Obama's Secret Stash

Hold On To Your Wallets the Senate is Going to Vote

"I don't know if there is a Senator that doesn't have something in this bill that was important to them," Mr. Reid said, "And if they don't have something in it important to them, then it doesn't speak well of them."

That just has to be the second best quote of the year. Of course the best quote was Nancy Pelosi’s comment that the country should migrate away from those evil fossil fuels like oil and in to natural gas. This person is two heartbeats away from the Presidency and she doesn’t know that natural gas is a fossil fuel. OK I was going to be nice but the comment is soooo idiotic I am going to rephrase my remark, and I will quote me, “…she is too stupid to know that natural gas is a fossil fuel.”

Anyway, back to Harry. He has made deals with all of the democrats in the senate (and they don’t deserve to be capitalized in every sense of the word) so that our tax dollars are being spent on earmarks. Just what is an earmark?

According to an online dictionary it is – ‘To reserve or set aside for a particular purpose.’ See Synonyms at APPROPRIATE. What does appropriate mean? To take for the common good. To take exclusive posession of.

The government of the United States is appropriating our hard earned dollars, and not just the dollars of the ‘evil rich,’ but everyone’s dollars. Here are a few samples of what we are going to be paying for –

Florida - $3 billion to $5 billion to keep Florida residents from losing Medicare Advantage benefits while the rest of us do, Connecticutt (and let us not forget that Chris Dodd and his shenanigans with Freddie and Fanny helped to bring us to this recession) - $100,000 for the Univ of Conn Medical Center, Louisianna $300,000 to support Medicaid susidies to help in the recovery from Katrina, Massachusetts and Vermont $300 and $500 million respectively to go into Medicaid subsidies, Michigan exempt from Blue Cross fees, Michigan and Connecticutt reimbursements for certain hospitals, Montana, North and South Dakota and Wyoming receive higher Medicare reimbursements because, and get this, it is still has ‘frontier’ hospitals and doctors, Montana (remember this is Bauckus’ state) extra money for individuals in Libby who suffer from asbestos poisoning, Nebraska – and Nelson is not going to be re-elected in my opinion – $100 million to pay for Blue Cross of Mutual of Omaha fees and 100% payment for new Medicaid coverage, and Vermont for $100,000 for community health care facilities. THIS IS ALL ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT THE HEALTH CARE BILL IS GOING TO PROVIDE EVERYONE!

In a recent interview a woman was asked what Obama was going to do for her. She said that he was going to reach into his secret stash and give her money to help her out. Get your wallets out, folks, or as some like to say,…”Obama’s secret stash.”

Tiger

I was reading the Wall Street Journal yesterday and I was amazed at an article that was written by someone who believed Tiger Woods had done something terrible to him personally. The writer wondered what made Tiger do what he did outside the golf course, with endless speculation, and the strategies that Tiger's agent and manager and attorneys have created to keep the scandal to a minimum. I tend to skim articles like that, but the final sentence is what prompted me to write not one but two responses to the Journal's Opinion page. The second one is what I wanted to include in my blog today.

The writer of this article stated at the end of this piece:

"But at least I wasn't the only fool to be fooled. If Mr. Woods wants us back, he has a lot of work to do."

And my response:

Frankly if Tiger Woods decides to play in a golf tournament tomorrow I will be at the TV watching, cheering him on. He doesn't owe me anything. I enjoy his skill as a golfer. Simple. If the author thinks he is foolish that is his business as long as he doesn’t make sweeping statements that supposedly include me.

I for one do not want Tiger to have to 'work' to have me back as a fan, just playing golf will do that.

STOP SPENDING!

It is time for the legislative branch of our government to take a vacation. Stop working so hard! You want to give us health care, you want to give us compact fluorescent lights, you want to give us free housing, you want to give us free computers, and you want to give us all “security and stability.”

STOP! You aren’t giving us anything. Giving means a gift. You don’t ask the person you are giving the gift to, to pay you for the gift. You don’t give a gift and then say, “Can’t pay now? That’s OK, we will bill you later or your children and grandchildren, oh and by the way we will also bill your next door neighbor, the small businessman down the street, and your Aunt Tilly.” The Federal Government, the gift that keeps on giving.

Get Out the Fur coats, Global Cooling is Coming!

Hubbard Glacier, the largest calving glacier on the North American Continent (25 percent larger than Rhode Island), advanced across the entrance to 35-mile-long Russell Fiord during June 2002, temporarily turning it into a lake. Hubbard Glacier has been advancing for more than 100 years and has twice closed the entrance to Russell Fiord during the last 16 years by squeezing and pushing submarine glacial sediments across the mouth of the fiord. Water flowing into the cutoff fiord from mountain streams and glacier melt causes the level of Russell Lake to rise.

The glacier is located in Alaska and is 25% larger than Rhode Island. It is defying the global paradigm of valley or mountain glacier shrinkage and retreat in response to global climate warming. Hubbard Glacier is the largest of eight calving glaciers in Alaska that are currently increasing in total mass and advancing. All of these glaciers calve into the sea, are at the heads of long fiords, and have undergone retreats during the last 1,000 years. The large calving glaciers that are currently advancing have not been in sync with climate-driven glacier changes (for example glaciers on Mt. Kilimanjaro) for a very long time. The glaciers that are currently growing and advancing in the face of global warming were retreating throughout the Little Ice Age (AD1350 or 1450 to AD1900) when most glaciers were growing.

The idea that man is so all-powerful that we can modify the natural course of fluctuations in the Earth's geo-mechanisms is not science; it could even be considered a form of religion. The idea that earth should remain as it was in some past paradise, and that we mortals can somehow keep it as such, is just not reasonable.

Why was there a little ice age in AD1350 or 1450 to AD1900? Were people causing the global cooling the a few decades back the ‘environmentalists’ were warning us about? There are natural climatic fluctuations that cause warmer temperatures. A certain percentage of recent global warming is due to long-term natural fluctuations, including effects of the sun. Volcanoes can also cause short-term cooling, but a lack of volcanism can result in warmer temperatures. From about 1400 to 1880, the Little Ice Age occurred when practically all the glaciers in the world advanced, whereas now they are receding. At times people could ice skate on the Thames River in London, whereas that is unthinkable today. The Little Ice Age was likely caused by the combination of slightly less energy from the sun and more volcanism, both of which allow the surface of the earth to cool.

The mechanisms driving natural climate variations are too poorly understood to be included accurately in computer climate models. Hence, the models risk overstating human influences.

Further evidence that natural fluctuations are significant is that during the early and mid-1970s, a cooling trend increased the amount of sea ice. This happened at a time when the buildup of carbon dioxide should have caused global warming. Has the next ice age already begun?

Get out the fur coats, global cooling is coming!

A "Sleeping Giant"

December 7, 1941 began as a serene morning at the U.S. Naval base on the island of Oahu in Hawaii. The warships of America's Pacific Fleet rested at anchor. Many sailors were preparing for church or relaxing, and all was quiet at Pearl Harbor.

At about 7:35 AM a buzz from the sky broke the calm as a dive-bomber bearing the red symbol of the Rising Sun of Japan dropped out of the clouds. Seconds later a swarm of Japanese warplanes followed. Sirens wailed as explosions sounded across the harbor and black smoke poured into the sky. Despite the heroism of men fighting for their ships, their fellow sailors, and their lives 2,400 died, 1,200 were wounded and 18 ships of the U.S. Navy and 300 planes were destroyed or damaged.

A remark attributed to Japanese admiral Yamamoto, who planned the attack, was, "I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant and instilled in him a terrible resolve."

On this day let us reflect on our American "resolve" to protect and defend the freedoms that so many in our military have fought and died for. Thank you all for your service.

An Open Letter to Chris Matthews of Entertainment Show Called Hardball

This letter was sent to Mr. Matthews:

How could you possibly feel that the young men and women of West Point, an institution that has graduated some of the bravest men and women in the history of our country, is an "enemy camp" to the President of the United States or to any citizen of this country?

Shame on you. My husband and I have a son in the Marines and he is training and fighting to protect you and others in this country. Who are you going to call on to save you if enemies gather at the gates?

You owe the military an apology. People that serve and protect do so for very little pay or recognition.

We won't be watching NBC shows any more, and a copy of this note is going to the new owners of NBC, whoever they may be. Perhaps they will keep stupid people like you from making stupid comments - oh, just a minute, the military has fought for your right to say what you want in countless wars around the world.

Proud Military Parents Susan and Robert Fedelchak

They Did What?

The mis-steps are coming fast and furiously from the White House and the Democrats in Congress. I am going to try to keep track of them all:

It seems that George Bush "The Hated by the Dems" had Bin Laden captured in December of 2001 and chose to let him go, according to the Dems on the senate foreign relations committee. Where does the Senate get their information for this report? Perhaps e-mails from the climate change 'experts.'

Every time the Dems create junk news like this the majority of people know its junk because we are not stupid folks, and their poll numbers drop. Keep up the good work and the centrists and conservatives will not even have to campaign to win the next election.

And a final thought, those on the FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE - perhaps you should be more concerned with looking ahead and not trying to find something on the Bush administration. How about those French selling big boats to the Russians? Pirates? Afghanistan and Iraq? Oh, and let us not forget about Dubai...

Liberty!

Every day in the Wall Street Journal and other publications I am reading about President Obama's losing the hearts and minds of the American people who supported him. The articles use big words to describe Obama such as obsequious and comments about the maturity level of Mr. Obama as well as his support staff when confronted with major crisis such as the economy and Afghanistan and minor issues such as negativity from Fox News. And how does he deal with the Legislature in this country? Obama's phrase "We won and we can do what we want," is still ringing in the ears of those Independents that voted for him as they see mistakes one after another being made by a White House that is either on purpose or accidently trying to weaken the freedoms and rights of individual citizens in this country in the name of bigger government. Personally I think it is on purpose but not to worry, I don't think the current administration has the collective brains to do it. They underestimated the people of this country.

There have even been questions about whether the White House is attempting to turn this country far left and socialist on purpose. Of course they are. They gave a huge share in failing car companies to union members, they want 'universal' health care, giving the government huge amounts of power over our lives, they even have children in schools reporting to their teachers (strong union supporters of Obama) if their parents are overweight. And this little gem - teachers in an Illinois Junior High School are asking students to sign a confidentiality agreement that they won't tell their parents about a homosexualtiy lecture series that they are required to attend. I ain't making this up folks.

So here we had the federal government, who work for us supposedly, attempting to push the population towards socialism. But then something started happening, something that the socialists in the White House didn't expect: The country started pushing back. The ever-quiet Republicans found their collective voice and even Olympia Snow began voting Republican. Democrats that were centrist found their voices as it looked like they would be having a tough time with their re-election bids, especially after the major elections in New Jersey and Virginia gave political power to Republicans. People started throwing tea bags into Boston Harbor's arround the country, and the silent majority were beginning to roar.

Every day the administration does new stupid things, things that make even the ardent Obama supporters shake their heads - well maybe not the most ardent. The economy and Afghanistan and Iraq top the list of priorities of the people, but the lack of decisive leadership in any of these areas is hurting the administration, as well it should. Mr. President, tax and spend has never worked, and taking your time to make the right decision about war just makes you look weak in the eyes of our enemies, the people in this country and in the world.

And what about all this bowing and scraping, Mr. President?

On being introduced to the Queen of England in the 1800's a line of people were bowing respectfully and an American reached out and shook the Queen's gloved hand. Gasps of horror were heard around the room and the American said, "Your Majesty, my country fought two wars against yours so that I would have the liberty to shake your hand, and with all respect I do so." Obama has travelled the world bowing and scraping, ignoring friends and making friendships with, in some cases, some really bad guys. He has ignored all of the wars fought by this country in the name of liberty. Every time he bows to kiss a ring a few more of his supporters cringe and move beck toward the center politically. Thank you, Mr. President, for reminding the people of this country that our fathers and their fathers fought so that our leaders would stand strong with their friends and against their enemies.

Keynes v. Hayek: Will Obama Leave a Legacy of Stagflation?

At some point in time President Obama is going to have a conference on jobs (or lack thereof) in this country. His supporters point to the importance of John Maynard Keynes to Obama’s job creation plans. I happen to believe in the Austrian School of economic theory, the theories espoused by Friedrich Hayek and his friends.

Just who is Keynes and why does his name pop up when the government wants to have a theory that points to how important big government is in our lives? And what don’t these folks understand about Keynesian economics? Let’s have a look.

Keynesian economics advocates a mixed economy - predominantly private sector, but with a large role of government and the public sector. It served as the economic model during the latter part of the Great Depression, World War II, and the post-war Golden Age of capitalism, 1945–1973, but lost a great deal of its luster, and some thought led to the stagflation of the 1970s. As a middle way between laissez-faire capitalism and socialism, it has been and continues to be attacked from both the right and the left. Keynesian economics has provided the basis for the plans of PresidentObama, Prime Minister Brown and other global leaders to rescue the world economy.

So what is wrong with Keynesian economics? Probably nothing if it is followed to the letter. The key to the theory is to curb government spending. CURB GOVERNMENT SPENDING! It is also important to prevent government from becoming too large a force in the lives of those in the private sector. BIG GOVERNMENT IS BAD!

I happen to believe in the Austrian School of economic theory, the theories of Friedrich Hakek and others. Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek criticized Keynesian economic policies for what he called their fundamentally collectivist approach, arguing that such theories require centralized planning, which leads to totalitarian abuses. Hayek also argued that Keynes' study of the aggregate relations* in an economy is misleading, as recessions are caused by micro-economic factors. Hayek claimed that what starts as temporary governmental fixes usually become permanent and expanding government programs, which stifle the private sector and civil society.

* Agregate Relations – The relationship between supply and demand in the marketplace, looking at what comprises what is considered ‘supply’ and what is considered ‘demand.’ For example, the supply consists of the price level and real production, and demand would include consumption expenditures by the household sector, investment sector, government purchases by the government sector and net exports by the foreign sector. In other words prople buy stuff and make stuff and sell it, and when governments get involved it mucks up the works.

To Promote the General Welfare?

In a recent interview the Democrat Senator from Hawaii was asked:

“Is there any specific area of the Constitution that would give Congress the authority to be able to mandate individuals to have to purchase health insurance?”

Akaka: “Not in particular with health insurance. It’s not covered in that respect. But in ways to help citizens in our country to live a good life, let me say it that way, is what we’re trying to do, and in this case, we’re trying to help them with their health.”

Huh? Just what doesn’t the Senator know about limitations on power, especially for the federal government. If a health ‘care’ bill is passed will it stand up to Supreme Court scrutiny? I don’t think so.

Just what powers are given to Congress in the Constitution? The powers to legislate come from four sources: Enumerated and implied powers, amendment enforcing powers, inherent powers and treaty powers. Congress is not authorized to act just because their intentions are good.

Some might point to the Constitution and the government’s job to “promote the general welfare,” and pursue other vital objectives, but those lines are included in the Preamble to the Constitution and are considered to “walk before” the law of our land, the Constitution. Undefined legislative authority is explained in the Constitution, though, but it gives those rights to the States not the Federal Government.

Reparan con incentivos a industria automotriz

On occasion I like to read the newspapers from our South American neighbors to find out what is happening in their countries and how they feel about the U.S. This is an article in the Mexico City newspaper of November 9, 2009. It does not take a fluency in Spanish to get the message in the article but I will help out here and there, hopefully without error:

Reparan con incentivos a industria automotriz
By Magaly Pinal

A pesar de que el mercado mexicano está diseñado para la fabricación y colocación de dos millones de autos anuales, para el cierre del 2009 sólo se habrán vendido, a lo sumo, 750,000 unidades nuevas. (Normally the Mexican auto industry builds millions of cars annually, but now they are down to 750,000 units.) Incluso, de acuerdo a la Asociación Mexicana de Distribuidores de Automotores (AMDA), en los primeros ocho meses del año apenas se habían colocado poco más de 274,283 vehículos y cerca de 195,868 camiones, entre carga y pasajeros. En total sumarían más de 470,000 unidades. En estas cifras aparecen el Distrito Federal con el 24.1%; Estado de México, 11%; Jalisco, 7.2%; y Nuevo León, con 6% de las ventas nacionales. En el 2008 la AMDA registró ventas de un 45% más durante los primeros ocho meses del año.

Para la última parte del año, José Gómez Báez, presidente de la AMDA, pronosticó un cierre caótico para la industria automotriz, ya que por un lado las empresas podrían tener problemas de inventarios por la baja en la producción mundial de automóviles, además de que los consumidores no cuentan con una oferta de crédito adecuada para la adquisición de autos nuevos (Mr. Gomez, President of the Association of Mexican Automobile Distributors says that consumers are not buying new automobiles and production is going lower).
Enfatizó también que los aumentos de impuestos aprobados recientemente afectan de una u otra forma a los clusters automotrices. (People are not buying cars due to the increase in taxation.)

Justamente, en este escenario es que el gobierno (government) de Coahuila anunció hace unos días el Programa de Reactivación de la Industria Automotriz (new government program for revitalizing the car industry) que tiene como principal objetivo el otorgamiento (grant) de apoyos económicos (economic support) a los contribuyentes del Impuesto Sobre Automóviles Nuevos (tax on new automobiles) e Impuesto sobre Tenencia o Uso de Vehículos (a tax on the ownership or usage of vehicles).

Perhaps I am not reading or translating this properly? Additional taxation is going to be used to prop up the automotive industry in Mexico? That doesn’t make sense. Why would a country spend tax dollars to prop up a failing business…..wait, that sounds familiar....

Nancy Pelosi's Version of Tort Reform

Buried in Speaker Nancy Pelosi's 1,990-page health care bill is a provision that provides "incentive payments" to each state that develops an "alternative medical liability law" that encourages "fair resolution" of disputes and "maintains access to affordable liability insurance." Sounds great until we reach the caveat: The state only qualifies if its new law "does not limit attorneys' fees or impose caps on damages."

Are we heading to Hyperinflation?

The weakening of the dollar, the rise in oil prices, the rise of the stock market when there is still double digit unemployment, and declining economic activity would suggest that we are heading towards hyperinflation. Economists say that hyperinflation is out of control inflation, with no equilibrium (or balance) in site. Is what the Obama administration, the Federal Reserve, and the legislative branch of the government helping the situation?

Let’s take a look at Japan in the 1980’s. They had an economic bubble that sent the Nikkei to 40,000. Then the bubble burst and real estate prices dropped 80%. The Nikkei lost 80% of its value. The Japanese government tried everything to bring the economy back, and managed to do everything wrong. Interest rates went to zero in the hopes people would borrow at no cost and buy stuff. They didn’t. The government kept factories running, increasing supplies even though there was no demand. The government started public works programs building roads, fast trains and a state of the art airport built on a landfill. They increased the money supply and supported failing businesses spending trillions in yen in their attempt to support the economy. They had stimulus packages to the tune of over 100 trillion yen,. They pumped yen into the banking system and still no one wanted to borrow. Nothing worked. Japan is still in a depression, with its stock market still at one fifth of what it was at its peak. The country has a national debt of 130% of GDP because of all of the ‘fixes’ that they tried, and a debt that is not payable other than with printing more yen. The yen that is backed by nothing. And this has been going on for 29 years!

Does this sound at all familiar? Printing money, stimulus packages, and supporting companies that should go under? Spending and spending and spending and still enemployment is over 10% with no end in sight.

Milton Friedman once said, “Many people want the government to protect the consumer. A much more urgent problem is to protect the consumer from the government.”

What is it that our Government Employees Don't Understand about the Constitution?

Judge Andrew Napolitano recently had an interview with James Clyburn D-SC the third ranking member of the House of Representatives of the US.

Judge Napolitano: “Where in the Constitution is the federal government charged with maintaining people’s health?”

Clyburn: “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do.”

Judge: “You took an oath to uphold the Constitution. You can’t go outside the Constitution because you think it is a good thing to do without violating that oath!”

Clyburn: “How about show me where in the Constitution it prohibits the federal government from doing this?”

The Judge then, of course, cites the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

Article [X]

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

Lesson to be learned is that our Senators and Congressmen have not read the Constitution which is one page long how can we expect them to read the health care bill?

Just How Important are Consumers Anyway?

Between Nancy Pelosi and National Public Radio and what they talk about I could have ideas for this blog on a continuing basis, daily, forever. On Wednesday Ms. Pelosi discussed the off-year elections that took place on Tuesday, elections where Republicans won the Governorships in New Jersey and Virginia. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House and Democrat, said that the democrats won the Congressional seat in upstate New York and were therefore victorious overall with a mandate for a government run health care system. In the upstate New York race 100,000 people voted. In Virginia and New Jersey more than 70 million people voted.

On National Public Radio this morning, a station that is supported by tax dollars (I like to remind people of that at every opportunity), their expert on how to fix the current economy didn’t talk about lowering taxes, or easing rules and restrictions that are preventing companies in this country from competing in the global marketplace, it was to “move away from an economy that counts on consumer spending.” Really. I am not kidding. The ‘expert’s’ advice – “count on exports.” Aren’t the people that you are exporting to consumers?

So I have two really good topics to write opinion on: Nancy and the limited powers of the federal government (the tenth amendment to the Bill of Rights) or the basic economic idea of supply and demand. Actually let’s merge them both into one blog: The power of the government versus the power of the people.

Nancy, are you listening? Pay attention because we are going to talk health care, freedom of choice, and supply and demand. Supply and demand are basic economic terms for how people behave VOLUNTARILY in free markets, whether at the grocery store, traveling on an airplane, purchasing a home or PURCHASING HEALTH CARE. Those who believe big government can cure all ills (sorry I couldn’t resist) by dictating what they believe is best for all of us is wrong thinking. There are no examples where government run health care has worked. Give me an example, Nancy. Individual states have gone bankrupt and individual countries that attempted to provide universal health care find they are faced with the need for rationing and the service that they do provide is sub-standard. Thousands of people travel to these United States for the best health care in the world, and fill prescriptions for drugs created by companies that are working directly off the theory that if there is a demand they will find a way to supply the product.

Nancy and the rest of our government want to dismantle our current system giving more than 20% of our economy over to the same government that tries to deliver mail, run Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, create Ponzi schemes in the form os Social Security and Medicare, and run the Veterans Administration, where they are only 400,000 cases behind. The farm program? Almost left out Amtrak! In every instance when the government in this country attempts to prohibit basic liberties of the people the consequences are often surprising, always costly, and sometimes tragic.

Washington, D.C. is always touting the Canadian health care system. As of 2003 the average wait to see an eye doctor is 22 weeks, a gynecologist 13 weeks, a general surgeon 9 weeks, a doctor specializing in cardiovascular issues 18 weeks, an orthopedic specialist 25 weeks, and a neurosurgeon 17 weeks. No wonder so many Canadians are coming to this country for health care. Conditions have become so bad in Canada that some provincial governments have begun shipping heart bypass patients and cancer patients needing radiation treatments over the Canadian border to the U.S. to receive treatment. 65% of Canadians now purchase private health insurance, turning away from what the government is giving away for free.

Nancy, you need to start thinking outside the box. First you might want to take a look at the tenth amendment to the Constitution about the limited powers of the Federal government, and then you might want to look at your own polling numbers within your own district within your own state. We the people, Democrat, Republican and Independent, are single minded in one thing; together we know we are all Americans, and we want the liberty and freedom that goes along with living in such a glorious country. The election in New Jersey proves one thing, the desire for political freedom and absence of interference from the government in our lives crosses party lines.

Presiden't Obama's Reputation in the World

This is more of a footnote than a complete article since I heard something this morning on National Public Radio but cannot find anything else on the subject. Until I do this footnote will suffice as a reminder of what is beginning to happen around the world and their perception of President Obama. On the heels of the announcement that Palistinian President Abbas will not seek re-election the comment was made by the reporter in Jerusalem: "It is recognized in the Arab communities that President Obama is a weak President and will not be able to move the peace talks between Israel and the Palistinian people forward."

All of us in Wonderland

Have you ever felt that you have fallen down the rabbit hole along with Alice? What is going on today? Important elections are being held around the country and especially in New Jersey, Virginia and New York. The White House and the liberal press are saying that when the Conservatives win in the important races it doesn’t mean that President Obama is losing support, it just means there is a rift forming in the Republican Party between the conservative and moderate Republicans. The same people that are saying this were saying a just year ago that the Conservative movement was dead. They are also the same people that are saying that most Americans want a health care reform bill no matter the cost, the stimulus money is working, and it is not important that the only U.S. car manufacturer not to take bail out money - Ford - is the only manufacturer that is showing a profit. President Obama is indecisive on what to do in Afghanistan, believes Iran and North Korea can be reasoned with, and that Ex-Honduran President Zelaya should be put back in office.

But I don’t want to talk about the elections today. I don’t want to talk about the health care bills that may just cost Nancy Pelosi her re-election next year or at the very least her job as Speaker of the House. I won’t talk today about Ford or GM or Chrysler, and I also won’t talk about Afghanistan, North Korea and Iran.

I want to talk about Honduras because it is a very good example of President Obama’s practicing his version of foreign policy, and what he thinks his place in the world actually is.

Here is the sequence of events as President Zelaya of Honduras was Constitutionally removed from office by the Honduran government:

Since 1981 Honduras has considered itself a friend of the United States. In the '80s, it allowed the Nicaraguan Resistance or "Contras" to operate from base camps there. It lent troops for Operation Iraqi Freedom and continues to support a small U.S. military presence on Honduran soil. Economic ties are strong.

On June 28, Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was expelled from the country for multiple constitutional violations. The U.S. quickly joined an international chorus deploring the expulsion, denouncing as a military coup what the Honduran Supreme Court and Congress called for a defense of their constitution and rule of law.

The new Honduran government says it wants to end polarization, restore order, and move to elections in November, but the international community demands Zelaya's restoration to power.
The U.S. under the leadership of President Obama, finds itself running with a dangerous crowd -- one whose agenda is not necessarily dedicated to defending democracy.

Begin with ex-President Manuel "Mel" Zelaya – who won election in 2005. Formerly a centrist, this morphed into a disciple of leftist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. His popularity plunged over the next three years, with rising crime, poverty and recession. Honduran presidents are limited to one four-year term. Nonetheless, Zelaya launched an unconstitutional re-election bid that caused his removal by the government.

In backing Zelaya to the hilt, Venezuela's elective-dictator Hugo Chavez has pitched the crisis to its current level. Chavez is no champion of democracy -- at home or abroad. Since pushing through a referendum that removed Venezuela's presidential term limits, Chavez has unleashed a ferocious campaign against the domestic opposition, elected officials, and political and economic liberty.

Two weeks ago when the Iranian people rose in protest against electoral fraud, Chavez unswervingly aligned with the repressive Ayatollahs, dismissing the massive outpouring of protest as a CIA plot.

Then there's Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega, arguably the least democratic president in Latin America. Thanks to a pact with another corrupt Nicaraguan president, a constitutional change that allowed him to win office with 37% of the vote, and stolen municipal elections in November 2008, Ortega still claims a seat at the ‘democracy’ table. Ortega undoubtedly harbors a festering vendetta against pro-American Honduras. A relic of the '80s Sandinista regime, Ortega sees this crisis as pay-back time for Honduras' sins of supporting the Contras.

Another dutiful friend of Zelaya is United Nations General Assembly President Miguel D'Escoto Brockman. Formerly Ortega's foreign minister during the Sandinista era. Excellency Mr. D'Escoto has duly denounced the coup and volunteered to accompany Zelaya when he returns to Honduras.

Also flying democratic colors is Cuban dictator Raul Castro, leader of a country without a free election since 1949. On June 29 Fidel's younger brother lashed out at the "the fascists" in Honduras who had the audacity to "trample on the political rights of Hondurans." Castro's Cuba holds over 200 political prisoners, denies freedom of speech, and preserves a state security system to defend its totalitarian regime.

Finally, another senior hemispheric leader dead set against the "illegal" Honduran regime is Organization of American States (OAS) Secretary General Miguel Insulza. Propping up Zelaya in Honduras can only advance his efforts to bring Communist Cuba into the OAS.These ‘friends’ of Zelaya have one goal – to dismantle political opposition, dismantle free media, and dismantle civil society.

These are the people that President Obama has aligned himself with. What could possibly be the attraction?

Remaking John Wayne?

Remaking John Wayne?

There are certain things that are sacred in these United States and while we watch as our federal government attempts to dismantle icon after icon, business model after business model, economic theory after economic theory, and the very fiber of the Constitution I sit here and wonder what next? But as soon as I become concerned about the direction the country might be taking something happens. I see ‘We the People’ standing up and being heard and realize that no matter how much politicians today want to control our lives, taking away as many liberties and rights in their quest for ultimate power, the country and the people will push back.

You can see more and more the frustration on the faces of staunch liberals who agreed with the President when he said, “We won, and we can do what we want.” One of the leaders of the frustrated liberals is Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, whining at a microphone yesterday that we should stop fighting the Senate health care bill and let the government take care of us. His cries of desperation ran over the airwaves as he looked ahead to his next election when it looks like the people of Nevada will be booting him out of office, and all the while he will be scratching his head and saying, ‘But I did it for the common people, surely they are smart enough to understand that?’ Mr. Reid you underestimate the people of your State and of this country. Underestimating the people is happening a great deal lately.

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, now there is rare intellect –she is the Congresswoman who believes that natural gas is an excellent energy source and alternative to fossil fuels. She gives speeches where she talks to the crowd as if they are elderly and senile or in the 2nd grade. She is the one who accused the CIA of lying to her but after witnesses came forward to debunk her comments she retreated, not apologizing, just retreating. She has almost as many gaffs in her speeches as VP Biden…well maybe more. Here is her take on a Value Added Tax (VAT), a tax on manufacturers at each stage of production on the amount of value an additional producer adds to a product. She thinks it is a good idea because:
“The VAT would level the playing field between U.S. and foreign manufacturers, the latter of which do not have pension and healthcare costs included in the price of their goods because their governments provide those services, financed by similar taxes.”
"They get a tax off of that and they use that money to pay the healthcare for their own workers," Pelosi said, using the example of auto manufacturers. "So their cars coming into our country don't have a healthcare component cost.”
"Somewhere along the way, a value-added tax plays into this. Of course, we want to take down the healthcare cost, that's one part of it…"

What in the world is she saying? I guess a lot of folks are wondering the same thing since her poll numbers are less than stellar at 33% approval in her district. Speaker of the House or not there are still those upstart voters out there who just might send her packing.

Does the President’s actions help ease the minds of the centrist liberals as he plays golf and basketball and parties at the White House? Does it ease their minds with the daily deaths in Afghanistan of U.S. military troops and his still being undecided on what he wants to do? What is the cringe factor when the President takes the time to greet the fallen soldiers at Edward’s AFB as their coffins are returned from Afghanistan? He made sure the press was there. And how long did this man stay with the returning heroes? The total time he took was 15 minutes from the time the helicopter left the White House until it returned to the White House, press corps in tow. Sounds a bit like his visits to Yellowstone Park and the Grand Canyon, both seen in one day – but it shows how much he cares for the environment. He brought the family along, and like a scene from the movie National Lampoons Vacation to Wally-World they jumped out of their cars, ran to the edge, looked over, and then left. He then took his family on a real vacation, something all Americans can identify with; he went to play golf on Martha’s Vineyard (also not a very smart choice given politicians and their histories there).

To his credit Bill Clinton figured it out. He worked with businesses not against them, and that included the Chamber of Commerce. He knew that healthcare was a topic that Americans didn’t want to be messed around with and he put it on a back burner. He spoke to any news channel that wanted to listen and never singled out any people as enemies of the state. He was doing what he was elected to do – please the people enough that they would re-elect him.

The liberal media has had its opinions, one of which was that Conservatism was dead. Conservatism is not dead for all of you willing to start the funeral marches, it just needed a wake-up call much the same way a man named Jimmy from Plains, Georgia opened the door for Ronald Reagan to walk through.

If the far left in this country hasn’t received the message yet wait until the next set of elections and realize that what Thomas Jefferson said two hundred years ago is as true today as it ever was, “A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.”
And as for John Wayne? Hollywood is in the process of remaking True Grit with Matt Damon and Josh Brolin. They have the freedom to do so just like we the people have the freedom not to spend our money to see it.

Red and Yellow?

Did I just hear it right that the Empire State Building is celebrating the rise of Communist China by lighting their building with Red and Yellow lights? What's next the celebration of the rise of the Soviet Union?

An Open Letter to National Public Radio

This morning your news people described the current government of Honduras as de facto. Perhaps you should look up the meaning of the word. "Without being officially established" is not how you should describe the constitutionally selected President Micheletti. Ex-President Zelaya attempted to hold a non-binding referendum. Congress and the Supreme Court OF HONDURAS had deemed the plebiscite unconstitutional and prohibited the execution of such poll. The armed forces of Honduras arrested Zelaya, at his home, on the morning of June 28, 2009, the date of the scheduled vote, which the military chief had refused to coordinate. Per order of the country's Supreme Court Zelaya was held in an airbase outside Tegucigalpa before being flown to San José, Costa Rica. Roberto Micheletti, the former President of the Honduran Congress and a member of the same party as Zelaya, was sworn in as President by the National Congress on the afternoon of Sunday June 28 for a term that ends on January 1, 2010. Democratic elections are to be held in Honduras in November. So you all tell us what, in this process, has not been "officially established."

As an aside the government of the United States says it will not recognize the November elections and Zelaya should be allowed to resume his postition as dictator, excuse me, President. We can sleep well knowing that Hugo Chavez approves of the United States position on the matter as do all other dictators in South America.

OK, So the UN is at it Again

OK,

So the UN is chastising Israel again for violating the human rights of the Hamas. Forget Sudan. Forget North Korea. Forget Burma. Forget Iran. This is it, folks. Israel has become a singular axis of evil.

Human Rights Watch, World Report, January, 2009 (Washington, DC) – “The incoming Obama administration will need to put human rights at the heart of foreign, domestic, and security policy if it is to undo the enormous damage of the Bush years.” They went on, “Today, the most energetic diplomacy on human rights comes from such places as Algiers, Cairo, and Islamabad, with backing from Beijing and Moscow.”

Soooooo forget the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sri Lanka, Burma, Cuba, Uzbekistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe. The human rights watchers have told it like it is….good guys are China and Moscow and Egypt and Algeria…bad guys are the United States and Israel.

Even Presidential Advisor Brzezinski had a comment about Israeli jets attacking nuclear facilities in Iran: “Well, we have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren’t just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not.”

Sooooo the United States will not only go back on its word to install a missile defense shield in eastern Europe we will install our jet fighters as a last line in the defense of Iran.

To quote someone who has a better handle on what is currently going on with our government let’s call on Alice in Wonderland: “If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nonthing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn’t. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t be, it would. You see?”

Yes, Alice. It appears we have all fallen down the rabbit hole.

Response to a Wall Street Journal Article on Conservatism Winning the Battle on Health Care

Gee and here I thought Conservatism was dead. Just goes to show ya...

Perhaps the reason that the Democrats are so disjointed is because they know that if they 'tell it like it is' to the citizens of this country regarding health care they would be in even more trouble than they are now? Perhaps they realize that having Obama on TV every day and saying the same 'nothing' is getting tiresome even for the most loyal of Democrats? Perhaps the idea that the President and Congress would be on a different health care plan than whatever Congress comes up with for the rest of us might be a reason that the general public are angry?

You left out the most important reason for the disgruntled citizens of this country, whether Republicans or Democrats, and it doesn't have anything to do with Limbaugh or Beck. The people in the White House don't realize that the people outside the beltway are not stupid and shouldn't be taken for granted. WE DON’T WANT TO BE PUSHED AROUND OR TOLD WHAT TO DO OR HOW TO LIVE! Obama said the he won the election so he can do what he wants. That is hogwash and we know it. That is not how this country works and the more the President stomps up and down like a spoiled child to try to get his way on health care the more opposition he will see. The country does not work that way. Checks and balances don’t work that way. And the Constitution was definitely not designed to work that way.

The folks up for re-election next year had better check their poll numbers and realize that this isn't Canada, or Britain, or Cuba, or Venezuela. This is the United States of America.


Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said:

“Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficial…The greater dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”

Political Economy

Murphy’s Law of policy making: The costs of economic policy are always higher than promised and the benefits are always lower. Actually it wasn’t Murphy but Phaedrus, 2000 years ago, that made the observation.

How will a government run health care system benefit consumers of medical services? Let’s look at the track record of our government in the past when they attempted to modify the behavior of the citizens in this country.

Back in the 1970’s there was a gasoline shortage due to a so-called energy crisis. OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries), the oil cartel, succeeded in raising the prices of petroleum products – including gasoline – to record-high levels. Consumers reacted by conserving their use of gasoline. What did the government do? Congress responded by enacting legislation mandating energy conservation as the law of the land. One of these laws was the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) standard. It required each passenger car sold in the U.S. must meet a federally mandated fuel economy standard.

Conserving gas is a good thing, just like low priced health care is a good thing. But what are the costs associated with government involvement? With their CAFÉ standards auto manufacturers began to build smaller, lighter cars, cars that were more easily damaged in accidents and more costly to repair. They also began to design engines that were less responsive and more difficult to repair as well, making the operation of the newer vehicles more expensive for consumers to operate.

But the costs of the CAFÉ standards are measured not just in terms of the dollars and cents of reduced economic efficiency but also in terms of the people whose lives are lost when they are involved in accidents. For every 500-pound decrease in weight of a vehicle the percentage of fatalities in that vehicle goes up 14%. That translates to an increase of 3,000 deaths every year in automobile accidents and 15,000 serious non-fatal accidents per year.

And what did the consumers do? They began purchasing pickup trucks and SUV’s. By 2002 the market share for SUV’s and other light trucks had reached fully 50 percent of the 17 million passenger vehicles. And with the addition of the SUV’s that used a great deal more gas than the smaller fuel-efficient cars they also posed a greater risk to the smaller cars on the road.

But why was the law originally enacted? It would have been much more efficient to tax gasoline to drive usage of the product down and protect the environment. The structure of the law, though, suggested a different motive by our government. The CAFÉ standards looked at domestic and foreign cars differently, and directly insulated the U.S. auto industry from the rigors of foreign competition.

So what is going to happen to the health care system in this country when the President and Congress try again to control what is consumed by it’s citizens – this time timely medical treatment and choices for doctors and hospitals? I don’t believe it will get that far. There is one all-important goal to politicians in this country right now and it isn’t the altruistic ideal of health care for everyone, it is to get re-elected. They know that the people of this country from across the political spectrum have found their voices and will take their anger and exasperation to the polls next year.

And the next time a SUV or mini-van takes your parking place just remember: Their owners are just trying to prevent Congress from killing you to save jobs in Detroit.

AND IN THE HEADLINES THIS MONTH...

Mississippi police use taser and handcuffs on wayward emu

Naked man holds drunken intruder at gunpoint

Massachusetts postal worker admits to stealing 30,000 DVD’s

SC cheerleader hunts and kills 10 foot long alligator

Football game called when sinkhole opens

SC mayor orders no chase policy for police

Zombies march for charity

Woman in golf cart charged with DWI

NJ may ban chain link fences

Pissed off Virginia police aim to flush out urinal thieves

Obama will not sign a health care bill that adds one dime to the deficit

Government builds the Center for Comparative Effectiveness

Research to conduct, support and synthesize research to define our health care services

Government will build registries and data networks from medical records AND The Attorney General will have access to all medical records

There will be mandated Healthy People & National Public Health Performance Standards

U.S. to act on Climate

And

Government will increase funding to investigate waste, fraud, and abuse

What's in a Rule Book? "That which we call a rose..."

Let’s talk baseball. I am a Dodger fan and have been for a very long time – just to set the record straight. So Manny Ramirez is up at the plate. The Dodgers are playing the Diamondbacks. The Dodgers are attempting to stay ahead of the Colorado Rockies (my husband’s favorite team) in the race to the pennant for their division. Every game at this point in the season is crucial. Ramirez strikes out and tosses the bat down in frustration and while reaching to pick it up the umpire says, “You are out of here.” Thrown out of the game. Thrown out of the game in the second inning? What is going on here? Where is the rule book?

Baseball Rule Book in Summation

Throwing the bat on a swing

Young players quite often let go of the bat during or after a swing and sometimes hit another player. There is no rule that covers this situation. It is a safety issue and may be handled under the authority of rule 9.01(c) which gives the umpire authority to rule on anything not specifically covered in the rules.

Quite often I hear that umpires call the batter out for doing this. Sometimes it is after a warning and sometimes without. This is not correct. The defense hasn't earned an out. The batter should be called out, only if the throwing of the bat interfered with an attempted play by the defense.

Where does out mean eject from the game?


Now let’s talk the U.S. Government. Since when is the rule book thrown out, especially by the Supreme Court, the highest Court in the United States. According to the Supreme Court’s own ‘rulebook’ under Part One, Rule Four, Sessions and Quorum: Open sessions of the Court are held beginning at 10 a.m. on the first Monday in October of each year, and thereafter as announced by the Court. Today is the ninth day of September, 2009, and it is a Wednesday and the Court is meeting to discuss campaign finance reform. If the highest Court in the land has thrown out their own rule book just how much confidence should ‘We the People’ have in our government as a whole?

Are We Men or Mice?

According to Julie Rovner on NPR the other day anyone who uses scare tactics to change the minds of the public about healthcare reform is using tactics common to rodents. The scare tactics are used, according to our 'public' broadcast system, only by those who disagree with a government run health care plan. Put aside the fact that the President tries to frighten the public with every speech, but NPR has taken the diatribe ten steps further when they interview some obscure professor who studies ultrasound emitted from rodents. According to the 'professor' rats have a way of sending out ultrasonic waves that warn other rats that there is danger ahead.

So our state-owned media is likening dissidents to rodents. Is that bad cheese I smell?

This Makes Me Sick

According to the Wall Street Journal and I won't even paraphrase or make a comment,

"President Obama has promised a "new era of transparency" in Washington, so perhaps he should talk to the Senate about getting with his program. On July 15, six weeks ago, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee passed an amended $1 trillion health-care bill, with acting Chairman Chris Dodd calling it a "historic achievement." Too bad the committee won't reveal this history even to other Senators, much less to the public.

Three weeks ago Republicans on the committee wrote Mr. Dodd "to reiterate our request for a full copy of the bill as amended, in the four-week mark-up." Mr. Dodd has refused to comply. The Senate bill that is available on the committee Web site is 790 pages long. While that is some 300 pages shorter than the House health bill, that's in part because it doesn't include nearly 200 amendments that passed when the committee redrafted the bill. Amended sections of the bill might as well be written in invisible ink.

The whole process was so haphazard that at one point during the committee mark-up Barbara Mikulski, the Democrat from Maryland, declared: "Giving me language on little pieces of paper on which I'm going to commit the sacred fortunes and honor of the United States for decades, this is not the way to go. We can't do this on the backs of envelopes.""

What Could Go Wrong?

We're going to pass a Health Care Plan written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it, signed by a president that also hasn't read it, and who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's nearly broke.

What possibly could go wrong?

****************

Two Quotes to Ponder:

"Life's tough......it's even tougher if you're stupid." -- John Wayne

"We live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it." -- Barack Obama

Unfortunately, we are now beginning to understand what the second quote means and what the first says about us.

Tax and Spend - Why not admit it if it is so good for us?

In 2009, Washington will spend $30,958 per household–the highest level in American history–and under President Obama’s budget, the figure will rise above $33,000 by 2019.

The White House brags that it will cut the deficit in half by 2013. The President does not mention that the deficit has nearly quadrupled this year. Merely cutting it in half from that bloated level would still leave budget deficits twice as high as under President Bush.

The public national debt–$5.8 trillion as of 2008–is projected to double by 2012 and nearly triple by 2019. Thus, America would accumulate more government debt under President Obama than under every President in American history from George Washington to George W. Bush combined.

And now for the real kicker: none of these numbers include the costs of Obamacare which would create another $1.5 trillion health care entitlement on top of our existing unsustainable entitlement obligations.

For those who say we really need the health care and other entitlements the government wants to 'give' us I have to ask: What about our children and their children? Are they entitled to the higher taxes to help pay for all of the 'free' stuff? Do people actually believe that the government running health care won't raise all of our taxes? Perhaps those in favor of a government takeover of health care should stop thinking about the right now and think in terms of this country ten or twenty years from now.

Beginning tomorrow I will be examining H.R. 3200 and you will be able to determine the ramifications to your family for generations to come.

Politics as Usual for the Democrat Party

So a few years back the Democrat Party and the Boston Globe in Massachusetts decided it would be a good idea to prevent the then Governor, Mitt Romney, from selecting a new U.S. Senator if John Kerry won the election and became President. They prevented this by creating a law that called for a special election to fill the vacant Senate seat.

Fast-forward to the present, and the passing of Senator Kennedy. Within hours of his passing the State Senate in Massachusetts is now saying it is ‘open to the idea’ of over-riding the governor appointment law so that an election does not need to be held to fill Senator Kennedy’s seat, allowing the current Democrat Governor permission to fill the vacant seat. The people involved have openly commented that the reason for the about face is that voting for the very important health care bill would come up before an election could be held next Spring in Massachusetts and having the vacant seat would deprive the Democrats of a vote for a health care bill.

I would not want to deprive the Democrats of a vote - after all the President said "We won, and we can do what we want." Of course the folks speaking out at the town hall meetings and elsewhere are having a difference of opinion on that, Mr. President.

Let's Just Change the Laws of Physics

Subject: FW: Automotive Industry Challenge... ARE WE IN GOOD HANDS OR WHAT?
(From a senior level Chrysler person)

Monday morning I attended a breakfast meeting where the speaker/guest was David E. Cole, Chairman Center for Automotive Research (CAR) and Professor at the Univ. of Michigan . You have all likely heard CAR quoted, or referred to in the auto industry news lately.

Mr. Cole, who is an engineer by training, told many stories of the difficulty of working with the folks that the Obama administration has sent to save the auto industry. There have been many meetings where a 30+ year experience automotive expert has to listen to a newcomer to the industry, someone with zero manufacturing experience, zero auto industry experience, zero business experience, zero finance experience, and zero engineering experience, tell them how to run their business.

Mr. Cole's favorite story is as follows:
There was a team of Obama people speaking to Mr. Cole (Engineer, automotive experience 40+ years, Chairman of CAR). They were explaining to Mr. Cole that the auto companies needed to make a car that was electric and liquid natural gas (LNG) with enough combined fuel to go 500 miles so we wouldn't "need" so many gas stations (A whole other topic). They were quoting BTUs of LNG and battery life that they had looked up on some website.

Mr. Cole explained that to do this you would need a trunk FULL of batteries and a LNG tank at big as a car to make that happen and that there were problems related to the laws of physics that prevented them from...

The Obama person interrupted and said (and I am quoting here), "These laws of physics? Whose rules are those? We need to change that. (Some of the others wrote down the name of the law so they could look it up.) We have the congress and the administration. We can repeal that law, amend it, or use an executive order to get rid of the problem. That's why we are here, to fix these sorts of issues".

Brett Lorenzo Favre

EDEN PRAIRIE, Minn. The Vikings have sold more than 3,200 season tickets since news broke Brett Favre was coming to Minnesota. That’s in approximately a 24-hour span. Chief marketing officer Steve LaCroix said the team has sold about 11,000 single-game tickets during that time as fans clamor over the arrival of the veteran quarterback. There are roughly 6,000 season tickets remaining. The Vikings had to race to beat the blackout deadline (couldn’t fill the stadium) for several games last season, including needing two extensions from the NFL for the first-round playoff game against Philadelphia.

Merchandise is also moving. LaCroix said hundreds of pre-orders for Favre jerseys were placed online Tuesday. The purple No. 4s were to show up in stores on Wednesday. “It’s fun to be part of this and have the fans react the way that they have. To see them outside lining the streets (waving and trying to catch a glimpse as the car carrying Farvre made its way from the airport to the stadium) was something unexpected, but obviously pretty cool,” LaCroix said.

As soon as Vikings coach Brad Childress picked up Favre from the airport, the Vikings were on the phone with Reebok to get an order of No. 4 jerseys with his name on the back. The apparel company sent a truckload from its factory in Indianapolis to stock stores at malls in the Twin Cities, and more are on the way. LaCroix said that more than 200,000 people bought Favre’s Jets jersey last year, and the demand for the Vikings version figures to be even higher. “He was right up there at the top of jersey sales and so we’re ready,” he said.

********
Now there are some sportswriters who wonder why all of the excitement? What were the Vikings thinking in begging Favre to return to football? Doesn’t Favre realize he is over the hill and too old to play the game? They don’t talk about his turning the Jets program around last season, selling out season tickets in New York for the first time in years, or moving the Jets from a win/loss record of 4 and 12 to 9 and 7. Some sportswriters just scratch their head and don’t understand.

And then there are some sportswriters who do understand. When legendary sportswriter Burt Sugar was asked why should any team want an old player like Brett Favre he threw his hands into the air and said, “Would anyone tell Babe Ruth he was too old to play?”

Are Our Tax Dollars Building the Economy of ... Mexico?

For all those folks in Michigan who were pushing so hard for a bail out of GM and Chrysler because they were worried about their jobs - you can sit back and collect those unemployment checks and wonder what happened. We were all told that a bail out of the big two car companies was necessary since the country could not remain solvent under the onslaught of more layoffs if GM and Chrysler went out of business.

The American people were also told that the environment would be saved by Chrysler building the newest and most innovative 'green' car for the roads of America - the Fiat. As a reminder, our government and the United Auto Workers own a majority of the stock in both companies.

And what decisions have been made by the government and the UAW to protect the workers of America? According to the Wall Street Journal, Chrysler is going to be using our tax dollars - that helped to bail them out - to build Fiats...in Mexico, employing Mexican people. Granted Chrysler's infusion of our tax dollars was called a 'bail out' not a 'stimulus' but what the heck is going on here? I think it is called lying to get control and then doing what you want after that. Sounds like health care reform.

***

Personally I believe a company should build it's product anywhere it wants to, whether domestically or in a foreign country, to maximize profits. What I don't believe in is our government going into partnership with a union, selling themselves as protecting American auto workers, and doing whatever else it takes to gain control of private businesses.

Fairness, Justice, and the Public Interest

“Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficial…The greater dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

What is in the public interest? This seems to be at the heart of the debate over the Health Care Bill (H.R. 3200) . The public interest refers to the common well-being or general welfare, and is central to policy debates, politics, democracy and the nature of government itself. While nearly everyone claims that aiding the common well-being or general welfare is positive, there is little, if any, consensus on what exactly constitutes the public interest. The Health Care Bill (H.R. 3200) explains that the interests, or rights, of all of the people in our society should be paramount. Is it reasonable to assume you can please everyone all of the time? And what are the costs and what are the benefits to individual liberties when trying to enforce a health care bill?

In his A Theory of Justice, John Rawls used a social contract argument to show that justice, and especially distributive justice, is a form of fairness: an impartial distribution of goods. Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others. In other words justice is a form of fairness which provides basic liberties to individuals.

Rawls’ principle requires stringent protections for certain specific liberties. He states, “Fairness is justice, and justice must not be stifled or rejected.”
Can we look at justice in terms of the Health Care Bill? Will tighter restrictions lower the costs of health care and provide medical treatment for everyone whether they want it or not, and at what cost to individual liberty? There is disagreement from economists and political scientists over whether government intervention is actually in the public interest.

Nobel Prize winning economist Friedrich Hayek said, in an interview with Thomas Hazlett of the American Enterprise Institute, in June of 1992, “…the idea that things ought to be designed in a “just” manner means, in effect, that we must abandon the market and turn to a planned economy in which somebody decides how much each ought to have, and that means, of course, that we can only have it at the price of the complete abolition of personal liberty.”

Philosopher Thomas Nagel stated that, “the range of posibilities or likely courses of life that are open to a given individual are limited to a considerable extent by his birth…his genetic endowment.” He continues, “There is nothing wrong with the State tinkering with that distribution when attempting to equalize benefits to individuals.”

Thomas Sowell explains, in The Quest for Cosmic Justice, that the “tinkering” mentioned by Nagel in the name of social justice is actually going beyond a social justice and attempting to produce a justice for the Cosmos, which cannot be achieved. Sowell and Hayek would probably agree with critics of the any health care reform bill that the current evolution of the health care system in the U.S. has already allowed the ‘invisible hand’ phenomenon to work in the marketplace of medical treatment, creating the finest medical care in the world, something to be thankful for not ‘overhauled’ for the purposes of giving government even more control over our lives.

Death Panels in H.R. 3200

If you believe the media, Sarah Palin is a mediocre intellect, if even that, while President Obama is brilliant. So how did she manage to best him in this debate? Part of the explanation is that disdain for Palin reflects intellectual snobbery more than actual intellect. Still, Obama's critics, in contrast with Palin's, do not deny the president's intellectual aptitude. Intelligence, however, does not make one immune from hubris.

While the President was denying the section on death panels existed in the health care reform bill the Senate was saying that they would take that section out of their health care reform bill.

House Health Care 1000+ Pages, Declaration of Independence 1344 Words

The house health care bill is 1000+ pages and the Declaration of Independence is 1344 words. One is a confusion of legal-eze that is trying to create a health care system giving the federal government unprecedented control over our lives and the other much smaller document created what has become the most powerful country in the world. The current idealistic arguments fall into two categories, the folks that believe government should be taking care of us from the cradle to the grave and the other that believes in "unalienable rights," the absolute rights of individuals to personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property.

“Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficial…The greater dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offencesFor abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

How NY Times Have Changed

This doesn't need explanation but it is a good lead in for our discussions on the House of Representatives Health Care Bill.

The Death of the Canadian Model

by Russ Roberts on February 26, 2006
in Health

Proponents of single-payer health care reform in the United States have long pointed toward Canada as a model for the US to emulate. The New York Times reports that the Canadian system is imploding. A recent Candian Supreme Court decision allowed private health care (oh, the shame, the horror) and as a result, Canadians tired of waiting for radiation therapy, eye surgery and hip replacements have turned toward private alternatives springing up under the new legal environment.

The Times reports:

Canada remains the only industrialized country that outlaws privately financed purchases of core medical services. Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other politicians remain reluctant to openly propose sweeping changes even though costs for the national and provincial governments are exploding and some cancer patients are waiting months for diagnostic tests and treatment.

But in a Supreme Court ruling last June it found that a Quebec provincial ban on private health insurance was unconstitutional when patients were suffering and even dying on waiting lists. This appears to have become a turning point for the entire country. "The prohibition on obtaining private health insurance is not constitutional where the public system fails to deliver reasonable services," the court ruled.

The key paragraph:

The country’s publicly financed health insurance system — frequently described as the third rail of its political system and a core value of its national identity — is gradually breaking down. Private clinics are opening around the country by an estimated one a week, and private insurance companies are about to find a gold mine.

Fast forward to 2009 and clinics specializing in everything from Audiology to Weight Loss are now in place throughout Canada. http://www.findprivateclinics.ca/

A Reinstituted Fairness Doctrine?

In 1934 the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was created as a government agency in charge of regulating the airwaves, and administering the “public interest” standard. In other words, interests of the public should have priority over interests of the broadcasters. This was important to its advocates to further democracy, minimize advertising abuses, and encourage diverse programming and airing of controversial views - making broadcasters accountable to the “public”. The policy of the FCC that became known as the Fairness Doctrine was an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair, allowing opposing viewpoints to be aired along with editorial opinions. The personal attack rule, an application of the Fairness Doctrine, required stations to notify persons when personal attacks were made on them in discussions of controversial public issues. In the 1980’s the industry was de-regulated, the Fairness Doctrine was dissolved, giving way to what was called “the marketplace model.”

The Fairness Doctrine has been both defended and opposed on First Amendment grounds. Backers of the doctrine claim that listeners have the right to hear all sides of controversial issues. They believe that broadcasters will resort to partisan coverage if allowed to broadcast without government intervention. Opponents of the Fairness Doctrine say that the doctrine lessens, rather than increases, diversity of views, due to the fact that only safe issues would be broadcast. Also, the additional expense incurred by the broadcasters in allowing for “balanced viewpoints” that are not subsidized by advertising dollars have in the past, and might again, completely rid the airwaves of controversial issues, to the detriment of the public.

Looming in the background is the question of who would determine what was fair. In his research paper, The Fairness Doctrine: A Solution in Search of a Problem, Adrian Cronauer wrote, “Fairness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.” Depending on ones political viewpoints some might consider National Public Radio a moderate broadcaster, while others would find them to be more “left of center” in their choice of material. The opposite might be considered true in the case of FOX news.

The specter of the Fairness Doctrine keeps coming back to haunt those who support First Amendment rights. First, as soon as a broadcaster arouses public passion by covering a controversial issue he will receive an avalanche of complaints, all wanting equal time to refute what they believed were unfair one-sided ideas being broadcast over the public airwaves. The costs in time, energy and legal fees have in the past caused the broadcasters to stay away from controversial issues, and property rights and a free market economy were being sacrificed because of government intervention in the form of the Fairness Doctrine.

Second, the Doctrine’s supporters seem not to appreciate just how much the broadcast world has changed since the early days of radio and television. With the proliferation of informational resources and technology, the number of broadcast outlets available to the public has increased steadily. In such an environment, it is hard to understand why the federal government must police the airwaves to ensure that differing views are heard. The result of a reinstituted Fairness Doctrine would not be “fair” at all.

Fairness, Justice and the Public Interest

As the poll numbers for President Obama continue to sink I predict that the Democrats are going to try to deflect public opinion from Obama, the stalled health care plan, the economy and other topics and on to one of two of their favorite subjects to denigrate: Sarah Palin and talk radio. I will talk about Governor Palin at a later date and spend the next few weeks writing about the House and Senate’s plans to bring back the Fairness Doctrine to quiet talk radio. I should mention, in all ‘fairness’, where I get my news from: National Public Radio, Rush Limbaugh, the Wall Street Journal and the Sci Fi Channel. All together they put news as we know it in a proper perspective for me. So here goes!

Overview

For the nearly 24 years she has been in Congress, Louise Slaughter (D-NY) has fought for “fairness” on the airwaves. Her latest legislation on the topic is HR 4710, “The Media Act,” which would reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. Here is a brief excerpt from an interview that she gave to the program NOW with Bill Moyers in 2004:

BILL MOYERS: So when the fairness doctrine went down in 1986, that was the first year you came to Congress, what was the consequence of it? What happened as a result?
LOUISE SLAUGHTER: AM radio rose. It wasn't even gradual, Bill. I mean, almost immediately. And I should point out to you that when we tried to reinstate [the fairness doctrine] again in '93, one of the reasons we couldn't was that Rush Limbaugh had organized this massive uprising against it, calling it "The Hush Rush Law." Which again said that while Rush can speak and anybody that he wants to can speak on those stations, the rest of us can't. But he aroused his listeners so that they contacted their members of Congress and killed the bill, and that's not the first time we've seen that.
BILL MOYERS: And you're saying that kind of discourse is dominating America right now.
LOUISE SLAUGHTER: Dominating America and a waste of good broadcast time and a waste of our airwaves.
BILL MOYERS: Not to the people who agree with him.
LOUISE SLAUGHTER: Well, they don't hear anything else. Why would they disagree with him?
BILL MOYERS: But today, you don't have to just listen to one radio. You've got a choice of radio stations. You've got the internet. You've got the magazines. You've got how many? Five hundred channels, they say?
LOUISE SLAUGHTER: Yes. But we don't have all those people lining up to discuss what's going on, what's happening in our country. Frankly, I want every American, every single one, to understand what's happened here.
BILL MOYERS: You're saying that your fairness doctrine would simply mean that if a radio station or television station offers one position, like Rush Limbaugh, on a bill or a campaign of President or an election, they should also have people who disagree with Rush Limbaugh?
LOUISE SLAUGHTER: Absolutely. They should not be putting their own bias and their own feelings out on their radio station because they think they own it. It has to be done as a public trust and in the public interest.
BILL MOYERS: Who decides what fairness is? What is fair? What's the truth?
LOUISE SLAUGHTER: Well, in political circles, it's the equal time piece where if one candidate gets to say something on the air, equal time, no matter what it is, is given to the opponent, again if asked. But fairness can't be that difficult. Surely, we have evolved to the stage here in this century that we can understand some sort of balance, some sort of sense. To me it is a feeling that my country is spilling out hatred and lies on many, many of these stations to people who hear nothing but that, who never believe or hear any countervailing opinion. I think this is one of the most dangerous things in the world, and it actually cuts out a point of view of half of America. And anything that we own as Americans, as a government, like the radio and television waves, should not be used in that way.

The Congresswoman believes talk radio is, “Dominating America and a waste of good broadcast time and a waste of our airwaves…it is a feeling that my country is spilling out hatred and lies on many, many of these stations to people who hear nothing but that…this is one of the most dangerous things in the world…”

In his research paper, The Fairness Doctrine: A Solution in Search of a Problem, Adrian Cronauer wrote, “Fairness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.”

And now, Fairness, Justice and the Public Interest!

Is There Such a Thing as a Free Lunch?

Trickle Down Economics

Question: Who is going to pay for a government run health care system? Or it might be better to ask who is going to have a larger percentage of their income taken away to help defer costs for government run health care? Answer: It is not just the people earning over $250,000 per year.

In a small town in the mountains a group of contractors who largely earn much less than the magic $250,000 number were sitting in a bar discussing how great it will be to have free health care. Across town the man who owns the small local grocery store on the corner who has been in the neighborhood for decades is talking to his wife about how wonderful free health care will be, as is the farmer in the Midwest.

Most people in this country believe that the U.S. has the best healthcare system in the world. People around the world agree that the U.S. has the finest healthcare system, and will come here for treatment if they can afford to. Mother Theresa came to the Scripps Hospital in La Jolla, as did the Emperor of Japan. The wife of the Canadian Prime Minister came to the U.S. for medical treatment, preferring our hospitals and doctors to the Canadian system. People in this country that are in favor of a new government-run healthcare system basically want the system we have financed by someone else – some rich guy somewhere that should spread their wealth. People that are not in favor of a government run system know exactly who will be paying for the new program, and it is not just those earning over $250,000.

For example:

Company A is doing well and with the profits it decides to purchase new equipment, hire more employees, pay the employees that they have higher salaries, expand the company’s physical offices, and any number of other things to increase their profitability. They contact manufacturers and sub-contractors, Company’s B, C, and D for example, for the additional computers, office supplies, automobiles and farming equipment. Company B, C and D benefit directly from how profitable Company A is, and they also have employees that they are paying and equipment and supplies that they need to purchase.

And what about those contractors that are sitting at the bar in the small town? They are hired by Company A to build additional office space for the new employees and equipment, the small grocer in the neighborhood will have additional customers with new people moving into the area being employed by Company A, and the farmer in the Midwest will be supplying more products to the grocer. The employees of Company A will send their children to school, pay their taxes, go to shopping malls and to the movies, and spend a portion of their earnings for a home, a car, a new television set, and on occasion pack up the car and go to a baseball game or on vacation.

What happens when the profits of Company A are hit with higher taxes to pay for a government-run healthcare system? Will they expand their offices? Will they hire additional employees? Will they increase the salaries of the employees they have? What about Companies B, C and D? And what about those contractors sitting in the bar in the small town in the mountains and the grocery store down the street and the farmer in the Midwest?

An economic theory proposed by Wolpert and Macready in the 1930’s stated that, “There is no free lunch.” It means that whatever goods and services are provided, they must be paid for by someone - i.e. you don't get something for nothing. There is also no such thing as free healthcare.

Senators Want New Health Care Plan for Everyone but Themselves

On Tuesday, the Senate health committee voted 12-11 in favor of a two-page amendment courtesy of Republican Tom Coburn that would require all Members and their staffs to enroll in any new government-run health plan. Yet all Democrats -- with the exceptions of acting chairman Chris Dodd, Barbara Mikulski and Ted Kennedy via proxy -- voted nay. Judd Gregg was the only GOP Senator to oppose it, on humanitarian grounds. He is quoted in the Wall Street Journal as saying about the public option "it will be so bad that I don't think anyone should be forced to join."

The Congressional Elite

JFK had the “New Frontier”, LBJ had the “Great Society”, and Barack Obama has his "New Foundation." Big plans and unlimited ego in an administration convinced it can apply beaurocratic solutions to huge and unpredictable systems -- the banking, auto and health-care industries, for instance, or the supposed man-made alterations in the climate. These are people deeply impressed by their own smarts, the ones for whom the word "elite" has been given. A group of people claiming to possess higher abilities or simply an in-group who granted themselves extra privileges, discriminating against others they deem less worthy.

Today I want to talk about the ‘elite’ of Congress. Congress is elitist in the extreme, and evidence of this can be seen every day on Capitol Hill. Congress doesn’t see itself as working for the people as public servants, but governing them. They do what they want, not what their constituants want.

These elite, these men and women on the Hill that are carefully coiffed, clothed, made up for television cameras, move apart from the tourists guarded by their own police force. They have burdened the people with massive regulations and have tried to exempt themselves from all of them. Everything that they do is geared towards raising money for re-relection, accepting favors from lobbyists, and doing their best to keep the public out of the loop – after all they are the elite, the annointed ones, the ones who will take care of us as long as we let them dominate all aspects of our lives.

They have created procedural screens behind which they can conduct business without interference from the public. When the public is allowed to view what is going on what they see is orchestrated ‘hearings’ with select witnesses, not to mention the speeches given to no one in particular as each member of Congress takes their turn at the podium to deliver their version of why a bill should be voted for or against. Congress has created a legislative system which goes its own way, forming legislation on its own terms and with input only from those other elites, the lobbyists and pressure groups, which it chooses to hear. Nancy Pelosi is a prime example of elitism off the deep end. Let us not forget that she is the one who oversees energy legislation in the House of Representatives, and I quote from an interview she gave with Tom Brokow: “You need a transition as you are going to go from fossil fuels, you can’t do it overnight, but you must transition. These investments in wind, solar, biofuels and natural gas, these are the real alternatives.” I guess some elites are not real clear that natural gas is a fossil fuel, but then do they really care about the details?

Ralph Kinney Bennett, of the Heritage Foundation, wrote an article entitled “A Congressional Priesthood,” where he talks about a conversation he had with Bob Potts that illustrated the way Congress has become a world apart:

Mr. Potts said, "Senator Armstrong was on the Treasury and Postal Subcommittee of Appropriations, so I would go to all those hearings with him. One morning we had a meeting in which the Secretary of the Treasury was testifying. It was just a small room and there weren't many people there. While he was testifying, a man and his family, tourists, came into the room. It was just a man and his wife and their kids, kind of thrilled, I guess, to be seeing democracy at work close up."

And he continued, "At one point the Secretary had to leave the room to make a phone call or something and there was a break. This man got up and raised his hand and said, "Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman," very quietly and politely. He said he knew something about the point they were discussing and he had something helpful he would like to say. We all ignored him. I remember the staff people who were there, just regular guys, good down-to-earth people, but suddenly they were part of the different world, the different culture, and we ignored this guy.

Finally some staff guy felt, "Well, I'd better do something," and he went down and spoke to the man for a minute. He came back and we asked, "What did you tell him?" He said, "I told the man that if he had anything to say he could sign up to testify and come back in a couple of months."

Why didn't we just let this guy say what he had to say? It wouldn't have hurt anything. But no, we were the Senate and he was just a citizen."

We can now see that Congress has stepped even further into the role of elitist as they try to push through legislation that they haven’t even read, or in some cases they are voting on legislation that hasn’t been written yet, legislation that is going to raise taxes and hinder business development in this country. At some point the people of this country, the ones that Machiavelli said would not put up with being dominated by elitists are going to say “STOP.” It is already happening. Beware, Congress and Mr. President, for We the People are the heart and soul of this country, not you. You work for us and we can fire you without reason every election year.