Big Brother comes out of the closet

So now the Obama administration says all Internet based communication services must be capable of complying with federal wiretap orders.  Just like when they passed the Patriot Act, it is for our own good.  The only problem is that we might not agree with the federal government on what is good, and when that happens the government gets to decide in a very non-public way.

I am not naive enough to think our conversations are secure if the feds want to read/listen/see them.  The thing you have to ask yourself is, why do they need it to be a law?  I suspect that buried in this one is some other "for your own good" stuff that won't be talked about.  This is likely a piece intended to connect with some other "unrelated" item like fingers joining on a full Nelson against our liberty.

Paranoid?  Maybe, but that is no worse than being one of the useful idiots.

The fact is that our federal government is WAY over powered and our liberty is being crushed under it.  We already have the fed telling us what ideas are illegal, where does it end?  When do we wake up a realize that all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others?

Same old Sad Song

Read an article today on FoxNews.com titled "GOP Battle Plan: Draw 'Line In the Sand' On Dem Spending".  When I clicked the link to check it out the page title was "GOP Aims to Erode White House Agenda".

How typical.The war cry for the GOP hopes of defeating the Democrat majority and possibly taking it themselves is, their same old tune, "We are against the Democrats!"  Wow, that is really something I can be a part of...NOT!

In case you think the Democrats have the high ground, their war cry is no better, "Imagine the worst problems we have faced....that is what you get if you elect a Republican!  It will turn back the clock!"

This is why the Libertarians and Tea Party candidates are so viable, they stand for specific principals.  Who in their right mind can support the Republican or Democrat parties?  They stand for nothing other than their own political success.

There is definitely a line being drawn in the sand alright, just not where the GOP thinks.  You know, I can think of some times when lines were drawn in the sand, so to speak.

The first would have to be when God kicked us out of the garden of Eden.  Adam and Eve didn't follow the simplest of principles, and is it me, or do they sound just like our politicians?

"Don't blame me....the woman gave it to me."
"I couldn't help it, the serpent beguiled me."

Then God kicked them out and drew a line they could not cross.

Then there was the time when Moses went up the mountain to seek God...and the Israelites decided to make a golden calf and worship that...kinda like the liberal Democrats want to worship the idol of Socialism...must be a golden Jackass.  When Moses came down and saw what idiots they were he said, ""Whoever is for the LORD, come to me."  Then they strapped on a sword and killed the others.

I do have an example that is not from the Bible (but is thought to be a myth).  Supposedly, by Col. William Barrett Travis in 1836 at a little place in Texas called the Alamo.  This story is full of analogies I don't have time to explore, but the ending is something the GOP might want to...uh....remember.

Here is a principle for voters to remember, "You reap what you sow.", don't rally behind the idiots saying "We are for being against them!"

A Civil Rights Issue

Is there nothing the NAACP can't turn into a civil rights issue?

In this article California NAACP President Alice Huffman is Quoted as saying:

"If you look at the disproportionate number of arrests that happen in our community, the law is not being applied equitably across the board.  We're targeted, which makes this a civil rights issue."

This quote was related to legalizing marijuana, which I had never considered a civil rights issue before Ms. Huffman enlightened me.  She should look at the statistics for murder, because based on them it is another civil rights issue and should also be legalized.

The main problem with this logic (and I use that term VERY loosely) is that it assume that there are equal numbers of white and blacks breaking the law, and the inequality is in the disproportionate numbers of blacks arrested.  When I took my sociology class in college my professor taught us, "Correlation is not causation".  In other words, the statistic do not tell you the cause of what they show. 

Could there be a racist conspiracy in the police force or courts?  Sure, there is no way to prove there is not one.  Could there be a cultural difference that causes fewer whites to smoke pot than blacks?  Could there be a cultural difference that accounts for gang activity?  There are many possibilities for why more blacks are arrested for possession of marijuana, yet Ms. Huffman is sure it is a civil rights issue.

I am sure that Ms. Huffman would say that all those blacks that go to court over possession should be considered innocent until proven guilty.  I would say that goes for our police and courts too.  This statistic does not prove anything in and of itself.  When Martin Luther King Jr. fought inequalities in civil rights there was proof we could see.  What a shame his efforts to insure liberty to all with disregard for ethnicity has been turned into a scheme to secure power and profit for a few (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Julian Bond, etc.)  These people foster as much racial tension as they can because the need it to move their personal agendas forward.  As obvious as this is, many are afraid to acknowledge it because of the PC stigma of racist projected on any who declare the emperor has no clothes.

A few closing points:

1. Racism should only be a legal issue when it is institutionalised in government.  One of the worst examples of this kind of racism is Affirmative action.
2. Personally I do not think that it makes sense for marijuana to be illegal.
3. NAACP is obviously a political organization whose agenda is the empowerment of it's leadership by encouraging blacks to feel like victims.

Protect Us

I just read an article (http://www.aolnews.com/health/article/your-kids-buy-e-cigs-do-you-know-whats-in-them/19633977?test=latestnews) on E-cigs.  I had never heard about them before, but apparently they are a new trend.

 

There is a lot of buzz about regulating them, like most things.  The more I read how this spokesman or that for various foundations and campaigns to protect us from ourselves wanted the government to step in and regulate these things, the more grumpy I got.

Why did I get grumpy you ask...because there are so many little campaigns trying to get us to beg the government to protect us from ourselves.  The worst ones are some that want to protect children from various things. 

I have three main problems with the "Protect us from Ourselves" crowd's push for government regulation.

1. Regulation doesn't work.  Whether it is cigarettes, R rated movies, alcohol, mortgages, prescription drugs, or anything else, it just doesn't have much impact.  Regulations are a bunch of legalistic words written on paper stored in some regulation library.  The average person wouldn't understand the meaning if they read them, and those that can understand (lawyers and politicians...pretty much one in the same these days) immediately set to work on figuring out where the loopholes are (usually put there by these same people).

2. Because regulations don't work, they become too broad in an effort to make them work.  The problem with this is it is self-defeating.  As the regulations over-reach in an attempt to be effective they interfere with activities that were not the target of the original regulation.  This can either cause certain unrelated liberties to be sacrificed (if the regulation is enforced) or further degrade it's effectiveness as people reject it (if it is not enforced).  Those who reject the regulation (gun laws are great examples) ignore them, leaving only those who would have likely exercised good sense to begin with obeying the regulation.  The net effect is usually null if not negative.

3. Regulation cost money.  The cost is hard to measure because it is not just the cost of the bureaucracy it creates (which is usually significant and endless), but also the cost on the free market and the burden of obedience.  Having worked for a top 10 mortgage company I can tell you that the cost to mortgage comapanies related to compliance with regulations is huge.  All that cost impact dividends to investors, inflates the cost of services to customers, and reduces the number of employees the company can afford to have.

So why do we have so many regulations if they are such a bad idea?  Fear and the desire to control others instead of convincing them to change behavior with reason.  Somewhere along the way the idea that our government was responsible for making life fair for all meant forcing certain behaviors on certain citizens.  It works something like this:

1. I think drinking alcohol is bad, so I don't drink it. 
2. I see a drunk and don't like how I feel when I see a drunk. 
3. I tell the drunk that drinking alcohol is a bad idea. 
4. The drunk ignores me and drinks anyway.
5. I work with other who are like minded to educate all on the evils of alcohol.
6. The drunk ignores me and drinks anyway.
7. We boycott store that sell alcohol.
8. Some stores stop selling alcohol.
9. The stores that do sell it have greater profits on alcohol because of less competition.
10. The drunk ignores me and drinks anyway.
11. We go to the government to have alcohol regulated (abolition in this case).
12. Politicians resist (the like a good drink every now and then).
13. We remind them that they will need to re-elected (and we vote, but the drunk won't).
14. Politicians protect their careers by passing a law regulating alcohol.
15. Gangsters bootleg alcohol and sell it on the black market making huge profits.
16. The drunk ignores me and drinks anyway.

 Whether it is alcohol, guns, cigarettes, R rated movies, prescription drugs, alternative medical treatment, or most anything else, regulation is not effective.  In the end regulation serves to increase the size and expense of our bloated government while needlessly reducing the liberties of people who would have acted responsible in the first place.

 

Now that regulation has turned into a revenue generating system for the government it will be hard to remove.  Take driving for instance.  The constitution says we have a right to free travel, but some thought to regulate that free travel in many ways.  Now the government has a revenue stream from the requirement to have a drivers license in order to drive and speed limit regulations.  This is how we have gotten so many layers of regulation.

 

The worst part is how it has changed the way we think.  Our founding fathers did not risk everything for the right to have the government regulate every aspect of our lives.  Just the opposite is true, they risked all to remove regulation and establish personal liberty.  It is true that for there to be civilization, there must be some sacrifice of absolute personal liberty, but if you read the writings of our founding fathers they warn of the certain doom of personal liberty by taking the very path we have chosen.  Regulation removes the larger part of personal responsibility and give it, along with the attached liberty, to the government.  This has gone on long enough that we expect the government to limit our choices for our own good.  Those who have no self-control or discipline may think this beneficial, but it is a theft of liberty, and nothing more, to those of us who would be responsible for ourselves. 

CONTENT WARNING

One of the reasons I have not posted often is that it takes time to write, edit, and spell check a post. In the past I have tried to offer links to sources and supporting info. I will not be doing this anymore, I will be posting "off the cuff", so be warned I am a terrible speller and if I get typing fast enough I can be pretty creative with sentence structure, tense, and pronouns.


Soooo....her we go.

IRS - Irritating Revenue Scheme

I just spent over 2 hours on hold, over 2 days, to talk to a guy for less than 5 minutes. Yes, I had to press 1 to hear the menus in English instead of Spanish. Yes, I had to enter in information to speed things up (um, wow, how much slower could they have been?) only to be asked all the same questions by the person I was connected to (50% of my 5 minute call right there).

Once we established I was who I said I was, by asking me questions anyone who has done business with me over the last few years could answer, it took all of 2 minutes for IRS employee number 125488596 to tell me, "I tried to do that, but the computer won't let me." Then IRS employee number 125488596 told me I could write a letter and ask for my penalties to be waived. When asked if I would incur further penalties and interest while writing to them and waiting for an answer, IRS employee number 125488596 didn't even have to put me on hold to answer, "Yes." How efficient. IRS employee number 125488596 didn't leave it at that though, because our government had spent gobs of money to send him to sensitivity training, so he went the extra mile and said, "It's only $212 dollars. It's not like it's a lot." This helped me feel so much better. I guess IRS employee number 125488596 makes so much that he can light his cigars with $212, but that is an amount that actually matters to me...mostly because I earned it.

Think about it this way...

In 2003 there were 5,890,821 Corp. Tax Returns filed. If 50% of them were assessed a $212 penalty, that would be $624,427,026, pocket change to the IRS. My penalty was pretty small though (and only based on 3 months), what if large companies had annual penalties of say $5000, maybe an additional 20% of those corp. filings. That would be an additional $5,890,821,000 for a total of $6,515,248,026, but come on, it's not like that is a lot! This is just penalties we are talking about here, not the actual tax burden. I kind of wonder how many paid penalties above $5000, you know, the high rollers like IRS employee number 125488596. Don't think many folks paid more? Well in 2003 38 taxpayers paid a total of $126,000 because the IRS didn't like them seeking judicial review (allowable according to The IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998). One of those 38 received a penalty of over $14,000 for daring to object and seek judicial review (the judge actually said they "should have known better").

But wait, there's more!

You know the IRS is serious about having a high level of performance for it's customers...what?...oh, you didn't realize you were a customer?...yes, while on hold for over 2 hours I heard many times how they were helping other "customers"...so anyway, they want to provide us such excellent service that they wanted to upgrade their computer systems. Now before you get excited about the budget overruns, you have to understand that they only started with $1.7 billion to get them through 2004. In fact, Paul Cofoni VP at Computer Sciences Corp. said, “[during] my 30 years of working in the technology field, I have never encountered any program of the size and complexity as the business systems modernization program at the IRS". Besides, they only went over the budget by a pesky $290,000,000, that is only 1,450,000 $200 penalties, and IRS employee number 125488596 can tell you that is all in a good days work.

It may be a good idea to refocus the IRS on finding some of the money we have already earned and given the Federal Government. The DoD reported $1.1 trillion missing in FY 2000 alone (video), I mean really, that is not exactly looking for a needle in a haystack.

Hereditary Bondage

"Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them if we basely entail hereditary bondage on them." Thomas Jefferson

Mixed Message

I read an article on FoxNews.com this morning on how recipients of the BP oil spill money may have to pay taxes on it. As is to be expected when a disaster of this proportion occurs, emotions are high and the politicians are using them to further their agenda (never waste a crisis, right?). This kind of issue typically turns in to a tangled mess via the perfect storm of victims pleading for help, media sensationalism to grab ratings, and politicians trying to channel energy into popularity increases and maneuvering room for their greater plans.

Let's look at them one at a time.

"If they're going to pay you a lump sum, like for a year, then bam, take the taxes out of the check," said Pellegal, of Boothville, La. "But a little bit at a time, they shouldn't."

There are many individuals who will be impacted by the oil spill. All those you would think of (and the media is focused on), such as oil workers, shrimpers, and deep sea fishing charters, and many more you would not think of. I am not indifferent to this, but neither am I consumed by it. We all have to be aware of our vulnerabilities and WE should be responsible for our own preparedness. If you live along the Mississippi, you need to be prepared for the likelihood of floods. If you live in the Midwest's Tornado Alley, you should prepare for tornados. Upstate New York, heavy snow. California, earth quakes. Gulf coast, hurricanes, and obviously oil spills. It is a simple concept, yet so many don't get it. Why don't they get it? That is a long story, but basically they have been taught to not get it for generations now. We have been taught to make decisions about our life assuming that the future will be what we want it to be. Good examples of this idea and the potential harm of subscribing to it are seen all the time if you look (bankruptcy, the mortgage crisis, the dot com bubble, social security, most debt). The only problem is how we are encouraged to interpret what we see when we look, which brings us to the media and the politicians (not much difference anymore).

President Barack Obama said BP would create a $20 billion disaster fund and provide another $100 million for oil workers who lose their jobs because of the six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

The media wants a scoop, a hook, a headline, an exclusive, something to make you choose them over their competitors. This isn't all bad, I am a big fan of competition, but I am a bigger fan of not being a fool, and anyone who watches ANY of the media and accepts it as fact is a fool (yes, that includes FoxNews). The media wants you to accept them as an exclusive source of the truth, but it is rarely so. I don't claim to know why it is so, but these days the media seems to be nothing but progressive liberals. The media can still ask the hard questions, they do it all the time for conservatives (just like they should), but they have forgotten how to ask a progressive liberal a hard question (they are too busy experiencing a thrill up their leg I guess). This wouldn't be so bad except that the masses of dumbed down "useful idiots" believe everything they see on TV, then they turn around and regurgitate it as if they figured something out. Question the benefit of their favorite entitlement and they will quickly brand you with one of the slurs taught to them by the media. Entitlement mentality is the polar opposite of being responsible for yourself, which brings us to the politicians.

"I haven't even thought about taxes. Wow. That makes me mad," said Edwards, who has one child in college and another in high school. "I'm already losing money, and now I've got to figure out how to hold back money to pay taxes?"

Now I know what you are probably thinking, progressives are Democrats and conservatives are Republicans, but that is just not so. Both parties have done their share of increasing the public addiction to the opiate of entitlements. Many Republicans will pay lip service to reducing entitlements, but when faced with the prospect of an electorate irate from withdraw, they soon abandon the notion in favor of their own, "more restrained" entitlements. This is one good reason for strict term limits, to help end the cycle of "re-elect me so I can give you even more!" That must be why they can't believe that their progressive saviors want their cut of the BP payments, but this is just too big of a win to let them keep it when there is SO MUCH MORE the progressives need to fund. Not to worry, according to the article, the same happened in 2007 for folks who received money after Katrina. Once the complaining got loud enough congress disallowed the tax, so crank up that temper tantrum about how unfair it is to pay taxes on your...err...income.

This guy, who is he? Where did he come from?

In response to his successful bid to win the nomination to run for a South Carolina Senate seat, many are suggesting Alvin Greene should be disqualified.

Why do they want him disqualified? Well, the most sited reason is he is out of bail after being charged with felony obscenity, but he has not been proven guilty. Don't misunderstand what I am saying, when I hear him interviewed, I have no reason to think he will do a good job as South Carolina's Senator, but I feel that way about many seated Senators. Furthermore, soliciting women, or for that matter men, by Senators, or even sitting Presidents, is hardly a rare event. I am not excusing immoral behavior, if he did what he is accused of I hope he is convicted and sentenced.

"He's been paid to stay in it, by somebody," Clyburn said. "I just think this is a ploy by someone to dishonor and embarrass the Democratic Party."

The difference between Mr. Greene and many others who have "served" in federal government, is class, not behavior. I have no doubt that were Mr. Greene a rich lawyer, doctor, or businessman who was presumed to have the ability to pull more federal money into the state or expand the Democrat parties influence, he would be defended by the very people who now attack him now (with the exception of Camille McCoy, the 19-year-old chemistry student at the University of South Carolina who reported him to the police). Mr. Greene does not come from the right class though, he is unemployed, he does not inspire confidence, and he doesn't appear to have a grasp on the issues.

"Alvin Greene has made himself an issue by running for office." - Susan McCoy (mother of the student Alvin Greene is accused of harassing)

I in no way support Alvin Greene. I do support our system of electing our representatives and the responsibility that accompanies it. It is interesting that now, after defeating the presumptive favorite of the Democrat party Vic Rawl ( a state legislator and former judge), cries for Mr. Greene's withdraw and federal investigations abound. The fact is that the Democrat party has nobody to blame but themselves in this, after all, it was their primary, and they approved Mr. Greene's application to participate. Registered Democrat voters decided to vote for Mr. Greene, so he ought to be their candidate no matter how distasteful the party higher-ups find it.

Just in case you think I feel this way because I like the idea of an easy victory for Mr. Greene's Republican opponent, let me clarify. I find it completely plausible that the same situation could happen in a Republican primary, and if it did, I would feel no different. Both parties have become focused on political strategy at the expense of principled service. Our elected representatives are to lead via public service, not attempt to dominate by political maneuvers and media misinformation. I am willing to abide the occasional Alvin Greene in order to ensure that all citizens, regardless of class, have access to serving as elected officials.

Too busy and depressed to write

I have been too busy and dpressed to write. Busy is good, depression will need to be overcome.

Until later.

Notions of Fairness

Recently President Barack Hussein Obama had the following to say about recent legislation signed into law in Arizona:

"That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe,"

What horrible unfair thing are they doing that will destroy the trust between communities and the police?  They will require people in Arizona to be legally in the country.  The police will have to question people on the legality of their immigration status if there is reason to believe they may not be here legally.  So I am wondering what cherished American notion we are undermining.  It seems more likely to me that Obama seeks to undermine the cherished notions of liberty and personal responsibility in whatever remote corners of America they still exist in.

In addition to making his arrogant remarks, President Barack Hussein Obama has the Justice Department examining it to see if it's legal.  I wonder how the legality of this will be determined since our president intends to Fundamentally Transform America, the constitution, you know, that status quo document written by a bunch of old white guys, certainly can't be used.  What we really need is a word from on high from Mr. Hope and Change himself. 

Sorry, the irony took me for a second there.

The really insane thing is that Arizona law ONLY requires they be here legally according to current US immigration law.  How unfair of them.

If anyone is misguided and suffering from irresponsibility it is the federal government.  How often do I say the federal government SHOULD be doing something, should be involved, IS responsible for something?  Immigration and border security happens to be one of those things, but our President thinks it is unfair to require people enter our country according to our established immigration law.  The things the federal government has no business regulating, outlawing, or providing, Obama insists on.  One of the few things our federal government SHOULD do and, guess what, Obama thinks it is bad.

Perhaps he needs all these people to stay so he can grant them amnesty, make them citizens, promise them a bunch of entitlements, all just in time for 2010 elections.  The thing is, Arizona is also working on a law requiring all presidential candidates to show proof of US birth, so maybe it is actually good for Obama if Arizona cracks down...all those illegal immigrants will relocate and be able to vote for him in other states.

President Obama has offered to talk unconditionally

President Obama has offered to talk unconditionally...with Iran, but Israel is a different story.

This month Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with President Barack Hussein Obama.  For once our President didn't bow to the foreign leader, in fact, they didn't even have a photo op for reporters.

Apparently after Obama failed to secure a written promise from Israel to make concessions on settlements, he just walked out of the meeting.  Something tells me that is a little different than how he would treat Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the same situation...or Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz (who received both a bow and a photo op)...or the Japanese Emperor Akihito (also received a bow)..or even Tampa Mayor Pam Iorio (she also got a bow).  As he was leaving Obama said that the PM could continue to talk to his advisors and get back to him when he was ready to forget about the settlements.  Obama then excused himself from dining with Netanyahu and didn't even give him an iPod preloaded with Obama's Greatest Hits or a DVD set of American films.

What is the cause of this ridiculous treatment?  Obama is throwing a hissy fit because Israel announced new settlements in east Jerusalem earlier this month when VP Joe "this is a big #$%ing deal" Biden was visiting.  Biden on the other hand most likely thanked the PM for distracting the press from headlining whatever stupid thing he said while there.

So what is the moral of the story?  Don't stand in the way of Obama's historical Presidency.  Netanyahu must have forgotten that Obama got a Nobel Peace Prize for...for...well...for nothing really, but that is the point, this could have been proof that Obama is going to bring peace to the middle east.  A word of advice to our other allies, just remember, it is all about Obama.

Finally something I agree with Obama about!

The American people want to know if it’s still possible for Washington to look out for these interests, for their future. So what they’re looking for is some courage. They’re waiting for us to act. They’re waiting for us to lead. They don’t want us putting our finger out to the wind. They don’t want us reading polls. They want us to look and see what is the best thing for America, and then do what’s right. And as long as I hold this office, I intend to provide that leadership. - Barack Hussein Obama

Our leaders should be governing by polls, protests, and re-election hopes.  We should elect our politicians based on their professed, and hopefully demonstrated, principles.  They should then govern by those same principles.  Polls and protests are good for drawing the attention of our leaders to a particular issue, but should not override the principles held by the leader.  I am tired of the pandering of politicians to whatever cause or special interest they feel empowers them at the moment, only to switch their position when the wind changes (I was for it before I was against it).  I believe Obama has done this pretty well.

The problem is that, no matter what he reads us from his teleprompter, Obama's principles are founded in socialism and self interest.  He is an arrogant elitist who believes that he is being the public servant his office is supposed to be by forcing his radical agenda on us for our own good.  He vacillates between pity and annoyance at our ignorance.

In January 2009 Rush Limbaugh was criticized for stating that he hoped the soon to be President Barack Hussein Obama would fail.  Many couldn't believe that Rush would hope for such a thing, but Rush saw that Obama would lead from his principles, principles of radical socialism.  Since Rush's principles are diametrically opposed to Obama's, there is no shame in hoping Obama would fail, anything else would not make sense.

The thing that really bothers me are the many politicians (from all parties) that have only one principle, "Look out for number one."  Many have wondered if Obama is politically suicidal by pushing for National Health-Care and other elements of his socialist agenda, but I don't believe that is the case.  Obama pursues his principles, polls and popularity be damned.  We need some liberty minded leaders with this same principled tenacity.

They Want To Control Us...big surprise

Rep. John Dingle says it was difficult to design the health-care bill to be able to control us.

Defenders of minorities

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." --author and philosopher Ayn Rand (1905-1982)

2010 Census

So I open the 2010 Census, look at the questions and think, "Why are they asking me all these questions?"

How many people live in my home...that I get...used to decide on congressional districting.

The second question, "Were there any additional people staying here April 1, 2010 that you did not include in Question 1?"  At first I figured they thought that somebody might have answered with "-1" for question 1 as an April Fools joke or not counted their cyclops inbred daughter in the basement.  If the second scenario is you, I think there is a section of the new health-care bill that will pay for special cyclops eye glasses.  So anyway, after I called the help number on the back and pressed 1 for English, they told me neither of my ideas were right, but the health-care bill does cover contact lenses for inbred cyclops (the fact that they only need one contact was seen as cost savings that helped justify the bill).

So then they move on to a question about whether your home is a house, apartment, or a mobile home.  This got me thinking again (scary huh?), when they say mobile home, are they talking about a Winnebago, a singlewide, or maybe a cardboard box in a shopping cart?  Either way I don't see why the government needs to know.  I didn't call the help line about this one.

Next they asked for my telephone number so they can call me if they don't understand my answers.  I don't see why that would be necessary.  Anyone reading this can see how thorough I am in my communication, why would they need to call me?

Now here is where it gets complicated.  They ask seven questions about every person in the home.  In my home this is a big deal because there are seven of us, so that makes their estimate of "10 minutes to complete, including the time for reviewing the instructions and answers." completely unrealistic for me not even counting the call about the cyclops (talk about something they couldn't understand).

Here are the remaining questions:

5. Name (seems like it should have been first to me)
6. Sex (as in male or female)
7. Age and date of birth (seems redundant)
8. Are you Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin?
9. Race (uh...human last time I checked)
10. Do you sometimes stay somewhere else (doesn't everybody?  I mean, unless you are an inbred cyclops)

All kidding aside, questions 6 through 10 seem totally inappropriate for the government to be asking.  The census is about determining population based representation (or at least it should be).  I know, I know, I have seen the ads that talk about roads, bridges, and hospitols being based on census numbers.  That is the carrot.  The stick is up to a $5000.00 fine if you don't answer all the questions. 

I am pretty sure that the data is used to qualify areas for their "fair share" of federal funding for projects.  I would love to know why they are so concerned with race, Hispanic/Latino roots, and sex of citizens.

This is what change looks like

"The United States Congress finally declared that America's workers and America's families and small businesses deserve the security of knowing that here in this country neither illness nor accident should endanger the dreams they worked a lifetime to achieve." - Barack Hussein Obama

This sounds like an infomercial:

"Yes, that's right folks, you dream it and the US federal government will make sure that nothing, thats right, NOTHING, interferes with your dream.  No medical insurance?  We have you covered.  No money?  No problem, we will just make more and give it to you.  The responsibility of raising that child you didn't plan on getting you down?  We can make it all go away AND it is covered in your new mandatory Health-Care.  Your dreams WILL HAPPEN, and all you have to do is VOTE US IN, we will do the rest AT NO COST TO YOU!"

This would make a great SNL skit, but as reality it is not funny.

It is bad enough that the government has taken even more of our liberty in the guise of yet another "just the right thing to do.", but forcing all people participate is such a blatant revocation of our unalienable Rights staggers the mind.  The health-care legislation is bad, but that is not the story here.  The real story is how we are being forced to make choices on health-care that the government approves of.  I am wondering, what, exactly, the federal government can't tell us to do now. 

Can the government pass the Organic Vegetarian Diet bill?  Can it require that my family eat a strict vegetarian diet of organic food?  You could make a case that it would benefit my family, so why would it be wrong?  The Fed (pun intended) could have programs for helping those who can't afford organic food and fine those who refuse to change to the government approved diet (you know, because we all pay the bill when those meat eating savages have health issues).

Colon cancer is a big issue, lots of folks die because of it.  Maybe we need a federally mandated colon cleanse that all comrades...errr...I mean citizens have to use every 3 months.  How could that be wrong, I mean it helps people, right?  We could do a test run in Congress, because you know they are full of....uh...well because we know how hard they work on our behalf.

All joking aside, the character of our nation, this grand experiment in liberty, is in peril.  The cancer of entitlement will metastasize soon and invade every vital organ in our nation.  Now is the time for us to rescue the liberty of our children and grandchildren.  We will already bare the shame of allowing our comfort and complacency to lull us into a stupor of inaction, but we can also be known as the generation that woke up just in time.  Tyrants abhor a vacuum of power and fill it with their own will if we let them.  We still have the opportunity to prove that free men can, and should, rule themselves.

"You know we're going to control the insurance companies"

In an interview with ABC Vice President Joe Biden sounds pretty confident.  He is confident that the Health-Care takeover will pass.  He is confident that, just like Mikey and Life cereal, once we try it we will like it.  He is confident that the Democrat congressmen that are being told to vote this in (or else) will be "rewarded" for it come election time.  Just for the record, and Democrat congressmen might want to consider this, he was confident that Ireland's PM Brian Cowen's mother was dead.

What is Biden really saying here?  It is an old story really, a story of dependence and entitlement.  It is the favorite story, and strategy, of the Democrats.  Outwardly Democrats are claiming ObamaCare is all about taking care of the down trodden, standing up for those with terminal or chronic illness against the evil, greedy, insurance companies.  This of course is the perfect setup for polarizing the debate into those for the innocent (Democrats...unless you are an innocent unborn child) and those who don't care about the woman who is going to lose her house because she has cancer and no insurance (Republicans...even though she probably won't).  What Biden is really saying to congress is, "Forgetaboutit, this has worked a thousand times before.  All of this will be over soon and we will be making sure the media runs nothing but stories of people getting rescued by ObamaCare.  For crying out loud, if an idiot like me can run these plays and rise to Vice President, think what it will do for you!"....or something like that.  Rahm would just say, "If I want to know what ya think about Nationalized Health-Care...I'll tell ya...@#$%ing retard!  Now unless ya want me to visit you in the shower, go vote yes."

The bottom line is they don't care what is right, they don't care about the constitution, they only care about building a dependent voter base that believes all the propaganda fed to them by the media.  It is about creating a perpetual state of "crisis" so that Obama can demand we act now and figure it out later.  Obama hasn't been around long enough to be responsible for the sad state of this nation, but if he has his way, he will be responsible for the death blow that will sever the foundational principles of liberty from our national character.


Resources:

Woman with cancer going to lose her home....or not. - Yahoo and FoxNews.com
Biden Interview with ABC - ABCnews.com
Biden eulogizing Ireland PM's mother (while she is still alive) - YouTube.com
1973-1978 Life Cereal "Mikey" Commercial - YouTube.com
Story on Rahm Emanuel naked with Eric Massa - Reuters.com
Story of Rahm Emanuel calling liberal activists "f---ing retarded." - ABCnews.com
Story of Rahm Emanuel selling his mother for a vote - JustKidding.com

Textbook fate in the hands of just 15 people

Who would have thought that textbooks in Texas would be such a hot topic?  Well the beat goes on!

One reason this is seen as more of a national issue has to do with the way the textbook market works.  Texas represents a large part (everything is bigger in Texas right?) of the textbook market.  It stands to reason that if you make and sell textbooks you would want to be competitive in the Texas market.  The fear is that the rest of the nation will have to use whatever standards Texas comes up with because that is what the textbook manufacturers will use when they design their books.  This somehow ends up falling into the very wide and very grey "fairness" category for many folks.

The bottom line is that all of the "news" outlets like a good controversy...it is good for business.  The reality is that this is the free market working as designed, supply and demand.  Texas represents the largest demand therefore the supply is targeted to their standards.  Unfair? Nope.  If a savvy textbook company wanted to let their competition compete with 90% of other textbook companies, while they pursued the combined remaining textbook market, that sounds like a fair, and good, opportunity.  A little innovation in low volume printing and customizable text might be a boon to the industry, but don't look for innovation if we beg our government to regulate textbook manufacturers.

Here are some helpful links if you care to keep up with this issue:

• TEA State Board of Education (SBOE) site
• Site to watch SBOE meeting
• Email for SBOE

Remember, the fate of your children's education is not in the hands of SBOE, it is in your hands.  Take that responsibility serious and your kids will get the education that is best for them.  Pawn that responsibility off on the government and your children will be taught the values of the state.  The choice is ALWAYS yours.

It's the Liberty Stupid

"I'm more optimistic than I was a week ago," Stupak told The Associated Press between meetings with constituents in his northern Michigan district, including a crowded town hall gathering where opinions on health care and the abortion issue were plentiful and varied.

"The president says he doesn't want to expand or restrict current law (on abortion). Neither do I," Stupak said. "That's never been our position. So is there some language that we can agree on that hits both points -- we don't restrict, we don't expand abortion rights? I think we can get there." - FoxNews.com (of course)

Repeatedly during Obama's push for nationalized health-care the GOP has made a very public last stand on abortions being covered.  I am sure this is welcome news for Obama since it gives him the perfect bone to throw to (or maybe at) the GOP. 

The scenario goes something like this:

Obama designs a national health-care plan that includes abortion on demand, along with thousands of pages of other power grabs for the federal government.  As various conservative groups sift through the bill they look for hot issues to illuminate.  Once they locate the part about abortion they immediately pass this information on to the GOP legislators (who likely haven't read the bill) demanding they stand up for life.  Fearing a backlash in the next election, the GOP legislators grandstand on the "abortion issue".  This is music to the ears of Obama since he can push the legislators to make a concession to prove he is non-partisan and the GOP has a voice (what a wonderful guy).  The liberal legislators grumble a bit and eventually make the concession (as planned from the beginning) prompting Pro-Life groups to shout "Victory!!"  Obama moves to "Get this deal done" and if any GOP legislator objects to any other elements in the bill it proves that the GOP are really just a bunch of obstructionists.  The bill goes through after much arm-twisting, mud-slinging, and spin.  A year later this issue of abortion not being covered is attached to a bill to provide funds to better equip our soldiers in Afghanistan and Obama has his victory.

How many times have you heard that the Democrats plan on passing the bill via reconciliation and then amending the bill later to "fine tune it"?  When was the last time you heard the federal government say, "This nation program isn't working out so we are going to phase it out"?  Obama is employing an incremental strategy to get national health-care established in some form (which will never go away no matter how bad it is) and grow it.

Making the nationalized health-care debate about abortion, or any other issue besides liberty, is just wrong.  The root issue of national health-care is that it is completely out of scope for the responsibilities of the federal government.  As Rep. mike Pence (R - IN) recently said, saying no to bad legislation is underrated in D.C.

More Textbook News

In another FoxNews.com article...what?...Oh, you think I read nothing but FoxNews propaganda and have no mind of my own.  Well let me address that real quick.  I have found that many (if not most) of the other media outlets (notice nobody calls them news agencies any more) feature and exclude in a very biased way.  Take this issue, FoxNews.com picked it up, but I couldn't find it anywhere else in the "Main Stream Media".  Don't get me wrong, FoxNews.com has it's share of junk, mostly in the form of celebrity/gossip news and Victoria Secret/FMH advertisements made to look like news, which ticks me off.  The difference is that FoxNews.com doesn't ignore news because it doesn't fit their agenda.  So....that is enough of that.

As I was saying before I got interrupted, in another FoxNews.com article today there is a bit of controversy in Texas over what should or shouldn't be in their states textbooks.  Read it for yourself, I don't want to rehash the details, it is the broader idea I am interested in.

For a very long time liberal interests have worked to be the only voice in education (and their agenda still dominates overall).  The questioning of textbooks used to educate our children is a natural result of a sort of awakening that has been (slowly) occurring in the US with regard to conservative values our nation was founded on.  When you kids come home and inform you that your conservative ideas are wrong it gets your attention.  When you talk about it and they act as if they do not need to discuss anything because their professor/teacher told them your ideas are wrong, and then they point to a page in their textbook that backs it up, it is way past time to question what is going into textbooks.

The "experts" that are interviewed in these articles have opined about the influence of special interests groups inserting their agenda into textbooks.  This was fine when it involved inserting Global Warming (like evolution this is taught as a fact, not a theory) into science books, and don't get me started about what is taught about the Civil War.  Now when conservatives want to be sure things like the Liberty Bell and Paul Revere are mentioned liberal experts exclaim, "The Christians are coming!  The Christians are coming!"

This level of over sensitivity reveals how the liberals value the ability to control education, and thereby, rewrite history and shape the worldview of the next generation.  The tenacity of our effort to reclaim the truth in textbooks will reveal how much we conservatives value truth and our children's grasp of it.

The status quo is absolutely broken!

In an article by FoxNews.com Rep. Chris Van Hollen is quoted as saying, "I think the trend is in the right direction because people see that the status quo is absolutely broken," on CNN's "State of the Union" about current Health-Care legislation.  Absolutely broken is strong language that recognizes none of the aspects of our current Health-Care system that make it the best in the world.

If I have a car that starts smoking a little, or that pulls to the left when I drive, I do not decide that I need to get a new electric car. Yes, having an electric car would mean that the smoking caused by oil getting into the cylinders would go away, and you could say that is good. A new car would presumably be well aligned when I by it, and not fighting a left steering car is good. The thing is, the new car will have a whole new set of challenges to deal with, maybe more inconvenient than what I am currently dealing with. My point is, if your car is smoking a little bit, you go have a new set of rings put in. If it pulls to the left, you go get an alignment. If the Health-Care system has some problems, you fix the problems individually, you don't nationalize it. What happened to the scalpel Obama talked about during his campaign?

The status quo for US Health-Care is better than most other places in the world. Sure, WE could make it better, and WE should, but WE definitely does not mean having the government do it for us. Obama likes to quote Voltaire saying, "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good", he should take his own advice.

Top Home-School Texts Dismiss Darwin and Evolution

I read an article on FoxNews.com tonight that I thought was interesting. It was an AP story they ran on how many, if not most, Home-School biology text books present a creationist world view instead of an evolution world view.

It starts describing the experience of Susan Mule, a home school mom, and her daughter Elizabeth:

Home-school mom Susan Mule wishes she hadn't taken a friend's advice and tried a textbook from a popular Christian publisher for her 10-year-old's biology lessons.

Mule's precocious daughter Elizabeth excels at science and has been studying tarantulas since she was 5. But she watched Elizabeth's excitement turn to confusion when they reached the evolution section of the book from Apologia Educational Ministries, which disputed Charles Darwin's theory.

"I thought she was going to have a coronary," Mule said of her daughter, who is now 16 and taking college courses in Houston. "She's like, 'This is not true!'"

The article makes it seem as though Susan and her daughter are victims of a hate crime because their ideas on biology were not taught in these books.  If they have such a strong faith in evolution, you would think she would put forth more effort to know what text she was using before she used it.  How ridiculous is it for her to get mad at the publishers for what they printed in their biology curriculum, when she obviously didn't take the time to preview it to be sure it fit her worldview.

It gets better though.  Apparently home-schooling families that do not subscribe to a creation worldview feel "Isolated and frustrated".  Many home-schooling families using these text can empathize with this feeling since that is what drove them to home-school in the first place.  You see, in public school (and many private schools) a creationist worldview is considered disallowable because it is associated with the Bible.  Despite a lack of substantive proof for the theory of evolution and much evidence supporting creation, the politically correct cult of public education insists on pushing it's agenda that science must never have anything in common with Christianity (or in this case Judaism and Islam as well).

Next they accused the two best selling biology textbooks of stacking the deck against evolution.  They even quote a scientist (or at least a professor of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago...I am sure he is not at all biased), who said, "I feel fairly strongly about this. These books are promulgating lies to kids."  Well notice he talks about how he feels, but doesn't mention what even one of these so called lies might be.  He must think that it is enough that he is a scientist saying so, because, you know, scientist never lie (especially about science like Global Warming).

Skip a few paragraphs and you are introduced to Mia Perry (aka Mia-Like-to-Whine-a-Lot) another home-school mom being discriminated against by the free market.

Here is her story:

In Kentucky, Lexington home-schooler Mia Perry remembers feeling disheartened while flipping through a home-school curriculum catalog and finding so many religious-themed textbooks.


"We're not religious home-schoolers, and there's somewhat of a feeling of being outnumbered," said Perry, who has home-schooled three of her four children after removing her oldest child from a public school because of a health condition.


Perry said she cobbled together her own curriculum after some mainstream publishers told her they would not sell directly to home-schooling parents.

So what is next, an article about how disheartened Mia was when she looked through a menu at her local Jewish deli only to find only Kosher foods?

Jerry Coyne (the unbiased Prof. from Chicago) is now joined by Duncan Porter, a biology professor from Virginia Tech, in revealing this crisis of blasphemy against the faith of evolution, giving the 10th grade biology text from Apologia and Bob Jones an F.  The open minded Coyne chimes in again saying, "If this is the way kids are home-schooled then they're being shortchanged, both rationally and in terms of biology."  He is worried that deceiving naive home-schooled students with these lies will steer them away from careers in biology or the study of the earth.

Adam Browns parents disagree:

Adam Brown's parents say their 16-year-old son's belief in the Bible's creation story isn't deterring him from pursuing a career in marine biology. His parents, Ken and Polly Brown, taught him at their Cedar Grove, Ind., home using the Apologia curriculum and other science texts.


Polly Brown said her son would gladly take college courses that include evolution, and he'll be able to provide the expected answers even though he disagrees.


"He probably knows it better than the kids who have been taught evolution all through public school," Polly Brown said. "But that is in order for him to understand both sides of that argument because he will face it throughout his higher education."

You see, Adam, and many other home-schoolers are taught both theories, unlike most public schooler who are taught only evolution.  It seems that public education and many "scientists" are more interested in dictating what science is, instead of observing and letting the truth be revealed.

Federal Obesity Dept.

Some quotes from Michelle Obama:

"Most of our kids get the majority of the calories from the meals they eat in schools. We have an opportunity to work with the federal government and the school lunch providers to figure out how to make those meals healthier..."

"People who make soft drinks, people who make food for school lunches, it's community groups, it's businesses who make decisions about where they're going to locate grocery stores. It's our media. It's Disney, it's Nick TV. It's everyone that has an impact on the health and life of our children, our teachers. So it's all of us..."

"This is a solvable issue because it's, you know, it's community-based. I said this in my launch speech, this doesn't require new technology, or, you know, new research. We have the solution in our hand. But it takes a coordinated effort."

I am in agreement that our country has an obesity problem. I also agree that the best place we can have the biggest impact is in our children. I absolutely do not agree that the federal government should have anything to do with it.

Mrs. Obama recognizes the undesirable end result of obesity, but, like her husband, mistakenly seeks to use the federal government to solve a community-based problem. The problem of obesity is the consequence of bad choices. We all know how the federal government tries to influence choices we make, raise taxes on certain things, and levy penalties and fines (like they are doing with alcohol, tobacco and firearms).

This problem starts in the smallest of communities, the family. The federal government is already over involved in the family, we do not need more of a bad thing to solve this problem. Should this be part of public school education? Absolutely. Should these public schools negotiate with vendors supplying lunches to increase the nutritional value of the meals? Definitely. This is a state and local issue, not a federal one. I have heard Mrs. Obama talk about the nutritional choices her family makes (having fruits for dessert, etc.) and think that is a great message for her to share with the nation. She seems to know something about good health choices, practices it herself, she is a good spokesperson for this cause. The federal government has no place in this issue.

Now before you start telling me all the things that the federal government has done in the past to promote health and all the benefits that have resulted, let me just say, "I don't care." This is, as Mrs. Obama so accurately stated, a "community-based" issue, not a federal one. It would be wrong for the federal government to expend any amount of budget (and they can do NOTHING without expending budget) on any program trying to reduce childhood obesity.

Maybe some of you are thinking, "What if the federal government got involved by raising nutritional standards for food stamps and WIC? Those people are likely using Medicaid and better health for them would save us money in the long run. How could you be against that?" Well I would liken this line of thinking to that of those who think it is a good idea to give free syringes to heroin addicts. I have no interest in improving federal government programs that shouldn't exist in the first place.

The bottom line is that there are already too many federal programs justified by the incorrect notion that if they do ANYTHING that can be called good, they are a valid. The real solution to childhood obesity, and many other issues, is to reduce the size, impact, and cost of federal government so our local communities have more and better resources to address these issues (with greater success).

New Element Discovered

Livermore Laboratories has discovered the heaviest
element yet known to science. The new element,
Governmentium (Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant
neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy
neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312. These 312
particles are held together by forces called morons,
which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like
particles called peons.

Since Governmentium has
no electrons, it is inert; however, it can be detected,
because it impedes every reaction with which it comes
into contact. A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a
reaction that would normally take less than a second, to
take from 4 days to 4 years to complete.

Governmentium has a normal half-life of
2 - 6 years. It does not decay, but instead undergoes a
reorganization in which a portion of the assistant
neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact,
Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time,
since each reorganization will cause more morons to
become neutrons, forming isodopes. This characteristic
of morons promotion leads some scientists to believe
that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a
critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is
referred to as critical morass.

When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes
Administratium, an element that radiates just as much
energy as Governmentium since it has half as many
peons but twice as many morons.

Under the pretence of taking care of them

"If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy."

--Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Cooper, 1802

When conservatives object to programs run by the government, especially "social" programs, we are often painted as mean and selfish by liberals. The idea that we could possibly be against a program designed to help people that lost their job, women with children, or people that have worked until age 65 seems to be proof that our hearts are hard and we don't care about others. I suppose that some conservatives are mean and selfish people, just like some liberals are, but not all of us, there is another reason for our position.

Really, there are two main reasons conservatives are generally against many government programs; they are out of scope for the responsibilities of the federal government and they don't work. Before I go into more detail on these, let me share something about my perspective. I have been there and seen it myself. I have been a liberal. The quote often attributed to Churchill, "If you're not Liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not Conservative when you're 35, you have no brain." comes to mind. It is one thing to have a passion to help those in need and another to act on that passion with reckless abandon ignoring the rights of one group in an attempt to restore them to another.

Seeking Fairness

Our federal government has never been responsible for "fairness". Fairness is a liberal PC term meaning so many things that I can't even attempt a definition. This makes it great for politicians wanting to spin either the compassion of their proposed legislation or the callousness of those opposing it. The problem is, without a definition we can't evaluate fairness. Likewise, when we infuse the identity of a bill with "fairness" later evaluation that may reveal anything negative is declared fabricated lies of the mean people of special interest. This is often when you hear all the stories of the oppressed (like this sickening example). There is no right to fairness in this world, and liberals can't create it no matter how many other rights of ours they sacrifice on the PC alter. We should love each other and we should help each other, these are things that the federal government can't do for us. When the Fed tries to do these things, they tax us to support their efforts, taking from those who can (and should) do it better, to fund government operations that can't (and shouldn't) do it.

Government Efficiency - Oxymoron

There is also the argument that because conservatives don't want the federal government to do all these things for us that we are for the "status quo". This bi-polar argument just doesn't work, we can disagree with liberal ideas without proposing an alternative government solution. The solution is usually to keep government out of things and let us take care of each other. Liberals will of course claim this will not work, enter more sad stories of the oppressed, and go back to the "conservatives don't care" attack. The truth is that the government does a few things well, but many others not well at all. Health-Care, Welfare, and Social Security are great examples of this. The thing about those big government solutions, they sure do get a lot of loyalty (and votes) from the entitlement crowd.

Good News and Bad News

The Good news is that the solution is simple, not easy, but simple. We need to reduce the size, scope, and authority or the federal government. There may be some other issues to tackle, like term limits, but if we focus on reducing the Federal government we can fix the vast majority of issues this country is having.

The bad news is that this will take generations to accomplish. Life is not like TV, we don't solve all problems in 20 minutes with two commercial breaks. The issues we face today are born on thousands of bad choices over decades (if not the past century), choices that are contrary to the principles that this country was founded on. These principles gave this nation the tremendous success it has enjoyed, and made it a beacon to people around the world seeking liberty, and thereby, prosperity. The passion for the freedom to seek opportunity, take risks, and earn a better life for us and our children has been replaced by the lie that the government is responsible for insuring our life style is high, our risk is non-existent, and our children will have to pay for it all. Entitlement is the leech sucking out the life blood of liberty, and we will have to burn it off before we can regain our strength.

The solution will require a fundamental shift in ideologies, from entitlement values to opportunity values. We will have to reverse the methods of lowering the ceiling (taking from those who risked to take advantage of opportunity) in an effort to raise the floor (redistributing to those unwilling to take risk to pursue opportunity). The burden of making this shift falls on conservatives. The first thing conservatives need to do is understand their own conservative principles and how they apply to government. As the teachers it is incumbent on us to thoroughly understand before we endeavor to enlighten others. We need not be more intelligent, eloquent, or charismatic than those we share our ideas with. We need only to understand the basic conservative principles that our nation was founded on, employing them in our personal choices, and demanding the same of those who represent us. We need to calmly, but passionately, engage our neighbors, coworkers, and family members discussing issues based on how these principles will work. We must have a grassroots effort to change the hearts and minds of this nation, and let the legislation to correct our mistakes rise up out of this new understanding of liberty.

So where do we start? We start with ourselves, every one of us, learning the foundational conservative principles that are our tools. I do not say this arrogantly, because I need to do the same. I will follow-up with resources that I have found, and hope that you will share yours as well.

Abstinence-Only Approach

In an article from the Associated Press (see sources below):

Billed as the first rigorous research to show long-term success with an abstinence-only approach, the study released Monday differed from traditional programs that have lost U.S. federal and state support in recent years.

This is an interesting study, in essence it found that abstinence makes sense when you teach kids how to think through the "pros and cons" instead of telling them how it is.  Given some guidance, teens (and younger) can easily see that the benefits of sex (let's be honest, there ARE benefits) carry consequences as well.  If they are honest, the consequences are almost completely negative if you are not married and especially if you are a teen (or younger).

What we see here is the difference between telling kids facts and having them regurgitate them for a grade on a test, and teaching them how to make logical choices that consider things fully.  The biggest difference is that memorizing some facts on condom failure can't translate into anything else, but the skill of making a logical choice that is well informed can be utilized in many other areas.  Imagine the social benefit when these kids use the same process to evaluate drug use, shoplifting, gang activity, or education choices.  Even better, when we convince ourselves of something (such as sex before marriage is not a good idea) we are more likely to modify our behavior.

We shouldn't be surprised that when schools teach character building in place of static information we see what we should see, better choices.  The down side of this is that the same holds true when liberal "safe sex" ideas are taught along with the same "pros and cons" method.  When the information provided is biased, it is much harder for the choice to be wise. 

How do we battle this?  Several ways, those of us who actively parent our children can help them both in character building and getting the facts straight.  This might not be as easy as it sounds, sometimes it feels wrong to say that having sex has benefits, but the truth is the truth.  You have to have the courage to be frank about the subject or they will stop listening.

As citizens we can insist that our tax payer funded schools present unbiased facts.  We can vote in school boards that insist on avoiding agenda based education (whether it is religious or planned parenthood).

We can be frank in discussing things with youth we are around (sports, scouts, church, family, etc.) and encourage responsible choice making, knowing the skill can translate in to other areas of their life.
Sources (take your pick):

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,584519,00.html?test=latestnews
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100201/ap_on_he_me/us_med_abstinence_education
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/02/health/main6165752.shtml

More Super Bowl Ads

Who would have thought there would be so much controversy over Super Bowl ads?

Pro-Abortion group Planned Parenthood (Should be named Planned Infanticide) lauched a preemtive YouTube ad to counter a Super Bowl ad by Focus of the Family (http://www.focusonthefamily.com) featuring Heisman Trophy-winning college star Tim Tebow.  From a strategic standpoint PP did well to use the hype ahead of the Focus of the Family ad to get media attention for a fraction of the cost.  The message that their "Woman's choice" position accomodates women who do not want to murder their children is old and tired (and a lie).  Even better, it backfired on them, showing what an extreme agenda they have, and what little tolerance they have for any who see things differently.

Isn't it amazing that this would get so much attention, epsecially by Planned Parenthood, who is getting investigated for "bending the rules" and allowing under age abortions without parental consent in Alabama?  Alabama is giving the abortion clinic until next week to present its plan to correct violations involving minors receiving abortions.  This is not an issue where somebody accedentally forgot to fill out a form, this is an example of the agenda of Planned Parenthood.  Follow the money, noticed that the worker in the video didn't forget to tell her to bring $100 cash.

High Dollar PSAs

The Census bureau is spending $133 million between January and May -- or, more than $13 million for each of the 10 questions they ask, including a $2.5 million Super Bowl ad. This effort is more like Obama's campaign efforts (big surprise, isn't everything he does campaigning?), than a PSA. Instead of "Get out the vote!", it is now, "Get out the census!".

Just a thought, why would this be done? The census is important, but this promotion budget is obscene. This is an obvious attempt to turn the census into a "game changer" for voting districts and representation. Considering that originally ACORN was supposed to help with the census (and we all know how accurate they are when it comes to voter registration....right Mickey Mouse?), it is safe to say that we can count on a very biased liberal slant to this census.

I know, I know, go ahead and call me a conspiracy theorist, but if it walks like a scam and quacks like a scam....

Strength vs. Rhetoric

There are many different immpressions people got from the State of the Union address. I would say that few, especially those outside the US, got a sense of a strong union.

Let's face it, the Union is strained, stressed, and stagnate, but not strong.  We have traded opportunity for protection and liberty for fairness.  Our ideals are lofty, our policies inpractical, and leaders selfcentered and selfserving.  We have forgotten the very principles we were founded on.

The Declaration of Independence says, "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."  This foundational principle has been forgotten and replaced with something more like, "There is no truth or creator, the federal state is all powerful and will dictate your rights, that amoung these are Life as defined by our limited scientific understanding, Government Regulation to protect you from yourself, and the pursuit of Fairness." 

How many people dream of winning the lottery thinking, "If I had that kind of money all my problems would be solved!"?  How often have you read the statistics of how quickly the average lottery winner is back where they started?  Without the foundational principles of success, a lump sum lottery payout will quickly be wasted in the same way a weekly pay check was.  Likewise, how many stories have you heard of folks who, with very little income, have disciplined themselves and lived according to principles to end up attaining a level of success desired by many, but earned by few.

The last Presidential election liberals thought they had won the lottery.  They thought all they needed was a radical socialist that could talk smooth and the power of the White House, and all their problems would be solved!  What a shock to find out that when you win the lottery everyone and their brother wants a cut.  What a surprise that all the same old socialist ideas that have robbed other people of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, are now doing it to us.

I find no comfort in the very liberals that have backed Obama's mantra of "Hope and Change" are now starting to turn on him.  By the time liberal idiots realize that Obama and his cronies are not going to be able to give them everything they ever wanted, the damage will be done.  Obama won't care what the actual results of his administration are, he will be too busy giving speeches about how he would have been able to do all those things that he promised, but for the horrible mess Bush left him with.

Rhetoric is just talk, results tell the truth.  Obama's rhetoric is contrary to the results.  I just Hope we can undo the damage of the Change.

Voluminous and Incoherent

"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be to-morrow."

Federalist No. 62

With ObamaCare having thousands of pages is it reasonable that the average citizen could understand the bill? It is bad enough that a large majority of our representatives are lawyers, but when you have to be a lawyer to understand what proposed legislation means, is there a problem?

Ignorance is no excuse for the law, which you may have learned if you were pulled over because you didn't notice that the speed limit changed from 70 to 55 on that section of highway. Maybe you missed one of the hundreds of hoops that a new business must jump through because you didn't know you needed to, will the IRS care? We are held accountable to the law regardless of our understanding of it. The prevents continual claims of ignorance as legitimate defense to habitual crime, which makes sense.

If we are going to be held accountable to the law, shouldn't we demand laws that we have a reasonable expectation to understand? What is reasonable? Well I would think that we shouldn't have to invest more than a few evenings studying the bill to read and understand it's impact. We shouldn't have to have a law degree to understand the language of the Bill. Bills should deal with individual issues and not be "Omni" in nature (deal with multiple unrelated other legislations).

Would these requirements for reasonable expectation of understanding make it harder to write legislation? Maybe, or it might make it easier, it doesn't matter. The point is that these representatives and the legislation they produce are supposed to serve us citizens. We must be able to evaluate legislation, without specialized education or an unreasonable amount of time, in order for us to judge our representatives efforts on our behalf.

In the end we are a Democratic Republic, not a true Democracy, and so our representatives should do what they believe is best for the country as a whole, while protecting the interest of their constituency. I do not propose that all citizens should vote on all legislation directly, but we MUST have a reasonable ability to evaluate the results of our representation.

Time to set them to rights

"It is to me a new and consolatory proof that wherever the people are well-informed they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights."

--Thomas Jefferson

Parasites

"I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious."


--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Ludlow, 1824

The System is broken, we need the federal government to step in!

Our federal government has responsibilities to the citizens of this country. The system is obviously broken and many of our family, friends and neighbors pay the price for continued inaction in the face of this crisis. The stories of those who have suffered and died because our elected officials refuse to address the problem are heart breaking. Some may want things to stay the same because they take advantage of the predicament of others to further their own personal profit or political agenda, but most of us want change. Money and power, isn't that what it always comes to?

No, I am not talking about healthcare, I am talking about securing our borders. Unlike healthcare, securing our borders is a constitutionally valid area for our federal government to be involved.

Many like to try and make this issue about workers rights, human rights, or that PC favorite called fairness. Let's take them one at a time.

Workers rights, or more accurately, illegal immigrant workers rights, make no sense since it is not legal for them to be here in the first place. The fact that they are not citizens of this country means that the right of citizens does not extend to them. Many try to claim that because they are working and we benefit from it they should be allowed to continue their illegal activities and even extended all the benefits of citizenship. Well, prostitutes work hard, so I guess it is wrong to round them up. Many drug dealers work hard to distribute their product, should we have a rally to protest how local police interfere with their efforts to support their families?

Human rights is another favorite. If you stand for deporting those who have entered the country illegally, you don't care about people. This is a ridiculous position. To claim that the many human traffickers working the borders of this country are like the underground railroad is ludicrous. The US has one of the most open immigration policies in the world, immigrants should be required to adhere to it, 100% of the time. There is no good reason, humanitarian or otherwise, why we should fail to enforce our own laws.

Fairness, whatever that means, in fact, the reason liberals love this one so much is that it means whatever they say it means. As far as I can tell it is something along the lines of, "I risked all kinds of dangers to get here, work for less doing the jobs you don't want to, all to take care of my family because I am such a good person....etc., so it is unfair to deport me." Illegal immigrants and their proponents often reject that they are illegal, claiming that because they are hard working and not pursuing other crimes, they are not illegal. Well, they may not be illegal, but their action of entering the country outside of our immigration laws is. That makes them criminals, maybe likeable, hard working criminals, but still criminals.

So why don't we fix the system and secure our borders? There are several reasons for that.

Political pressure is a big reason. You have all kinds of business owners that benefit from illegal immigrants, and they at best ignore the law, and worse encourage their representatives to make the laws less effective.

The ever increasing population of illegal immigrants, and the sympathetic legal immigrants, now work to influence immigration policy by dangling the carrot of their votes. They march in protest when communities attempt to enforce immigration law, wielding signs proclaiming "We Are Human!" (Maricopa County Arizona) or demanding workers rights.

It is an uncomfortable issue for many. The poster child for illegal immigrants is the downtrodden family trying to make a better life for themselves with hard work and sacrifice. The same thing many of us seeks for ourselves. How can we in good conscience deny them of the same thing we want for ourselves? The short answer is we aren't. Having immigration laws, and enforcing them (no matter how unpleasant) is not being mean, it is being kind. Many emotionalize the issue and demonize those who insist on a rule of law, but that doesn't help create good law.

Follow the money. The cost of enforcing immigration law is often offered as a reason why we can't do it. What a waste of money to deport people who just want to work hard doing the things most Americans don't want to do. The truth is we can't afford not to enforce them any longer.

The United Sates has always welcomed immigrants. We are characterized as the melting pot of cultures from around the world. I embrace this because I believe that all cultures have good people who can add to our great nation. We must be in control of how we accommodate those immigrants though, and if they ignore our laws in order to get here, it seems fair to assume they will ignore any other laws that may interfere with their desires.

Strike a compromise

House and Senate leaders, along with union bosses and White House officials, have been meeting all week in a hard push to strike a compromise on the health care package. The White House reached a breakthrough in talks with House Democrats and union leaders Thursday, agreeing to scale back plans for a tax on high-value insurance plans. - FoxNews.com

A few observations here:
Why are Union bosses involved in these secret talks in the White House? How is it that a public process is not allowed, but the Union special interest is invited to participate? This is change? Sounds like the same kind of partisan agenda that Obama said Bush was guilty of and his new admin. would not have. Despite claims of transparency, eliminating special interest influence, and reaching out across the aisle, Obama has shown that he is all talk (as long as the teleprompter is working).

The breakthrough on the "Cadillac" insurance plans is based on how much they cost. Obama's rationalization of taxing these plans is they do not make anyone healthier. I am wondering how they can determine the health benefit of a plan based on the price? At $24,000 per year (the point that an insurance plan looses it's benefits and becomes a luxury vehicle) that is $2000 per month. I knew of a couple 5 years ago that had to pay $3000 per month for insurance for a few years until they could qualify for Medicare. It is interesting that we had to redefine what a Cadillac is to suit the Unions, but not the rest of us.

For those who have eyes to see, this is just more of the eternal campaign mode that Obama operates in. First the push was to have healthcare reform complete in his first year. Now he is postponing his state of the union address so he can claim a victory in that. Just look at the way he ties his policy ideas to his plug for Massachusetts Democrat Martha Coakley's bid for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat, "In Washington, I'm fighting to curb the abuses of a health insurance industry that routinely denies care, and it's clear now that the outcome of these and other fights will probably rest on one vote in the United State Senate." Let me translate, "The reason you should vote for her has nothing to do with her ability to represent you, it has to do with me being able to do whatever I want using the super majority."

Strike a compromise? I would say that is the last thing on Obama's mind. Rest assured that in those secret meetings with Union leaders there was the same kind of vote buying we saw with anyone else who has dared to suggest they might not back Obama's healthcare agenda....oh, unless you happen to be a Republican, they don't count.

I am for the public option

I am for a public option on the current health care bill. No, not the one where the government provides health care insurance for everyone, I am talking about the option for the public to witness the reconciliation of the House and Senate bills.

We have seen, and the Democrat Party has felt the results of the vote buying that has occurred to allow Obama to claim a health care reform victory (one of his campaign promises). Now that the reconciliation process is underway Obama is refusing to have the process be public, on CSPAN, "...so the people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents..." (another campaign promise). This gives the impression that all the bad press for not making things public is less than the bad press they would receive if we really knew what they were up to.

"I'm on record as saying that taxing Cadillac plans that don't make people healthier but just take more money out of their pockets because they're paying more for insurance than they need to, that's actually a good idea, and that helps bend the cost curve, that helps to reduce the cost of health care over the long term. I think that's a smart thing to do." - National Public Radio interview just before Christmas.

This is the usual sound bite Obama uses to distract from what he is doing, the prestige that distracts you from his sleight of hand. What he is saying is, "I am so much wiser than you that I will decide what health care insurance will make you healthier, and tax you if you disagree. Don't worry though, if you are going to be foolish and spend your money on insurance I do not approve of, you have plenty of extra money to spend helping finance somebody else's health insurance."

Obama seems to have it out for you if you want to live without health insurance, or if you want health insurance that is TOO good. What happened to a federal government that protected our liberty to choose for ourselves how to invest our money and live our lives?

My family spend a good amount of money in the effort to be healthy. We do not need a health insurance with low deductibles since we budget for medical expenses. Besides that, we participate in Medi-Share, a Christian medical expense sharing program. Will we be forced to participate in some other government approved program instead? Will we be fined or jailed if we do not want to change? How can this be fair?

Let's take the "Cadillac" mentality to the next level...where does it end? What is next, a special tax on certain types of makeup because it doesn't make women any prettier? How about a tax on certain "Cadillac schools" like Yale or Harvard because they don't really make you any smarter?

It is interesting that Cadillac is a GM product....you know, GM that is operated by the government....maybe people who actually buy those luxurious vehicles that do nothing to make anyone healthier should be taxed as well? No, wait, got that one backwards, Obama will want to tax those of us who by a Ford to subsidize those government Cadillac's he is selling...how ironic.