Our less-than-illustrious Prezident Obama managed to do a little stumping on this election day during a visit to Michigan by telling voters there that Republican candidate Mitt Romney was shoveling a “load of you-know-what” in his 2008 NY Time op-ed criticizing the auto industry bailouts..
If you all remember, a UAW-owned trust was given a 17.5% ownership stake in GM as part of the bailout, while bondholders were left with nothing to show for their investment in the auto giant.
Prezident Obama went on to reject assertions that he was (and still is) pandering to special interests in his support of labor unions.
I have news for you, Mr. Prezident: If it can contribute to a political candidate’s campaign, but it cannot cast a vote, IT IS A SPECIAL INTEREST!
I urge you all to help put this socialist oath-breaking criminal back on the street this November. It doesn’t matter who the Republicans put on the ballot. Any of the Republican candidates would be better than 4 more years of this guy.
Well, he’s gone and done it. Our hippie governor, Jerry Brown… you know, he of the “I have 3 guns and 1 dog” statement to to a roomful of cops, has just signed a bill into law (California AB 144) that makes it illegal “to carry an exposed and unloaded handgun in public or in a vehicle”. Violators face up to a year in prison or a potential fine of $1,000 when the law takes effect on January 1, 2012.
An excerpt of AB 144: “The bill would, subject to exceptions, make it a misdemeanor to openly carry an unloaded handgun on the person or openly and exposed in a motor vehicle in specified public areas and would make it a misdemeanor with specified penalties to openly carry an exposed handgun in a public place or public street, as specified, if the person at the same time possesses ammunition capable of being discharged from the handgun, and the person is not in lawful possession of the handgun, as specified.”
The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution as ratified by the States says, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” [emphasis mine].
So, I can’t carry a handgun on my hip… even an unloaded one. I can’t have an unloaded handgun in my vehicle, if that weapon can be seen from outside the vehicle. This begs the question, when and where may I bear arms? If I am out in the back country target shooting, or practicing shooting on the move, am I in violation of the law if I carry my (un)loaded handgun in a holster on my hip?
Jerry, you’ve gone way too far on this one. If the courts don’t strike this down as unconstitutional, me and my 401(k) are out of here. As much as I love California, it’s moronic (and hypocritical) Governor and all the Left Wing Loon Legislators can kiss my rebel ass. Go ahead and hand the State over to all the folks on the dole and the illegal aliens. You won’t have my tax money to piss away anymore.]]>
I was reading the news today about how the House rejected a measure which would provide up to $3.7 billion in disaster relief as part of a bill to prevent a government shutdown at the end of next week. According to the AP:
“The surprise 230-195 defeat came at the hands of Democrats and tea party Republicans.
Democrats were opposed because the measure contains $1.5 billion in cuts to a government loan program to help car companies build fuel-efficient vehicles. For their part, many GOP conservatives felt the underlying bill permits spending at too high a rate.
The outcome sends House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and his leadership team back to the drawing board as they seek to make sure the government doesn’t shut down on Sept. 30, the end of this fiscal year. It also raises the possibility that the government’s main disaster relief program could run out of money early next week for victims of Hurricane Irene and other disasters.”
I don’t think anybody disagrees that FEMA needs the funding, and that we need to help those who suffer when a natural disaster strikes. What disturbs me is the continuation of business as usual in Congress where they refuse to pay for their expenditures out of cash on hand. Last time I looked, it was a company’s responsibility to fund its own R&D. If it needed a loan, it would go to its bank and get one. If it was a small business, they could go to the SBA (a worse paper chase does not exist in this country… they make it so you just want to tell them to kiss your ass and walk away).
However, a publicly held company shouldn’t be able to go to the Feds to get a loan guarantee for R&D, no matter the project’s goal, which in this case is development of fuel efficient vehicles. Riddle me this: Why are the Dems in such lockstep over the availability of Federal guarantees for this R&D? Think about it. The Dems must have something to gain by guaranteeing these loans. What might that be?
So, do you want to fix the problems in DC? The solution is very simple, you know… and here it is, step by step:
Repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution (Limits the president to two terms, or a maximum of 10 years (i.e., if a Vice President serves not more than one half of a President’s term, he or she can be elected to a further two terms).
Repeal the 17th Amendment to the Constitution (Establishes the direct election of United States Senators by popular vote).
Create a new Constitutional Amendment (we’ll call it the Term Limits Amendment for now) that incorporates the text of the 22nd Amendment, plus the following text:
No person may serve more than twelve (12) years in Congress. If a person has been appointed to fill a vacant Congressional seat by their state’s Governor or by special election, he or she can be elected to terms totaling 12 years in addition to the time served filling the vacancy.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the legislatures thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the legislatures of such State shall elect a replacement to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the legislature fills the vacancies by election.
Congress shall make no law that affects The People that does not apply to the members thereof.
There you have it. So, what have we done here? First, we have eliminated the career politician at the Federal level. Nobody spend more than 12 years in Congress… period.
We have also helped undo the partisan politics inherent in having members of the Senate elected by the general population of each State. Our Founding Fathers created the House of Representatives as The People’s House, whereby those serving in The House were looking out for The People’s best interests. Under the original provisions of the Constitution, Senators were elected by State legislatures; this was intended to ensure that the Federal government contained representatives of the States, and also to provide a body not dependent on popular support that could afford to “take a more detached view of issues coming before Congress”.
Though some will claim otherwise, the 17th amendments was a pure power play designed to further entrench party politics in DC. Critics of the Seventeenth Amendment claim that by altering the way Senators are elected, the States lost any representation they had in the Federal government and that this led to the gradual “slide into ignominy” of State legislatures, as well as an overextension of Federal power and the rise of special interest groups to fill the power vacuum previously occupied by State legislatures. In my opinion, these critics were correct in their assessment, and it is time to go back to doing things the way our Founding Fathers intended they be done.
We have also eliminated loopholes such as those created by ObamaCare when Congress was able to exempt themselves from it. If a law is good enough for The People to be subject to its statutes, it’s good enough for the members of Congress to be subject to it, as well.
It is pretty clear there is no way Congress will author an Amendment that will limit their term of service to 12 years. After all, it’s not in their best interest. The Supreme Court has also ruled that the States cannot limit the terms of their representatives to Congress. So, the only way left for We The People to regain control of our Government is to take matters into our own hands, and push for a Constitutional Amendment ourselves. I will be discussing how we can do that in another article.
Of course, this is just One Man’s View. I welcome your comments.]]>
“Fathom the hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured, but not everyone must prove they are a citizen.”
I wish I knew who coined this, because it strikes a chord in my soul and I would like to give them credit.
Yeah, like we haven’t heard that before.
Back in 2005, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) initiated a program called Project Gunrunner. Project Gunrunner is also part of the Department’s broader Southwest Border Initiative, which seeks to reduce cross-border drug and firearms trafficking and the high level of violence associated with these activities on both sides of the border. ATF has determined that the Mexican cartels have become the leading gun trafficking organizations operating in the southwest U.S. (DUH) and is working in collaboration with other agencies and the Government of Mexico to expand the eTrace firearm tracing software system. eTrace is supposed to provide web based access to ATF’s Firearms Tracing System to allow law enforcement both domestically and internationally the ability to trace firearms encountered in connection with a criminal investigation to the first recorded purchaser – who may have innocently sold the gun years ago. eTrace supposedly allows law enforcement to access their trace results directly (name and address of first purchaser) and offers the ability to generate statistical reports to analyze their trace data to estimate firearms trafficking trends or patterns. Here’s where it gets interesting.
Project Gunrunner has a stated official objective to stop the sale and export of guns from the United States into Mexico in order to deny Mexican drug cartels the firearms considered “tools of the trade”. However, since February 2008 under Project Gunrunner, Operations “Fast and Furious”, “Too Hot to Handle”, “Wide Receiver” and others (all together satirically dubbed “Operation Gunwalker”), have done the opposite by ATF permitting and facilitating “straw purchase” firearm sales to traffickers, and allowing the guns to “walk” and be transported to Mexico. This has resulted in considerable controversy.
Senator Charles E. Grassley (R-IA) initiated an investigation with a letter to ATF on 27 January 2011, and again on 31 January 2011. ATF responded through the Department of Justice by denying all allegations. Senator Grassley responded with specific documentation supporting the allegations in letters to U.S. Attorney General Holder on 9 Feb 2011 and again on 16 Feb 2011. ATF refused to answer specific questions in a formal briefing to Senator Grassley on 10 Feb 2011.
Indictments filed in federal court, documentation obtained by Senator Grassley, and statements of ATF agents obtained by Senator Grassley and CBS News, show that the ATF’s Phoenix Field Division allowed and facilitated the sale of over 2,500 firearms (AK-47 rifles, FN 5.7mm pistols, AK-47 pistols, and .50 caliber rifles) in “straw man purchases” destined for Mexico. According to ATF agents, Mexican officials were not notified, and ATF agents operating in Mexico were instructed not to alert Mexican authorities about the operation. Some ATF agents and supervisors strongly objected, and gun dealers (who were cooperating with ATF) protested the sales, but were asked by ATF to complete the transactions to elucidate the supply chain and gather intelligence. However, there are accusations that ATF was attempting to boost statistics to “prove” that American guns are arming the Mexican drug cartels and to further budget and power objectives.
Many of these same guns have now been recovered throughout Mexico, which is artificially inflating ATF’s eTrace statistics of U.S. origin guns seized in Mexico. One specific gun, recovered at the scene, is alleged to be the weapon used to murder Customs and Border Protection Agent Brian Terry on December 14, 2010.
ATF’s negligence and their obsession with pursuing their anti-gun political agenda cost the life of an American law enforcement officer. The details of the scandal are straight forward:
To top it off, this comes while ATF press releases continue to spread the flat-out lie that over 80% of all the guns used in Mexico’s drug war come from the United States. And now, officials all the way up to the Obama White House are denying any knowledge of an operation that would have clearly needed high-level approval.
I don’t believe for a second that a project such as this one didn’t have to be signed off by the White House, do you?
The ATF has repeatedly ignored Congressional requests for documentation of their operation. It has even come to the point where ATF leaders are being subpoenaed by Congressional committees.
And yet, they continue to flaunt their obvious contempt for the rule of law… unless it’s their “rules” and their distorted “laws”, of course.
Had enough yet?
I urge you to contact Speaker of the House John Boehner directly at
Office of the Speaker
H-232 The Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-0600
Fax: (202) 225-5117
and demand he hold ATF accountable for their actions.
Of course, this is just One Man’s View. YMMV, and we welcome your comments.]]>
I quote the Constitution of the United States:
Article IV, Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence [emphasis added].
I don’t believe anybody can deny the Federal Government has failed miserably in their obligation to protect the states from invasion (i.e., illegal immigration) and domestic violence (i.e., the kidnappings, murders and other violence associated with the drug cartels in and around the Arizona/Mexican border). Depending on your source, there are between 10-12 million illegal immigrants currently in the United States… perhaps even more. That represents approximately 3.25% of the nation’s total population. It is estimated that 1 in 7 (that’s 14.28% for the arithmetically challenged) AZ residents are there illegally. If that doesn’t qualify as an invasion, I don’t know what does.
It amazes me how, when the State of Arizona takes action to attempt to succeed where the Federal Government has repeatedly failed, by essentially mirroring Federal Law, so many in this country raise such a stink about what might happen. Does anybody really think the Arizona Dept. of Public Safety or local law enforcement is going to go out of their way to harass people just because they happen to be Hispanic? Approximately 30% of AZ’s population is of Hispanic origin. Do you really think they have time to go after all 1.8 million persons of Hispanic origin in the state?
Puhleeeze! To state that going after the perpetrators of these crimes is racial profiling is absurd. It’s an unfortunate fact that the majority drug running, kidnapping and illegal immigration happening in Arizona is done by Hispanics. It is what it is. I don’t recall ever hearing anybody claiming the Border Patrol’s patrolling the southern border looking for illegal immigrants (who are mostly Hispanic) is racial profiling, do you?
It is important to remember why the law was enacted: The Feds aren’t getting the job done. For Representative to Congress Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) to call for industries from manufacturing to tourism to boycott his own state is ludicrous… especially in these tough economic times. “There has to be an embarrassment sanction, that’s part of it,” said Grijalva. “And there as to be an economic sanction. That’s part of it.” Remember, this is from a guy who, as a representative to Congress, is partially responsible for the problem! The citizens of AZ should remember this idiot’s comments in November, and toss him out of office.
The new AZ law states:
20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT [emphasis added] MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
34 J. THIS SECTION SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH
35 FEDERAL LAWS REGULATING IMMIGRATION, PROTECTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF ALL
36 PERSONS AND RESPECTING THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF UNITED STATES
It should be clear to any reasonable person that the intent of the AZ law is to conform to existing Federal Law, and to ensure nobody’s rights are violated. The political grandstanding of people like Senator Lindsey Graham is a joke. U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder’s statement that “the new law could be abused by authorities, and that the Justice Department and Homeland Security would be gearing up for an official review of the law to see how it measures up against the U.S. constitution” goes past absurdity into the realm of ridiculous. If DoJ and DHS would get off their fat asses and do their jobs, AZ wouldn’t have had to do what they did. Who gives a Tinker’s Damn about what could happen. A lot of things could happen: You could be hit by a truck today. I could be struck by lightning. I rest my case on that topic.
We need to give the citizens of the State of Arizona the benefit of the doubt, and let them see if they be successful where the Feds have failed.
Of course, this is just One Man’s View. Your comments are, as always, most welcome.]]>
I ran into a friend at the market last night, who also happens to be my CPA. Brian was picking up groceries for dinner with his 84 year old father, a Tuesday night ritual for them. Brian invited me to join them for some liquid refreshment, snacks and conversation. Even though I had already dined (my wife is off visiting my daughter for a few days), I really enjoy sitting down with him and solving the world’s problems over a glass or 3 of wine (or a fine Scotch) so I agreed to join them.
The conversation eventually turned to the current State of the U.S., as it usually does.
We were discussing the National Debt, when I made mention that “a little debt is healthy”. Brian was quick to remind me of my many comments that the Government needs to be run like a non-profit corporation, asking “How can a non-profit corporation ever hope to pay off any debt when its goal is to have no profits with which to pay it?” This was an excellent point, and one which bears more discussion at another time.
By now you’re probably asking “What does this have to do with the Tea Party?”. Well, I have been thinking a lot about the Tea Party of late… mostly about where they’re headed in terms of influencing our political process. Brian and I also discussed where they fit in the overall political spectrum, and how they could be most effective… and how they might self-destruct. I spent some time floating around their web site, and came across their Mission Statement:
The impetus for the Tea Party movement is excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.
While their Mission is laudable, I think those who are highly active in the movement need to reach a consensus on how they plan on making their mission successful. That said, here are some of my thoughts… which will probably prove highly unpopular to a LOT of people:
A lot to chew on? Absolutely! However, if the Tea Party can reach a general, national consensus on the 8 items I listed above, they will be a force to be reckoned with forevermore. Of course, these 8 items aren’t all that need to be done to fix what’s wrong with our political processes today… but they’ll go a long way toward it.
Of course, this is just One Man’s View. As always, your comments are most welcome.]]>
This article in the series discusses how the left is turning our Government into a nation of entitlements. I’m sure you’ve heard this discussed many times by all the radio and TV pundits. What you don’t hear much about is why this is happening. You see, this isn’t an accident. It’s all part of a grand plan to make the citizenry so dependent upon Government that only those with a certain viewpoint will ever be elected at the national level. As I’ve stated on more than one occasion, it’s all about Power!
I’m not normally a conspiracy theorist. However, I’ll make an exception in this case, and what I’m discussing goes all the way back to Theodore Roosevelt… who happened to be a Republican. Roosevelt served as President from 1901-1909, where he attempted to move the Republican Party in the direction of Progressivism, including trust busting and increased regulation of businesses. He tried to run again in 1912, and when he failed to win the Republican nomination against William Howard Taft, he formed the Progressive Bull Moose Party, beating Taft in the election, but losing to Woodrow Wilson. You can read more about Teddy Roosevelt here.
When Democrat Woodrow Wilson was elected President with a Democratic Congress in 1912 he implemented a series of progressive policies. In 1913 the income tax was instituted in the United States with the Sixteenth Amendment. Other significant changes enacted at the national level included direct election of Senators with the Seventeenth Amendment, Prohibition with the Eighteenth Amendment, and women’s suffrage through the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. You can read more about Wilson here. If you check out the link, make sure you scroll down to the discussion of Wilson’s thoughts on Government Systems. You’ll be appalled.
Wilson resolved the longstanding debates over tariffs and antitrust, and created the Federal Reserve. Many of today’s U.S. regulatory agencies were created during these years, including the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Federal Trade Commission. You’re probably asking yourself “Well, are these such bad things?”. In and of themselves, no, they weren’t. At that time, big business (i.e., Oil, Textiles, Coal, Steel, et. al.) was running amok and something had to be done. Unfortunately, they didn’t stop there.
The progressives were committed to changing and reforming the country, and were avid modernizers. They believed in science, technology, expertise—and especially education—as the grand solution to society’s weaknesses. Progressivism typically included a favorable attitude toward urban-industrial society, belief in mankind’s ability to improve the environment and conditions of life, belief in obligation to intervene in economic and social affairs, and a belief in the ability of experts and in efficiency of government intervention. Do you see where this is going?
The term “progressive” is today often used in place of “liberal”. Although the two are related in some ways, they are separate and distinct political ideologies. According to John Halpin, senior advisor on the staff of the Center for American Progress, “Progressivism is an orientation towards politics, it’s not a long-standing ideology like liberalism, but an historically-grounded concept… that accepts the world as dynamic.” Progressives supposedly see progressivism as an attitude towards the world of politics that is broader than conservatism vs. liberalism, and as an attempt to break free from what they consider to be a false and divisive dichotomy.
Cultural Liberalism is ultimately founded on a concept of natural rights and civil liberties, and the belief that the major purpose of the government is to protect those rights. Liberals are often called “left-wing”, as opposed to “right-wing” conservatives. The progressive school, as a unique branch of contemporary political thought, tends to advocate certain center-left or left-wing views that may conflict with mainstream liberal views, despite the fact that modern liberalism and progressivism may still both support many of the same policies (such as the concept of war as a general last resort).]]>