"Federal Government: You Need More Trees, Less Food"

Check out this story from the Washington Times: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/29/forests-vs-food-study-worries-agriculture-chief/.
Apparently the Department of Agriculture has been reading a report suggesting (read that: "commanding") that the government give "incentives" to farmers to turn over some 59 million acres of land into forests. (Translation: The Federal Government will tax the daylights out of farmers and strong-arm them into surrendering their land to the government so that they will plant things we cannot eat.)

It sounds like the Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack is a little worried about this latest decree from on high. I mean, after all, it means less food for Americans, and we've been plundering the planet for far too long. We need to starve a little. Don't pay any attention to all the starving masses in Third World countries who need food from America to survive. Let them eat cake.

Where do they come up with nutty ideas like this? Why, from the Global Warming/Climate Change "activists," of course. Trees are good because they "eat up" all the excess carbon dioxide that the evil people of the world (i.e. Western industrialized nations) expel. We need to go on a diet anyway, I guess. After all, the government knows what's best for you and me, right?

After I read the whole article, I had a few parting questions:
1. When do things ever work out just fine according to "government computer models?"
2. How is this any of the federal government's business according to their charter (a.k.a. the Constitution--you know that old fashioned document that gives Congress and the President their job descriptions. . .)?
3. Do we have a shortage of trees in this country? (I thought we have a worldwide shortage of food. . .)
4. Why is anybody with any sense still listening to global warming hysteria--especially after the fraud behind it has been exposed by way of the hacked e-mails from East Anglia University? Oh, I forgot, these are Big Government idealogues in charge--they don't care about empirical evidence or logic. They just like control. And less food for you makes you easier to control.
Happy New Year!

"Climate 'Justice'?"

What in the world is "climate justice?" The term itself sounds ridiculous, but the fact is that there were some pretty large groups of people at the Copenhagen Summit on Climate Change that were ranting about the need for "climate justice." Does the dictionary help? The best I came up with was the definition of justice: "The rendering of what is due or merited. Conformity to law. The administration of law."

What does the weather have to do with this? How can earth's various climates be redistributed according to what is due or merited or lawful? Huh? Oh wait. I'm using logic. Sorry. Gotta cut that out. I need to twist my brain into "thinking" like the protesters at the Copenhagen summit and begin to assume that a lot of pseudo-scientific things are actually true, then I must couple that with pseudo-economic half truths and full lies from marxism in order for the term "climate justice" to make sense. O.K. Here goes. . . . . now I get it and I will explain "climate justice" from the leftist/progressive/communist perspective (by the way--this is what is being taught to most of America's school children and college students everyday):

The earth is rapidly warming because of the carbon emissions coming from the eeeeevil industries of western nations. The rest of the world is poor because their resources were stolen by the eeeeevil western nations. The poor nations' environments are being destroyed (rain forests dying off) because of the rich nations' industries. Therefore, we must find a way to stop the rich nations from producing more (stop their industries from using the fuels they need), and make the bad, bad rich nations hand over their eeeeeevil profits to the good, good poor nations. Then, after that is done (no time limit on when that is done), the earth will be clean, and all nations will have equal wealth, and everyone will be clean and happy and will share and share alike. The end!

Now you understand "climate justice." Get ready to be fleeced by third world tyrants, beginning with our own government. Or get ready for 2010 to run the tyrants out of our government at the ballot box.

A Time for Senators With Guts

The huge issue in front of the U.S. Senate right now is their "Health Care Reform Bill" (so-called). However, the other issue looming two inches right behind it is the Copenhagen summit on climate change. Reuters reports on December 8 that now "church leaders" in Copenhagen are handing out petitions with half a million signatures on it to the United Nations representatives to demand that a treaty be made to strangle the industrialization of advanced nations, tax them for their "carbon excesses" and transfer the wealth to poorer nations (read that: to dictators in third world nations).

I'll comment more on the sham of this entire Copenhagen meeting and the entire lying premise of global warming in another blog, but suffice it say that our President is completely in agreement to sign anything that will surrender our national sovereignty to the United Nations and to cripple the industrial power of a free United States.

But in order for this "climate change" treaty to take effect it must be passed by the U.S. Senate. Are there enough Senators with enough knowledge of our history, with enough belief in the basic God-given rights to freedom, with enough common sense to see through the lies of this marxist "climate change" hoax---and with enough guts--to vote down this attack upon the United States?

Check out this website which will show you which Senators are up for election in 2010. Then give them a call and remind them that their constituents are watching--and will vote next November:
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/two_column_table/Class_III.htm.

"Say What?????"

I really wonder sometimes if someone drugged me and dropped me off in a lunatic asylum, because day after day our government continues to say and do things that make no sense at all. Just the other day, our President told a group of unemployed people in Allentown, Pa., that banks need to start lending more money to businessnes. You can read more of this story at http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091204/pl_nm/us_obama_jobs. A key line is: ". . . the president said that one of the keys to reviving growth was to try to encourage greater lending to small business. . . "

Huh? This from a man who has never operated a small or large business a day in his life. A man who has never, ever had to make payroll for employees.
Furthermore, isn't this how we got into this financial collapse in the first place? Not by banks doing their job and loaning money to good credit risks, but by the federal government forcing banks to loan money to people and institutions who were bad credit risks. Through Jimmy Carter's Community Re-investment Act of 1977 and Bill Clinton's 1999 policy of accelerating the loans to bad credit risks.

And so Big Government that forces banks to become charities is at it again--strong arming banks to loan out more money, instead of getting out of the lending businesss altogether and letting sensible people conduct their own business and succeeding or failing on their own. You can really trust this government to give out good, sensible fiscal policy--that explains how they have put us in the hole 1.4 trillion dollars this year alone. When the Federal Government proposes a "solution" (which is more of the same garbage) to a problem they created in the first place, run the other way.

"USA Today Tells the Truth"

Yes, I was shocked too when I read the headlines on USA Today on Monday, November 23rd: "Ventures a Drain on states, localities; for government run businesses, $3.5 B loss." No way. You mean government run businesses are a drain? Yes way! The article began--
"Government owned businesses that generate revenue for states and cities have taken a sharp turn downward and now are draining money from many struggling governments. . ."

Why does that not surprise me? Sure there are some fine people who really try to keep these entities in the black, but overall--there is no incentive in a government owned business to spend money wisely. They can always apply for a bailout, ask for a tax increase, or ask politicians for pork from other parts of the country.

When are we going to learn?

"The Will of the People?"

So the U.S. Senate voted 60-39 last night to proceed with debate on the new nationalized "Health Care Reform" proposed by the Democrat leadership in the House. Supporters will say that this is the will of the people. After all, these Senators were legally elected. They followed the rules of the Senate, and they took a vote and it passed. So this is the representatives of the 50 states following the will of the people. Stop your belly-aching, Jeff! This is how "democracy" works. . .right?

This is not the will of the people. Most recent polling (Rasmussen and Foxnews) demonstrates that most Americans do not want these bills to be passed into law. Rasmussen shows 49%-47% oppose this legislation. Foxnews' polls in the last two weeks show anywhere from 54%-52% oppose the House and Senate bills.

The leadership of the Senate lies to us in the name of the "health reform bill." In the cloture vote to consider HR 3950 last night, the actual name of the bill that will takeover your health care is called "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009." The description in the bill is "a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify first time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes." This is the health reform bill? Yep, according to the liars in the Senate.

The leadership of the Senate buys off the votes of its members in order to gain their support. For example, Mary Landrieux of Louisiana supports Harry Reid's Senate bill because they wrote certain exemptions in the bill just for her state! It's found on page 432 of Reid's bill (see http://blogs.abcnews/thenote/2009/11/the-100-million-health-care-vote.html).

The Senate and House vote on bills they do not even read (or intend to read). They exempt themselves from the same health care legislation.

Both Senate and House bills create a bureaucracy (Health Services Administration) that will control, regulate, and manipulate every aspect of your life. How does that stack up with the "unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?"

The leadership says the legislation will cost only $800 billion over the next 10 years. This from the same people who put us $1.4 Trillion in the whole this year alone, and have lied to us about cost projections for decades!

This is not "reform." This is "deform." This is a hostile, purposeful attempt to deform limited, Constitutional government.

A Congress that sets up laws for a free people to be ruled by the decrees of czars violates its own oath to uphold the Constitution, and has lost its authority to govern.

No government under our Constitution as it stands today has the right to enslave its own people.

The leadership of the Congress has no credibility, and their authority should be considered null and void.

"The Enemy Within"

Twenty years ago the Berlin Wall fell. I remember feeling so stunned when we all watched it happen on TV. Then two years later the Soviet Union fell apart. Again, I couldn't believe what I was seeing. I never dreamed our enemy, the Communist Empire of Lenin and Stalin, would collapse. Then, like millions of other Americans, I just figured, "Well, communism is dead. Who would dream of endorsing Marxism after the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc nations so clearly showed its total failure?" So, I naively believed that Marxism around the world, except in a few colleges in America, would just wither away.

Boy was I wrong. I was so naive. In the past few years, especially in the last year, I have had one enormous wake-up call. The 1960's marxists who shouted for revolution against "the establishment" never went away. They burrowed deep. Reading Mr. Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" they dug deeply into the educational and governmental establishment. Using "community activism" as another vehicle for revolution, they use ACORN as a tool for corrupting the voting process.

And they sacrificed more, and they gave more, and they were more dedicated--while we were sleepily sunning ourselves on the beach or looking at "church growth charts" or building our portfolios or "flipping" houses in the real estate market. But now they are here in force. In power at many levels across our land.

Using the "global warming/climate change" scam the leftists/progressives and marxists are poised to kneecap our industry through a Cap and Trade Bill. Through a Climate Change Treaty in Copenhagen these people are poised to surrender our national sovereignty (if the U.S. Senate signs on board). Through massive spending and taxation they are ready to drive our industry and standard of living into a third world level of Depression-era poverty. And through government control of your health care, these "New Tyrants" are prepared to regulate every single moment and movement of your life.

Besides listening to talk radio, what are YOU doing about it? The left gave, worked, and sacrificed. Do you believe in the cause of liberty more than they believe in their cause of slavery? Find an organization NOW that is actually fielding candidates and get to work supporting them. Before it is too late.

"Political Correctness is Literally Killing Americans"

Thirteen Americans are dead. Dozens more are recovering from their wounds. Major Hasan is alive. Our country is fighting at least three major wars right now. Iraq, Afghanistan, and the War Within. The war within is the war against the "fifth column" of enemy agents within our military, government, schools, and neighborhoods. These enemy agents are serious about destroying our nation. Some are Marxists. Some are Muslims. No doubt some people will freak out over such a frank statement, but the facts of recent history bear this out.

Let's start with the story in everyone's mind right now--the terrorist attack by devout Muslim Major Hasan. First of all, let me be clear that I do not believe that all or even most Muslims are terrorists. There are one billion Muslims in this world. It's obvious that not all one billion are attacking us. If they were, most of us would be dead now. We do have strong allies among Muslim nations. King Abdullah in Jordan has been a faithful ally against Islamic jihadists. Turkey is a member of NATO and can be relied upon to fight al-Qaeda. For the past several months, Pakistan has been waging a very serious war against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The government in Iraq, led by Prime Minister Al-Maliki, is on our side against both Shiite and Sunni terrorists. And in Afghanistan, for all his faults, Hamid Karzai at least is on our side. We could do a lot worse. He does have an army, and he is against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. In our own nation, the 2-3% Muslim population for the most part lives quietly in our nation, going to school, working their businesses, paying their taxes, and not supporting or practicing jihad.

Having said all that, it simply is a fact that there are Muslims around the world and in our own nation who hate us and want us destroyed. We are not at war with Buddhists, Baptists, Hindus, or Native American shamans. It is a portion of Islam that has declared a "fatwah" (a "hit") against us. They derive their inspiration from select passages in the Quran and from western politicians who believe that if we just apologize enough and show enough "good will" we can all be friends. This is a serious and unrealistic mistake that is deadly. ANY sign of weakness--or anything that can be interpreted as weakness or dithering on decisions will become inspiration to the Islamic terrorists. Call this war what it is--the Global War on Islamic Jihadist Terrorism--and go after it with every ounce of determination and military power. In order to WIN.

When we see the warning signs within our own government or military--such as the mountain of evidence that Major Hasan saw himself as a "holy warrior" who must attack the infidel--we must take pro-active measures to remove such people from a position where they can harm or kill others. We cannot let "political correctness" determine whether or not to investigate, arrest, or fight and prevail over such dangerous criminals. In the next blog--more on the fifth column of the Marxist threat within our country.

"How Did We Get Here?"

It doesn't take a genius to look at our country and notice that we are in a real mess. It's not all one party's fault. It's not one person's fault. There is not one single cause. But there are reasons why America is facing trillions of dollars of debt, is about to enslave future generations in a government run health care scam, and is afraid to label Islamic terrorists what they are (just to name a few enormous problems facing our country right now).

We surrendered truth in bits and pieces over a period of several generations. We have largely seen the expanse of federal government-controlled welfare state, the marginalization of Christianity in our country, and a moral paralysis because people who knew truth, wanted to essentially take a vacation from their responsibilities and let others take care of running the country for them.

For many in churches across the land, "piety" meant that God is concerned only with our private lives, and not with the world around us. Certainly God is not concerned with good government, so we let the professional party bosses take care of that for us. Absolute truth like "Thou shalt not covet, or steal, or bear false witness" just doesn't have a place in politics. That's not God's bag, you know.

We punted the ball of our children's spiritual formation to the Sunday School teacher or the clergy. "It's their job," you know. One hour of religious instruction a week ought to vaccinate them against the sewage they encounter in school or in the media. Unless of course, the one hour of worship/religion conflicts with the sports program. Then, of course, we go to the sports program. God will understand, you know. We teach our children values by our example.

We punted the ball of education to professionals who were more interested in indoctrination than true classical education that actually taught people real history, math, English, literature, and science. Our children are daily being brainwashed in their duties to "save the planet" but they know nothing about our Constitution, how our government is supposed to function, or that free markets provide the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

We have become more concerned with our vacations, portfolios, entertainment, and trinkets. Does this sound a bit too harsh? How then do we who supposedly explain the triumph of the "progessive" marxist/communist/leftists in our country? In the last presidential election 50 million Americans who could have voted stayed home. In the 2009 election in Ohio, 800,000 Ohioans who could have voted against casinos stayed home. If only a fraction of these people who had voted against casinos in 2006 had come out to vote in 2009, Ohio would not have lost to the casino industry.

But the sad fact for right now is this: The left and their stooges in this country are more dedicated and more sacrificial than we are. We have a long, long road back. Are we more concerned about retirement and living on a beach in Florida, or more concerned about preserving freedom and the rule of law? If the latter, then what are we DOING about it?

"Ft. Hood Massacre--a Hate Crime?"

Thirteen Americans murdered in cold blood. Another 30 wounded. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan shot them down without warning. Or was there a warning that should have been heeded? For years he had made his hatred of American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan known. On websites he had justified the actions of Muslim homicide bombers as they murdered people in pizza parlors or school buses. Years ago he had described his nationality as "Palestinian" even though he was born and raised in Virginia. The day before the massacre he had handed out copies of the Quran to his neighbors. He shouted "Allahu Akhbar" before he pulled the trigger and as he was murdering people.

But this was not a hate crime. No, no, just an "isolated incident" of a deranged killer who somehow just innocently slipped through our security. No, he probably did not hate anyone as he blew them away and shouted "Allahu Akhbar." I wonder how our government, which can no longer even properly name or identify an enemy we are fighting, will prosecute Major Hasan if he is able to stand trial. (I am glad that millions of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan do fight on our side against the jihadist terrorists, but this man clearly saw the U.S. as an enemy.)

If a soldier had "KKK" or Nazi symbols tattooed on his body he would be booted out (rightly so). If a soldier had been spouting off death threats to our government officials he would be arrested or discharged (rightly so). But this man for months and years had a pattern of siding with Islamic-fascist-jihadists, and nothing was done. Why?

Will our government have the nerve to actually call our War Against Islamic-Jihadist Terror what it really is? Will we ever have the guts to truly identify potential terrorists (of whatever religion or belief system) and remove them before they can cause harm? Or are certain religions "off limits" because we might make their advocates mad at us? Right now I'm not very optimistic that we the people--especially our representatives in the Federal Government--have the nerve to do so. We can't even call a massacre what it is--instead it's constantly called a "tragedy." Why? Where is our moral compass and common sense?

"NY 23 and the Rebirth of Conservatism"

So the Bill Owens/Dede Scozzafava faction won two days ago. I can hear some Republicans now telling me, "See?! If the conservatives had just endorsed Dede, she would have won!" So what? We still would have had a member of Congress who would have voted with a liberal/leftist agenda. Proof? Whom did Dede endorse at the 11th hour? She endorsed Bill Owens and the socialist agenda of the current Democrat majority in Congress.

But notice how many people voted for a man whose candidacy stood no chance just two weeks ago. Roughly 54,000 people told Newt Gingrich to take a hike. Over 50,000 people in New York's 23rd Congressional district told the Republican Party brahmins that they were going to take charge of their own lives, and they don't have to take what "the Party" offers them anymore. And Doug Hoffman in less than two weeks went from zero to just losing by a hair--this time.

Next year is another election in the same district. And I think Doug's supporters will be very, very busy over the next 12 months seriously planning and working for victory.

"The Revolution Continues"

Well, well, well. So Dede Scozzafava has bowed out of New York's 23rd District House race. She cited lack of money and falling poll numbers. Could it be that just maybe--I know this is a real stretch--she just did not believe what a full third (probably more) of what her constituents believe? Her poll numbers fell because she had no real convictions over the issues that truly matter, and her constituents basically said, "Why should I vote for a liberal Republican? It's the same as voting for a liberal Democrat?"

To be honest with you, we were faced with almost the same choice a year ago in the Presidential election. And we are constantly being confronted with this kind of nonsense in other state-wide elections across the country. Vote for Candidate A who is liberal/leftist/clueless or Candidate B who is maybe not as liberal/leftist/but still clueless.

But in Doug Hoffman, maybe the cycle is beginning to break. Here is an independent who seems to be a real choice. By the way, thanks Dede for showing your true colors and endorsing the liberal Bill Owens. That ought to bring in a whole bunch more conservatives over to Doug Hoffman. We'll see tomorrow. Even if Hoffman loses, he still wins to a certain degree in my book. His candidacy has told the party elites that the people who truly believe the Constitution and the protection of life, liberty, and property are not going to take their bilge anymore.

The Revolution Continues.

"Bad for Both Newt and Nancy"

By now millions of Americans are scratching their heads over the U.S. Congressional race in New York's 23rd District. Just one week ago, Doug Howard, the third party Constitution Party candidate, supposedly did not stand a chance. Conservatives in New York (I know--supposedly a pretty rare breed in that state) were scratching their heads. Do I vote for a pro-choice, pro-same-sex, pro-card check, big government candidate like Dede Scozzafava just because she has an "R" next to her name? What is the difference between her and Bill Owens the equally liberal Democrat? Why, if we vote for an independent or anyone else, that just puts more power in the hands of Nancy Pelosi, right?

Wrong. Thankfully, gutsy people are demonstrating that they've had enough of the hogwash coming from Newt Gingrich and Republican party bosses. They are rallying behind a man who is not a professional politician, a man who is considerably more conservative than either of his two opponents. And in just one week he has surged ahead and is leading in the race according to many of the polls. And they said it couldn't be done.

Imagine--actually electing your representative who believes in the Constitution and is not beholden to the party bosses in the Republican or Democrat parties. This can only be a good thing for America, and a bad thing for both Newt and Nancy.

"Living Within Our Means?"

Just three days ago, on October 17, Treasurey Secretary Tim Geithner told all of us that America "must live within its means once its economy recovers if it is to preserve global confidence in the U.S. dollar's status."

Hmmmm. Just a few questions and comments will be sufficient I think. This is the man who with the current Congress and President put us 1.4 Trillion dollars in the hole for this year alone. Projected deficits for the next four or five years (and the Government's predictions are always way too low) are somewhere near 9-10 TRILLION dollars.

And HE is telling US to live within OUR means?

Our country went into a steep recession last year, our government was broke, and the "solution" to getting us out of an economic hole is to print up MORE money and put us DEEPER into DEBT? 'Scuse me--is that how you run your household???? It's not how I run my house. But it's how leftists run their house (Congress) I guess.

By the way, who is this guy Tim Geithner to preach to me? Isn't he the same guy who "forgot" to pay $34,000 in taxes? He gets off scot-free and becomes Treasury chief. Could you get away with it and do the same? Isn't America a great country or what?

Had enough of this kind of arrogant, hypocritical, criminal behavior?

"Stimulus Money and Your Healthcare"

I just heard Lawrence Summers of the National Economic Council rave about the effect of the Federal government's "stimulus plan." He said on CNBC.com recently: "We saw data for the first time. . .that showed that the first $16 Billion of the stimulus created over 30,000 jobs. So this is working, and the majority of the funds haven't been paid out. . ."

So it took $16 billion to create 30,000. First I would like to know what kinds of jobs these are, and where they are. Where I live I have not seen any revival of the economy. Are these jobs service jobs? Government jobs? Or are they jobs that actually create and sustain an economy like manufacturing, farming, mining? I wonder.

But to get to the heart of things--divide 16 billion by 30,000 and you'll get the amount of money spent by your Federal government to create one single job. $533,333.33. Over $500,000 of YOUR money spent to create ONE single job? What are the jobs that it costs this much money? Does this sound just a little wasteful or extravagant to you?

And I thought the whole purpose of the Federal takeover of the healthcare industry was to bring DOWN expenses! These are the same people who are just so smart with money that they will bring down costs if only they could takeover your healthcare. Follow their track record.

"Long Live Capitalism"

I was getting bummed out at the local festival. I know, I should have been happy, eating carnival food and looking at all the booths loaded with interesting things for sale. But I saw a bunch of out of control children stomping the daylights out of some beautiful plants in a public garden. The mother didn't know what to do with her precious darlings who were running rampant and destroying public property. I was really getting steamed. My wife and kids were trying to control me so that I wouldn't "accidentally" trip up the little menaces.

Then, I saw something that turned it all around for me. There in the middle of the street was this kid selling balloons. He was taking balloons, and twisting them into umpteen different formations and creating animals out of them. And people were buying his wonderful artistic creations! They were shelling out money hand over fist, and this kid was loving every minute of it. He had made this terrific, colorful hat out of his balloons so that people could notice him more. Not that he needed more attention. A considerable crowd had gathered around to buy his balloon animals. He was just amazing to watch.

I finally walked up to him and said, "Where do you go to school?" "I'm homeschooled!" he cheerfully replied. "How old are you?" (I was thinking he was about 12.) "Thirteen--here. . . " then he whipped out a business card and handed it to me in between making another amazing balloon creation for more small children and grateful parents. He was charging two dollars per balloon creation. He was happy. They were happy. He found a hole and filled it. And I'm sure by the end of the day, he had earned----earned---enough money to start paying for college (which he was probably smart enough to start attending next year). I told him, "God bless you--there's still hope for America." And I walked away, grateful that I found a young man who was energetic, hard-working, shouldering responsibility, and blessing others by filling a need. Long live Capitalism.

"Cracking ACORN"

By now we've all seen the videos on youtube exposing the incredible evil of ACORN. I used to think that ACORN was simply about voter fraud, but now I see that there are many, many more levels of evil to this organization. I am sure we have hit only the tip of the iceberg.

A man posing as a pimp and who is also running for Congress wants to fund his campaign through money gained from his prostitute. They ask ACORN workers in Baltimore, Washington D.C., New York, San Diego, and San Bernardino on how to successfully bring in underage girls from El Salvador to use in the sex trade in the U.S. ACORN workers admit on camera to everything from how to disguise a brothel as a private school to actually committing murder. Notice that wherever you go with ACORN, the people in charge tell the same story of how to conduct illegal, destructive activities.

It seems that Congress has voted to defund ACORN from the billions it had coming to it from Housing and Urban Development (your tax dollars). Sadly, some 75 Congressman voted to maintain the funding to ACORN.

The most amazing thing to me in all of this is that it only took a handful of people with a couple of thousand dollars to expose the fraud of this evil organization. Is it going to take some "great leader" in the House or Senate or on a talk show to defeat the leftist/Marxist insurgency in our Republic? No--it comes down to you and me finally getting up the nerve to expose evil, resist it legally and peacefully, and overcome evil by doing good.

"I Pledge"

Have you seen the new "Pledge" put out by supporters of President Obama? Take a look at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqcPA1ysSbw. I've watched it a few times, and it inspired me to write my own version as a response. So here's my "new pledge:"

I pledge never to listen to "Hollywood celebrities" (who cannot even control their own lives) when they try to tell me how to live my life.

I pledge to take down a whole bunch of trees in my yard, cut them up for firewood, and burn them mercilessly in my fireplace so my family can keep warm.

I pledge to top off my gas tank at 12 noon during the hottest days of the summer.

I pledge to barbeque plenty of bloody raw meat on my back yard grill as often as I can.

I pledge to cut my grass using the most gasoline-sucking lawn-mowers--during the hottest time of the day--especially during "ozone action alert" days.

I pledge to expose the fraud of man-made global warming as often as possible.

I pledge to never support worthless organizations sponsored by the UN, and to do everything I can to help charities that actually do help impoverished people (organizations such as Samaritan's Purse, International Aid, or Compassion International).

I pledge to support non-partisan organizations that promote life, liberty, the right to own property, free markets, a strong national defense, enforcement of our borders, free speech, gun rights, the 10th Amendment, traditional marriage, and other "crazy ideas" that are currently under attack by our culture and government.

I pledge to serve my country by preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution of the United States of America--against all enemies foreign or domestic.

Why Ditch Free Enterprise?

I was just casually looking around my house and noticing all the products and tools that have been created by free people in the past 100 years or so:

The washing machine, vacuum cleaner, television, radio, post-it notes, snow blower, leaf blower, chain saw, tennis shoes, hair dryer, aerosol cans, electric oven/stove, microwave oven, personal computer, cell phone/telephone, fire alarm, fire extinguisher, paper towels, toilet paper, refrigerator/freezer, air conditioner, furnace, car/truck, roto-tiller, lawn mower/riding lawn mower, light bulb, shower, toilet, Tylenol, Ibuprofin, Q-tips, Band-Aids, Zycam, vitamins, electric razor, electric iron, video games, DVD's (also a few ancient VCR tapes), garage door opener, cough and cold medicine, sofa/recliner, frozen food, computer printer, toothpaste, shampoo, paper clips, crayons, ball point pens, magic markers, ink cartridges, paper napkins, crockpot, electric skillet, outdoor gas grill. . .

How many of these things were created by the Federal Government? How many of these items have been brought to you courtesy of the Federal Government? None of them. Chances are that most of us have most or all of these items in our home (maybe minus the snow blower for those of you in the sunny South. . .). But all of these things were created by free people in a free market. When they saw a need, they filled it and then enjoyed the fruit of their labor (it's called "profit" and there is nothing wrong with it, and everything right with it).

When a free people engage in free enterprise, everyone benefits. I am simply middle class. I am happy to be here. I live a healthy, happy life. You probably do too. So, why are there people who believe that the Federal Government can provide goods and services for us that are better than what free people in a free market can provide (when history has so clearly demonstrated that the Federal Government is by and large incompetent and wasteful)?

"Why Are They So Afraid?"

Congressmen are still running away from their constituents. Take for example, Congressman John Boccieri of the 16th District in Ohio. Last night he conducted a Town Hall meeting--of sorts. It was a telephone conference call Town Hall meeting. Why telephone?

Our military faces the terrorists every day on the battlefield. The Army and the Marines go toe to toe against the enemy, but our Congressmen and women cannot stand in front of their own constituents and answer questions? Why won't they come out of hiding? What are they so afraid of?

Maybe it's the fact that they've been on vacation for the past two or three weeks and they STILL have not read HR 3200 (along with the President). Much of the country has read it, and rejected it. Much of the country has "read" the Congress' actions, and is about to reject them too.

"Akron Tea Party"

Last night at the Akron Tea Party (actually it was in neighboring Cuyahoga Falls) was such a hoot. I kept looking for the Brooks Brothers wearing, unruly mobster-Nazis to show up, but all my wife and kids and I saw were peaceful Americans from every age group showing their love for their country. We love our freedom, we love the Constitution, we love America--and we don't plan on giving any of that up.

It was so much fun. Reading all the funny t-shirts and homemade signs. (In contrast to the paid phony demonstrators at other events--people at Tea Parties rarely have professional signs, and nobody buses us in.) It was great meeting all these fellow "community organizers"--all 7000 of us. I gave away every business card and other advertisements I had. People genuinely wanted to know more about how to elect some honest people who really stand for the Constitution.

Let me tell you about one person who is running for office: Jeanette Moll for U.S. House of Representatives. She is running against Zach Space in the 18th District of Ohio. She is dynamite. If you'd like to know more about her, go to www.MollforCongress.com.

Next week, you can meet her in person at her Town Hall meeting--August 28, 6 PM, at Tuscora Park, 161 Tuscora Ave NW in New Philadelphia, OH. I hope thousands will show up and join her in some REAL hope and change based upon the founding principles of the Declaration and the Constitution. Like she says, if you show up at her Town Hall--you won't have to yell to be heard.

"Flag@Whitehouse.gov"

By now, I suppose you've heard that a blog on the White House website asks for your help to "report" on your fellow Americans. If you hear of people who are spreading "lies" or "disinformation" or "scare tactics" about the health care bill before Congress (HR 3200) you can e-mail the White House at flag@whitehouse.gov. Tell them about the naughty people who actually disagree with their government! Turn into a "snitch" and let the "authorities" know that there are people who are exercising their first amendment rights! Well, we can't have that can we?

Sure can. And we will. Last week I received a real e-mail from our President. In this official e-mail from the White House he urged us to spread "the truth" of what his health care plan entailed, and then he gave out several statements in the form of bullet points.

Well, yesterday my wife and I wrote to flag@whitehouse.gov. We said, "Dear Mr. President. You asked us to tell on our fellow Americans. You want us to report people who are lying about the health care bill before Congress. Here is a letter from someone who is not telling the truth." Then we cut and pasted his letter in the e-mail and sent it to him.

First Amendment. The right to free speech and the right to peaceably address our representatives with a redress of grievances. We're doing it.

"Long Train of Abuses"

In 1776 Thomas Jefferson and the committee that wrote the Declaration of Independence gave the world a list of compelling reasons for the 13 united States (each considering itself to be its own sovereign nation) to separate themselves from Great Britain. Jefferson called the abuses of the British crown, "a long train of abuses and usurpations. . . to reduce them under absolute Despotism. . . " Then he wrote out the list of how royal government had by-passed the laws of England in order to get what they wanted out of the American people.

It really stunned me when I read this abuse of powerby the British King: "He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance." To me, that sounds just like 34 "czars" who run our land now. Our President has created new bureaucracies (with more to come--like the "Health Czar") to rule over us in the form of a shadow government. This is in order by-pass our Constitution and enforce what they think is best for us--the peasants. Do not look to most of the people in our current Congress (either party) to stop this. They are either rushing it along, or complacent in "trying to get along."

If this new tyranny continues we will not be "the land of the free and the home of the brave." You'll have to finish the song with the line, "the land that once was free, and the home of the slave."

Just a Few Questions for Congress and Our President

1. When has the Federal Government ever taken over private business, run it efficiently, and lowered costs at the same time? (Medicare? Medicaid? )

2. If the current health care plans being debated in the House and Senate are so great, why doesn't Congress sign up for them? Why don't they sign themselves and their own families to be serviced by the new "Health Choices Administration?"

3. Is there nothing that the private sector can do that is better than the Federal Government's ability? What part of my life is strictly hands off to the Federal Government?

4. According to the U.S. Constitution, how is my health care any concern of the U.S. Congress?

5. According to the U.S. Constitution, how is the amount of water my toilets use, or the types of roofing tiles are on my house, or the types of light bulbs I have in my house any concern of the U.S. Congress (all these items are in the current Waxman-Markey/"Cap and Trade? Bill before the U.S. Senate)?

6. In this new "Cash for Clunkers" deal, does the Federal Government pay me for voting my Congressmen out of office?

Just wondering. Is there anyone out there in our government asking these questions?

"Jeanette Moll for Congress"

The Liberty Committee is pleased to endorse Jeanette Moll for U.S. Congress. Jeanette hails from the 18th District in Ohio. This is the second largest district in the state of Ohio (fifteen counties).

Jeanette is staunchly pro-life (she and her husband Gary have five children--three of whom are adopted special needs children), a life-long supporter of the NRA and second amendment rights, and a firm believer in the first and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Jeanette is a practicing attorney and has a wealth of experience in both private business and government. For more information about her and her opponent, Zach Space, please visit her website at www.MollforCongress.com.

If you believe that our nation is under assault, and you believe we need to sweep Congress of lawless people, then I think you will be very pleased with this dynamic candidate.

"Great Quote of the Day"

I was reading through my latest edition of "Torch" magazine (the news magazine from Cedarville University). The Spring/Summer 2009 edition has some great articles on what went wrong with our economy and why (I greatly appreciate their analysis from a free-market viewpoint). On page 8 there's a quote on the difference between democracy and a republic. Think about this:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse [i.e. wealth or large sums of money] from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations is 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back into bondage."

This is attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler (1747-1813). Wherever this quote came from, it illustrates many truthful points. One of which is that history teaches us valuable truth. Our Founding Fathers had an iron grasp of classical history. They knew it, learned from it, and passed on to us a republic--if we can keep it.

"Improving the Economy/Strengthening the Middle Class?"

I just received in the mail a piece of typical propaganda from my U.S. Congressman. You know the slogan. It usually begins with stuff like "Working to Improve the Economy" or "Strengthening the Middle Class" as though the politician is out there in their work duds in the factory actually fixing a machine that will improve the economy. The truth is, most of the time, they are the people who messed up the economy with their regulations and taxes and mandates, then they propose something "new" from the government to fix whatever they broke in the first place.

But I digress. . .This particular politician (pick any Party--it applies to most of them), runs off a list of how their proposals for middle class tax cuts have given us peasants an extra $400 or $800. Or how they are personally protecting families from foreclosures (the Federal Governement began this whole mess with the Community Re-investment Act of 1977). Or the Politician talks about how he's going to "tackle" credit card problems with a "Credit Card Bill of Rights.'

A few questions Mr. or Mrs. Congressman: Where were you when 789 legal, profit-making Chysler Dealerships were forced out of business by the Federal Government a few weeks ago? Forty thousand middle class Americans were thrown out of work. And you did NOTHING. Senator or Representative, how is that "improving the economy" or "strengthening the middle class?" Where is any of this you say you are working on found in your job description in Article I of the U.S. Constitution? Where is it in your job description your task to pass bills you don't read, to spend trillions of dollars we don't have, and to create more bureacracies (run by Federal "czars") to ignore the Constitution, trash freedom in our land, and oversee every single aspect of our lives?

I've had enough of this mockery of the U.S. Constitution. Have you? Join me by moving out of Congress these people who believe they are above the law. Check out www.MoveOutCongress.com. Join the movement to restore freedom and the rule of law.

"Confusing the Terms"

Today I read an Associated Press story about 93 year old John Hovan who is being given Spanish citizenship because he fought on the "Nationalist" side in the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939). The fact that the current Spanish government is giving him citizenship is not a problem with me. The fact that the AP misrepresents who fought what and what each side represented in the war is what disturbs me. Most Americans have no clue that Spain even had a Civil War leading up to World War II, or that it was a practice run for the Nazis and Communists in their fight to exterminate each other.

The AP story says that Mr. Hovan fought on "the side of democracy against Gen. Francisco Franco's fascist forces in the Spanish Civil War." The truth is that there was no side in that war that respresented "democracy"--if by "democracy" you mean a free constitutional government that recognizes life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. On one side you had the Nationalists. They were also known as the "Republicans." Not to be confused with the Republican Party in the U.S. This group was predominantly communist. They were supported by the communists in the Soviet Union. In fact, later in the article the writer describes Mr. Hovan as "a self-described communist." So do communists believe in democracy? The AP would lead you to believe that. Later in the article, Mr. Hovan says that the Great Depression "pushed him toward progressive politics." So communism is "progressive politics?" History teaches us that communism is anything but "progressive"--in fact, the communists were the greatest butchers of the 20th century! Almost 100 million innocent humans were slaughtered by the communists in Mr. Hovan's lifetime!

The other side was the Fascists led by Franco and supported by the other socialists--Hitler, and Mussolini. They were every bit as tyrannical as the communists--whatever difference existed between the groups was that the fascists and nazis wanted to exterminate Jews and others they considered racially inferior. All three groups used established religions to their benefit and all of them operated concentration camps. All three were/are leftist in their politics--they believe in the all powerful state led by dictators who tolerate no dissent.

Today it is fashionable to attach the terms "democracy" and "progressive" to political movements that want nothing to do with personal freedom and the ability to enjoy life and the fruit of one's labor without big government interference. Tyrants hide behind words that sound innocent and harmless. Like the communists and nazis they promise you everything but deliver nothing but total control over your life. Check out their track record and their policies.

Mr. Hovan is welcome to any awards bestowed upon him by the Spanish government. But let's get our terms straight, learn some real history, and tell the truth. When we forget our past and confuse the terms, we will create a nightmare.

"SPQR"

Ever watch those movies that show the might of ancient Rome? You know, "Spartacus" with Kirk Douglas, or maybe more recently "Gladiator?" When you look behind the Roman soldiers, you'll see banners or standards or buildings with the letters "SPQR" on them.

"SPQR" meant stood for "Senatus PopulusQue Romanus" or in English, "The Senate and the People of Rome."

It meant that whatever was going on supposedly had the approval of the official Roman government--the Senate and the People. In the first 500 years of Rome, the people had a fairly decent balanced, free government (especially when compared with other ancient governments). They had a Senate, which was composed of their leading elders. Supposedly wise men. They had an assembly--or lower chamber of government also--which represented the interests of the more common people.

But about 44 years before Christ, there was a switch in government. Through much intrigue and a civil war, Rome replaced their Senate and Assembly with a dictator--Julius Caesar, then his nephew, Octavian ("Augustus Caesar"), then for the next 400 years a succession of brutal tyrants known as the Caesars. Rome was no longer the Republic. It was the Empire.

The Senate continued to meet and babble and dabble in politics, but they had "punted the ball" of true government to the tyrants. The masses of people ignored the loss of freedom so long as they were fed free bread and circuses.

The signs stayed up--SPQR--The Senate and the People of Rome. But it was all a show, and the industrious, proud people of Rome continued their downward spiral toward invasion, slavery, and destruction.

"Group Workcamps"

I just returned from a mission's trip with an organization called "Group Workcamps." We went down to Lexington, North Carolina for a week. Wow, what a blast. About 400 teenagers and adults from nine states (everthing from Nebraska to South Carolina). We had people representing 18 different denominations, and we were there to fix up the homes of a lot of people who had fallen on hard times.

I can't say enough about the group from my church, my work crew, and the entire organization of Group Workcamps. All week throughout the hot, muggy weather we pulled together and gave some hope to people at 65 worksites in the Lexington area. The people of that town were so generous and appreciative. We met mayors and city councilmen, school officials, and just the average citizen up and down the line. We crossed denominational and political lines just to help people in need. It was a terrific experience.

I could go on and on. But if you are looking for something really transformational to do, please consider Group Workcamps out of Loveland, Colorado, or an organization like it. Plan on a summer of service next year, and enjoy it as you pitch in to help out other people who are in need.

"How Many Czars Does A Free People Need?"

Back in the 1980's I remember the Federal Government creating a position of a "Drug Czar." I'm sure there was a more official title, but that's what the person in charge was called. Then we had the "Education Czar." (By the way, how are they doing? How successful has their work been?)

Now we have 11 unelected "Car Czars" who are answerable only to President Obama, and they are now running GM and Chrysler. In rapid succession we have the "Cyber Czar" who will oversee internet security (I thought that was the job of the Pentagon, the FBI, CIA, NSA, and so on. . . ). Now this week Representative Maxine Waters defended the idea of a "Pay Czar"--someone who will make sure that CEO's of companies that receive federal hand-outs will not make too much money.

Does anybody ask simple questions anymore--like, "Where is this office in the Constitution?" How about: "How can the Federal Government do a good job in these areas when they can't even do the few things they are supposed to do in the Constitution?" How about this one: "What does 'Czar' mean?"

It is the Russian word for "Caesar." The Germans say, "Kaiser." The Russians said "Czar" for absolute ruler or emperor. I thought we had a Republic. There is no place for a Czar or Kaiser or Caesar in a Republic of the people, by the people, and for the people. Right? How many more of these "czars" will we have. . . until there is no more republic. . .of the people, by the people, and for the people?

"An Open Letter to My Congressmen"

Yesterday the U.S. Congress officially turned their backs on private property rights and at least 40,000 innocent Americans. For weeks I have been calling my elected officials in Washington D.C. to please do something to stop the illegal and unjust closing of 789 Chrysler dealerships by 11 unelected "car czars" and an out of control bankruptcy judge. I had a glimmer of hope the past few days that maybe some members of Congress were getting it. But after yesterday, I conclude that the Congress as a whole could care less about you and me.

So, I wrote my Congressmen today. Essentially, this is what was in my three e-mails:

"Dear Congressmen--Can you explain to me how you can stand idly by and watch 40,000 Americans get thrown out of work and call that "strengthening the middle class?" I read your websites often, and there is usually this slogan--"We are strengthening the middle class." Baloney. You watched eleven unelected "car czars" (whose job descriptions are NOT in the Constitution) and a bankruptcy judge cancel the franchise agreements of 789 Chrysler dealerships. You watched as thousands of livelihoods of honest Americans were taken away by government. You watched as private businesses which were no burden to the government, no burden to Chrysler were snatched away, and trampled without appeal.

I suppose this is the dawn of "spreading the wealth" in America. I guess this is your idea of "strengthening the middle class." Confiscate other people's livelihood, and transfer it to others, just because you think you can get away with it.

I never heard a peep of protest from any of you. The Senate had hearings last week and thumped their chests, and said "Tisk, tisk." Then you did NOTHING. You watched as the Constitution you swore to uphold was spat upon. You said and did NOTHING.

We don't need more of your government programs. All we ask is that you leave us alone to be free and for you to do your job according to the Constitution you swore to uphold."

Ladies and gentlemen, I don't know why Congress is not listening. I have to believe that at some point, someone will wake up and do the right thing.

Dick Cheney and Gay Marriage

Just recently former Vice President Dick Cheney gave us his views on gay marriage. Of course it is public knowledge that one of his daughters, Mary, is a homosexual and is raising a child with her lesbian partner, so I assume his comments are colored by this situation in their family.

The former Vice President said, "I think freedom means freedom for everyone. . .I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish." He went on to say that this is a state issue (a la the 10th Amendment) and not something for the federal government to deal with.

I hope the former the Vice President would like to go back and re-think his statement. People should be free to enter any kind of union they wish--any kind of arrangement they wish? You sure about that? Polygamy? I'm tempted to just say to the anti-marriage crowd (the Gay/Lesbian/Transgender groups)--"Fine, go ahead and legalize 'gay marriage.' But then also recognize as legal every single other union that anyone can think up. That means polygamy and multiple marriages." We already have polygamy going in several different religious groups in America, although it is still illegal. Why not multiple marriage--which is a little different. In that arrangement you can marry as many people--of whatever gender--you like. And you're all married! (It doesn't have to be consumated--but it's all called "marriage.") Can you imagine what this would do to property rights? What would this do to custody rights of parents over children?

People can laugh all they want, and snicker,"Oh but that's not what we want." Yeah, but that's what you'll get once you re-define marriage and make it legal for "any kind of arrangement they wish." While we're at it, why stop with unions between consenting adults? In some nations around the world, they don't even have age of consent laws. Why not get rid of age of consent laws too, and bring back forced, arranged marriages between adults and minors?

Once we ignore the "ancient boundary stones" we will be left with something we will wish we had never received. Mr. Cheney would be better served by believing and standing firm on the original design of marriage than by caving in to the "political correctness" of our downwardly spiralling culture.

"Michael Moore's Joy"

I just read Michael Moore's blog entitled "Goodbye, GM." It is really difficult for me to understand someone's joy over the death of a legitimate, legal business that employed tens of thousands of people all over the world, raised the standard of living for millions, and for 100 years attempted to supply a useful product for a free people who wanted the product. Yet in the blog he clearly states: "So here we are at the death of General Motors. The company's body is not yet cold, and I find myself filled with--dare I say it--joy."

He goes on to blame GM for "misery, divorce, alcoholism, homelessness, physical and mental debilitation, and drug addiction to the people I grew up with." A corporation did all this? People are not responsible for their own actions? Does Mr. Moore then admit that his own physical shortcomings are not due to his own lack of self-control but rather to some diabolical scheme of GM?

You just have to read his blog (www.michaelmoore.com). He may have a few good points about some problems that GM brought on themselves. But at the end, GM's demise is the result of more people preferring to buy other products they saw as superior, not because of some government decree. When government operates outside of its constitutional authority, it's decrees, programs, or "reforms" do not make problems smaller or improved.

The long and short of his diatribe is that Michael Moore believes in man-made global warming, and that free markets and private businesses (oil companies) are to blame for all our ills. He contends that we need his ideas and more government to better manage our lives. Only massive federal projects (like "light rail" bullet trains and smaller electric or hybrid cars) are the solution. (I wonder what kind of car he drives. Does he drive a Toyota Prius, or one of other the hybrid cars currently on the market?)

If a free people want something, it will happen faster, cheaper, and better than anything a centralized government can provide. This is the lesson from history. Facts are stubborn things.

"Great Quotes from General George Patton"

I know many people are despondent today over the condition of our country. Tremendous unemployment, a wrecked economy, enemy nations lining up against us, and a federal government intent on ruling outside the confines of the Constitution. But don't give in or give up. Think about these two comments from a great leader of the past--General George Patton:

"The test of a man's character is how high he bounces back after he's hit bottom."

And this one: "Attack rapidly. . . without rest, however tired and hungry you may be. The enemy will be more tired and more hungry. Keep punching."

Today, keep punching. Not physically, of course, but mentally and spiritually. Be encouraged today. You cannot give up. Remember, 60 million Americans did not vote for socialism in the last election. And another 50 million voters just sat out the election. There are still plenty of people left in this country who see the threat of the socialist agenda, and we are still quiet active in doing the right things, the right way, to bounce back and reverse the course.

Great Quotes from Samuel Adams"

In discouraging times, I like to look back at the lives of great leaders who endured far worse than anything I've ever experienced. I am encouraged and inspired when I read their words and know they backed up their words with their lives--and they prevailed over unbelievable odds. Read and enjoy these lines from Samuel Adams, one of our Founding Fathers:

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can."

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds."

"No Rhyme or Reason?"

So Chrysler wants to shut down almost 800 dealorships across our land. Never mind that the vast majority of the dealorships are turning a profit and are beneficial to Chrysler. Never mind that they are no economic burden to the corporation. Never mind that in the state of Ohio, this shut down of dealorships violates state franchise laws. This breaking of contracts by the "mother corporation" under the direction of bankruptcy courts throws thousands of innocent people out of a job by June 6, and none of this makes any kind of legal or economic sense at all.

There seems to be no pattern to this indiscriminate closing of dealorships. Those who deal only in Chrysler are closed and some who deal with a variety of brand names are "spared." Those who endorse policies across a wide diversity of the political spectrum are indiscriminately closed or "spared." No rhyme or reason. Or is there? Remember the word "spared." What image does that conjure up? For me, I think of the "lord of the manor" who wants to instill fear and obedience in his serfs as they toil for him. He indiscriminately punishes his peasants. After the punishment is over, those who were spared all breathe a sigh of relief and say, "Thank God I was. . . spared." Then the serfs live the rest of their time on the manor in fear of the next round of punishment, intimidated and cowed into subjection--hoping to be spared the next time. They work hard to make sure that the lord of the manor is pleased with their performance.

This is the tactic used by all tyrants--whether the medieval lord of the manor, or the fascist or marxist regimes of the 20th century. Creating chaos, indiscriminte intimidation, and enforcing new "rules" of the game is the rhyme and reason of expansive government. What they will do today will be the standing operating procedure for all their "reforms."

"Pray for Congress"

I just got back from a meeting with some members of Congress. It was one of those "revelational" moments in life. You know what I mean: the curtain pulls back and you see a few things in a different light.

My view of certain political realities hasn't changed. I'm still conservative and committed to restoring a limited Constitutional republic. But I saw to a greater degree the humanity of the people who are elected to represent us. They were overwhelmed. "Well, we're all overwhelmed and exhausted, Jeff! At least they have a job, but they're not doing it!", I can hear some people saying. Yes, the vast majority of us are tired, and we have little sympathy for professional politicians who swore to uphold the Constitution, yet trample it at every turn.

But there are others. Other men and women who take their vow seriously, and are truly burdened and overwhelmed. They do walk the walk. Not perfectly (none of us do), and there are not enough of them, but they are there. Do you pray for them?

What about the Senators and Representatives with whom you strongly disagree? Do you pray for them? I mean, do you pray for them? I don't agree with them politically, but if you only pray for those you love, what good is that?

Look for your Representative or Senator on the internet. Find out their birthday and send them a card to their office. Genuinely pray for them. They have family problems and illnesses just like the rest of us. In the middle of the night, they probably have the same questions and fears we all do. Pray for them. You never know what can happen next. . .

"Swine Flu"

I remember as a kid in junior high in the 70's the threat of swine flu. Yes it made the headlines back then, and everybody was afraid, and no epidemic broke out. Here we go again.

So out of a nation of 310 million people, less than 100 cases of this strain of swine flu has erupted, with only one death. All I hear is panic at every turn, with the UN, our President, the Center for Disease Control, and the head of Health and Human Services all pledging to work hard on this case and help us through this "pandemic" as they call it.

What can government do? Stop and think for a minute. There is no vaccine for this. It is not airborne. But millions of people look to our government for wisdom and safety and they receive such sage advice as this: Wash your hands and don't cough in someone's face. I kid you not. This is the serious advice from our leadership? I thought I learned such hygiene tips from my mother when I was four!

Remember the bird flu that was supposed to wipe us out four years ago? Remember West Nile Virus (which the newscasters always bring out on a slow news day)? Forgive me if I am a bit cynical, but when our government continues to create its own crises only to offer itself as a solution, and when our government continues to politicize things such as the weather ("climate change"), I can't help but be a little skeptical. Cover your mouth when you sneeze, and go about your business, and ignore the professional politicians who can't let a good crisis go to waste.

"James Madison and Democracy"

I have heard several Presidents in my lifetime refer to our nation as a "democracy." In common parlance, most people take it to mean a free country as opposed to an authoritarian nation like Saudi Arabia or a totalitarian government like North Korea.

However, the word "democracy" does not exist in any of our founding documents: the Mayflower Compact, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Nortwest Ordinance of 1787, and the U.S. Constitution.

To find out more of what our Founders thought of democracy, read James Madison's comments in The Federalist Papers. If you don't have time to read the whole book, here's a quote from Mr. Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," to give you an idea as to where he stood. In Federalist 10 he states:

"Hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

Madison, a very good student of history and human nature, understood that while no human government is perfect, the de-centralized, limited, constitutional republic is the best guarantor of freedom, not a democracy.

I hear some clergy expressing the notion that somehow their duties are confined only to things that are "spiritual." Just preach the Gospel. Just bring people into the Kingdom. Stay out of the secular governance of the nation. Politics are dirty. It's always been that way--always will be. And so on.

While I am personally committed to the proclamation of the Gospel, is the intersection of faith and life off limits when it comes to good government? John Witherspoon, the only clergyman to sign the Declaration of Independence did not think so. Witherspoon, also the President of the College of New Jersey (later known as Princeton University) and the mentor of James Madison had this to say in May of 1776:

"I willingly embrace the opportunity of declaring my opinion without any hesitation, that the cause in which America is now in arms, is the cause of justice, of liberty, and of human nature. . . The knowledge of God and his truths have from the beginning of the world been chiefly, if not entirely confined to those parts of the earth where some degree of liberty and political justice were to be seen. . . There is not a single instance in history, in which civil liberty was lost, and religious liberty preserved entire. If therefore we yield up our temporal property, we at the same time deliver the conscience into bondage."

In other words, if people who believe in the biblical Revealer of Truth and Liberty shut their mouths, and confine themselves to the "ghetto" of speaking only about "safe" spiritual topics that will offend no one, then eventually the enemies of freedom will not stop. They will show no tolerance to those who are committed to the biblical revelation. They will not be satisfied until they ultimately remove freedom even to speak about the supposedly "safe" topics.

Let Witherspoon have the last say here: "A Republic once equally poised, must either preserve its virtue, or lose its liberty."

"Frugal and Free"

I really love stories like this. I just read an article in the magazine American Profile (comes in my local paper's weekend edition) about the most frugal family in America. Steve and Annette Economides of Scottsdale, Arizona have four children, live on only $44,000 a year, and they are doing very, very well for themselves. They've been married for 26 years, paid off the mortgage on their home within 9 years (while Steve was making only $35,000 a year), they eat just fine, have nice clothes, drive the same kinds of vehicles everyone else has, and by all appearances look very happy.

I realize plenty of Americans look at such families and think, "Man--what a bunch of cheapskates. I bet they are miserable." I think to myself, "Can you imagine how happy and free you would feel if you had no debt?" How do they do it? Annette says, "So much of what we do is just common sense. . . It's the way our parents and grandparents lived. People need to slow down and think." How about that--the way to get out of debt, have the money you need when you need it, to live just fine and have what you want--is to use common sense, live within your means, slow down and think.

Think Congress, the President, plenty of corporations, and at least half of America could learn a lesson from this ordinary American family?

"A New Economy Founded Upon a Rock?"

I heard President Obama's speech at Georgetown University yesterday. It's a direct reference to Jesus' parable in Matthew 7 about a wise man and a foolish man building their homes. Of course the foolish man built upon something that shifts and provides no security--sand. The wise man built upon something stable--rock. He mentioned that "we cannot build this economy on the same pile of sand. We must build our house upon a rock."

I was amazed that my President even alluded to biblical illustrations. Of course, this is a free country, and free speech is what we're all about. But he specifically mentioned Jesus' story and tied it to economics. So, I suppose it's alright then to say that in politics it's O.K. to say that biblical principles can be applied to good government and good economics?

However, I must politely disagree with his conclusion that his version of a new economic policy is a policy built upon a rock. How is taking on ten trillion dollars of unsustainable debt building a future for our country upon a rock? More government spending, more government projects, more government control is producing a better economy? He mentions that in times of crisis families naturally cut back, and that is responsible. But President Obama says, "government needs to stimulate demand. Families and businesses have cut spending; government needs to step in." Wrong. Sure, families cut back. That's called common sense. But if the government doesn't cut its waste (when has it EVER cut waste?), but rather expands its spending--that's being responsible and helpful? If I'm frugal and responsible, that gives the government the green light to be irresponsible?

Government does not stimulate economies. Individuals who are left alone to keep the fruits of labor, and spend or invest it as they see fit actually grow an economy.

"A Nation Following Whose Values?"

I saw the youtube video today of President Obama telling the Turkish people that we are a predominantly Christian nation, and also that we are not a Christian nation. Confused? I think what our President was trying to say was that while Christianity in its various forms is the dominant religion in America, it is not the official state religion. I think that is what he meant after I watched the four minute clip of this part of his speech. I also think most everyone would agree with that conclusion. As we look at our nation's history, it is abundantly clear to all that all of the Europeans who came hear to colonize considered themselves Christian. All of our nation's Founding Fathers identified with Christianity to some extant, to the exclusion of other world religions.

However, the other half of President Obama's speech puzzled me. He said, "We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values." But he never identified what those ideals or values were. Where did they come from? What belief system most heavily influenced our nation's ideals, values, laws, concepts of self-government within the framework of a Constitutional government? Buddhism? Islam? Hinduism? None of those had any impact whatsoever on the creation of our country or our values, ideals, laws.

When you actually read the foundational documents of our nation (The Mayflower Compact, The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, and the Constitution), it is certainly clear that Christianity, more than any other belief system--most heavily influenced our nation into promoting the things we all value so highly--freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to own property and to enjoy the fruits of one's own labor. To ignore those facts is to embrace "values" without a foundation and without direction.

"Dream or Nightmare?"

On March 26, 2009 the U.S. Congress introduced a new version of the so-called "Dream Bill." "Dream" is an acronym for Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act." A similar version of the bill failed to pass through Congress in 2007 when the American people realized that Congress and the President were trying to pass an amnesty bill for millions of illegal aliens.

Now, an "upgraded" version is an attempt to grant U.S. citizenship to the children of illegal aliens. Through this bill conditional legal status would be available to students who have completed high school, received their GED, or have been admitted to an institution of higher education. Their status would be valid for up to six years. During that time these people would be eligible for in-state tuition costs, and if they earn a college degree or serve two years in the military, they can receive permanet residence.

My question is why? If we do not enforce our laws, and defend our borders, then we no longer have a nation state. What kind of message do we send to those immigrants who come to our country legally? Why obey the laws at all? Is it wise to essentially create a back door to citizenship to people who illegally enter our country? This bill already has the backing of Democrat Senator Dick Durban and Republican Senator Richard Lugar. President Obama is very favorable to this new attempt at amnesty. Are the American people?

"President Potter"

Remember the movie "It's a Wonderful Life?" Go back to that great scene at the beginning of the Great Depression where George Bailey is pleading with his clients at the Building and Loan not to panick and run to Potter for help:

"I beg of you not to do this thing. If Potter gets a hold of this Building and Loan there'll never be another decent home built in this town. He's already got charge of the bank. He's got the bus line. He's got the department store. And now he's after us. Why? It's very simple. Because we're cuttin' in on his business. That's why. Because he wants to keep you livin' in his slums and payin' the kind of rent he decides. Can't you understand what's happening here? Can't you see what's happening? Potter's not selling--he's buying! And why? Because we're panicking and he's not!"

The President of the United States just ordered the CEO of a private company, GM, to resign. The CEO resigned. This is the most obscene power grab of a U.S. President I have ever witnessed. First of all, where in the Constitution (which Pres. Obama swore to uphold) does it enumerate that the President has the authority to fire the head of any private business? So, now the President--the Federal Government--is the de facto head of the largest auto company in America. The Federal Government under this current administration continues its march to nationalize the major industries of our country in order to "help out." Remember--whenever the government expands, your liberties contract.

In the beginning of the scene, Potter says to George: "George, I'm going all out to help you in this crisis. I've just guaranteed the banks suficient funds to meet their needs." George Bailey then turns to Uncle Billy and says, "They just took over the bank."
When Government says they're here to help, they really mean they are here to take over your life--whether it is health care, education, the banking industry, or now the transportation industry.

But all this is the natural result of CEOs who go crawling to the federal government for bailout money when their own mistakes cost them dearly. The fed is all too eager to print up more money and toss it to private companies in order to take over. With government shekels come shackles. And now we see the shackles of big government snapping tight around whatever is left of free enterprise in this country.

Potter acquired control over the banks, transportation (the bus line), and the department store in Bedford Falls. Only one little business stood in his way of total dominance.
That was just a movie.
If the Federal Government under the orders of the President and a compliant Congress can fire CEOs and take over private businesses, what's next? Who's next? Who will stop them?

"When the Weather Won't Fit the Agenda"

I just saw the national weather report for Saturday, March 28, 2009. Blizzard conditions are closing in on the Southern Plains. For this time of the year, especially, this is really unusual. Most of us are buying seeds, rotor-tilling the garden and getting ready for Easter. But get this from an AP story: "A major spring blizzard plodding eastward over the Southern Plains shut down major highways and paralyzed the region as residents braced Friday for up to a foot of snow, freezing 45 mph winds and massive snowdrifts." Later in the story the weather service predicts snowdrifts as high as 20 feet in the Texas panhandle!

Moving right along to a related story, residents of Fargo, North Dakota are bracing for massive flood waters from the Red River to breach their dams. The Red River is some 22 feet above flood stage. The story reads: ". . . the ice-laden river could climb as high as 43 feet, nearly 3 feet higher than the record set 112 years ago." What is the cause of such an impending natural disaster? The rest of the story tells us: "This year, the river has been swollen by heavier-than-average winter, snows, combined with an early freeze last fall that locked a lot of moisture into the soil. The threat has been made worse by spring rains." I thought the earth was overheating due to carbon emissions from the use of fossil fuels! (Funny how where I live in the mid-West the weather service recorded some of the heaviest snow-falls and coldest winters in history in the past three years.)

Interesting. Early Spring blizzards in the Southern Plains. Unprecedented flooding caused by heavier than usual snow fall. How does this fit in with the religion of Man-Made Global Warming? It doesn't. Current cooling trends for the past several years do not fit into the agenda of Global Warming advocates. For the past several years the earth has been cooling, not warming, the sea temperatures have been cooling, Antarctica has recorded colder than normal temperatures, but none of this puts a dent in the mythology of Man-Made Global Warming. Weather is not a static thing. The earth has its normal periods of warming and cooling (witness the "Mini-Ice Age" from the 11th century to the 13th century in Europe), and man has had nothing to do with it. For a balanced perspective from a true scientist I recommend http://www.andrebernier.com/. Andre is a meteorologist in northeast Ohio who (along with many of his fellow meteorologists) seriously questions the science and conclusions of the Global Warming crowd. On his site he has a link to the Canadian Broadcasting System's 2007 documentary "Global Warming--Doomsday Called Off." Check it out.

So, if the earth is cooling down (again--as it naturally does without our help), and the "science" of Global Warming is questionable at best, why are politicians so intent on enacting legislation that will handicap or restrict our industry, our economy, our way of life? Why are government officials so keen on Cap and Trade policies and signing international treaties to restrict our so-called Carbon Emissions? Why is our government advocating "smart meters" placed in every American's home in order to monitor how much energy we are using during the day. Are they concerned about "saving the Planet," or more about controlling the population?

"More Terms Defined--'Fascism' "

"You're nothing but a fascist!" I hear this loosely tossed around often enough--sometimes on TV, usually on talk radio. Almost always in anger. To be called a fascist is an insult, to be sure.
And for good reason. We associate the most criminal minds of the past 100 years with this word: Benito Mussolini of Italy and Francisco Franco of Spain. But what does the word mean? Does it refer to just anybody with whom you have some sort of political disagreement? Is it "left wing" or "right wing" in the political spectrum? Does it apply only to little dictators with moustaches, silly uniforms and jackboots?

First, fascism is a real political term. Groups calling themselves "fascists" gained power in devastated European countries after World War I (1914-1918). These nations (Italy and Spain for example) had no history of representative government and were poverty stricken. Politicians who guaranteed peace, economic prosperity and glory for the nation rose to power through violent intimidation of their enemies.

The fascists believed that a strong central government should not necessarily confiscate all private businesses or property (as the Communists would). Under fascism there is some nationalization of financial institutions as well as transportation and communication industries, but the rest of the private businesses would be tightly controlled by the central government through such things as wage and price controls, and restriction of production and distribution of goods and services. All of society would answer to the dictates of the central government.

In short, fascism (and its fraternal twin Naziism) was a more violent and oppressive strain of socialism. If a political spectrum shows left wing politics as calling for more government control over people and property, and the right as encouraging less government control, then fascism and naziism would be on the left. Only communism would be further left of fascism/naziism.

"Can the Federal Government Run Your Business Better Than You Can?"

In my local paper the Associated Press just reported that the President of the United States supports free markets. Astounding. It is actually news that the President of the freest nation on earth feels the need to publicly state the he "supports the free market economic system?" In the story he went on declare that the government has to intervene in the private markets now. . .He wants to "right the ship" and then "let private enterprise do its magic." First of all, I would really like to see where our Congress or President has successfully run a private business. Congress has demonstrated for decades that it is incapable of even operating inside a budget.

Secondly, someone needs to politely remind my President that the main cause of our present economic woe is not the free market. It is centralized government in Washington D.C. intervening and trying to micromanage financial institutions. In 1977 President Jimmy Carter signed the Community Reinvestment Act in which the Federal Government began to force private lending institutions to make loans to people who were credit risks. In September of 1999, President Clinton added fuel to the fire by accelerating this process--pressuring banks to loan money to individuals whose credit was not good enough for conventional loans.

Of course, you have to throw in plenty of greedy schemes from Wall Street and people of various incomes who knew they could not afford the house of their dreams, but the current problem arises from people in government who were trying to turn banks into charities.

We all know the results now. The collapse of the housing market. The savings, pensions, retirement funds wiped out. The U.S. and other nations on the edge of an economic meltdown. Government was the source of the problem, not the free market. And now Government thinks it has the skill to solve it by more interference?

"What's so bad about Ponzi Schemes?"

This morning I heard on the radio that Bernie Madoff pled guilty to his enormous "ponzi scheme" in which he ripped off investors and lost about 64 billion dollars. The life savings of plenty of people were lost forever.

But what is a ponzi scheme? Simply put it is a promise from a con artist. The con man coaxes people to "invest" their money in his plan. He eventually has a large number of people paying into his scheme, whatever it is, and he is constantly paying out to the investors what others have paid in. Problem is, he has nothing in reserve to guarantee the investors payments. He is always (barely) one step ahead of the investors by paying out what another group has payed in to his scheme. If anyone in this scheme fails to make a payment into the plan, the whole thing collapses like the proverbial house of cards.

Madoff's scheme collapsed. One man on the radio said, "Madoff showed no remorse. He's not sorry about what he did. He's sorry he got caught." A lady said, "We weren't looking for returns. We were just looking for safety."

I thought, "What's the difference between Madoff and the Federal Government's promise of Social Security? Isn't that just a ponzi scheme that hasn't collapsed--yet?" The truth is that the payments going out are covered only by the money coming in (barely). For now. There is no reserve of cash for Social Security. And liberal and conservative projections are that the whole thing will run out of money in about 20 years. It will come. Is any prominent politician today sounding the alarm bells about this Government sponsored ponzi scheme? Maybe there are some--but I haven't heard them lately. Madoff's paying for his crime. Who will pay for the government's ponzi scheme?

"Defining Our Terms--Socialism"

In many political discussions all sorts of terms get thrown around randomly. I will hear one person throw out the word "fascist" and another "capitalist," but do we really have a good historical grasp of what these words actually mean? I think we need to get a grip on some critical definitions in the debates that are going on around us.

"Socialist" or "socialism" is thrown around quite a bit these days. The word goes back less than two hundred years to European political theorists who saw the destitute masses of their industrialized nations and wanted to do something to address the wrongs and injustices of poverty. Nothing wrong with their intentions. Men like Robert Owen, Henri Saint-Simon, and Charles Fourier theorized that if the people who ran the factories actually owned and operated them in some sort of cooperative way, or if governments had greater control over the means of production, then life would improve for all.

In the past 200 years there have been many different kinds of socialist theories and some have been more benign than others, but in general they all have in common the belief that people are basically not born selfish creatures, and given the right set of circumstances man can bring in his own utopia. Socialists of every stripe generally concede that private property is not good for mankind, or at best is a temporary necessary evil. What is best is more and more government control over means of production and distribution. Eventually socialist governments should control all means of education, health, transportation. In more virulent forms of socialism, even the family becomes the target of government engineering.

Compare the socialist agenda with the ideas of the Founding Fathers and ask yourself if socialism is compatible with the goals of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. It wouldn't hurt also to try to find a socialist nation that has produced and protected those goals of our Founding Fathers.

"What the Father of the Constitution Thought"

I mentioned in the last blog Congress' forthcoming "mad cap" policy of "cap and trade." Sadly, many Americans do not even bother to question if such intrusion is part of Congress' job description. But how did our Founding Fathers envision the role of the Federal government? James Madison, our fourth President, and also known as the "Father of the Constitution" wrote in his commentary (Federalist 45):

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which the last power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The power to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

Did you get that first line? The federal government (always written by Madison in lower case letters!) was to have very few, restricted powers. No ability to fund bridges to nowhere, or trains to Las Vegas (Sen. Harry Reids' favorite project). No ability to nationalize education, the health industry, or to tell a factory how much of a gas it can emit (a gas that appears in nature and is necessary for plants to grow). The States (always written by Madison in capital letters) could have indefinite powers. The Father of the Constitution says so! And if you don't like the laws in one state, move to another. If the State government mismanages, it would not have a devasting effect on the rest of the nation, and you could still have the freedom to move elsewhere in the country.

But Madison knew that a centralized government that tried to provide for or manage or restrict every aspect of private lives and/or business would become a tyranny over the entire nation. What do you think he would say today if he saw the activities, budget, and agenda of our present day U.S. House and Senate?

(Mad) Cap and Trade

Well, we are all hearing a lot more about the "cap and trade" policies that are coming at us from the new Congress. But unless you work in a factory, many Americans don't understand (yet) what that spells for them. Cap and trade is a concept built upon the theory that fossil-fuel burning industries emit too much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide supposedly creates the "greenhouse effect" and thus the earth's temperature rises and destroys ice shelfs in the polar regions, droughts all over the world, and floods everywhere. The whole world will soon be destroyed by man-made global warming, and cap and trade is one way to save the planet.

Congress sets a limit (cap) on how much CO2 a factory can emit. So fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas will be rationed to factories. Those industries that emit less than what government allows them will then be able to sell or trade their excess allowances (known as carbon credits) to other companies that emit over their share. Does this make any sense yet? It gets better--the benevolent Federal Government (Congress) will then tax that trade of the carbon credits from one company to another.

This is another way for Congress to raise revenue--to use bad science and a bogus crisis to create a totally unnecessary restriction upon industry at the worst possible time in our history. And then to tax companies on the sale of something that doesn't even exist (the carbon credit)! I mean, can you hold a carbon credit or use it in your home or eat it? It doesn't even exist--except in the madcap minds of the cap and trade people. Do you really think this will help industry in America?

All this from the people who tell us they want to help the little guy, they want to support the middle class, they want to fight for you. Yeah, right. Is there anything we can do to stop this? Fortunately, there is. Call Congress and tell them (politely) what you think. Educate yourself on what the function of the federal, state, and local government is supposed to be (read the Constitution), and then consider running for some public office yourself. Why not you?

"A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to D.C."

Sometimes, I really, really know that the Lord has a great sense of humor. Did you hear the true story of what happened last weekend in Washington D.C.? The Global Warming crowd had planned a huge protest on the mall in our nation's capital. You can go on-line and see their signs "Get Rid of Coal," "Save the Earth," and so forth. As if anything we have done has created global warming.

But I digress. Anyway, as the protesters were getting ready, a huge snowstorm blanketed them. One of the coldest beginnings to the month of March swept through the eastern half of the United States. Atlanta, Georgia had several inches of snow. In Columbus, Georgia the day before it was 70 degrees. The next day was snow.

I thought it was poetic justice that all these global warming religionists were hit with a snowstorm. I thought it was pretty funny. But their agenda isn't funny at all. The snowstorm probably won't deter many of them, but maybe a few might wake-up and agree that the "science" behind the agenda is dubious at best.

Ex-astronaut Harrison Schmidt looked at the science and found it wanting. What he did discover was that there is a political agenda behind it. His comments are worth noting: "Global Warming is being used as a political tool to increase government control over Ameican lives, incomes, and decision making." As the "Save the Earth" mantra continues to gather steam (or CO2) in Washington D.C., watch out. Your constitutional rights to life, liberty, property, and free speech will be more in danger of quick extinction than any endangered specie.

"Your Congress at 'Work'" (Part 1)

Are we having fun yet? In an economy that at times seems to be in a free-fall, with American industry struggling for survival, what is Congress doing to help the average factory worker? The latest from your U.S. Congress is that they want to reduce certain emissions (notably carbon dioxide) from factories. Those industries that have emissions lower than the artificial standard can then sell off excess CO2 emission allowances to other factories that "pollute" more (since when is carbon dioxide--a gas that exists in nature in order for plants to survive--a pollutant?)
Congress then taxes these "carbon credits" that are traded from company to company.

This is known as "Cap and Trade" policy that has found some "bi-partisan" sponsorship in Congress. Senators John Warner (R-Virginia) and John McCain (R-Arizona) are supporters of this new tax on industry, as well as Joe Lieberman (D-Connecticut) and the usual gang of global warming enthusiasts. Surprisingly, Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) has recently come out voicing some opposition to this new tax on industry. Small wonder since factories in Ohio are in a pretty desperate situation.

Nevertheless, here is a great example of Congress knowing what is best for America. Here are people who (for the most part) have never run a business, never signed the front of a paycheck, and spend more money than they receive. How is shackling American industry with more taxes and restrictions going to help the average worker? Whatever happened to the parties that are supposed to lower taxes, help "the middle class," and be for "the working man."

Are they even listening any more?