Thank God, "The Summer of Recovery" is almost over.

Well, it's the first day of school and that means summer is coming to a close. As far as I'm concerned, it's not a minute to soon; for a couple of reasons. Number one, I'm tired of having a heat stroke every time I go out on my patio but, most importantly, I'm hoping that President Obama's "Summer of Recovery" will also be ending soon. Frankly, I don't know how much more we can stand. A few months back, the president's genius PR people came up with that brilliant slogan and for the last couple of months he's been touring the country trying to sell us on how great everything is. Someone might want to tell him that the only reason there are some many people in the audiences of those speeches is that those people don't have jobs. The Department of Labor announced that there were 500,000 new applications for unemployment last week. Holy Crap! How bad would things have been if he hadn't saved us? Incredibly, that's actually the Democrat's party line; "It would have been much worse if we hadn't spent a trillion dollars." Mr. President, stop peeing on our heads and telling us it's raining. I know you think we're all incredibly stupid and, based on the fact that you managed to get yourself elected, a lot of us must be. But there is a limit to how much BS people are going to buy. Where I work, we've laid off about 30% of our work force in the past year and next year isn't looking any better. There is also little doubt that we'll lose our health insurance when the new law goes into effect and be forced to either find less coverage of pay substantially more. These things aren't unique to my industry and they're not market or corporate driven; they're government driven. George Bush and the Republicans definitely did their part to put us here, but Obama and the Dems own this now. Maybe, with the end of summer, and the November elections, we'll get some relief. Speaking of shoveling the horse crap; is there anything funnier than Democrats standing up for freedom of religion? Last week the president and Nancy Pelosi took bold stands for religious freedom; denouncing the persecution of Muslims who are trying to build mosque on top of the death place of three thousand Americans who were murdered by Muslim terrorists. Really? Where are they on the issue of school prayer or a federal judge telling the State of Utah they can't place crosses along the highway to honor fallen state troopers? I bet Jesus roared with laughter like Ed McMahon when he heard those two talk about freedom of religion. What else do you guys support; fiscal responsibility, controlling the borders, tax cuts...? If there are still people out there who are buying this crap, give me a call; I've got some Enron stock I need to unload.

Why We Should Repeal the 17th Amendment

The tenth amendment to the Constitution 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." It was the intention of the founding fathers to strictly limit the powers of the federal government. They believed this could best be accomplished by dividing federal power between three branches and maintaining the sovereignty of the individual states. By reserving most powers to the states, local communities, and the people; the tenth amendment was intended to guard against tyranny and corruption of the central government. The senate was established specifically to represent the interests of the states. Senators would be elected by appointment of the state legislatures, with each state equally represented. Accountability to the legislature of their home states would help guard against corruption from the influences of outside interests or political factions. James Madison wrote in Federalist # 62 that one of the dangers of a republican government is: "that those who administer it, may forget their obligations to their constituents" and that this second branch of legislature "must be in all cases a salutary check on government". The popular vote of the people would be represented by The House of Representatives, whose members had to be re-elected every two years; giving the people frequent opportunities to hold them accountable. Senators would serve six year terms which would provide continuity to the government, while the appointments by state legislatures would guard against elections being decided by heated issues of the moment or from outside interests with ulterior motives. In other words, the founders believed that allowing state governments to choose senators would protect the people from their own poor decisions. While this may seem arrogant or condescending, the founders knew that it would be difficult for such a diverse and expansive population to obtain a thorough and unbiased knowledge of all of the issues facing the nation. The will of the people would be directly represented by the House of Representatives and the President but, in the event that the public was mislead or made poor choices in the heat of passion; state governments, through the Senate, could help check abuses of power by the federal government. The seventeenth amendment, which was adopted on April 8, 1913, established the election of senators by popular vote. The amendment was promoted by members of the "progressive movement" such as Senator Robert La Follette, publisher William Randolph Hearst, and President Woodrow Wilson as a means of simplifying the election process and guarding against corruption. The true, and many believe, intended result of the seventeenth amendment was the stripping away of state government influence at the federal level. Additionally, rather than guarding against corruption, the change threw open the door for mass corruption in the form of special interest lobbying and campaign finance. With elections often being decided by fund raising abilities, candidates are in a perpetual campaign for re-election which, in turn, leads to conflicts of loyalty between constituents and contributors. For example; a look at the campaign disclosures of Senator Christoper Dodd reveals six figure contributions from multiple political action committees of banking associations, most of them from outside his home state of Connecticut. Given Dodd's position as Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, we have to wonder how much loyalty there is to the people of his state. Dodd is only one example, click here to see his disclosures as well as those of other senators of both parties. I believe the seventeenth amendment should be repealed and the power to appoint senators should be returned to the state legislatures. This move alone would nullify a huge portion of special interest influence on the federal government and give some teeth to states rights efforts.A perfect example of the protection that would be provided by this process is the debate over the health care law passed earlier this year. The people, out of frustration with the economy and the policies of the Bush administration, elected a Democratic president as well as Democratic majorities in both houses of congress. While a clear majority of Americans decided that Barack Obama was the best person to lead the country, they did not grant him the power to do anything he wanted. President Obama and the congress then used their majorities to pass a government takeover of health care against the protests of a clear majority of the people. Multiple opinion polls have consistently show that roughly 60% of voters favor the repeal of the law. The Senate even used reconciliation to pass the bill when the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts (a clear sign of opposition to the health care bill) removed the Democrats filibuster-proof majority. The ability of state legislatures to hold the Senate accountable may have prevented the passage of the bill against the wishes of the people. This type of unchecked power was exactly what the founders tried to guard against. The money and power of corporate lobbyists, labor unions, and activist groups currently permeates all branches of the federal government and has enabled the policies of a few radicals to be enacted on the majority. The most effective and immediate step to returning the government to the people is the repeal of the seventeenth amendment.

I’m Tired of Being Told What To Do

I was standing in line at a restaurant waiting to order a few days ago and, about half way through, there was a free standing sign that read “Wash Your Hands Before Eating”. If I had been carrying a Sharpie in my pocket, I would have scribbled “Kiss My Butt” across it. Increasingly, more and more people are telling me, and everyone else what to do. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’ve had about enough of it. If you’re not paying me and I’m not hurting someone else; then shut up and stay out of my business. A couple of weeks ago, during a severe thunderstorm, I was watching the local news. The reports were showing several areas of town where there was high water and street flooding. The news anchors said, no fewer than six times in a thirty minute broadcast, “If you don’t have to go anywhere, stay inside.” I understand that this is a good intentioned effort to promote public safety, however, by watching the news or looking out my window; I can see that it’s raining. But, I’ll ride a bicycle through Hurricane Katrina if that’s what I want to do. Stop making the assumption that I’m so stupid, I need you to look out for my well being. I think this trend of over-protectiveness by society is a trickle down effect from the “intellectual elite", particularly in government, who believe that they’re morally and mentally superior to most of the general population and should, therefore, make our decisions for us. Again, a lot of this is, most likely, done with the best of intentions but, knock it off before we get really pissed. First Lady Michelle Obama has adopted the issue of childhood obesity as her “pet cause” and is on a crusade to control the eating habits of American children. How noble, I’ve found that just worrying about my 3 kids is a pretty full time job but, obviously, the First Lady is such an incredible parent, she can handle the decision making for all of us. Look, if she wants to speak out or run media campaigns in support of healthy eating habits, that’s great. But, don’t try to force your beliefs on the rest of us and stop spending our money on it. In case your husband hasn’t told you, our bank account is overdrawn by about $ 14 trillion. There are already laws that restrict the types of food and drinks that can be sold in, not only public schools, but private as well. The new health care law includes mandatory nutritional labeling laws for vending machines. Hey, we know that almost everything that comes out of those machines is not good for us, all this law accomplishes is to force us to pay more money to get fat by raising the cost of doing business for the machine operators. In truth, raising the price is what it’s all about; penalizing private citizens for what a few busy bodies have decided is bad behavior. Why do you think the tax on cigarettes is so high? Why did the health care law add a tax on tanning salons? Obviously, we’re too stupid to know what’s bad for us or our kids, so they’ll have to look out for us; whether we like it or not. Just this week congress passed a $ 26 billion dollar “teacher bailout” that’s supposed to prevent states from having to layoff teachers. The catch is; if the states accept the money, they have to agree not to cut spending next year; though there’s no promise of additional federal money next year. They’re blackmailing us with our own money. Fortunately, I live in Texas and, since Obama is mad at us, we don’t qualify. The rest of you should tell him where he can stick it as well. The first place that we need to kick the feds out of is education. The idea that states and local communities can’t operate their own school systems without help from the feds is absurd. As a matter of fact, since the Department of Education was formed in 1980, the quality of public education has declined in every measurable category, despite the billions of extra dollars that have been spent. But, with these smug know-it-alls, intention is all that matters; results are beside the point. They can pat themselves on the back for taking care of the peasants, with no fear of the resulting consequences. If a few tanning salon owners or vending machine operators lose their businesses, even though the personal behavior of the citizens doesn’t change at all; oh well, they were just trying to do a good thing. The tenth amendment to the Constitution 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.” I can’t find a section of the Constitution that delegates the powers of regulating what we eat, how we tan, or how we educate our kids to The United States. Abraham Lincoln once said “No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent.” In the Constitution we give state and federal governments our consent to govern us in a few specific areas, but they’ve been overstepping their authority for a long time and it’s time we put a halt to it. You’ve probably seen the “Don’t Tread On Me” flag with the rattlesnake on it. The word “Tread” means “to step, walk, or trample so as to press, crush, or injure something”. The rattlesnake represented the original thirteen colonies, who believed that their rights and liberties were being trampled on and injured. The snake’s rattle is to sound a warning before it strikes. I think Americans have been sounding a warning for a while; the strike needs to come at the ballot box in November. And by the way, I'll wash my hands when I get damn good and ready.

Why the Rich Should Not Pay More Taxes

With all of the talk about congress letting the "Bush Tax Cuts" expire at the end of the year, Ive heard several Republicans arguing against it and their arguments are almost as lame as the Democrats' in favor of it. This is a little frustrating to me because it's not a complicated issue and I talk to regular people from all walks of life everyday who have a complete understanding of it. How do we keep electing people who don't get it? The rich or evil rich, as the left call them, don't mind paying their fair share of taxes. In fact, since the income tax began, they've paid far more than their fair share. Before the Bush tax cuts, the top 10% of income earners paid 78% of all personal income tax; after the cuts their share increased to 81%. The percentages paid by every other income bracket went down. Yes, the wealthiest Americans got the greatest portion of the cuts, because they pay, by far, the greatest portion of the taxes. You don't have to have a degree from MIT to figure that out! The really big lesson that keeps getting ignored is; even though their rate of taxation went down, the actual amount of taxes they paid went up, and it's not some sort of magic or a fluke of nature. The exact same thing has happened every time we've had major tax cuts in this country; google it and see for yourself. Hell, you can find it easily at whitehouse.gov. When you cut tax rates, people get to keep more of their money and when they have this incentive of higher earnings, they invest more of those earnings back into the economy. When they are penalized for their success with higher taxes, further investment is not worth the risk; so they move their money to protect it; not because they're greedy, because they're smart. We would all do the same thing. We should all be opposed to raising taxes on the rich to pay for entitlements because it's socialism. But the main reason we should oppose it is because it will lead to less federal revenue, not more. Republicans have to stop playing by the other sides rules and call this what it is if they want to be the party of conservatives. Entitlements, redistribution of wealth, social justice, or whatever else they want to call it is, quite simply, taking money from people you don't like and giving it to people you do like or perhaps, people you think will vote for you. Wealth is not distributed; it's created, or earned, or inherited. Therefore, you can't redistribute it, you can only confiscate it from one group and distribute it to another. If that's what you believe is right for America, fine; just say so and quit babbling about fairness and social justice. Then, let's see if that's what the majority of America wants to vote for. I'm not holding my breath for Democrats to do that, but it would be nice if Republicans put that challenge on the table.

The Tea Party Message is Pretty Simple

I've been seeing a lot of news stories lately about disagreements among the different Tea Party groups and other grass roots movements and what they're really all about. What are their key issues?, Are they an actual party that nominates candidates?; things like that. I think that it's important that anyone who has any involvement or interest keep a couple of things in mind. First, it's working; the voices of grass roots America are having an impact. Recently, some of the old guard Republican leaders like former Senator Trent Lott have been talking about the need to control or co-opt Tea Party candidates. Today, Foxnews.com had a story about the Democrats "planting" candidates to try and infiltrate the movement. These are clear signs that both parties know Americans are sick and tired of their acts and we're not going to tolerate it anymore. It's critical that we don't allow frustration or setbacks to slow our efforts. We didn't get to where we are overnight; it's going to be a long battle getting back. The second, and most important thing, we must remember is that our goal, I believe, is very simple. We were born with unalienable rights, granted by God. Our most basic rights are not granted to us by men or governments, nor can they be justly taken away. The founding fathers established the federal government to protect those rights from being infringed upon by other Americans or foreign nations. They wrote the constitution to protect those rights from being infringed upon by the government. The three branches were to act as checks and balances, to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful. A great deal of power was left to the states as another check on the federal government. The founders knew that all men are human and susceptible to the corruption of power. James Madison wrote: "All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree." Benjamin Franklin once said: "Distrust and caution are the parents of security." These guys knew that even the best of men might go astray. Therefore we needed systems in place to prevent abuses of power. All of the problems we face today are a result of our allowing elected leaders and activist judges to violate the constitution. Electing the wrong person president wouldn't be nearly as harmful if they were bound to govern by the constitution. Whether your pet peeve is deficit spending, national health care, or taxes; all of these things would take care of themselves if we followed the intentions of the founders. It's really a simple foundation. God given rights can't be taken away by men and government must be from the people, not to the the people.

Trent Lott Symbolizes What Went Wrong With America and the Republican Party

Poor Trent Lott, like a lot of long standing institutions, the times are passing him by. He sees things changing and he longs for the good ole days. The rising popularity of these new Tea Party Republicans, he fears, will derail the gravy train that he spent his political and post political career nurturing. In a recent interview with "The Washington Post", on the subject of Tea Party candidates, the former Republican senate majority leader said: "We don't need a lot of Jim Demint disciples. As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them." Lott remains hopeful however, that we can still go back to the way things used to be; "I still have faith in the visceral judgment of the American people." First of all who is the "we" he's referring to? Lott resigned his senate seat in 2007, just ahead of new law requiring former elected officials to wait two years instead of one after leaving office before working as lobbyists. He now operates the "Breaux Lott Leadership Group" with former Democratic congressman John Breaux. I can definitely understand why he wouldn't want a bunch of "Demint disciples" running around. Demint, the Republican senator from South Carolina, is widely thought of as the most conservative member of the senate and consistently opposes wasteful government spending and big government policies. In other words, he's the political opposite of Lott. Trent Lott's career in the senate was widely heralded, by "Citizens Against Government Waste", which repeatedly recognized him for going above and beyond the call of duty in the area of pork barrel spending.In May 2006, the government watchdog organization honored he and fellow Republican MS senator Thad Cochran as "Porker of the Month" for exemplary efforts to waste taxpayer money. This same duo was later named runner-up for "Porker of the Year". During Lott's term as senate majority leader, Mississippi was consistently among the top three states in the nation in terms of pork barrel spending. Lott's name was later mentioned in the trials of his brother-in-law, Attorney Richard Scruggs, who eventually plead guilty to charges of wire fraud and bribing a judge and is now serving a seven year prison sentence. Trent Lott is the poster child for what cost the Republicans their majorities in both houses of congress and the trust of the American people; politicians who masquerade as conservatives to get elected, then stuff their own pockets as well as their cronies' with taxpayer dollars. What is truly amazing but, at the same time terrifying, is that, despite what's happened in the last two years; Lott and other Republican elitists still don't get it. Trent, you ignorant, arrogant, pompous jackass; you're over! You've fooled us for the last time; we don't need you. The Tea Party and other grass roots movements are not indebted to the Republican Party. The Republicans will come to us, nominate and support the candidates we choose, or WE WILL DO IT WITHOUT THEM! Having an R beside your name doesn't buy you anything. We will be watching every move that you and the other slime ball Washington lobbyists make and will jump at the first opportunity to have you indicted on corruption charges. Do the logical thing and move to the Democrat side with Arlen Specter. He'll be unemployed soon, are you hiring? The leaders of the Republican Party should take notice; we are mad, we are motivated, our numbers are growing, and Jim Demint, Paul Ryan, Michelle Bachmann and Chris Christie disciples are exactly what we're looking for. If that bothers you, good; don't let the door hit you in the butt.

Government: The Solution to Our Problems or the Cause?

The debate over this question is the fundamental issue that the future of our nation rests on. The country is clearly divided on opposite sides the argument and the choices that we make in the next two national elections will, I believe, determine whether America, as we know it, is restored or dissolved. I believe in traditional conservative values and I’ve always voted for Republicans. However, I really don’t believe this is as simple as the choice between Republicans and Democrats. The American people have been consistently betrayed by both parties and we have stood by and let it happen. The federal government, regardless of which party controls the government, has ignored the constitution and trampled on our freedom but, the only time we complain is when it’s done by the party we oppose. The government has far greater power than it is granted by the constitution and the people have the means to curtail that power, but we don’t use it. Only a fraction of the population votes and only a fraction of those people put any effort into understanding the issues or learning about the candidates. There is no excuse for this dereliction of civic duty; especially in the information age that we live in. The fact is the vast majority of leaders in both parties believe that they are more capable of deciding what’s best for the people than the people themselves are. Sadly, in many cases this is probably true. However, I happen to believe that even stupid people have the right to make their own decisions. If it could be shown that government intervention was likely to improve most situations; though I would still be against it, we would at least have something worth arguing over. In most instances however, I find little evidence that government meddling has done anything other than worsen the situation, either directly or indirectly. Take, for example, the most hotly debated issue of the past two years; health insurance. Proponents of expanding government’s control of health care argue that it’s necessary because the high price and limited access prevents millions of people obtaining insurance. The first question we should ask is: why is it so expensive and why is access limited? I think the answer begins with government meddling. In 1942 the federal government passed legislation which allowed tax deductions for health insurance premiums to businesses, but not to individuals. This amounted to a government subsidized trend of transferring the purchase of health benefits from individuals to employers. There is no logical reason to involve employers in such a personal aspect of their employees’ lives other than possibly providing a boost to insurance sales. This was the first step in removing the patient from the decision making and cost control process. In 1965, following the lead of President Johnson, congress created Medicare which made private insurance for people over 65 obsolete. The free and unrestricted benefits under Medicare lead to much higher use of services and greater costs due to the lack of patient oversight and the addition of the government bureaucracy. In 1973, in response to lobbying by the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, President Nixon signed the HMO Act which mandated employers with 25 or more employees, who offered health benefits, to offer an HMO as one choice of plans. The increased use of HMO’s further reduced the choices of individuals and took away all incentive for patients to monitor the cost of care and in turn established contractual relationships between the insurers and doctors which limited the treatment options physicians could prescribe. The popularity of HMO’s lead to a steady decline of the more affordable catastrophic policies and the extreme cost for HMO policies left the self-employed and those whose employers didn’t offer benefits with extremely limited options. In addition, Medicaid and laws prohibiting hospitals from refusing treatment to the uninsured have given many people who could afford coverage an incentive not to buy it. The cost of the free treatment that hospitals are forced to provide is passed on to the taxpayers and policy holders. In one area in which legislation actually could help control costs, limiting the scope and amount of malpractice suits, they refuse to act in deference to trial lawyers. Given all of this, I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that the government’s meddling in a private sector industry, where they had no constitutional authority to begin with, has caused or contributed to the very things they now say are wrong with health insurance. Typically, their proposed solution is more meddling. This is, by no means, a lone example. Since the Department of Education was created in 1980, the cost of public education has skyrocketed while test scores and graduation rates have steadily declined. The Great Society of welfare programs was established in the sixties for the purpose of raising low income earners above poverty levels. It has, instead, caused generations to become trapped in poverty; dependent on government programs for survival. It should come as no surprise that government has failed in so many attempts to manipulate the private sector; that was never their intended purpose and no government in history has ever succeeded in creating the utopia they claim is their goal. What does come as a disturbing and disappointing surprise is that such a large percentage of Americans are content to let them keep trying despite the failures. I challenge anyone reading this to present a realistic argument for how any policy enacted by the president or congress in the last five years can possibly be good for the long term prospects of the country. But, if you’re argument is that Obama is just trying to clean up Bush’s mess, then you need to pull your head out of your ass. Bush was terrible, Obama is worse, and congress, over the last ten years, has been worse than those two combined. It’s time that all Americans woke up and took some ownership of their country. I’ll make my confession right now. I voted for George Bush twice, loyally defended him, and sat by like an idiot while he signed massive spending bills and racked up huge deficits, never once sending a letter, an email, or making a phone call to protest it. I neglected my civic responsibility, along with a helluva lot of my fellow citizens and I’m not even talking about the ones who were too lazy or too stupid to get out and vote. Thankfully, I believe a lot of Americans have awakened and will begin to trying to turn things around this November. But, it’s going to take more than one or two elections. This is going to be a long battle and we’re going to need to bring more people to the fight. If government was even reasonably limited to the powers authorized by the constitution, it wouldn’t be nearly as critical who we elected. In the words of James Madison: “All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree.” Humans are imperfect; some more than others. Shame on us for foolishly trusting them with so much.

Choose Your Friends Carefully

Did you ever get the lecture from your parents about how you'll be judged by the type of people you associate with? That used to be true and in many cases it still is. One of the exceptions seems to Democrat politicians. Remember when George W. Bush was excoriated for his connections to Enron CEO Ken Lay? The former president was corrupt by association. Time Magazine and USA Today ran stories detailing the relationship and Democrat members of congress such as Joe Lieberman and Carl Levin alleged that, because of campaign donations, the Bush administration had helped Enron executives deceive shareholders. While there was never any evidence of wrong doing, it was completely appropriate for congress and the media to question the connections. Isn't it funny how things have changed? Barack Obama has a list of questionable past and present associations that would fill a small phone book, yet no one seems to notice much less care. It would be difficult to name another president with an ongoing relationship with even one person that has publicly advocated the overthrow of the U.S. government and the establishment of a dictatorship, yet it's hard to keep count the people like this that Obama has and continues to have associations with. Just for a start, how about Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Van Jones, and Jeff Jones; and those are just the big names. Again, these aren't just left wing liberals, these are people who have repeatedly voiced their hatred for America and their desire for it's destruction. And what about the communists? Communism used to be a bad thing; any president with communist connections would have been impeached. Obama has more ties with communists than with Democrats. Senator Joe McCarthy was ostracized by society for attempting to expose communists within the government because communist was a slanderous term that could ruin careers. McCarthyism is still used as a term for witch hunts; even though almost all of the senator's claims and accusations have been proven to be true. Today, it's worse to be called a Christian than a communist. The left throws out Marxism like it's a new fashion trend. Murderous dictators like Fidel Castro and Che Guevara are folk heroes to Hollywood idiots like Oliver Stone and Sean Penn. You can still learn a lot about a person from the people they associate with. Wake up your friends and neighbors and tell them who the president's friends are.