The Carpenter's Mate

Remembering September 11

2010-09-11T08:59:00.002-06:00

Friends,

Today is the ninth anniversary of the atrocity perpetrated by Islamic extremists. September 11, 2001. Can anyone not remember what they were doing when they heard about the attack by Muslim extremists on the United States? I certainly remember. I was working in the shop listening to the machinery cutting lumber for a piece of furniture. I had to make a phone call to a company with which I was doing business and was greeted by a lady sobbing. When I asked her what was wrong, she seemed incredulous that I was not watching the news, and she told me what was happening.

On that horrific day consumed by those horrific events, all we could think about was the tragic loss of life and who could have possibly carried out such an attack. We soon learned that it was a radical Muslim organization called al Qaida. Most of us had never heard of al Qaida before or at most as just some organization in the background noise of the news. Today it is a household discussion item.

This day, September 11, 2010, may have passed as another day of patriotic remembrances and speeches except for two events. First is the anticipated building of the “Victory Mosque” just a few hundred yards from the sight of the collapsed World Trade Center towers. The second, which at this writing has been canceled, is the mass Koran burning at a small church in Gainesville, Florida.

I will address the second “non-event” first. You will never hear me try to defend an ideology that advocates the destruction of non-believers of Islam, however, as Christians we must remember and follow the teachings of Christ. There have been death threats on the pastor of that church in Florida and I'm sure others of the church. Numerous US and international organizations have urged that the event be cancelled.

We have been taught to love our enemies, not incite them. As Christ said, “But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Matthew 5:44-45) I submit that an appropriate celebration of the 9/11 attacks would be a gathering for prayer to ask God to work in the hearts of terrorists and all Muslims so that they may see where their salvation truly lies.

The other event that is of concern is the planned building of the “Victory Mosque” just a few hundred yards from ground zero. This is not the official name given by the Muslim imam in charge of the project, Imam Rauf. The last I heard, it is being called the Cordoba House which is actually a perfect name for it. When you go back and look at the history of the Muslims building their grand mosques, all of them have been built on or in commemoration of great victories over their enemies. When Mecca finally surrendered to Mohammad in 630, he declared that the former pagan holy city would be forever the holiest city of Islam.

The Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem is built on the site of Solomon’s Temple. This was their declaration that Islam had defeated the “People of the Book,” as Mohammad called the Jews and the Christians. This was their victory mosque in Israel.

Another example is the Great Mosque of Cordoba in Spain. After the Muslim conquest of the area in the late eighth century, a Visigoth Christian church was converted to a mosque. It stood as a victory mosque until the area was retaken by the Christian Castilian king Ferdinand III in 1236.

You can see from these examples that the Muslims make it a practice to put an exclamation point on their major conquests. Looking at news clips of Muslim areas around the world on 9/11/2001 you will not see crying or anguish. You will see cheering and adulation for the cowards and their accomplices. The Muslim world saw this day as a victory over the Great Satan. To most Muslims around the world this was a great event.

As I have mentioned, as of this writing, the Koran burning has been canceled. According to Pastor Jones, the stated reason for the cancellation is that he has been given assurances that the victory mosque will be moved. This promise has been refuted by Imam Rauf, but Pastor Jones is in New York to confer today with the planners of the victory mosque. I would be very surprised if the mosque is moved. The radical Muslims are too proud of the events of 9/11/2001 to make any concessions to the Great Satan.

The common view of Islam is that it is a religion. I would dispute this view for a number of reasons, but that is the subject of a future Discourse.

As always, I welcome your questions/comments.
Dan

The Constitution, The Contract With the States, Pt. 2

2010-04-22T05:48:00.005-06:00

Friends,
In my last discourse I began a discussion on the contract that the original 13 colonies signed that we today call the United States Constitution. This contract made very clear that the federal government served at the pleasure of the states. The first nine amendments of the Bill of Rights set down very concisely the rights of individuals that could not be infringed upon by either state or federal government. The Tenth Amendment put a cap on the Bill of Rights by telling the federal government that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” These words are pretty clear and easy to understand. This invites two questions, 1) is the federal government adhering to the Tenth Amendment; and 2) if not, where did we stray?

The first question is fairly easy to address. The theory, as I understand it, is that each and every law passed and signed by the president must have a justification under one or more of the provisions of the Constitution. Let’s take a look at some of these laws.

Anyone in business with employees well knows the agency called the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Did you know that an OSHA inspector can walk into your office or factory and hold an unannounced safety inspection of your premises? The business owner or his representative has the right to refuse permission for this inspection but the OSHA inspector will just go to a federal judge and obtain a warrant for the inspection. This will only cause a 24 hour delay. This inspector has the power to write a ticket for an infraction, whether justified or not. To fight these tickets is time consuming and expensive. But let’s go back to the concept of these safety rules. I have been over the Constitution many times and I have not been able to find any passage that says that the federal government is responsible for the safe working conditions of businesses operating in the US. Obviously, it is smart business practice for the company to maintain safe working conditions. It is expensive to continuously train employees to replaced injured ones. But there is absolutely no justification under the Constitution for the regulations enforced by OSHA or for OSHA to exist at all.

Now I'm going to take an easy shot; the new Health Care Law that the OWH has recently signed. I have worn my eyes out pouring over the Constitution and I have yet to find anywhere the federal government has the authority to force anyone to buy anything. If you decide to walk to work in the snow without shoes, the federal government cannot make you buy shoes; you will just get cold on your own. The preamble of the Constitution says “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” One key phrase is “promote the general Welfare,” not insure it. Another key word in the preamble is “for.” The framers established a constitution for the states which had decided to be united. This may seem like a petty thing but believe me, it is not. In the next Discourse I will go into this difference in more detail.

Now let’s discuss the second question. I think that I have established that the federal government is violating the terms of the contract. But where did we stray? I say “we” because the people who allow the federal government to operate outside the confines of the agreed upon contract were elected by the citizens of the United States.

It did not take long for our new government to try on its coat of power. In 1798 four bills called the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed and signed into law by President Adams. The Naturalization Act was the first attempt at immigration regulation. It extended the time requirement for naturalization to 14 years. This act was repealed in 1802.

The Alien Friends Act gave the president the power to summarily deport any alien considered “dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States.” This law had a two year expiration date and was allowed to expire. But it gave the president a great deal of discretionary power; you might even call it a “kingly” power.

The Alien Enemies Act, the only one still in force, allowed the president to deport resident aliens if their home countries are at war with the US. We all know how this law was bent with the internment of Americans of Japanese heritage during World War II, irrespective of their citizenship status. However, I have not found any mention of Americans of German heritage being interned (but I digress).

The Sedition Act was the first effort for the federal government to dictate what was acceptable to print and what was not. It made it a crime to publish “false, scandalous, and malicious writing” against the government and/or officials. Its expiration date was the day before John Adams left office. If this law were still in force, these pages would land me in jail.

What is really sad is that these acts were signed into law by one of the Founders. The stage was set. In 1861, the slave states seceded from the Union, primarily over the issue of slavery. While I fully agree that slavery was and still is an abomination, there is still some question whether President Lincoln had the authority to force the Confederate States back into the Union. Looking back at the original intent of the Constitution we will remember that the primary concern was the rights of the states and the individual. If that was the primary concern, how could the federal government in Washington DC justify removing the rights of the states to secede? After all they had entered into the agreement of their own free wills.

In retrospect, I believe that this country is much stronger as a whole than it would have been as two separate countries. However, the federal government took a major step toward completely changing the relationship between it and the states.
In my next Discourse we will look at how the structure and interpretation of the federal/state relationship changed.

As usual, your questions and discussions are welcome.

Dan

The Constitution, The Contract With the States, Pt. 1

2010-03-30T10:55:00.000-06:00

Friends,
When the American colonists decided that they had had enough of England’s onerous rule they took action. Two of the more celebrated events took place in Massachusetts, the Boston Tea Party, on 16 December 1773 and the “Shot heard around the world” at Concord on 19 April 1775.

Even though much of the early action took place in the New England area all 13 colonies were involved and contributed to the effort. Each of them sent representatives to the first and second Continental Congresses but they were first and foremost individual colonies. The Congresses tended to be rather contentious affairs with each colony’s representatives fighting to ensure the interests of his own colony was fairly represented.

This emphasis on the interests of the colonies carried over into the writing and ratification of the Articles of Confederation, written by the direction of the Second Continental Congress. Under the Articles the states maintained a mostly sovereign position within the whole. The union was a very loose confederation and that was the way the states wanted it. One of the main complaints against the Articles was that there was no power of taxation; the central government had to ask for funds to operate, to wage war, to carry out diplomatic missions, etc. and the states were not obligated to accede to the request. It was recognized by the states that there needed to be a structure to bind them together but it was not going to be a strong central government like that which they were battling at the time. The emphasis was on the freedom and sovereignty of the individual states.

This sovereignty was so important that the smaller states came to feel that they did not have commensurate economic power or balance with the other, larger states. The concern was that the larger states’ economic power would dominate them. Also, the larger states felt that they contributed more to the Union but each state had only one vote and therefore the small states held too much power.

These concerns were addressed and corrected by the establishment of the US Constitution in 1788. Like the discussions in the Second Continental Congress over the provisions of the Articles, the Constitutional Convention was no less “spirited.” For four months in the summer of 1787, delegates from all of the states met in Philadelphia to hammer out the Constitution. A great deal of the discussion and dissention was based on how to fairly represent the states. The result was the Constitution without any amendments.

With the emphasis on States’ Rights, the Constitution was ultimately drawn up as a contract between the States to establish the federal government. This is an important concept, that the states established the federal government by use of a contract called the Constitution.

The new nation had just come through a long war to free themselves of the tyranny of a strong central government and these new states needed some assurance that the new federal government would not become the same type of tyrannical government from which they had just freed themselves. The states intended to ensure that that would not happen by writing certain guarantees into the contract, the Constitution. These guarantees set down the duties and responsibilities of the federal government and the states. There were also restrictions that delineated the relationship between the federal government and the states. This relationship was quite clear. The states were still in the driver’s seat and the federal government served at the pleasure of the states.

In addition, the states’ representatives were concerned about the rights of their citizens, so, to the end of the contract they added a codicil, the Bill of Rights. Make no mistake the first nine amendments in the Bill of Rights were meant to guarantee the rights of the individual and the Tenth Amendment specifically told the federal government where their authority ended. This was the contract drawn up by the states to set down the limitations and responsibilities of the federal government.

This has merely been a primer on the background and reasoning underlying the drafting of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In my next Discourse I will delve a bit more deeply into the relationship requirements and limitations set down by this contract.

As always, your comments and discussions are welcome.

Dan

The Four Scandals

2010-03-24T04:22:00.003-06:00

Friends,
This is another in the on-going series of Global Warming articles written by Andy Pico.
Enjoy,
Dan

The Four Scandals
The Massive Scientific Fraud known as Anthropogenic Global Warming or Climate Change is collapsing with unprecedented speed like a house of rotten cards built on quicksand. The revelations of scientific misconduct now coming from some of the core scientists have reached a daily flood with example upon example of fabricated data, pre-conceived results, perversion of the peer review process, manipulation of station data to fabricate or exaggerate warming trends, reliance on environmentalist advocacy fiction substituting for peer-reviewed research, and so on.

This is a scandal of monumental proportions. Many of the claims of the Climate Change Alarmists have become little more than comedy punch lines.
In reality, there are four scandals, each built upon the others and closely linked. These linked scandals did not start out as such. The building fraud was more of a case of various individuals and groups jumping onto a convenient bandwagon headed in a direction the perpetrators each wanted to go for their own reasons.

The first scandal is the obvious one, the fraud of AGW science built upon a theory the original author himself disavowed almost a century ago. Once started, scientists jumped on board in pursuit of research grants and many other reasons. Most of them fell for their own fraudulent science and ignored the violations of basic scientific processes and ethics. With the recent admissions by some of the scientists at the core of this fraud that no statistically significant warming has occurred in a decade and a half, that the debate is not closed and there is no real scientific consensus (as if such a thing were even credible, valid or legitimate) the collapse of the Scientific Fraud of AGW stands exposed.

The second scandal is the political scandal of those who jumped on the AGW bandwagon to push a political agenda and to simply pull in votes. The political agenda is one of control and the seizure of energy markets through governmental over-regulation. The marriage of environmentalist extremist groups and opportunist politicians resulted in an agenda leading to a world-wide movement that would have derailed freedom, individual liberties, economic prosperity and life itself for many. Other agendas included population control measures, unelected international government controls, and the stifling of economic freedom resulting in poverty and starvation for hundreds of millions.

The third scandal is the financial one. The artificial carbon market including such risky schemes as carbon credits, carbon off-sets and carbon trading under various names is built on the first two scandals. The financial bubble of carbon trading is quite literally built on nothing more than hot air and adheres to no standards consistent with securities trading or financial regulations. Carbon trading has been a fraud from the start and those who have pushed this scheme have been nothing more than carbon profiteers. As the Scientific Scandal crashes, the entire basis for the Carbon Swindle evaporates. This is a world-wide financial bubble about to burst and add to the stress of financial markets worldwide. The holders of carbon credits should take a close look at just what it was they bought.

The fourth scandal is the media cover-up and whitewash. Here in the U.S., the media have largely been complicit in pushing the Scientific Fraud, have aligned with the Political Agenda and ignored the Financial Swindle. Now that the Scientific Fraud is collapsing, the media here in this country for the most part continues to ignore it, cover it up, or white-wash the investigations. The media overseas, in contrast, are covering the daily meltdowns much more thoroughly. The failure of the national “Mainstream Media” will further fuel the declining readership and ratings of what the broad population has come to recognize as the Propaganda Press. The victims of media outlets such as NPR and PBS can be excused in their ignorance, but to remain so in the face overwhelming evidence of fraud and corruption can only be classified as willful ignorance.

The monumental combination of fraud and deceit crossing science, politics, financial and the media will go down in history as the greatest attempted fraud and swindle of all time. As the financial bubble of carbon swindling bursts, the hearings on securities fraud must soon follow.

Andres Pico, of Colorado Springs, is a retired Navy Commander, Naval Flight Officer and project manager in the defense industry. He is a signatory of the Manhattan Declaration.

More on States' Rights - The Census

2010-03-17T19:19:00.006-06:00

Friends,
I have written about States’ Rights several times in the past. A couple of links to previous articles are here and here. Sometimes I feel like the guy standing out in the middle of the forest who wonders, “If a tree were to fall, would anyone hear it?” There is a growing movement for States’ Rights taking place in America now as discussed in this New York Times article.

There are examples of states such as Utah, Wyoming, Oklahoma, and others that have stood up and told the federal government that they are not going to kowtow to their every whim. Now let us take a look at the latest example of government action in excess of their powers, namely the Census.

Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution states “The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.” The Constitution is quite specific as to the purpose of this enumeration which we have come to know as the Census. The Census is to be taken specifically for determining how many Representatives are to serve in the House from each state. There is to be one Representative for each 30,000 persons, but each state shall have at least one Representative.

Now, let us fast forward to today. I received my Census form in the mail a couple of days ago and looking at the envelop, it starts off telling me that I am required to complete the Census form and return it. Depending on to whom you listen, failure to do so could land you a fine from $100 to $5000. I’m sure the fine is on the high end if you falsify some information.

To be perfectly honest, I did not find anything on the form to be terribly objectionable but I have a serious question as to what the requested information has to do with determining how many Representatives a State will have. The very first block looks like the only legitimate question on the whole thing. It asks how many people live in the house. Well, that takes care of the enumeration part, but then they start to break it down into the characterization of the residents. Are there children; nonrelatives; roommates; who owns the dwelling; is the dwelling an apartment; etc.? They asked my phone number in case they don’t believe my answers and have to call me. They ask for my name and my wife’s name and what our birthdays are. They ask what our race is. They didn’t leave me a place to say “My race is American.” They even asked if my wife or I sometimes live or stay somewhere else.

As I said, none of these questions were particularly objectionable, but I have to ask what business is this of theirs? What does it have to do with deciding how many Representatives Colorado sends to Washington? Do we get more Representatives if we have more Cubans? Do we get more Representatives if we have more Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin people? I wonder what the weighting factor is for each racial group.

I’m sure you are asking by now what this has to do with States’ Rights. Well, I'm glad you asked. Included in the envelop was a blue flyer from the Director, US Census Bureau, whoever that is, that states all of this information is important because it is used to determine not only the number of Representatives, but also how much government money my neighborhood receives. I looked up and down my road (I live out in the country, kind of) and was not able to spot any box where they were going to put my neighborhood’s money. It says that this money is to be used for children, the elderly, and our roads. We are in trouble. There aren’t many children along our road and, depending on the cut-off age, not a lot of elderly. Also, the last time I checked, our road belongs to El Paso County, not the federal government.

Where is the federal government getting all of this money it is doling out? It is getting it from you, me and our State. This money rightfully is not the property of the federal government. It is our money that they are redistributing to people and areas that do not pay as much as we do. In other words they are making everything and everyone the same.

This is where our States’ Rights come in. It is long past time that we tell the federal government that we don’t want their help with our children, our elderly, our roads or anything else. The federal government works for us, not the other way around! Over the past 200 years that concept has been lost. It is time that the citizens of the States stand up and inform the government of their contractual responsibilities.

That is a great segue into the next article which will be out in a few days.

As always, I welcome your comments and discussion.
Dan

The Second Amendment and Other Things

2010-02-22T21:07:00.003-07:00

Friends,
I make the mistake of tuning in Bill O’Reilly this evening, 22, Feb, and boy, did he get my dander up.

I was already upset with his anti-Second Amendment rhetoric a few days ago. In case you didn’t hear it he tried to make the case that during an emergency, like Hurricane Katrina, government has the right to suspend the Second Amendment and confiscate personal firearms. I was aghast when I heard that. You just can’t cherry-pick application of the Constitution. The Constitution is applicable at all times. Unfortunately, our Colorado State Legislature seems to have the same opinion as Mr. O’Reilly. A couple of weeks ago the Democrats in the Senate Veterans and Military Affairs Committee decided that they were going to protect the government from us radical citizens by denying us our Second Amendment rights during emergency situations. The governor still can declare an emergency and take our guns.

This same august group also decided that they really do not want to acknowledge that the States have rights that supersede the federal government. They voted to table a bill that would have made any gun manufactured in Colorado, sold in Colorado and intended for use exclusively in Colorado exempt from federal regulations. This is the same bill passed in a number of other states whose legislatures and governors have shown the courage to be Americans as envisioned by the Founders. It looks like our Colorado Legislature doesn’t want to exercise the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. I can understand that; exercising rights is hard work and requires that you take responsibility for your decisions and actions. We sure don’t want the Colorado Democrats to be too stressed out by being responsible for anything.

However, as usual, I have moved myself off on a tangent. I was talking about Mr. O’Reilly. Tonight he showed a clip of Rush Limbaugh doing a parody of him. Mr. O’Reilly seemed to be flattered that he would be parodied by such as Mr. Limbaugh. But I have to wonder, was it a parody or was he being mocked. Juan Williams thought the later. I agree. Mr. Limbaugh was mocking Mr. O’Reilly’s take on the OWH’s political philosophy. Mr. O’Reilly doesn’t believe that the OWH is a socialist. Really, he isn’t? As Speaker Gingrich pointed out, the OWH has taken over a great deal of the banking industry, garnered control over two of three major auto manufactures, and is trying to take over the entire health care system, fully one-sixth of the American economy. I have to ask Mr. O’Reilly, “What qualifies for socialist in your political science dictionary?”

It seems that he wants to give the OWH the benefit of the doubt to see what will come out of this grand experiment on the American economy, and our very way of life. I can’t be that generous. The OWH has worked tirelessly to eradicate out freedoms and the very foundations of our society. The Founders realized that the strength of this country was in the individual, not the government. That is why the Constitution could only be ratified with the guarantee that a bill of rights would be soon forth coming. As I have pointed out in these pages numerous times, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights specifically enumerate the limits on government and the individual rights guaranteed to all citizens. That government derives its power from the people, not the other way around.

Bill O’Reilly is wrong. This is not the time to give the OWH a pass on anything. We, as strict Constitutionalists, must constantly hold the OWH to the standard set down by the Founders. In this the first year of this administration he is failing us. American ingenuity and exercise of the free market, only, will pull us out of the depression that this administration has plunged us into.

As always, I welcome your comments and discussion.

Dan

Post-Mortem of a Fraud

2010-02-19T18:04:00.002-07:00

Friends,
The following is another excellent guest Discourse from Andy Pico.
Enjoy,
Dan

Post-Mortem of a Fraud

The widening scandal known as Climategate is snaring an ever increasing number of scientists and organizations. Much of the media coverage so far has focused only on the emails which revealed a cabal of unethical scientists at the core of the scandal. These emails show a clear intent to deceive. The key issue is that the emails, bad enough as they are, constitute less than a quarter of the release. The other 3/4 of the files includes the data, analysis and programming code used to fabricate a fraudulent climate history and exaggerate the recent warming trend.

The scandal has gone far beyond the unethical and criminal misconduct at the Climate Research Unit (CRU). The widening scandal has uncovered scientific misconduct in the fabrication of data at the CRU as well as other surface station reporting agencies in Australia, New Zealand, and the US (NASA and NOAA) which deliberately reduce earlier, recorded temperatures and inflate recent temperature rise.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has now been caught in the manipulation of data, the suppression of viewpoints, and the use of non-scientific papers from environmental advocacy groups as the basis for multiple “findings”.

To put this in perspective one has to go to the earlier reports of the UN IPCC. In the first and second reports, the climate history was based on research by hundreds of scientists using a wide number and variety of proxies to reconstruct the climate history of the world. This history described the significant climate cycles including the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), the Little Ice Age (LIA) and the current “Unprecedented Warming” Period (UWP). This climate history posed a problem for the IPCC in trying to raise urgency about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) in the UWP since the IPCC’s own reports showed the MWP was several degrees warmer than the current UWP.

The IPCC third report included the now infamous Hockey Stick Graph which eliminated the earlier climate variation and showed a flat climate history with a recent, sharp rise. What was done was to carefully cherry-pick data sets and eliminate any which didn't support the intended result. A small data-set in central, northern Russia was used. The result was based on a single data set consisting of just 12 trees in a small geographic area. Within that small data set the results are skewed by just one unusual tree. Just. One. Tree.
The station data from CRU and NASA was then used, after manipulation to magnify the warming trend, to append to the tree ring data and present a falsely contrived climate history with greatly exaggerated, recent warming. One example of this manipulation is the dropping of cooler stations and replacing real stations with “constructive stations” based on the retained, urban heat islands.

This fraudulent data was used to zero out natural climate variations in the input to the 22 climate models which form the entire basis for the IPCC climate change predictions and upon which all of the rest of the so-called “overwhelming climate science” is based. This is how natural climate change has been falsely attributed to human activities.

The scientific fraud of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is collapsing with almost unprecedented speed. Many scientists on the IPCC are themselves calling for a complete overhaul and even abolition of this agency.

The size and depth of this fraud goes far beyond the direct scientific misconduct so far exposed. The theory of AGW, or climate change, has been used as the justification for a massive expansion in international, global governance and control or seizure of global energy markets. Here in this country, the Environmental Protection Agency is moving towards the extra-legal regulation of every activity that emits greenhouse gasses, based entirely on the now fully discredited science of the IPCC. Carbon Markets across the globe are based not on clearly defined securities valuation, but solely on the cap and trade value manufactured out of hot air. This market bubble is now in the process of worldwide collapse as the extent of the greatest attempted fraud and swindle in history crashes into rubble.

Andres Pico, of Colorado Springs, is a retired Navy Commander, Naval Flight Officer and project manager in the defense industry. He is a signatory of the Manhattan Declaration.

A Resurgence of Patriotism

2010-02-11T08:42:00.002-07:00

Friends,
Has anyone besides me noticed the upsurge in patriotism over the past year? It seems like every few days someone sends me another email linking to a new rendition of the National Anthem or a new patriotic song about America, or some stirring story about our brave men and women in uniform. I have been reflecting on this phenomenon over the past few days and have come up with some conclusions as to the cause of this new-found national pride.

In November 2008, the voters became enamored with “hope and change.” We had had eight years of an administration that concentrated on defense and, I believe, that it was effective. However, fiscal and social policy had some serious problems; then came the new administration and a completely new philosophy of governing. This strange new philosophy may be called the “Philosophy of the Campaign” because the OWH has been campaigning since early 2008, nonstop. I have never made any secret about the fact that I don’t trust him or any of his czars. Also, I am sick and tired of seeing him on this interview or that interview where people are “getting shivers up their legs” just for the thrill of talking to him.

Let’s take a look at what all this campaigning has been about. He and his socialist minions decided that it would be appropriate to undermine the free market by bailing out anyone who had a sad song to sing. This is just a short look at some of the bailouts:

AIG - $70B (ever look at where the congressmen and senators have their retirement funds?)
Asset Guarantee Program (Citigroup/BofA) - $12.5B
Automotive Industry Financing Program (GM, GMAC, Chrysler, Chrysler Financial) - $80.1B
Public-Private Investment Program (bailing out toxic assets from financial institutions) - $100B

I will admit that not all of these funds have been used and some that have been used have been paid back. But my point is that the OWH and his minions are using the taxpayers’ money, our money, to subvert the free market. Why is this necessary? I would like to take a quick glance at a couple of the above examples and see what is behind them.

The automotive industry arguably played a major role in the boom in American industrialization. When Henry Ford came up with the assembly line process, the manufacturing industry took off running. There are two things that I see as sucking the automobile industry dry. The first is government regulation. The government has regulated the automobile industry to such an extent that GM, Chrysler, and Ford spend millions each year just in regulation compliance. The other factor dragging down the auto industry is the unions. The unions have an incredible strangle hold on the auto manufacturers, and of course, the unions maintain this strangle hold by buying and running politicians. Congress cannot allow GM, or Chrysler to go out of business because they would be letting down their major constituents, the unions.

The Public-Private Investment Program is one that has been a long time coming and the sad thing is that everyone saw it coming. The Feds told bankers to loan money to people to buy houses even if these people did not qualify for the mortgage. But everyone got a house. Now, we, the taxpayers, are paying for people who cannot make their mortgage payments. This is part of that “entitlement mentality” I keep talking about. Here’s a quick quiz for you: What do you call someone who can’t afford to buy a house? Answer: A renter. (Thanks, Tom)

Another area I could waste several pages on is the government’s attempted takeover of 1/6th of the US economy in the form of health care reform but that is a topic for another Discourse.

Taken all together, I think that the average US citizen looks at all of the egregious actions taken by this Congress and the administration and they long for another time when America was great, when we were looked up to on the world stage. This has prompted a resurgence of patriotism as we look longingly at better days gone by and hope for a better tomorrow.

I think that better tomorrow is coming. The socialists in charge of the government today are so blind that they do not understand that their takeover of so many segments of our society is literally shredding the fabric of our nation. The Founders saw this danger and put safeguards in place to prevent it. Those safeguards are the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is past time for the Congress, the OWH, and the courts to reinstitute those documents. It is past time for the government to get out of the private sector and allow it to operate the way it was designed.

As always, I welcome your comments and discussion.

Dan

PS: On a personal note, I would like to wish my little brother a Happy Birthday.

What's Wrong America?

2010-02-02T19:36:00.004-07:00

Friends,
Let me say right up front that this is going to be a rant. I haven’t done an old fashioned, down home type of rant in a long time and I'm over due.

Would someone please tell me what has happened to the gumption in this country? What happened to people standing up for injustices whether in the public halls, the corner grocer, or on the streets of Mogadishu? Every day I read about some pervert or other who has been caught and charged with child pornography or some gang of leaches being busted for running drugs, drugs that incapacitate and kill our kids; those same drugs that contribute to the delinquency of young and old alike. Where is the outrage?

What is just as bad if not worse is the absolute criminal behavior that takes place in the halls of Congress. In the name of progress, Congress and the OWH have decided that you and I don’t work for the betterment of ourselves and our families; we work for the betterment of the state collective. Does that ring a bell with anyone out there? Where in our Constitution does it say that each and every one of us is responsible to pay for someone else’s health care insurance? Where is it written in the Constitution that we are responsible for paying for Nancy Pelosi’s travel with several hundred of her closest friends and supporters?

I remember hearing a story out of Viet Nam where a small Vietnamese child walked up to a US GI and gave him a nice cold Coke. The GI took it, smiled, said “thank you,” and drank it. The Coke was laced with acid. The GI died. That is what those animals did; they recruited innocents to do their dirty work for them. Now we have radical jihadists doing the same thing all across the world because anyone who is not Muslim must die. Do you ever hear about a suicide bomber over the age of 30? There may have been some, but I don’t remember hearing about it. Have we become so desensitized that it just doesn’t matter anymore? Where is the public outcry?

In the halls of Congress, and even in the White House, there is a constant question about whether or not we should be the world’s police force. Where is the outrage in Congress and the White House when some over sexed and frustrated Muslim teenager blows himself and a few dozen of the surrounding citizenry into the next world? If we aren’t going to put the pipper on these guys, who is? What other country out there has gone into some absolute mess to clean it up, left with nothing to show for it, even gratitude, and gone on to the next mess without leaving a bunch of strings? And yet, the OWH went around the world and apologized for our actions. Where is the outrage?

We are told that we should be more tolerant and understanding of Muslims. Why? They want to kill us and our way of life; I feel no obligation to be tolerant and understanding. We are told that the drug problem is just too hard and that we should treat the addicts with kindness and compassion to dry them out. Why? It’s called tough love. We are told that the illegal immigrants just want to find a better life and that we should let them in to work. Why? This is our country; if they want to better themselves they should make their home country better so that they can have the appropriate opportunity. Instead of turning tail and running from the problems in their country, fight them and clean up the place.

Where is the outrage? Back in the ‘60s and ‘70s we heard about “The Silent Majority.” Well, congratulations, folks, that silent majority has matured into “The Mute Majority.” It’s time we all stood on our own hind legs and tell the bad guys that “I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore.” The Coalition for a Conservative Majority, the Tea Partiers, and the 9/12 folks are doing a great job, but they can’t do it without the rest of us.

We, as Americans, should be proud enough of our country to want to protect it from “enemies, foreign and domestic.” That came from the oath I took in service to my country and I was not released from it when I retired, and neither are you.

As always, comments and discussion is welcome.

Dan

Personal Responsibility

2010-01-28T06:58:00.002-07:00

Friends,
Let’s have a brief discussion about personal responsibility. Now, before you get mad at me, I know that is a taboo subject in today’s world, but let’s think about it – please humor me.

When I was a kid, as I can remember, there was only one kind of credit card that was in common use and that was a gas company credit card. Since I was too young to have one I can only assume that the debt that was incurred had to be paid. I know that is a silly concept today but, as I said, bear with me. If I recall correctly, Sears and Roebuck had a “revolving credit” account. That meant that if you charged a washer on the account in January, and then paid it down to within a few dollars, then charged a drier on the account and then paid it down to within a few dollars, then charged a refrigerator on the account and then half way down the payment schedule you defaulted on the account they could come pick up all three appliances.

Was this unfair? Maybe or maybe not, but the point is that this is the way the account was structured and you understood the consequences of not paying. That is what I call enforced responsibility; consequences for your decisions and/or actions.

Every day I hear advertisements on the radio or TV saying something like “Do you owe the IRS $10,000 or more? Now you can negotiate that down to pennies on the dollar,” or “Do you have over $10,000 in credit card debt? Now you can be forgiven most if not all of it.” When and how did we get to the point where we expect to incur debts and not have to make good on them? Friends, there is a very simple word for this concept, THEFT. When a person makes a commitment, they follow through with it. If they don’t, they are a liar and a thief. Strong words? Maybe so, but that is the way I feel about it.

But wait, I am being completely insensitive and politically incorrect about this situation. After all, our president the OWH advocates making this attitude public policy. In his State of the Union blather he said:
To make college more affordable, this bill (speaking about an education bill) will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer-subsidies that go to banks for student loans. Instead, let’s take that money and give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants. And let’s tell another one million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only ten percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after twenty years – and forgiven after ten years if they choose a career in public service. Because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college. And it’s time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs – because they too have a responsibility to help solve this problem.

There are two very blatant things wrong here. The first goes along with the theme of this Discourse and that is personal responsibility. As a public policy we are going to tell college students that after 10 or 20 years they will have their debt completely forgiven. Well, I'm one of the folks loaning them that money and I have a vote on that public policy. I VOTE NO! These people assume a debt and I vote that they pay their assumed debt.

The second thing that is wrong with that quote is that the OWH is intentionally encouraging the growth of government in the hiring of college students who will be able to work in one bureaucracy or another for 10 years and be free of the student loans THAT I LOANED THEM.

The OWH has said and done a lot of stupid things in the last year, but this one is right up there with the best. He has absolutely no idea how to solve our economic or social problems. As I have stated in these Discourses in the past, when you are out of money, stop spending. As Newt has said, when you can’t afford to buy a house, don’t buy it. If you can’t afford to go to college, work your way through it.

The only way I can see to get this country back on its collective economic feet is to get rid of the myriad of non-constitutional departments and bureaus and give those functions back to the states and the people where they belong. In that way, billions of dollars that we are hemorrhaging into bureaucracies could go to our debtors and put us back into the black ink territory. A result of these cuts would be massive cuts in social programs. You say that we can’t do that because so many people depend on them? How about making people depend on themselves? That is what the “Greatest Generation” did. They weren’t great just because they won the war against Fascism; they also persevered against the economic crisis brought on by failed government policies.

Friends we are headed there again. These bureaucrats and incompetents in Washington are doing what we used to call “featherbedding.” It is past time we put a stop to it.

As always, I welcome your thoughts and discussions.
Dan

The Tenth Amendment

2010-01-05T20:42:00.006-07:00

Friends,

There is currently a movement fostered by the Coalition for a Conservative Majority, Colorado Springs to encourage the Colorado Legislature and governor to tell the federal government that we are going to uphold the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution and expect the same from them. I don’t have to tell you what prompted this movement. At this point I think we should review the Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That seems pretty simple to me. That tells me that the powers granted to the federal government are specifically enumerated in the Constitution and no other powers are to be assumed by that government. It also says that if a power is not specifically granted to the federal government, it is reserved for the individual states or passed directly to the people.

This is a good place to discuss the purpose of the Bill of Rights. The first nine Amendments were drafted specifically to enumerate and ensure those rights that the founders believed the citizens possessed by virtue of being citizens. The Bill of Rights was drafted to set restrictions on government. It could be cogently argued that each individual Amendment of the first ten is more important than the others. However, I would argue that the first nine Amendments equally detail the rights of all citizens of the United States and the Tenth Amendment sets the boundaries for the federal government with respect to those rights.

While I am not a constitutional scholar, I have read it many times and have yet to find where the federal government has the authority to hold such massive control over the states. All of that control has been legislated since 1791. This points out two problems; first is that Congress and successive presidents have taken it upon themselves to exert that control and second that the states and citizens allow them to do it.

I see two ways to view the power of the federal government. The first is that the feds give the states, communities, and individuals money for various purposes under various programs. In exchange for these monies they demand certain “paybacks.” The overwhelming tendency today is to give the federal government what it wants because states, communities, and individuals want the money. The second way to look at it is to question why are we so willing to accede to their wishes, especially considering that it is our money that they are giving us? The US government has a very poor track record when it comes to living up to its self-proclaimed obligations. Congress just changes those obligations at will, not bothering to consult with the people most affected.

One concept to “encourage” the feds to live up to their obligations is to put all monies slated to go to them into a “sequester fund” until such time that they live up to their stated obligations. The problem with this concept is that we would be admitting that they have the authority to enact and carry out the many programs that come out of Washington. I would argue that they do not have that authority as stipulated in the Tenth Amendment.

I would urge all state legislatures to pass binding resolutions to disassociate themselves from the mandates of the federal government except those specifically set down by the Constitution. Why should we in Colorado pay for the housing of someone who cannot or will not work in Detroit? That is a city and/or state issue and not within the mandate of the federal government. It is time for us to take our rights back!

Find out just what the people will submit to and you will have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.
Frederick Douglass, August 4, 1857

For more on this subject refer to my Political Discourse of 10 June 2008 entitled Constitutional Authority on this blogsite.

As always, I welcome your thoughts and discussion.

Dan

Climategate

2009-12-08T13:18:00.004-07:00

Friends,
Below is an article by my friend Andy Pico who is passionate about the climate change debate.
Enjoy,
Dan

Climategate
The last few weeks in the world of climate change and science has been, if anything, entertaining. The show in the Gazette opened with Professor Horner’s invective against what he erroneously labels “science denial”, Gazette, 19 Nov 09. In his tirade against the non-believers he equates anthropogenic climate change skeptics with science denial and lists a series of psychological pathologies.

On the following Monday, Nov 23rd, the Associated Propaganda’s (AP) local hysteria outlet for one-sided propaganda, formerly known as the Gazette News Division, ran Borenstein’s rant of how climate change has worsened beyond the grimmest warnings issued in 1997.

Between these two blatant pieces of hysterical propaganda was perhaps the most significant breakthrough in climate science in decades. The posting of the Hadley Climate Research Unit (CRU) data by perhaps an inside whistleblower, has revealed what many in the Climate Realistic Skeptics branch of Legitimate Science have long charged. The systematic and intentional manipulation and outright fabrication of climate data has now been fully confirmed and the Skeptics vindicated.

To make clear the importance of this data in the climate change debate, this is the core data upon which the entire Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Theory is based. This is the data upon which the climate modelers of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change based its work. This manipulated and fabricated data is the foundation upon which the rest of the fraudulent theory of AGW is built upon.

The revelations and analysis is on-going and new revelations are reported daily. Continuing coverage is available here. What is clear so far is that the scientists at CRU were engaged, together with co-conspirators across our naturally climate changing planet, in an intentional and massive fraud driven by a political agenda. The technical details of how the data was manipulated together with the data are included in the revealed files which go far beyond mere emails. These techniques were shared across the planet with like-minded political zealots in scientific positions across academia and government positions. Similar fabrications have been previously exposed through independent analysis of NASA data and other agencies.

Perhaps the most egregious scientific manipulations now exposed by Climategate are the intentional perversion of the peer-review and publication processes. These faux-scientists collaborated to block publication of opposing views in scientific journals. Those editors of scientific journals who adhered to ethical processes were removed from their positions and replaced with political zealots. The faux-scientists then made the specious claim that there were no opposing viewpoints published in those peer-reviewed journals. Those journals which maintained scientific impartiality and adhered to ethical conduct were black-balled and presented as being less than mainstream and merely the fringe of lower order scientists who could not be published in the mainline journals.

This formula has been widely used and some of our own local AGW Hysterics have stated as much, often citing a blatantly phony “study” that claims 97% of scientists and published papers are in support of AGW, after of course ignoring any journals or scientists who disagree. One of our local scientists went so far as to claim in an on-line exchange that he could find only 29 papers that disagreed with AGW Theory, when challenged on that point cited the above where only those journals who have been taken over by editorial zealots were counted and all of the previous work on climate history covering previous climate cycles, which used to be the “Scientific Consensus” on climate history prior to the IPCC commissioned fabrication by Dr. Mann of the fraudulent “Hockey Stick”. Dr. Mann’s data manipulations have been previously debunked and have now been fully exposed; programs, data and all.

The thousands of scientific papers that touch on climate change and climate history across many fields of study have been ignored by the faux-scientist cabal of political operatives engaged in unethical and illegal misconduct. In their emails between co-conspirators, the faux-scientists at the core of AGW Theory operating from their tax-payer funded agencies across the cooling planet admitted between them that the climate had stopped warming and that they had to “hide” this fact from the public and coordinated that scientific sophistry of deception.

This certainly vindicates all of us who have pointed out the inconvenient fact of global cooling over the past decade and been attacked for doing so. And yet, with their fraud fully exposed and their perfidy open for all with the intellectual and moral integrity to see, the propaganda continues and the real denial of science by the AGW Hysterics continues. The President plans to commit the US, without any legislation passed to do so, to carbon reduction targets. The House has passed a Cap and Trade bill and the Senate now has before it a true monstrosity of epic proportions designed to impose government control of energy with enormous costs to individuals and horrendous economic impacts. It is not science denial or an exaggeration, as Professor Horner put it, to identify the costs and point out where government seizure of businesses, which is socialism, and oppressive government control of businesses, which is economic fascism, combined with corrupt cronyism will result in enormous costs to society and the destruction of freedom, pushed for by those who are “proud to call themselves Liberal”. The liberal/progressive adherents to AGW Hysteria like to push the notion that the costs of doing nothing are too high, when in fact the costs of doing nothing are, nothing, and the costs of their programs are enormous.

It is not a denial of science to reference a vast body of scientific work and solid evidence that supports theories of natural climate change and climate cycles. It is far more accurate to state that the outright data fabrication and cynical perversion of peer review is the true denial of science. Those faux-scientists, illiterate in economics, ignorant of history, aided and abetted by the incompetent and corrupt agenda-journalists of the Propaganda Press, are the true deniers and cynical manipulators of science in pursuit of a false political agenda. Indeed, when questioned on Climategate, Carol Browner, the Mendacious One’s Climate Grupenfuhrer, stated that the corrupted data did not matter. It has never been about the data, which was fabricated from the start; it has always been about the political agenda that hijacked the science. Now, the EPA proposes to regulate, without any legislation, greenhouse gasses as a threat to human health.

Perhaps now we can have an honest, open and ethical review of the science in a process that respects the real principles of open discussion and pursuit of real science, while this still remains a free country.

Andres Pico

Health Care Bribery

2009-11-23T19:24:00.004-07:00

Friends,

I have written on several occasions about things Congress does that are not, in my opinion, justifiable under the Constitution. The health care package that the OWH is desperate to sign is just the latest. The Socialists in Congress are pushing this piece of FOD harder than I have ever seen in my lifetime. The House version wasn’t even allowed to see the light of day until massive pressure from you, the citizens of this country, raised a howl. It seems that their urgency comes from the fear and reality, that if the citizens of this country are given enough time to look it over we will go on an impeachment spree. (Hmmm, now that’s not a bad idea; but I digress.)

I think that at this point in the discussion it is appropriate to take a look at how the Socialists are getting the job done. In the movie The Godfather, Don Corleone made an offer that couldn’t be refused. Well, it looks like Don Harry took a page out of the godfather’s playbook. He made an offer to Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana that she couldn’t refuse. In this case it was a bribe of $300 million to support cloture.

Now, folks, I don’t know about you, but where I come from bribery is a crime. In this case, it is a crime of the highest order. Don Harry has promised $300 million of our money for Senator Landrieu to take back to Louisiana. This will enable her to tell her constituents that she is working for them, and in a way she will be right. She is cutting backroom deals to steal a large sum of money from the rest of us. Please do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that I want some of that money for our state. That is not the issue. The issue is that she was bought, just like practitioners of the world’s oldest profession.

But Senator Landrieu was not the only one to get in on this deal. Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas was another key vote that Don Harry courted. The deal that Senator Lincoln got has not been disclosed but it was surely a good one.

I’m going to make a few demands here. There are several attorneys and several law makers who receive my postings. I want one or more of them to tell me how this kind of crime can go by without drawing the scrutiny of the FBI. Bribery is a crime in every jurisdiction in which I have lived. I want the FBI to explain to me why they are not opening a case file on this situation. I want my senators, Mark Udall and Michael Bennet to tell me why they are not screaming from the top of the Capitol Dome for an investigation. (Of course, I already know the answer to the last one.) Senator Bennet has even said that he will vote for the bill even if it costs him his job. Well, Senator Bennet, I intend to make sure that is exactly what it costs you!

The most important question I want answered is one I have posed numerous times before. Where is the constitutional justification for the health care program that Congress and the OWH want to shove down our throats? Where is the constitutional justification for forcing the citizens of the United States to buy ANYTHING; whether it is health care or stocking caps? The federal government has NO authority to make us buy anything.

This country has become one of hand-outs; welfare recipients, unions, and special interests to name a few. We all need to go back to the lesson that John Smith learned in Jamestown, Virginia. When the colony was first established, all goods produced went into a common store and everyone would draw equally from that store. The lazy drew the same as the industrious. They almost starved. When you take the work incentive away, there is no reason to work to support those who would not work anyway. That is the way the United States is becoming, facilitated by the federal government. Captain Smith set down the rule that if you did not work, you did not eat. It is time we re-institute that rule.

It is high time we elect representatives and senators to Congress who have the good of the nation in their sights and not just their own power base. It is time we put in representatives and senators who will get up on their desks and do an Indian war chant when these abused take place. This slippery slope we have been riding for the last two years will be hard and painful to reverse but we have no choice. We have to stop it and we have to take our country back from the power brokers in Washington DC.

As always, I welcome your comments and discussion.

Dan

Veterans' Day 2009

2009-11-09T20:15:00.003-07:00

Friends,

As we approach another Veterans’ Day I would like to take the opportunity to expound on a few thoughts related to our service men and women past and present.

The Founders understood the necessity of having an army and a navy. Provision for these protectors of our freedoms was set down in the Constitution. Since the early days of the Republic we have, at times, revered and vilified those protectors.

My service was lack-luster at best but I am proud to have served with true heroes who fought selflessly to protect all of us from those intent on denying us our freedoms as set down in the Constitution. That document is unique to the United States. No other country can boast of its like. For that reason it is incumbent upon all of us to work diligently in its defense; but those who work the hardest are the brave men and women who lay their lives on the line every day. To them it is just a matter of doing what is right; it’s no big deal.

We have all received the emails about the Marine escorting the remains of a fallen comrade, or the stories about a soldier charging down the murderous barrage of gunfire to save his down buddy, or fighting house to house to free a town from the thugs trying to impose their warped ideology on the populous. As Admiral Nimitz said of the Marines on Iwo Jima, “Uncommon valor was a common virtue.” Countless stories of valor have come from Iraq and Afghanistan over the past eight years. These humble warriors simply have a job to do and they do it – better than anyone else in the world.

I would challenge all of you to stop and say “Thank you” whenever you see one on the street, in the grocery store or at a gas station. Chances are they will be embarrassed or surprised when you say it, but they will appreciate the thought.

Last week, a friend sent a You Tube link to a recording of The Ten Tenors singing “Here’s to the Heroes.” If you haven’t watched it, I highly recommend it. Even if you have, it is well worth watching a couple of dozen times.

To all of you young men and women who now constitute the new “Great Generation” I say Thank You.

As always, your comments and discussion are welcome.

Dan

Health Care Fraud

2009-11-04T19:41:00.003-07:00

Friends,

A lot of us subscribe to on-line news letters, blogs and such. I am no different. One news release site I subscribe to is from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). It always makes me feel a little better when I hear about bad guys being indicted, getting caught, and sentenced. Over the past year of so that I have been receiving these news releases it has struck me that at least four or five times a week there is an item about someone being charged or sentenced for health care fraud. The latest example is about a “Wheelchair Company, Its Owner and Physician Sentenced for Health Care Fraud.” Just today there were three news releases about such cases. Two more are: “Michigan Clinic Owner Pleads Guilty in Massive Medicare Fraud Scheme;” and “Florida Man Sentenced for Money Laundering Related to Health Care Fraud.” The good news is that some of the bad guys are being discovered and caught, but how many are getting away with their nefarious activities?

My first thought is that these cretins are stealing from us, the taxpayers of the country. While this is certainly true, this crime needs to be viewed from another aspect. What makes this type of crime so common is the ease with which the criminals are able to manipulate the public health care systems of Medicare and Medicaid. It is my contention that this is possible because these bloated and completely broken programs are being run by career bureaucrats who are not staying on top of their responsibilities.

These bureaucrats are able to get away with incompetence because the system allows them to. I have no doubt these programs were established with the best intentions, but where are the checks and balances to keep this type of fraud from taking place? Has there ever been a top-to-bottom review to try to discover if industry best practices are being employed?

The bottom line of this discussion is that every program established by the federal government is riddled with efficient management that comes from bureaucratic bloat. Medicare and Medicaid are only two broken and mismanaged programs in a long line. The during the Johnson administration the feds decided that all the money in the Social Security system was just what they needed to increase social programs under the war on poverty, part of the Great Society.

The US Post Office has continued to operate much as it has for the last 200 years. It is common for commercial businesses to look for new and innovative ways to improve their business processes. This is a concept that seems to have been lost on the US Post Office. Not only are they unable to operate efficiently, they seem to have little interest in looking for ways to improve their operations. Consequently, they have been eclipsed by UPS and FEDEX.

Now, the federal government is intent on taking the best health care system in the world and put it into the same category as Medicare and Medicaid. That is the category of failed programs. Never mind the fact that there is no place in the Constitution that gives the feds the authorization to even address medical care. Speaker Pelosi, Senator Reid, and the OWH are determined to establish a health care system under their direct control. What I find especially sad is that with the feds abysmal record at running programs we are likely to see our health system reduced to the status of a third world country.

With an increase in bureaucracy, there is a corresponding increase in propensity for corruption. Looking at the proposed health care legislation as it currently is proposed in the House of Representatives, the House Republican Conference has compiled a list of new federal bureaucracies that would be established by that 2000 page tome. They add up to 111 new organizations. They are listed below with the section and page number from the bill.

1. Retiree Reserve Trust Fund (Section 111(d), p. 61)
2. Grant program for wellness programs to small employers (Section 112, p. 62)
3. Grant program for State health access programs (Section 114, p. 72)
4. Program of administrative simplification (Section 115, p. 76)
5. Health Benefits Advisory Committee (Section 223, p. 111)
6. Health Choices Administration (Section 241, p. 131)
7. Qualified Health Benefits Plan Ombudsman (Section 244, p. 138)
8. Health Insurance Exchange (Section 201, p. 155)
9. Program for technical assistance to employees of small businesses buying Exchange coverage (Section 305(h), p. 191)
10. Mechanism for insurance risk pooling to be established by Health Choices Commissioner (Section 306(b), p. 194)
11. Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund (Section 307, p. 195)
12. State-based Health Insurance Exchanges (Section 308, p. 197)
13. Grant program for health insurance cooperatives (Section 310, p. 206)
14. "Public Health Insurance Option" (Section 321, p. 211)
15. Ombudsman for "Public Health Insurance Option" (Section 321(d), p. 213)
16. Account for receipts and disbursements for "Public Health Insurance Option" (Section 322(b), p. 215)
17. Telehealth Advisory Committee (Section 1191 (b), p. 589)
18. Demonstration program providing reimbursement for "culturally and linguistically appropriate services" (Section 1222, p. 617)
19. Demonstration program for shared decision making using patient decision aids (Section 1236, p. 648)
20. Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicare (Section 1301, p. 653)
21. Independent patient-centered medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302, p. 672)
22. Community-based medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302(d), p. 681)
23. Independence at home demonstration program (Section 1312, p. 718)
24. Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research (Section 1401(a), p. 734)
25. Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission (Section 1401(a), p. 738)
26. Patient ombudsman for comparative effectiveness research (Section 1401(a), p. 753)
27. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1412(b)(1), p. 784)
28. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for nursing facilities (Section 1412 (b)(2), p. 786)
29. Special focus facility program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1413(a)(3), p. 796)
30. Special focus facility program for nursing facilities (Section 1413(b)(3), p. 804)
31. National independent monitor pilot program for skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities (Section 1422, p. 859)
32. Demonstration program for approved teaching health centers with respect to Medicare GME (Section 1502(d), p. 933)
33. Pilot program to develop anti-fraud compliance systems for Medicare providers (Section 1635, p. 978)
34. Special Inspector General for the Health Insurance Exchange (Section 1647, p. 1000)
35. Medical home pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1722, p. 1058)
36. Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1730A, p. 1073)
37. Nursing facility supplemental payment program (Section 1745, p. 1106)
38. Demonstration program for Medicaid coverage to stabilize emergency medical conditions in institutions for mental diseases (Section 1787, p. 1149)
39. Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund (Section 1802, p. 1162)
40. "Identifiable office or program" within CMS to "provide for improved
coordination between Medicare and Medicaid in the case of dual eligibles" (Section 1905, p. 1191)
41. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Section 1907, p. 1198)
42. Public Health Investment Fund (Section 2002, p. 1214)
43. Scholarships for service in health professional needs areas (Section 2211, p. 1224)
44. Program for training medical residents in community-based settings (Section 2214, p. 1236)
45. Grant program for training in dentistry programs (Section 2215, p. 1240)
46. Public Health Workforce Corps (Section 2231, p. 1253)
47. Public health workforce scholarship program (Section 2231, p. 1254)
48. Public health workforce loan forgiveness program (Section 2231, p. 1258)
49. Grant program for innovations in interdisciplinary care (Section 2252, p. 1272)
50. Advisory Committee on Health Workforce Evaluation and Assessment (Section 2261, p. 1275)
51. Prevention and Wellness Trust (Section 2301, p. 1286)
52. Clinical Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1295)
53. Community Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1301)
54. Grant program for community prevention and wellness research (Section 2301, p. 1305)
55. Grant program for research and demonstration projects related to wellness incentives (Section 2301, p. 1305)
56. Grant program for community prevention and wellness services (Section 2301, p. 1308)
57. Grant program for public health infrastructure (Section 2301, p. 1313)
58. Center for Quality Improvement (Section 2401, p. 1322)
59. Assistant Secretary for Health Information (Section 2402, p. 1330)
60. Grant program to support the operation of school-based health clinics (Section 2511, p. 1352)
61. Grant program for nurse-managed health centers (Section 2512, p. 1361)
62. Grants for labor-management programs for nursing training (Section 2521, p. 1372)
63. Grant program for interdisciplinary mental and behavioral health training (Section 2522, p. 1382)
64. "No Child Left Unimmunized Against Influenza" demonstration grant program (Section 2524, p. 1391)
65. Healthy Teen Initiative grant program regarding teen pregnancy (Section 2526, p. 1398)
66. Grant program for interdisciplinary training, education, and services for individuals with autism (Section 2527(a), p. 1402)
67. University centers for excellence in developmental disabilities education (Section 2527(b), p. 1410)
68. Grant program to implement medication therapy management services (Section 2528, p. 1412)
69. Grant program to promote positive health behaviors in underserved communities (Section 2530, p. 1422)
70. Grant program for State alternative medical liability laws (Section 2531, p. 1431)
71. Grant program to develop infant mortality programs (Section 2532, p. 1433)
72. Grant program to prepare secondary school students for careers in health professions (Section 2533, p. 1437)
73. Grant program for community-based collaborative care (Section 2534, p. 1440)
74. Grant program for community-based overweight and obesity prevention (Section 2535, p. 1457)
75. Grant program for reducing the student-to-school nurse ratio in primary and secondary schools (Section 2536, p. 1462)
76. Demonstration project of grants to medical-legal partnerships (Section 2537, p. 1464)
77. Center for Emergency Care under the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (Section 2552, p. 1478)
78. Council for Emergency Care (Section 2552, p 1479)
79. Grant program to support demonstration programs that design and implement regionalized emergency care systems (Section 2553, p. 1480)
80. Grant program to assist veterans who wish to become emergency medical technicians upon discharge (Section 2554, p. 1487)
81. Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee (Section 2562, p. 1494)
82. National Medical Device Registry (Section 2571, p. 1501)
83. CLASS Independence Fund (Section 2581, p. 1597)
84. CLASS Independence Fund Board of Trustees (Section 2581, p. 1598)
85. CLASS Independence Advisory Council (Section 2581, p. 1602)
86. Health and Human Services Coordinating Committee on Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1610)
87. National Women's Health Information Center (Section 2588, p. 1611)
88. Centers for Disease Control Office of Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1614)
89. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Women's Health and Gender-Based Research (Section 2588, p. 1617)
90. Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1618)
91. Food and Drug Administration Office of Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1621)
92. Personal Care Attendant Workforce Advisory Panel (Section 2589(a)(2), p. 1624)
93. Grant program for national health workforce online training (Section 2591, p. 1629)
94. Grant program to disseminate best practices on implementing health workforce investment programs (Section 2591, p. 1632)
95. Demonstration program for chronic shortages of health professionals (Section 3101, p. 1717)
96. Demonstration program for substance abuse counselor educational curricula (Section 3101, p. 1719)49. Grant program for innovations in interdisciplinary care (Section 2252, p. 1272)
97. Program of Indian community education on mental illness (Section 3101, p. 1722)
98. Intergovernmental Task Force on Indian environmental and nuclear hazards (Section 3101, p. 1754)
99. Office of Indian Men's Health (Section 3101, p. 1765)
100. Indian Health facilities appropriation advisory board (Section 3101, p. 1774)
101. Indian Health facilities needs assessment workgroup (Section 3101, p. 1775)
102. Indian Health Service tribal facilities joint venture demonstration projects (Section 3101, p. 1809)
103. Urban youth treatment center demonstration project (Section 3101, p. 1873)
104. Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for diabetes prevention (Section 3101, p. 1874)
105. Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for health IT adoption (Section 3101, p. 1877)
106. Mental health technician training program (Section 3101, p. 1898)
107. Indian youth telemental health demonstration project (Section 3101, p. 1909)
108. Program for treatment of child sexual abuse victims and perpetrators (Section 3101, p. 1925)
109. Program for treatment of domestic violence and sexual abuse (Section 3101, p. 1927)
110. Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1966)
111. Committee for the Establishment of the Native American Health and
Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1968)

With 111 new bureaucracies, boards, etc. there is a golden opportunity for crooks to make millions off you and me, the average taxpayer while we take a number and wait in line for someone to set a bone or try to find out why we have a 104 degree temperature.

I ask you all to contact your congressman and senators to tell them that your health care is not the government’s business and to keep their hands out of our wallets.

As always, I welcome your comments and discussion.

Dan

Government Power Excesses

2009-10-29T18:28:00.002-06:00

Friends,

It seems like every week there is at least one more conservative group that starts up to advocate for one or another of our constitutional rights. I applaud all of their efforts, but it seems like I am reaching overload. Like most of you, I am a go-to-work kind of guy; and like most of you I don’t have time to read all of the blogs and information that comes in every day. But scanning over the plethora of information I find a common thread in the complaints and concerns with our current governments; yes, I said governments, plural.

The common thread is that no matter what level of government the blogger is discussing, or the issue, the issues all seem to eventually boil down to an excess hunger on the part of our legislators, executive department personnel, and judges to exercise power that is not afforded them by our city, state or national charter or constitution. Since I don’t have time to write a volume on the excesses of government I will limit this discussion to a few of my hot buttons.

I recently received an email discussing Social Security as the system relates to our congressional representatives and senators. They do not seem to be bound by the same constraints that we mere mortals are when it comes to collecting Social Security. The crux of the email was that everybody should be covered by the same system. I agree. However I have a different idea. Why not just do away with Social Security! My proposal is to grandfather all individuals who are currently drawing benefits and those within 10 years of Social Security eligibility. For all others, move their accumulated money into whatever investment vehicle the individual chooses. Mandatory payroll deductions would still be made but instead of the Feds getting it to squander, the money would go into investments that each citizen deems right for him. There could be stipulations on the types of investments that could be made but the bottom line would be to keep the money out of the hands of the politicians. This would apply to ALL citizens. This is my concession to the federal government telling us what to do but it falls short of allowing them to do it for or to us.

Another area that is kind of sticking in my craw is in the area of our right to keep and bear arms. The OWH has appointed a fair number of “czars” whose decisions carry the weight of law. Take, for example, the Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein. He has called for the end to all hunting and even goes so far as to advocate animal rights to the extent that a human can sue another human on behalf of a “wronged” animal. If I shoot a bear charging me in my own yard do I go to jail or face a law suit on behalf of the bear that is trying to make me his dinner?

What about a ruling from the head of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, David Michaels. If Mr. Michaels says that having a pocket knife in the work place is dangerous and I carry mine to work, am I subject to being fined or charged with a crime? To carry this a little farther, Oklahoma passed a law forbidding companies from discharging employees who carry their personal protection guns to work and keep them locked in their cars. This law has been upheld in federal court. However, the way federal regulations are structured, Mr. Michaels could declare that guns locked in personal cars pose an unacceptable risk in the work place. This declaration by an unelected official would carry the weight of law and negate the Oklahoma law. Someone needs to explain the constitutionality of that to me.

The recent abrogation of our first amendment rights comes in the form of the so-called hate-crimes bill. Now the feds can charge us under this act for not only the act of a crime, but for the reason for the crime. That gets into the category of retribution, not justice. Also, it does not apply equally to all citizens. “As WND reported, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder admitted a homosexual activist who is attacked following a Christian minister's sermon about homosexuality would be protected by the proposed federal law, but a minister attacked by a homosexual wouldn't be.” It seems that Congress and the OWH are trying to foist class warfare on us. One class of citizen is more equal than other classes. This comes very close to double jeopardy. As I have written in previous posts, there is an element of hate in every crime. Further adding a characterization of the crime just to add retribution is far outside the realm of justice.

As I have stated numerous times, I am not a constitutional scholar, but I do refer to that revered document often. As many times as I have read it, I have yet to discover where it says that the federal government has the authority to do or say ANYTHING about our health care. As far as I am concerned, this entire debate is a complete waste of the taxpayers’ time and money. The bottom line of this waste is that it is going to cost every taxpaying US person a great deal of money. Of course, those who do not pay taxes will get off with a free ride.

Now to the bottom line; all of these regulations, social welfare programs and non-constitutional departments are not only breaking our bank but our backs. As well as not being a constitutional scholar, I am not an economist, just a working stiff. However, I think I have a way to pay off the national debt AND get our country back on the track set down by the Founders. It is a fairly simple solution. Eliminate all government departments that are not enumerated in the constitution; stop federal spending on all items that are not specifically laid out in the constitution (that includes all social welfare programs); eliminate the “death tax;” lower corporate taxes to 10%; and lower the income tax rate to 15% for all wage earners who earn over $35,000. Presidents Kennedy and Reagan proved that when you lower taxes, revenue to the federal government increases. Putting the tax burden on those who pay wages simply does not make sense.

This Discourse seems to have spread all over the spectrum but as I stated up front, there is a common thread throughout, and that is the excessive power assumed by the federal government. It is my crusade to assist in reversing that trend. I would hope you would join me in this effort.

Your comments and discussion are welcome.

Dan

New Secretary of Defense?

2009-10-06T07:30:00.002-06:00

Friends,
There was something very scary in the rumor mill this last week. Columnist Bill Kristol has speculated that the Obama administration is going to cut and run in Afghanistan. These are not his words, but it is the bottom line of his predictions.

When Robert Gates was selected to continue as SECDEF for the new administration a lot of folks were surprised, myself included. I am not aware of one cabinet officer of a previous administration being held over to the next, new party administration. This says a lot for the capability and, presumably, apolitical stance held by Gates. From outward appearances, the Secretary enjoys the support of his senior military officers. At any rate, he certainly seems to be intent on winning in Afghanistan, despite the ruling party’s penchant to cut-and-run. However, this may be his undoing.

Mr. Kristol has speculated that the OWH is going to reject General McChrystal’s request for additional troops and ask Secretary Gates to resign. The OWH obviously has no experience dealing with professionals. The Secretary and the General are part of a team with a common goal in mind. This does not seem to be the same goal as the OWH.

The first question to come to mind is, why doesn’t he just tell the Secretary to draw down troop levels until they have to pull out? That way the goal is accomplished. But I have a feeling that the Secretary and the General may not go “quietly into the night.” No, these two have too much integrity to dishonor all those brave fighting men and women who have given so much to help the Afghan people. So, what has to happen?

The first thing that has to happen is for Secretary Gates to go away. In his place, needs to be someone who would have no shame in losing a war and a people in the process. This is where not-to-soon-to-cut-and-run former senator Chuck Hagel comes into the picture. Krystal speculates that the OWH will pick Hagel as the new SECDEF. Let’s take a brief look at Hagel’s history. He voted in favor of using troops in Iraq in 2002. However, in 2007, he was one of three Republicans who supported starting the troops home within 120 days of a Senate vote.

Senator Hagel was a decorated E-5 Army sergeant during Viet Nam. One can only speculate on the effect this experience may have had on his feelings toward the Iraq war. But this support for withdrawal certainly brings into question what actions he would take as SECDEF, should he be chosen and confirmed.

Just yesterday (05 Oct), the OWH said, through his press secretary, that he is not anticipating pulling out of Afghanistan. Does that include going against the experts in the field, implementing disastrous tactics, and causing many more casualties? The result of this strategy will be to declare that he is getting us out of Afghanistan to prevent more American lives from being lost.

Chuck Hagel is the perfect fall-guy to implement this strategy. He is a Republican for the liberals to point to, thereby somewhat shielding the OWH from criticism. With Senator Hagel’s demonstrated proclivity for giving up the fight, the blame will flow off the OWH’s back.

But what would be the consequences? The Taliban, al Qaida, and their affiliates only respect strength. It could be argued that US interests really became a target after the Beirut bombing in 1983. The Iranian “students” tested the waters in 1979 but seemed to be unwilling to face newly inaugurated Ronald Reagan. Hezbollah tested the waters again in Beirut and when President Reagan withdrew US forces from Lebanon they knew where our national resolve lay.

Withdrawing from Afghanistan will be no different. Once the Taliban, al Qaida and the rest of the gang sees that our national resolve is just as rubber-spined as always, they will be emboldened to take action where ever they please. This action will not be limited to outside our borders. In just the last two weeks, two plots to create massive craters in two of our cities have been foiled. How many other plots are in the works at this time, just waiting for final arrangements or for the word to come from some coordinator?

I sincerely hope Mr. Kristol is wrong. The consequences of this sequence of events could be devastating.

As always, I welcome your comments/discussion.
Dan

A Side Trip for a Memorial Service

2009-07-12T19:06:00.002-06:00

Friends,
The following was sent by a friend, Colorado State Representative, Larry Liston. I gladly pass it along.
Dan
Friends,
This is no joke. This man was real. Read on.

> > May God Bless Shifty Powers.
> >
> > Saturday, July 11, 2009 2:38 PM
> >
> > Subject: Memorial Service: you're invited.
> >
> > Men like "Shifty" R few & FAR Between these days! May he rest in peace with the thanks of a grateful Nation!
> >
> > SPOOK
> >
> > Memorial Service: you're invited.
> >
> > We're hearing a lot today about big splashy memorial services.
> >
> > I want a nationwide memorial service for Darrell "Shifty" Powers.
> >
> > Shifty volunteered for the airborne in WWII and served with Easy Company of the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, part of the 101st Airborne Infantry. If you've seen Band of Brothers on HBO or the History Channel, you know Shifty. His character appears in all 10 episodes, and Shifty himself is interviewed in several of them.
> >
> > I met Shifty in the Philadelphia airport several years ago. I didn't know who he was at the time. I just saw an elderly gentleman having trouble reading his ticket. I offered to help, assured him that he was at the right gate, and noticed the "Screaming Eagle", the symbol of the 101st Airborne, on his hat.
> >
> > Making conversation, I asked him if he'd been in the 101st Airborne or if his son was serving. He said quietly that he had been in the 101st. I thanked him for his service, then asked him when he served, and how many jumps he made.
> >
> > Quietly and humbly, he said "Well, I guess I signed up in 1941 or so, and was in until sometime in 1945 . . . " at which point my heart skipped.
> >
> > At that point, again, very humbly, he said "I made the 5 training jumps at Toccoa, and then jumped into Normandy . .. . . do you know where Normandy is?" At this point my heart stopped.
> >
> > I told him yes, I know exactly where Normandy was, and I know what D-Day was. At that point he said "I also made a second jump into Holland , into Arnhem ." I was standing with a genuine war hero . . . . and then I realized that it was June, just after the anniversary of D-Day.
> >
> > I asked Shifty if he was on his way back from France , and he said "Yes. And it's real sad because these days so few of the guys are left, and those that are, lots of them can't make the trip." My heart was in my throat and I didn't know what to say.
> >
> > I helped Shifty get onto the plane and then realized he was back in Coach, while I was in First Class. I sent the flight attendant back to get him and said that I wanted to switch seats. When Shifty came forward, I got up out of the seat and told him I wanted him to have it, that I'd take his in coach.
> >
> > He said "No, son, you enjoy that seat. Just knowing that there are still some who remember what we did and still care is enough to make an old man very happy." His eyes were filling up as he said it. And mine are brimming up now as I write this.
> >
> > Shifty died on June 17 after fighting cancer.
> >
> > There was no parade.
> >
> > No big event in Staples Center .
> >
> > No wall to wall back to back 24x7 news coverage.
> >
> > No weeping fans on television.
> >
> > And that's not right.
> >
> > Let's give Shifty his own Memorial Service, online, in our own quiet way. Please forward this email to everyone you know. Especially to the veterans.
> >
> > Rest in peace, Shifty.
> >
> > "A nation without heroes is nothing."
> > Roberto Clemente
> >

Constitutional Authority 2

2009-06-23T13:58:00.005-06:00

Friends,
A few days ago I started a series looking at what I call “extra-constitutional” federal departments. Today I would like to continue that discussion by looking at the Department of Labor. As with the last Discourse, I will link Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution here for your reference.

The Department of Labor came into being under Present Taft in 1913 with the enactment of The Organic Act of the Department of Labor. Prior to this enactment labor issues were under the purview of the Department of Commerce and Labor; this act split the two. “The purpose of the Department of Labor shall be to foster, promote, and develop the welfare of the wage earners of the United States, to improve their working conditions, and to advance their opportunities for profitable employment. [Public Law 426-62]” The mission statement of DOL is:

The Department of Labor fosters and promotes the welfare of the job seekers, wage earners, and retirees of the United States by improving their working conditions, advancing their opportunities for profitable employment, protecting their retirement and health care benefits, helping employers find workers, strengthening free collective bargaining, and tracking changes in employment, prices, and other national economic measurements. In carrying out this mission, the Department administers a variety of Federal labor laws including those that guarantee workers’ rights to safe and healthful working conditions; a minimum hourly wage and overtime pay; freedom from employment discrimination; unemployment insurance; and other income support.

This sounds great, giving the impression of a kindly grandfather making sure all of the kids play nicely together. But what happens when one of the kids is able to gain more influence over grandpa then the other kids, and what happens when grandpa allows that influence to make a difference in his judgment? You then have the same relationship as the US government (grandpa) and labor and management (kids). They will do all of this benevolent work on a budget of $10.5B with 16,848 full-time employees.

Let’s take a look at one situation in particular. With enough research I could undoubtedly fill a few volumes on the subject of union corruption but I will just look at the most recent one.

Last year the Bush administration advocated and initiated the bailout of the auto industry. This package has evolved a number of times in the last year, so many times that I am not sure I have the complete picture but I will try to put some of the larger pieces together.

As of 13 June of this year, the United Auto Workers’ health care fund was set to receive 17.5% of General Motors; the government was set to receive 60%; the Canadian government was set to receive 12.5%. That leaves only 10% for the only legitimate claimants to the company, the bond holders. I'm not going to give a blow-by-blow account of the rape and pillaging of the largest auto company in America by the government, but rather concentrate on the macro role played in this travesty by Big Federal Government (I’ll call it BFG), the DOL, and the UAW.

Looking at the DOL mission statement above, how does that square with participating in the destruction of a viable company like General Motors. There are three major players here; the BFG, the DOL, and the UAW. BFG forced the downfall of GM by placing unreasonable restrictions on auto manufacturing over a period of decades, causing the price and complexity of cars to skyrocket. I’m sure there may be a more regulated industry than the auto industry, but one does not come immediately to mind. These regulations cover everything from air bag safety requirements to tire manufacturing specifications, bumper crash survival rates, and gas mileage. Just managing the compliance paperwork alone must be a major cost of doing business.

The DOL is supposed to be looking out for the workers. Where was their advocacy to keep the company viable? I have not found any place where they have performed this function. They have taken on the mantle of surrogate for the UAW against the “big mean management team.” Where has DOL worked to ensure GM’s viability? This is the only way the workers will be able to maintain their jobs. Remember, if GM closes their doors, millions of people are out of work.

So, now we have a situation where we are throwing $10.5B at an agency of BFG that seems to be working for the destruction of jobs. Also, where in the Constitution is BFG given the authority to take such a hand, heavy or light, into matters of free enterprise? It is a historical fact that when BFG sticks its fingers into a situation, it invariably heads south; just ask the folks at Mustang Ranch (you can Google that one).

Why is DOL working so hard to paint big GM as such bad guys; because their masters at UAW have told them to do so. The unions hold such an iron grip over the DOL that they are sure to get their way; thus they will be receiving a big chunk of GM. But wait, remember BFG’s propensity to screw things up? With their 60% and given their track record, GM should be out of business within two years (I'm being generous here; I don’t think it will take that long). Where is the workers’ advocacy in this situation?

The DOL has not only existed in an extra-constitutional framework, it has actively worked to put American workers out of work. This is another BFG department that needs to go away and let the marketplace work. An adjunct to this is for BFG to let the marketplace determine the regulations placed on the industry. One lesson that BFG has never learned is that the consumer will ultimately determine what features they want and what they do not want.

As always, I welcome your comments and discussions.

Dan

Constitutional Authority #1

2009-06-11T20:22:00.002-06:00

Friends,
It is time for me to get back up on my soap box. Not a day goes by that this administration and its stooges in Congress don’t make my blood boil. Whether it is the “stimulus package” or the federal government taking over our health care or Attorney General Holder giving consideration to prosecuting the former administration for their decisions, it all boils down to one issue. Where is the constitutional justification for any of their actions?

The more I look at this administration as well as administrations for the past 80 years (and I am being generous) I realize that most, if not all of our economic problems have come as a direct result of the federal government violating its constitutional authority. In this series of Discourses let’s concentrate on just the establishment and operation of what I call extraconstitutional cabinet-level departments. First, I suppose that we should determine which departments are authorized, expressly or by implication, by the Constitution.

I would submit that Treasury, State, Justice, War (now Defense), and Commerce are authorized or implied by the Constitution; there might also be a case for the Department of Interior. I have linked Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution here. This article details the powers of the Congress. You may want to open it in order to refer to it while I go through this discussion.

The first extraconstitutional department I will discuss is the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) which came into being during the FDR administration with the enactment of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937. HUD was elevated to cabinet-level by the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 during the Johnson administration. The stated mission for HUD “is to increase homeownership, support community development and increase access to affordable housing free from discrimination.” I discussed Our Uncontrollable Debt in December of last year.

Being the simple-minded soul that I am, I have to ask, “Why?” What happened to working toward homeownership? Before you get all riled, I know that in years-gone-by discriminatory lending and home sales practices existed and may still today; but there are free market forces that can and should deal with that. Much of the current financial folly we are enjoying now is a direct result of “making” people eligible for homeownership when they just hadn’t gotten there on their own. What happened to good old American work ethic? What happened to the concept of setting your goals and working toward them? Why is the federal government in the business of business anyway? As a friend of mine is want to query, if you are not a homeowner, what are you? You are a renter. Is that bad? I don’t think so. Someone owns that house or apartment and is living the American dream. If you think it is easy being the owner of a rental unit, just ask those who do. If you don’t want to be a renter why do you have to have a department of the federal government behind you pushing you into a mortgage you can’t afford? If you want homeownership badly enough you go out there and work for it.

This great county has grown because individuals worked. At first it was just to subsist. Then as they worked harder they began to realize that their efforts could pay off and make their lives even better than just subsistence. Is this an easy path? No, but nothing worth the pride of ownership is easy. That is what makes one stick his chest out and say, “I worked for that and I earned it.” Where is the pride in saying “HUD got me this house”?

Looking at the Constitution and the enumerated powers, I do not see any place that allows the federal government to manipulate the marketplace for any group or for any reason. This interference in the marketplace is a very sharp overreach of constitutional authority.

The current budget for HUD is $41.5B. That is money that comes from people who have worked for that dream of homeownership. I can think of a lot more productive ways to spend that money, such as paying down our enormous debt. I can think of a lot more productive ways for people to earn their way into homeownership than working the federal bureaucracy to get a home. Working toward homeownership puts productivity in the community. Achieving that goal and purchasing that home means that someone earned a wage when the home was built, or the prior owner is going into another home that someone had to build. That is the way of economics.

By my way of thinking, if people have achieved the dream of homeownership or they are working toward it, that is good for the state and community in which they live. Doesn’t that make it a state issue? The states and municipalities should be more in tune with the individual citizens than the federal government. Why, then, is the federal government trying, and succeeding, to assume the duties of the states and local communities? While they are doing this, it is a continual degradation of states’ rights and responsibilities; a place the federal government has no business visiting.

This Discourse is very high-level and not in depth. That would take much more time and space to cover. These highlights should be enough to start you thinking.

This is the first in a series of Discourses discussing the gross assumption of power by the federal government. Hopefully, it will encourage a renewed interest in taking our communities and states back which, in turn, will give us our country back.

As always, your comments and discussions are welcome.

Dan

Obama and the UN

2009-05-19T15:41:00.003-06:00

Friends,
As you know, I am no fan of the United Nations. Now, it looks like President Obama is becoming more of a Globalist than an American; I will not get into the birth certificate issue. The president wants badly to be seen as a “good guy” by the international community.

Last month, he traveled to Europe, and the Middle East looking for good will. At every stop he apologized for perceived wrongs of America, such as our arrogance. Not to put too fine a point on the issue, but is it arrogant to point out that twice in forty years this country saved the world from the despotism of megalomaniacal tyrants? Is it arrogant to point out that when Europe was in shambles after World War II it was the United States that funded much of the recovery from the utter devastation of that war? Is it arrogant to point out that America, along with our good ally England was able to face down the Soviet Union and end the cold war? Is it arrogant to point out that when Saddam Hussein invaded an ally, it was an American president who built a coalition of world nations to remove him? I might also point out that in none of these circumstances did the United States benefit financially. We did not take over the manufacturing base, agricultural base, or oil production base of any country we assisted. But I digress.

The president even went to Saudi Arabia to pay homage to the Saudi King. For an American president to bow to a foreign head of state, or for him to bow to anyone, for that matter, causes me to question whether he fully understands the role he has accepted. Let’s look at the relationship the United States shares with the international community, specifically the United Nations.

After World War II, this country joined with our war-time allies to establish a body that would prevent war and other international “man-made disasters.” The problem with the concept is that we made the pact with two devils, the Soviet Union and the Peoples’ Republic of China, not to mention the questionable friendship of France.

Over the history of this body, only one action that I can find has resulted in a victim of aggression being even partially protected, that being South Korea. Even that “police action” has never been finally put to rest. UN presence often results in either complete inability to accomplish the job or deploying thugs that terrorize the local populous, such as has been reported in numerous locations in Africa, or both. Seldom are these failures or abuses addressed by the whole body.

With this kind of track record what is the justification for President Obama to want to snuggle up to the UN? The Obama administration is attempting to gain a seat on the UN Human Rights Council. This is one of the agencies that is advocating for ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). As we all understand, any ratified treaty has the force of law over established US law.

The aforementioned treaty sounds wonderful until you start to dig into it. The UNCRC seeks to raise the best interest of children to a higher level. Who could argue against that? Well, it seems that the Supreme Court could. The Supreme Court held in Reno vs. Flores in 1993 that “‘the best interests of the child’ is not the legal standard that governs parents’ or guardians’ exercise of their custody.”

The main problem seems to be who will determine what is best for the child. According to the UNCRC it is not you, the parents. This is a major “nanny state” advocacy program. The UN will become the determiner of appropriate discipline of your children. Not only does it supplant US law, it supplants your parental rights.

President Obama may be comfortable turning his daughters over to the state to determine how they are to be reared, but are you ready to do the same?

One of the provisions of the Convention is that if a child does not like the way his or her parents are exercising their responsibilities, the state must provide legal representation for that child in court against the parents. I have a problem with the concept that a child can take the parents to court if the child objects to being grounded for staying out after curfew, of if he or she objects to having a curfew in the first place.

Those countries that have signed this treaty must go before the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child on a regular basis to report their progress toward implementing the treaty. This just adds another layer of bureaucracy to our already bloated federal government.
This is the direction our president wants
to take our country. With each passing day, we are losing more and more of our national identity. Our president is spending an inordinate amount of time and energy denigrating our standing in the world community, not to mention our sovereignty. It is incumbent on all of us to tell him that he is on the wrong track. We are a nation of laws decided upon by our elected officials, not those of other nations.

In Thomas Jefferson’s first inaugural address he warned, "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances with none, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration."
President Obama’s desire for ratification of the CRC tracks very well with his disdain of all things culturally American. This is the kind of man elected by those wanting “change.” Well, how is this change working out for you? How is this global lack of respect sitting with you? How is the loss of your parental rights going to work out for you?

If you would like to read more about this problem I would like to direct you to here

As always, I welcome your comments and discussion.

Also, I would like to thank Shyrl for her diligent research in support of this Discourse.
Dan

Beware of Right-Wing Extremists

2009-04-15T19:32:00.002-06:00

Friends,
When little boys were growing up in the age of true American heroes like Lieutenant Audie Murphy, General of the Army Dwight Eisenhower, General of the Army Omar Bradley, General George Patton, and Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock, they pictured themselves doing heroic things such as saving their comrades from certain death or rescuing the city from certain calamity. One picture they did not have of themselves was that of a terrorist.

We grew up steeped in patriotism. We had just emerged from under the cloud of three despotic megalomaniacs who wanted to split the world into three pieces for them to rule with their iron fists. Our thoughts were of the preservation of our freedoms and our nation. However in this day of globalism, these thoughts put my generation and those of like minds squarely in the crosshairs of our new administration and the agency tasked with preserving those freedoms.

I question whether members of our current administration fully appreciate how close we have come to losing our very national identity. With few exceptions, we have never gone into a war with a certainty of success. The number of Americans killed in action during all major wars since the Revolution stands at over 2.7 million. Those lives were sacrificed to guarantee that we would not have to live under the boot heel of despots.

The current list of patriots now includes the soccer moms, who want to protect their kids from crushing debt and oppressive government regulation; citizens who work every day to support their families and don’t want to see illegals come in and take their jobs; caring, loving parents who cherish their children and do not believe that a child is a throw-away commodity; and ordinary citizens, like myself, who “cling to their guns and Bibles” because they are guaranteed under our Constitution by the Founders.

The Department of Homeland Security sent a memo out to all law enforcement agencies in the US giving their assessment of Right-Wing extremist groups. You can view this memo here. (If DHS takes the link down you may email me and I will send you a copy of it.) The most astounding part of their concern is that they characterize returning veterans as potential terrorists. Why is this list of patriots now viewed by the DHS as potential terrorists and worthy of being watched? This may seem like a perplexing question but there is a simple answer. The current crop of Liberals has a major problem with criticism as evidenced by their push for reinstatement of the “Fairness Doctrine.”

One question that we patriots should be asking ourselves is “What freedoms will we lose under the guise of preventing Right-Wing-Extremism?” Already mentioned is curtailment of our First Amendment rights under the “Fairness Doctrine.” Additionally, if Right-Wing groups are seen as a threat, will the government try to limit our right of free assembly? Will groups like the Coalition for a Conservative Majority, www.ccm-cos.com, be banned from meeting or at least be required to obtain a permit? What about our Second Amendment rights? If those of us clinging to our guns and Bibles are viewed as a threat, can gun confiscation be far behind?
This egregious memo closely resembles one put out by the Missouri law enforcement folks a couple of months ago. They received so much heat for their memo that they removed it from distribution.

Now, Secretary Napolitano has released a statement saying that her department is not profiling anyone but that it is the department’s responsibility to safeguard the country and they are constantly “on the lookout for criminal and terrorist activity but we do not – nor will we ever – monitor ideology or political beliefs.” This sounds like a bit of double-speak. The department’s memo tells law enforcement agencies across the country to beware of all of these Right-Wing groups, including returning veterans. Someone please correct my thought process. How can you be associated with a Right-Wing group unless you have political beliefs that lean to the right? But the secretary says that they do not monitor ideology or political beliefs. Maybe I’m missing something.

The bottom line is that Secretary Napolitano’s “clarification” falls a bit short. The memo is still out there providing guidance for our country’s law enforcement agencies. I find this to be offensive to the extreme. This administration is pitting the government against its citizens just the way Lenin, Stalin, and Mao did. It is past time for the citizens of this great nation to tell the federal government to stay out of our meetings, churches, and homes.

As always, I welcome your comments and discussion.

Dan

The Enumerated Powers Act

2009-04-14T17:36:00.001-06:00

Friends,

Wow! There is a new concept brewing in Congress, HR 450, also known as the Enumerated Powers Act. If this bill passes it would state “Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act. The failure to comply with this section shall give rise to a point of order in either House of Congress….”

What a concept, basing the actions of the federal government on only those powers granted by the Constitution. Now why didn’t I think of that? Actually, the Founders did think of it and spelled it out quite succinctly in the 10th Amendment which states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This tells me that Congress, the President, and the Courts have specific powers and only those powers.

My hat is flying off my head to salute Representative John Shadegg, R-Ariz. and the 19 other representatives who have signed on to this ground-breaking bill that will receive no notice in the main-stream press or by the Democrat leadership.

As it turns out, this is not the first time Representative Shadegg has introduced the bill. He has introduced it every year he has been in Congress. I have a couple of questions for every member of Congress; “Why is it necessary that this bill should even be required?” and “Why do I not see every member of the House of Representatives name as a cosponsor and the same in the Senate on a companion bill?” I do not think that these are rhetorical questions. I want an answer from each and every one of these individuals. For over 150 years, successive congresses, presidents, and courts have taken on powers not specifically spelled out in the Constitution. To see the cosponsors of this bill go here.

As I have noted on numerous occasions, I am no Constitutional Scholar, but in my reading of this venerable document I have found no constitutional justification for bailing out any private corporation; no constitutional justification for ordering a corporate executive to resign; or even the constitutional justification to tell petroleum companies when or where they can explore or drill for oil. Where in our Constitution does it say that the federal government has the authority to tell us who will have health care insurance, or who will pay for it? Please do not misunderstand me, I want everyone to be able to have access to health care but it is not within the purview of the federal government to determine the scope of that need or provide it.

The continuous over-reach of the federal government has accelerated to the point where we will not be out of debt for at least three generations unless we turn this trend around now. This means taking a number of immediate steps:
1. Cancel the “Stimulus Package”
2. Cut corporate taxes to a maximum rate of 14%
3. Repeal the 16th Amendment
4. Pass a new amendment that guarantees all taxes will be fairly and equitably levied
5. Eliminate all cabinet/federal departments that do not directly fall in line with the enumerated goals and powers in the Constitution.

These measures only address the financial mess with which the federal government has saddled us. There are many more measures that should be taken to return the United States to the greatness that we once enjoyed. But our economy is arguably at the fore of our thought process at this time.

As usual, I welcome your comments and discussion

Dan

Guest Writer - RNC "Survey"

2009-03-19T20:39:00.002-06:00

Friends,
How many of you have received “surveys” from the RNC. These surveys are merely restatements of RNC policies and positions. They always end up asking for money. A friend of mine received one in the latest round of mailings and responded with a letter to Chairman Steele instead of filling out the “survey.” This is what he said:

Mr. Steele, et al,
The survey that precipitated this note is nearly the same as scores of previous surveys…you ask obvious questions. But yet I should be asking you the questions:

1. Precisely what are the top 3 innovations you will implement, different from all prior RNC efforts that will recapture Washington? Spare no detail - - I want to see your entire plan.
2. Why are you asking questions with verbiage such as “Should Republicans unite…?” and “Should we resist…?” etc? These are pathetic questions - - these actions should be already nailed down: unity, resistance, opposition, etc. If you are still asking these “feel good” questions, you are arriving at the dance too late. You’ve got a lot of time and lost ground to make up…now.
3. You and the RNC appear to have no fight. When the Dems are so bold as to publicly announce that they will exclude us from legislative deliberations (because “we won”). You tuck your tail and crouch in the corner. You should be raising ceaseless noise about it. You should be encouraging and leading the “tea parties.” You should be broadcasting all the e-mail addresses, the phone numbers, and the surface addresses for all members of the DNC, White House, and cabinet. You should lead the opposition, not merely observe it. In short, you and RNC hi-visibility senior leaders should be multiplying American voices; there are millions who hate the directions we see in our future. But no one feels threatened by ordinary people - - - but if we act together, the synergism will be noticed. Get out there.
4. Immediately use some of your budget to quickly publish a directory of the Dem’s info in “3” above. Flood the market with it. Send it to more than RNC members – make it available to Dems who also are worried about Obama. I’d like to see that directory on the streets in 30 days – we can’t let another month go by with the DNC railroad in full operation. You can do this - - - - Right?

Mike and team: I am in my second career, serving the aerospace industry. I already completed my first career, having served in the U.S. Air Force for more than 26 years. Mark it well: I did not serve for more than a quarter century so that my America can be stolen away one piece at a time. I did not serve so that I can watch any of the following:
• Gun rights weakened or eliminated
• Human life killed for research
• Statecraft reduced to kumbaya sessions with terrorists
• Release of terrorists who still want to kill you, me, and my family
• Doctors prosecuted for following their moral conscience
• Transfer of wealth from honest earners to productivity refuseniks
• The environment elevated to god-like status that trumps the American way of life, productivity, Divine authority, academic truth, and national security
• Military force structure and posture reduced to another Carter-like and Clinton-like shell, the remnants of which might be subordinated to the UN
• Cooperation by the US with forces wanting one-world governance and/or currency
• Punitive tax rates that drain money from every family, business, and estate
• Education based on union-driven mediocrity that eschews superior achievement by teachers or students
• Illegal immigrants being awarded front-of-the-line status to citizenship, free medical care, preferential in-state tuition, and government shields from arrest and deportation, abetted by “sanctuary city” officials
• Intrusion of family privacy, such as government access to medical records or submission of thumbprints to sell a home in Chicago - - - and similar invasions equally insidious
• Etc. etc, etc.

The list goes on and on, but I do not have time to write more. I sincerely hope I made myself crystal clear. I am exponentially disappointed in the RNC. The time is ripe for historic reversals in Washington in the 2010 elections. Yet there is not anything I see, hear, read, watch, receive, or research that indicates that my disappointment will be reduced one iota.

Forget the grade school-level surveys. Just go out and be a tiger. You and senior RNC and elected Republicans already know the right positions.
Thanks for listening,
Bill Weiford,

I would like to add to this letter, but to do so would be to detract from its effectiveness. It clearly states the Conservative viewpoint. This is the direction Conservatives must move to take back our State and our Nation.

If you agree with this letter, join us at the Coalition for a Conservative Majority www.ccmajority.org and our local Colorado Springs chapter www.ccm-cos.com.

As usual, your comments and discussions are welcome.

Dan

Guest Columnist - A Letter to Senator Bennet

2009-03-18T19:10:00.002-06:00

Friends,
A couple of weeks ago, a friend of mine sent an email to our newly appointed Colorado senator, Michael Bennet. I will let her speak for herself.

Date: Friday, March 6, 2009
Senator Bennet:

All I've seen so far out you, the rest of the Congress and the President is a huge waste of my tax payer money. How dare you even begin to hint that what you and all the other self-serving government officials have done so far is what I believe in or has done any of us any good. The only people you have served are those who were foolish enough to vote your party into power - I would hope that you would have more integrity than being such a lap-dog for the unions.

Exactly why, as a practicing Catholic would I think that reinstituting a program for sending money to foreign counties to support their abortion laws is a good thing?

Why would I think that sending $900 MILLION dollars to the terrorist organization of HAMAS in the Gaza Strip is something that is good and right?

Why would I think that this unbelievably HUGE bail out scheme is anything that I believe in or want to have happen?

Have you ever lived any place that had Nationalized Medicine. I sincerely doubt it so let me explain it to you since, I, Senator Bennett have lived with that type of health care.(Germany and Italy). If you think health care is expensive now, just wait. Not per unit of care expensive, but in the TAXES to support it, plus the co-pays that you'll have to fork over. Oh are you one of the delusional people who think that nationalized health care, once you've paid all your taxes is free??? Do you think and self-respecting doctors are going to continue to practice under those conditions. In the 1940's England instituted National Health Care and lost about half their doctors in the process. Why do you think Canadians seek to come to the States for specialized care? Because you might die waiting for care in Canada, or England or Germany or Italy. But then you won't have to worry about that will you Senator. YOU, won't be stuck with a system that will decide if you are too old to bother with other than to put you in hospice care until you conveniently die. There will be at least two separate classes of care. One for people in the Nationalized system and one for those rich enough to afford private health care. Oh yes and whatever wonderful health care system you people in Congress vote for yourselves.

You Senator and your ilk have done nothing for me, for people like me - why??? Because we paid our taxes, we paid our loans and mortgages on time, we played by the rules and NOW, NOW you want me and the righteous people like me to bail out companies that should go into bankruptcy, people who should have stayed in apartments or rented homes until they could afford a home, people who have taken out extravagant 2nd mortgages and lived the high life.
Well Senator, I live in a 1100 sq ft condo, I served my country faithfully for 27 yrs, I've worked every day since I retired in 2004 and now I'm being laid off and you want me to be HAPPY about the crap you and the Obama supporters are shoveling at me and people like me and be happy and proud to pay MORE taxes.

Sincerely yours, a very unhappy constituent

In fairness to the senator, he did send a reply.

Friend -
A little more than a month into my term as your U.S. Senator, we've taken bold steps in Washington to help American families and grow our economy.

We acted to provide quality, affordable health care to eleven million children from low-income families - because parents shouldn't have to choose between feeding their kids and filling their prescriptions.

We made sure every person in America, regardless of race, age or gender, receives fair and equal pay for equal work - because given the times, folks can't afford to take home any less than they're owed.

And we enacted an economic recovery plan that saves or creates 60,000 jobs in Colorado, cuts taxes for 2.1 Coloradans, and lays the foundation for long-term growth and prosperity.

I'm proud to have served with a core group of Senators that provided a leadership role in developing the details of this recovery plan to ensure it targets the help to the right areas.

I supported these measures because I know American families are struggling. I know because I've heard, first-hand, the stories of how this economic crisis has affected folks in rural and urban communities across the state.

These are important and significant steps. But as President Obama said to America in his speech before Congress, they are only first steps.

Americans are still losing their homes and folks are still finding credit harder and harder to come by.

Health care is still falling further out of reach and young people are dropping out of high school at an alarming rate.

And our dependence on foreign oil threatens our economy, our security and the health of our planet.

While the steps we have already taken - on children's health insurance, on an economic recovery plan that makes historic investments in education and energy - give us reason to be proud, there's still a lot of work to be done.

But we'll only realize the change we need once we understand our problems will not be solved with Republican or Democratic answers, but American answers.

We'll overcome the challenges we face not with petty politics as usual, but pragmatic policymaking that puts the American people first.

Surely, we will have our differences. But with a little common sense, I'm sure we can find common ground.

And although the road ahead will be tough, I'm confident that, together, we can get the job done.
Sincerely,

Senator Michael Bennet

The first thing that jumped out at me is that he obviously has had these concerns expressed before because his reply looks pretty canned. I have gone over it pretty carefully and am still looking for an answer to my friend’s concerns. My main concern with his response is that it advances unconstitutional behavior. I have read the Constitution fairly carefully and have yet to find where that wonderful document authorizes expenditures of this type. I’m not talking about just the magnitude of the expenditure, but the type of expenditure. Senator Bennet seems to be perfectly content to allow this country to gather speed down that socialist “nanny” state that he and his cronies have us going down.

As always, your comments and discussions are welcome.

If you want to help us fight this ever-pervasive liberal slippery slope join us at www.ccm-cos.com.

Dan

Daniel C. Lanotte
dlanotte@falconbroadband.net
719-683-5506

Educating Illegals

2009-03-10T20:04:00.002-06:00

Friends,
There is a bill before the Colorado Senate, currently in the Education Committee, that will extend instate tuition to anyone who has graduated from or attended at least three years in a Colorado high school, irrespective of immigration status. This bill, Senate Bill 09-170, Nondiscrimination in Higher Education, spells out in the first paragraph that a person’s immigration status is immaterial to extending these benefits.

Once again I must be missing something here. This is the United States of America, a nation of laws. Among the body of laws are those detailing requirements for entry into this country. That should be the end of the conversation.

Now there is a group of legislators who want to sweep aside any concern for the laws of our country for the express purpose of extending rights reserved to legal residents and citizens to those who have already proven that they do not respect our laws. When these illegal students and their parents came into this country illegally they declared their disdain for our country and its laws.

Why would these legislators go through this effort to extend these benefits? This could be an interesting question to pose to Senator Romer, the bill’s sponsor. Let me lay out a simple scenario. With the liberal Congress and President, amnesty with a path to citizenship is a definite possibility. If you were one of these students who received this benefit, who are you going to thank when you are able to go to the polls? Of course you will thank these same liberals who enabled you to be forgiven of your crimes. What an ingenious way to keep your power over the long-term.

I am going to take a seemingly right turn. Let’s take a look at a couple of groups of bad guys. Of course there is our ever favorite, Al Qaida. What is their favorite tactic when dealing with non-believers? The perfect example is 9-11. Al Qaida took years to plan and prepare for the attack, and they were completely successful except for one plane-load of loyal Americans who fought back. There is some question as to Al Qaida involvement in the Mumbai massacre but they have studied it and there are indications that they are planning the same kind of attack on the US.

Another group we need to be concerned about is Mara Salvatrucha, also known as MS 13. This is a street gang that started in Los Angeles among illegal El Salvadorians and has spread to and throughout Central America. It is currently in the major metropolitan areas in the United States. They have evolved from a street gang into, what I call, “bad guys for hire.” Their primary customers are the Mexican drug cartels and they use intimidation and brutal assassination as their modus operandi. However, like any good entrepreneur they will work for whoever has the money and the requisite brutality requirement.

Why have I taken this turn? Imagine the opportunity afforded to the illegal with this education bill. Illegals are not just poor Mexicans looking to benefit from our bounty. Illegals come in all races, religions, occupations, and motivations. Looking back at the time it took for Al Qaida to plan and execute 9-11, an education benefit such as SB 09-170 would fit nicely into their planning phase. Likewise, MS 13 goes back and forth across the US border with near impunity. Having gang members permanently stationed in Colorado will provide a suitable base of operations for their criminal enterprises.

The liberals in the Colorado State Legislature, along with Governor Ritter, are enabling our enemies and making it easier for them to increase their already considerable inroads into our society. This trend of giving illegals a pass must stop.

As always, comments and discussions are always welcome.

Dan

Costs Demand Debate on Climate

2009-03-10T19:56:00.003-06:00

Friends,
The following article is by our favorite guest columnist, Andy Pico. It was first published in the Colorado Springs Gazette on Monday, 09 Mar.

As always, comments and discussion are welcome.

Enjoy,
Dan

Costs Demand Debate on Climate

ANDRES PICO, GUEST COLUMNIST

March 6, 2009 - 8:48PM
In previous columns I have made the point that climate changes predicted by the Global Warming Hysterics have failed to occur. Some have pointed out that the current cooling trend is not long enough to reflect a trend. I agree and actually made the same point in an earlier letter. But in so doing I have pointed out that long-term trends clearly show cyclical climate fluctuations.

The current warming trend is merely part of that cycle. The current warming trend started before the start of the industrial revolution and any discussion of long-term climate trends have to go much further back.

The ice core data going back hundreds of thousands of years shows a very clear climate change history which is not in debate. That history shows cyclical climate changes.

Although obvious, there are those who claim there are no cycles in climate because if there are, then it is clear there are natural forces that drive climate change which is a threat to the political fraud being pushed.

The climate history shows within the Holocene period of the past 14,000 years there has been tremendous climate variability for the entire period. After the Younger Dryas event, the climate was relatively stable at a much warmer level than present for over 5,000 years. Within that period and since there is a measured climate cycle of about 1,500 years that goes from warm to cool to warm and so on.

The Medieval Warm Period was followed by the Little Ice Age followed by the current Modern Warming. This cycle is regular and extraordinarily well documented in an overwhelming amount of scientific literature. The temperatures are reconstructed from a wide variety of proxies and it has been determined that the average temperatures of the Holocene have been at least 3-4 degrees warmer than today with the average for the last 5,000 years at least 2-3 degrees warmer than today. Direct gas measurements of atmospheric CO2 taken during the later part of the Medieval Warm Period were measured in the range of 430 ppm (Beck) which, despite Al Gore's and James Hansen's hysterical predictions of catastrophe with the end of civilization and the boiling away of the oceans if we go over 400 ppm, was followed by the Little Ice Age.

The current warming started at the end of the Little Ice Age in about 1850. Those who show graphs of warming very conveniently chop off the earlier part of the warming trend to artificially manufacture a trend correlated with CO2. They suppress the actual linkage where warming temperatures cause the rise in CO2 as the oceans "breathe out" in a warming trend and "breathe in" during a cooling trend.

What does correlate with the start of the Modern Warm Period, the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period is solar activity, amplified by oceanic and atmospheric circulation cycles specifically the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation multi-decadal shifts. The solar correlation is extraordinarily strong when temperature trends and solar cycle lengths are smoothed to match the 22-year solar cycle.

All of this information is available in a vast quantity of scientific journals, textbooks, papers, studies, etc., all written by legions of scientists with solid scientific credentials and working with "carbon-free funding" despite propaganda to the contrary.

The Modern Warming has trended up for 150 years with periods of cooling. We are now at the start of a multi-decadal cooling period which began in 1998. The cooling is pretty clear on the monthly data from every reporting agency. If El Niño peaks and La Niña dips are smoothed, then 1998 is very clearly and undeniably the peak of the warming in the shorter term. The decade since is a gradual decline until 2007 at which point a sharp decline started. This was predicted by those paying attention to solar and oceanic cycles.

The climate models and the Global Warming Hysterics all predicted catastrophic warming and temperatures a full two degrees warmer than now.

The economic and governmental impacts of the measures being proposed to "fight global warming" are already having disastrous effects across the world, particularly on the poor and disadvantaged. The effects of the measures being proposed will be economically devastating across the entire country. Did you like paying $4 per gallon for gas? Stand by for $10 (Salazar). Do you like your current utility bill? Stand by to quadruple that bill (Obama). These are the policies they intend to mandate in a regime of central economic planning dictated by the government in a suppression of a free market.

These issues deserve an open, independent and honest scientific, economic and political debate.
-
Pico, of Colorado Springs, is a retired navy commander, naval flight officer and economist. He is a signatory of the Manhattan Declaration.

Stimulus Pork

2009-02-16T08:30:00.000-07:00

Friends,
I just received an update on the “stimulus package.” I feel ill. Please go to Stimulus Watch and browse the site. You can click on your state and see what your city/state is slated for in thus “Porkulus” package. Just remember who has to pay for all of this pork; WE DO. Why is the federal government getting involved in local issues such as widening a street or a state highway? As I have said in past postings, I have found NO place in the constitution that authorizes the federal government to spend money on any of these types of projects.

This is just the spending side of the bill. It does not include the intrusion on your lives such as tracking all of your medical records on one national database. Part of this program is to weigh your age and the treatment you need to determine whether you will live long enough and be productive enough to warrant the treatment.

All of those Senators and Congressmen who voted for this legislation should, at the very least, be voted out of office and preferably forced to resign!

Your comments and discussions are welcome, as always.

Dan

The "Stimulus" Package

2009-02-15T07:22:00.002-07:00

Friends,
The Congress has just passed the largest spending bill in our history. Let’s see what we get for our money, yes our money. However, I must digress to make sure we must understand how this system works. The basic premise is that if you borrow money, you have to pay it back. If you do not pay it back, someone who holds your collateral will call the debt. If you can’t pay it back the collateral is sized. OK, now that we have established the ground rules, we need to examine who is the borrower; who is the lender; who are the guarantors; how is this loan going to be repaid.

Who is the borrower? This one is fairly simple; it is the United States Congress and the President of the United States. Just as an aside, what are they borrowing money for? The stated purpose of the loan is to revitalize the United States economy and get people working again. Therefore, we need to examine the loan document to see where the money is going to be spent. Since the loan papers exceed 800 pages, I am not going to try to enumerate the whole package but rather give some representative examples.

$88 million to move the Public Health Service into a new building (what happened to Two Men and A Truck?)
$34 million to renovate the Department of Commerce headquarters
$1 BILLION (yes with a B) for the Census Bureau (which is now going to fall directly under the president’s chief-of-staff)
$89 BILLION for Medicaid
$2.4 BILLION for “neighborhood stabilization” activities (read ACORN bailout/beef-up)
1.2 BILLION for a summer youth program
36 BILLION to expand unemployment (don’t we already have enough people out of work?)

Ok, you should get the picture by now. This short list of just over $130 BILLION shows me no examples of getting our economy out of the doldrums and putting people back to work. Instead, it shows me a gross expansion of our government “nanny state” mentality, Keynesian economics at its absolute worse (but I think that is redundant).

Who is the lender? That is fairly easy when you examine who is buying all of our paper. It is mostly being bought by foreign entities that do not necessarily have the United States’ best interest at heart; in other words, potential enemies such as the Peoples’ Republic of China, and Saudi Arabia. These are not benevolent regimes. At some point they are going to call the note and force the United States to “pony-up the cash.” What has President Obama promised these folks? What sweet deals has he promised for these loans? Or is he so inept and naïve as to think these lenders are just out for our benefit?

Who are the guarantors of this loan and how is it going to be repaid? That one is easy too. The guarantors are you, me, our children, our grandchildren, and their grandchildren. The obligations that this congress and administration have made exceed the GDP of the United States for decades to come. All of this money can be paid back in 10 or 20 years if the federal government stops spending at the end of 2009 and only pays back the loan (yup, that is going to happen). Our federal government is worse than a herd of pigs that have just come off a 10 mile hike and discovered a new slop trough. They have the arrogance to believe that we are stupid and will never understand that this program is part of the president’s plan for redistribution of wealth. It is his plan to punish individualism, entrepreneurship, and initiative.

My question is “Where is the outrage, where is the righteous indignation from those rugged American individualists?” We hear from bloggers and Conservative commentators about how bad this “Stimulus Package” is for America but where is the indignation coming from our congressmen and senators? We see unanimous negative votes from Republican congressmen, and that is laudable, but where is the screaming and shouting from the highest buildings across this land calling for a popular campaign against this federal government gorging?

The only way we are going to take back our country is for grassroots organizations such as the Coalition for a Conservative Majority to grow and work from the bottom up to change the mindset that has become prevalent in Washington. If the average citizen does not stand up for our rights then we will get what we deserve.
I urge everyone reading this to pass it along and go to www.ccmajority.org to see what you can do.

As always I welcome your comments and discussion.

Dan

Data Doesn't Back Obama on Warming

2009-02-15T05:52:00.003-07:00

Friends,
The article below was originally published in the Colorado Springs Gazette. The guest columnist is Andres Pico whose work you have seen numerous times on these pages.

As always, you comments and discussions are welcome.

Enjoy,
Dan

Data Doesn’t Back Obama on Warming

ANDRES PICO, GUEST COLUMNIST

Our new president starts his historic administration with a stated climate change policy to obstruct domestic energy production of coal and oil and an assembled team of socialist and anti-energy zealots to implement this policy. Despite growing evidence the climate change hysteria is based on manipulated science without a solid basis or consensus, despite a constant propaganda campaign that claims both, the stated policies of the new administration and its team is dedicated to fighting climate change.

Fighting climate change is a chimera designed to hide a false political agenda intended to implement centralized economic planning in the socialist/collectivist model. The actual science and documented annual reporting of climate results for the year just concluded do not, however, support the premise which calls into question the wisdom and rationality of such a drastic remaking of our economy. To embark on such a course with severe economic costs and penalties during a time of economic stress would be particularly ill advised.

And yet, President Barack Obama says, "Few challenges facing America - and the world - are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear." In fact, the global and regional temperatures have declined sharply since the spring of 2007. This past year was the coldest since 2000 with eight of the past 10 years warmer and less than a half of a degree above the long term average according to NASA Goddard Institute for Space Science (GISS) (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt) which reports the warmest temperatures of all of the reporting agencies based largely on station data. The GISS reported sea surface temperatures show no warming trend over the decade and a clear downward trend (data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig2b.gif). Satellite measurements from RSS and UAH of the lower troposphere, which according to the green house gas theory of global warming should be warmer, are even lower at less than 2 tenths of a degree above the long term average and the lowest of this century. (vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt)
The president continues; "Sea levels are rising." In fact, sea levels stopped rising several years ago and have leveled off. (sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_ns_global.pdf)
The president digs deeper; "We've seen record drought, spreading famine, and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season." Hurricanes are in fact dropping in numbers and the intensity is no higher than the long term norms according to the NOAA hurricane experts. Famines are spreading less because of any climate change but more because of the large subsidized push for bio-fuels as a substitute for domestic drilling of oil which has caused the brutal starvation of tens of millions of the poor and disadvantaged across the world, this policy having been advocated by the party that alleges to stand for the little guy.

The supposedly shrinking ice caps are not. The fevered cries about an ice-free Arctic in 2008 fell short since the ice extant at the ice minimum was substantially above that of 2007. Actual ice coverage in the Arctic is only slightly below normal overall, but in the 14 regions measured (arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/), only five are actually below normal with the other nine at or above normal levels. While oil exploration in the Arctic Chukchi Sea is being blocked by environmentalists to save ice habitat for the polar bear, that region and the Bering Sea are well above the ice levels over the period of satellite measurements.

The Antarctic is above normal levels and has shown a long term trend of above average ice coverage.

Climate change hysteria is hijacked science being used to promote a false political agenda of greater government control over industry and central economic planning. This model of government intervention has failed everywhere it's been tried.
Our new president proclaims that we need "a new declaration of independence," evidently a new independence from facts, real science, truth, economic prosperity and freedom.

Dr. James Hansen, who directs the NASA GISS and has personally accepted close to $1 million in outside "contributions" to corrupt official government climate data in support of this scientific fraud, recently declared that Obama has only four years to solve the climate crisis.

But that deadline is actually because the evidence of continued declines in global temperatures in line with the predictions by those of us who point out the solar connection to terrestrial climate, will become so obvious that no one, not even an incompetent and complicit press, will be able to continue the scam, and the swindlers will be explaining what the funds spent for carbon credits actually bought.
-
Pico, of Colorado Springs, is a retired Navy commander, naval flight officer and economist.

The States Say "Enough"

2009-02-11T20:49:00.003-07:00

Friends,
It seems that there are some states that are saying “enough is enough” to the federal government. In a resolution introduced last week, the New Hampshire legislature has taken the nearly unprecedented step to remind the federal government

That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations, slavery, and no other crimes whatsoever; . . . . . therefore all acts of Congress which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution are altogether void, and of no force….

What crimes may we be talking about? Anything that does not fall under those listed above such as drug laws, gun control laws, and kidnapping laws to name a few. Many of the crimes Congress has identified are, indeed, crimes that need to be punished. However, I have been able to find no place in the Constitution where Congress and the president are given authorization to make such declarations. Under the 10th Amendment, these determinations are left up to the states and therefore their citizens.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Looking at Article I. §8, there are numerous areas of control given to Congress such as; borrowing money; regulating commerce between the US and foreign nations, and the states; establishing citizenship requirements, etc., but none of the specific crimes that have been set down by Congress and signed by the presidents appear. My Constitutional Guru, Mr. Ric Morgan, Esq. has informed me that most of these laws are justified under the Commerce Clause, Art I §8(3) which states that the Congress shall have the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes….” I have to tell you that I have twisted my head every which way and the connection with many of the laws passed still seems pretty thin. Quoting Mr. Morgan:

Under the Commerce Clause, since the mid-1930's, federal power has incrementally extended to reach a myriad of far-flung issues that are only vaguely connected to interstate commerce by the most tendentious logic. Prior to the 1930's, all of those issues had been firmly within the States' control under Constitutional interpretations of the previous hundred and forty years.

These current standards defining the federal reach under the Commerce Clause are set forth in the 1995 Supreme Court case of Lopez v US, which was the first case in over sixty years to set any limits on the exercise of federal authority under the Commerce Clause.

In Lopez, an eighteen year-old miscreant and high school senior was caught carrying a .38 cal handgun on school grounds in San Antonio, Texas. He was tried and convicted under the federal "Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990", which banned guns within 1000 feet of a school.

Lopez challenged the federal law on constitutional grounds, claiming that there is no federal authority to reach so far into the realm properly belonging to the States. The federal government defended on Commerce Clause grounds, claiming that carrying of firearms in a school zone would 1) lead to crime, which 2) frighten citizens, which would 3) inhibit travel, which 4) would lead to a weaker economy, and 5) was therefore related to interstate commerce and subject to the Commerce Clause. In the 1995 Lopez decision delivered by Chief Justice Rehnquist, the court held that government's logic was too strained, the association to interstate commerce was unsupported by any facts, and "there must always be an outer limit to federal power".

But the government lost in Lopez based on the same tenuous logic that serves to justify thousands of other federal laws.

Since I started working on this Discourse an article in World Net Daily has been brought to my attention. It can be seen here. In the article they point to eight states, including New Hampshire, that have introduced similar resolutions and the potential for 20 more states to follow suit. Many of these states are pointing to the “stimulus” package and are putting their collective feet down on unfunded government mandates.

As many of you know, I have a deep concern for any abuse or subversion of the 2nd Amendment but there is an ever growing body of evidence of the systematic subversion of all of our rights by the federal government. Over the years, there have been steady steps, some large and some small, by various factions at the federal level to take our freedoms. However, the recent election cycle has emboldened numerous disparate groups to work together and put together what is being touted as a “stimulus” package. For many states, this is the last straw. We may be seeing the start of a significant push-back to this ever increasing trend of the federal government.

As always, I welcome your comments and discussion.

Dan
PS: Happy Birthday, Nick

Special Prayer for the Inauguration

2009-02-01T14:28:00.003-07:00

Friends,
Below is a prayer offered by our pastor, Lance Gentry, on the Sunday after President Obama was inaugurated. I feel that this powerful prayer needs to be shared and prayed often. It needs no further comment.
Dan

Father God,
We come before you this morning with thanksgiving. Thanksgiving for the country we live in and for the freedoms we possess. We thank you that we are free this morning to assemble and worship in accord with your Word and in harmony with our consciences without the threat of great persecution. We pray for our brothers and sisters in Christ who live in countries where they do not have this great freedom and where they live in constant threat because of their faith in Jesus Christ. So we pray for our fellow Christians in countries like China, N. Korea, Vietnam, Sudan, and Morocco. Strengthen, encourage, and protect our brothers and sisters in Christ we pray.

We thank you too for the peaceful transition of power that we all witnessed this past week. That no blood was shed as our country installed and recognized its new leader and commander-in-chief. We know that you are Sovereign and that no leader ever gains a position of authority without your putting them there. We thank you that whatever our circumstance and whoever may be in authority over us, our trust and confidence can always be in You.

With that in mind Lord, we pray for our new President, Barak Obama and ask that you would grant Him great wisdom as he leads our nation through difficult days. We thank you that in his election we witnessed such a significant milestone along the road to racial equality in our culture, a culture where racial equality has not always been valued. We pray for his safety and that you would protect the Obama family from harm.

Lord we also know that the king’s heart is like channels of water in your hand, and so we pray that you would change President Obama’s heart on the issue of abortion. We pray that he would see the sanctity of all human life and that he would not seek to expand abortion policies that will result in more and more killing of innocent human beings. If his heart does not change, then we pray that you will obstruct his plans and cause his proposed policies to go down in defeat. We pray for the end of abortion. We ask this for the sake of the voiceless, the helpless, and the weak.

Lord grant us as the people of God a gracious spirit; a spirit that seeks to honor our President and speak of him with respect, even while we may disagree with his policies. Remind us that he is our President by your divine design, and that to disrespect him, is to disrespect You. May we be a people who are known for supporting our leaders in prayer and submitting to them in the fear of the Lord.

Thank you Lord that our hope is in you. That you are on the throne. That your ways are perfect. May we rejoice in the true knowledge of our glorious Lord and Sovereign King, Jesus Christ. Amen.

Cabinet Postings (5)

2009-02-01T14:26:00.001-07:00

Friends,
This is the fifth in a series on President Obama’s cabinet picks. Today I am going to look into our own former senator from Colorado, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. When I started researching Secretary Salazar to see what his stances were on different issues, I had both good and bad fortune. First, I have a lot of emails from him in the form of newsletters and replies to concerns about which I have emailed him. The not-so-good part about this is that he said very little of substance in any of them.

In June of 2007, I contacted him concerning the illegal immigration reform act that was being debated in the Senate. This act provided an amnesty path for illegals. I pointed out that the first part of the salutation for these people was “illegal.” If I fail to pay my taxes, where is the bill before Congress to allow me to get off Scott-free? However, Senator Salazar advocated passage of this deeply flawed piece of legislation, masking the amnesty issue with platitudes like “secure the borders, strengthen and enforce our immigration laws” and the best one “provide a realistic solution for the 12 million undocumented workers in our country.” An undocumented worker is a euphemism for illegal aliens. Fortunately, the cry raised from the American public was so loud that they had no choice but to defeat the bill. In an email a couple of days later (5 Jul 2007) he stated that he was “disappointed that the immigration reform legislation failed to pass the U.S. Senate….” This is just one example of how Mr. Salazar is on the wrong side of America.

Moving on, in his newsletter of 27 July 2007, he proudly announced his pleasure at the passage of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) from the Senate Finance Committee. Please do not misunderstand me on this issue. With six grandchildren and one on the way, I want to see every child healthy and have access to health care whenever needed. However, in my extensive look through the Constitution and Bill of Rights, I was unable to find anything like “any or all segments of American society shall have government supplied access to health care.” In fact, I was so concerned about this issue I went to the Founders’ writings to see what they said about the issue. The closest I could find was in the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The key word here is “pursuit” of happiness, presuming that if you are healthy, you are happy, or at least closer to it than if you are unhealthy. I was able to find no provision in the Constitution for the U.S. Government to pay for social programs. I contend that the more hand-outs are given, the more the recipients will want. We have already begun down this slippery slope and stopping this descent should be a priority if we are going to survive as a nation. However, I digress. The issue at hand is Mr. Salazar.

In another email I received from him, Senator Salazar noted his support for the DREAM Act. This act would have offered a path of legalization for illegal children who had been going to U.S. schools and progressing well in their studies. Once again, Mr. Salazar was on the wrong side of the American public and the Constitution. Fortunately, this bill was defeated under the leadership of Senator Sessions of Alabama. The problem is that this fight should have been led by a dynamic leader from Colorado. My guess is that there are more illegals in Colorado than Alabama.

In his 23 October 2007 newsletter, Senator Salazar notes his support for the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007. Personally, I support any effort to advance technology in alternative fuels. The more we work and study on technologies such as solar, wind, hydrogen, etc. the more efficient and inexpensive they will become. (I do not support growing crops for fuel; but that is another discussion.) This is just the natural progression. I also advocate the reduction in the use of dependence on all petroleum products; however it must be done in an intelligent way. Colorado has a huge repository of oil shale and other petroleum products. At a time (2007) when energy prices were skyrocketing, it was time to begin “Drill Now, Drill Here, Pay Less” as Newt Gingrich would say. In fact it was 10 years past time, but the Democrats refused to allow that to happen. The result was witnessed last year when we were pumping $4.00+ gas.

I have only gone through about one year’s worth of Mr. Salazar’s communications with me and have just barely scratched the surface. Suffice it to say that President Obama has certainly chosen another Cabinet officer who is unfit to serve the American public. Looks like the president’s choices are living down to his track record.

As always, I welcome your discussion and comments.

Dan

Cabinet Postings (4)

2009-02-01T14:24:00.001-07:00

Friends,
This is the fourth in a series looking at President Obama’s cabinet picks.
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (DCI)

While this is not a cabinet post, it is arguably of near equal importance. President Obama has tapped Leon Panetta for this crucial job. Having come out of the Intelligence community in my former life, I think I have a fair idea of the requisite qualifications for this position.

Above all, the incumbent should have a solid working knowledge of the Intelligence Community, preferably by having worked in the field for a number of years. The incumbent must be a manager with extreme talent for coalition building, not coalitions of foreign countries, but coalitions within his own agency. Intelligence professionals tend to be very independent with delving minds. Whoever leads this agency will have to be able to have or develop an understanding and appreciation of the Intelligence Process as well as the Intelligence Professional very early into the job. Anyone who moves into the job with the intention of changing the agency right off the bat may as well try to move Mt. Rushmore.

I believe that changing the CIA is possible, but only if the case for the need for change is made strongly enough that all personnel within the agency understand the need and assist in that change. Otherwise, attempting to change such an organization staffed with long-term professionals will be a useless and frustrating venture. Mr. Panetta has been highly critical of the agency for some time. This makes me think that he has a predetermined agenda that he will be taking to his new job if he is confirmed.

Those are my going-in thoughts. Let’s look at the DCI designee and see how he fits the bill. We will start by looking at his biography. He went into the Army in 1964 as a second lieutenant and was discharged as a first lieutenant in 1966. I seem to recall some kind of disturbance in Southeast Asia around that time; however I found no reference to that event in Mr. Panetta’s biography. While he was in the Army he was the chief of operations and planning of intelligence at Fort Ord. He is a Distinguished Scholar in the California State University System, lecturing on public policy at Santa Clara University. He worked as an assistant to Republican Senator Thomas Kuchel and HEW secretary Robert Finch before being elected to the House of Representatives, as a Democrat, where he served from 1977 to 1993. His focus in the House seemed to be budget, social, and environmental issues. He was tapped to serve as President Clinton’s Chief of Staff from 1994 until 1997. For the last 10 years he and his wife have served as Directors of the Leon & Sylvia Panetta Institute for Public Policy.

During his time in Congress he held four chairman positions, none of which had anything to do with Intelligence. Except for these chairman positions and the one chief of staff position, I was able to find no managerial or leadership experience. I do not consider two years as a second lieutenant in charge of operations and planning of intelligence at a state-side Army base as appropriate leadership experience to qualify him for DCI; although, he has had more managerial experience than President Obama.

Concerning this appointment I have a couple of questions for the president. If Mr. Panetta is so qualified for the position of DCI, why did you feel it necessary to apologize to Senator Feinstein for making the selection? You are now the presumptive leader of the free world. Why are you not acting like it? There seems to be a severe lack of confidence in your leadership style.

As always, I welcome your comments and discussion.

Dan

Cabinet Postings (3)

2009-01-19T07:09:00.002-07:00

Friends,
This is the third in a series of discussions about president-elect Obama’s cabinet choices.

Attorney General

President-elect Obama’s pick for Attorney General is Eric Holder. Let’s do a quick review of his career. As the Deputy US Attorney General he was instrumental in an investigation of the Los Angeles Police Department to try to discover if there was a department-wide “pattern or practice” of violation of civil rights stemming from the corruption scandal in the Rampart division. In that situation officers had beaten, shot, extorted, and framed drug dealers. LAPD Chief Parks came down on the situation like a ton of bricks.

Subsequent investigation by the DOJ found that there was no evidence of department-wide corruption. Nevertheless, when Chief Parks and Mayor Riordan called Mr. Holder and asked that DOJ back off after finding no further corruption, Mr. Holder seemed to redouble his efforts. The LAPD agreed to a consent decree to keep out of court. According to the city, it is costs the LAPD $50 million annually to live up to that decree. In this time of shrinking revenues to cities and states across the country, even a city the size of Los Angeles can scarcely afford those kinds of penalties, especially when no further evidence of wrongdoing is found.

In the late 1990’s the DOJ, under the direction of Deputy US Attorney General Holder, held numerous “racial profiling” conferences, primarily the work of the ACLU. If a police department had an arrest rate that did not match racial demographics they faced significant federal litigation, championed by the ACLU. When police departments across the country are more concerned about federal litigation than fighting crime, we are all put in jeopardy.

Let’s take a quick look at Mr. Holder’s judgment. In the waning days of President Clinton’s second administration, one of the Democrat Party’s heavy contributors was Denise Rich, the ex-wife of millionaire fugitive Mark Rich. She gave substantial donations to the party. She also gave substantial donations to President Clinton’s library fund. Mr. Holder played a significant role in obtaining a presidential pardon for Mr. Rich. In all fairness, Mr. Holder has said that he regrets his association with this pardon.

In 1999, 16 members of the Puerto Rican terrorist Armed Forces of National Liberation (FALN) received presidential pardons due to Mr. Holder’s direct intervention. These terrorists had, up to that time, been associated with “more than 130 bombings, several armed robberies, six slayings and injury to hundreds of others,” reported the Baltimore Sun. These are bad people who are now allowed to walk among their potential victims. Mr. Holder has stated that does not regret his role in these pardons.

During his confirmation hearing, when questioned about Guantanamo Bay prison, he advocated closing the facility. My question to Mr. Holder would be, where are you going to put the prisoners incarcerated there? If you turn them loose and send them home, statistics show that most terrorists in Guantanamo who are turned loose return to the fight against the US and our alleys. Is he going to release them on bail to await trial? That’s just what we need, terrorists bent on our destruction given a free trip to the US so they can continue their fight on our home ground.

Also during his confirmation hearing, he said that he would respect the Supreme Court decision in the DC vs. Heller case which held that the Washington DC gun ban was unconstitutional. However, during arguments being heard in that case he signed on to Janet Reno’s amicus brief urging that the gun ban be upheld. The amicus brief stated that “the position of the Department of Justice, from Franklin Roosevelt through Bill Clinton, was that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for purposes unrelated to a State’s operation of a well-regulated militia..( "Brief for Former Department of Justice Officials as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioners". American Bar Association.) “Holder said that overturning the 1976 law ‘opens the door to more people having more access to guns and putting guns on the streets.’” (Nakamura, David; Barnes, Robert (March 10, 2007). "D.C.'s Ban On Handguns In Homes Is Thrown Out" (Article), Metro: Special Reports, The Washington Post, p. A01. Retrieved on November 19, 2008.)

While Mr. Holder says that he will respect the decision of the Supreme Court, what will be his tact to subvert our 2nd Amendment rights?

While the Democrats and media did not properly vet their candidate, the president-elect is following right along in the same vein. His Attorney General candidate is tainted to the point of being completely impeachable in any case.

As usual, I welcome your comments and discussion.

Dan

Cabinet Postings (2)

2009-01-18T07:22:00.002-07:00

Friends,
This is the second in the series of looking at president-elect Obama’s cabinet choices.

Secretary of State

The president-elect has nominated Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. This is arguably one of the most important cabinet posts to be considered, just above Defense and Attorney General.

Let’s look at Senator Clinton’s qualifications. At the beginning of her husband’s presidency she worked diligently on the failed national health program. As First Lady, she travelled to foreign lands with her husband when he was president. She was elected and reelected to the Senate from a state where she not a resident until she started shopping around for an opportunity. She, most recently served on the Environment and Public Works Committee, the Special Committee on Aging and the Senate Armed Services Committee. She has visited troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. She has been an advocate for protecting our constitutional rights, such as her support to Roe v. Wade. But wait, how does that protect the constitutional rights of the unborn? (Sorry, I digress)

One major question I would put to both the president-elect and the Secretary of State designate would be, “How do you square Senator Clinton’s husband’s globetrotting fund raising with doing the business of the United States.” We have seen prospective elected officials and appointed bureaucrats get raked over the coals for their family’s activities, where is the righteous indignation about the Clinton money machine?

So far, I have not found any qualifications with respect to foreign affairs (oops, I should have said foreign diplomacy). This nomination for one of the most important and powerful cabinet positions makes no sense. There is no history of foreign diplomacy and very little displayed interest except to criticize existing policy.

I would argue that the president-elect has erred in judgment yet again. Normally, one or two errors in judgment could be excused, but the list is growing. My next posting tomorrow will continue the discussion.

As always, I welcome your comments and discussion. Below is a comment I received about yesterday’s posting. The writer has legitimate concerns. I invite you to read them.

Dan

Hi Dan:
After reading this weeks posting I was a little saddened! I agree with you that we have to be diligent in our scrutiny of the staff in which Obama surrounds himself, but to be so close-minded as to not give him a pass on anything when he's not even in office is a little arrogant to me. I didn't vote for him but I do pray that God will change his mind and heart about issues that are on the hearts of many Christian Americans. I honestly don't want this man to fail because we're all in this together - failure cannot be an option for either Republican or Democrat - this is the deciding factor! (name withheld)

Obama's Cabinet Postings (1)

2009-01-17T06:53:00.001-07:00

Friends,
As I have told you, it is not my intention to give Barrack Hussein Obama a pass on anything. However, I have to admit, having him as the president-elect is a gold mine for a guy like me. There will always be something to write about.

He has not even taken office and he is giving us a great deal about which to be concerned. I am not going to address his massive money give-away which will put succeeding generations of Americans behind the eight ball for many years.

This time I am going to address his gross lack of judgment. One of the more stellar traits that Ronald Reagan had was to be able to surround himself with experts; people who clearly understood all aspects of the job they were given. We are being told how smart our next president is. Let’s look at his display of intelligence in the area of surrounding himself with experts. This will be the first in a series of discussions about the president-elect’s judgment with respect to his appointees. Other discussions about his judgment, in general, will come later.

Treasury Secretary

The current flap concerns his choice for Treasury Secretary. Tim Geithner has served as director of the Policy Development and Review Department at the International Monetary Fund; president and CEO of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, this position doubles as the vice chair of the Federal Open Market Committee which sets interest rates; chairman of the G-10’s Committee on Payment and Settlement Systems of the Bank for International Settlements; and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Group of Thirty. This is an impressive resume.

Looking at events he has directly influenced, he was the architect of the Bear Sterns bailout. I asked this question of my colleagues at the time, why? Where in the US Constitution does it say that it is the responsibility of the federal government to keep failed companies afloat? Of course, one could argue that since it was the federal government’s policies that caused many of the banking failures, they had a responsibility to fix what they broke.

As the head money guy for the federal government he will be responsible for keeping track of all of our finances; this includes being overall in charge of the Internal Revenue Service. That would imply that he has a good understanding of our tax laws and is in compliance with them. But wait; what about the $43,000 in federal self employment taxes he failed to pay? Interestingly enough, he was working with the IMF at the time. It is the policy of the IMF to reimburse their folks for their self employment tax; it sounds, to me, like he was pocketing some extra perk money. Hmmm! Was it just an oversight that he employed an immigrant maid for three months after her work authorization papers had expired (that makes the maid an illegal)?

An individual like Mr. Geithner who recklessly flaunts the law as the Treasury Secretary makes me a bit queasy when I think about how my income taxes are assessed and how this money is managed. Does this appointment reflect sound judgment, or does the president-elect share Mr. Geithner’s ethos?

As usual, I welcome all comments and discussion.

Dan

Firearms Licensing

2009-01-15T21:03:00.003-07:00

Friends,
On 9 January 2009, Congressman Bobby Rush (D-IL) introduced H.R. 45 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h45ih.txt.pdf) which, if passed, will require anyone purchasing a firearm to obtain a license to do so. Additionally, it will require that all sales will be recorded. This bill is being called the “Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009.”

H.R. 45 is contrary to the intent and letter of the 2nd amendment. I offer a couple of quotes by our Founders:

[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation... (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." ---James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."Thomas Jefferson

Registration and confiscation of firearms was one of the first actions Adolph Hitler took in the subjugation of “inferior” people. On November 8, 1938, The New York Times reported,

The Berlin Police President, Count Wolf Heinrich von Helldorf, announced that as a result of a police activity in the last few weeks the entire Jewish population of Berlin had been 'disarmed' with the confiscation of 2,569 hand weapons, 1,702 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition. Any Jews still found in possession of weapons without valid licenses are threatened with the severest punishment.

This led up to Kristallnacht (The Night of Broken Glass) on November 10, the night the Nazis went through Berlin and smashed and looted all things Jewish, shops, temples, stores, everything. The Jews did not have any way to protect themselves or their property.

The Nazi story is probably the most well-known but there have been many other examples of government abuse of its citizens. Turkey instituted gun control in 1911. From 1915 to 1917, a million and a half defenseless Armenians were exterminated by the government. Joseph Stalin established gun control in 1929 and over the next 24 years, until his death, 20 million dissidents were exterminated by his military and secret police.

Looking at the immediate consequences of H.R. 45, we here in the US have already seen the result of gun control. Washington DC, our capitol, had a strict gun ban in place for decades. Chicago has had nearly as restrictive gun regulations in place. Those are two of the most dangerous cities in the country. The reason for that is simple. Law abiding citizens refrain from owning guns because it is against the law. They have respect for the laws of our land, no matter that they cause these same law abiding citizens to be in danger of their lives. But if guns are against the law in these cities, why are citizens in danger; obviously, because the bad guys don’t give a hoot about the laws.

Look at the callous murder of two teenagers here in Colorado Springs last Thursday. What was the trigger for the event, the theft of an IPOD. Two kids were killed because of an IPOD. The police have tagged this as a gang killing. The gangs do not care about laws. That puts the rest of us at their mercy. I am not implying that the two young men who were killed were innocent bystanders. I have no idea what their situation was. But the fact that this event happened at all points to how dangerous our world is just from the criminal element. The young man who was arrested for the murder has freely admitted to his criminal act, with no apparent remorse.

Now a group of gun-grabbers wants to make it even more dangerous for law abiding citizens by forcing us to get a license to purchase firearms. I find this to be unacceptable behavior on the part of an elected official. All military personnel are required to swear to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Does this requirement not extend to our Congressmen and Senators?

I urge all Americans to contact their Congressman and urge that they vigorously oppose this legislation.

As always, I welcome comments and discussion.

Dan

Union Discussion (2)

2009-01-03T18:40:00.001-07:00

Friends,

Continuing my discussion about unions, one big question I have is why is there so much federal and state legislation favoring unions? In fact why is there any legislation about unions at all? I have thought about it at some length and am still having trouble understanding why unions would need to be federally protected. Are they so insecure about their own mission and goals that they have to have legal cover?

Now I’m going to jump right in and show my naiveté. Why can’t the unions go head to head with management for the loyalty of the workers? Decades ago industry learned that one aspect of profitability is maintaining a contented workforce. Unions understand this as well and have determined that the only way to maintain membership is to continue to foment dissatisfaction. The unions have to maintain that dissatisfaction to ensure member loyalty. That is one reason unions fight so hard against Right-to-Work laws which say that a worker is free to decide whether or not to join the union. If a worker has a choice to join a union that will routinely use members’ dues to support candidates and issues that are against the member’s wishes and/or beliefs, why join?

At this time only 22 states have Right-to-Work laws. The unions have worked hard to repeal these laws. The unions understand that these laws effectively interrupt their income flow because when given an option, workers are likely to reject membership. Unions’ effectiveness has diminished over the years and they have become self-serving entities.
The immediately past election season saw an unprecedented level of spending by the unions on various races including the race to defeat the Right-to-Work amendment on the ballot in Colorado. Their campaign was based on scare tactics and had the solid backing of the Colorado Governor, Bill Ritter. Governor Ritter was dutifully fulfilling his obligation for their support. Not only did he offer moral support to the defeat of Amendment 47, he instituted early in his tenure as governor an executive order to deduct union dues from state employees. This prompted another amendment initiative, Amendment 49 to limit payroll deductions for public employees. Both of these amendments were defeated with the massive assistance of union PACs. Here is another example of the unions afraid to give the workers and the public a choice.

This is an appropriate place to point out the different economic conditions between union and Right-to-Work states. I previously referenced an article from the 3 March 08 online issue of the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120450306595906431.html) which pointed out the economic differences between union and Right-to-Work states using Texas and Ohio as illustrations. Ohio is a union state; Texas is a Right-to-Work state. As of the writing of the Wall Street Journal article, Ohio had lost 200,000 manufacturing jobs since the turn of the 2000. Texas, by contrast, had almost twice the new job creation rate than the rest of the US, gaining 36,000 new manufacturing jobs just since 2004.

The article showed that foreclosures in Ohio have soared. In 2007, Ohio had the fourth highest home foreclosure rate in the nation at 3.45%. Statistics for Texas for 2007 could not be readily found, but that state is on track for a foreclosure rate for 2008 of 0.55%.

Let’s look at some of the reasons for home foreclosures. Conventional wisdom would say that homes go through foreclosure because the owner/mortgagee cannot make the payments. In normal times when people are employed and earning a steady paycheck, they will pay their mortgage first and purchase other basic needs with what is left. However, when they lose their jobs and the available money is drastically reduced or eliminated what is the first thing they will pay for? Since the mortgage is normally only paid once per month, available money will go to food and other basic needs because they can put off the mortgage for a little while but have to have food and gas. Soon, they are in over their heads and facing foreclosure.

Note: Foreclosure rate is only one indicator of economic robustness. Ohio has one of the highest business tax rates in the country, further driving businesses, and thus, economic activity out of the state.

Look at the differences between Ohio and Texas. Business-friendly Texas is acquiring the manufacturing facilities that have been leaving Ohio. The result is that union jobs in Ohio are not being replaced and those jobs are going to Texas where the workers do not have to join the union. The unions have materially participated in establishing an unfriendly business atmosphere in Ohio but that has not occurred in Texas. These examples are not isolated; they are fairly represented across the union/non-union spectrum.

Unions’ intrusion into the body of laws is even more blatantly evident in the Employee Free Choice Act that was passed by the House last session but defeated due to a filibuster by Republicans in the Senate. This misnamed act would take away the right of union members to exercise their constitutional right to secret ballot in union elections. The unions say that secret ballots give employers the opportunity to pressure employees to reject unions. This argument shows just how perverted the logic of unions is. If you take away the secret ballot, the workers are open to union intimidation, which can be considerable to the extreme.

I think the case can be fairly made that strong union presence in a state’s body of laws is a definite detriment to that state’s economy, not to mention the freedom of the workers. Here in Colorado we lost two important opportunities to curb union activity in our state. In order to get our state back on the track of a robust economy, it is imperative that the union influence in our legislative process be curbed. The same can be said for union participation in the federal legislative process. The millions of dollars that the unions poured into state and federal campaigns have and will have huge consequences in the near future.

The bailouts which I referenced in my last posting are a reality. The effect will be to continue to bolster massive union programs to the detriment of the workers. Meanwhile, union states will continue to lose jobs to non-union states and off-shore manufacturers. I believe that it is imperative that laws giving preferential treatment to unions be stricken from the books.

As always, I welcome your comments/discussion.

Dan

Union Discussion (1)

2008-12-28T07:28:00.002-07:00

Friends,
I’m probably going to get myself in trouble with this one. I would like to address the concept of unions in this country. I believe in putting the bottom line up front. That way there is no guessing my point of view. I am not a fan of labor unions. Now, that is my point of view.

Early unions or guilds in America played important parts in the struggle for independence. Just one example is that the “hosts” at the Boston Tea Party were members of the carpenters union. It is natural for us here in America to equate unions with independence.

There are few people who have studied American history would argue that the organized labor movement back in the early to mid 19th century was necessary. Early factories were a hold-over from the sweat-shops of England. Child labor laws and safety regulations were non-existent. In the late 19th century the general attitude was that labor had no rights at all. Anytime there was a strike, it was a mere rubber-stamp exercise to get a federal court injunction to end a strike. If the strike did not end, federal troops were called in to break it.

In 1902, the anthracite coal miners as members of the United Mine Workers struck and closed down all coal mining for the entire summer. The only reason the strike lasted as long as it did was because the mine owners refused to agree to arbitration. President Roosevelt intervened by appointing a board of arbitration. The strike was over in five days.

In those early days, there was no attitude of commonality of effort between labor and management. Management failed to understand that without labor, there was no company. Labor failed to understand that without a profitable business there would be no wages. The battle-lines were drawn and they were inviolate.

Those attitudes, at least on the side of management, have changed. Fifty years ago, I remember my dad, who was a trucking executive tell me of some of the early days of Teamsters organization in the 1940’s. Many of the smaller trucking companies would allow drivers to use company vehicles to and from home. After the Teamsters came in, that perk was not written into the labor contract and the members suffered for it. The trucking company owners/managers had been more like co-workers that bosses. The union forced an antagonistic relationship on all parties.

Looking at unions of today, they are losing membership at unprecedented rates. There are a number of reasons for this, but probably the most significant one is that they have been too successful. The large salaries the unions have negotiated for their members force the retail of those goods produced by union members to become unaffordable to the average purchaser. With extraordinarily high salaries, entire industries are finding it much more cost effective to move manufacturing out of the country, thereby depriving American workers of any salary.

When you go to the department store, or the mega-stores, it is nearly impossible to find American made products. Wal-Mart, which used to pride itself on selling American products, has given up and now sells a very large percentage of merchandise from China, India, and Indonesia because the same American made products just cost too much for their customers.

The United States used to have the corner on the high-tech manufacturing market. This is no longer the case. How many of you have called a Dell Computer representative and spoken to a native American-English speaking technician? If you have, it was a long time ago.

Now the big three auto makers are going to Congress with their collective hands out because they are in serious danger of going under. What are they planning to use the money for, reorganizing, re-tooling, or propping up their union obligations? The extreme success that the unions have had in negotiating wages and retirement benefits has forced the big three to a position of unsupportability. That is not to say the big three front offices have not made their share of mistakes. In addition to routinely caving to the unions, not having the ability to quickly switch manufacturing emphasis based on existing conditions has a devastating effect on profitability.

Staying with the auto industry, the United Auto Workers (UAW) is so powerful and has such a strangle hold on the industry that the front office boys have to go to Congress with their hands out because the UAW wants to make sure their flow of cash continues unabated. Now, Congress is going to give billions of our dollars to the big three and we will be saddled with this enormous debt for the rest of our lives and probably for the rest of my grandchildren’s lives. To paraphrase Everett Dirksen, “A billion here, a billion there and pretty soon you are talking about real money.”

Well friends, we are way past real money here. It is time the unions play by real world rules and not rules for children who have to have everything handed to them. I have been haranguing on the UAW, but that is not the only union in great need of a wake-up call.

Probably the most powerful union in the United States is the National Education Association (NEA). This union has such a strangle hold on the education of our children that parents have little or no say over what goes on in the classroom. However, that is a subject for another posting.

As always, your comments and discussion are welcome.

Dan

Our Uncontrollable Debt

2008-12-27T13:08:00.003-07:00

Friends,
We are in the middle of an economic crisis. Wow! Is that a shock to any of you? Let me start off by saying that I am no economist. I’m just an average guy who is trying to look at this situation in the most logical way possible.

Here is the way I see it. In the mid ‘60s, President Johnson brought about the Great Society which, among other things, sought to alleviate the “crushing weight of poverty.” He wanted to solve these problems with a new form of “creative federalism.” Those of you who regularly read this column will remember my posting of 21 Oct of this year:

So, what did Johnson mean by “creative federalism?” In his speech, he urged the audience to “join in the battle to give every citizen an escape from the crushing weight of poverty…. To join in the battle to build the Great Society, to prove that our material progress is only the foundation on which we will build a richer life of mind and spirit.” These are wonderful thoughts and goals; no one will debate that. However, Johnson’s intent was to make those goals achievable through government action, not through the sweat and perseverance of the individual. As a result, the welfare rolls jumped drastically as government agencies tried to “distribute the wealth”….

The slippery slope was firmly set in place.

Let’s fast forward now. Under President Carter, the Community Reinvestment Act was passed. This was a law that forced lenders to violate good commercial practices by making loans that were, at best, questionable and at worst, unsupportable. The slippery slope had just developed a more pronounced down-angle.

Once again, let’s fast forward. Under President Clinton, even more disadvantaged borrowers were able to take out mortgages to achieve the “American Dream,” irrespective of their ability to support that dream. President Clinton “encouraged” lenders to even further violate good business practices and make more money available to these disadvantaged borrowers. Remember the mantra that there are more homeowners in America than ever before? Did anyone in Washington ever bother to look to see whether these homeowners could afford the “American Dream” they had achieved?

One of the great joys in my life has been the accomplishment of a goal through hard work. When I want something enough to work for it, the satisfaction that comes through achievement makes all the effort worth it. The message sent by the federal government to the so-called “disadvantaged” was that it did not want them to feel left out; therefore serious shortcuts were made available to them. Nobody bothered to tell them that they had to work to support their dream.

Once again, let’s fast forward to today. We have had the collapse of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, and a host of others. The way I see it, there are two culprits in this debacle. The first is the federal government which had the arrogance to interfere with the free market system. This was wrong for many reasons. The Founders were wise enough to keep the federal government out of the free market. I am no constitutional scholar, but I am aware of only one situation where the Constitution allows the federal government to get involved in commerce within the US, and that is when there is a dispute between the States (some of you scholars can correct me on that one).

The other culprit is business and industry allowing the federal government to get away with their meddling. Truly astute business professionals should have been able to foresee the coming economic collapse caused by the meddling of the federal government and stopped it.

Now we are soon to be saddled with over one trillion dollars worth of debt that could have been avoided with the foresight of a sophomore economics student. What makes this situation even worse is that both the Republicans and the Democrats are fighting each other to see who can give which industry more of our money. The latest polls show that the overwhelming majority of Americans bitterly object to the bail-outs taking place, but Congress seems to be made up of people whose wisdom is so superior that they do not need to listen to their constituents.

There are a few brave Congressmen and Senators who have attempted to stand up against this tax against our future, but not enough. We have about a year to put together a slate of candidates that will decisively overturn this rampant growth of our debt, debt that is a direct result of government interference in the marketplace.

This interference in the marketplace is not limited to the front office; it extends down to the union halls and the massive corruption and power flexing that exists in the union hierarchy. That will be the subject of my next posting.

As always, I welcome your comments and discussion.

Dan

The New Administration

2008-12-26T08:52:00.001-07:00

Friends,
We have a new administration due to take charge on 20 January. For those of us of the Conservative persuasion, it was a disappointing election season. A large number of people were disenchanted with the Republican ticket that was foisted on us by the main-stream-media. Many of these people stayed at home instead of voting for the “lesser of two evils.” Because of this, we may deserve what we will have to endure for at least the next two years.

There is a fairly wide variety of opinions on how we Conservatives are to approach the new regime. Numerous pundits have advocated sitting by and give the new administration and their Congressional Stooges a chance; that they may surprise us (oops, did I give myself away?). I am not cut from that cloth. I firmly believe that it is our responsibility to hold their collective feet to the fire. Obama made a lot of very liberal and socialistic claims during the campaign but now that he has been elected he seems to be a bit of a mixed bag. He is keeping Gates as SECDEF, but his choice for attorney general, Eric Holder, is an avowed gun grabber.

When you step back and examine where he came from you have to realize that his political roots are definitely not conservative but are they truly liberal? They may be best described as opportunistic. The political machine that spawned Obama, Chicago, is opportunistic to the extreme. Looking at the “auctioning off” of Obama’s Senate seat, this should not shock the astute political observer. I was gratified to see that Obama’s organization took on the investigation of how much contact his people had with Governor Blagojevich concerning the auction. On the surface, the fast reaction of the Obama organization is laudable; do I believe any findings they will “uncover,” unlikely. (Refer back to the second sentence of this paragraph.)

I do not intend to give the Obama administration a “pass” for one instant. I urge all Conservatives to adopt the same attitude.

As always, I welcome comments/discussion.

The Increasing Terrorist Threat

2008-12-01T08:07:00.000-07:00

Friends,
Over the last several days the world has witnessed incredible carnage in the name of religion. Fox News reports “Indian police said Sunday that the only surviving gunman told them he belongs to the Pakistani militant group Lakshkar-e-Taiba. The group is seen as a creation of the Pakistani intelligence to help fight India in the disputed Kashmir region. Another group, Jaish-e-Mohammed, has also operated in Kashmir. Both are reported to be linked to Al Qaeda.” In that part of the world, religion is inextricably linked to politics and foreign policy.

We are also hearing reports that Muslims across the Middle East are condemning the violence which has killed more than 170 people. These “conscientious Muslims” are afraid that the violence will tarnish the image the world has of Muslims. I find this attitude astounding to the point of hilarity. Palestinians have been shelling Israeli settlements for years. The only reason they have not amassed the kill rate of the Lakshkar-e-Taibi is because they are so inept. They keep shooting small rockets into the Israeli settlements with no idea where they will land.

When you compare the average Muslim extremist attack with that undertaken in Mumbai last week, it is like comparing the bush league with the majors.

The BBC reported that the planning for the Mumbai attacks was extensive. At least one ship was hijacked and used as a mother ship to transport the attackers close to shore. They then went ashore in dinghies in two to four-man teams to conduct their attacks. The targets were preselected. All indications are that the attacks were rehearsed and well choreographed. The attackers were very well armed for the selected targets to affect maximum casualties. While a large number of people were killed, it doesn’t look like those killed were completely random victims. The attackers were specifically looking for people with American and British passports. They also specifically targeted the residence of an Israeli priest who had frequent Israeli guests.

This attack shows a high degree of planning and coordination, possibly with the complicity of elements of Pakistani Intelligence.

On the other hand, looking at the average Muslim extremist; young Muslims, mostly young men, are more than willing to strap on bomb vests and blow themselves up along with anyone who happens to be close by. But this is in the name of – well, I don’t know what they are trying to accomplish – I guess they are trying in some perverted way to advance Muslim principles. In my view this is a prime example of cowardice, not on the part of the suicide bombers, but on their handlers. If it is so glorious to die for Allah, why are they recruiting the young, passionate believers? Why do they not prove their devotion and blow themselves into the arms of their 72 virgins?

While fanatics can and often do create havoc, they are not the major concern for America; rather, it is the calculating and organized groups that may or may not be affiliated with Al Qaeda. However, certainly Al Qaeda has been an inspirational influence in the world of Islamic terrorism. The planning that took place before the Mumbai attacks reflect the thoroughness of the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks. I’m sure the planning did not take nearly as long, but it was certainly as thorough. This shows that the enemy is still willing and capable to undertake the requisite planning for a successful attack.

What really worries me is that the exact same scenario can be used right here on American shores with only a few alterations to the plans. These highly coordinated groups would like nothing better than to conduct a successful attack against a high profile event.

With a change in administration and a change in national emphasis the next couple of years will tell how the world of terrorism views the United States. If we are viewed as ineffective or uncommitted to the war on terror we can expect renewed targeting of US assets, if not on US soil itself. Vigilance and pressure on the terrorists is the only thing that will keep their attacks from our soil.

As always, I welcome your thoughts and comments. This posting can also be viewed at: http://carpentersmate.blogspot.com.

Dan

Statism in America

2008-10-21T01:34:00.002-06:00

Friends,
My wife subscribes to a publication put out by Ligonier Ministries called Tabletalk. In addition to daily bible devotionals, each month it contains numerous articles written by leading Christian authors. I read one in the August edition written by Dr. R. C. Sproul, Founder and Chairman of Ligonier Ministries entitled “Statism.” In it he notes that he asked Dr. Francis Schaeffer his “biggest concern for the future of the church in America?” Dr Schaeffer said immediately, “Statism.” Dr. Sproul goes on to define statism as a world view philosophy that the federal government is the ultimate authority removing God from His position of supremacy.

A subset of this philosophy is the devolution of authority from statehood to statism. I am not going to address the removal of God from the public square, even though the evolution of the “separation of church and state” has certainly played a major role in this trend. Instead, I am going to look at the evolution of American society as an entitlement society, thereby moving ever forward to statism.

In the early years of the US the country was, for the most part, an agrarian society. Key among the characteristics of this society was self reliance and dependency on family. Each family knew that if they were to make their way in life they would have to do it themselves and maybe with assistance from their neighbors, if they had neighbors. Not in the equation was the government.

Over the last 200 years, it has become more acceptable and even expected for government to hand out those essential elements of survival as basic subsistence with no strings attached. This tendency became more evident under the Great Society of Lyndon Johnson. Barry Goldwater phrased it well when he said, “The government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.”

In a speech Johnson gave at the University of Michigan on 22 May 1964, he discussed the ills of America and called on the students to work toward solving those ills. Among other things, he pointed out the “crushing weight of poverty,” the overcrowded, understaffed classrooms with out- dated curricula.

To solve these problems, he it would “require us to create new concepts of cooperation, a creative federalism, between the National Capital and the leaders of local communities.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines federalism as, “the theory or advocacy of federal political orders, where final authority is divided between sub-units and a center.” This is the concept that the Founders envisioned when they wrote the Constitution.

So, what did Johnson mean by “creative federalism?”In his speech, he urges the audience to “join in the battle to give every citizen an escape from the crushing weight of poverty…. To join in the battle to build the Great Society, to prove that our material progress is only the foundation on which we will build a richer life of mind and spirit.” These are wonderful thoughts and goals. No one will debate that. However, Johnson’s intent was to make those goals achievable through government action, not through the sweat and perseverance of the individual. As a result, the welfare rolls jumped drastically as we tried to “distribute the wealth” as is being touted by Senator Obama.

Our country had been on an ever-steepening slide toward statism since the New Deal days, but Johnson accelerated that slide. It was further accelerated to include the commercial side our lives under President Carter when the Community Reinvestment act was passed. This forced mortgage companies to make loans that were questionable, at best. This placed a lot of bad loans under the umbrella of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

President Clinton took up the mantle of statism by “encouraging” lenders to make loans available to disadvantaged borrowers to make home ownership more available. This resulted in massive numbers of people buying homes they could not afford. Remember when the Clinton Administration changed the depository regulations for banks in the early to mid ‘90s? You could buy HUD housed for pennies-on-the-dollar. I contend that these actions were a direct result of the Federal Government’s push toward statism.

Now we can fast-forward to a few weeks ago when Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac imploded (along with a number of very large financial institutions). The Democrats are blaming the current administration for this implosion. Talk about mendacity! They are the ones that caused the crisis but are putting the blame directly on the Republican administration.

With the $700B bail-out, not to mention the billions spent to bail of earlier failures, we have steepened the slippery slope to complete statism to almost vertical. Treasury Secretary Paulson is now going about buying large blocks of bank stocks, putting the Federal Government right in the middle of the market square. In many cases, the banks have no choice about the purchase. The federal government is, in effect conducting a hostile takeover. While I am no constitutional scholar, there seems to be a serious constitutional issue here.

I have urged my Congressman and Senators to vigorously oppose these measures. Congressman Lamborn has done so. Unfortunately, our two senators supported the bail-out. Each and every citizen in America has had a huge debt burden placed on them. We have now sunk to not only the concept of individual statism, but now commercial statism has put a pall over our entire economy.

It is time that we put people into office that will vigorously work to reverse this trend and get us back on the track set out by the Founders.

As always, I welcome your comments and discussion.

Dan

Points to Ponder

2008-10-18T11:37:00.004-06:00

Friends,
I normally do not post email exchanges but the one below from a friend was very interesting and I thought I would share it. It is done so with her permission.
Enjoy
Dan

From:
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2008 6:34 AM
To: 'Daniel C. Lanotte'

Subject: Points to Ponder

Hi Dan, The Dems and press are trying to destroy Joe the Plumber by showing he has no plumbing license, yet he said he worked for a plumbing company- has he ever actually said he worked for the company as a plumber? He may fill some other role in the company. There are also other routes to learning plumbing beside Union ones of which he may have availed himself, and it is the union that is screaming the loudest right now because they supported Obama.

At our caucus, all I heard was “So and So should be our nominee because he is electable”. Isn’t it about time (PAST TIME) that Reps start picking the right man and making him (or her) electable.! And stop letting the liberal press pick our candidates by suddenly promoting the man they think is most defeatable (or will “suck up” to them- pardon my French). McCain quite suddenly became the front runner after much hype in the press created a “Bandwagon” effect among Reps causing Mitt Romney to pull out. In (public) high school back in the late 50s/early 60s we had a class called “Problems of Democracy” in which we learned propaganda techniques and how to spot them and avoid believing them over our common sense. Bandwagon was one, “The Big Lie” was another whereby a lie is told often enough that people believe it (Joseph Goebbels’, Hitler’s propaganda minister’s, favorite technique). All one need do is listen to Obama or Biden (who said in his debate with Gov. Palin that Obama did not say he would meet with Achmadinijad and was never called on it, but you could see by the look on Palin’s face that she was appalled)- if their lips are moving, they are lying. McCain has done his share of “misstatements” too, and it is time we, including the press, start calling a lie a lie and start pointing out blatant efforts at propaganda.

I have forgotten the names of some of the other forms of propaganda, but they include one very commonly used by the Dems, possibly named “Substitution”- accuse the other guy of what you yourself are doing to refocus blame on your opponent. The Dems (Barney Frank and others) started this whole mortgage mess by forcing loans to go to many, especially the poor, who could not sustain the payments and were doomed from the beginning to eventually default on them. Now that it has hit the fan, the Dems accuse the Reps, the Bush Administration, of causing the entire mess when it was primarily the Dems who started it.

Another form of Propaganda is the use of celebrity to gain prestige for your candidate/cause. Get enough Hollywood luminaries to speak for your guy and the other guy looks like a “Nobody”. And who wants to vote fore a “Nobody”.

Just my 2 cents worth for the day.

My Reply:

S ,
There are certain issues on which you and I will respectfully disagree. This is not one of them. There are a lot of us who were very surprised when Romney pulled out as soon as he did. We have all come to the conclusion that the press “fell in love” with McCain because they saw Romney as a tougher competitor and unbeatable. Notice how soon they turned on McCain as soon as he became the only Republican in the game. They want Obama to win. This is not just my ranting. The MSM has bought into the “Globalization Effect” to the extent that they have sold their souls to make it happen.

Another area you have nailed it on is “Isn’t it about time (PAST TIME) that Reps start picking the right man and making him (or her) electable.!” This is another area where a number of us are working. The primary target for 2010 is Senator Salazar. He is identified as one of the most “suck-up” Kennedy Democrats in the Senate. I email him on almost every issue that comes up. To his credit, he never ignores me; he has always responded with a position paper. To his detriment, he is almost always on the wrong side of the Constitution. Most of his positions are not Constitutionally supportable. As you know I am just a simple carpenter and if I can recognize unconstitutional behavior that should be an indication that a lot of other Coloradoans will be able to do the same. I have saved all of his emails and have the evidence to back up my contention.

You also talk about “The Big Lie.” Boy! Is that an accurate assessment. I would like to refer you to two articles. The first is by Mike Gallagher on Townhall.com (first attachment). He does an excellent job discussing this issue. The second article you should have received last night on one of my postings and is available at http://carpentersmate.blobspot.com/. Andy Pico has been called “Mr. NORAD” because of his years of experience and astute insights into national defense/security. His study into “The Big Lie” of global warming has drawn a lot of fire from “experts” who are sucking on the big money bottle. In my book, that is something of which to be proud.

Thank you for your comments. With your permission, I would like to pass this exchange around.
Dan

Daniel C. Lanotte
dlanotte@falconbroadband.net
719-683-5506

Audacity of Mendacity - Guest Article

2008-10-17T19:11:00.001-06:00

Friends,
The following article was written by Mr. Andy Pico, who has been published on these pages in the past and, I hope, will be so many times in the future.
Enjoy,
Dan

Our country is on the verge of potentially electing a new Triumvirate of Obama, Pelosi and Reid together with The One’s sidekick, the Bumbling Biden, with the most radical, socialist agenda this country has ever seen in national politics. The Triumvirate could have a potentially filibuster proof senate majority able to ram through whatever far left radical measures dictated to the Triumvirate by their political backers within such groups as ACORN (currently under investigation for massive interstate voter fraud), Moveon.org and such Soros funded groups.

This coalition has a radical, leftist agenda that has nothing to do with preserving individual freedom, full employment, a robust economic climate or any of the key moral or social values this country has developed. Their entire methodology is built on deceit, fraud and intimidation of political opponents.

This Triumvirate has manufactured a great economic message focused on the current meltdown of the financial markets, aided and abetted by a complicit press which combines economic illiteracy with historical ignorance. The seeds of the current financial crisis were planted by the Democrat administration of Carter in the Community Redevelopment ACT and expanded by Clinton with the assistance of ACORN to strong arm lending institutions into making bad loans. The brief period of Republican control was unable to reform this coming, and predicted, financial meltdown due to Democrat obstructionism in Congress and in the courts.

Bill Clinton - "I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress, or by me when I was president, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

I certainly would not be one to call the Former President a liar.

The facts, unreported by a complicit press, is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were established by Democrats, staffed by Democrats, (the former executives of these failed institutions are currently part of the economics team on Obama’s campaign staff), “regulated” by Democrats and provided campaign contributions with taxpayer guaranteed funds to Democrats. Obama, in his extraordinarily short time in the US Senate, managed to skim the 3rd largest amount, barely behind the Democrat chairman of the committee which oversaw those organizations. While technically legal, this defines the worst kind of corruption.

That the architects of our current financial crisis are likely to be rewarded with political control and given the responsibility to fix their own mess is one of the travesties of the scandal that is the current journalistic abandonment of any pretense of standards or integrity. That the Bumbling Biden could utter the most outrageous and complete fabrication of the history of Hezbollah in Lebanon and our involvement there along with the utter fantasy of his proposed intervention, and not be held to account by a press more interested in investigating 25 year old traffic tickets by Governor Palin’s relatives and whether Joe has a current plumber’s license, has to rank as one of the most despicable failures of modern and corrupt journalism.

The economic measures being proposed by those who have brought you this looming recession will repeat the governmental economic idiocy that ushered in the Great Depression.

Here in Colorado the Democrat candidate for the Senate is one of those responsible for restricting energy development resulting in high gas prices and utility bills, based in part by the fraud of man-made global warming and extreme environmental over-regulation. His possible election will not only reward his own complicity in our economic problems but help hand a filibuster proof Senate majority to this radical and irresponsible Socialist Triumvirate.

Rarely has so much been at stake. On positions of the economy, conduct of the war, worldwide anti-terrorist operations, opposition to the state sponsors of international terrorism, energy development, phony climate control, misguided tax policies and most of all, a culture of death which will include taxpayer funded abortions; this Radical Triumvirate is far outside of the political mainstream.

Do not reward this Audacity of Mendacity with political victory and the near dictatorial control over our economy by economic illiterates. Here in Colorado, vote to elect Doug Lamborn, Scott Starin, Wayne Wolf, Marilyn Musgrave, Mike Coffman, George Lilly and John Lerew to their Congressional seats; Bob Schaffer to the US Senate; Sarah Palin for Vice President and that other guy running with her for President.

Pico, of Colorado Springs, is a retired navy commander, naval Flight officer and economist.

As always, your comments and discussions are welcome

Why We Must Defend the American Way of Life

2008-09-25T05:35:00.003-06:00

Friends,
The following article was requested by a Colorado publication that may or may not use it. It is a bit long, but I thought I would make it available.
Dan

When I was asked to write a piece on “Why We Must Defend the American Way of Life,” I was flattered and immediately accepted the request. Then I looked around for source material and came to the realization that I have not written on an assigned topic in many years. I always get the urge to pontificate on a subject and sit down and “tickle the plastics.” Bounding one’s thoughts can be a bit confining and, therefore, daunting. Well, they say you will usually find something when you are not looking for it; and that is exactly what happened. I came upon an editorial by Chuck Colson titled “What’s the Matter With Canada?” on Townhall.com., and it instantly gave me some clarification as to why we must defend the American way of life. This article, discussed below, shows how one group can erode the rights of another.

Before I go too far, it might be appropriate to define what I see as the “American Way of Life.” In today’s world I see this as a moving target. We can point to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and then add our modifiers such as equal opportunity, affirmative action and the like. Being a strict Constitutionalist, I prefer to look at the American Way of Life as those tenets envisioned by the Founders. I believe they looked at America as a place where there was little in the way of government intervention and regulation. They were individualists who felt free to express themselves in whatever way they were moved. This included the freedom to express their belief and love of God and Christ. They understood that it is the responsibility of each man to protect and provide for his family. It was, and still is, the responsibility of each man to protect and provide for the security of his country. I see the American Way of Life as an individual way and not a way dictated by government or special interests, whether they be religious or commercial. The founders were bounded by the cultural mores of the day and certainly did not envision the cultural changes that we have seen come about. I would advocate the return to the mores of fear of God, patriotism, and the centrality of the family.

Each and every one of us should be able to think of any number of reasons to defend our way of life. The short list should be the US Constitution and The Bill of Rights. Before 1773, there had never been the concept of a country that ruled by the consent of the governed. In that year, the colonists began taking control of their own destiny when their protest against the king’s tea tax prompted them to action in the form of the Boston Tea Party. The crown had been levying onerous taxes on the colonists to recoup the cost of the French and Indian war that had ended ten years before. As the independence movement progressed and then was articulated by the Declaration of Independence, penned mostly by Thomas Jefferson, Americans began to “think out of the box” and into a new concept of government. The first experiment in government, the Articles of Confederation, failed to meet the needs of the new country. This experiment evolved into the US Constitution, that magnificent document that places restrictions on the federal government, not the states. However, the states demanded greater guarantees of the freedoms of the citizens, and, in 1789, the first Congress proposed 12 amendments to the new Constitution. The first two were never ratified. These involved the number of constituents for each Congressman and pay for Congressmen. The next ten were finally ratified by ¾ of the states in 1791 and became known as the Bill of Rights. The amazing aspect of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is that they both restrict the powers of the federal government. This was a totally new concept.

Our precious freedoms and rights have prompted us to go to war a number of times since those struggling years immediately following our independence from Great Britain. Our first war as a independent nation is a good example of the young nation’s conviction that its autonomy with all the freedoms guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights were worth defending at all cost . Only 30 years after we thought the fighting was over, the British navy was in desperate need of men and supplies under the crush of the war with Napoleon. They were regularly raiding American shipping and war ships to obtain supplies and sailors to fight the French. We could not stand by and passively allow our ships, shipping, and sailors to be plundered from the seas. We went to war to defend our freedoms and our sovereignty. Even though the war was officially declared a tie, it showed that the young nation was not one to trifle with.

Each war we have fought has been due to drastic and sudden threats to our freedoms and sovereignty. But what about those insidious “under the radar” threats? Those threats are just as real as Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Both the Pearl Harbor and 9/11 attacks were perpetrated upon US soil due to perceived injustices by despots’ intent on world domination. Japanese naval forces attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 for the purpose of destroying the US Pacific Fleet and, ultimately, our way of life. This would have left them free to wreak havoc across the Pacific while their partners-in-evil did the same across Europe and North Africa. And then on September 11, 2001 a group of evil men, guided by despots, used four airliners to kill over 3000 innocent people who had done no harm to the perpetrators or their bosses. Both of these attacks were carried out because evil men wanted to end our way of life.

Another example of evil people intent on taking over a culture is what is happening in Europe today. In France, militants riot at the threat from their legislature that they are going to have to work for the government support money they receive; at least that is the cover story. Just who are these French militants? The press uses the term “militants” as a euphemism for Muslim radicals. Paris police cannot even enter certain sections of the city or the surrounding area unarmed. In October and November, 2005, the violence was so brutal that thousands of cars were burned and several police were killed. On 14 November of that year, President Jacques Chirac pledged to create greater opportunities for the young people, showing the militants that they had won. French officials cite evidence that Muslim extremists are being pipelined to the Middle East for training and being returned home to conduct jihad. [1]

The expansion of Muslim radicalism in Europe has brought along with it immigrant enclaves where Sharia (Islamic) law rules. How many of us really understand Sharia law? I certainly do not, but I know a few of their tenants as illustrated by the following cases-in-point:
1. Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped

2. Islam allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives.

3. Islam allows an injured plaintiff to extract legal revenge – physical eye for physical eye.

4. Islam orders death for Muslim and possible death for non-Muslim critics of Muhammad and the Quran and even Sharia itself. Good examples of this are the death sentence against Salmon Rushdie for Satanic Verses and the threats against the Danish cartoonists that just drew a likeness of Muhammad.

5. Islam commands offensive and aggressive and unjust jihad. This has been an on-going effort since Muhammad was alive. [2]

While these provisions have not been accepted in the US to date, slow encroachments are making their way into our society.

For example, On August 03, 2008, in a news release by the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, a new agreement with Tyson Foods eliminates Labor Day and the instatement of Eid al-Fitr as a holiday. Eid al-Fitr celebrates the end of Ramadan and falls on October 01 this year. [3]

A recent expose aired on Fox News outlined a number of “honor killings” perpetrated by Muslim men on their daughters and sisters here in the US. These killings are acceptable forms of punishment under Sharia law. Fortunately, our rule of law brings these killers to justice, but what about the floggings that are permitted under Sharia law? When a woman or man is murdered there is bound to be a body or an individual missing. But what happens in the case of a flogging when the victim does not come forward to notify the police of the assault? It’s likely that in many instances these crimes go unpunished.

The ever creeping encroachment of Sharia law is overtaking the societies of Europe and Scandinavia. Examples can be cited from any of the western European countries. In Great Britain, even the Archbishop of Canterbury has stated that he believes it is legitimate to have entire enclaves within the country that are Muslim only, where Sharia law can be practiced exclusive of British law. Having two legal systems in force side-by-side is an untenable situation.

But what happens when the rights that we have come to cherish are eroded ever so slowly over the years? Specific Sharia law is not the only assault on our freedoms. A possibly more insidious intruder into our free America is political correctness. I fear that this is what has happened to Canada, culturally our nearest neighbor and relative. A Canadian writer and popular blogger, Mark Steyn, wrote a book, America Alone, where he describes how America’s fight against global terrorism is basically a solo act. Maclean’s magazine, a popular news magazine in Canada, printed excerpts from Steyn’s book, and then the carrots hit the fan. Chuck Colson explains what happened like this: “Mohamed Elmasry of the Canadian Islamic Congress charged that the content of these excerpts about the expansion of radical Islam ‘subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt [4].’” This criticism is so strong, that both the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal have been brought into the fray. The Canadian Human Rights Commission did not pursue legal action but the BC body is, complaining that Steyn’s book “subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt.” As of July 21, a ruling had not been issued. While Maclean’s has the resources to fight the BC Tribunal, the average Joe next door who makes a derogatory statement about Muslims does not. As Colson explains, Maclean’s was given a kangaroo court without a jury. They are so afraid of offending the Muslim community in Canada that they have traded in free speech for some kind of cheap appeasement [5]. This is the level to which the Canadian ideal of political correctness has sunk. The average guy next door could expect the same. With the current attitude of the Canadian judiciary in British Colombia he is convicted before he gets to trial. But wait; why is there any necessity for a trial in a country with free speech? This is only partially a rhetorical question. The reason for the trial is the slow, steady decline of the acceptance of basic freedom of speech in Canada.

Remember the cartoons that were drawn by the Danish cartoonists showing caricatures of Muhammad? How many times have you seen them printed in the US? The State Department condemned their publication in the Danish press. Where was the ACLU during this furor? They were characteristically silent. The American press does not want to run afoul of the State Department and the ACLU. However, during this time, the press was perfectly willing to cover every sordid detail of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. This shows the lengths the press will go to appease those who want to erode out freedom of speech.

We have allowed our freedoms to be so eroded that they do not look like the same freedoms that the Sons of Liberty fought for. Are we going to go the way of Canada? Each of us is responsible for exercising our God-given and Constitutionally-guaranteed unalienable freedoms.
In this article, I have only addressed a few examples of our eroding freedoms but there are others that are appropriate to mention:

· If we exercise our God-given and Constitutionally-guaranteed right to express our belief in the tenants of Christianity and Biblical standards we are criticized for being intolerant irrespective of the intolerance of the Muslims or the atheists. If we are critical of the treatment of women at the hands of Muslim men, we are racist.

· Today, in many school districts, the discussion of the world having been created by God is completely out of the question. Only evolution is allowed in the discussion.

· In many schools there are Muslim clubs but Christian clubs are not allowed.

· Our children are not allowed to pray in school because it may be construed to be advocating one religion over another or one parent or student finds it offensive. The rights and religious preferences of the Christian are not allowed to be considered.

· If we advocate controlling our borders, we are called racist and/or isolationists.

· If we believe that a marriage consists of one man and one woman, we are called intolerant homophobes.

These are but a few of the freedoms that are slipping away. Make no mistake; there is a deliberate, concerted effort to make this happen. If you look around at the US today, you will find that there is a very big difference in the American way of life as envisioned by the Founders and the American way of life of today. This is a process that has been in progress for approximately 150 years.

I have always hated being told that there is a problem. I would rather be told that there is a solution. OK, here it is. It is incumbent upon all Americans to exercise their freedoms and speak out in no uncertain terms when those freedoms are trampled. Our elected officials need to hear from each of us, individually, that we are displeased with the direction our freedoms are going. When freedom-loving organizations such as Colorado Family Institute ask for a signature on a petition to stop the erosion of one freedom or another, sign it. In addition, write your Congressmen and Senators. Frankly, my Congressman and Senators are tired of hearing from me. That is unfortunate because I am certainly not through writing and expressing my views. I hope you are not either.

References:
[1] John Anderson, “France Says Extremists are Enlisting Its Citizens,” Washington Post Foreign Service, October 19, 2005, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/18/AR2005101801632_pf.html
[2] The American Thinker, Top Ten Reasons Why Sharia is Bad for all Societies, August 03, 2008, http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/08/top_ten_reasons_why_sharia_is.html
[3] Speechless – Silencing the Christians, Tyson Foods Warms up to Islam, August 03 2008, http://www.onenewsnow.com/Business/Default.aspx?id=202506
[4] Townhall.com, What’s the Matter With Canada? , July 21, 2008, http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ChuckColson/2008/07/21/whats_the_matter_with_canada
[5] Mark Steyn, America Alone, The End of the World as We know It; Regnery Publishing, Washington DC, 2006

Warming hysteria despite new data

2008-08-25T17:14:00.003-06:00

Friends,
I am posting an article by a guest columnist who writes periodically for the Colorado Springs Gazette. I have known Andy for almost 20 years and have found that when he takes pen to paper (or tickles the plastics) it is definitely worth taking reading. I hope you enjoy it.

By ANDY PICO, GUEST COLUMNIST
Global warming hysteria continues to make its impact on our state, national and global economies with increasingly devastating consequences. Severe impacts to food and energy supplies and prices are a direct result of some of the policies adopted to "fight global warming," including the conversion of agricultural resources from food to fuel and intentionally restricting energy supplies in order to force energy conversion. These results were predicted by many with scientific or economic credentials.

Dr. James Hansen, the corrupt director of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, celebrated his testimony from 20 years ago this July by once again warning the Congress of manmade greenhouse gas warming; testifying of imminent catastrophe and calling for the criminal prosecution of "deniers." Warmers would deny the rights to free speech, academic freedom and open scientific research. The warmers deny that 32,000 scientists who have signed the Oregon Petition or the Manhattan Declaration (www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=1) against the fraud of manmade climate change should have a voice.

Twenty years ago, GISS predicted significant warming and its annual reports have shown an accelerating increase in global temperatures. The GISS monthly data, as well as the data from every climate monitoring agency, show otherwise.

In June 1988, the reported station and land-ocean anomalies were .84 and .67 degrees over the century average and Hansen projected that by June 2008, the temperature would increase by another degree. When he testified to Congress in June of runaway warming, the temperatures had declined to .26 degrees for both over the century average.

Predicted mid-troposphere warming is the key component of the theory of greenhouse gas warming, but actual midtroposphere temperatures have declined by .2 C over these two decades. All of the climate reporting centers; NASA GISS, Hadley, RSS and UAH satellite coverage have reported sharply declining temperatures since January 2007.

It is significant that 20 years of warming have been reversed in a year and half with the trend headed sharply down interrupted only briefly in July, which most of us call "summer." The sea level rise has also stopped, Antarctic ice cover remains above average, and the Arctic summer ice melt continues to trail last year's levels by a significant margin. All these measures run counter to the catastrophic predictions and continue even while the CO2 level continues to rise.

This decline in global sea surface, land and atmospheric temperatures correspond to the decline in solar activity as measured both by sunspot numbers and solar cycle length and the shift in oceanic circulation patterns to the cool side. This sharp cooling trend is particularly notable in that both the IPCC and GISS estimated that today's temperatures would be about a degree higher than they actually are. The decline was predicted by those of us who have pointed out the solar connection, amplified by atmospheric and oceanic circulation, as the principle driver of terrestrial climate changes.

During this Holocene Interglacial period the prevailing temperatures have been higher and lower in a regular cycle. During the initial Holocene Climactic Optimum at the end of the last Ice Age and beginning of this warm Interglacial period, the temperatures were several degrees warmer than now.

Several cool periods and warm periods alternated on a regular cycle over the millennium with a pre-Roman cool period, a Roman Warm Period several degrees warmer than now, a Middle Age Cold Period, the Medieval Warm Period that was at least another degree warmer than now, and the Little Ice Age at least a degree colder than now which the current Modern Warm Period has only slightly recovered from.

Recent archeological finds have located a Roman road crossing a pass in the Alps that is still mostly covered by glaciers. The Romans were certainly advanced in their engineering accomplishments for their time, but how and why they would have built a road underneath a glacier is an interesting question for the global warming hysterics to answer.

The cooling trend is now well established and correlates with the current, extended solar minimum. A number of independent solar scientists are predicting a multi-decade quiet and cold period. It is clear that climate change is a natural phenomenon.

Pico, of Colorado Springs, is a retired navy commander, naval Flight officer and economist. He is a signatory of the Manhattan Declaration.

This column may be viewed at:https://webmail.si-intl.com/OWA/redir.aspx?C=7f5a83b97ba442dbb6af073ef370373f&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.gazette.com%2fsections%2fopinion%2fguestcolumnists%2f

The Russian Incursion Continues

2008-08-16T08:21:00.009-06:00

Friends,
A couple of days ago I received the email below from a trusted friend. He says that it is authentic and that is good enough for me. Forgive me for removing the names; I’m sure you understand the reason.

Begin forwarded email.
Capt _____ provides input from someone inside Georgia. If he emailsit, it's reliable. FYI

-----Original Message-----From: Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 12:42 PMTo:

Subject: FW: Georgia
Admiral, Sirs,
Word from Inside Georgia. Sad news.
v.r.CAPT
Counter-Terrorism & Defense Operations
-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 11:38 PM
Subject: Georgia
By all accounts, the Georgian Coast Guard was essentially destroyedyesterday by Russian regular army troops in Poti. No people killed orinjured, as there was no resistance. Three ships seized and destroyed.Buildings on the base damaged and/or destroyed, including the commandcenter. Other GCG vessels had left Poti before this and were not taken. Theradar station at Anaklia was destroyed. Not yet at Supsa, the Russians wereexpected to destroy that station as well.

It has chilled me to hear of all of this, as so much of that infrastructurewas built or improved as a part of my work these past years. It can be rebuilt if the money is found but i t pains me nonetheless.

It is the destruction and looting in the villages near Abkhazia, and aroundSouth Ossetia that is so horrific. There is no foreign aid to help familiesrebuild their lives. The Georgia, Osset and Abkhaz youth who are a part of it are thugs and criminals easily brought to the Russian fold in return for free reign. There is no reasonable explanation on earth for what theRussians are now doing in Georgia. It does not equal the genocide of Darfur,but it is all here in my backyard.

My family is terrified, and the patriotic rhetoric is maxed out in volume.Thankfully it appears that the Russians will not press on to Tbilisi. Amazingly we still have electricity and phone service. And water.

Gracefully yesterday provided a moment of peaceful irony - at the Olympicsin Beijing Georgian athletes won 2 gold medals. The first was in judo. The second was in wrestling. The Georgian defeated - a Russian! And in Olympicappropriateness the two combatants threw their arms around each other inexhaustion and respect. I think all of Georgia was standing for their anthemduring the medals ceremony.

Best wishes,

End of forwarded email

Click on map to see full size

As I pointed out in my last Political Discourse, Putin wants to put the old Soviet Union back together. It seems that Georgia’s crime was being friendly with the West and specifically their desire to join NATO. When the rebelling region of South Ossetia tried to break away and rejoin with Russia, Georgia went in for the purpose of putting down the rebellion. That was the excuse that Russia needed/wanted to attack Georgia.

North Ossetia has long been aligned with Russia. In the map insert above, North Ossetia is the area marked as Alania. While South Ossetia has strong ties to Russia, has long been considered a part of Georgia.

Russian forces have been in South Ossetia, theoretically as a peacekeeping force, but their wonton actions against the Georgians as noted in the above email goes beyond merely protecting allies and preventing further violence. Georgia has also had peacekeeping forces in the area.

As of this morning, 16 August 2008, the Russians and the Georgians have signed a cease-fire agreement, stipulating that Russian forces are to return to their previous positions in South Ossetia with the ability to patrol the Georgian border. General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, the deputy chief of the Russian military staff has stated that a return of Georgian forces to South Ossetia would not be acceptable.

To slightly shift gears, the Associated Press reported today that Poland and the United States have concluded an agreement to place anti-ballistic missiles in Poland. The negotiations have been going on for 18 months with the stated goal to place missiles in Poland to protect from any current or projected IRBM/ICBM capability within Iran or other potentially unfriendly Middle Eastern country. Russia believes that the anti-ballistic missiles are a direct slap in the fact to them and has threatened retaliation in the form of its own nuclear arsenal.

Two days ago, Russia also made the statement that Georgian borders are no longer sacred, the same with any rebellious region within any of the former Soviet states that ask for Russia’s assistance.

Given the bellicose stance Russia has taken in the recent past, it would be reasonable to expect all of the former Soviet states to be in danger of re-absorbs ion. Russia is already looking with laser focus on the Baltic States.

After my last posting, a number of commentators as well as several of my friends have commented on the similarity between the current Russian actions and the incursion of German troops into the Sudetenland on 01 October, 1938. This incursion was due to the appeasement mentality of the Europeans at that time. The current actions of the Russians and the world’s desire for peace today make it feel like it must have in the late ‘30s. How many more of the former Soviet satellite states are going to be given to Putin?

Since the pull-out of US forces from Viet Nam, and the Marines from Lebanon, the United States has come to be viewed as a country that does not go the extra mile to back its friends. I believe that it is time to reverse that trend and show the world that we do back our friends. In the past, the Russians have typically responded only to adversaries that come to them from a position of strength. Giving in to their bullying in Georgia and Poland removes any semblance of strength. If we do not stand up for our friends now we could see a resurgence of Soviet dominance in Eastern Europe and a renewal of the Cold War.

As always, I welcome your comments/discussion.

Dan

The Russian Bear Out of Hibernation

2008-08-11T15:08:00.001-06:00

Friends,
On June 12, 1987, President Reagan made the famous demand, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” in a speech to the people of West Berlin. It was also heard on the East side of the wall. This was the prelude to the greatest peacetime implosion of a multilithic regime this world has ever seen. Today, 21 years later, we still laud Reagan for his courage to even make this challenge, after all of his advisors counseled against it.

In December of 1991, after the erosion of the Soviet world from the edges, the Soviet Union ceased to exist. A painful period of the Russian version of democratization began. The newly wealthy grew out of the corrupt officials that had run the country. Still, there was some hope that the new Russian Republic would work through these growing pains and come out the other side as a democracy, governed by the rule of law. The old hard-line Communists were suppressed and it looked as if Boris Yeltsin might just be able to pull it off, if his health held up. At least that is the short version.

Now fast forward to 2000. With the succession of Vladimir Putin to the presidency of Russia, another KGB professional was again in power. For the past eight years Putin has been consolidating and confirming his power.

In the run-up to the 2003 parliamentary elections, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the wealthiest of the new Russian billionaires, financed opposition parties running against Putin’s United Russia Party. For this indiscretion, the government charged Khodorkovsky with fraud and tax evasion. The sentence was for eight years. Under the Russian legal system, he was eligible for release in 2008. Removing this source of financing, Putin’s ruling party easily won reelection. In early 2007 Khodorkovsky faced new charges of money laundering and embezzlement in preparation for the upcoming 2008 elections. Putin could not take a chance of losing his legislative mandate.

Putin and the ruling party have recently taken to flexing their collective muscles in the old ways. In August of last year, Putin announced the resumption of long-range bomber flights because of security concerns. This renewed assertiveness now can be viewed as the first overt step in a campaign to reestablish the regional power base that the Soviets had established after World War II.

In the past week, Georgia has sent troops into the break-away enclave of South Ossetia to discourage thoughts of independence. Since the break-up of the Soviet Union, South Ossetia has claimed to be independent from Georgia. This urge for independence was further enhanced with the recent declaration of independence by Kosovo.

Russia has been claiming that they are just acting as peacekeepers. But Russia is goaded by NATO’s promise to admit Georgia. Last week, Russian forces rolled into the area in support of the separatists. Two days ago, 8 Aug, it was reported that Russian troops had moved into South Ossetia with 150 tanks plus assorted other vehicles. Today, it was reported that Russian and Georgian forces are engaged. There are also reports of the Russian Navy blockading Georgian ports.

With the aforementioned examples of Russian expansion of control, both internal and external, it could be argued that Russia under Vladimir Putin is attempting to rebuild, at least partially, the Soviet power bloc of the Cold War days. While the West has been watching developments related to Muslim Terrorism, Putin has been restoring the Russian military which had fallen into abject disrepair; this repair and modernization being paid for by proceeds gained from re-nationalized industries such as the petroleum industry.

This is a complicated world, made more so by the resurgence of Russia as a power with which to be reckoned. Only time will tell the lengths to which Putin will go to achieve the level of his desired power.

As always, I welcome your comments and discussions.
Dan

The Cowards of Palestine

2008-07-18T04:00:00.002-06:00

Friends,
I am going to start this off with a disclaimer. This posting will be very slanted. I hate cowardly murderers. They remind me of hyenas; they wait until their prey is completely defenseless and then they strike. They will normally take great delight in causing pain and shock whenever they know that they are not in the line of fire. You now know my leanings and you can read the rest of this with that knowledge.

Several weeks ago it was announced that the government of Israeli Prime Minister Olmert was considering a prisoner swap with Hezbollah in the name of peace. This swap was negotiated with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Hezbollah is not in the habit of making one-for-one exchanges when these swaps are negotiated.

What the Israelis got were the bodies of sergeants Elad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser. What the Israelis gave to Hezbollah were five prisoners. All five of these were Lebanese; but one, Samir Kuntar is considered to be one of Israel’s most reviled prisoner. What did he do? Just exactly what did this coward do?

On the night of April 22, 1979, when Kuntar was only 16 years old and already a veteran of terrorist training in Lebanon, he and one other Hezbollah coward rowed their rubber boat ashore in northern Israel with the intent of kidnapping Israelis. During the raid, they invaded the home of Danny and Smadar Kaiser in Nahariya, six miles south of the Lebanese border. Smadar and their daughter Yael, 2, hid in the attic but Danny and their daughter Einat, 4, were taken to the nearby beach when they heard the police coming. They made Einat watch while they shot Danny to death and then killed Einat by beating her in the head with the butt of a rifle. This was a defenseless man but worse was the cowardly killing of a four year old girl. This is an abbreviation of the raid that the New York Times says “went horribly wrong.” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/16/world/middleeast/16kuntar.html The rest of the story can be read at http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110008710 in the Wall Street Journal.

The government of Israel has bent over backwards time after time to try to bring peace to their country. So far, nothing has worked. They have had the “Land for Peace” program, this program, that program, and numerous prisoner swaps. Each time, the cowards from Palestine come out way ahead. Now, it looks like the cowards have done it to the Israelis again. They murder two brave soldiers and give back the bodies and get, in return, bloody cowardly terrorists.

When Kuntar crosses the border into Lebanon he will receive a hero’s welcome. You see, the Hezbollah honors baby murderers. What they seem to be unable to understand is that these actions exemplify their lack of manhood. They recruit children to strap on bomb vests to blow themselves up in the name of the Allah. If martyrdom were so glorious, why don’t the adults to it? This is obviously a rhetorical question because we all know they don’t do it because they only have conviction for martyrdom if someone else is getting killed.

Just the fact that the Israeli government would even consider giving these animals back is disappointing and shows the level to which the Olmert government has sunk.

Looking at the political situation in our own country, there are people here in the US that believe that we can just take these cowards aside and “dialog” with them, and they will “play nice” with us. To these people, I say, “Wake up and smell the cordite.” These animals have proven that they cannot play nice with anyone. This was foretold in Genesis 16. When the angle of the Lord spoke to Hagar about her son who was soon to be born he said:
“Behold, you are with child,
And you will bear a son;
And you shall call his name £Ishmael,
Because the LORD has given heed to your affliction.
12 “He will be a wild donkey of a man,
His hand will be against everyone,
And everyone’s hand will be against him;
And he will live to the east of all his brothers.”
This is how it has been with the descendants of Ishmael and how it will be. These cowards revel in their perversion and we here in the United States, as well as all of the free world, had better know who the enemy is.

As always, I welcome your comments and discussion.

Dan

The Government Crush

2008-07-09T06:55:00.002-06:00

Friends,
In this election year, there is a lot of discussion on the economy, the environment, the terrorist threat, the oil/price crisis, entitlements, and a myriad of other “hot buttons.” What I hear precious little about is what is really great about our country; what is really great about our people.

When we look back on the accomplishments that have come out of the USA we cannot help but marvel at the ingenuity and perseverance of American entrepreneurship. However, when we look back at the golden age of the Industrial Revolution, one thing that stands out as different from today is the lack of government regulation and taxation.

Back when Carnegie, Rockefeller, and the other industrial titans got started they were not hampered with such onerous regulations as Sarbanes Oxley. They were not taxed to the point that exploration and experimentation were activities that could only be undertaken after all of the government regulations and accounting had been satisfied. That was a day when the entrepreneur was able to let his ideas soar.

Today, the entrepreneur is buried under a mountain of regulation and is often taxed out of existence. If this intrepid entrepreneur is foolish enough to take on five or more employees, he comes under the laser beam of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Here is a true story. I know a man who is the safety engineer for a company that cleans meat packing plants. One of the safety requirements of the workers is that when they are working over a certain height off the floor they must wear a safety harness to arrest their fall in case of a mishap. This requirement was/is well briefed and enforced for all employees. During one shift a few years ago, an employee neglected this rule and fell off a catwalk and tragically died. This happened several hundred miles from my friend’s office. My friend was not at the site of the mishap when it happened. Enter OSHA. The OSHA inspector wanted the US Attorney to prosecute my friend for murder because the worker neglected to fulfill his responsibility to protect his own life. Fortunately, the US Attorney did not deem it a credible case and did not prosecute.

This is only one example of the crushing bureaucracy that the federal government has placed on us. There are such examples as declaring a farmer’s field unworkable because a mouse lives there or a forest cannot be logged because an owl has taken up residence ten miles away. The worst case for the United States is banning oil exploitation in that massive wasteland called ANWR. If you have seen photos of this barren frozen desert you would be as aghast as I am.

Our current Democrat-controlled Congress is crushing the very livelihood out of our country. Please do not mistake my ire as to be aimed only at Democrats. There are plenty of Republicans out there who are complicit in this crush. We are at a point where we are going to finish sliding all the way down that slippery slope into a totally socialistic society where the government controls every facet of our lives, or we are going to take it back and re-take our position as the world leader in innovation and entrepreneurship. It is time we stop living with our hands out for our daily pittance and take responsibility for our own actions and living. It is time for the federal government to discontinue its evolvement into what Lenin made of Russia. It is time to return to the ideals of conservation of the US Constitution.

As always, I welcome your questions/discussion.

Dan

2008-06-10T04:17:00.001-06:00

Friends,
One of my readers has sent the following for posting. I am doing so without comment except to say that it is well thought out and expressed.
Dan

Why I must vote for John McCain

I want to start this off from the beginning. I had never planned on voting for John McCain. Matter of fact I told many friends that if John McCain won the nomination I would switch to the Independent party. Now that was quite shock for my friends considering one of my favorite sayings is, “An Independent is someone who can’t make a decision.”

I started with supporting Mike Huckabee. Later I realized that his views and mine weren’t quite inline, but I was willing to overlook it since there was no other candidate that came as close. I ended my Primary journey supporting Alan Keyes. To this day I believe he is the best candidate for America.

Then the bad news struck. John McCain won the Primary. I was extremely disappointed and decided I was going to vote for Alan Keyes anyway.
However, I decided I would pull a Benjamin Franklin and get a piece of paper and write down the pros and cons for voting for John McCain. The cons filled up fast, but there was one glaring pro that caught my eye and made me think. Supreme Court Judges!

Most likely, over the next four years, a handful of liberal judges will be retiring. Who will take their place? Well, if Obama gets elected I have a pretty good idea, liberal judges. If John McCain wins, at least there is would be a chance for more constructionist judges.

Most people today think that the war on terror is the main issue.
Perhaps that issue is neck-and-neck with the economy. Some people believe that gay marriage is at the top of the list. But I believe that Supreme Court Judges are the main issue. Why? Since the start of our country, but even more in the last 40 years, Supreme Court Judges have been writing law with their decisions. Over the next four years (and most likely even longer) a judge will determine whether we even fight the war on terror, how we will fight the war on terror and to some degree when we fight. A judge will determine whether the states are separate governments or simply a map point made available so google maps will work easier. Now don’t get me wrong, I do not think judges should have that kind of power, but since the American people have allowed them to have it, I want judges who will use that power sparingly.

For those who plan on sitting out this election out or who just can’t seem to bring themselves to vote for McCain I completely understand, but I would like to plea with you to think about this. Can we really afford 30 more years of liberal Supreme Court Judges?

--
Shawn Mullen

2008-06-10T04:11:00.002-06:00

Friends,
Since I started these postings, I have never hidden the fact that I am a strong supporter of Congressman Lamborn. His campaign has asked me to forward the following. The only comment I will make regarding the blog contained within is that I have met Mr. Crater and am familiar with the Wilberforce Center. I have found Mr. Crater to be a highly intelligent individual who fully understands and espouses Conservative Values. You are invited to consider this posting.
Dan

Subject: The Transparency of Congressman Doug Lamborn

In the Interest of Full Transparency...

In the interest of full transparency Congressman Doug Lamborn has released his funding requests. http://lamborn.house.gov/issues click on FY2009 Funding Requests

"There are only 110 lawmakers in the House and Senate who either don't request any earmarks or disclose their earmark requests." - Steve Ellis, Vice President of Taxpayers for Common Sense

Taxpayers for Common Sense is a nonpartisan group that demands and promotes fiscal responsibility and government accountability. They vigorously watch for and report on earmarks.

Congressman Lamborn's funding requests simply divert existing funds in the defense budget to areas with higher priority and away from failing or stagnant projects. This does not raise overall spending.

The Congressman has repeatedly been acknowledged and praised for his fiscally responsible and conservative actions.
Among these acknowledgments are:

- The "Taxpayers' Friend Award" from the National Taxpayers Union.
- A 100% anti-pork rating from the Club for Growth.
- A 100% rating from the American Conservative Union.
- A 100% pro-growth rating from the Club for Growth.

In fact, National Journal has ranked Congressman Lamborn as one of the top eight most conservative members of Congress.
______________________________________________________________________________
Here is a blog entry we found interesting and informative.
We thought you might want to read it.
Defend Doug
By Dave CraterJune 8th, 2008
http://backboneamerica.net/2008/06/08/1017/
“If You Care About Taxes, Spending, and Earmarks, Defend Doug”
It’s Republican primary time, when ambitions, conservative promises, and Reagan invocations are in full flower. And the only way to tell real conservative defenders from perennial conservative pretenders is to examine their records..

Let’s start with the record of incumbent congressman Doug Lamborn of Colorado’s Fifth Congressional District. Mr. Lamborn is finishing his first term in Congress and in that time, according to Congressional Quarterly, he voted against the Democrat agenda in Congress more than any other Republican (“CQPolitics.com Candidate Watch,” Congressional Quarterly, Aug. 10, 2007). This includes social, economic, and fiscal votes.

Mr. Lamborn was also one of five members of Congress – that’s five out of 535, and only three of the 435 members of the U.S. House – that the nation’s leading fiscal conservative group, Club for Growth, has given a rating of 100% for 2007. Club for Growth tracked votes on a range of tax, fiscal, and regulatory issues in the last Congress and determined that Mr. Lamborn voted correctly every time. See the entire 2007 Club for Growth scorecard here:
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2008/05/the_2007_congressional_scoreca.php

This is no new pattern. Over the twelve years he was a member of the Colorado legislature, Mr. Lamborn consistently led both the Colorado House and the Colorado Senate with his record of opposition to big-government spending, pork projects (these days fashionably referred to as “earmarks”), and tax increases.

With this kind of record, it is striking that Mr. Lamborn has a Republican primary opponent, Jeff Crank, attempting to criticize him on his fiscal record. It is well-known that, in justifying his own candidacy against a man who for a decade and a half has consistently defended all the things Mr. Crank claims to believe in, Mr. Crank has settled on one fundamental, earth-moving issue that gets the blood boiling of every principled Republican everywhere: franking expenditures.
That’s right, franking expenditures.

The franking privilege dates to the founding of the United States and covers expenses members of Congress incur in sending mail to their constituents. The purpose is obvious: communication between congresspeople and their constituents is a good thing. Clearly, this privilege like any legitimate privilege can be abused, so there are processes in place in Congress by which all franked mailings must be approved. Mr. Lamborn is a first-term congressman whose constituents need to get to know him and what he is doing on their behalf – again, this is not empty campaign-speak, but a rationale endorsed by the framers of American government – and all his mailings have been approved by congressional leadership. All such mail, moreover, is paid for out of a congressman’s official budget; what he does not spend on constituent communications he is fully authorized to spend on other things, and what he spends on constituent communications is not available for other things.

The use of this kind of issue against someone with the fiscal record of Mr. Lamborn says more about Mr. Crank than it does about the Congressman: from the standpoint of conservative policy, there simply is nothing more substantial on which Mr. Lamborn can be criticized.
Mr. Crank raised the franking issue most recently in a May 30 opinion column in the Colorado Springs Gazette, where he also offered glowing promises to, if elected, “rock the boat” of the Washington establishment, eliminate earmarks, eliminate the federal departments of Education, Commerce, and Energy, and cut federal spending by 20%.

Aside from the fact that even Ronald Reagan was not able to accomplish such heroic feats, if Mr. Crank were sincere in these convictions, he would be supporting Mr. Lamborn for Congress rather than running against him.

No Republican in the last two years, and very few Republicans in Colorado in the last half century, have more consistently, philosophically, and courageously opposed Washington (and Denver) excesses than has Doug Lamborn. It is the lack of people in Washington like Mr. Lamborn, and the interest of too many self-proclaimed conservatives in running against them, that is at the heart of the very Washington excess Mr. Crank now decries. It is also at the heart of the national Republican malaise that is quickly heading the GOP toward an electoral cataclysm in November.

Mr. Crank waxes poetic against earmarks. Again, if this conviction were superior to his personal ambition, Mr. Crank would be supporting Mr. Lamborn. Here are all Mr. Lamborn’s funding requests for fiscal year 2009, a list the Lamborn office has made public. All directly relate to defense spending, a core purpose of government, all Mr. Lamborn has offset in the budget by equivalent cuts in other programs so that there is no net increase in the federal budget, and all ironically recall Mr. Crank’s criticism of Mr. Lamborn during the 2006 campaign for allegedly not being as strong as Mr. Crank on defense:

Land Acquisition for Peterson Air Force Base
Missile Defense Integration and Operations Center
ACES 5 Ejection Seat
Expeditionary Alternative Power Generator
Radiation-Hardened Memory Technology
Digital Engine Technology
Military Information Management Software
Space and Electronic Warfare Analysis Tools
High Altitude, Long Endurance Communications and Surveillance System
Improved Ground Access to Peterson AFB
Improvements to Ft. Carson Gates 5 & 6

With requests like these, and with Mr. Lamborn now occupying a seat on the House Armed Services Committee, it is no wonder the defense criticisms have given way in Mr. Crank’s rhetoric to complaints about franking. As with his fiscal record, Mr. Lamborn’s history at the state level on issues of national security and defense was as impeccable as his federal record has now become.

As a side note, if Mr. Crank should criticize Mr. Lamborn for the above funding requests and call them “earmarks” as if they were pet pork projects, Mr. Crank should explain why as a lobbyist on behalf of a defense company in 2005 he requested, according to public lobbying records, “increased spending for the HH-6OL program” in defense authorization bills. The name of Mr. Crank’s lobbying company was Rocky Mountain Government Relations, and the HH-6OL is the Blackhawk medical evacuation helicopter now in use in the Army and National Guard. Earmark, or legitimate modernization of the armed forces that defend us and that are such central issues in the Fifth Congressional District?

In addition to franking, Mr. Crank can regularly be heard calling for better “leadership” in Washington, presumably implying that Mr. Lamborn’s leadership is somehow defective. For starters, here is a short summary of Mr. Lamborn’s legislative resume, a kind of resume of which Mr. Crank has not the beginning: Colorado House of Representatives, 1995; House Republican Whip, 1997; Colorado Senate, 1998; Senate President Pro-Tem, 1999; U.S. Congress, 2006; U.S. House Armed Services Committee, 2007. Mr. Lamborn is also a member of two other U.S. House committees.

Moreover, here is a quotation from a letter written to Mr. Lamborn last week by the Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Crank’s former employer, concerning Mr. Lamborn’s funding requests. The letter is dated May 28, 2008 and is signed by the Chamber’s CEO.
“Your policy of only making requests that promote our nation’s defense, as well as providing full disclosure on these projects reflects not only their legitimacy, but also their important role in improving our nation’s defenses…It is with great pleasure that we offer our support, on behalf of the Greater Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce, for not only the appropriations you’ve requested, but also the manner in which you have done so. In a time where real transparency is lacking in Washington, your actions provide a refreshing change of pace.”
Sound suspiciously like leadership?

It should be noted clearly what many noted during the 2006 primary contest between Mr. Lamborn and Mr. Crank. Nobody doubts that Mr. Crank maintains a coherent conservative philosophy of government and a genuine desire to serve his country. Given Mr. Lamborn’s stellar record at both the state and federal levels, what is in doubt is Mr. Crank’s ability to subordinate his ambition to his desire to see the things he believes implemented in government. There simply is no improvement he could possibly make to the record of Mr. Lamborn, and plenty of ways he would not likely match Mr. Lamborn; indeed, at least according to the Club for Growth, there are only a handful even among current members of Congress who are in Mr. Lamborn’s league.

There is only one wise route for Fifth Congressional District Republicans on the ground to follow this August: ignore empty criticisms and empty promises, and say a prayer of thanks that in this age of messianic Democrats and the empty-headed crowds who love them, Colorado and Colorado Springs have a congressman with the kind of real wisdom, real mettle, and real leadership that will far outlast the latest political fad and the latest self-promoting Republican challenger.

The author can be reached at crater@wilberforcecenter.org

The Farm Bill

2008-05-22T06:55:00.000-06:00

Friends,
Yesterday, our Senator from Colorado, Ken Salazar, once again got it wrong. He said, “President Bush’s veto of the farm bill is an insult to rural America and would hurt all those who benefit from the food our farmers provide.”

To paraphrase Shakespeare, “Pork by any other name would smell just as foul.” America’s farmers can hardly get any more crops into the ground and they are reaping huge profits off those crops, and they deserve every penny. A farmer’s life is hard; they deserve the profit they earn.

However, I see no reason for the massive subsidies promised every year, in some cases, subsidies to NOT plant. According to the Associated Press, $40 billion is to go to farmers for subsidies, $30 billion is to also go to farmers to NOT plant, and the rest goes to nutrition programs such as food stamps, etc. As I understand it, this is the government’s way of regulating how much of what crop is made available. What happened to the governance of the marketplace, and the law of supply and demand? The federal government has been manipulating the agricultural market for decades. It is time they stop!

We are looking at a $290 BILLION tax on the American public. We are being taxed into the ground as it is and the concept of paying one segment of our workforce to do the job (or not do the job) they have chosen is ludicrous. The farmers are working for the consumer, just as the plumber or the carpenter. I have yet to see any subsidies for plumbers and carpenters to NOT go to work. That would be called welfare.

I fully understand that there is a segment of our society that needs a hand up. Some school children must have subsidized breakfasts and lunches or they will go hungry. The question is why parents are not held accountable for this lack of care? Where are the mandatory education and/or training programs for those who cannot care for their children? Do not misunderstand me; I know that there are some who are not physically or mentally able to accomplish this. These folks need whatever assistance they can get. But isn’t that a state concern? Where in the Constitution is this type of aid authorized?

I have written our Congressman and two Senators to urge them to vote against this pork.

As always, I welcome your comments/discussion.
Dan

Illegal Aliens and the War Supplemental Bill for 2008

2008-05-20T07:04:00.002-06:00

Friends,
Below is a copy of a letter I have just sent to Senators Allard and Salazar:
Senator,
It has been brought to my attention that Senator Feinstein has successfully attached an amendment to the War Supplemental Bill for 2008 that would give legal status to an estimated 1.35 million illegal aliens working in agriculture. I have also been informed that this bill is to be voted upon in the Senate in the next few days.
I strongly urge you to vote against this bill and work for its defeat. Illegal aliens are, by definition, law-breakers who have proven that they have no respect for the laws of our country.
There is an alternative to having illegals working in agricultural jobs. That is to have an established “guest worker” program such as that proposed by Marsha Looper in the Colorado State House. Using this approach, we would know who is coming in to work, where they will be working, and when they will leave. If they come in on a permanent work visa, we will still know who they are, where they are working and their exact status.
Why should illegals be given preferential status over those who stand in line and have respect for our laws?
Sincerely
Daniel C. Lanotte
Falcon, Colorado

S. 2433, the Global Poverty Act of 2007

2008-05-15T20:54:00.002-06:00

Friends,
The US Senate is getting ready to vote on S.2433, the Global Poverty Act of 2007. This bill, introduced by Senator Obama, is just one more piece of legislation that the Liberals want to use to promote their “One World Order.” The wording of the bill as printed on Senator Obama’s website is:

"U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL), Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) have introduced the Global Poverty Act (S.2433), which requires the President to develop and implement a comprehensive policy to cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief, and coordination with the international community, businesses and NGOs. Representatives Adam Smith (D-WA) and Spencer Bachus (R-AL) sponsored the House version of the bill (H.R. 1302), which passed the House in September." http://obama.senate.gov/press/071211-obama_hagel_can/
As a further example of the intent of this bill, the following is also copied from the source above:

"America needs to do more to help the 1.1 billion men, women and children throughout the world living on less than $1 a day by helping promote sustainable economic growth and development," said Senator Cantwell. "We need to do more to save lives in the poorest countries. The U.S. needs to implement a real plan to combat poverty on a global scale while also addressing the national security risks extreme poverty creates."

The goal is to work toward the implementation of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/ . If this legislation passes, it would obligate this country to billions of dollars for world welfare. This clearly goes against the principles of the Founding Fathers.

This has been, from its inception, a country based on the principle of each individual working for and achieving goals based on the sweat of the brow. For this country to take on the responsibility and financial burden of over 1 billion souls would drive us so far under the financial curve as to permanently bankrupt us. The Liberals of Congress have, for the past 75 years, worked to turn this country into a totally dependent entitlement society. The Soviets finally realized that type of society does not work and they collapsed for trying. Now, our Liberal-led Congress under the tutelage of House Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid want to contribute to turning the rest of humanity into a completely dependent entitlement world.

When I first found out about this bill, I contacted Senator Salazar (D-CO) to urge him to work to defeat this bad piece of legislation. He sent this response:

"As you know, S.2433 would direct the Secretary of State to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the U.S. foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the United Nations Millennium Development Goal.S.2433 currently awaits action in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, of which I am not a member. However, please rest assured that I am fully committed to combating poverty, disease, and hunger around the world, and that I will consider S.2243 with that commitment in mind should it come to the full Senate for consideration."

Senator Salazar is playing very loose and free with your and my money, with the intent of sending it around the world. It was always obvious that Senator Salazar was sucking on Ted Kennedy’s Kool-Aid, but this time he has really gone too far. I urge all of my readers to contact their respective Senators to urge that they work to defeat this really bad piece of legislation.

As always, I welcome your comments/discussion.

Dan

Energy (Part 2)

2008-05-14T20:42:00.000-06:00

Friends,
As promised in my last posting, I am going to continue with my discussion on energy, even though I started the last one with Rocky’s shopping trip.

When I wrote the last posting about the grocery bill, ethanol, etc., I had no idea that it would find its way to ColoradoPols.com. WOW! I really generated some discussion. There were comments from both ends of the spectrum. One individual, who was extremely critical as well as rude, inadvertently provided me with some very good data. To that individual, I say “Thank You.” He showed a pie chart from DOE that shows only 1.6% of our electricity is generated by using petroleum. I stand corrected.

The chart also shows that only 19.4% is generated by nuclear power. I think that this is one place we could make major improvements. The Europeans have broken the code on nuclear power. One of the main concerns about nuclear power is what do you do with the used fuel rods? The Europeans do not have the bureaucratic problems we have. They reprocess the spent fuel rods to get more use out of them. We, by law, are not allowed to do that. Instead, we have a huge cavern in Nevada to take them to (of course, the citizens of Nevada are really happy with this concept). Instead of processing the real waste down into a pint can, we have to bury the entire rod. What a waste!

I have to assume that “Other Renewables” (2.4%) on the pie chart is referring to solar and wind. That is a pathetic number. When I was stationed in Alameda, CA, I can remember driving east out of the Bay area and going past a huge windmill farm. All of the wind mills were turning and making electricity. After I returned to the Springs I heard that the environmentalists made the power company shut them down because the birds were flying into the blades. OK, boys and girls, which way is it going to be? You cannot have it both ways. I think this example is sad in the extreme. The good part about wind and solar in today’s technology is that great strides are being made in solar collectors, storage capability, and wind mill technology. The price is coming down and the availability/choices are going up.

Now, getting back to the topic I started with last week; we are in love with our automobiles and use an appropriate amount of gas and diesel to feed that love. We are shocked at the pump when we fill up. It takes me almost $20 to fill my motorcycle and over $100 to fill my truck. Nobody will be able to convince me that the answer to the gas crisis is ethanol. Contrary to what some of the respondents on ColoradoPols.com think, I am not that stupid. I have read reports that say ethanol burns dirty, it takes an inordinate amount of fuel just to manufacture it, and it eats up arable land, driving up food prices. I do not see anything smart in this lineup.

There is an unlimited supply of hydrogen on this planet. Even if we tried, we could not use it up. With all the talk about conservation where is the effort to develop a reliable, cost effective method of producing, storing and using hydrogen for the internal combustion engine, or some other technology. There has been a lot of research done on the fuel cell that converts hydrogen into electricity as it passes through a membrane. This is one of the outgrowths of the space industry. For commercial use, the technology is still immature, but some very smart people got this far; who is to say they will not make the breakthrough necessary to make it commercially feasible?

We have been crying about energy shortages for the last 40 years (almost) and yet, comparatively little has been done. Now we are faced with $4+ gasoline, and food prices that are skyrocketing because it is more important to plant corn for ethanol. To me, that borders on stupid, or greedy, or both. I certainly do not blame the farmers. In our competitive free market system, they are doing what they have to do in order to maximize their profits. The ones I blame are the bureaucrats and, yes, the eco-terrorists who are more concerned with protecting their income or their “movement” than seeking real solutions for real problems. It is high time that the smart people step up to the plate and say “enough is enough.” The bureaucrats are not the ones to do it. It is the scientists and engineers and their bosses in industry that will see this thing through.

As always, I welcome your comments/discussions
Dan

Rising Food Costs

2008-05-08T13:37:00.001-06:00

Friends,
It is the first of the month and as is her habit, my wife, Rocky, went to the grocery to do her “stock-up” shopping. As the term implies, this is when we do the majority of our grocery and necessity shopping. We will do some shopping during the month for perishables and other necessities, so we normally keep fairly well abreast of the trends in food prices. The first thing my Rocky told me when I got home was that she was experiencing sticker shock. Our normal “stock-up” shopping trip is good for approximately $150. Today, she spent closer to $260. We are not folks who eat a lot of “snacky” stuff. Our snacks normally consist of a couple of bags of pretzel sticks. We do not eat prepared foods, Rocky is just too good of a cook. Therefore, we are talking about an exorbitant increase in the price of staples.

Even the least astute of my readers will understand that this is merely personal observation and not a scientific study, even though we have seen reports of this type of price increase on the news and the folks I work with have made the same observation.

Let’s look at a couple of possible causes for extreme inflation like this. My first thought is the eco-terrorists. But the harder I think about the situation, the less I am inclined to think of any other cause. You may ask, or not, what the eco-terrorists have to do with the price of groceries. Well, I’m glad you asked, because I am just chomping at the bit to tell you.

First, there is the eco-terrorist fight to keep us from drilling in ANWAR and in the coastal plains. We have enough petroleum within the borders and territorial waters of the United States to satisfy our needs for many decades. Additionally, with the new find in the North/South Dakota area we would be even more secure in our energy supplies. But that is only part of the problem. The eco-terrorists have prevented the building of new refineries in the United States for over 31 years. With the reduced refining capacity vs. demand, we have become increasingly dependent on foreign oil imports. Of course this is no surprise to anyone.

There is now a movement to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by turning corn into ethanol and mixing with gasoline to make our gas supplies go farther. Of course the farmers know a cash cow when they see one. With more and more of our arable land being taken up for ethanol production, there is less available for food production. Never mind that it takes almost as much energy to produce one gallon of ethanol as you get out of it. But what do the eco-terrorists care, we are using a renewable source for fuel, even though it is almost a wash as to cost/benefit, from a fuel standpoint. However from a food standpoint, there is definite negative cost/benefit. There less food available and therefore the demand/price equation comes into play and we not only see sticker shock at the pump, we see it in the grocery line.

But eco-terrorists are not economists; they are, by definition, terrorists. They are holding the country, and actually the western hemisphere, hostage. There is such a shortage of corn, that the price of tortillas in Mexico has sky-rocketed. I am not saying this to be funny; this was reported on the news (as reliable as that is).

OK, the experts tell us that the way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil is to use less. That is kind of a “no-brainer.” Let’s explore some ways to reduce our usage of petroleum products, primarily gasoline, diesel, and natural gas.

One of the primary ways is to convert power plants to coal or nuclear power. The coal plants of today are not the same as those of our grandfathers’ day. There are chimney and stack scrubbers that clean up the emissions to the point of acceptability.

And then we can look at nuclear power. I was not able to find out how long it has been since we have built a nuclear power plant, but I know that it has been a long time. It is just easier not to bother with it than to fight the eco-terrorists. When you look at the success of the nuclear power industry in Europe, one can only wonder why we do not follow suit. The answer is simple. The eco-terrorists have beaten Congress and various administrations into submission.

We use a lot of petroleum to make electricity. Why; because the eco-terrorists would rather scream about the ecology than do something about it. With every court battle, they prove their disdain for America.

Of course, no terrorist can ply his trade without an enabler. The good news for the eco-terrorists is that they have a number of groups of enablers. They start with the Senate and House of Representatives and go all the way down to state legislatures. In my next posting, I will discuss the complicity of these groups.

As always I welcome your comments/discussions.
Dan Lanotte

A Beginning Look at the Illegal Immigration Problem

2008-05-08T13:05:00.000-06:00

In this time of debate over immigration, I think it is appropriate to touch on the root cause of our illegal immigration problem. It is not only our porous borders, or our “golden opportunities” here in the United States. One significant factor of the problem can be traced directly back to Mexico City.

The corruption that has run rampant in Mexico for decades is driving their citizens out of their homeland. Not a month goes by without news of a major drug war or drug bust. It would be tempting to say that the Mexican government is making headway on their own counter-drug program since they keep making large drug busts. But if they are making such headway, why are there always such large drug busts to be made?

An article from the Washington Post of 20 Apr 2008, discusses the massive Mexican Cartel problems across the border from Columbus, New Mexico, in Puerto Palomas. On 17 Mar of this year, the entire police force of Puerto Palomas resigned and the Chief of Police, Perez Ortega walked across the border into Columbus to request asylum. Chief Ortega is currently in a detention facility awaiting a decision. When the drug gangs start fighting in Puerto Palomas, the Sheriff Raymond Cobos of Luna County, NM puts his entire force on alert. Victims with bullet holes in them are dropped at the border because their relatives are convinced that the US is the only place they will be cared for.

The problems across from Columbus are not isolated. All along the border, these stories are told and documented. The little town of Puerto Palomas was once a bustling tourist town of 12,000. In the last two years it has dropped to 7,500. Because of the violence people are leaving, including the police. The town has been able to recruit nine more officers and a new chief, but there is no telling how long they will stay.

We have heard that Mexico has one of the toughest immigration policies in the Americas, at least on its southern border. If it is so tough, how do the drugs get into the country, and why do most of the major drug busts take place within sight of the US border? How can the drugs that come in from South America traverse the entire length of Mexico undetected?
Well, the problem is that they do not traverse the country undetected. Drugs, primarily cocaine, come in by land, sea, and air into Mexico. They do not have to worry about importing heroin, methamphetamine, or marijuana. Mexico is one of the world’s leading producers of these three drugs.

There is also the problem of corruption in the Mexican armed forces. In many places the drug cartels operate with impunity. When there is the possibility of honest troops being present, the cartels’ intelligence networks issue sufficient warning. However, the cartels have become so powerful that in places they are openly defying the Mexican military.
All of the aforementioned drug cartel activity significantly contributes to a disastrous economy with little opportunity for economic gain and a very good opportunity for getting killed. Is there any wonder that the common Mexican wants to find a better, safer life? They are more than willing to brave the torturous Southwestern desert and the US legal system to find that life.
I see two positive actions that the Mexican government must do to even start to quell the massive flow of illegals into the US. First, by whatever means, they must shut down the drug industry. That includes production, transportation, and distribution. In all fairness, they may be attempting this, but we will likely never hear about it. Behind Columbia, Mexico has the second highest rate of journalist murders, in the world. There is doubtless no one who believes that the Mexican government will accomplish this feat anytime soon. The cartels are too powerful and the reputed corruption within the government is too rampant.

The second task is to create an environment where the average Mexican citizen can work for a living wage. Mexico is a land of vast resources which could be tapped to build an economic powerhouse if managed properly.

Please do not let my discussion give the impression that all of our illegal immigration problems rest squarely on the shoulders of the Mexican government and the cartels. This is far from it. Many of our national policies have been enabling factors in the problem.
When an illegal can walk into any hospital and receive free medical care, there is a problem. When illegals are given preferential treatment by a sanctuary city, there is a problem. When employers turn a blind eye to the illegal status of their workers, there is a problem. When the Social Security Administration is incapable of noticing that one social security number is used two, three, four, six, or eight times, there is a problem.

In this piece, I have concentrated on only one aspect of the illegal immigration problem. But as you surely know, the problem is vast and extremely complex. Perhaps, in the not-too-distant-future, I will take on other aspects of the problem, such as prosecutors that go across the Mexican border to retrieve a drug runner for the sole purpose of charging Border Patrol agents and sending them to do hard time for doing their jobs. (Sorry, I felt a new soap box coming out.)
As always, I welcome your comments/discussion.
Dan Lanotte

Racist America?

2008-05-03T08:13:00.002-06:00

Something has been chewing on me for the past couple of weeks. Please forgive me, because it should have been chewing on me for the past four decades. America is a grossly racist country. We whites have worked diligently to subjugate the non-white communities. I should have realized this fact every time I pass the plantations with the workers picking cotton.

At least, that is what the “Reverend” Wright and Senator Obama would have us believe. Dr. King died 40 years ago yesterday for the cause of unity between the races. When I listen to the comments of Senator Obama, one thought comes to mind. Do we want a racist like Barak Obama as president? Do we want to be told for four or eight years that whites hate non-whites, and non-whites hate whites? This is antithetical to Dr. King’s efforts. From the moment of his death, racists like Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Charles Rangel have been trying to hold a pity-party on how down trodden the blacks, in particular, are. They play the “race card” with alacrity.
Well, those three are getting a bit long in the tooth and need to pass the mantle on to the younger generation. Who better to take up the gauntlet, but Barak Hussein Obama? He is everything they could possibly want. He is only one generation away from Africa. He is the product of and a white American woman and a black African man. He wishes, by his own admission; he could rid himself of his white blood. He has discussed how frightened his white grandmother was of black men and that was a typical white response. My question to the good Senator is; “What have you done to calm your grandmother’s fears? You are a black man who, obviously, identifies with your perception of the black community. Why haven’t you presented a non-threatening side to your grandmother?”

I am, admittedly, white. I always have been white and always will be. I even have the unmitigated gall to have blond hair and blue eyes. Therefore, I do not and will never be able to see the world through a black man’s eyes. However, I have worked with a lot of black men, and a few black women, in my 40+ year working career. Since the mid 1970s I do not recall the extreme rancor that Senator Obama is talking about. Obviously, there are some blacks that have been harboring this resentment all these years. The evidence is fairly clear; just look at “Reverend” Wright and Senator Obama. And now they appear to be determined to fan that flame once again.

At this point, I would like to relate to you a personal experience. I left the active duty Navy in late 1968 and returned in mid 1973. At that time I was assigned to the USS Truxtun (DLGN-35). This was a time that the Navy, and all of the services, was going through growing pains with regard to race relations. The Navy, always trying to be on the cutting edge of societal evolution, established a mandatory program called “Upward Seminar.” This was a program whereby a group of 15 – 20 sailors of mixed rank and race would come together to discuss race relations, and specifically how each of us felt about the other races. Each seminar was facilitated by one black and one white sailor who had been trained to conduct these sessions. I remember the session (several days per session) I attended. My division Chief Petty Officer was the white sailor and a close acquaintance, a Petty Officer 2nd Class from a different department, was the black sailor (I do not remember his name). At the time I was a Petty Officer 2nd Class. At the beginning of the seminar we each were asked to share our feelings, candidly, about the opposite race. I said that I did not have an opinion about blacks, as blacks. I looked at each sailor as shipmates and judged them as individuals. About half way through the seminar, the black facilitator looked me in the eye and proudly pronounced me to be a bigoted racist. This really took me back and made me reflect on what I might have said or done to convey this opinion. I drew a blank and still do. At the end of the seminar we were all asked what we had learned and what we were taking away from the multi-day event. When it came to me, I said quite simply that my opinion of blacks had not changed, but no longer liked the black facilitator. We never spoke again. I don’t know if he was trained to provoke that type of incident. If he was, he never relayed that information to me. My only conclusion is that he was of the same ilk as Senator Obama.

I have not discussed the Senator’s wife and her obvious dislike for this wonderful country. I could not come close to improving on Michelle Malkin’s discussion of the Michelle Obama.
I love this country and honestly believe that we are only great because of the hard work and ingenuity of ALL of its citizens; not white, not black, not Hispanic, and not Asian. I do not believe in hyphenated-Americans. Black-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, and Asian-Americans demonstrate their desire NOT to be Americans. These are the people that long for another time and place. In all actuality, all of us could stick a hyphen in our ethnicity. I could say that I am a Belgian-American on my dad’s side or I am a Native-American (evidenced by my blond hair and blue eyes) on my mother’s side.

I encourage all of my readers to contemplate these ideas and reflect on your attitude toward America. Are you Americans?

As a footnote, I put “Reverend” in quotes because, as a believing Christian, I do not view Mr. Wright as one. I believe that if he is a “Reverend” he is praying to and glorifying a much different god than I do. I believe that his god was thrown out of heaven by God.