the candidates that I want to see emerge victorious on Tuesday night April 13, 2010. All of these seven seats are currently held by incumbent Ds that I want voted out of office.

What shall we do with the capitalist?

2010-04-07T15:04:00.000-07:00

Charles Koch took over his father's moderately successful oil company, Rock Island Oil and Refining, in 1967 and over the next three decades transformed it into Koch Industries, a diversified petroleum products and trading company that, with an estimated $40 billion in annual revenues, is the second-largest privately held company in the United States. Koch companies include Flint Hills Refineries, which processed 600,000 barrels per day of crude oil in 2003; Koch Minerals, which traded about 20 million tons of mineral and fertilizer products in 2003; and Koch Ventures/Genesis, which invested nearly $185 million in technology-based startups between 1997 and 2003. Koch is known for his "Market-Based Management" (MBM) style of leadership, in which employees are encouraged to act as entrepreneurs within Koch Industries. He is also one of the leading contributors to conservative politicians and think tanks, having founded the prominent libertarian think tank the Cato Institute.

In the banquet hall of a hotel in San Francisco, he delivered a lecture.

What shall we do with the capitalist? Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are wormeaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature's plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the capitalist cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! If you see him on his way to school, let him alone, don't disturb him! If you see him going to the dinner table at a hotel, let him go! If you see him going to the ballot- box, let him alone, don't disturb him! If you see him going into a work-shop, just let him alone,—your interference is doing him a positive injury. Speaker Pelosi's "preparation" is of a piece with this attempt to prop up the capitalist. Let him fall if he cannot stand alone! If the capitalist cannot live by the line of eternal justice, so beautifully pictured to you in the illustration used by Mr. Ayres, the fault will not be yours, it will be his who made the capitalist, and established that line for his government. Let him live or die by that. If you will only untie his hands, and give him a chance, I think he will live.

Actually this did not occur. I took part of a speech that Frederick Douglass delivered in 1865 at a meeting of the abolitionist society in Boston, MA. The only change I made is to replace the word Negro with the word capitalist. I also changed the abolitionist member names he addressed in his speech, politician Nathaniel Prentice Banks and radical Wendell Phillips, with Speaker Pelosi and radical Bill Ayres. I find it very interesting that the minor changes I made do not take away from the strong argument.

Special Election in April - Why Not The General Election in April?

2010-04-01T14:55:00.001-07:00

Florida district 19

Edward Lynch

There is a special election on Tuesday April 13th, 2010 for the US House in Florida's District 19. This is not a primary, and the winner of this election will become a member of the US House. The Republican is Edward Lynch, and if you or anyone you know lives in this district, that is the most important piece of information you need. Vote for this guy with the (R) after his name to send the current leaders in Congress a message. Tell them if they don't care what you think about what they are doing, then you don't care to send anyone back to the House to vote to keep them in the leadership. It really is that simple, and it really doesn't matter how nice the man with (D) looks. He is not going to look so nice once he gets to the US Capitol, so just don't send him there.

Another important piece of advice is ignore anyone who advises you that your vote will not matter because there are more registered Ds than Rs in this district that always have elected a D for this seat. Don't allow them to discourage you from voting for Ed Lynch. For some encouragement about voting for Ed Lynch read this.

For the second part of my title ask yourself this question. What is the one day of the year, every year, when the government really gets in your face? The answer is April 15th. This is the one day you are required under penalty of law to file your taxes. I know in the past many folks have allowed the government to withhold extra money, and then they use e-file ASAP to file the tax return and get the refund of that extra money long before April 15th. That is in the past. With states like California unable to immediately send out refunds many now are nervous and less confident in having the government keep all that extra money for them like they used to. If the general election was held on the 2nd Tuesday in April it would fall on the 8th thru the 14th day right before the day you must file your taxes. I believe the close proximity of the general election day to tax day would have an impact on the mood and engagement of folks to go out and vote.

While Ds simply ignore the US Constitution, I chose to actually check what is now written in there about elections. I also checked what is in the US Code for statutes on the subject. I am more concerned with avoiding any needs for additional amendment to the Constitution to implement the change. From what I have found I believe no amendments are necessary.

U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 1
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:

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.

The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

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.

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.

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."

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 12
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists 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 for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing 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. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 20

1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.

6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.

US Code Title 3 Chapter 1 Sec. 7. Meeting and vote of electors

The electors of President and Vice President of each State shall meet and give their votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment at such place in each State as the legislature of such State shall direct.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 644, 62 Stat. 673.)

Bills and Resolutions, House of Representatives, 28th Congress, 2nd Session, Read, and committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. Duncan, by leave of the House, introduced H.R.432: A Bill To establish a uniform time for holding elections for electors of President and Vice President in all the States of the Union.

December 4, 1844

H.R.432 initially set the national day for choosing presidential Electors on "the first Tuesday in November," in years divisible by four (1848, 1852, etc.). But it was pointed out that in some years the period between the first Tuesday in November and the first Wednesday in December (when the Electoral College met) would be more than 34 days, in violation of the existing Electoral College law. So, the bill was amended to move the national date for choosing presidential Electors forward to the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, a date scheme already used in the state of New York.

So you can see how one member of the House can introduce a bill to establish a uniform time for holding the general election as well as the time for the electoral college. One thing that may look at first blush like a problem could actually be an improvement. The date for the term in office to expire is noon on January 20th for President and Vice-President and noon on January 3rd for members of Congress. So a newly elected President and Vice-President will have 8 months, and newly elected members of Congress will have 7.5 months to transition into office from the general election held on the 2nd Tuesday in April. This extra time in transition will be an improvement if they are smart enough to get A Chance to organize the new operations. (pun intended)

There are a lot of National Political Party Leaders and current officeholders in Washington DC who will not like a general election so close to Tax Day at all. Tough. It hurts to be you. Instead of getting depressed over the messes they have already gotten us into, we need to stay focused on electing a new crop and putting the old timers out to pasture. As Larry the Cable Guy says...

GET ER DONE.

A Huge Entitlement Was Repealed in America Once

2010-03-24T09:14:00.001-07:00

There has been a lot of feelings of doom and gloom lately among conservatives after the health bill that was passed by the Congress and signed by the President. People think that since it is a new entitlement this will never go away. All entitlements have grown and expanded. Entitlements are here forever, because once people start receiving a benefit they will never give it up. This is simply not an historical fact. A huge entitlement was repealed in America once. This is an entitlement that existed even when we were colonies. Just like today, these entitled folks were very concerned about health care, education, and protecting the environment.

The entitled had to have complete control over how and how much medical care and education were delivered. They had to have a lot of individual mandates with respect to not having guns get into the wrong hands, and not having outside agitators have contacts and influence that might disturb the existing environment. There was an important need for the entitled to be convincing in explaining the limits of just how much one can improve their station in life, and any limited improvement is completely dependent on how loyal, faithful, and respectful that one is.

Promiscuous sex was not discouraged, and increases in population were welcomed instead of discouraged. The strong family ties were found to be a problem, and it was better for maintaining a discipline and devotion to the work to have families split apart.

There were moderate politicians during this period that tried to reach across the aisle and make compromises over where the entitled folks could live and operate. There were factory owners in states where the people strongly opposed and banned the entitlment, but these owners did not object to the raw materials the entitled people were providing them. These factory owners wanted the materials, and worried they would drop off with any changes to the system.

Legal challenges were made to this entitlement that went all the way to the Supreme Court, and the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court did not repeal this huge entitlement program. A major political party was created by people who opposed this entitlement.

I think by now most of you know what I am talking about, and there are certainly new wrinkles and nuances in entitlement programs today compared to this earlier entitlement. The entitled were private citizens then, and they are public elected officials now. The entitled lived in a mansion then, and they occupy a federal building now. The descendants of those held captive then are willingly and voluntarily giving up liberty for goods and services they don't have to pay for now. The descendants of those held captive then are told by the entitled now that there are rich conservative over-achievers who will be in bondage to paying the money they will not receive for their labors so that they can give out all the goods and services they have promised to them.

THE ENTITLED THEN

THE ENTITLED NOW

THE PLANTATION THEN

THE PLANTATION NOW

THE SLAVES THEN

THE SLAVES NOW

One final meme to dispel is that idea that our elected leaders do not hear us. This is also simply not true. They have not only heard, but they have replied.

...we have always been and I believe continue to be, in
too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.

Eric Holder
A.G.

BIG EFFING DEAL.

Joe Biden V.P.

I WON.

Barack Obama Pres.

I hope the repeal now is not as bloody and violent as the repeal then. It was a big problem then the entitled were private citizens who had lived on their private land and built an economic system around their entitlement. It is less of a problem now that the entitled are public officials who are occupying public buildings. We can vote them out of office, and we must.

Will, Reich, Daniels, and Health Insurers

2010-03-07T21:43:00.000-08:00

George Will, Mitch Daniels, and Robert Reich have all spoken and written recently about the health insurance debate. It reminds me a little bit of three blind men and an elephant. One touches the elephant's foreleg, another touches the elephant's tail, and the third one touches the elephant's trunk. They each can write truthfully about what an elephant is really like to them, and yet the actual elephant is a lot more complicated.

Let's start with George Will who
recently wrote a column, That rock in the
health-care road? It's called the Constitution. an excerpt:

Would it be constitutional for the government to legislate compulsory calisthenics for all Americans? If not, why not? If it would be, in what sense does the nation still have constitutional, meaning limited, government?

Supporters of the mandate say Congress can impose the legislation under the enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce. Since the New Deal, courts have made this power capacious enough to include regulating intrastate activity that "substantially affects" interstate commerce.

But if any activity, or inactivity, can be declared to have economic consequences, then anything can be regulated or required. Furthermore, judicial review and the Constitution itself is largely nullified by a doctrine of virtually unlimited judicial deference to Congress's estimates of what is "necessary and proper" for the regulation of commerce.

George Will makes an additional argument in another column, A divided brain in Washington. an excerpt:

Obama's leitmotif is: Washington is disappointing, Washington is annoying, Washington is dysfunctional, Washington is corrupt, verily Washington is toxic yet Washington should conscript a substantially larger share of GDP, and Washington should exercise vast new controls over health care, energy, K-12 education, etc. Talk about a divided brain.

I like what Will is saying about the slippery slope of growing the government way too much based on Congress's estimates of what is "necessary and proper" for the regulation of commerce. I also appreciate the truth in what he says about a divided brain about claiming that something is broken and therefore should exercise vast new controls over health care. What I find missing in George Will's writings is an acknowledgement that a few health insurance companies do get their way with state legislators and insurance commissioners. These companies have even been known to press states to limit how many other health insurers they license. If he acknowledges this, then he can accept that Congressional oversight is needed under the enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce to undo these abuses.

Next we have Robert Reich who recently wrote a column, Bust Up the Health Insurance Trusts. an excerpt:

They were created in part by hospitals to spread the costs of expensive new equipment and facilities over many policy holders. Collaboration was the point, not competition. The 1945 McCarran-Ferguson Act made it official, exempting insurers from antitrust scrutiny and giving states the power to regulate them, although not necessarily any power to regulate rates.

With size has come not only market power but political clout. Big for-profit insurers deploy enough campaign money and lobbyists to get their way with state legislators and insurance commissioners. A proposal last year to allow California's Department of Insurance to regulate rates, for example, died in committee. These companies have even been known to press states to limit how many other health insurers they license.

And when they can’t get their way, insurers go to court. In Maine, one state that aggressively regulates rates, WellPoint's Anthem subsidiary has sued the insurance superintendent for reducing its requested rate increase.

Antitrust is no substitute for broader health care reform, but it's an important prerequisite. If a handful of giant health insurers are allowed to dominate the industry, many of the other aspects of reform (establishing insurance exchanges, requiring people to have insurance, even allowing consumers to buy insurance across state lines) won’t bring down the price of insurance.

Reich provides a somewhat correct history, but I do not appreciate his use of big, for-profit, and giant as adjectives to cast insurance companies in a negative light. Insurers do not get their way with state politicians writing regulations to limit other insurers because they are big, giant, and for-profit. They do it because it costs less money to pay off state politicians than to compete for customers in a large market. Another solution that Reich gets wrong is the idea that the federal government must set the minimum standards for all the insurers because the customers are not smart enough to purchase what they can afford and need.

Finally Gov. Mitch Daniels recently wrote a column, Hoosiers and Health Savings Accounts. an excerpt:

In Indiana's HSA, the state deposits $2,750 per year into an account controlled by the employee, out of which he pays all his health bills. Indiana covers the premium for the plan. The intent is that participants will become more cost-conscious and careful about overpayment or overutilization.

Everything in that excerpt is true. There are things that are not mentioned in this column about the state of Indiana HSA plan that are also true. The $2,750 per year from the state is not deposited until the employee has deposited $2,750 of his own money into the account. An employee will pay all his health bills out of the HSA account, and then pay health bills out of one of his personal accounts if prescription drugs, doctor visits, and medical tests early in the year deplete the money in the HSA account toward the end of the year. The state of Indiana HSA plan for state employees is an excellent plan for some people but not for everyone.

Health insurance is complicated, and some folks may strongly disagree with my ideas more than any disagreement they might have with Will, Reich, and Daniels. Nevertheless I will offer some of my own ideas about health insurance, and try to defend them against any criticism.

I think the US Congress should provide oversight as one of its enumerated powers to regulate interstate commerce and remove the antitrust exemption for health insurers. The US Congress should require states to allow competition from health insurers across state boundaries. The state insurance commissioners and state legislators should limit the rules and regulations to insurers that only require them to meet the same better business practices required of all other businesses.

The US Congress should create a special high risk health insurance pool for folks who live in federal districts and federal territories and are not able to obtain health insurance from any other insurers. Folks must provide a written proof of being denied coverage and proof of residence in a federal district or territory to qualify. A federal tax on transactions occurring in the federal districts and territories will fund it.

Ten regional districts should be created to manage high risk health insurance pools for folks who live in the state of the region and are not able to obtain health insurance from any other insurers. Folks must provide a written proof of being denied coverage and proof of residence in a state within the region to qualify. States in the regional districts will each provide money to fund it.

The increased competition and relaxation of regulations should increase the number of different plans a customer can choose between which will in turn increase the number of people who choose to buy an insurance policy. I do not think any individual should be forced into buying health insurance. There should be oversight and record-keeping of folks going to emergency rooms with no health insurance.

For me a baker and health insurer should both let the free market determine what ingredients are in their products, how much to charge, and how much profit they acquire. The only role I want for government is to have the oversight of a referee and keep somebody from using political clout instead of the market to pick winners and losers.

2010 US House Pickups in Texas

2010-03-03T18:17:00.000-08:00

Texas has 32 House seats, and 12 of these are currently held by a D. There will be a run-off GOP primary on April 13th for six of these twelve. We have a name for a GOP candidate in the 2010 general election for the other six seats. Below is a table where I list these House seats and order them by what I consider the degree of difficulty in winning from least difficult to most difficult. I'd love to see the Rs pick up all 12 of them, but that is not realistic. If the Texas Republicans can unite after the April 13 run-off primary behind the winners I truly believe four of those candidates could defeat the incumbent in the general election.

I've only lived in Texas since September of 2009, and I expect a lot of posters that are more informed than I am can correct any errors in my analysis. No matter what district a voter lives in he needs to remember the first vote any D takes is a vote for Nancy Pelosi as speaker. That fact alone should make anyone hesitant to vote for a D for House in 2010.

House CD	Incumbent	2008 vote pct	Challenger
CD 17	Chet Edwards	53.0 %	TBD
CD 23	Ciro D. Rodriguez	55.8 %	TBD
CD 27	Solomon P. Ortiz	58.0 %	TBD
CD 15	Ruben E. Hinojosa	65.7 %	TBD
CD 25	Lloyd Doggett	65.8 %	Donna Campbell
CD 28	Henry Cuellar	68.7 %	Bryan Underwood
CD 20	Charles A. Gonzalez	71.9 %	TBD
CD 29	Gene Green	74.6 %	Roy Morales
CD 18	Sheila Jackson-Lee	77.3 %	John Faulk
CD 16	Silvestre Reyes	82.1 %	Tim Besco
CD 30	Eddie Bernice Johnson	82.5 %	TBD
CD 9	Al Green	93.6 %	Steve Mueller

The Wizard to the Cowardly Lion

2010-02-23T17:26:00.000-08:00

You, my friend, are a victim of disorganized thinking. You are under the unfortunate impression that just because you run away you have no courage; you're confusing courage with wisdom.

--The Wizard to the Cowardly Lion

There are different types of wisdom. One of them, conventional wisdom, can sometimes be neither wise nor conventional. I am not saying that the four-term Senator from Arizona is a wizard or that the one term senator from South Carolina is a cowardly lion. I guess I just used the quote because the wizard of Oz used "my friend", an annoying phrase used often by John McCain.

The reason for writing this diary about these two Senators running for re-election in 2010 has nothing to do with the horse-race aspect of the election. As much as I detest McCain and admire DeMint both of them are going to be re-elected. My reason for writing this diary is to focus on the money that these two men have raised for other people in 2010. Winning support for a position of leadership has a lot to do with how much campaign support you have provided to your colleagues. John McCain has a PAC, Country First, that has contributed to four candidates for the US Senate. Jim DeMint has two PACS, MINT and Senate Conservatives Fund. The tables below indicate the names of the recipients, and the amount of dollars they received. The Florida US contest is extremely important for determining if Sen. DeMint is rising in the US Senate and Sen. McCain is dropping in the leadership department.

The real comparison between these two men is a choice between having leadership that is authoritarian and progressive (McCain) or libertarian and conservative (DeMint). I am personally rooting for the latter.

The early 20th century progressives were authoritarian in prohibiting booze, and the early 21st century progressives are authoritarian in prohibiting lobbiests campaigning, and consumers buying incandescent light bulbs. As a progressive they know they are smarter and must decide for all of the rest of us what is in our best interest. They lost the argument with the passage of the 21st amendment then, and they are losing the argument incrementally with Supreme Court decisions now. We always need to remain vigilant against these authoritarians. They may go off and hide for a while, but they will be back when they think they see an opening.

I recently watched the movie, Fountainhead. I recommend this movie especially two main characters, Ellsworth Toohey and Howard Roark, for showing the authoritarian progressive vs the conservative libertarian. a Cliff-Notes excerpt:

Toohey knows that a Fascist or Communist state requires a citizenry willing to obey. He can establish a dictatorship only if the majority of individuals are willing to give up personal autonomy - to surrender their minds to a leader. This is the two-pronged goal that he attempts to reach: destroy the independent thinkers like Roark, and, by convincing individuals to surrender their judgment and values, turn them into followers like Keating. A dictator requires a flock of sheep; he cannot hold power over a citizenry of independent men.

Toohey has a clear vision of his role in the collectivist state. He himself is not the brute of physical force who gains dominance by unleashing a reign of terror. His role, rather, is to be the intellectual advisor behind the throne. The brute will hold physical power over the masses, and Toohey will hold spiritual power over the brute. Toohey is a behind-the-scenes puppet master, who surreptitiously wields the real power - and this will be his place in the totalitarian state he seeks.

source

Country First PAC John McCain

Senate Candidates	Amount
Crist, Charles J Jr (R-FL)	$5,000
Portman, Rob (R-OH)	$7,400
Thune, John (R-SD)	$5,000
Coburn, Tom (R-OK)	$2,400

MINT PAC Jim DeMint

Senate Candidates	Amount
Thune, John (R-SD)	$5,000
Burr, Richard (R-NC)	$5,000
Isakson, Johnny (R-GA)	$5,000

Senate Conservatives Fund Jim DeMint

Senate Candidate	Amount
Rubio, Marco (R-FL)	$10,000

Sarah Palin - A 21st Century Duchess of Devonshire?

2010-02-09T10:45:00.000-08:00

In September 2008 the movie, The Dutchess, was released.

A chronicle of the life of 18th century aristocrat Georgiana, duchess of Devonshire, an ancestor of Princess Diana who was alternately celebrated and reviled for her extravagant political and personal lives.

Now I have not yet actually seen this move, but I have read a review of this movie that has moved me to ask the question in my title. I encourage you to read the review and draw your own conclusions. I also do not presume that the author of this review intended any comparison, so just blame me for the suggestion. I will provide some excerpts of this review that I think bolster my suggestion.

I did not expect that, amid the romance, costumes, and drama, I would strike libertarian gold!
It was one pivotal scene in particular that piqued my curiosity. When Charles Fox (played by Simon McBurney), who was Georgiana's mentor and the leader of the Whig party, argues for the importance of "freedom in moderation," Georgiana responds quickly and firmly that there cannot be scales of freedom. Rather, the "concept of freedom is an absolute."

The Duchess of Devonshire lived in a time that bears striking similarities to our own. In the late 18th century, England was rife with tensions between an increasingly powerful state and a swelling grassroots opposition. The frustrated Whigs were becoming increasingly radicalized in their defense of liberty against the corrupt, ever-expanding powers of King George III.

I think you could replace the word Whigs with Republicans and replace the words King George III with President Obama and it would describe early 21st Century US.

But Georgiana was not a shrinking violet. She was fiercely passionate about her party's ideals. Her favorite book was Vertot's Revolutions of Sweden, which is about, as she put it, a "[h]ero fighting for liberty of his country and to revenge the memory of an injur'd friend against lawless cruelty and oppressive tyranny."

Georgiana recognized that liberal ideals could only be spread through dedicated organizing and savvy marketing.

Georgiana was a marketing genius, one of the first to refine political messages for mass communication. She was an image-maker who understood the necessity for public relations, and she became adept at the manipulation of political symbols and the dissemination of party propaganda. She was simultaneously a public figurehead for the Whigs and an effective politician within the party.
To keep morale alive, she held vibrant, theatrical parties, dinners, and rallies.

Georgiana was a powerful asset for the Whigs, serving as campaign manager, strategist, advisor, inspiration, and symbol of the movement. She brought Whig ideals back into fashion with her costumes, balls, and events. She helped shape the strategy and direction of the party, and she charged along when her comrades lost steam.

Driven by strong convictions and a fervent belief in freedom, Georgiana was a master political propagandist, a powerful negotiator, an impassioned orator, and a keen political strategist. In many ways, she was the woman behind the men of the Enlightenment.

So that's it. These parts of this review are what made me think of Sarah Palin. I know some people think that Sarah Palin can do no wrong while other people think she can do nothing right. The truth is somewhere in between. This is not a pro-Palin nor an anti-Palin diary. It is just my personal observation that Sarah Palin can refine political messages for mass communication, and Sarah charges forward when her political comrades lose steam.

The Blue and Gray - Then and Now

2010-02-06T07:10:00.000-08:00

The Blue and Gray comes from the colors of the uniforms worn by the union army (blue) and the confederate army (gray) during the war between the states. The confederate states were all in the southeast quadrant of the US, and the union states were the northern states and Oregon and California. The confederate states had less freedom for its inhabitants which included slaves. That was then.

Now, William P. Ruger and Jason Sorens have published a paper, Freedom in the 50 States. This document just about flips the map on the states with less freedom(gray) and states with more freedom(blue). The following is a summary of their findings.

We develop and justify our ratings and aggregation procedure on explicitly normative criteria, defining individual freedom as the ability to dispose of one’s own life, liberty, and justly acquired property however one sees fit, so long as one does not coercively infringe on another individual’s ability to do the same. This study improves on prior attempts to score economic freedom for American states in three primary ways: (1) it includes measures of social and personal freedoms such as peaceable citizens’ rights to educate their own children, own and carry firearms, and be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

We find that the freest states in the country are New Hampshire, Colorado, and South Dakota, which together achieve a virtual tie for first place. All three states feature low taxes and government spending and middling levels of regulation and paternalism. New York is the least free by a considerable margin, followed by New Jersey, Rhode Island, California, and Maryland. On personal freedom alone, Alaska is the clear winner, while Maryland brings up the rear. As for freedom in the different regions of the country, the Mountain and West North Central regions are the freest overall while the Middle Atlantic lags far behind on both economic and personal freedom. Regression analysis demonstrates that states enjoying more economic and personal freedom tend to attract substantially higher rates of internal net migration.

The authors of this study have put the data online, and one is able to adopt their own weights to see how the overall freedom rankings change. LINK

Pia Varma is a candidate for the US House seat in Pennsylvania's 1st district, and she has some excellent thoughts on the subject of freedom.

Freedom! That word once started revolutions. There was a time when people pretty much understood that freedom was so precious that nothing and no one should have the power to take it away. America was founded on that basis. No matter your race, gender, religion or social class, as a human being no one could take your freedom without your consent. But individual freedom cannot exist without individual responsibility. That means you own the consequences of your choices: profit and loss, success and failure, happiness and sadness. But that was then, this is now.

Today, millions of Americans have been led to believe that they can have the good without the bad. They never bothered to think about the costs though. Like eating in a fine restaurant, we never see the bill until the meal is over. Even better if someone else is paying. So we vote for nice sounding policies and the people who promote them all because the costs cannot be seen or they are supposedly paid by someone else. But any immediate benefit we get will fade and at the next election cycle we are back at that table begging like Oliver Twist, Please Sir, May I have some more.

Every day, more and more Americans are lulled into relying on the government to solve their problems. They never realize that the cost of doing so is their freedom. No matter how bad the government makes their lives, they still trust that someday it will get better. The sad part is, they genuinely believe that they are safer under that false blanket of protection.

In a free market businesses are forced to provide product and services demanded by the consumer. The consumer controls the quality, quantity and costs. If he does not like the services at one company, he simply fires them and goes to a competitor. But when the industry is in the hands of a monopoly, as is the case with education, the consumer, in this case parents and children, is forced to accept what is offered. Sure you can opt for private school but this option is only available to a select few.

A private business competing in an open market has to listen to its customers or risk closing its doors. Public schools don’t have this problem. Incentives matter.

Government has a duty to prevent those things which can be prevented, but we as individuals have a duty to ensure that we do not become the victims of our own security. More government, more agencies, more money has not, cannot and will not make life perfect.

The two maps below are what the US looked like in 1861, and what, according to the report, the US State Overall Freedom Ranking reveals today. I colored the 17 most free states blue, the 16 least free states gray, and the 17 states in the middle light green.

Who Wrote Your History Textbook?

2010-02-04T09:11:00.001-08:00

I recently wrote about the US history that is not taught about some famous American market entrepreneurs. That really is just the tip of the iceberg. In every period of our history there are statist biases being taught to students in classes. Larry Schweikart has written a book that includes a list of lies that can lead to a bitter attitude about this country being formed by the students. It is important to know who wrote your history textbook, and what kinds of bias are evident.

The American Textbook Council is an independent national research organization established in 1989 to review the history and social studies textbooks used in the nation's schools. Since its foundation, the Council has achieved a prominent place in national discussions and exchanges about history textbooks and the social studies curriculum through its many bulletins, studies, and reports. The Council's many projects, evaluations of history textbooks and social studies curricula, and efforts to educate the nation about the civic implications of multiculturalism have earned it a reputation for integrity and fairness.

The Council endorses textbooks that embody vivid narrative style, stress significant people and events, and promote better understanding of all cultures, including our own, on the principle that improved textbooks will advance the curriculum, stimulate student learning, and encourage educational achievement for children of all backgrounds.

To give some guidance to educators who need quick assistance and a place to begin, the history textbooks listed below that have been adjudged in content and design satisfactory or superior to their competition in previous Council bulletins and studies are marked with a plus (+). Textbooks that have been adjudged grossly deficient or inaccurate in reviews are marked with a minus (-). Unmarked textbooks are of mixed quality. Each of the following textbooks is identified alphabetically by publisher, first designated author, and abridged title. BL denotes a book that has been backlisted, i.e., it is no longer actively sold as "new" yet is for sale as inventory. Such books are gradually being retired or may be niche sellers with enduring popularity.

Publisher	Author	Title	Rating
McGraw-Hill/Glencoe	Joyce Appleby	American Journey
McGraw-Hill/Glencoe	Gary B. Nash	American Odyssey	-
Houghton Mifflin/McDougal	Jesus Garcia	Creating America
Houghton Mifflin/McDougal	Gerald Danzer	The Americans
Pearson/Prentice Hall	James West Davidson	The American Nation	-
Pearson/Prentice Hall	Daniel J. Boorstin	A History of the United States	+
Pearson/Prentice Hall	Andrew Cayton	America: Pathways to the Present	+
Harcourt/Holt	Edward L. Ayers	American Anthem
BL Harcourt/Holt	Sterling Stuckey	Call to Freedom
BL Harcourt/Holt	Paul Boyer	Boyer's The American Nation	-

The Thomas B. Fordham Institute has on its web site a link to reviewers' findings of some of the textbooks listed. Instead of ranking the textbooks with a (+)or(-) these reviewers assigned a letter grade ranging from C+ to F for the textbooks. The table below shows their results.

Publisher	Author	Title	Rating
McGraw-Hill/Glencoe	Joyce Appleby	American Journey	C+
BL Harcourt/Holt	Paul Boyer	Boyer's The American Nation	C-
Pearson/Prentice Hall	Andrew Cayton	America: Pathways to the Present	C-
McGraw-Hill/Glencoe	Gary B. Nash	American Odyssey	D
Houghton Mifflin/McDougal	Gerald Danzer	The Americans	F

The meager research I have done on this subject leads me to thinking that the choices for schools in choosing history textbooks are between barely acceptable and completely unsatisfactory. The direction in education in the US is to move toward more uniformity and standardization, and less control by each state. I think that this is a very bad idea, and I applaud Alaska and Texas for refusing to take federal dollars in exchange for losing control of education standards.

There are progressives in both the Republican and Democratic Party who want to attack anyone opposed to the national takeover in education as being someone who doesn't care about all the children getting an excellent education. This line of attack should be answered by informing them that the more local the government the more caring exists. There are so many programs and plans that are talked about in Washington, DC that have absolutely nothing to do with duties and enumerated powers that are listed in the US Constitution for the federal government. They will attack anyone who opposes their programs as someone who just does not care about things that are very important to people. They miss the point of the opposition. Opposition is not because something is not important or because we don't care about people. The opposition is because the local government has the authority to run programs not listed by the US Constitution. The tenth amendment does spell this out fairly well.

The bottom line for me is that I would want my history lessons to come from American Journey.

My Take on Lame Duck Senators Casting Votes

2010-01-29T12:57:00.000-08:00

Lane Kirk is a lame duck. There has been an election for the Massachusetts US Senate seat, and Scott Brown won the election. There is a lot of outrage that Lane Kirk is continuing to cast votes. I understand that outrage. My take on this is different from others that I have read. I want to take into account ALL lame duck US Senators, and not just Lane Kirk. The heat that I can catch for this kind of accounting may be huge, because it does not necessarily reward one political party over the other one.

I do not favor imposing mandatory term limits on congressmen. We already have a market-driven set of term limits. They are called general elections. They occur every two years for the House and 1/3 of the Senate so the voters can remove any House member after two years in office and any Senate Member after six years in office. This is the check on power that the founders had the wisdom to put into the constitution, and I am good with that. The check is that any judgement made by a congressman's vote is that he has to face the voters in the next election, and defend his vote. Now the problem with this particular check comes into play when you have a congressman who is not going to run in the next election or whose seat just got won in the previous election by another person. What I have described is a lame duck who has no concern for accounting for his vote to the voters in his state.

My take is that the US Senate can make their own rules with a 3/4 majority vote required. I would like to see them come up with a Senate Rule that a lame duck member will recuse himself, and not vote on key major votes. If Supreme Court Justices are allowed to recuse themselves, then why shouldn't a lame duck US Senator?

Purity Test - Don't Play the Game

2010-01-26T11:57:00.000-08:00

For those who are wondering, the pic is from the movie War Games (1983).

There has been some talk about a purity test for candidates. Some people are in favor, and some are opposed. Put me in the camp that says Do not play this game! I recently read an article at Politico,
Dem plan: Split GOP, tea party
From the article:

Menendez and his staff will distribute a memo Tuesday advising Democratic campaign managers to frame their opponents early and to drive a wedge between moderate voters and tea-party-style conservatives.

The memo urges Democratic candidates to force their opponents to answer a series of questions on health care, taxes and some of the favorite causes of the far right:

Do you believe that Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen? Do you think the 10th Amendment bars Congress from issuing regulations like minimum health care coverage standards? Do you think programs like Social Security and Medicare represent socialism and should never have been created in the first place? Do you think President Obama is a socialist? Do you think America should return to a gold standard?

If a Republican candidate says no to any of the questions, the memo says Democrats should “make their primary opponent or conservative activists know it. This will cause them to take heat from their primary opponents and could likely provoke a flip-flop.

This is not anything new. Saul Alinsky included this in his Rules for Radicals Rule #7 Tactics point 4

4.Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.

The MSM will try to trap a GOP candidate or GOP officeholder in this same manner. I recently read a book written by William F. Buckley, The Reagan I Knew. There is a chapter titled Stockman and the Budget. An excerpt

Reagan was pleased to find in Washington a 34 year old congressman, David Stockman. He had done graduate work at Harvard, where for a period he was in the divinity school. Reagan duly named him Director of OMB and put him in charge of the administration's grand plan to cut tax rates and the budget and the deficit simultaneously.

Reagan's confidence in Stockman came to a soggy end when The Atlantic appeared on the stands in November 1981. In an extended interview Stockman put forward his views of the Reagan program.
It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down.' So the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' None of us really understands what's going on with all these numbers.

In the months ahead, administration representatives had to labor hard to finesse the objections raised by Stockman. Stockman went to the president, apologized, offered his resignation, was 'taken to the woodshed' and then forgiven, and went back to work. But although Stockman was kept on as head of OMB until 1985, the skepticism had hardened.

Stockman enjoyed the arts of explication. His conservative instincts brought him to criticize mostly the sheer size of the government President Reagan had inherited. It took Stockman a very long time before he discovered that the Reagan administration, for instance, simply stopped thinking about Social Security as a malleable budget feature. If he had known that, he says, he would not have engaged in the struggle to begin with.

I think WFB sums up what happened fairly accurately, and I also think President Reagan would have been served better by someone who was not such a conservative radical ideologue.

Seven More 2010 US House Freshman

2010-01-25T07:57:00.000-08:00

I earlier wrote a diary about new House Republicans replacing House Democrats in 2010. My list projected a net increase of 51, and this would change the number of House Rs to 228 and House Ds to 207. Since that time my confidence has grown, and I believe it is now possible for House Rs to number 235 and House Ds to number 200. There is a growing sense of courage in the country that is stirring people to campaign and fight to win seats that had always seemed unlikely to them before. Incumbents have got a large amount of money compared to challengers, but that money they have is not deterring people any more. I use Stu Rothenberg as a reference for my 58 selections, but I am more optimistic than he is about the 58 D seats that are in play.

I included wins in five additional states, Missouri, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, and West Virginia. I included an extra seat pickup in Colorado and Illinois. I realize that some may have another individual to win in a GOP Primary than I picked, and it is not my intent to argue with you about that primary. I want, and I would hope, that you want a GOP candidate to win the General Election. I also did not include any new Rs replacing incumbent Rs, and I certainly suspect this will occur as well.
Photos of the seven from top left to bottom right include: Scott Tipton CO-3 Vickie Hartzler MO-4 Dick Green IL-10 Paul Schaffner ND Mick Mulvaney SC-5 Blake Curd SD and Dan Swisher WV-1

Take the Cap Off Entering the House

2010-01-23T15:46:00.000-08:00

Most of the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (and the states that ratified them) expected that the following principles would always apply:

The size of the congressional districts should remain relatively small. Instead, the average district size is approximately 700,000 and growing.

The number of federal Representatives should grow proportionately with the general population. Instead, Congress has fixed the total number of Representatives at 435 ever since 1913.

The Congressional districts should be equivalently sized across the nation pursuant to the one-person-one-vote principle. Instead, some House districts are currently nearly twice the size of others.

Melancton Smith, New York Ratifying Convention 20--21 June 1788 selling points

We may approach a great way towards perfection by increasing the representation and limiting the powers of Congress. The great interests and liberties of the people could only be secured by the State Governments. If the new government was only confined to great national objects, it would be less exceptionable; but it extended to every thing dear to human nature. That this was the case could be proved without any long chain of reasoning:--for that power which had both the purse and the sword, had the government of the whole country, and might extend its powers to any and to every object. By the true doctrine of representation, this principle was established--that the representative must be chosen by the free will of the majority of his constituents: It therefore followed that the representative should be chosen from small districts. Would they be possessed of the requisite information to make happy the great number of souls that were spread over this extensive country?--There was another objection to the clause: If great affairs of government were trusted to a few men, they would be more liable to corruption. Corruption was unfashionable amongst us, but Americans were like other men; and tho' they had hitherto displayed great virtues, still they were men; and therefore such steps should be taken as to prevent the possibility of corruption. We were now in that stage of society, in which we could deliberate with freedom;--how long it might continue, God only knew! Twenty years hence, perhaps, these maxims might become unfashionable; we already hear in all parts of the country, gentlemen ridiculing that spirit of patriotism and love of liberty, which carried us through all our difficulties in times of danger.--When patriotism was already nearly hooted out of society, ought we not to take some precautions against the progress of corruption?

Complaint For Declaratory and Injunctive Relief On the grounds that the United States government's current practice of apportioning representatives according to 2 U.S.C. § 2a is unconstitutional, a lawsuit was filed in district court on September 17, 2009.

The five plaintiffs in the case each represent the five most under-represented states in the House of Representatives. The plaintiffs are:

John Tyler Clemons
Jessica Wagner
Krystal Brunner
Lisa Schea
Frank Mylar

Mr. Clemons is a registered voter in the state of Mississippi; Ms. Wagner is a registered voter in the state of Montana; Ms. Brunner is a registered voter in the state of South Dakota; Ms. Schea is a registered voter in the state of Delaware; Mr. Mylar is a registered voter in the state of Utah.

Scott Scharpen has written about the root causes of ills in the US House , and here are some highlights from this article.

INCREASED competition – the principles of free markets tell us that when competition is present, we get increased quality at a lower cost. With a House of 1,761 members, the supply will increase by over 300% while the demand remains the same. The example of the New Hampshire state house (consisting of 400 members for a population of less than 1.5 million) shows that competition produces a much higher turnover rate (over 30%) each election cycle. In dramatic contrast, California’s embarrassing lack of competition (the state assembly has only 80 members for a population of over 36 million) has produced a 100% incumbent success rate for the past 4 election cycles, even though the state is being driven into bankruptcy. In effect, competition creates market-driven term limits when needed, rather than legislatively-forced term limits that are advocated by so many. With appropriate competition, long tenure will depend on strong performance rather than who holds the most power and money.

DECREASED cost of running for office – the average winning campaign for a U.S. House seat in 2008 was approximately $1.5 million. This enormous financial barrier to entry prevents ‘average’ citizens from entering national politics, and gives incumbents a great advantage. If the average district size were reduced by 75%, the cost to win a House seat would also be cut by 75%. Also, we would see special interest money playing a much smaller role in the outcome of elections.

Here is a thought experiment: consider how few people are required to get a major federal government program started. In a country of about three-hundred million residents, a US President only needs 283 people to get what he wants. Let’s take Obama’s health care initiative and break down the numbers. Any revenue generating program needs to originate in the House and get 218 votes - done Next, the Senate has got to have 60 votes to pass something out of the Senate - done. The House can accept with no changes what passed out of the Senate with 218 votes - not done yet. The President signs the bill received from the Congress - not done yet. Five Supreme Court Judges rule the new program is constitutional - not done yet. So a president needs 218 + 60 + 5 = 283 for mission accomplished.

There is a significant correlative relationship between smaller district sizes and increased freedom. Moreover, this is a causal relationship; that is, as the legislative districts become larger, the government becomes increasingly oligarchic and statist.

I support this effort, and wish that people would work to fix the statist problem our country faces with the elected officials in DC in this manner. I do not think that term limits and campaign finance reform address the core problem that arose in 1913 with creation of the Fed and the 16th and 17th amendments as well as no longer increasing the total number of congressional districts. I know the Congress we have has no interest in doing any more than having federal districts and territories get representatives instead of delegates. I do not support that at all.

Below I have a couple of charts to illustrate that the total number of congressional districts was increased every ten years from 1790 to 1910 (with a single exception). These increases were a direct result of the growth in total population as was intended by the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The second chart shows the different ways that state governments operate their state houses. You can see states like California, New York , and New Jersey have larger district sizes. States like New Hampshire, South Dakota, and North Dakota have smaller district sizes. Guess which states have increased freedom.

US History - What Is and Is Not Taught

2010-01-21T08:20:00.000-08:00

One reason for studying history is to learn from it. The problem is that the history lesson we are being taught has a statist bias to it. While it is true that some industrialists took huge government dollars, erected shoddy enterprises, and ran them into the ground, there were also those who risked their own money, overcame strong foreign competition, and pushed American industries to become world leaders. History books are written that lump the political predators and innovative builders as one. The narrative that is written is:

Entrepreneurs cut costs and made many contributions to American economic growth, but they also marred political life by bribing politicians, forming pools, and misusing government funds, and engaging in risky stock speculation. Therefore, we needed the federal government to come in and regulate them.

This historical narrative does not help one to learn the right lessons from history. It gives people the foolish notion that increased involvement and increased regulations by the federal government is always the appropriate remedy to any economic problem.

One example of an appropriate federal government intrusion is the Supreme Court case of Gibbons v Ogden.
The New York legislature gave Robert Fulton the exclusive privilege of carrying all steamboat traffic in New York for thirty years. Gibbons, a New Jersey steamboat man, decided to challenge this arrangement and hired Cornelius Vanderbilt to run a steamboat from New Jersey to New York. For sixty days in 1817, Vanderbilt defied capture as he raced passengers from Elizabeth, New Jersey to New York City. In 1824 Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that only the federal government, not the states, could regulate interstate commerce.

The real value of removing the Fulton monopoly was that the costs of steamboating dropped. Passenger fares, for example, from Albany to New York City immediately dropped from seven to three dollars after Gibbons v Ogden. Fulton's company couldn't compete, and soon went bankrupt. Vanderbilt adopted new technology, cut costs, and earned $40,000 profit each year during the late 1820's.

Cornelius Vanderbilt left Gibbons to start his own shipping business. He never got anymore Supreme Court decisions in his favor, but he continued to compete against others who were getting money from the US or British governments and best them in water travel and later railroad travel.

History books also do not teach, but in some cases make excuses for, the government intrusions that were not appropriate and caused more harm than good. For example, the history books describe that the transcontinental railroads building for companies like Union Pacific run by Jay Gould, and Northern Pacific, run by Henry Villard, were so costly and risky as to require lavish federal dollars. For the boondoggles and corruption that accompanied all this federal money largesse, they blame not the federal government for making the federal aid available, but the greedy railroad tycoons for receiving it. James J. Hill built the Great Northern transcontinental railroad without a cent of federal aid and without boondoggles and corruption, but the history books don't point out this stark difference.

Another example is the way the Interstate Commerce Commission and Sherman anti-trust and Hepburn Acts were used not to hurt a political entrepreneur like Gould, or Villard, but instead to punish efficient market entrepreneurs like Hill and Rockefeller. The history books don't mention the unintended consequences of loss of exports to Japan by punishing Hill. Hill had grown US exports to Japan from $7.7 million to $51.7, and then he mostly abandoned the Asian trade after the Hepburn Act became law in 1906. The history books don't mention the international competition between John D. Rockefeller and the Russians for winning the largest share of the global oil market. This competition had been going on since 1885 when the Sherman Act ruling in 1911 forced the break-up of his company.

Another example is the plan concocted during the Wilson Presidency to have the federal government build and operate armor-plate factory with federal funds. Charles M Schwab, president of Bethlehem Steel, told them that the federal government would not be able to make armor plate cheaper than he could. A government factory would waste the taxpayers' money.

Construction began in 1917 on the new factory. The war delayed the building, but it was continued later. There was an overrun of several million dollars in post-war construction costs. By 1921, the plant was making armor at prices much higher than that of Bethlehem Steel, and the plant was shut down within a year to never run again.

I was able to obtain the history that is not taught from a book, The Myth of the Robber Barons, written by Burton Folsom, Jr. Some of you have listened to Glenn Beck talking about a lot of problems going back to the Wilson Presidency, but I think the human condition toward statism and elitism goes back much farther.

Adam Smith cautioned about this in his book, Wealth of Nations. It is just as applicable today.

The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it.

19th Century American Industrialists fall into two categories:
Market Entrepreneurs
Cornelius Vanderbilt James J. Hill

John D. Rockefeller

Charles M. Schwab

Political Entrepreneurs:
Robert Fulton Jay Gould

Henry Villard Elbert H Gary

Recarving Rushmore - a book review

2010-01-14T13:53:00.001-08:00

In Ivan Eland’s world, the sky is blue, the grass is green, and the US President images carved into Mount Rushmore are van Buren, Tyler, Hayes, and Cleveland.

The author wrote this book in 2009, and based his ranking of each President by the degree to which each one upheld the founders’ original concept of a restrained foreign policy and a limited federal government with an appropriately constrained executive. This sounds good, except the author has a Ron Paul view of a restrained foreign policy. Every war could have been avoided, and every attack on the US is because we did something to deserve it.

I completely reject this view, and believe that the principle of peace through strength is elementary and essential. Consider an elementary child who gets his lunch money taken from him by a bully. That child will not have any peace by avoiding the bully, nor does this child deserve to be attacked. The bully will have that child’s lunch money until the day comes that the child is stronger than that bully. Through strength peace will finally come.

I do not recommend this book, especially if you suffer from hypertension and believe in peace through strength. However, I do not regret reading an analysis of Presidents that uses different criteria than what historians have traditionally used. I also think some of these views resonate with some who are participating in Tea Party events. There are war protesters who also support a limited federal government and less spending and takeover by the federal government of car companies, banks, health insurance companies, etc. We can use their votes for electing folks who will shrink the federal government, and we can let them pound sand when it comes to providing a common defense of the US.

The author writes about some of the biases with how historians rank Presidents. He mentions the “effectiveness bias” where the political skill to get his policies implemented is considered. The problem the author has is that this factor does not take into account if the policies yield positive or negative consequences. The author has a similar problem with the “charisma bias” that how much charisma a president possessed should be a rating factor. The author rejects the idea that you can’t be a great President unless you are an activist presiding during a major national crisis.

The author grades each President assigning a number from 0 to 20 for how well he did in peace, prosperity, and liberty. In the introduction he writes that after he finished the rankings were surprising even to him. I think before he even started that any President who believed in peace through strength was going receive a bad grade. I actually agree for the most part with the grades he gave on the prosperity component. There were two Presidents that received a 0 on this component, FDR and LBJ. That seems about right to me.

I created a table of the 16 US Presidents who were reelected, because I do have this bias that getting reelected is a key to how good of a job a President is doing. Compare different rankings for 16 of 40 Presidents from the conservative Federalist/Wall St Journal, the more liberal Siena Research Institute, and the author. The first number in each column is the rank and the second number in the Ivan Eland column is the Prosperity score.

Wall St Journal Rankings	Siena Rankings	Ivan Eland
George Washington (1)	FDR (1)	Grover Cleveland (2) (18)
Abraham Lincoln (2)	Abraham Lincoln (2)	Dwight Eisenhower (9) (17)
FDR (3)	George Washington (4)	U.S. Grant (19) (16)
Thomas Jefferson (4)	Thomas Jefferson (5)	Bill Clinton (11) (15)
Ronald Reagan(6)	Woodrow Wilson (6)	George Washington (7) (12)
Dwight Eisenhower (8)	James Monroe (8)	James Monroe (25) (10)
Andrew Jackson (10)	James Madison (9)	Andrew Jackson (27) (10)
Woodrow Wilson (11)	Dwight Eisenhower (10)	James Madison (28) (8)
Grover Cleveland (12)	Andrew Jackson (13)	Thomas Jefferson (26) (7)
William McKinley (14)	Ronald Reagan (16)	Ronald Reagan (34) (5)
James Monroe (16)	Bill Clinton (18)	Richard Nixon (30) (4)
James Madison (17)	William McKinley (19)	George W Bush (36) (3)
George W Bush (19)	Grover Cleveland (20)	Abraham Lincoln (29) (2)
Bill Clinton (22)	George W Bush (23)	William McKinley (38) (1)
U.S. Grant (29)	Richard Nixon (26)	Woodrow Wilson (40) (1)
Richard Nixon (32)	U.S. Grant (35)	FDR (31) (0)

Same Play - Different Cast

2010-01-11T16:27:00.000-08:00

There are some similarities between the 1928 and 2008 election. In both cases there was no incumbent President or VP running from either party, and one party won control of both chambers of Congress and the WH. Herbert Hoover won 40 out of 48 states and 444 to 87 in the electoral college. In the House the Rs had 270 seats and the Ds had 164. In the Senate the Rs had 56 seats and the Ds had 39.

March 4, 1929: Herbert C. Hoover became President of the United States. Herbert Hoover was from the Teddy Roosevelt wing of the Republican Party, and the leader of the “Efficiency Movement.” The Efficiency Movement was a major dimension of the Progressive Era in the United States. It flourished 1890-1932. Adherents argued that all aspects of the economy, society and government were riddled with waste and inefficiency. Everything would be better if experts identified the problems and fixed them. Does any of this sound remotely familiar to you?

1929 laws with dire consequences

1. The Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act was an act that raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods to record levels. The ensuing retaliatory tariffs by U.S. trading partners reduced American exports and imports by more than half and according to some views may have contributed to the severity of the Great Depression.

The House passed a version of the act in May 1929, increasing tariffs on agricultural and industrial goods alike. As it passed the House of Representatives in May 1929, boycotts broke out and foreign governments moved to increase rates against American products, even though rates could be increased or decreased by the Senate or by the conference committee. By September 1929, Hoover's administration had received protest notes from 23 trading partners, but threats of retaliatory actions were ignored. October 29, 1929: Wall Street Crash of 1929: Three multi-digit percentage drops wipe out more than $30 billion from the New York Stock Exchange (10 times greater than the annual budget of the federal government).

2. Under the administration of Herbert Hoover, the Agriculture Marketing Act of 1929 established the Federal Farm Board with a revolving fund of half a billion dollars. The original act was sponsored by Hoover in an attempt to stop the downward spiral of crop prices by seeking to buy, sell and store agricultural surpluses or by generously lending money to farm organizations. The Act was not beneficial; as the inflation ran deeper than the value of the money, it started sinking and the losses of the farmers were getting bigger and bigger.

The Act was the precursor to the Agricultural Adjustment Act.

3. The Reapportionment Act of 1929 (ch. 28, 46 Stat. 21, 2 U.S.C. § 2a, enacted June 18, 1929) was a combined census and reapportionment bill passed by the United States Congress that established a permanent method for apportioning a constant 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives according to each census. The bill neither repealed nor restated the requirements of the previous apportionment acts that districts be contiguous, compact, and equally populated. Thus the size and population requirements, last stated in the Apportionment Act of 1911, expired immediately with the enactment of the subsequent Apportionment Act.

A reapportionment in 1921 in the traditional fashion would have increased the size of the House to 483 seats, but many members would have lost their seats due to the population shifts. The Reapportionment act of 1929 did away with any mention of districts at all. This provided a solution to the problem of threatened incumbents by allowing the political parties in control of the state legislatures to draw districting lines at will and to elect some or all representatives at large.

The Smoot-Hawley tariff ended in the 1940’s with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) coming in the 1950’s.

The Agriculture Marketing Act became the Agricultural Adjustment Act under FDR. The farmers were paid subsidies by the federal government for letting a portion of their fields lay fallow. The money for these subsidies was generated through an exclusive tax on companies who processed farm products. The Supreme Court declared the Act unconstitutional in 1936 for levying this tax on the processors only to have it paid back to the farmers. Regulation of agriculture was deemed a state power. Farm subsidies are still being paid out.

The Reapportionment Act of 1929 is an incumbent protection act in much the same way as the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002. The difference is that this Act has never been challenged in court. You can learn a lot of history at the website thirty-thousand.org

Established in 2004, thirty-thousand.org is a non-partisan and non-profit organization which conducts research on, and educates the public about, the degradation of representative democracy in the United States resulting from Congress' longstanding practice of constricting the number of Representatives relative to the total population.

Contrary to popular belief, the Bill of Rights document drafted in 1789 contains twelve articles of amendment. Article the second was not ratified until 200 years later as the 27th Amendment which finally limited Congress’ ability to increase its own compensation. However, Article the first the very first amendment proposed in the Bill of Rights was never ratified. Article the first would have required there be at least one Representative for every 50,000 people at larger population levels. The Senate’s version required one Representative for every 60,000.

Our Constitution does not prescribe such a minimum (other than one Representative per state); referring to this omission, James Madison stated that he had "always thought this part of the constitution defective." He also believed that an amendment establishing a minimum number of Representatives -- in proportion to the total population -- was necessary "to secure the great objects of representation."

In the absence of such an amendment there is nothing to prevent Congress from permanently freezing the number of Representatives or even making the House much smaller than it is now. "It is clear from the historical record that a majority of the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights wished to prevent the establishment of an oligarchy in our House of Representatives.

I support this amendment. Of all the things I have written diaries about recently this most definitely would be the most difficult thing to get done. There is a long list of powerful institutional forces that will oppose this amendment: multinational corporations, most industry trade groups, labor unions, the Republican Party, the Democrat Party, the House of Representatives, the Senate, the federal executive branch and last, but not least, most foreign governments. These disparate forces, which normally do not collaborate with one another, will be united in defending the oligarchy in the federal House of Representatives.

In one respect I hope and pray that history does not repeat itself in 2012 like 1932. I do not want a new Republican President to continue any policy of the current administration the way that FDR continued Hoover’s progressive policies. I would like to see history repeat itself in 2010 like the 1930 midterms. In the House the majority party became the minority losing 53 seats. In the Senate the minority picked up 9 seats to tie with 48 the majority who still had the President of the Senate as the one vote majority.

Repeal the 17th Amendment?

2010-01-07T10:28:00.000-08:00

1. What is the solution? the government or the market? There is no third solution.

2. How can we use market democracy and other means to help tame political democracy as our Founding Fathers did in 1776, or will we willy-nilly let it slowly but surely snuff our civilization, our future, our very well-being?

3. How can we tie the free-market idea to a moral code based on virtue, honor, dignity, and wisdom?

No question that capitalism, the politically-wise idea of market democracy, is America’s true democracy. Its opposite: the bipartisan Welfare-Warfare State via coercive winner-take-all "democracy," is a case of planned chaos, of a nation chasing its tail for an end-of-rainbow pot-of-gold.

Progressivism was not the domain of just one political party, as both Republicans and Democrats vied with each other to see who could more thoroughly expand the state. Republicans, led by Theodore Roosevelt and Sen. Robert LaFollette of Wisconsin, pushed for high tariffs, government ownership of natural resources, antitrust legislation, and imperialistic adventures abroad.

Democrats, on the other hand, led by William Jennings Bryan and Woodrow Wilson, pushed the income tax, inflation through debasement of the money supply, and the internal protectionist device known as Jim Crow laws, which attempted to shield white workers from competition from blacks. Both parties favored expansion of voting rights to women. What is clear is that neither party had any intention of honoring the U.S. Constitution.

In fact, the Progressive Era would not have had its social and legal effect had it not been for its reworking of the Constitution through the amendment process. The 17th amendment reworked the political landscape and greatly expanded the scope of the central government, one of the main goals of progressives.

In the original design by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, there was an effective check on Congress through the state legislatures' power to appoint (and remove) United States Senators.

As such, the core of the problem with state's rights issues lies in the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913, which abrogated the state legislatures' right to appoint United States Senators in favor of popular election of those officials. This amendment created a fundamental structural problem which, irrespective of the political party in office, or the laws in effect at any one time, will result, over time, in expanding federal control in every area.

The 17th Amendment caused a failure in the federalist structure, federal deficit spending, inappropriate federal mandates, and federal control over a number of state institutions.

The amendment has also caused a fundamental breakdown in campaign finance issues with respect to United States Senators. As to United States Senators, campaign finance reform, a hot topic in Congress now, can be best achieved by repealing the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution. It should be readily apparent that United States Senators, once appointed by the state legislature, would have no need for campaign financing whatsoever.

The 17th Amendment should be repealed. This would reinstate the states' linkage to the federal political process and would, thereby, have the effect of elevating the present status of the state legislatures from that of lobbyists, to that of a partner in the federal political process.

The state legislatures would then have the ability to decentralize power when appropriate.

It would give state legislatures direct influence over the selection of federal judges and the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary and much greater ability to modify the power of the federal judiciary. This structure would allow the flow of power between the states and the federal government to ebb and flow as the needs of our federal republic change.

The existing relationship, combined with the effect of the Supremacy Clause, is guaranteed to concentrate power into the hands of the federal government with little or no hope of return. The resulting issue surrounding the fracas between the states and federal government is whether the states or the federal government should be exercising a particular power. There are no amendments in the US Constitution that enumerates power to the federal government to take care of poor, sick, and elderly.

The 17th Amendment took power of appointment of U.S. senators from the state legislatures and and placed it in the hands of voters. This further helped make the states subservient to the national agenda of progressives.

A Huge Problem Requires a Bold Solution pt. 2

2010-01-01T20:21:00.000-08:00

ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM - A federal program that guarantees a certain level of benefits to persons or other entities who meet requirements set by law, such as Social Security, farm price supports or unemployment benefits. It thus leaves no discretion with Congress on how much money to appropriate, and some entitlements carry permanent appropriations.

Since 1970, the historical ratio between defense spending and entitlement spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security has flipped. In 1970, total defense spending was 8.1 percent of our economy or Gross Domestic Product (GDP) — more than twice the 3.8 percent of GDP spent on the big three entitlement programs.

Today, the core defense program has fallen to 3.9 percent of GDP, while entitlement spending has more than doubled to 9.6 per cent of GDP. By 2030, the big three entitlements will absorb roughly 81 percent of all federal revenue if taxes are rightly held at historical levels. This crowds out defense and homeland security spending and threatens the historically low-tax, high-growth U.S. economy.

I do not think the entitlement mindset can be changed in the US citizenry. It is a pipe-dream to imagine privatizing social security and medicare. A more local government can take on these responsibilities, and be acceptable to the citizenry. It has to be a government with the taxing and mandating authority. A private business can only set fees and rules for their business. It does not have any authority to tax an individual.

Break up the responsibilities for SSI, MediCare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and Food Stamps into ten independent entities plus the US HHS that will be limited to only responsibility for DC and federal territories. The existing revenue is divided per population size of each entity. This is not privatizing current federal programs. It is putting the control of these programs out of the hands of the US Congress and into the hands of a more local government. This would get the US Congress to adhere to the intent of the Tenth Amendment. I suggest ten instead of fifty to allow the less populous states to band together and get an adequate revenue stream for this kind of undertaking. This also allows additional discretion for each of these ten entities to decide what is the best for their region independently of each other. If the revenues are not in the US Treasury General Fund, then the US Congress can’t get their greedy paws on it.

I devised a list of new HHS departments and the percent of the US Treasury dollars currently marked for these federal entitlement programs. Each of these ten departments could independently determine eligibility and tax rates for the citizens in their region.

Earlier I wrote about the need to scrap the current labyrinth of US tax code to protect the US economy. That would be an easier task than completely scrapping entitlements. This is why I suggest a solution of putting the command and control of entitlements in the hands of a more local government instead of the federal government. Let me know your thoughts and opinions, and offer your own solution if you hate mine.

Southern Pacific HHS
CA
HI = 10.5%

Northwest HHS
AK
WA
OR
NV
ID
MT
WY
UT
ND
SD = 8.5 %

Southwest HHS
AZ
CO
NM
TX = 10.5%

Great Plains HHS
NE
KS
OK
MN
IA
MO
AR = 9.5%

Great Lakes HHS
WI
IL
IN
MI = 10.5%

Deep South HHS
LA
MS
AL
GA
FL = 11.5%

Mid-South HHS
KY
TN
SC
NC
VA = 9.5%

Mid-Atlantic HHS
OH
WV
PA
MD = 9.5%

New York - New Jersey HHS
NY
NJ = 7.5%

New England HHS
CT
DE
RI
MA
VT
NH
ME = 7.5%

US Federal HHS
District of Columbia
Puerto Rico
Northern Mariana Islands
US Virgin Islands
American Samoa
Guam
US Minor Outlying Islands = 5%

Hey Kid, Join me. I’ve got goodies for ya

2009-12-18T09:40:00.000-08:00

Every parent knows the nightmare of worrying about a predator luring their child by offering them goodies. These predators can’t just say I want to control you and have my way with you, so they offer up goodies to lure the child. I think the same techniques is used on a grander scale by would-be tyrants on citizens. I think this is analogous to comprehensive health care and cap and trade legislation coming down the pike.

The goodies that have been promised since FDR to the present include:

The right to a useful and remunerative job
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care
The right to a good education.

These so-called “rights” are just false promises of utopianism that are used to lure people into giving up their liberty, giving up their faith in God, giving up their guns, and giving up their guts in the face of the alarmists’ fear mongering.

Since FDR’s time some new false promises have arisen. Now we have the false promise that just like adjusting the thermostat on your home, (which is doable in states like CA), they can adjust the thermostat of the earth. In exchange for doing this all they ask is that you give up your liberty.

Christmas season should be a season of joy, but some of the things I read or hear from folks like Sean Hannity and Lindsey Graham make me sad. It is not conservative to accept the premise that everyone has a right to adequate medical care. This is like suggesting the predator luring the child into his car needs to be driving a different car and wearing different clothes. Sometimes the reason there is no alternative offered is because the basic premise is false.

Health insurance is a risk-based industry that is a third-party payer of medical expenses. If risk is completely removed, then you have a different kind of industry. You have a third-party payer that is a highly regulated utility company payer of medical expenses.

We need to have political leaders, educators, and media establishments that promote the ideal of securing the blessings of liberty instead of promoting false promises of a Utopia.

2010 US House Freshman Class

2009-12-16T14:08:00.000-08:00

In 2010 there are 435 seats in the US House that are going to be filled. Currently these seats are occupied by 258 Ds and 177 Rs. I think that the GOP has a good shot at picking up enough seats so that in the next Congress the Rs will occupy 228, and the Ds will occupy 207 seats. I would hope that the GOP can keep all but two of the seats the GOP have an incumbent running for reelection and pick up 53 seats currently occupied by Democrats. Ten months ago I could not have imagined this to be a possibility. A lot of good things are going to have to happen, but I really believe it can be done.

The gallery of photos do not include any new members who defeat an incumbent R in the primary, or anyone who occupies a seat that a retiring R occupied. The photos are people who will win a seat that had been occupied by a D.

The abbreviations for the states I envision GOP pickups include AL,AR,CA,CO,FL,GA,HI,IA,ID,IL,IN,KS,KY,LA,MD,MI,MS,NC,NH,NJ,NM,NV,NY,OH,PA,TN,TX,UT,VA,WA,and WI. This took me quite a bit more time to investigate House elections than it did for the US Senate elections. Let me know if there are any errors I need to fix.

This is my dream freshman class that will include 53 new GOP members to the US House. I realize that some may have another individual to win in a GOP Primary than I picked, and it is not my intent to argue with you about that primary. I want, and I would hope, that you want a GOP candidate to win the General Election.

A Huge Problem Requires Bold Solutions

2009-12-10T09:20:00.000-08:00

The Problem

The number of pages of tax rules skyrocketed from 40,500 in 1995 to 70,320 in 2009. Congress is increasingly micromanaging society with special tax incentives for education, energy, and other activities.

Federal tax paperwork consumes 7.6 billion hours of time annually, which is like having a full-time "tax army" of 3.8 million people.

There are about 500 changes to the tax code every year as Congress and the Treasury churn out a never-ending stream of laws and regulations.

The share of taxpayers requiring professional help keeps rising, with 62 percent of returns completed by professionals in 2007.

It complicates decision-making in the economy, for example by confusing family financial planning and generating uncertainty for businesses.

It encourages an invasion of privacy by the government. Each new tax incentive requires special documentation, which exposes people to scrutiny by the IRS.

It results in frequent errors by taxpayers and the IRS. Individuals and businesses can get locked into battles with the IRS for years because of uncertain tax rules.

It encourages tax evasion. High tax rates combined with complexity fosters aggressive tax dodging, which prompts Congress to pass even more complex tax regulations.

43 percent of U.S. households don't pay any income tax as a result of all the low-income benefits in the code. Those people perceive federal spending to be costless, and thus they are little interested in tax reform or budget restraint.
source

Mark Levin’s solution

Eliminate the progressive income tax - replace it with a flat income tax or a national sales tax - for its purpose is to redistribute wealth, not fund the constitutionally legitimate functions of the federal government.

All residents of the country must be required to pay the tax so they have a stake in limiting its abuse.

Eliminate the automatic witholding of taxes, for it conceals the extent to which the federal government is confiscating income from its citizens.

Eliminate the corporate income tax, for it is nothing more than double taxation on shareholders and consumers, and penalizes wealth and job creation.

Eliminate the death tax, for it denies citizens the right to confer the material value they have created during their lives to whomever they wish, including their family.

All federal income tax increases will require a supermajority vote of three-fifths of Congress.

Limit federal spending each year to less than 20 percent of the gross domestic product.

Reduce the civilian federal workforce by 20 percent or more.

pilgrim’s modifications to Mark Levin’s solution

Replace the progressive income tax with a dual rate income tax. Under the plan, the individual income tax would be turned into a two-rate tax that eliminated most deductions and credits. Individuals would be taxed at a low 15 percent rate on income up to about $100,000 (singles) and $200,000 (married) and 27 percent above those thresholds. I fear a national sales tax would become just as huge in no time as our current tax code. The opportunities for Congress to do social engineering with respect to different kinds of commodities and what tax would be applied to them is too great IMO. I also agree with Adam Smith that I do not object to wealthier individuals paying more to finance the legitimate functions of government.

In addition to the supermajority votes in Congress I would require that any tax increase bill must include a detailed explanation of how the bill is limited to dealing solely with the enumerated powers that Congress possesses.

The cynical side of me thinks that this will not happen in my lifetime. There are a lot of perks that the Washington, DC establishment are enjoying from the deals they can work out with special interests in fine tuning and writing of additional code into our US tax code. This is true for both Parties. Perhaps the Tea Party movement can provide the impetus to change the business as usual in our Nation's Capitol.

2010 US Senate Freshman Class

2009-12-08T21:10:00.000-08:00

In 2010 there are currently 37 seats in the US Senate that are going to be filled. Eight of these seats open and the other 29 have an incumbent running for reelection. I think that the GOP has a good shot at picking up all five of those eight open seats held by the GOP and picking up two of those three seats that are held by Democratic Party. I would hope that the GOP can keep all of the seats the incumbent GOP have an incumbent running for reelection and defeat nine incumbent Democrats running for reelection. If that hope becomes reality, then there will be 51 GOP Senators, 47 Democrat Senators, and two independents who caucus with the Democrats. Ten months ago I could not have imagined this to be a possibility. A lot of good things are going to have to happen, but I really believe it can be done.

Let’s break it down seat by seat, shall we.

The three open seats that are now held by the Democrats are Delaware, Illinois, and Massachusetts. The GOP can capture the Delaware and Illinois seat, and the lady from Massachusetts can be the sole Democrat in the new freshman class.

The five open seats that are now held by the GOP are Florida, Kansas, Missouri, New Hampshire, and Ohio. The GOP can keep these seats.

The really tough part will be defeating nine incumbent Democrats. The five of these nine that I think should be the least difficult are Arkansas, Nevada, North Dakota, Colorado, and Pennsylvania. The people who live in these states are willing to vote for the GOP if the time and effort are put into GOTV.

That leaves four states that will be more difficult to win, but it is still doable. The states I have in mind are Connecticutt, New York, Washington, and Wisconsin.

If the GOP can recruit Rudy Giuliani to run against Kirsten Gillibrand we can pick up New York. Rob Simmons can defeat Chris Dodd, but I think it will be a closer election than what the polls look like now to pick up Conneticutt. I think Clint Didier who played for the Redskins can defeat Patty Murray. I think that Russ Feingold who refuses PAC money can be defeated by Terrence Wall.

This is my dream freshman class of 17 new GOP members to the US Senate and 1 new Democrat. So now I will wait for incoming attacks by mobys and trolls knowing that Neil and Moe are capable of dealing with them. I realize that some may have another individual to win in a GOP Primary than I picked, and it is not my intent to argue with you about that primary. I want and I hope you want a GOP candidate to win the General Election.

Architects of Ruin

2009-12-04T15:58:00.000-08:00

I just finished reading Architects of Ruin by Peter Schweizer. It is an excellent investigative report about how leftists wrecked the global economy, and will do it again if no one stops them. The author is not an economist, but his writing style reminds me of Jack Anderson back at a time when there were real investigative reporters. Today there are no real investigative reporters left. They have all been replaced with stenographers who parrot the narrative that the leftists put out there.

The narrative by the leftists is that free market capitalism failed to work to keep the global economy from wrecking. Rep. Barney Frank loudly declared,

the private sector got us into this mess, and the government has to get us out of it.

According to this view, deregulation of the banking industry had encouraged the rise of “predatory lenders” who had pushed home loans on people who couldn’t afford them. Those loans were then sold to unscrupulous Wall Street financiers, who repackaged them in the form of mortgage-backed securities. The securities were sold in turn to mutual funds, pension funds, and various foreign investors. But their value was grossly overstated and ultimately rested on the faulty assumption that housing prices would keep rising indefinitely.

The author investigated and discovered some facts that are ignored by the leftists. Let’s call them inconvenient facts.

1. The banking sector is the most regulated industry in the United States

2. America has not experienced massive deregulation over the past decade. The Bush administration saw new regulations added to the Federal register at the rate of a thousand pages a year.

3. The federal government did not fail to “police” capitalism. In fact the opposite is true. The real culprit is not the market but a socialist distortion of the free market created by the government. Under pressure from liberal activists, the federal government created a series of “protected” markets that were “too big to fail.”

This didn’t happen overnight. It was a massive social engineering project, a grand generational enterprise, thirty years in the making, carried out by an ad hoc alliance of radical activists, labor unions, politicians, federal bureaucrats, and Wall Street financial titans who sought to make owning a home a civil right.

The alliance came about in overlapping stages. The first stage are the radical activists. They would have remained a fringe phenomena had it not been for strong support from liberal politicians in the second stage. The final stage occurred when liberal baby boomers had risen to the top on Wall Street. These new Wall Street bankers believed they could do good and do well by extending credit to poor folks wanting to own homes via new forms of creative finance while at the same time racking up enormous fees and bonuses.

In the introduction the author explains that the purpose of writing this book is to get conservatives to challenge the political fairy tale that the cause of the collapse was unregulated free-market capitalism. Another purpose of this book is to warn conservatives to be on guard against the leftists’ urge to meddle in the economic system, using the power of the state to distort markets in order to advance their goals.

One thing I noticed from reading this book is that a lot of these leftists came from Chicago or nearby. It makes me wonder if there is a lingering effect of Al Capone they have been infected with. I have some quotes from some of these Chicagoans. I also have photos of nine Chicagoans who have had a great impact on the social engineering so you can see what these radicals look like as well as what they speak.

The godfather and patron saint of the radical activists is Saul Alinsky. A famous story about Alinsky has him asking a group of students why they wanted to be community activists. When they offered platitudes about helping others he quickly stopped them with a raised hand.

You want to organize for power!

he screamed at them. He also grasped the value of never letting a crisis go to waste.

Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution.

I feel confident that I could persuade a millionaire on a Friday to subsidize a revolution for Saturday out of which he would make a huge profit on Sunday even though he would be executed on Monday.

A couple of Alinsky disciples are Gale Cincotta and Shel Trapp. They founded National People’s Action (NPA) and its associated National Training and Information Center (NTIC) in 1972. Gales warcry was

We want it. They’ve got it. Let’s go get it.

Jesse Jackson married his patented techniques of racial blackmail with Alinsky’s confrontational methods on Chicago’s South Side. Jesse launched Operation PUSH, and in 1971 he wrote to the UN asking for donations for his organization. UN funds were not forthcoming.

In the mid-1980s a young college graduate, Barack Obama went to the NTIC to learn the essentials of community organizing. The sessions were held on Chicago's South Side, and run by Shel Trapp. Obama would spend four years heading up the Developing Communities Project.

Obama embraced the activist agenda of shaking down banks and forged a close relationship with ACORN. One of his allies was Madeline Talbott, an organizer who was leading the ACORN campaign against Chicago banks. when he ran for the illinois State Senate in 1995, he explained that his goal was to "stand politics on its head." Talbott called him a "kindred spirit."

Hillary Rodham was an admirer and believer in Saul Alinsky. In her senior year in college she wrote a thesis which included this Alinsky quote

In order to organize, you must first polarize. People think of controversy as negative; they think consensus is better. But to organize you need a Bull Connor.

She married Bill Clinton, the 42nd US President, and they brought into the White House additional support for the radical activist.

Deval Patrick became the civil rights chief in the Clinton Justice Department. Patrick had grown up poor in Chicago and claimed to see rampant racism all around him. At his swearing in he promised no less than to "reclaim the American conscience." He mentioned banks in particular, noting that he felt "a personal commitment" to fair lending.

Patrick also had a personal commitment to his own financial well-being. While at Justice, he handled cases against Texaco, Coca-Cola, and Ameriquest on the ground that they engaged in racial discrimination. Shortly after leaving Justice, he would mysteriously be hired by all three to help them with their civil rights problems.

Rahm Emanuel served as Bill Clinton's political director, and the Clinton appointed him to the Freddie Mac board in 2000. He served for fourteen months, attended just seven board meetings, and sat on no committees. Emanuel's primary contribution was explaining to others on the board how to play the levers of power. In exchange he received more than $320,000 in compensation.

This book gives very detailed investigative information about the overlap that has been going on for a while between the radical activists, politicians, and Wall Street bankers. There are obviously several bad actors who hail from somewhere other than Chicago. I think they are all kindred spirits who hide the truth about Alinski's voice reverberating in their heads...

You want to organize for power!

Saul Alinsky

Gale Cincotta

Shel Trapp

Jesse Jackson

Madeline Talbott

Barrack Obama

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Deval Patrick

Rahm Emanuel

Liberty and Tyranny book review

2009-12-02T19:15:00.000-08:00

Mark Levin has written the perfect book for anyone to read and understand what Conservatism is about. He does begin by stating that there is simply no scientific or mathematical formula that defines conservatism. From there on he proceeds to write the perfect book. It is 195 pages divided into ten chapters and a must-read epilogue. I encourage everyone to either buy this book or borrow it from the library to read and enlighten yourself. I’m not going to divulge anything here that should be read directly. I just want to give some examples of quotes and responses by Mark Levin to give you a flavor of what you can expect. His response to Jack Kemp about immigration policy and his response to George Will about war policy surprised me with being so prudent and subdued. Those responses reflect his original point that there is simply no scientific or mathematical formula or template that can be drawn up that defines conservatism.

The history he provides in this book shows how we have steadily transitioned America toward statism over the last 80 years. There have only been slight interruptions to this transition with conservatives like Goldwater and Reagan. We Conservatives need to get busy.

Excerpt from FDR’s 11 January 1944 message to Congress on the State of the Union

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.

Mark Levin’s response...

This is tyranny’s disguise. These are not rights. They are the Statist’s false promises of utopianism, which the Statist uses to justify all trespasses on the individual’s private property. Liberty and private property go hand in hand. By dominating one the Statist dominates both, for if the individual cannot keep or dispose of the value he creates by his own intellectual and/or physical labor, he exists to serve the state. The “Second Bill of Rights” and its legal progeny require the individual to surrender control of his fate to the government.

Excerpt from Barry Goldwater's 1964 speech at the 28th Republican National Convention, accepting the nomination for president.

Those who seek to live your lives for you, to take your liberties in return for relieving you of yours, those who elevate the state and downgrade the citizen must see ultimately a world in which earthly power can be substituted for divine will, and this Nation was founded upon the rejection of that notion and upon the acceptance of God as the author of freedom.

While the Conservative, like Adam Smith, does not object to wealthier individuals paying more to finance the legitimate functions of government, the government has grown well beyond the limits placed on it by the Constitution, particularly since the New Deal. Redistributing wealth is a central objective of the progressive income tax, which Marx would endorse and Smith would reject.

Jack Kemp on immigration

We are going to make sure that America is open to legal immigration because that is the wealth and the talent and the entrepreneurial skills for the 21st Century.

Mark Levin’s response...

Of course, if legal immigration emphasized wealth, talent, and entrepreneurial skills, American society would be the better for it. Instead, it emphasizes birthright citizenship, chain migration, and encourages illegal immigration. which have led us to the current state of immigration anarchy.

An exchange between George Will and William F, Buckley in 2005 about the war in Iraq...

Will: But something odd is happening in conservatism. And we have a president and an administration that clearly is conservative, accepted as that, yet it is nation-building in the Middle East. And conservatism seems to be saying government can’t run Amtrak but it can run the Middle East...

Buckley: The ambition of conservatism...properly extends to saying where there are no human rights, it’s not a society I can truly respect. It’s impossible to draw up a template that gives us an orderly sense of “send democracy there,” but let this go for a while. One recognizes that you can’t export democracy everywhere simultaneously.

Mark Levin’s response...

Certainly America cannot export democracy everywhere simultaneously, nor should it attempt to. For one thing it is impractical. There are cultures and regimes that are not receptive to such overtures.

However, there are occasions when democracy building is prudent. The European Recovery Program, better known as the Marshall Plan of 1948, had among its purposes the promotion and preservation of democracy through the provision of billions of dollars in economic and military aid to several European nations defeated in World War II. Among other things, it would and did help repel the spread of Soviet communism through what remained of free Europe, which was clearly in America’s interest. The key is that these decisions must never be motivated by utopianism or imperialism but by actual circumstances requiring the defense of America against real threats.

If the war in Iraq is understood as an effort to defeat a hostile regime that threatened both America’s allies and interests in the region, the war and the subsequent attempt at democratic governance in that country can be justified as consistent with founding and conservative principles. The United States and its allies no longer face the prospect of a nuclear Iraq under the control of a megalomaniac.

The Statist speaks not of American sovereignty but “global citizenship.” In this way, America’s interests are subsumed and contained by the supposed interests of the whole. And the rest of the world will look approvingly upon the United States for empowering other countries to participate in decisions about America’s survival.

America’s adversaries and enemies do not consider themselves global citizens. Nor are they constrained by international sensibilities and arrangements. They all reject the Statist’s Utopia as a weakness to be exploited. They are not motivated by world opinion but by their own desires.

So different is America today from its founding principles that it is difficult to precisely describe the nature of American government. It is not strictly a constitutional republic, because the Constitution has been and continues to be easily altered by a judicial oligarchy that mostly enforces, if not expands, the Statist’s agenda. It is not strictly a representative republic, because so many edicts are produced by a maze of administrative departments that are unknown to the public and detached from its sentiment. It is not strictly a federal republic, because the states that gave the central government life now live at its behest. It is a society steadily transitioning toward statism.

Ronald Reagan on freedom

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

US Constitution 21 enumerated powers
Article I, Section. 8.

1. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

2. To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

3. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

4. To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

5. To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

6. To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

7. To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

8. To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

9. To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

10. To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

11. To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

12. To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

13. To provide and maintain a Navy;

14. To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

15. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

16. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

17. To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

18. To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Article IV, Section 3

19. New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

20. The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Amendment XVI
(Ratified February 3, 1913.)

21. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Constitution’s proponents publicly told the American people what subjects would be within the states’ exclusive jurisdiction - and outside the federal government’s control. They did this in a variety of speeches, newspaper articles, letters, and pamphlets.
Who were these “enumerators?” Most were citizens of very high standing.
They included, among others: Alexander Hamilton, James Wilson (a convention delegate and chief proponent in Pennsylvania), Edmund Pendleton (chancellor of Virginia and chairman of his state’s ratifying convention), James Iredell (North Carolina judge, pro-Constitution floor leader at his state’s ratifying convention and later U.S. Supreme Court Justice), John Marshall (a ratifier and later U.S. Chief Justice); Maryland Congressman Alexander Contee Hanson, Nathaniel Peaslee Sargeant (a Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court), Alexander White (Virginia lawyer, ratifier, and later U.S. Senator), prominent businessman Tench Coxe, and – of course – James Madison.

Here are some of the powers they solemnly promised would be outside the federal sphere:

1. governance of religion

2. training the militia and appointing militia officers

3. control over local government

4. most crimes

5. state justice systems

6. family affairs

7. real property titles and conveyances

8. wills and inheritance

9. the promotion of useful arts in ways other than granting patents and copyrights

10. control of personal property outside of commerce

11. governance of the law of torts and contracts, except in suits between citizens of different states

12. education

13. services for the poor and unfortunate

14. licensing of taverns

15. roads other than post roads

16. ferries and bridges

17. regulation of fisheries, farms, and other business enterprises.

How Al Sharpton Led Me To Oppose Term Limits

2009-11-05T13:29:00.000-08:00

This all started on Sunday morning as I switched through the TV channels I caught an exchange on This Sunday between Al Sharpton, Ron Brownstein, and George Will. Ron Brownstein said that there are many people who are attending Tea Party events and Town Hall meetings to express their anger over a government that is trying to take control of too much of their lives and spending too much. Al Sharpton said that people are right to want protection by the government. Brownstein answered that there are people who want protection from too much government. George Will agreed with Brownstein, but Al then said that debate is over since there was an election and we won. Then George Will answered that is why the founding fathers had the wisdom to make an election occur every two years.

This little exchange got me thinking about services and controls and the corresponding tax burden put upon taxpayers for it. I thought that in addition to an election occurring every two years there are also people voting with their feet. By that I mean that people are just moving out of a state that bundles numerous high-quality public benefits with high taxes and into a state that offers packages of low benefits and low taxes. They are not waiting on an election to get a government that best satisfies their set of preferences.

I came across an excellent column at the City Journal, The Big-Spending, High-Taxing, Lousy-Services Paradigm. This column compared the two most populated states in the US, California and Texas. California became the nation’s most populous state in 1962; Texas climbed into second place in 1994. They are broadly similar: populous Sunbelt states with large metropolitan areas, diverse economies, and borders with Mexico producing comparable demographic mixes. They are broadly different: California bundles numerous high-quality public benefits with high taxes and Texas offers packages of low benefits and low taxes. While Texas's share of the nation’s population has steadily increased, from 6.8 percent in 1990 to 7.9 percent in 2007, California’s has barely budged, from 12 percent to 12.1 percent.

This is growing evidence that the low-benefit, low-tax alternative succeeds not only on its own terms but also according to the criteria used by defenders of high benefits and high taxes. Whatever theoretical claims are made for imposing high taxes to provide generous government benefits, the practical reality is that these public goods are, increasingly, neither public nor good: their beneficiaries are mostly the service providers themselves, and their quality is poor. The beneficiaries are mostly the service providers themselves is what got me to thinking about the consequences of term limits.

With tax revenues scarce and voters strongly opposed to surrendering more of their income, Texas officials devote a large share of their expenditures to basic services that benefit the most people. In California, by contrast, more and more spending consists of either transfer payments to government dependents (as in welfare, health, housing, and community development programs) or generous payments to government employees and contractors (reflected in administrative costs, pensions, and general expenditures).

The resistance to making California more like Texas comes from sitting state legislators, that like California’s public sector just fine the way it is and see reform as a threat to their comfortable, lucrative arrangements. It turns out, for example, that all the pointless boards and commissions are bulletproof because they provide golden parachutes to politicians turned out of the state legislature by California’s strict term limits. Until reading this column I had not considered this consequence of having strict term limits. I do recall Art Chance saying how these folks stay on the government gravy train in this labyrinth of government bureaucracy when they do not win elections. They have extra reasons to grow the government that I had not considered.

Then I went to look at the states with strict term limits, and see how they compare to California. I discovered this excellent website state health facts dot org. For State budget shortfalls in 2009 they ranked the 50 states and Washington DC with 51 being the highest budget shortfall and 1 being the lowest.

Here are the results of some of the states that have strict term limits:

51. California
49. Florida
47. Arizona
42. Nevada
40. Ohio
38. Michigan

Here are the results of some of the states that have no strict term limits:

1. Texas
1. North Dakota
1. West Virginia
6. Alabama
6. Alaska
6. Indiana

I have never lived in any of these states with strict term limits, and if any resident disagrees with my thinking that this term limits idea is not working to get you a responsible government, then bring it. I do not think term limits will yield good government, nor do I think McCain-Feingold laws are going to yield good government. It is left up to We the People to be vigilant in electing folks of good character. We are in danger of losing more and more of our sweet liberty if we think the government should be providing more and more services to us. Those services are too expensive and are mostly beneficial to those elected instead of being beneficial to the voters.

Is such government involvement in our lives permissible under the U.S. Constitution?

2009-10-21T09:32:00.000-07:00

Today Walter Williams writes and excellent column, American Idea. I encourage you to read the entire article. He basically describes how the major difference between Americans and the rest of the world is the healthy distrust and suspicion Americans have had for government. Unfortunately these sentiments are not shared as much by today's Americans.

This distrust is evident in the Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, Electoral College, and constitution amendment process requirements. The creation of this nation's framework was not designed out of a desire for speed, efficiency, and good intentions impulses, but rather out of a suspicion and distrust of government.

It certainly has worked out well to grow a collection of diverse colonies into the most powerful nation on the planet. Unfortunately, the debates we have these days does not include as part of the debate the question in my title.

As we lose the healthy suspicion and distrust of government, then we move toward less liberty and greater governmental control of our lives.

Barack's America

2009-10-16T08:04:00.000-07:00

Barack’s America is a land in which women would be forced into having abortions, conservatives would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down conservative talk-radio hosts’ doors in raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about American exceptionalism, conservative writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of conservatives citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.

The recent action of Dave Checketts to drop Rush from a group seeking to buy the St. Louis Rams angers and saddens me. I do not see this action as any violation of rights, but rather a misguided business decision. This reflects on our society and culture with respect to how ALL authentic conservatives, not just Rush are being characterized and treated.

A business decision can be sound or a failure. The coming weeks of NFL football game attendance and TV audience size will tell us if it is a sound business decision to disrespect football fans who are also conservative or not. I really don't know from a business perspective what the outcome will be.

This nation, from the beginning, has been divisive in nature. At first there was a divide between loyalists and patriots. The patriots won. After this victory the nation grew in size, strength, and wealth for about 130 years. Then some ideas from Europe began showing up in America. Teachers, artists, writers, and newspaper columnists started asserting the ideas of the nation's Founding Fathers are just old-fashioned and no longer apply in modern times. Americans have slowly accepted these assertions in a fashion that Robert Bork lays out in his book, Slouching Toward Gomorrah. In Barack's America the slouch has turned into a sprint.

Rush's brother David wrote an excellent column today, This isn't about Rush, that I encourage everyone to read. The only part I disagreed with David is when he writes that a smidgen of our outrage should be for those lukewarm conservatives who contribute to the destruction of race relations and advancement of liberal causes by pandering to false characterizations of authentic conservatives. My disagreement is that I think the outrage should be more than just a smidgen.

Rush is not afraid to stand up to the people Ken Hutcherson calls poverty pimps who are nothing but slave sliders and pushers to get their way. To be afraid and pander would be a racist condescension that is just not Rush. I especially liked this comment by Hutch on Rush's Thursday radio program:

How in the world can the NFL -- and I'm going to tell you something else, brother, straight from me, who played football. Those African-American brothers who talk about they wouldn't play? That is the biggest lie on this side of the universe. Not only would their wives get on them and make 'em go -- and their girlfriends, and their moms; they would beat 'em all the way to the 50 yard line and tell them, "You better get out there and get that game check." And why don't they talk to the hundreds of African-American players that would be excited about you owning a team?

It's just sad that there are not people like Hutch running the NFL in Barack's America.

Some Unsolicited Advice for Lindsey Graham et al

2009-10-06T10:45:00.000-07:00

I am thinking that some of you folks or your staff in the US House and US Senate read conservative blogs. I know. I know. You have not asked me for any advice, but that brings me to my first bit of advice.

Nancy, Harry, and Barry are not asking you for any advice. Why do you couch your speeches as though you have some good advice for them? They didn't ask for it and don't want it. Instead, you ought to just spell out what you would do yourself as what is the best action on behalf of the people. You have been making these suggestions that Nancy, Harry, and Barry need to go slower and try a more modest change in the status quo. If that is your position, and not just what you are advising for Nancy, Harry, and Barry to do, then thanks for informing me so I can work at opposing you.

The second bit of advice I have for you is do a better job of refuting the suggestion that the GOP is just a Party of No that supports doing nothing to alter the status quo. This is difficult to refute in a thirty second sound bite, but it is necessary to refute it by explaining rules to people.

The first rule that needs to be explained is that all spending bills must originate in the US House. The US House has a Rules Committee that decides which bills may be introduced on the House Floor. This Rules Committee has not allowed any GOP bills on health insurance reform to be introduced on the House Floor. There are House GOP Reps who have bills to do something instead of nothing, but they are not permitted to introduce them. Now since the US Senate can't originate a spending bill, Harry is going to pick out of all of the US Senate health insurance reform work that he likes and drop it into an existing bill passed by the US House and awaiting US Senate action. This will be the vote to watch for in the US Senate.

The final bit of advice is just try and keep your personal opinions about conservative celebrities on radio, TV, and internet to yourself. Lindsey, I don't care if you agree with Glenn Beck or not. You need to to focus your attention on who you agree or disagree with who are also serving in the US Senate or in the US House. Those are people with the power to cast votes that can have serious consequences. The attacks on conservative celebrities who do not hold office is misguided and disturbs me. Of course someone like Rush can rally conservative solidarity, but this should be appreciated instead of complained about by GOP members of the US Senate and US House.

Some may ask why don't you give some advice to some former members like Bill Frist? It is not worth the effort for me. Folks like Bill Frist do not have the vote casting power any more. The battle I choose to engage is with the folks who currently possess the vote casting power.

I don't expect any of you folks to heed my advice that you did not ask me for. I do expect that voters in the upcoming election are more engaged in looking at what you are doing and how you present yourself than they have been in a long time.

A Loyalist Or A Patriot

2009-10-01T15:48:00.000-07:00

This Hoosier has packed up after 57 years of living at the crossroads of America. Thirty-six of those fifty-seven years involved working in the belly of the beast as a state government employee. Now this transplanted Texan residing in the Permian Basin region can get back to writing about this sweet land of liberty that he has always been proud of.

So while my writing was put on hold, my brain continued to collect my thoughts about what is going on. I discarded the meme that America is divided in the same way as it was in 1860. This is not a north vs south regional conflict. This is not quite a conflict between sympathizers to the national government vs sympathizers to state governments because there is some degree of dissatisfaction with all levels of government. What we have now most closely resembles the American Revolution era.

During the American Revolution in the colonies of New England, as well as in the southern plantation colonies and mid-Atlantic colonies, you were either a loyalist or you were a patriot. If you were a loyalist then you were a loyal subject to his majesty King George III. Knowing that his majesty commanded a force to protect you as long as you obeyed him was all the comfort you needed. You were willing to serve and obey the king, and feel protected and cared for in return from him.

If you were a patriot, the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that God had endowed you with were cherished more than anything any ruler on earth could offer. You would rather die than live under any tyranny that oppressed your God-given rights.

Fast-forward 233 years to the present day, and many of the same issues exist. They are packaged and presented differently, but it is basically the same content. Whether it is a king or a political party elected into office, the desire to hold on to and grab as much power as they can over each individual is the plan. Each individual has to choose between liberty and their divine rights by God, or being provided for by the state. This choice goes a lot deeper than political party affiliation. One can find politicians in both parties who love to hold on to and grab more power by promising goodies provided for you by the state. However, I do think the Republican Party represents the best opportunity for people who cherish their liberty and divine rights by God to take over the control and the leadership positions.

I have chosen to be a patriot instead of a loyalist, and I have also discovered in Texas I am not alone. There is so much less regulation by state and local government in Texas. I'm used to living under laws and regulations written to restrict and limit the distribution of utilities, cable TV, insurance, and beer. For example, here in Texas I had a choice between around one hundred different electric utility providers. I love it!

People I have met so far have been very helpful with tips about where to buy, and what to watch out for. I think this word of mouth process in the market place is a much better deal than the government getting its nose into my personal business. The only personal negative I have heard anyone say about President Obama is that they are annoyed by seeing his face every night on their TV set.

The motto down here is "Don't mess with Texas." This motto is a way of saying "We love now and always this sweet land of liberty, so please do not meddle into our lives." As a tranplanted Texan I sincerely and whole-heartedly endorse this motto.

Secure the Blessings of Liberty

2009-08-20T16:58:00.001-07:00

This first aired on TV in 1976, and I love it. It helped, by using a music jingle, for people to know what is written in the Preamble of the United States Constitution. My favorite couplet was

Secure the blessings of liberty To ourselves and our posterity

Those 7 year olds listening to this jingle in 1976 are 40 year olds today, and I think many of them are the ones who are attending Town Hall meetings and Tea Parties. They are not political party activists, and are more concerned as individuals about who of their elected officials are working to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

People want the liberty to be free to work and produce and be rewarded. People want the liberty to worship in a manner of their own choosing. People do not want authorities to intrude into their lives. But since about 1978 the federal authorities have intruded into work and production in the energy field.

Federal authorities have blocked the development of new sources of petroleum.
Federal authorities have blocked drilling in ANWR.
Federal authorities have blocked drilling off the coast of Florida.
Federal authorities have blocked drilling off of the east coast.
Federal authorities have blocked drilling off of the west coast.
Federal authorities have blocked drilling off the Alaskan coast.
Federal authorities have blocked building oil refineries.
Federal authorities have blocked clean nuclear energy production.
Federal authorities have blocked clean coal production.

We are told that we need to sacrifice our liberty for the good and survival of the planet. This is what they are telling us, while at the same time, they are approving of the development of nuclear energy programs in the UAE. They are also lending money to a Brazilian oil company to drill for oil off the Atlantic Coast. I am happy for Brazil being able to get money to drill for oil in the Atlantic. I do not want them stopped, but I am not happy that We The People of the United States are blocked from energy production. Who is securing the blessings of liberty for us and our posterity? When people go to vote in the US this question needs to be on their mind. They really need to trust that the person they are voting for has the correct answer to this question.

Once Was Blind But Now Can See

2009-08-09T11:10:00.000-07:00

All honor to Jefferson--to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times, and so to embalm it there, that today, and in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling block to the very harbingers of reappearing tyranny and oppression.

Abraham. Lincoln 1859

All that we ask or desire is permission to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle. Some citizens of this country have never got beyond the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence did not mention the questions of our day.

Woodrow Wilson 1912

If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions.

Calvin Coolidge 1926

America, this is our moment. This is our time, our time to turn the page on the policies of the past, our time to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face, our time to offer a new direction for this country that we love. This was the moment, this was the time when we came together to remake this great nation...

Barack Obama 2008

We don’t need to remake America, or discover new and untested principles. The change we need is not to turn the page on the policies of the past, but a great renewal of these permanent truths about man, politics, and liberty—the foundational principles and constitutional wisdom that are the true roots of our country’s greatness.

pilgrim 2009

I whole-heartily agree with Abraham Lincoln’s assertion that the words written by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of independence are a rebuke and a stumbling block to the very harbingers of reappearing tyranny and oppression...ie today's Democratic Party leadership. I do not desire to have only one political party in America, and I do think some of the rank and file still hold in their heart the beliefs of Andrew Jackson.

Today’s Democratic Party leadership repudiate the Founders’ principles, holding that there are no self-evident truths—in the Declaration of Independence or elsewhere—only change in the constant search for progress without final goals. There are no permanent rights with which man is endowed, but endlessly evolving rights that develop and grow based on new demands (and polling data). Our fidelity must be to a “living” Constitution that adapts to fit the demands of the times. The way forward is to control social conditions and engineer a better society, redistributing wealth through a distant and patronizing welfare state that regulates more and more of the American economy, politics and society.

The scales are gradually coming off the eyes of the seasoned citizens who have previously given their votes to Democratic Party candidates. Now, more than ever, is the time to relearn the meaning and contemporary significance of the Declaration of Independence and recognize that modern liberalism has explicitly rejected the truths it proclaims. This recognition has surfaced especially now because these older folks have read HR 3200.

The Capitalists Who Are Eager For You To Obey

2009-07-27T05:19:00.000-07:00

Yes, you can buy these at a place called The OBEY Store. Tireless, obedient laborers for the collective, free to propagate their propaganda and make a buck or two on it, too! Is America a great country, or what?
H/T Anchoress

Let Freedom Ring!

2009-07-26T08:54:00.000-07:00

It is really coming down to the wire whether or not the House is going to pass a health care bill before the August recess. The Republicans are not plentiful enough to be an issue for Speaker Pelosi to even take into consideration. They only need 218 votes in the House to pass a bill, and there are 257 member in the Democratic Party House caucus. The only problem Speaker Pelosi has is if 40 Ds will vote with the 178 Rs. If that happens then she loses.

I actually agree, surprisingly enough, with those who assert that there has been a lot of time spent debating on this issue. There have been debates on this issue since the time of FDR and HST to the present. The framing of the narrative of what are the choices and what are the opposing views should be more clearly spelled out. This fight is essentially coming down to the question of whether or not our elected members of Congress are going to Let Freedom Ring.

This issue of health care legislation comes down to answering the question of containing the costs of providing health care. Obama and his minions would have you believe that the only way to contain the costs is to have a strong central government plan to put the maximum set of detailed and specific restrictions and mandates on the medical services that USA residents may receive. This plan will include punitive measures toward any physician or hospital that attempts to profit by attending to people outside of the rules and mandates that they impose. This path eventually leads to services that are scarce, and by law are illegal to buy outside of their rules at any price. This is a plan that takes freedom away from each individual US resident.

Now the supporters of Obama argue that under the status quo people are losing freedom to be provided health care from the rules in place by health insurance companies and hospitals and physicians affiliated with them. The flaw in this argument is that while it can be expensive and difficult today for some people to receive health care it is not illegal.

There is another way to have health care legislation that answers the question of containing the costs of providing health care and let freedom ring. There are four essential freedoms that US residents and health care providers need.

1. The freedom to try
2. The freedom to buy
3. The freedom to sell
4. The freedom to fail

The way to do this is to allow a competitive free market of medical service providers the freedom to create their own products for providing medical services that are not restricted by a particular State's set of coverage mandates. Instead there should general guidelines that are the same in every State. Then the residents in every State can have the freedom to choose the product that is the most worthwhile for their family's needs. This way the large company has got to compete with the small company on the merits of the product they sell instead of eliminating the smaller competitor with unfair regulatory laws. The profit motive in this system makes it worthwhile for each company to strive to provide a service people find worthwhile to purchase. This path eventually leads to services that are cheaper and in abundance.

There also needs to be some clarity in the debates in describing how health care services are delivered, and what is the purpose of health insurance. Health insurance does not, and was never intended to insure you will have wellness and good health. The major function of a health insurance plan is to help you to pay the medical expenses in the event of a catastrophic and expensive medical procedure. In this respect it is the same as car insurance. One major difference, however, is that you can purchase any car insurance plan no matter where you live.

For there to be any important health insurance legislation passed and signed into law our elected officials are going to need the courage to rebuke and ignore influential and powerful special interest groups who have skin in the game. These special interest groups include trial lawyers, unions, political parties, large health insurance companies, and large pharmaceutical industries. I am for health care reform legislation as long as it is designed with one major requirement - Let Freedom Ring!

How It Was Created - What It Has Become

2009-07-21T11:47:00.000-07:00

It was the original intent of the Founding Fathers to carefully limit the areas of responsibility of the federal government. James Madison pointed out that the Constitution was structured so that the powers delegated to the federal government are few. He also pointed out the number of individuals employed will need to be smaller than the number under the State.

Six Areas of Constitutional Responsibility for POTUS
1. Chief of state over the Nation.
2. Commander in chief over the military.
3. The chief executive officer of the whole executive branch of the federal government.
4. The chief diplomat in handling foreign relations.
5. The chief architect for needed legislation.
6. The conscience of the Nation in granting pardons or reprieves when justice requires.

Nineteen Extra-Constitutional Areas of Discretionary Responsibility for POTUS
1. The responsibility of maintaining full employment for the Nation.
2. The task of ensuring a high level of agricultural prosperity.
3. The task of developing a national housing program.
4. The task of supervising the exclusive distribution of atomic energy resources.
5. Underwriting mega-bucks in private loans and private insurance programs.
6. Providing federal relief for the victims of natural disasters.
7. Administrating a national welfare program.
8. Administrating a national Medicare and Medicaid program.
9. Administrating a national social security program.
10. Allocating mega-bucks for education.
11. Settling major union labor - management disputes.
12. Administrating a network of health agencies.
13. Administrating the EPA.
14. Administrating nearly 40% of the nation's land area and resources.
15. Administrating control over the discovery and development of energy resources.
16. Regulating of all major United States industries.
17. Supervising all radio and TV broadcasting required to issuing a license.
18. Administrating the FDA.
19. Initiating various federal programs on a regional basis to replace many powers and activities originally reserved sovereign to the States.

Four Major Drawbacks of the aforementioned Central Planning
1. It is unbelievably expensive.
2. By its very nature and intended design the federal government is sluggish and inefficient. The Founding Fathers engineered a system of checks and balances to impede changes because they feared a future efficient tyranny.
3. It places mega-bucks at the disposal of the executive branch which can be and have been used to intimidate both the members of Congress and the Governors of the States.
4. It is virtually impossible for one human being to effectively administer everything assigned to the POTUS.

The constitutional provision that created the basis for the President's cabinet
The President may require the opinion, in writing, of the principle officers who superintend the various bureaus and agencies, or other services of the executive department. Such officers shall be required to report to the President any pertinent information he may desire concerning those duties and responsibilities assigned to any office.

In 1789 the cabinet posts created
1. Department of State
2. Department of Treasury
3. Department of War
4. Office of Attorney General

The current fifteen cabinet posts and when they got created
1. The Department of State
2. Department of Treasury
3. Department of Defense *In 1947 the Congress formed the National Military Establishment (NME) headed by the Secretary of Defense. The NME combined the Department of War with the Department of Navy (created under J. Adams in 1798) and the Department of Air Force (created under Truman in 1947). In 1949 the NME was renamed the Department of Defense.
4. Department of Justice *In 1870 under Grant the post-Civil War increase in the amount of litigation involving the United States necessitated the very expensive retention of a large number of private attorneys to handle the workload. A concerned Congress passed the Act to Establish the Department of Justice, setting it up as "an executive department of the government of the United States" with the Attorney General as its head.
5. Department of Interior *In 1849 under Taylor Congress created Interior and charged it with duties ranging from issuing patents to running Washington's jail. In 2003 the department even owned Nevada's Mustang Ranch brothel, prompting Interior Secretary Gale Norton to observe:

It gives the phrase "Madame Secretary" a whole new meaning.

6 Department of Agriculture *After lobbying from the U.S. Agricultural Society (1852), Congress established the Department of Agriculture in 1862 (raised to cabinet level in 1889) under B. Harrison.
7. Department of Commerce *This cabinet level department was first created as the Department of Commerce and Labor under T. Roosevelt in 1903. It split up in 1913 under Wilson as the Department of Commerce.
8. Department of Labor *In 1913 under Wilson the Department of Labor was split away to be a new cabinet level post.
9. Department of Health and Human Services *In 1953 Congress created the Department of Health, Education, and welfare under IKE. In 1979 under Carter Congress split away education and HEW was renamed Department of Health and Human Services.
10. Department of Housing and Urban Development *In 1965, under LBJ, Congress created this agency.
11. Department of Transportation *In 1967, under LBJ, Congress created the Department of Transportation.
12. Department of Energy *In 1977, under Carter, Congress created the Department of Energy.
13. Department of Education *In 1979, under Carter, Congress created the Department of Education.
14. Department of Veteran Affairs *In 1988, under Reagan, Congress made the Department of Veteran Affairs a cabinet level post.
15. Department of Homeland Security *In 2002, under George W. Bush, Congress created the Department of Homeland Security in the aftermath of the sneak attack by terrorists on September 11, 2001.

The Founding Fathers designed the office of President to give the President all the power and independence needed to carry out the six specific functions they assigned, but they required the President to operate within a carefully circumscribed sphere of limited authority. It is not true that they wanted a weak executive branch. They did want a strong executive, but with a limited sphere to work in.

The fact that the executive branch has now acquired gigantic dimensions of discretionary power is a matter of the most profound importance to this and all future generations of Americans.

Fortunately, something is built into the Constitution so that any unauthorized usurpation of authority can be dismantled by peaceful means. We the People have the RIGHT to vote into power those who recognize the problem, and are willing to do something about it. History may very well record one day that taking those corrective measures was one of the most important challenges that We the People met.

ObamaCare has chosen the Soup Nazi Approach

2009-07-19T07:54:00.000-07:00

It is getting down to crunch time for President Obama to get a bill through the Congress that drastically changes how residents in the USA will get medical services. They have tried in vain to convince everyone that they only need some more money from the super rich, and they can create a new system with an outcome of affordable medical services for everyone. The number do not add up. With just additional money from ultra rich there is still not enough money to pay for their plan. This leaves them with figuring out a way to contain the costs of medical services.

This problem they have is like a fork in the road. The one path they do not want to go down to contain costs is the capitalist model created by Adam Smith. The way of this path is to allow a competitive free market of medical service providers the freedom to create their own products for providing medical services that are not restricted by a particular State's set of coverage mandates. Instead there should general guidelines that are the same in every State. Then the residents in every State can have the freedom to choose the product that is the most worthwhile for their family's needs. This way the large company has got to compete with the small company on the merits of the product they sell instead of eliminating the smaller competitor with unfair regulatory laws. The profit motive in this system makes it worthwhile for each company to strive to provide a service people find worthwhile to purchase. This path eventually leads to services that are cheaper and in abundance.

The other path they want to go down to contain costs is the economic model created by Karl Marx. The way of this path is to have a strong central government plan to put the maximum set of detailed and specific restrictions and mandates on the medical services that USA residents may receive. This plan will include punitive measures toward any physician or hospital that attempts to profit by attending to people outside of the rules and mandates that they impose. This path eventually leads to services that are scarce, and by law are illegal to buy outside of their rules at any price.

Barack Obama in his own words...

And we have urged Congress to include a proposal for a standing commission of doctors and medical experts to oversee cost-saving measures.

pilgrim's translation...

NO SOUP FOR YOU!!!

A Nation Founded On Prosperity Economics

2009-07-10T19:20:00.000-07:00

Chapter 8 of W. Cleon Skousen's book is titled Prosperity Economics. I have read thirteen chapters out of thirty-one, but I feel compelled to write this diary before I finally finish the book.

The Founding Fathers made this country a land of fantastic economic opportunity because they wrote a Constitution with the free market principles set forth in the book Adam Smith wrote in 1776, The Wealth of Nations. There are four fundamental economic freedoms which the constitutional structure of this Nation provide to perpetuate an economic system that works efficiently.

1. The freedom to try.
2. The freedom to buy.
3. The freedom to sell.
4. The freedom to fail.

There are four situations where governmental intervention is legitimate.

1. To prevent criminal invasion of the market.
2. To prevent invasion of the market with deceptive trickery.
3. To prevent destruction of free trade of the market.
4. To prevent exploitation of the vices to the detriment of the community.

The fourth situation should be local instead of Federal government intervention.

The profit system is the key to success under the free market system because profits make it worthwhile for somebody to do things or make things better and cheaper.

While the Founding Father’s’ greatest fear was big government, they did not extend that fear to the private sector free market. They believed Adam Smith’s realization that true wealth is not an accumulation of silver and gold but the development of farms, factories, homes, clothes, cheap fuel, good streets, good schools, hospitals, efficient transportation, and universal access to various types of communications. How we get these things is develop a free market system that makes everything abundant and cheap. Market competition is the most frugal and economical way to provide a product or a service. In the field of economics, they were striving for bigness. If it takes bigness to make a product abundant and cheap, so be it.

The fear of bigness did not clearly emerge in the US until after the Civil War. By the end of the nineteenth century the formula for economic opportunity from the Founding Fathers was beginning to give Americans the highest standard of living in the world. With less than 6 percent of the earth’s population, they were producing more than half of just about everything. So how did this happen that this formula would be abandoned, according to W. Cleon Skouser?

The beginning of the twentieth century saw many prominient and influential leaders losing confidence in the system. These included wealthy industrialists, heads of multinational banking institutions, leaders in the academic world, and some of the innovative minds in the media. The same feverish restlessness was taking hold in similar circles in Europe.

It was true, as it is with all systems, that the free-market economy was in need of some adjustments and fine-tuning, but these leaders were getting ready to throw the entire system over-board. The problems of the day included a number of large-scale strikes, the rise of powerful trusts, the mysterious recurrence of boom and bust cycles, and the rise of a new Populist movement in which certain agriculture and labor groups were demanding that the government get involved in the redistribution of the wealth.

If I had to sum up how did this happen in just one word, that word would be ENVY.

The author concluded this chapter with this conclusion...and please bear in mind that he wrote this book in 1985:

The western world was astonished when the Red Chinese leaders suddenly abolished their bare-subsistence communes and invited the peasants to “get rich’ as private property farmers. Of course the Chinese communists did not dare call their new policy “free-enterprise capitalism.” They called it “enriched Marxism.”

But regardless of the name, if people are allowed economic freedom it will tend to gradually open up the channels for political freedom in the years to come. This is why the the message of freedom - both economic and political - should become America’s greatest export.

I heartily agree with this author in the context of President Ronald Reagan’s America.
I heartily reject President Obama's statement in his inaugural address:

Starting today we must begin the work of remaking America

I reject the plans and intent that Tim Geithner gave to Charlie Rose about regulation and legislation.

ROSE: Whatever you can do in terms of regulation and legislation will take place during the next three years?

GEITHNER: Yes, within that period of time. Within that period of time. But, again, these things are about preventing the next boom.

I especially reject Robert Reich's prediction that this economy can never recover because we must have a new economy.

My prediction,then? Not a V, not a U. But an X. The X marks a brand new track -- a new economy. What will it look like? Nobody knows. All we know is the current economy can't "recover" because it can't go back to where it was before the crash. So instead of asking when the recovery will start, we should be asking when and how the new economy will begin.

Instead of remaking America I want America restored to the Prosperity Economics upon which it is founded.

A Nation Founded On Judeo-Christian Principles

2009-07-09T10:34:00.000-07:00

Lately I have been reading a book I borrowed from my public library written by W. Cleon Skousen, This is the author of a recent bestseller, The 5,000 Year Leap. The book I am reading is The Making of America (888 pages). I have only read 202 pages, but I am moved to write before I finish.

Politicians, especially conservative ones, will utter a phrase about the founding of our Nation being based on Judeo-Christian values, and trolls will rise up to try to claim that this is false. The Founding Fathers were very knowledgable of books written through the ages. I confess my ignorance in thinking that Judeo-Christian values were only a reference to scripture and verse from the Torah and Holy Bible, and now I know it actually went to detailed political structure and process.

The Founders knew that ninety-nine percent of the human race has had to live out their lives under tyranny. The author listed twelve characteristics of tyranny.

1.Government power is exercised by compulsion, force, conquest, or legislative usurpation. 2. Therefore all power is concentrated in the ruler. 3. The people are treated as “subjects” of the ruler. 4.The land is treated as the “realm” of the ruler. 5. The people have no unalienable rights. 6. Government is by the rule of man rather than the rule of law. 7. The people are structured in social and economic classes. 8. The thrust of government is always from the ruler down, not from the people upward. 9. Problems are always solved by issuing new edicts, creating more bureaus, appointing more administrators, and charging the people more taxes to pay for these “services.” Under this system, taxes and government regulations are always oppressive. 10. Freedom is not considered a solution to anything. 11. The transfer of power from one ruler to another is often by violence - the dagger, the poison cup, or fratricidal civil war. 12. Those in power revel in luxury while the lot of the common people is one of perpetual poverty, excessive taxation, stringent regulations, and a continuous existence of misery.

Jefferson found that ancient Israel was the first nation in history to have a system of representative government According to chronologists, the Israelites came out of Egypt between 1490 and 1290 BC. These freed slaves were led by Moses to the lower part of the Sinai Peninsula along the Horeb range. Moses’s father-in-law, Jethro, visited him there and was astonished to see Moses trying to handle the problems of all these people alone.

Jethro talked to him and gave him some advice for dividing up the administrative tasks and having people elect people to assist in handling the people’s problems, and this advice led to an efficient and practical government. The more than three million in 600,000 families were combined into groups of ten families to each elect a leader. This first step alone gives Moses 60,000 newly elected leaders to assist him. These new groups were combined in groups of fifty families to each elect a leader, and this move gave Moses 12,000 additional assistants. These new groups were combined in groups of one hundred families to each elect a leader, and this move gave Moses 6,000 additional assistants. These new groups were combined in groups of one thousand families to each elect a leader, and this move gave Moses 600 additional assistants. Instead of trying to rule over people alone, Moses suddenly found himself with 78,600 elected leaders to help him administer the affairs of the people.

In addition to the administrative structure records indicate that “elders” from the people met at various intervals as a type of house of representatives. There was also a permanent council of seventy chosen men who acted very much like a senate. Moses, himself had the benefit of two immediate assistants as a type of vice-president. Aaron had charge of internal affairs and Joshua was in charge of the military and defense related matters.

These Founding Fathers had been reared and trained under the canopy of English law and British culture, yet they rejected much of the government structure of the mother country. The author lists eleven parts of their mother country that they rejected.

1. They rejected the entire concept of a monarchy. 2. They rejected the idea of a prime minister selected from the members of Parliament. 3. They rejected the idea of a cabinet selected from among the members of Parliament. 4. They rejected the idea of the members of Parliament serving as the executive administrators of the government in a cabinet. 5. They rejected the idea of parliamentary supremacy in favor of constitutional supremacy. 6. They rejected the British idea of a “living constitution.” 7. They rejected the idea of an upper House of Lords occupied by a body of lifetime aristocrats. 8. They rejected the idea of a unitary republic with all power in the central government. 9. They rejected the idea of the national government having the power to nullify the laws of the local governments. 10. They rejected the power of the executive to dissolve the legislature. 11. They rejected the British coinage system for a decimal system.

The maintenance of the vertical separation of powers between the ward, the city, the county, the state, and the President is a key factor in the successful continuation of this great republic based on constitutional supremacy. Thomas Jefferson made a very wise and prescient observation.

When all government, domestic and foreign, in little and in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.

Payback For Biting the Hand That Feeds You

2009-06-30T08:11:00.000-07:00

Michelle Malkin has posted an analysis by one of her readers, MINER51. He took the time to break down the House members who voted Aye for the Cap and Trade bill by coal producing state, and he put it in a spreadsheet. I took the time to list from largest to smallest the coal producing states who had House members voting Aye on this bill.

16 Top coal producing states with House members voting Aye on Cap & Trade bill

Kentucky

Pennsylvania

Texas

Colorado

Indiana

Illinois

Virginia

New Mexico

Ohio

Arizona

Mississippi

Tennessee

Maryland

Kansas

Missouri

Arkansas

62 Top targets from these top coal producing states

John Yarmuth

Ben Chandler

Allyson Schwartz

Michael Doyle

Paul Kanjorski

Patrick Murphy

John Murtha

Henry Cuellar

Lloyd Doggett

Charles Gonzales

Al Green

Gene Green

Ruben Hinojosa

Sheila Jackson-Lee

Eddie Bernice Johnson

Silvestre Reyes

Diana DeGette

Betsy Markey

Ed Perlmutter

Jared Polis

Baron Hill

Andre Carson

Melissa Bean

Debbie Halvorson

Phil Hare

Mark Kirk

Daniel Lipinski

Janice Schakowsky

Rick Boucher

Gerald Connolly

Jim Moran

Tom Perriello

Bobby Scott

Martin Heinrich

Ray Lujan

Harry Teague

John Boccieri

Steve Driehaus

Marcia Fudge

Marcy Kaptur

Mary Jo Kilroy

Tim Ryan

Zack Space

Betty Sutton

Gabrielle Giffords

Raul Grijalva

Ed Pastor

Bennie Thompson

Steve Cohen

Jim Cooper

Bart Gordon

Donna Edwards

Steny Hoyer

Frank Kratovil

Dutch Ruppersberger

Chris Van Hollen

Dennis Moore

Russ Carnahan

Lacy Clay

Emanuel Cleaver

Ike Skelton

Vic Snyder

Now on moral grounds alone I can understand the argument all 211 Ds and 8 Rs that voted Aye for this bill should be defeated, but I am not making a moral argument. I am talking about House members whose votes take money out of their constituents' pocketbooks by destroying the coal industry in their State that provides jobs and income. This kind of vote is like biting the hand that feeds you. I hope that payback is in order.

Lessons We Can Lean From a Honduran Blogger

2009-06-29T10:16:00.000-07:00

I ran across a blog by a Honduran that is titled What We Hondurans Want. I encourage you to read the entire article, and Digg it if you deem it worthy. While it is very helpful in getting an understanding about life in Honduras, I believe there are lessons from this article for also understanding life in the USA.

Mr. Zelaya was elected because he opposed death penalty, and he promised to continue his party's work on improving the situation on our country's education, health and social situation, while promoting democracy and swearing to protect our Constitution. He also promoted a so called "Citizen's power", which was supposed to be a channel for the people to express their thoughts to the government.

Apparently the promises and oath he took to protect the Constitution, much like promises Obama made, had an expiration date.

The blogger lists four crimes committed by Mr. Zelaya against the Republic of Honduras.

Crime #1:

Zelaya starts also to take a populist stance, first approving a huge increase in government workers' wage, then approving a general increase to the minimum wage to levels where small and medium business were not able to cope with. He uses his "Citizen's power" initiative to promise the poor areas of Honduras a thousand and one benefits with the integration to the ALBA. This all seems good, but in the background, he is asphyxiating our country's air-thin budget with these initiatives, and forgoing such responsibilities such as the fight of crime, drug trafficking, diseases, the World's economical crisis, and many other social matters. With this strategy, Zelaya "purchased" the support of some in-country blocks, such as peasant and indigenous organizations.

Am I the only one seeing a similar strategy being employed by the O?

Crime #2

His purpose was of gathering support for his new project: to dispose of the current Constitution, over which he was sworn in, and create a new one, similar to ones crafted by Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, with which he would be allowed to be re-elected.

Crime #3

In trying to create a legal and "democratic" facade for his project, Zelaya used one of the statutes of his "Citizen's power" initiative, which is the "Law of Citizens' participation", in which the people can put request to the government to conduct surveys about the peoples opinion. The problem is that no one to be asked about their will to change the constitution. This was fabricated by Zelaya, by threatening public employees to fire them, if they do not bring in a quota of "voluntarily" signed requested for this inquiry. So public employees, trying to safeguard their jobs, started forcing people to sign this if they wanted to be treated at hospitals, sold needed medicines, and even have a phone line repaired.

Does the phrase “conduct surveys about the peoples’ opinions” bother only me?

Crime #4

After gathering a certain number of "requests", he started moving for the installation of a popular inquiry, in which he would ask if the people wanted a new constitution, and which was going to take place today. The issue here is that this "popular inquiry" was not sanctioned by any independent and legal body, such as the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, and, furthermore, was declared illegal by the Supreme Court of Justice, on the grounds that our Constitution forbids anyone on changing the basic, or petrous, articles of it, which state the form of government and the impossibility of re-election.

Conclusion

I do believe some things were done incorrectly, such as the extraction of the president to Costa Rica. He should have been placed under arrest here at Honduras, for him to face proper trail and sentencing for his crimes. But I believe he was taken out of the country due to imminent threat of Hugo Chavez. Chavez has vowed to reinstate Zelaya, "no matter what it takes".

I finalize this long report, by stating that I voted for Zelaya on November 2005, and after talking to several of friends and family that voted for him, we agree that we profoundly regret that, and feel we have been betrayed us. This is also shown in numerous polls taken along the last two years.

The answer to the title of his blog

We ask the international community to take a closer look of our situation, and not allow other states such as Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua and Ecuador, to interfere with what we have chosen. We, the people of Honduras, have chosen: that is Democracy.

We The People of the United States of America should not allow other countries to provide an example of a policy for the US to adopt. Are there lessons here that we can learn from a Honduran blogger?

We Need Another Guardian President

2009-06-27T08:48:00.000-07:00

So often it seems like there is a sickness in politics that spreads a belief the Federal Government is a delightful sugar daddy able to provide for our every want and need. This is especially true of the Democratic Party, but is also evident to a degree in the Republican Party. As much as I admire Ronald Reagan, even he was unable to stunt the growth of power and scope of the Federal Government bureaucracies. He makes up for this failure big time for me by his success in crushing the Soviet Union. Actually the Soviet Union is easy compared to halting the growth of government.

It's a shame that instead of looking back only to the era of FDR that folks don't look back to when Grover Cleveland took office.

Stephen Grover Cleveland fell into politics without really trying. In 1881, local businessmen asked Cleveland, then a young lawyer, to run for mayor of Buffalo, New York. He agreed and won the Democratic nomination and the election. As mayor, Cleveland exposed city corruption and earned such a reputation for honesty and hard work that he won the New York gubernatorial race in 1882. Governor Cleveland used his power to take on the Tammany Hall, the political machine based in New York City, even though it had supported him in the election. Within a year, the Democrats were looking to Cleveland as an important new face and pragmatic reformer who might win the presidency in 1884.

In the election of 1884, Cleveland appealed to middle-class voters of both parties as someone who would fight political corruption and big-money interests. Many people saw Cleveland's Republican opponent, James G. Blaine, as a puppet of Wall Street and the powerful railroads. The morally upright Mugwumps, a Republican group of reform-minded businessmen and professionals, hated Blaine and embraced Cleveland's efforts at battling corruption. Cleveland also had the popularity to carry New York, a state crucial to victory.

But Cleveland had a sex-scandal to live down: he was accused of fathering a son out of wedlock -- a charge that he admitted might be true -- owing to his affair with Maria Halpin in 1874. By honestly confronting the charges, Cleveland retained the loyalty of his supporters, winning the election by the narrowest of margins. After Cleveland's election as President, Democratic newspapers added a line to the sound-bite used against Cleveland and made it:

Ma, Ma, where's my Pa? Gone to the White House! Ha Ha Ha!

Cleveland's administration might be characterized by a quote from his inauguration address:

I have only one thing to do, and that is to do right

. Cleveland himself insisted that, as President, his greatest accomplishment was blocking others' bad ideas. He vigorously pursued a policy barring special favors to any economic group. Vetoing a bill to appropriate $10,000 to distribute seed grain among drought-stricken farmers in Texas, he wrote:

Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character....

In December 1887, he called on Congress to reduce high protective tariffs. Told that he had given Republicans an effective issue for the campaign of 1888, he retorted,

What is the use of being elected or re-elected unless you stand for something?

He often opposed the Republican-controlled Senate.

Cleveland won the election of 1892 in part by blaming Harrison for the downturn in the economy. By February 1893, the economy was in a depression. Seventy-four railroads and six hundred banks failed that year. Meanwhile, thousands of Midwestern workers known as "Coxey's Army" tramped toward Washington to demand government action to relieve the economic hardships of war veterans and the unemployed, which Cleveland declined to give. He vetoed hundreds of private pension bills to American Civil War veterans whose claims were fraudulent. When Congress, pressured by the Grand Army of the Republic, passed a bill granting pensions for disabilities not caused by military service, Cleveland vetoed that, too. Cleveland used the veto far more often than any President up to that time. As the price of silver dropped, there was a rush to redeem the declining silver certificates for gold, touching off a run on the U.S. treasury. He dealt directly with the Treasury crisis rather than with business failures, farm mortgage foreclosures, and unemployment. He obtained repeal of the mildly inflationary Sherman Silver Purchase Act. With the aid of J. P. Morgan and Wall Street he maintained the Treasury's gold reserve. Critics accused him of being unfeeling and heartless, but Cleveland believed that the nation's finances had to be maintained in sound condition.

He was an adamant opponent of strikes that interfered with interstate commerce and the operation of the government, as shown in his disapproval of the Pullman Strike. When railroad strikers in Chicago, Illinois violated a court injunction, Cleveland sent Federal troops to enforce it, since interstate commerce was involved, including mail delivery under the auspices of the federal government.

If it takes the entire army and navy of the United States to deliver a postcard in Chicago, that card will be delivered.

Cleveland did not see himself as an activist President with his own agenda to pursue, but as a guardian or watchdog of Congress. While several important pieces of legislation became law during his terms -- most notably bills controlling the railroads and distributing land to Native Americans -- he did not initiate any of it.

Cleveland will be remembered for protecting the power and autonomy of the executive branch. His record-breaking use of the presidential veto earned him the deserved moniker of the "guardian President" and helped balance the power of executive and legislative branches. But he did not think that the President should propose legislation and he disliked using legislative solutions to address America's growing social and economic difficulties.

America's social and economic accomplishments occurred with no meddling by Cleveland's executive branch or by Congress. These accomplishments include Basketball, braille typewriter, Coca-Cola, cotton candy, Eastman Kodak Co., the escalator, the fountain pen, the zipper, the revolving door, X-Rays, and the gasoline-powered tractor. I do not think that this is too shabby of a list of accomplishments that occurred with no government assistance or interference whatsoever.

We need another guardian President who dislikes legislative solutions to America's cultural and business endeavors.

Final Vote on HR2454

2009-06-26T20:12:00.000-07:00

2008 Presidential Election result

blue = R win red = D win

Final Vote on HR2454 219-212 3 not voting 1 vacancy

Representative Offices

Alabama all Nay

* Aderholt, Robert, Alabama, 4th
* Bachus, Spencer, Alabama, 6th
* Bonner, Jo, Alabama, 1st
* Bright, Bobby, Alabama, 2nd
* Davis, Artur, Alabama, 7th
* Griffith, Parker, Alabama, 5th
* Rogers, Mike, Alabama, 3rd

Alaska all Nay

* Young, Don, Alaska, At-Large

Arkansas 1 Aye 3 Nay

* Berry, Marion, Arkansas, 1st
* Boozman, John, Arkansas, 3rd
* Ross, Mike, Arkansas, 4th
* Snyder, Vic, Arkansas 2nd voted Aye

Arizona 3 Aye 4 Nay

* Flake, Jeff, Arizona, 6th
* Franks, Trent, Arizona, 2nd
* Giffords, Gabrielle, Arizona, 8th voted Aye
* Grijalva, Raul, Arizona, 7th voted Aye
* Kirkpatrick, Ann, Arizona, 1st
* Mitchell, Harry E., Arizona, 5th
* Pastor, Ed, Arizona, 4th voted Aye
* Shadegg, John, Arizona, 3rd

California 32 Aye 20 Nay

* Baca, Joe, California, 43rd voted Aye
* Becerra, Xavier, California, 31st voted Aye
* Berman, Howard, California, 28th voted Aye
* Bilbray, Brian P., California, 50th
* Bono, Mary, California, 45th voted Aye
* Calvert, Ken, California, 44th
* Campbell, John, California, 48th
* Capps, Lois, California, 23rd voted Aye
* Cardoza, Dennis, California, 18th voted Aye
* Costa, Jim, California, 20th
* Davis, Susan, California, 53rd voted Aye
* Dreier, David, California, 26th
* Eshoo, Anna G., California, 14th voted Aye
* Farr, Sam, California, 17th voted Aye
* Filner, Bob, California, 51st voted Aye
* Gallegly, Elton, California, 24th
* Harman, Jane, California, 36th voted Aye
* Herger, Wally, California, 2nd
* Honda, Mike, California, 15th voted Aye
* Hunter, Duncan D., California, 52nd
* Issa,Darrell, California, 49th
* Lee, Barbara, California, 9th voted Aye
* Lewis, Jerry, California, 41st
* Lofgren, Zoe, California, 16th voted Aye
* Lungren, Daniel E., California, 3rd
* McKeon, Buck, California, 25th
* Matsui, Doris O., California, 5th voted Aye
* McCarthy, Kevin, California, 22nd
* McClintock, Tom, California, 4th
* McNerney, Jerry, California, 11th voted Aye
* Miller, Gary, California, 42nd
* Miller, George, California, 7th voted Aye
* Napolitano, Grace, California, 38th voted Aye
* Nunes, Devin, California, 21st
* Pelosi, Nancy, California, 8th voted Aye
* Radanovich, George P., California, 19th
* Richardson, Laura, California, 37th voted Aye
* Rohrabacher, Dana, California, 46th
* Roybal-Allard, Lucille, California, 34th voted Aye
* Royce, Ed, California, 40th
* Sanchez, Linda, California, 39th voted Aye
* Sanchez, Loretta, California, 47th voted Aye
* Schiff, Adam, California, 29th voted Aye
* Sherman, Brad, California, 27th voted Aye
* Solis, Hilda, California, 32nd - Vacancy
* Speier, Jackie, California, 12th voted Aye
* Stark, Fortney Pete, California, 13th
* Tauscher, Ellen, California, 10th voted Aye
* Thompson, Mike, California, 1st voted Aye
* Waters, Maxine, California, 35th voted Aye
* Watson, Diane E., California, 33rd voted Aye
* Waxman, Henry, California, 30th voted Aye
* Woolsey, Lynn, California, 6th voted Aye

Colorado 4 Aye 3 Nay

* DeGette, Diana, Colorado, 1st voted Aye
* Lamborn, Doug, Colorado, 5th
* Markey, Betsy, Colorado, 4th voted Aye
* Perlmutter, Ed, Colorado, 7th voted Aye
* Polis, Jared, Colorado, 2nd voted Aye
* Salazar, John T., Colorado, 3rd
* Coffman, Mike, Colorado, 6th

Connecticut all Aye

* Courtney, Joe, Connecticut, 2nd voted Aye
* DeLauro, Rosa L., Connecticut, 3rd voted Aye
* Larson, John B., Connecticut, 1st voted Aye
* Murphy, Christopher S., Connecticut, 5th voted Aye
* Himes, Jim, Connecticut, 4th voted Aye

Delaware all Aye

* Castle, Michael N., Delaware, At-Large

Florida 9 Aye 15 Nay

* Bilirakis, Gus M., Florida, 9th
* Boyd, Allen, Florida, 2nd voted Aye
* Brown, Corrine, Florida, 3rd voted Aye
* Brown-Waite, Virginia, Florida, 5th
* Buchanan, Vern, Florida, 13th
* Crenshaw, Ander, Florida, 4th
* Castor, Kathy, Florida, 11th voted Aye
* Diaz-Balart, Lincoln, Florida, 21st
* Diaz-Balart, Mario, Florida, 25th
* Hastings, Alcee L., Florida, 23rd
* Grayson, Alan, Florida, 8th voted Aye
* Klein, Ron , Florida, 22nd voted Aye
* Kosmas, Suzanne M., Florida, 24th voted Aye
* Mack, Connie, Florida, 14th
* Meek, Kendrick, Florida, 17th voted Aye
* Mica, John, Florida, 7th
* Miller, Jeff, Florida, 1st
* Posey, Bill, Florida, 15th
* Putnam, Adam, Florida, 12th
* Rooney, Tom, Florida, 16th
* Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana, Florida, 18th
* Stearns, Cliff, Florida, 6th
* Wasserman Schultz, Debbie, Florida, 20th voted Aye
* Wexler, Robert, Florida, 19th voted Aye
* Young, C.W. Bill, Florida, 10th

Georgia 3 Aye 10 Nay

* Barrow, John, Georgia, 12th
* Bishop Jr., Sanford D., Georgia, 2nd
* Deal, Nathan, Georgia, 9th
* Gingrey, Phil, Georgia, 11th
* Johnson, Henry C. "Hank" Jr., Georgia, 4th voted Aye
* Kingston, Jack, Georgia, 1st
* Lewis, John, Georgia, 5th voted Aye
* Linder, John, Georgia, 7th
* Marshall, Jim, Georgia, 8th
* Broun, Paul C., Georgia, 10th
* Price, Tom, Georgia, 6th
* Scott, David, Georgia, 13th voted Aye
* Westmoreland, Lynn A., Georgia, 3rd

Hawaii all Aye

* Abercrombie, Neil, Hawaii, 1st voted Aye
* Hirono, Mazie K., Hawaii, 2nd voted Aye

Iowa 3 Aye 2 Nay

* Boswell, Leonard, Iowa, 3rd voted Aye
* Braley, Bruce L., Iowa, 1st voted Aye
* King, Steve, Iowa, 5th
* Loebsack, David, Iowa, 2nd voted Aye
* Latham, Tom, Iowa, 4th

Idaho all Nay

* Minnick, Walt, Idaho, 1st
* Simpson, Mike, Idaho, 2nd

Illinois 11 Aye 8 Nay

* Bean, Melissa L., Illinois, 8th voted Aye
* Biggert, Judy, Illinois, 13th
* Costello, Jerry, Illinois, 12th
* Davis, Danny K., Illinois, 7th voted Aye
* Gutierrez, Luis, Illinois, 4th voted Aye
* Foster, Bill, Illinois, 14th
* Hare, Phil, Illinois, 17th voted Aye
* Halvorson, Deborah "Debbie", Illinois, 11th voted Aye
* Jackson Jr., Jesse L., Illinois, 2nd voted Aye
* Johnson, Timothy V., Illinois, 15th
* Kirk, Mark, Illinois, 10th voted Aye
* Lipinski, Daniel, Illinois, 3rd voted Aye
* Manzullo, Donald, Illinois, 16th
* Quigley, Mike, Illinois, 5th voted Aye
* Roskam, Peter J., Illinois, 6th
* Rush, Bobby L., Illinois, 1st voted Aye
* Schakowsky, Jan, Illinois, 9th voted Aye
* Schock, Aaron, Illinois, 18th
* Shimkus, John, Illinois, 19th

Indiana 2 Aye 7 Nay

* Burton, Dan, Indiana, 5th
* Buyer, Steve, Indiana, 4th
* Carson, André, Indiana, 7th voted Aye
* Donnelly, Joe, Indiana, 2nd
* Ellsworth, Brad, Indiana, 8th
* Hill, Baron, Indiana, 9th voted Aye
* Pence, Mike, Indiana, 6th
* Souder, Mark E., Indiana, 3rd
* Visclosky, Peter, Indiana, 1st

Kansas 1 Aye 3 Nay

* Jenkins, Lynn, Kansas, 2nd
* Moore, Dennis, Kansas, 3rd voted Aye
* Moran, Jerry, Kansas, 1st
* Tiahrt, Todd, Kansas, 4th

Kentucky 2 Aye 4 Nay

* Chandler, Ben, Kentucky, 6th voted Aye
* Davis, Geoff, Kentucky, 4th
* Guthrie, S. Brett, Kentucky, 2nd
* Rogers, Harold, Kentucky, 5th
* Whitfield, Ed, Kentucky, 1st
* Yarmuth, John A., Kentucky, 3rd voted Aye

Louisiana all Nay

* Alexander, Rodney, Louisiana, 5th
* Boustany Jr., Charles W., Louisiana, 7th
* Cao, Joseph, Louisiana, 2nd
* Cassidy, William "Bill", Louisiana, 6th
* Fleming, John, Louisiana, 4th
* Melancon, Charlie, Louisiana, 3rd
* Scalise, Steve, Louisiana, 1st

Maine all Aye

* Michaud, Michael, Maine, 2nd voted Aye
* Pingree, Chellie, Maine, 1st voted Aye

Massachusetts all Aye

* Capuano, Michael E., Massachusetts, 8th voted Aye
* Delahunt, William, Massachusetts, 10th voted Aye
* Frank, Barney, Massachusetts, 4th voted Aye
* Lynch, Stephen F., Massachusetts, 9th voted Aye
* McGovern, James, Massachusetts, 3rd voted Aye
* Markey, Ed, Massachusetts, 7th voted Aye
* Neal, Richard E., Massachusetts, 2nd voted Aye
* Olver, John, Massachusetts, 1st voted Aye
* Tierney, John, Massachusetts, 6th voted Aye
* Tsongas, Niki, Massachusetts, 5th voted Aye

Maryland 7 Aye 1 Nay

* Bartlett, Roscoe, Maryland, 6th
* Cummings, Elijah, Maryland, 7th voted Aye
* Edwards, Donna F., Maryland, 4th voted Aye
* Hoyer, Steny H., Maryland, 5th voted Aye
* Kratovil, Jr., Frank M., Maryland, 1st voted Aye
* Ruppersberger, Dutch, Maryland, 2nd voted Aye
* Sarbanes, John P., Maryland, 3rd voted Aye
* Van Hollen, Chris, Maryland, 8th voted Aye

Michigan 8 Aye 7 Nay

* Camp, Dave, Michigan, 4th
* Conyers Jr., John, Michigan, 14th voted Aye
* Dingell, John D., Michigan, 15th voted Aye
* Ehlers, Vernon J., Michigan, 3rd
* Hoekstra, Pete, Michigan, 2nd
* Kildee, Dale, Michigan, 5th voted Aye
* Kilpatrick, Carolyn, Michigan, 13th voted Aye
* Levin, Sander, Michigan, 12th voted Aye
* McCotter, Thaddeus, Michigan, 11th
* Miller, Candice, Michigan, 10th
* Peters, Gary, Michigan, 9th voted Aye
* Rogers, Mike, Michigan, 8th
* Schauer, Mark, Michigan, 7th voted Aye
* Stupak, Bart, Michigan, 1st voted Aye
* Upton, Fred, Michigan, 6th

Minnesota 5 Aye 3 Nay

* Bachmann, Michele, Minnesota, 6th
* Ellison, Keith, Minnesota, 5th voted Aye
* Kline, John, Minnesota, 2nd
* McCollum, Betty, Minnesota, 4th voted Aye
* Oberstar, James L., Minnesota, 8th voted Aye
* Paulsen, Erik, Minnesota, 3rd
* Peterson, Collin C., Minnesota, 7th voted Aye
* Walz, Timothy J., Minnesota, 1st voted Aye

Mississippi 1 Aye 3 Nay

* Childers, Travis, Mississippi, 1st
* Harper, Gregg, Mississippi, 3rd
* Taylor, Gene, Mississippi, 4th
* Thompson, Bennie G., Mississippi, 2nd voted Aye

Missouri 4 Aye 5 Nay

* Akin, Todd, Missouri, 2nd
* Blunt, Roy, Missouri 7th
* Carnahan, Russ, Missouri, 3rd voted Aye
* Clay Jr., William "Lacy", Missouri, 1st voted Aye
* Cleaver, Emanuel, Missouri, 5th voted Aye
* Emerson, Jo Ann, Missouri, 8th
* Graves, Sam, Missouri, 6th
* Luetkemeyer, Blaine, Missouri, 9th
* Skelton, Ike, Missouri, 4th voted Aye

Montana all Nay

* Rehberg, Dennis, Montana, At-Large

Nebraska all Nay

* Fortenberry, Jeff, Nebraska, 1st
* Smith, Adrian, Nebraska, 3rd
* Terry, Lee, Nebraska, 2nd

Nevada 2 Aye 1 Nay

* Berkley, Shelley, Nevada, 1st voted Aye
* Heller, Dean, Nevada, 2nd
* Titus, Dina, Nevada, 3rd voted Aye

New Hampshire all Aye

* Hodes, Paul W., New Hampshire, 2nd voted Aye
* Shea-Porter, Carol, New Hampshire, 1st voted Aye

New Jersey 10 Aye 3 Nay

* Adler, John, New Jersey, 3rd voted Aye
* Andrews, Robert E., New Jersey, 1st voted Aye
* Frelinghuysen, Rodney, New Jersey, 11th
* Garrett, Scott, New Jersey, 5th
* Holt, Rush, New Jersey, 12th voted Aye
* Lance, Leonard, New Jersey, 7th voted Aye
* LoBiondo, Frank, New Jersey, 2nd voted Aye
* Pallone Jr., Frank, New Jersey, 6th voted Aye
* Pascrell Jr., Bill, New Jersey, 8th voted Aye
* Payne, Donald M., New Jersey, 10th voted Aye
* Rothman, Steven, New Jersey, 9th voted Aye
* Sires, Albio, New Jersey, 13th voted Aye
* Smith, Chris, New Jersey, 4th voted Aye

New Mexico all Aye

* Heinrich, Martin T., New Mexico, 1st voted Aye
* Lujan, Ben R., New Mexico, 3rd voted Aye
* Teague, Harry, New Mexico, 2nd voted Aye

New York 22 Aye 7 Nay

* Ackerman, Gary, New York, 5th voted Aye
* Arcuri, Michael A., New York, 24th
* Bishop, Timothy, New York, 1st voted Aye
* Clarke, Yvette D., New York, 11th voted Aye
* Crowley, Joseph, New York, 7th voted Aye
* Engel, Eliot, New York, 17th voted Aye
* Hall, John J., New York, 19th voted Aye
* Higgins, Brian, New York, 27th voted Aye
* Hinchey, Maurice, New York, 22nd voted Aye
* Israel, Steve, New York, 2nd voted Aye
* King, Pete, New York, 3rd
* Lee, Christopher J., New York, 26th
* Lowey, Nita, New York, 18th voted Aye
* Maffei, Daniel B., New York, 25th voted Aye
* Massa, Eric J.J., New York, 29th
* McCarthy, Carolyn, New York, 4th voted Aye
* McHugh, John M., New York, 23rd voted Aye
* McMahon, Michael E., New York, 13th voted Aye
* Maloney, Carolyn, New York, 14th voted Aye
* Meeks, Gregory W., New York, 6th voted Aye
* Murphy, Scott, New York, 20th voted Aye
* Nadler, Jerrold, New York, 8th voted Aye
* Rangel, Charles B., New York, 15th voted Aye
* Serrano, José E., New York, 16th
* Slaughter, Louise, New York, 28th voted Aye
* Tonko, Paul D., New York, 21st
* Towns, Edolphus, New York, 10th
* Velázquez, Nydia M., New York, 12th voted Aye
* Weiner, Anthony D., New York, 9th voted Aye

North Carolina 6 Aye 7 Nay

* Butterfield, G.K., North Carolina, 1st voted Aye
* Coble, Howard, North Carolina, 6th
* Etheridge, Bob, North Carolina, 2nd voted Aye
* Foxx, Virginia, North Carolina, 5th
* Jones, Walter B., North Carolina, 3rd
* Kissell, Larry, North Carolina, 8th
* McHenry, Patrick T., North Carolina, 10th
* McIntyre, Mike, North Carolina, 7th
* Miller, Brad, North Carolina, 13th voted Aye
* Myrick, Sue, North Carolina, 9th
* Price, David, North Carolina, 4th voted Aye
* Shuler, Heath, North Carolina, 11th voted Aye
* Watt, Mel, North Carolina, 12th voted Aye

North Dakota all Nay

* Pomeroy, Earl, North Dakota, At-Large

Ohio 8 Aye 10 Nay

* Austria, Steve, Ohio, 7th
* Boccieri, John A., Ohio, 16th voted Aye
* Boehner, John A., Ohio, 8th
* Driehaus, Steve, Ohio, 1st voted Aye
* Fudge, Marcia L., Ohio, 11th voted Aye
* Jordan, Jim, Ohio, 4th
* Kaptur, Marcy, Ohio, 9th voted Aye
* Kucinich, Dennis J., Ohio, 10th
* LaTourette, Steven C., Ohio, 14th
* Latta, Robert E., Ohio, 5th
* Kilroy, Mary Jo, Ohio, 15th voted Aye
* Ryan, Tim, Ohio, 17th voted Aye
* Schmidt, Jean, Ohio, 2nd
* Space, Zachary T., Ohio, 18th voted Aye
* Sutton, Betty, Ohio, 13th voted Aye
* Tiberi, Pat, Ohio, 12th
* Turner, Michael, Ohio, 3rd
* Wilson, Charles A., Ohio, 6th

Oklahoma all Nay

* Boren, Dan, Oklahoma, 2nd
* Cole, Tom, Oklahoma, 4th
* Fallin, Mary, Oklahoma, 5th
* Lucas, Frank, Oklahoma, 3rd
* Sullivan, John, Oklahoma, 1st

Oregon 3 Aye 2 Nay

* Blumenauer, Earl, Oregon 3rd voted Aye
* DeFazio, Peter, Oregon, 4th
* Schrader, Kurt, Oregon, 5th voted Aye
* Walden, Greg, Oregon, 2nd
* Wu, David, Oregon, 1st voted Aye

Pennsylvania 8 Aye 10 Nay

* Altmire, Jason, Pennsylvania, 4th
* Brady, Robert, Pennsylvania, 1st voted Aye
* Carney, Christopher P., Pennsylvania, 10th
* Dahlkemper, Kathy, Pennsylvania, 3rd
* Dent, Charles W., Pennsylvania, 15th
* Doyle, Mike, Pennsylvania, 14th voted Aye
* Fattah, Chaka, Pennsylvania, 2nd voted Aye
* Gerlach, Jim, Pennsylvania, 6th
* Kanjorski, Paul E., Pennsylvania, 11th voted Aye
* Holden, Tim, Pennsylvania, 17th
* Murphy, Patrick J., Pennsylvania, 8th voted Aye
* Murphy, Tim, Pennsylvania, 18th
* Murtha, John, Pennsylvania, 12th voted Aye
* Pitts, Joseph R., Pennsylvania, 16th
* Platts, Todd, Pennsylvania, 19th
* Schwartz, Allyson Y., Pennsylvania, 13th voted Aye
* Sestak, Joe, Pennsylvania, 7th voted Aye
* Shuster, Bill, Pennsylvania, 9th
* Thompson, Glen W., Pennsylvania, 5th

Rhode Island all Aye

* Kennedy, Patrick, Rhode Island, 1st voted Aye
* Langevin, Jim, Rhode Island, 2nd voted Aye

South Carolina 2 Aye 4 Nay

* Barrett, J.Gresham, South Carolina, 3rd
* Brown, Henry, South Carolina, 1st
* Clyburn, James E., South Carolina, 6th voted Aye
* Inglis, Bob, South Carolina, 4th
* Spratt, John, South Carolina, 5th voted Aye
* Wilson, Joe, South Carolina, 2nd

South Dakota all Nay

* Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie, South Dakota, At-Large

Tennessee 3 Aye 6 Nay

* Blackburn, Marsha, Tennessee 7th
* Cohen, Steve, Tennessee, 9th voted Aye
* Cooper, Jim, Tennessee, 5th voted Aye
* Davis, Lincoln, Tennessee, 4th
* Duncan Jr., John J., Tennessee, 2nd
* Gordon, Bart, Tennessee, 6th voted Aye
* Roe, Phil, Tennessee, 1st
* Tanner, John, Tennessee, 8th
* Wamp, Zach, Tennessee, 3rd

Texas 9 Aye 23 Nay

* Barton, Joe, Texas, 6th
* Brady, Kevin, Texas, 8th
* Burgess, Michael, Texas, 26th
* Carter, John, Texas, 31st
* Conaway, K. Michael, Texas, 11th
* Cuellar, Henry, Texas, 28th voted Aye
* Culberson, John, Texas, 7th
* Doggett, Lloyd, Texas, 25th voted Aye
* Edwards, Chet, Texas, 17th
* Gohmert, Louie, Texas 1st
* Gonzalez, Charlie A., Texas, 20th voted Aye
* Granger, Kay, Texas, 12th
* Green, Al, Texas, 9th voted Aye
* Green, Gene, Texas, 29th voted Aye
* Hall, Ralph M., Texas, 4th
* Hensarling, Jeb, Texas, 5th
* Hinojosa, Rubén, Texas, 15th voted Aye
* Jackson Lee, Sheila, Texas, 18th voted Aye
* Johnson, Eddie Bernice, Texas 30th voted Aye
* Johnson, Sam, Texas, 3rd
* Marchant, Kenny, Texas, 24th
* McCaul, Michael T., Texas, 10th
* Neugebauer, Randy, Texas, 19th
* Olson, Pete, Texas, 22nd
* Ortiz, Solomon P., Texas, 27th
* Paul, Ron, Texas, 14th
* Poe, Ted, Texas, 2nd
* Reyes, Silvestre, Texas, 16th voted Aye
* Rodriguez, Ciro, Texas, 23rd
* Sessions, Pete, Texas, 32nd
* Smith, Lamar, Texas, 21st
* Thornberry, Mac, Texas, 13th

Utah all Nay

* Bishop, Rob, Utah, 1st
* Chaffetz, Jason, Utah, 3rd
* Matheson, Jim, Utah, 2nd

Vermont all Aye

* Welch, Peter, Vermont, At-Large voted Aye

Virginia 5 Aye 6 Nay

* Boucher, Rick, Virginia, 9th voted Aye
* Cantor, Eric, Virginia, 7th
* Connolly, Gerald E. "Gerry", Virginia, 11th voted Aye
* Forbes, J. Randy, Virginia, 4th
* Goodlatte, Bob, Virginia, 6th
* Moran, Jim, Virginia, 8th voted Aye
* Nye III, Glenn C., Virginia, 2nd
* Perriello, Tom, Virginia, 5th voted Aye
* Scott, Robert C. "Bobby", Virginia, 3rd voted Aye
* Wittman, Robert J., Virginia, 1st
* Wolf, Frank, Virginia, 10th

Washington 7 Aye 2 Nay

* Baird, Brian, Washington, 3rd voted Aye
* Dicks, Norman D., Washington, 6th voted Aye
* Hastings, Doc, Washington, 4th
* Inslee, Jay, Washington, 1st voted Aye
* Larsen, Rick, Washington, 2nd voted Aye
* McDermott, Jim, Washington, 7th voted Aye
* McMorris Rodgers, Cathy, Washington, 5th
* Reichert, David G., Washington, 8th voted Aye
* Smith, Adam, Washington, 9th voted Aye

Wisconsin 5 Aye 3 Nay

* Baldwin, Tammy, Wisconsin, 2nd voted Aye
* Kagen, Steve, Wisconsin, 8th voted Aye
* Kind, Ron, Wisconsin, 3rd voted Aye
* Moore, Gwen, Wisconsin, 4th voted Aye
* Obey, David R., Wisconsin, 7th voted Aye
* Petri, Thomas, Wisconsin, 6th
* Ryan, Paul, Wisconsin, 1st
* Sensenbrenner, F. James, Wisconsin, 5th

West Virginia all Nay
* Capito, Shelley Moore, West Virginia, 2nd
* Mollohan, Alan B., West Virginia, 1st
* Rahall, Nick, West Virginia, 3rd

Wyoming all Nay

* Lummis, Cynthia M., Wyoming, At-Large

An I-Pod for the Queen of England-How About Kindles for the Muslim World Leaders

2009-06-16T07:27:00.000-07:00

Monday, June 15th Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrote this article, Obama Should Speak Truth to Islam Because Others Can't. I encourage everyone to the read the entire article for the knowledge you'll get about the Muslim world as well as the excellent political analysis.

One thing I learned is that there are the three men (pictured above) who have a compelling claim to represent the heart and soul of the umma. From left to right these three men are Muhammad Sayyid Tatawi, Ali Khamenei, and Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz. The three men hail from Egypt, Iran. and Saudi Arabia.

Muhammad Sayyid Tatawi is the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Mosque and Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar University in Cairo. This University is one of the most influential in the Muslim world.

Ali Khamenei is the grand ayatollah supreme leader of Iran, and the highest authority for Shia Muslims.

Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz is the King of Saudi Arabia and is the protector of the holy shrine of Islam (Mecca).

President Obama has met the Saudi King, and when he gave his speech in Cairo he met the Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar U. and the ambassador of Iran to Egypt. Here is an excerpt of her column-

They have their differences. The king is the protector of the holy shrine of Islam and a political leader. The grand sheik has no formal political power, but it is not an exaggeration to say his institution is one of the most influential in the Muslim world. And Iran not only claims spiritual power but pursues political and military dominance. The issue of who speaks for Islam is perhaps the worst nightmare for the US; this is not fully appreciated by the crafters of American foreign policy.

This makes a discussion of the relationship between Islam and the West much more problematic than the president's speechwriters realise.

The courtship articulated in his speech was peppered with false praise (". . . it was innovation in Muslim communities that developed . . . our mastery of pens and printing."), feigned common principles and made ridiculous promises to fight negative stereotyping of Islam wherever he encounters it.

This is all part of political rhetoric, but it really doesn't lead to concrete change. This, in my view, is the wrong strategy. Instead of pretending that Muslims invented printing, the President should be confronting them with the key products of the Western printing press. And it's here that Kindles could be of use.

I imagined him offering the king, the sheik and the ayatollah each a Kindle with Abraham Lincoln's case against slavery and for equality. Obama reminded the Muslim world that "black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the centre of America's founding."

I would include Thomas Jefferson's improvements on the New Testament. The king, the sheik and the ayatollah have the authority to rule that parts of the Koran no longer apply in the modern world. For instance, the edicts of sharia law that reject scientific inquiry and order all Muslims to spread Islam.

And of course, no reading selection would be complete without a copy of the US Constitution, highlighting (because you can do that in a Kindle) the Eighth Amendment banning cruel and unusual punishment.

And for good measure, I would also add John F.Kennedy's inaugural address: "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. . . . To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required. . . . To those nations who would make themselves our adversary . . . we dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed. . . . Ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man." Not to mention woman.

I think Ayaan Hirsi Ali is smart enough to know that this idea of hers will not happen. While the Ds have played a masterful political game of giving lip service to caring about women, children, and minorities this is not what they are most passionate about. They are most passionate about seizing power and control over every aspect of your life that they can acquire. In a way they can have envy for the Muslim world leaders not being restrained by that Bill of Rights thingy in the US Constitution.

The other reason it will not happen is that it requires President Obama to promote the wonders, greatness, and achievements of the United States of America that are based on its founding ideals. This kind of promotion runs counter to his self-promotion as the first one elected for the purpose of remaking a nation that is fatally flawed from the start.

Those Violators of Fair Competition

2009-06-14T11:39:00.000-07:00

I just finished reading New Deal or Raw Deal? written by Burton Folsom, Jr. So much of what he writes about is so applicable to the current Obama administration plans with respect to the economy. He asks the question why would they be so eager to manipulate the market for higher wages and and prices without an increase in production? He answered that they believed that artificially higher wages meant greater purchasing power. If people earned more they could buy more, and that would stimulate industrial and economic recovery. In this “high wage” theory, the efficient businessman, the innovator, and the price cutter are evil because they are believed to be violators of 'fair competition.' His gain was not just the loss of his competitors, but of the whole country. By creating codes of ‘fair competition’, we’re giving all existing businesses a chance to make profits, to pay high wages, and to survive those evil efficient businessmen, innovators, and price cutters. The good intentions are to put people back to work at a decent wage to let them buy more products.

All of these good intentions have very bad consequences that even an economist like John Maynard Keynes could see. By carving up markets among existing producers and by fixing prices and wages assumes all industry is stagnant and unchanging. Almost no industry fits this model.

When Andrew Carnegie founded Carnegie Steel in 1872, he was the smallest producer in America--and England far outsold the US in the world steel market. Carnegie cut costs by using the Bessemer process and open-hearth method of making steel; he innovated in accounting with double-entry bookkeeping. Unlike his competitors, if Carnegie found a cheaper way to make rails, he would rip out a factory and rebuild the improved version immediately. Andrew Carnegie is just one evil dude, a violator of ‘fair competition.’ As a result, in 1900 Carnegie was the largest steel producer in the US and larger than all the major steel producers in England put together. By this time he could make steel rails that had cost $56 a ton in 1872 for only $11.50 a ton.

Cheaper steel meant cheaper cars, and Henry Ford took advantage of that. He took the cheaper steel, and innovated an assembly line making Model Ts. Just another evil dude, a violator of ‘fair competition.’ By 1920 he had captured over one-half of the American car market and had cut cost of a car from $3,000 to $300.

The dynamic and changing instead of stagnant and unchanging nature of steel and car industries shows three things.
1. Competition is necessary for new and cheaper products to appear on the market.
2. Competition is a sensible way to arrive at prices and wages.
3. Many established big businessmen want to avoid competition--to them ‘fair competition’ is letting them set prices, wages, hours of work, and market share.

If codes of creating ‘fair competition’ had been in place in 1900 we would have had higher priced steel, no assembly line, and a small car market with few Americans rich enough to buy expensive cars. The makers of carriages and buggy whips would have been delighted. The street cleaners in NYC who cleaned 1.3 million pounds of horse manure daily all would have had protected jobs. I just don’t personally believe the US could have been such a great country if it were not for those violators of ‘fair competition’ like Andrew Carnegie and Henry Ford.

If Europe Falls Blame the Lily-livered Europeans

2009-06-13T16:28:00.000-07:00

Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrote an article for AEI, It's Time Lily-Livered Europe Stood Up to Muslim Bigots, that makes a compelling argument that Europeans are lily-livered weenies that will not stand up to Muslims. There have been a lot of news stories about the suppression of freedom of expression, the rise of antisemitism, and the rise of violence against women and gays in Europe from Muslim immigrants. Ms Ali reads about this, and asks some questions.

Why do European countries give citizenship to individuals who feel no obligation to share in their societies for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer and in the event of a catastrophe, sacrifice themselves? An excerpt -

In this way, they evade one of the chief criteria of citizenship. Political allegiance to the constitution of your country is the minimum requirement. It is this state of affairs that makes Christopher Caldwell's book Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration and the West (Allen Lane, £17.99), which opens with the sentence, "Western Europe became a multi-ethnic society in a fit of absence of mind," a chilling read.

Caldwell discusses this theme in an interesting light: he does not overlook the Europeans who feel that Islam is a danger to European values but asks, "How can you fight for something you cannot define?" And this is Europe's problem--insecurity about who we are, what our various flags mean, why, with every turn, we spend less and less on the military.

Europe has become a place for new religions, new creeds, multiculturalism, cosmopolitanism, transnationalism. Everything is thus relative. This is an uncertainty that the Muslim does not share. The Muslim ethic and tribal spirit are far more resilient and fierce in war than the protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism.

What happened to the European value of freedom of expression? an excerpt -

Take the debate on freedom of expression. In 1989 and afterwards, the provocations in the name of Islam were greeted with a confident, "No way! This is Europe, and you can say what you like, write what you like," and so on.

Two decades later, Europeans are not so sure about the values of freedom of expression. Most members of the media engage in self-censorship. Textbooks in schools and universities have been adapted in such a way as not to offend Muslim sentiment. And legislation to punish 'blasphemy', if not passed, has been considered in most countries--or old laws that were never used are being revived.

What happened to the sensitivity and guilt Europeans felt about the Holocaust? an excerpt

Take anti-Semitism in Europe. The sensitivity and guilt Europeans feel about the Holocaust is comparable to the sensitivity and guilt that Americans feel towards black Americans. A decade or two ago, it was unthinkable for Jews to be slandered openly and be targeted for no other reason than their Jewishness.

Today, in the name of Islam, synagogues are vandalised. There are open denials of the Holocaust. There is an active network of Muslim organisations lobbying to curtail or even get rid of Israel. There are incidents of Jews being harassed, beaten, even killed. All this is met with grim silence and rationalisations that it's not really anti-Semitic but anti-Israel.

What happened to Europe’s Women’s Liberation values? an excerpt

In the 1970s, women were burning their bras, abortion was legalised almost everywhere and rape in marriage was penalised. Today, more and more European elites, including some feminists, argue that it might, perhaps, just be better to respect the culture and religion of a minority.

What happened to Europe’s Gay Liberation values? an excerpt

Ten years ago, it would have been unthinkable that anti-gay sentiment would pass without condemnation. In Holland, for instance, we pride ourselves on allowing gays to have the exact same rights as heterosexuals. Yet today, they are beaten on the streets of Amsterdam. To be on the safe side in certain neighbourhoods in Europe, it's advisable to conceal your identity if you are gay or lesbian.

What happened to the descendants of Franks, Saxons, Vikings, and Normans? an excerpt

In reality, if Europe falls, it's not because of Islam. It is because the Europeans of today--unlike their forbears in the Second World War--will not die to defend the values or the future of Europe. Even if they were asked to make the final sacrifice, many a post-modern lily-livered European would escape into an obscure mesh of conscientious objection. All that Islam has to do is walk into the vacuum.

I wrote a previous diary, They Are Not Monsters, that touched on this problem. Ms Ali did a better job than I of clarifying where the blame for this problem really lies. I also really hope and pray that Europe is not the precursor of what America will one day become. We need to know our values and what we stand for so we can stand up and fight to preserve our identity. We are Americans and we know what it means to be an American.

They Are Not Monsters

2009-06-08T17:03:00.000-07:00

I just stumbled upon an article in The Brussels Journal, Wilders causes another row. Pre-captivity Stockholm-Syndrome.

In a speech in the Dutch Parliament last Thursday, the Dutch opposition leader Geert Wilders referred to Joanie de Rijke’s case.

“She was raped, but she was not angry. The journalist who went looking for the Taliban in Afghanistan saw her curiosity end in a cruel ordeal of multiple rape. While this would make others angry or sad, this journalist shows understanding. She says: ‘They also respected me.’ And she was given tea and biscuits.”

“This story” Wilders said,

“is a perfect illustration of the moral decline of our elites. They are so blinded by their own ideology that they turn a blind eye to the truth. Rape? Well, I would put this into perspective, says the leftist journalist: the Taliban are not monsters.

The article went on to describe the reaction to this speech.

Wilders’ words caused instant fury on all benches except those of his own party. Parliamentarians and government ministers reacted furiously to his reference to Joanie de Rijke. “You should be ashamed of yourself,” Femke Halsema of the far-left Green Left Party yelled. Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, a Christian-Democrat, called Wilders’ statement “extremely painful and tasteless.”

As in the case of Rush’s comments about Sonia Sotermayor, they do not dispute his conclusions. They just think it is so politically incorrect for him to state these conclusions.

This 43 year old lady journalist travelled from Flanders to Afghanistan to interview some Taliban fighters who had killed ten French soldiers last August. When she arrived for the interview the Taliban fighters abducted her and sent her interpreter back to Kabul with the message that 2 million dollars in ransom must be paid or they would slit her throat. The Dutch and Belgian governments refused to pay the ransom. The magazine she worked for offered $100,000 Euros, and the Taliban leader accepted the money after holding her hostage for six days.

In her book In de handen van de Taliban, which she published last month, she writes that the Taliban commander

“could not control his testosterone. I had the impression that afterwards he regretted what had happened. He knew it was wrong.”

The noble savage even “invited her to a threesome,” i.e. to have sex with him and one of his three wives.

After her release, Joanie de Rijke, too, criticized the Dutch and Belgian authorities for their refusal to pay ransom. “The Belgians have done nothing. They said it was a matter for the Dutch. And the Dutch authorities said they never pay ransom. In Afghanistan they know well enough that Western governments pay up after an abduction. Germany, Italy and France have all paid ransoms.”

Though de Rijke was angry with the Dutch and Belgian authorities, she told the Dutch media in interviews given after her release that she was not angry with her abductors. “I do not want to depict the Taliban as monsters. I am not angry with Ghazi Gul. After all, he let me live,” she said. About the rape ordeal she declared that though the experience had been horrible, she was also shown respect.

De Rijke, too, said she was appalled at Wilders’ statement. “I did feel angry because of the rape,” she explained, “what I tried to make clear was that the acts of the Taliban cannot be reduced to rape. The fact that I wanted to stress that aspect of my feelings is not the same as the Stockholm syndrome people like Wilders like to talk about. In a war situation people seem only able to think in black and white. I wanted to refine the story. A person is not a monster because he calls himself Taliban.”

Her reaction confirms precisely what Wilders was trying to say. In reality the Taliban are not monsters because they call themselves Taliban, but because they behave like monsters. People like de Rijke, however, no longer judge people by their behavior and their actions, but condone them for the noble motives which they imagine have driven them to commit their acts.

This sickness is not just something one can find in among the Dutch elites, and this sickness of being so blinded by your ideology that you turn a blind eye to the truth can also be found in Bakersfield, CA. March 30, 2009.

The story comes from KGET:

The woman had just left the Babies R Us store on when she noticed a man in a tattered military coat lurking in the parking lot, she told police. The woman told detectives she was worried because the man looked like a thug, but she didn't want to seem racist.

So, not wanting to seem racist, the Bakersfield, California woman proceeded to her car, where the man held her up at gun point and threatened to kill her 11 month old daughter if she didn't do what he told her. He had her to drive to an ATM where he stole $500 from her, then he had had her drive to a junior high school parking lot where he raped her in front of her child.

These are disturbing stories for a couple of reasons. Reason number one is the outrage over merely identifying a moral decline evidenced by these incidents. Have we gotten to point where reporting the incident is more disturbing than the incident itself? I hope not. Reason number two is the fear that this sickness of being so blinded by your ideology that you turn a blind eye to the truth is a spreading sickness. Once again, I hope not.

Wilders understates the problem because this kind of sickness is far worse than Stockholm-Syndrome.

It Took Russia Three Centuries To Do What Obama Did In Three Months

2009-06-06T12:47:00.000-07:00

Russia in terms of land mass is the largest country on the the planet. Its size spans ten different time zones, and overlaps two continents (Europe and Asia). This country introduced to the rest of the world the concept of a Czar, and President Obama has moved with lightening speed on this concept. The appeal of the czar rests on the belief that if we could just figure out the right smart, competent, well-intentioned person to put in charge, everything would go more smoothly. The big problem with this belief is that the very thing that defines the Russian czars is total control over the lives of their subjects.

In 19th century America it was considered a political insult to be called a Czar. When Andrew Jackson referred to bank president Biddle as Czar Nicholas he was not complimenting him. When in 1890 the Speaker of the House, Thomas Reed, was referred to as Czar Reed he was not being complimented. It was only years after the last Russian Czar was killed by the Bolsheviks that some Americans had a more fuzzy acceptance of the term. The Commissioner of Baseball, Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis was considered the Czar of baseball in a good way.

It’s too bad IMO that the word Czar became an acceptable word in the American lexicon because it really is just an odious four-letter word.

Mark Twain had initially favored the Russian Czar, Alexander II, because he had issued an emancipation Manifesto in 1861 that abolished Russian serfdom. Alexander II's reforms which began with the 1861 emancipation of the serfs were not satisfactorily fulfilled. Peasants thought that they would be freed together with the plot of land they worked. Such was not the case. Although they were free, peasants were often denied an opportunity to purchase fertile land on which they had lived a lifetime. Instead many were offered poorer quality land that could not be farmed. Demands for a more democratic form of government and basic freedoms continued to be denied. When Alexander II was assassinated by a bomber in 1881 his son Alexander III succeeded him as Czar of Russia. Alexander III proved to be a more repressive monarch than his father.

Mark Twain changed his attitude about Russian Czars. A reading he delivered at the Hartford Monday Evening Club on March 22, 1886 indicates his opinion of the Russian aristocracy changed:

Power, when lodged in the hands of man, means oppression -- insures oppression: it means oppression always: … give it to the high priest of the Christian Church in Russia, the Emperor, and with a wave of his hand he will brush a multitude of young men, nursing mothers, gray headed patriarchs, gently young girls, like so many unconsidered flies, into the unimaginable hells of his Siberia, and go blandly to his breakfast, unconscious that he has committed a barbarity …

His autobiographical dictation on December 5, 1906 shows he was still very much an anti-Czarist:

Cruel and pitiful as was life throughout Christendom in the Middle Ages, it was not as cruel, not as pitiful, as is life in Russia today. In Russia, for three centuries, the vast population has been ground under the heels, and for the sole and sordid advantage, of a procession of crowned assassins and robbers who have all deserved the gallows. Russia's hundred and thirty millions of miserable subjects are much worse off today than were the poor of the Middle Ages whom we so pity. We are accustomed now to speak of Russia as medieval and as standing still in the Middle Ages but that is flattery. Russia is way back of the Middle Ages; the Middle Ages are a long way in front of her and she is not likely to catch up with them so long as the Czardom continues to exist.

Mark Twain died in 1910, and never knew that the 1917 Revolution ended Czar rule in Russia without ending ending the practice of a ruthless tyranny grinding the vast population under their heels.

Eighty years to the day after the last Czar of Russia was killed, July 18, 1998, Nicholas II and his family were reburied in St. Petersburg. Boris Yeltsin's speech at the funeral was a plea for nonviolent methods of change:

We must end the century, which has been an age of blood and violence in Russia, with repentance and peace, regardless of political views, ethnic or religious belonging.

This is our historic chance. On the eve of the third millennium, we must do it for the sake of our generation and those to come.

More than ten years after that speech I see no evidence of a Russia of repentance and peace. The USA seems more likely to me to unravel the tyranny of living under Czars than Russia. I wish the unraveling of Czarist tyranny in the US could begin now, but it will not end until Obama is out of office.

The 18 Czars installed in the USA by Obama include the following:

Carol Browner - energy czar
Cass Sunstein - regulatory czar
Daniel Fried - Guantanamo closure czar
Adolfo Carrion, Jr. - urban czar
Joshua DuBois - faith-based czar
Gary Samore - non-proliferation czar
John Brennan - terrorism czar
John Holdren - weather czar
Van Jones - green czar
Nancy Ann DeParle - health czar
Alan Bersin - border czar
Vivek Kundra - tech czar
?- cyber security czar
Herb Allison - TARP czar
Earl Devaney - stimulus czar
Steve Rattner - car czar
Gil Kerlikowske- drug czar
Kenneth Feinberg- pay czar

None of these eighteen czars need confirmation by the US Senate. The House and Senate do not have any oversight role for any of these czars. There is no Supreme Court judicial review process created for these czars compared to the judicial review process for Congress.

We were told by candidate Obama that he promised to bring change if he were elected President. I do not think this is the kind of change his voters had in their mind when they voted for him.

Where Have You Gone Daniel Webster? America Turns Its Lonely Eyes Towards You

2009-05-22T12:14:00.000-07:00

Lately I find myself going farther and farther back in time to discover when there were great men debating the important issues of the day in Washington, DC. The antebellum period between the War of 1812 and the War Between the States is an excellent time to find greatness that is nonexistent today. People remember military men like Ole Hickory, Tippecanoe, and Old Rough and Ready from this period, and they lose a memory of the Bank Wars, states' rights nullification, and Panic of 1837. Of those three military men who became President throughout this period only Ole Hickory had any significant impact on the times.

Another area, other than military actions, to remember great men is in taking arguments before the US Supreme Courts. In my opinion, Daniel Webster was the best. He brought three landmark Supreme Court cases which yielded three rulings favorable to him.

In Dartmouth College v. Woodward, the New Hampshire State Legislature tried to circumvent the original colonial charter that established Dartmouth College back in 1769. Webster was able to guide the court through the difficult political, religious and economic issues and to prove to Chief Justice John Marshall et al, that New Hampshire had violated that section of the U.S. Constitution that states, "no State... shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts.

The argument in McCullough v. Maryland covered nine full days. The questions before the Court were: 1) Does Congress have the right to charter a 'National Bank'? and 2) Can a State Legislature tax an institution created by Congress? Daniel Webster spoke for most of the first day of testimony and reminded the Court that,

"an unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, the power to destroy.

After the trial, Chief Justice John Marshall took only three days to hand down one of his longest opinions ever written. Marshall in essence wrote that yes, Congress does have the right to charter a bank and no, an individual State does not have the power to tax and thus 'destroy' an institution created by Congress.

He argued before the US Supreme Court (Gibbons v. Ogden)

The suit was brought about by Thomas Gibbons who started a steamboat line from Elizabethtown, New Jersey into New York City. Gibbons was opposed by powerful interests in New York. Robert Fulton, Robert Livingston and Aaron Ogden shared the monopoly of steamboat traffic in New York waters. Ogden had purchased the right to operate from New Jersey but Gibbons refused to do so. The question before the Court was: Did New York laws granting a monopoly of steamboat traffic violate that section of the U.S. Constitution that leaves to Congress the power to regulate commerce among the several states?

Daniel Webster spoke for two and one-half hours on behalf of his client, Thomas Gibbons. After a short postponement, Justice Marshall returned with the opinion that the acts of New York must yield to the laws of Congress.

These landmark cases show how much he believed in capitalism, liberty, and a strong Union. To him the three are inseparable. I do not hear anyone from either Party today evoke the same passion, and we need it now perhaps more than we did then. As another Diarist has written, not one member of Congress has evoked passion about the House Speaker's accusation that the CIA lied to the US Congress. Not One.

When he was elected to national office he had great oratorical skills, and he cared more in doing what he believed was right than in what he believed was more popular politically. An example is how he positioned on the US Bank. In the winter session of 1814, Daniel Webster headed the opposition against the formation of a national, government-run bank. After the bill was defeated, John C. Calhoun came to Daniel Webster and pleaded for his help in framing a new act that would pass the Congress. Webster agreed and a new bill was drafted but President Madison vetoed the bill as unconstitutional. A year later a third 'bank bill' was drafted with a larger capitalization of $35 million. Webster was opposed to this bill because of the subscription of stock by the government and the appointment of government directors but the bill passed and this time, it was signed by Madison's successor, President Monroe and became law.

Later on when Andrew Jackson was President he supported a bill to renew the charter for the Second Bank of the US. There was a lot of political games being played because the request for a renewal was made four years before it was set to expire. Historians believe it was an attempt at discrediting Andrew Jackson politically. They may be right, and in any event Andrew Jackson showed his shrewd political skills. He vetoed the bill a week after it passed Congress condemning the Bank as unauthorized by the Constitution, subversive to the rights of the States, and dangerous to the liberties of the people.

After the veto, Daniel Webster exclaimed in the Senate, It manifestly seeks to inflame the poor against the rich. It wantonly attacks whole classes of the people, for the purpose of turning against them the prejudices and the resentments of other classes.
In a rebuttal to Jackson's aversion to foreign capital in the B.U.S., Webster again spoke in the Senate,

Every dollar brought from abroad, and put into the mass of active capital at home, ...diminishes the rate of interest and therefore benefits all the active and trading classes of society, at the expense of the American capitalist.

The class warfare game that Jackson played was a brilliant political strategy for him to overwhelmingly defeat his opponent for reelection.

In Jackson's second term the nullification crisis came to a boil and confused the political scene. John C. Calhoun was no longer the Vice-president but was now a Senator from South Carolina. On the floor of the Senate, Webster debated Calhoun on the merits of 'nullification' as troops were being raised in South Carolina. Webster supported Andrew Jackson and the use of force to suppress the rebellion. Henry Clay meanwhile, sided with John C. Calhoun and tried to work out a compromise. Webster came away from the crisis as the great 'Defender of the Constitution.'

The short term political strategy for Jackson was a long term political nightmare for his successor, Martin Van Buren. The Panic of 1837 came under his watch, and it cost him getting reelected in 1840.

The year 1840 is the first time the Whig Party candidate became POTUS. This is also the first time it mattered A LOT to be the VP, because President Harrison died after only about a month into the office. Imagine what kind of alternate world we may be living in today had Daniel Webster been selected as VP? Would the Nation have stabilized its monetary system? Would the War Between the States have started a few years earlier? I don't know.

I believe that the Tea Party protest activities are a sign of a restless mood in a Nation with many people who still believe in liberty, capitalism, and a strong Union. I end by paraphrasing the words in a Simon & Garfunkle cover
Where have you gone Daniel Webster? The Nation turns its lonely eyes towards you.