Archive

Politics

OPINION PIECE – Last-Minute 2016 National & Utah County Information & Recommendations for the Conscience-Driven Voter

U.S. President:

Hillary Clinton: Disaster – Criminal, Liar. Tries to prevent anybody outside her tight circle being able to find anything that she does because everything she does is unlawful and/or unethical. Any (Wiki) leaks to outside her circle, she goes into desperate cover-up mode and total denial. A disciple of Saul Alinsky (who dedicated his book, “Rules for Radicals” to Satan), Hillary has no real principles or values; instead, she substitutes for them “the end justifies the means” philosophy. In this phrase, “the end” for Hillary is wealth and power, of which she can never get enough. When she’s faced with the choice between the National Security of the U.S. versus her ability to hide her misdeeds from the light of day, Hillary chooses to hide her real self from public view at the cost of revealing national secrets to unfriendly foreign powers and putting our agents at grave risk.

Hillary has dodged so many silver bullets in her career that she believes she’s invincible; she has never been forced to take responsibility for her many egregious errors or for her intentional lawlessness. Most people believe she will never have to do so, no matter the extent or severity of her crimes. Hillary tells so many lies, including to herself, she no longer remembers what’s a lie and what’s the truth. Unlike Trump, Hillary does have many years of experience working in government; unfortunately, it has all been disaster after disaster.

Donald Trump: Disaster – Showman, Reality TV Star, Successful Businessman. Trump is completely unburdened of truth, consistency, ethics, etiquette, empathy and the facts. He is devoid of scruples, honor, character, integrity or any other redeeming qualities. In fact, he is almost the same person as Hillary, except he hasn’t had the same 30+ years of disastrous experience in government. Trump says a shotgun load of different things, and people like to select one thing he’s said that they consider to be fantastic and, based on projection of their own beliefs onto him; thus many become hard and fast Trump supporters. Many others feel obligated to vote Republican. Most people know in their hearts that Trump has done nothing to prepare himself to merit the Presidency. Enough said.

Gary Johnson: Low-information candidate, mish-mash of indistinct policies, not really libertarian.

Darrell Castle: Ostensibly guided by correct principles, but unable to reach many Americans with his message. No real contender.

Evan McMullin: Solid Republican, most views conservative, no real contender. BUT-If enough voters vote for McMullin that he wins 1+ states electoral votes, possible that neither Clinton or Trump will get the 270 electoral vote needed to win presidency – then the House of Representatives decides who will be next President. The House can only select someone to be the next President who is a significantly better choice (no one chosen could possibly be worse) than either major party candidate.

All Others: Never any real contenders here.

U.S. Senate

Mike Lee: Solid Constitutional Conservative Republican. Works hard to restrict government overreach, reclaim constitutionally-protected rights such as the right to privacy, cut spending and balance the budget, reduce taxes and regulation to promote economic opportunity, growth and prosperity for all, with the consequent expansion of jobs, improving incomes, and also to overhaul our currently unfair criminal justice system. A vote for Mike Lee is a vote for all Americans.

Misty Snow: Her priorities are to clean up our air, provide paid maternity leave, make healthcare and medications affordable and raising the minimum wage. All are old and tired, many are already tried and failed, and others have been destructive, such as shutting down the coal industry in America causing hundreds of thousands to lose their livelihood. Excessive government taxation, regulation and overspending continue to stifle economic opportunity.

Obamacare alone has suppressed economic growth, especially with small businesses (the heart and soul of our economy); it has produced the firing of thousands of full-time workers or placing them on part-time status with drastically reduced income. Many workers have taken on two jobs in order to pay their bills. While some Americans previously lacked access to healthcare, with heavy taxpayer subsidies for the individual and the health insurance companies, Obamacare still fails to provide healthcare coverage to a large number of Americans.

In addition, currently many have “healthcare coverage”, but this coverage comes with a $10,000 to $20,000 deductible that the individual must pay out-of-pocket before insurance pays anything for medical care. Virtually no one shackled with an Obamacare super-high deductible has the ability to come up with this much cash. So while many now have “healthcare coverage” through Obamacare, they don’t actually get any “medical care.”

Bill Barron: Single issue is man-made Climate Change. He would further expand the bloated federal government by throwing trillions of dollars at this contrived “problem”, created by progressives to scare people into giving government more control over their lives and property in return for government “fixing” the problem. There is no untainted evidence that conclusively supports this theory and no predictions based on this theory, ones that might confirm global warming caused by mankind’s activities, have actually occurred. No merit in the issue, and candidate is no contender.

Stoney Fonua: Pleasant candidate with great smile claims to have solutions to America’s and the world’s problems that would create world peace and a millennial utopia. However, I know of nothing, save the second coming of the Messiah that can actually accomplish such an optimistic agenda. No contender.

U.S. Congressional District 3

Stephen Tryon: Christian, Decorated Veteran, Successful Businessman, Gun Owner, Author, Constitutionalist. His main issue is to start solving problems and stop blaming others (as many say “To Get Things Done” in Congress over any objections, as with Obamacare). He is also concerned about raising the minimum wage, increasing government subsidies to improve access to higher education, federal funding to subsidize local government stimulating local businesses and funneling more taxpayer dollars to Utah businesses to stimulate clean energy research.

Tryon claims to be a Constitutionalist, but he wants to throw federal dollars at everything he sees as a problem while greatly expanding government. The things he wants to do all involve the federal government acting outside the bounds set by the Constitution. When he describes himself, all adjectives used run in direct opposition to his party. He’s Christian, his party wants to abolish religious freedom. He’s former military, his party wants a weak military. He’s a businessman, his party is saturated in crony capitalism helping a few, connected big businesses, while imposing burdensome regulations and taxes on small, unconnected businesses to exacerbate unemployment and neutralize the heart of our economy. He’s a gun owner, his party wants to outlaw guns. The man is disconnected from his message.

Jason Chaffetz: Conservative Republican Leader. Chaffetz began his political career claiming every decision he would make in the House would be based on Fiscal Discipline, Limited Government, Accountability and a Strong National Defense. Over several 2 year terms in the House, Chaffetz has occasionally leaned away from his guiding principles and favored the Republican Establishment, siding with House Leadership for increased spending and expanding government, in favor of Internet Taxation and in favor of NSA Spying on All Americans. Many believe the NSA program will enhance National Defense by sacrificing natural rights to privacy and freedom from illegal search and seizure. Chaffetz has worked hard as Chair of a House Committee to hold government accountable for its actions and to weed out waste, fraud and abuse.

Utah Governor

Gary Herbert: Governor Herbert likes to give himself credit for Utah’s alleged prosperity, economic growth and low unemployment. He claims to be a Conservative Republican, however, he’s never met a federal dollar he didn’t like. He got Utah involved in the top-down, progressive federal education program, Common Core, to indoctrinate our children and remove parents and families as an influence on them. Herbert forced Common Core down Utah’s throat and when faced with resistance, he masqueraded Common Core as a Utah Core project, all because of a promise of extensive federal aid.

Herbert has promoted Medicaid expansion under Obamacare because of promised federal funds during the first few years, only to be followed by Utah taking over a tremendous financial commitment to bear all the costs of the expanded Medicaid from then on. The expansion of Medicaid means that families with much higher incomes, many who could afford and already had health insurance, would now qualify for Medicaid. Those who qualified but already had private health insurance, would cancel their policies and become dependent upon the state for medical care.

When Herbert realized that many Utahns were not in favor of imposing expensive, mandated progressive federal programs on Utah, he met with a number of focus groups and promised them that he would take their advice and work against these objectionable programs. Then he promptly went to work to disguise the federal programs to appear as Utah-initiated projects, and went about the state promoting them. Herbert’s integrity must be questioned when he says one thing, does another and then assures Utah he has done the former. In addition, Herbert reportedly has a practice of soliciting contributions in return for his influence as Governor.

Brian Kamerath: Kamerath is the Libertarian Candidate for Governor. He believes that individuals solve their problems and govern themselves best, and that when other issues come in conflict with our natural rights, individual liberty must be the primary consideration. However, he believes individual responsibility is an integral part and always accompanies individual liberty. Kamerath does not believe in the “nanny state”, or that all problems can be solved by government simply by throwing taxpayers’ money at them.

Brian is committed to ethics reform, such that the influence of the office is not bought and sold by special interests; he takes no corporate contributions to his campaign. He is firmly opposed to SB54, the Count Your Vote ‘Compromise’ that involves government unconstitutionally writing the bylaws of private political organizations and mandating “open” primaries for all parties. Kamerath also believes the legislature has made it too difficult to get a citizen initiative on the ballot. If such initiatives were facilitated instead of impeded by the bureaucracy, in anticipation of citizen action, the legislature might be more responsive to their constituents in dealing with issues that are clearly important to Utahns.

As far as education, Brian believes that Common Core, the federally-mandated and one size fits all education currently forced on Utah, does not meet the needs of all children. Instead, he favors diversity of school choice, with multiple options besides traditional schools offered, like charter and private schools, homeschooling and online education. In addition, he believes your education tax dollars should be directed to the particular school that meets your child’s needs, not necessarily the school provided according to geographical location.

Mike Weinholtz: Successful Businessman. He favors full Medicaid expansion, inclusion of mental health, dental and vision care in insurance coverage, and providing coverage for all (i.e. Obamacare on steroids or universal healthcare). Weinholtz believes legalizing medical marijuana will allow adequate treatment of almost all diseases and replace opioids (narcotics) as treatment for chronic pain to alleviate the problem of opioid overdose death. Mike has worked hard on developing specific policy proposals to address a multitude of issues.

However, his proposals appear to involve a common theme: higher taxes to support higher state spending levels for _________ (substitute here the words ‘education’, ‘healthcare’, ‘clean energy’ and ‘stimulate the economy’). Weinholtz also favors government coercion to get people, businesses and buildings in Utah to be more energy efficient, to stop using fossil fuels, to fund UTA for building more public transportation and then get people to stop using their cars and switch to public transportation, and to stop and to punish businesses or individuals that pollute.

Can all problems be solved by government throwing taxpayer dollars at them? How you might answer this question depends largely on your personal political philosophy; however, throwing multiples of what Utah spends on public schools at inner-city schools in many metropolitan areas has failed to improve these schools, and we know that this approach cannot ever solve the derivative problem of over-taxation.

Superdell Schanze: Do I really need to say anything here?

State Auditor

Mike Mitchell: Mitchell has a B.S. in Accounting and served in the U.S. Army in positions of responsibility and authority. As State Auditor he plans on holding state officials accountable for government spending and to block the waste of money on “frivolous” lawsuits, like those slowing down the implementation of Obamacare, those struggling to assert states’ rights over the 75% of Utah that remains in the grasping hands of the federal government including the maintenance of access to this land for recreational purposes, access that the national government increasingly denies. Mitchell would obstruct other states’ rights litigation to preserve religious freedom and freedom of speech, and that to assure that any federal outlawing of firearm rights would not apply to firearms manufactured and sold solely within Utah. The idea that the State Auditor should take it upon himself to thwart the will of the people in the states conducting legitimate legal action is preposterous.

Jared Green: Green would serve as State Auditor without compensation. He would audit state accounts independent of any state executive. His office would be transparent in that taxpayers would be informed how, where and what their money is spent on. Jared would seek legislation to help him put a stop to the ‘quid pro quo’ arrangements between state officials and private entities that lead to “crony capitalism” where advantages are given, by the official in exchange for lining his pockets, to the few at the expense of the many.

John Dougall: Dougall is the current State Auditor running for another term. He is a staunch fiscal conservative committed to key principles: fiscal discipline, accountability and a focus on performance. As the taxpayer’s watchdog, John has worked hard to ensure tax dollars are spent legally, effectively and efficiently. He has also fulfilled his obligations to the taxpayers by providing the public with an independent assessment of financial operations, statutory compliance and how well their tax dollars are managed. Under Dougall’s leadership, the state has maintained its AAA bond rating and its “Best-Managed” ranking.

Attorney General

Michael Isbell: Isbell believes the Utah Attorney General should be resisting unconstitutional federal laws, programs and policies such as Common Core, Gun Control, Minimum Wage Laws, Public Lands, and Obamacare. He includes in this list the War on Drugs and the War on Terror. He notes that Utah has seen a good deal of pay-to-play abuses, bribery and other corruption coming from some of Utah’s highest officials, activity that Isbell would see end. He promises to protect the public from federal laws and federal agents when they exceed lawful, constitutional bounds.

John Harper: John has many years legal experience representing people unfairly treated by large corporations (presumably this means litigation such as class action lawsuits against Pharmaceutical Businesses or other big business where the lawyers take home millions of dollars and their clients’ share is usually something like $1.32 each). Harper has also managed his law firm and spent time as Associate Dean of the University of Utah Law School. He seeks to bring independence, transparency and integrity back to the scandal-plagued office, and end unwinnable and expensive law suits (a reference to the Utah AG’s defensive actions against the various overreaching federal assaults on state’s rights including Obamacare, public lands and religious liberty).

Sean Reyes: Sean is the current Attorney General of Utah running for reelection. His priorities continue to be to protect citizens, especially children, from violent crime and drugs, to protect businesses and consumers from white collar fraud and scams, and to restore the public trust by focusing on ethics and legal excellence. Under Sean’s leadership, the office was a finalist for the Utah Ethical Leadership Award, and has received a number of other awards, including four for “Best-of-State”.

Andrew McCullough: Andrew is an attorney with many years experience defending individuals from those who would expand State power. He is currently Chair of the Utah Libertarian Party, and has served as a Board Member of the Utah ACLU. Past and current AGs have supported efforts to expand State powers at the expense of individual freedom. McCullough says he is angry at police when they use unwarranted, excessive force, and at the violation of individual rights associated with law enforcement’s “War on Drugs”. His primary issue as Attorney General would be the promotion/restoration of individual freedom.

State Treasurer

Richard Proctor: Richard wants to restore our Republic to its previous greatness under the Constitution. He believes we should stop taking federal money with its attached “strings”, and get off the federal dole. Proctor sees many court orders and executive orders as unconstitutional and argues that these should be nullified by the State. Most of these federal orders and rulings come initially with federal money, but in a year or two, the entire financial burden of the federal overreach is typically dumped in the States lap which involves the State Treasurer. Richard wants to help Utah regain her former status as a sovereign state.

Neil Hansen: Neil is a 3rd generation Utahn and former state representative running for State Treasurer. He has had extensive experience in fiscal appropriations and oversight, and in many of the areas critical to the office. Hansen plans to focus on ensuring the hard questions are asked and answered for accountability, that taxpayer money is spent wisely, that state revenue is protected and to reinstate critical checks and balances to State spending.

David Damschen: David was previously Chief Deputy State Treasurer, and has served this past year as State Treasurer. His priorities include safeguarding the States AAA Bond Rating, overseeing the prudent investment of the $12 billion in public funds, and continuing to improve the offices efficiency. Damschen has a Finance degree and 20 years experience in banking before working in the Treasurer’s office and claims to be the best qualified to maintain the tradition of excellence for which the office is known.

Voting Guide – 2016 School Board Candidate http://www.utahnsagainstcommoncore.com/2016-school-board-candidates/

It is Recommended by the Group “Utahns Against Common Core” to Vote for the School Board Candidates Listed Below – These are Candidates That:

  1. Oppose Common Core, or
  2. Seem to be the Better Choice of the Two Candidates.

District 4: DAVE THOMAS – (Northern Davis County, Southern Weber County)

District 7: SHELLY TEUSCHER – (Salt Lake City, Southern Morgan County)

District 8: RICHARD NELSON – (East Salt Lake County from I-80 to I-215 including Holladay, Millcreek, Murray, S. Salt Lake, and Sugarhouse)

District 10: DR. GARY THOMPSON – (Eastern Salt Lake County from I-215 to Draper including parts of Cottonwood Heights & Midvale, Sandy, and Draper)

District 11: LISA CUMMINS – (Southwest Salt Lake County including South Jordan, Riverton, Herriman, Bluffdale and Northwest Utah County including Cedar Fort & Fairfield)

District 12: ALISA ELLIS – (Orem, Lindon and Summit, Wasatch, Duchesne, Daggett, Uintah Counties)

District 13: SCOTT NEILSON – (Provo, Spanish Fork)

District 15: MICHELLE BOULTER – (Washington & Iron Counties)

ALPINE SCHOOL DISTRICT

Please vote for:

  1. RACHEL THACKER in seat 4.
  2. MIRIAM ELLIS in seat 6.
  3. SARA HACKEN in seat 7.

DAVIS SCHOOL DISTRICT 

Please vote for LARRY SMITH

Utah Constitutional Amendments

Utah Constitutional Amendment A – Vote Yes

This proposal would alter a few words in the “Utah Oath of Office” simply to clarify that the State referred to is the State of Utah. Currently the phrase in question is this “…the Constitution of this State”, and with the proposed change would read as this “…the Constitution of the State of Utah.” That’s it! Really! I know of no one that objects to this minor change.

Utah Constitutional Amendment B – Vote No

The Utah Constitution has a section that deals with setting up and managing the State School Fund. Those officials that worked together writing this part of the Utah Constitution agreed on a number of key points that they felt would contribute to the permanence and sustainability of the Fund, and that through plowing a good portion of the Fund’s earnings back into the Fund could provide funding for current Utah Schools and would also be able to cover the expenses of Utah Schools in the future, a time that promised increasing numbers of school age children needing more buildings to house the growth in enrollment.

In the early years of the Utah State School Fund, the Utah Constitution specified that the amount to be withdrawn and distributed from the Fund to the schools each year was to be “only the interest and dividends” while leaving the principal intact. In addition, any other Fund earnings were to be kept in the Fund; this part of earnings was to be added to the Fund to enhance its growth, growth anticipated to be required for the support of future increased numbers of children.

There is currently no limitation on the amount of money that can be distributed to the schools from the interest and dividends each year; the State could withdraw from the Fund and spend on Utah schools potentially all the interest and dividends earned in that year. Further, the State and its Agents were charged with “safely” investing money in the State School Fund. Safely means that the money in the Fund was to be invested only in low risk vehicles. Low risk investments, while being safer than most other investment products, necessarily provide the investor with a lower rate of return.

This system of spending only a portion of the earnings and placing the remainder into the Fund to promote Fund growth has worked well with substantial growth in capital while over the same period, spending from the interest and dividends has been more than enough to provide for our growing population, the increasing numbers of children and subsequently the number of new schools we have needed to build to meet our needs. And most Utahns are content with “safe”, low risk investing of the Fund—a significant loss of capital from the Fund would be devastating for our school children and for the State as well.

A number of groups have put forward proposed changes to parts of our Constitution that deal with the State School Fund. The proposed changes, Utah Constitutional Amendment B, is in 3 parts as follows:

  1. Money available for spending on our schools would include all earnings, not just interest and dividends. These additional earnings come from a number of sources such as appreciation of stock held by the Fund that is sold, producing earnings over and significantly above that of interest and dividends alone.

With attention to reinvesting a portion of earnings, the Fund has accumulated capital and now holds an estimated $2.1 B in assets. Under this amendment, first year Fund “earnings” would total $79.0 M with the plan being to distribute all earnings for school spending. Last year the amount distributed for school spending (the sum of the interest and the dividends) was $57.0 M. The amount to go for school spending next year would be the sum of the amount of interest and dividends earned ($57.0 M) plus the amount of additional earnings from other sources to be used for school spending ($22.0 M) giving a total of $79.0 M, an increase over last year of $22.0 M. While the schools would have bundles of money to spend, that same $22.0 M that will be sifted through our fingers and gone in an instant, had in previous years been one of the few items that had been reinvested in the fund and allowed to strengthen and grow the Fund.

2. A limit on withdrawals from the Fund is proposed to restrict distributions to no more than 4% of the average market value of the Fund over the past consecutive 12 months. As Fund assets are currently estimated at $2.1 B, and the amendment limits distributions to 4% of Fund value, the maximum allowable distribution around $80.0 M. This part of amendment B is being sold as a safety feature that dials down the amount of money available for school spending if the spending becomes overheated. But actually, this “safety” feature is more of an accelerator than anything else. The maximum 4% ceiling is set so high that it actually promotes a rise in excessive spending that goes on unchecked to the maximum of 150% of the previous year’s distribution.

3. The third part of Utah Constitutional Amendment B is a word change. Where the original text requires that Utah State School Fund money be invested “safely” by the State, this amendment would change the word “safely” to the word “prudently”. If you are ever involved in discussing investments with a financial advisor, the first thing they will ask you is what level of risk you are comfortable with. They often have packaged accounts that are put together by experts and you can choose the package that matches your risk comfort zone.

I think this word switch is important, because the two words refer to different risk levels: safely means low risk with a lower rate of return. Prudently means exercising good judgment but here the word refers to a step higher on the risk ladder with anticipated better rate of return. So those who were involved in setting up this fund, selected the low risk word safely, because they knew they could not bear the kind of loss that comes more easily to those accepting higher risk. The Utah State School Fund has done remarkably well considering the low level of risk the originators were willing to accept. The financial experts are no doubt advising accepting a higher risk level in order to get better “performance” from the investments. However, at the end stage of another huge bubble that’s about to burst, along with the pending crash of the dollar, perhaps now is not the best time to increase risk exposure for the Fund.

Utah State Senator Margaret Dayton wrote the argument opposing Constitutional Amendment B for the Lt. Governor’s Voter Information book. She makes a good case for continuing as we are now instead of making significant changes both on the investment side and the distribution side that are likely to result in drastic changes that will harm our ability to sustain and grow the Fund, and would likely result in less frugality and efficiency with the spending of Fund dollars. I urge you to vote no on Amendment B.

Utah Constitutional Amendment C – Vote No

Currently the Utah Constitution provides that the State, or any governmental subdivision of the State (i.e. county, city, etc.) does not pay property taxes on property they own. The State or any governmental subdivision of the State may not own all the property and equipment they use. For example, a city within the State may lease office furniture and computer equipment from a private owner. Such property that is under private ownership but is leased and used by a governmental entity does not qualify for the governmental property tax exemption; the private owner is responsible for paying property taxes on this property, even though the governmental end-user would have a property tax exemption if it owned the property.

The proposed changes to the Utah Constitution, Utah Constitutional Amendment C, would allow the legislature to provide by statute a property tax exemption for private owners who lease their property to the governmental entity for their use. No property tax exemption is permitted for certain, leased real property such as land or buildings. Such a statute has already been enacted by the legislature and the statute, along with Amendment C, if passed, will go into effect simultaneously.

Normally, in a business interaction, the value or cost of leasing someone a computer would be the same for anyone that wanted to lease a computer. But if government leases a computer, and agrees to provide a tax break to the private party in exchange for the leasing party lowering the cost of the lease, an unfair and unethical advantage has been created. The government is getting a break on the cost of the lease in return for the government giving the private owner of the leased property value from the public domain that belongs to the public, value that is used by government to create an unfair advantage for both parties.

Some call this quid pro quo, pay-to-play, crony capitalism or even corruption. I see no purpose in creating a separate class of tax-advantaged businesses that cater solely to government operations so they will get a tax-exemption that is not available to leasing businesses that provide equipment for private parties. I urge you to vote no on Afyr_logomendment C.

WHO’S A CONSERVATIVE?

fyr_logo

Recently, Senator Orrin Hatch spoke at a Republican event in Utah where he castigated all things conservative, like Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and The Heritage Foundation as extremists who are “so far right they won’t get anything done”. Hatch sees himself as a more reasonable person, among the political elite, who can compromise whatever he must “to get things done.” Hatch likes to paint himself as a conservative; however, he is anything but a conservative.

A true Conservative is one who works to conserve the Constitution. Notably, all elected officials must take an oath to support and defend the Constitution before they are able to assume office. If they refuse to take the oath or to follow through on their commitment to the Constitution, they are unfit for any office. If we held all government officials to their oath, we would be working with barely a skeleton crew. I wonder if all this non-compliance with their oath is the fault of the rascals in government, or perhaps more our fault for letting them get away with it.

What Hatch and most of the elite don’t understand is that the Constitution is the Center of American politics. Anyone who declines to honor and uphold the Constitution, and is looking to grow the size of government at the expense of freedom is “far left” of Center and positioned nearer to totalitarianism. People to the right of the Constitution are aiming for greater freedom, even though it is accompanied by a greater risk of anarchy. Our heritage as Americans is to rally around the Center position prescribed by the Constitution, with maximum freedom protected by the minimum government required to represent a self-governing people.

Cruz is not “so far right he can’t get anything done”–he’s straight on Center. It’s the rest of the government that is positioned so far left that they want to get things done that are leading us to lesser freedom and totalitarianism. Cruz opposes getting anything done that moves us away from the Constitution and he has the courage to fight against those who “want to get this kind of thing done”. More power to him, and to the Constitution.

Obama’s Ebola Disinformation Campaign: Blatant Lies

CDC Director Tom Frieden gave a news conference about Ebola and discussed the Dallas nurse who was recently diagnosed with Ebola. She had treated Thomas Duncan, the Ebola patient who recently died, while wearing full protective gear and following the CDC Protective Protocol. Frieden blamed the nurse for contracting Ebola, saying that there had been a “breach of protocol“.

 

fyr_logoIt’s true that a breach of protocol may have been the cause of the nurse contracting Ebola; after all, it’s only human to make a mistake. However, it’s more likely the nurse came in contact with Ebola because the CDC Protective Protocol is flawed and ineffective because it is based on false assumptions.  This Obama Disinformation Campaign is pushing false information on the American public.

 

Some of the false assumptions that led to the flawed CDC Protective Protocol: “Ebola can’t be easily transferred”, “screening of travelers from West Africa for illness by airline personnel will protect us”, “Ebola is not a threat to the U.S.”, and “if you adhere to the Protective Protocol when in close contact with Ebola patients you’re safe”. All these statements, made by President Obama and his administration (including the CDC), are unsubstantiated, are not evidence-based as required by quality medical standards, and are politicized half-truths that amount to nothing less than blatant lies.

 

Our Children Are Guinea Pigs for a Radical Education Experiment-Common Core

Governor Herbert has been ill-advised by the State School Board, and both have seriously bought in to the federal government lie that Common Core is a good thing that will help Utah’s children be better prepared for employment in the coming world. Being an excellent administrator, having once reviewed Common Core with his advisors and having once decided to implement it in Utah, the Governor naturally continues to support what he believes is a good program for our state. However, much like Obamacare (which was sold as helping consumers by lowering the cost while improving the benefits of health insurance, and by assuring consumers that if they liked their plans/doctors they could keep their plans/doctors-and all these assertions were later found to be lies), as Common Core is implemented, the Common Core lies also began to unravel.

Before Common Core, educational standards (which determine what is taught and tested for) were written by each state with input from the grassroots (i.e. children, parents, grandparents, teachers, local school boards, local leaders, etc.) based on community values, expectations and goals and backed by researched, evidence-based and time-tested principles. Local folks could raise or lower standards based on what the grassroots people (i.e. parents/teachers) determine meets the needs of the local communities. With Common Core, the federal government tells the states what their educational standards will be and even if the local communities wanted to raise the standards, they are prohibited from doing so. Common Core has never been studied, there is no evidence that it can accomplish what is promised and there has not been even a single pilot study. Do you agree with the government that American children should be mandatory guinea pigs in this academic experiment?

Common Core was developed and forced upon the States (enticing them with promises of big money) by the federal government. Common Core is based on Big Government secular/pagan values and Big Government/Big Corporation goals:  to have a ready supply of compliant employees/bureaucrats by total brainwashing and indoctrination of students, total federal control of educational pathways students will take (i.e. college versus vocational, etc.), and gaming the system to produce fake “education outcome equality” (i.e. mediocrity) by means of computer “adaptive” testing. By test design, regardless of what the student actually knows about the subject, every child scores near the 50% mark on each test such that each child passes every course and graduates at the top of his class.

Just as illegal immigration is designed by the federal government to produce manual laborers who will accept lower wages than citizens would, the federal government has designed Common Core to produce automatons, parroting the party-line, carrying out orders and decrees and accepting whatever fate the government decides for them without objection. If you want to learn more of the truth about Common Core, more than the whitewashed hype you can get from the government or the mainstream media, click on this link to go to the  website “Utahns Against Common Core”.

 

Corn Ethanol in Gasoline Gets a Failing Grade

I was glad to see the EPA propose to reduce the amount of ethanol required to be blended into our fuel. Now, I urge the EPA, and Congress, take this proposal to its logical conclusion:  eliminate ethanol mandates altogether. First, the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to dictate what Americans use to fuel their vehicles. Also, initially the use of ethanol added to gasoline was intended to help us move towards energy independence, reduce the cost of fuel, and decrease pollution.

More recently, U.S. energy discoveries, along with the development of Clean Coal, have shown that we can have energy independence virtually forever, if the federal government would cease its campaign to obstruct, delay and destroy fossil fuel industries, which continues to desolate whole communities in large swaths of the country. As for the hoped for reduction in pollution, there is virtually no difference between the amount of pollution produced by the combustion of gasoline alone versus combined with ethanol. In addition, prices at the pump show that the ethanol/gasoline blend is much more expensive than gasoline alone, mostly due to high ethanol production costs.

Consumers across the nation have spoken out against the ethanol mandate and called for a full repeal. We don’t want to see high levels of ethanol in fuel ruining the engines of our older cars or making our chainsaws, generators, lawnmowers, leaf blowers, snow blowers, etc. unworkable. We are tired of seeing sky-high food costs due to edible corn crops being diverted to inedible corn crops to produce ethanol.  Corn per se is widely used as a food staple, as an ingredient in many processed foods for humans, and as feed for livestock, which leads to increased prices for such commodities as meat, dairy, eggs, cheese, etc.

Most countries around the world, have seen sharply rising food prices, food scarcities and rationing, at times leading to political unrest and contributing to revolutions (i.e. North Africa), triggered in part by the diversion of growing corn crops from food crops to non-food varieties used for ethanol production. Hunger and starvation in the poorest nations (children suffer from famine disproportionately more than adults) of the world are on the rise; decreasing food varieties of corn crops, caused directly by U.S. laws mandating ethanol production, plays a devastating role in this humanitarian crisis.

Absent any real advantage, and considering the multiple, compelling reasons for America to cease mandating any portion of corn production as inedible varieties for ethanol production which we are then forced to use in combination with gasoline to fuel our vehicles, we must, in all good conscience, abandon this dangerous and failed Renewable Fuel Standard law.

Hispanic George Zimmerman Murders Black Child Trayvon Martin – 1

   TrayvonMartinBiasedNatural001 TrayvonMartinBiasedWhited002-110-Cropped          

This is one of several photos provided to the press by the Martin family. The picture on the left is the unretouched photo of an approximately 14 year old Trayvon Martin as it was originally provided by the family. The picture on the right is the photoshopped version that was published and distributed nationwide by the media, in a shameless attempt to convince the public that Martin was an unthreatening, child-like victim. Demonstrators and other Martin supporters wore T-shirts and Hoodies with the photoshopped picture of Martin on them while they were protesting for law enforcement to prosecute Zimmerman.

 

fyr_logoGeorge Zimmerman is in the fight of his life because of a fight over a year ago that ended with the taking of a human life.  He is on trial, charged with second degree murder in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in a gated community in Sanford, Florida, on the dark, rainy night of February 26, 2012.  Zimmerman claims to have shot Martin in self-defense.  After more than a year of multiple investigations, there is no evidence that the shooting was not in self-defense, and there is overwhelming evidence that this was, in fact, self-defense, and that Zimmerman is innocent of any wrong-doing.

Despite this, the media, many politicians, many local, state and federal agencies have misrepresented the facts of the case, and have manipulated and  inflamed the passions of Americans for their own selfish purposes:  money, fame and power.  In disregard of the fact that Zimmerman had truly acted in self-defense, he was illegally pursued, threatened, arrested and charged with murder, and is currently standing trial because of the public pressure created by the media and other parasites.

The many large, angry demonstrations, sit-ins and other media events arguing for Zimmerman’s arrest and prosecution were organized by activist protest trainers and leaders from the Community Relations Service (a division of the U.S. Department of Justice), at U.S. taxpayer expense, on orders from U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and U.S. President Barak Obama to stir up emotions based on race, foment unrest and incite violence.  The FBI was also ordered to investigate whether Martin’s civil rights had been violated by Zimmerman.  It is an unprecedented violation of the Constitution and the laws of our land for federal agencies to be ordered to take Martin’s side in a local criminal investigation, or to intervene and influence in any way a city, county or state issue.

The Martin family sent a letter to Eric Holder requesting that he intervene and demand the city, county and state prosecute Zimmerman.  This may have been the only time that Eric Holder actually communicated directly with President Obama in the past five years, as the President soon spoke out with anger and resolve that this criminal, Zimmerman, would be prosecuted, and the Whitehouse would do “whatever it takes” to help the Martins.  To show his emotional attachment to this incident, President Obama even offered that if he had a son, he would look like:  either, 1) the 10 year old child Trayvon photo, or 2) the 14 year old photoshopped and hoodied  Trayvon photo, or 3) the 17 year old gangsta Trayvon photo with sagging pants, smoking weed, wielding a handgun and flipping the bird.  The Whitehouse did not respond to the rumor that, should the President have a son, he would name him Trayvon.

The prosecution would like to paint George Zimmerman as a mature adult, “big man”, and also a frustrated, wannabe cop, right-wing radical, gun carrying “white” man who racially profiled, and, as the aggressor, stalked his prey, then without provocation, shot and killed an unarmed boy, Trayvon Martin, in cold blood.  In fact, Zimmerman’s voter registration lists him as Hispanic and a Democrat.  Zimmerman’s father, a retired judge, is a Caucasian-American of German ancestry.  Zimmerman’s Peruvian mother is ¼ African-Peruvian, making Zimmerman 1/8 African-American, 3/8 Peruvian-American (mostly Spanish and Indian ancestry), and ½ Caucasian-American (Hey!  Isn’t our President also ½ Caucasian-American?  These two men have something in common!).  George is also close with his uncle, his African-Peruvian mother’s African-Peruvian brother, and his uncle’s family.  Are you as tired of reading hyphenated racial/cultural categories as I am of typing them?  Won’t there be a time when we can shed the chains of racially based categorizations  and free ourselves of hyphenated identities?  Aren’t we all Americans?  Why isn’t that enough?

People of different ancestry (i.e. black, white, Hispanic, mixed) who know Zimmerman do not think he is racist, and even the Martin family insists this case is not a racial issue.  George volunteered and mentored a number of predominantly black boys for a time.  George admired, respected and wanted to pattern his life after the example of his role models while he was growing up:  his father, a judge, and his uncle, a Sheriff.  He has hopes to honor both his father and his uncle by taking courses toward a career in law enforcement and perhaps law-school and working for a seat on the bench.

Why is it that someone who wants to better himself through hard work and education, pursuing a career in law enforcement, the justice system or the military, all of which used to be considered honorable professions, is now considered by the media a despicable person with evil motives?  Along with stigmatizing Zimmerman as a wannabe cop, he is also condemned as an evil person, intent on doing harm, simply because he carried a handgun.  Stigmatizing people in this manner is the same basis for and is just another form of racism, and all forms of racism should be equally condemned.

Zimmerman was reportedly 28 years old, 5’7″ tall and 200 lbs. at the time of the shooting.  The press demonized Zimmerman, showing rough, unflattering pictures of him in his orange prison jumpsuit, or even a younger picture of Zimmerman showing him when he was less heavy which might then create the appearance that Zimmerman strong and fit.  While Zimmerman went infrequently to the gym, his personal trainer described Zimmerman as “soft”, “weak” and “all fat” (little muscle mass) and that Zimmerman had not learned even the basic element of the trainer’s beginner class:  how to punch. 

Martin still continues to be referred to (in the media and during the current trial) as “that small kid” who is seen in published pictures and presented in the media as a friendly, smiling, family-oriented, immature (no shaving necessary) boy of approximately 10 years of age. The published photos were provided to the media by the family and it was only later the family admitted the initial pictures that the media distributed were taken of Martin at a much younger age.  However, local and national media and the courts continue to use the 10 year old photo as evidence that the Martin killing was the murder of a small child.  On the contrary, at the time of the shooting, Martin was reportedly 17 years old, 6’2″ tall, and weighed 170 lbs.

 

TrayvonMartin002-80trayvon-martin-guns-and-drugs-cropped

The photo on the left (provided by the family) is the one the media and the trial still use to misrepresent Trayvon Martin as a preadolescent, no facial hair, smiling, innocent-appearing small boy of around 10 years old.  The picture on the right is Trayvon Martin taken from his cell phone showing him at an age closer to that at which he was shot and killed.  Trayvon Martin was reportedly 6’2″ tall and weighed 170 lbs.  George Zimmerman was reportedly 5’7″ tall and weighed 200 lbs. at the time of the shooting.

 

The public was deceived by the media due to the pictures published of a younger Martin as a “child victim”, some of which were photoshopped to significantly change Martin’s appearance. and the altered audio tape (edited to sound as if Zimmerman had racially profiled Martin when he hadn’t) of Zimmerman’s phone call to police about spotting a suspicious person in the gated community and requesting police help.

Martin’s girlfriend was talking with Martin on his cell phone at the time of the altercation where Martin referred to Zimmerman as a “creepy-assed cracker”, revealing Martin’s racial profiling and antagonism of Zimmerman, a man he didn’t know except that Zimmerman was keeping an eye on Martin until the police arrived.  If there is any issue of racism in this case, it is solely that of “black against white” racism on the part Martin.

That being said, the fact that Zimmerman stands on trial for murder today is largely due media and others’ misinformation and public opinion manipulation in relation to incorrect assumptions of “white against black” racism.  In terms of violation of civil rights, prejudice and racism, many blacks, not without cause, focus on the struggle for civil rights from when former black African slaves were legally permitted to enjoy their equal, God-given rights to be free men and women to today’s dramatically improved, but as yet imperfect, situation that exists today in the United States.

This perspective on racism is strongly held, actively promoted and vigorously acted upon by many individuals, organizations and arms of government, including President Obama, AG Eric Holder, Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rep. Al Sharpton, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Voting Rights Section of Civil Rights Division of DOJ, Community Relations Services of DOJ, NAACP, CORE, CBC, Southern Poverty Law Center and many others) and these entities tend to see most (some would say all) things through that prism.

In addition, many blacks see racism as a single-dimensional evil, where racism, according to this understanding, only occurs in a “white against black” vector.  In the real world, any form of racism still promotes the ugly violation of civil rights and remains an evil, but it is truly multi-dimensional and runs in many vectors, including black against white, black against black, white against brown, brown against white, and pick-any-race/culture against pick-any-race/culture.

The race card has been played so frequently in recent times, often when race is not the issue, that for most Americans it is losing its impact.  The same should be true here, where many have tried to make this self-defense shooting a race issue, but now, I believe most Americans will reject the mindlessness, accept the jury’s findings, and continue to act like true Americans (without hyphens).  This madness of racialization of everything escalating to mob violence, people injured or killed, lives destroyed, homes and property damaged and polarization of the American public must stop with us.

References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin

http://floridastandyourground.org/

http://www.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/2011/776.08

 

Napolitano Takes Credit for Alleged Improvements in Border Security

When a radical Muslim jihadist, trying to blow up a plane over U.S. territory on a recent Christmas Day, failed to properly detonate his bomb, Janet Napolitano told us that government efforts to provide homeland security had been successful at preventing this terrorist attack. In point of fact, a number of red flags were raised to the government’s attention, predicting that this young jihadist would commit a terrorist act, but were ignored and the urgency and importance of the information available was not communicated effectively with the various U.S. intelligence units. Government failed in every way in regard to this terrorist attack. It was dumb luck and the courage of a few passengers on board that particular Christmas Day flight that prevented the tragedy that al-Qaeda had planned for America on that day.

In regard to illegal immigration, Janet Napolitano informs us that, due to her Homeland Security efforts under the Obama Administration over the past two years, illegal border crossings are currently at the lowest levels since the 1970s, and seizures of illegal drugs from illegals crossing the border from Mexico to the U.S. and of cash and weapons from illegals crossing from the U.S. back into Mexico have increased. The Obama Administration would have the American people believe that all of their hard work on border security has paid off with favorable statistics confirming the government’s successes in this area. But as it has been said before: In order of magnitude, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

A slightly deeper look at these numbers reveals the spin that the Obama Administration is using to claim credit for what is being sold as improvement in border security. When the U.S. economy was growing and unemployment was at an all-time low, most illegal immigrants who crossed the southern border from Mexico into the U.S. came here to work; most found jobs that helped them earn money to provide for their families.

Because jobs for illegals were plentiful, there was a dramatic surge in the numbers of illegals entering the U.S. illegally during this period. During most of the G. W. Bush presidency, most illegals who found work in the U.S. had their families follow them to America, while those who were unable to find sustainable work returned home.

Towards the end of the Bush final term and during the past two years of the Obama presidency, our economy tanked due to the Federal Reserve, Wall Street, Fannie and Freddie and other Bankster (think mobster) failed fraudulent, high-risk ventures and abuses at the expense of the American people. These high-rollers made trillions of dollars over the last decade by creating and manipulating their extreme-risk investments (think casino gambling) and secured huge profits and bonuses and for their CEOs, staff and shareholders.

When the bubble burst and all the Ponzi schemes disintegrated, the housing market collapsed and all the financial institutions were found to be insolvent. Even after an infusion of trillions of dollars from the Federal Reserve and billions of dollars from the pockets of those who were abused in the process of the financial bubble creation, the American taxpayers, these financial institutions continue to distribute huge bonuses to their management and staff and continue to remain insolvent despite unprecedented and unwarranted public bailouts.

These corrupt financial institutions were permitted by our government to privatize (and pocket) profits from their extreme-risk ventures while socializing their losses (sticking the bill for their bad behavior to the American taxpayer). In previous times, Wall Street and the monster banks provided investment capital and loans to all types of businesses that led to increased economic productivity and significant economic growth and prosperity.

Currently, these banks are holding onto their cash or cautiously investing in Treasury Bills. Most loans are being made to Wall Street firms or being used for the banks’ own investing, once again, in the same risky, non-productive and dangerous financial instruments. Small businesses, the life-blood of the productive American economy, are being denied the credit they need to innovate, grow, expand and create jobs. These banks have also severely restricted and increased the costs to the American people of consumer credit, leading to a dramatic fall in consumer spending. With demand for consumer goods plummeting, businesses, large and small, across the country slowed or were closed leading to our current, persistent high unemployment.

Enormous infusions of cash from the Federal Reserve to Wall Street banks and excessive government spending on pork-barrel projects, Stimulus, TARP and similar spending bills have temporarily propped up the stock market. However, government spending and the Fed’s “quantitative easing” have only made matters worse for the rest of the U.S. economy and the American people, prolonged the Great Recession with our jobless “recovery”, left millions of homeowners, drowning, underwater in their mortgages or facing foreclosure (the new “homeless”), and produced marked inflation that is currently threatening to collapse the dollar. Our government’s skyrocketing deficits and the Fed’s consistent abuse of the dollar will not only lead to continued devaluation of the dollar, but are likely to precipitate a switch from the dollar to another currency as the international currency of exchange and trade.

This ongoing collapse of the U.S. economy has severely limited the number of jobs available for illegal immigrants, most of who had previously come to the U.S. to work. With a scarcity of jobs in a bad economy, I can believe that many illegals that were here to work, if they had no job and no welfare support, would return to their home countries, and that fewer illegals would be motivated to immigrate to the U.S.

While I don’t believe Janet Napolitano has any idea how many illegal aliens cross the border from Mexico into the U.S. each day, I can accept that the number of illegal crossings may be decreased from the Bush years. If the absolute number of illegals crossing into the U.S. each day has really decreased, such a decrease is likely attributable to those seeking work deciding not to cross into the U.S. illegally, discouraged by the lack of jobs.

On the other hand, U.S. Border States report markedly increased illegal border crossings by criminals peddling illicit drugs, human trafficking, and violence. Such an increase in criminals crossing into the U.S. would naturally increase the odds that border patrol agents would intercept a larger number of these criminals.

Napolitano and Obama want to claim credit for decreased illegal border crossings. However, most of the decrease can be accounted for on the basis of policies put in place during the Bush Administration and the lack of jobs in the U.S. for illegals. When Napolitano boasts of increased border patrol seizures of illicit drugs and weapons from criminal illegals, she is unintentionally admitting to the current tidal wave invasion of illegal alien criminals bringing violence and lawlessness into the Border States with them.

The borders are really more porous than ever with a greater percentage of criminal illegal aliens entering the U.S., all because the Obama Administration is not really serious about border security. If the U.S. were truly serious about border security, we would have a fence the length of our southern border. If we really didn’t want illegals to climb the border fence, we would electrify it. If we really didn’t want illegals to cut electricity to or tear down the fence, we would build interval towers along the fence line with remotely operated sniper rifles to pick off any illegals climbing over, through or seeking to damage the fence.

Do we need to militarize our southern border like they have between North and South Korea with soldiers and artillery and drones? How serious are we about border security? Serious enough to do whatever it takes to stop illegal immigration?

If we ever did get truly serious and put into place such measures, it is doubtful that any would-be illegal alien would ever be harmed; once the word gets out that the border is defended by an electrified fence and sniper towers or soldiers, artillery and drones, few would be foolish enough to test these defenses.

Is the Tea Party Ducking Social Conservative Issues?

There is broad agreement among Tea Partiers on issues of the economy, jobs, fiscal responsibility, Obamacare and adherence to the Constitution, especially in regard to cutting government spending. However, rifts in this coalition become apparent when the major cause of current government overspending and future insolvency, entitlement spending (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid), is considered for modifications that would produce real savings and sustainable entitlements.

Similarly, there does not appear to be as wide-spread support among Tea Partiers for a good number of constitutional issues that don’t involve commerce, fiscal matters, and smaller government, including many so-called conservative “social issues”. A good number of Tea Partiers believe that other priorities must take precedence at this time when our nation is in an extreme economic/fiscal crisis and the fact that our judicial system and leaders in Washington are moving the country away from our traditional constitutional republic towards a totalitarian and redistributionist “nanny” state.

Many, even members of the Tea Party movement, have been critical of other Tea Partiers expressing their belief that social issues should also be addressed. While I may not agree with all that’s said on social issues, I do commend anyone who stands up for freedom, the Constitution and other Tea Party values, and I stand fully behind their right to speak their mind as dictated by their conscience. Any honest person understands that no one person or group speaks for the entirety of the Tea Party movement. It is the Left that seeks to silence any opposition voice. There is no place in the Tea Party, or for that matter, among any people believing in freedom, for suppression of differing or opposing ideas.

“Social issues” can indeed be controversial and divisive, as many of the primary principles espoused by the Tea Party movement can be; but being controversial or divisive does not make them any less valid. In addition, these issues are not foreign to rights expressed as God-given in the Declaration of Independence and confirmed in the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence speaks of the innate right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The Constitution puts into law the right to life, liberty and property, and that these rights cannot be limited in any way except by “due process”. Due process in consideration of the right to life is exemplified by the lengthy court process involved in the eventual execution of a person sentenced to death under the law. This kind of consideration, which we provide to the most evil of criminals, is entirely lacking in abortion, where the life of the innocent unborn is terminated without a hint of due process.

No one educated in the field of biology rejects the fact that, at fertilization, life begins with a full complement of genetic material that identifies the life as human. It is clear that at some point after fertilization and during gestation, this life becomes a living, breathing, self-aware and feeling person. Controversy surrounds the question of exactly when a human life becomes a person. Traditionally, life was thought to begin at “quickening” when the baby’s movements inside the womb are first felt by the mother, and personhood was thought to begin at birth.

Today, we know that life begins at fertilization, and that the fetus develops, in utero, qualities that confer personhood. With modern ultrasound we can see the fetus startle in response to a loud noise, some will be sucking their thumb, and during abortions the fetus is seen to grimace, scream, and recoil with physiologic pain responses to the operator’s probe. In addition, it is apparent that even the tiniest of premature infants in Newborn Intensive Care, are born with their own personalities and clear cut likes and dislikes, respond to parent’s faces and voices, and respond to positive and negative stimuli in an organized fashion.

The dialogue about abortion has been co-opted by those in favor of abortion by expressing the two predominant viewpoints as either “Pro-Life” or “Pro-Choice”. Since the choice they are talking about involves the willful termination of a life, the correct term for those who want to be able to choose abortion is “Pro-Death”. Abortion takes the life of a human being based solely on the interests of a second party, the pregnant woman, without any regard for the baby’s rights. The aborted baby is denied his right to life, his right to enjoy liberty, inheritance rights he may have had to property, and his right to pursue his own happiness, all without due process. Both Pro-Life and Pro-Death sentiments continue to run hotly among the American people, and controversy surrounding abortion is unlikely to diminish over time. Abortion is very much a constitutional issue that involves the freedoms of everyone and cannot be ignored.

Gay activists insist on special rights and recognition that are contrary to many peoples’ religious views. These activists want to change the definition of marriage, force full fellowship with organizations that are opposed to the gay lifestyle, and silence “hate speech”, which includes reading scripture or preaching in church against the destructive gay lifestyle. Gay activists want to be able to “marry” the same-sex partner they love, and that gay “family” to be recognized and appreciated the same as traditional marriage between and man and a woman with a real family. These activists claim that all they want is equal rights, when they already have equal rights and what they are asking for is special or “more-equal rights”.

In conformance with the Constitution and most state laws, all citizens have the freedom to marry someone of the opposite sex, while no one has the freedom to “marry” someone of the same sex. There is no inequality inherent in these laws. There are many established cultural norms (often founded on religious beliefs) written into law, that few responsible adults would question.

For example, adults do not have the right to marry or have sex with a child, even if they love each other and the child or family give their consent. Adults do not have the right to marry a sibling or parent. Adults do not have the right to marry or have sex with animals. This fully conforms with the “equal protection clause” of the Constitution, with Natural Law upon which the Constitution is based, and with thousands of years of multi-cultural tradition that has worked successfully to preserve and sustain society and culture.

Another example is adoption agencies that hold religious beliefs that oppose gay adoption and raising children in that environment, being forced to allow gay adoption or cease doing adoptions. This is a violation of the constitutional rights of free association, free speech and the freedom to practice one’s religion without government interference. The Left also seeks to nullify or restrict the constitutional right to free speech by suppressing any views that oppose the current administration, the right to “keep and bear arms” (where keep means possess and store and bear means carry, display and use), and the right to work free of union control if so chosen by the workers with a secret ballot and without intimidation. While these anti-Constitution attacks do not deal directly with the economy, jobs or fiscal responsibility, the persistent assault on liberty cannot be ignored and must be countered.

Once the country is back on the path to restoration of economic/fiscal and governmental constitutional practices and principles, these social issues will need to be addressed with some urgency. Basic human inalienable rights can be put on the back burner only so long and at great risk to freedom. True freedom and our Constitution cannot exist if some in the country are more free than others and where any constitutionally guaranteed rights are abridged.

The Great Recession: what is the root cause and is there a way out?

(Updated 12/05/2010)

Subprime Mortgage: a mortgage given to an individual who is likely to default on payments and the mortgage as a whole.

The narrative promoted by Obama and the Democrats and passed along to the public by the lame-stream media, is that eight years of Bush administration policies, cronyism with big corporations and Wall Street, and war-mongering with loss of U.S. treasure on contrived foreign wars led to the collapse of the housing sector and U.S. financial markets, which has caused our current Great Recession with volatility in financial markets affecting the retirement savings of millions of Americans, the loss of U.S. manufacturing industry, high unemployment and business stagnation.

The story goes on to claim that because of Obama policies, bailing-out and taking-over private companies, and the high level of government spending under the Obama administration working in concert with a Democrat majority in Congress, significantly deeper and more painful economic disaster has been averted by stimulating the economy and saving or creating millions of jobs.

Further Democrat narrative claims that the new Obama financial law brings much needed regulatory control of financial markets that prevents Wall Street from taking the kind of risks that they took with subprime mortgage derivatives that led to the financial collapse. The narrative also claims that the new financial law frees the taxpayer from ever having to pay for anymore bail-outs of companies “too-big-to-fail”.

While this grand Democrat myth seems plausible on the surface and has a certain appeal to a public that has been much abused by the excesses of Wall Street and the loss of gainful employment by businesses moving offshore and deserting everyday Americans, there is the minor annoyance that the facts just don’t support the story.

In fact, the collapse of housing and financial markets, the loss of U.S. industry and jobs, and our current Great Recession were brought about and then worsened by failed Democrat policies that persist in supporting unacceptably high-risk Wall Street ventures based on taxpayer-guaranteed, subprime mortgages that Democrats continue to encourage, and future government-mandated, tax-payer-funded bail-outs of failing “too-big-to-fail” companies that was written into the new financial law.

The new Obama Financial Law canonizes for select, large financial companies that profits are privatized while losses are socialized (i.e. if these big firms undertake high-risk ventures and make huge profits, they will pocket the gains; however, if in taking on high-risk ventures they lose big, their losses will be absorbed by the government with taxpayer funds). Some call this close relationship between government and large corporations State Capitalism, but a more appropriate term would be National Socialism (from which the German National Socialist or Nazi Party name was taken and whose precepts Hitler and the Nazi Party embraced).

It is also the inconvenient truth that Democrat policies have produced the loss of U.S. industry and jobs, and Obamacare, the new financial law, the promise of higher taxes and Democrat anti-business rhetoric has dramatically increased the costs of doing business and created such uncertainty that American businesses are virtually paralyzed. While large, government-favored financial institutions have been showered in taxpayer funds to keep them strong, small banks and businesses on Main Street have been abandoned by the federal government and hung out to dry.

Beginning with the Clinton administration, Fannie, Freddie and other mortgage banks were coerced by the Democrats to give mortgages to low-income families so these families could participate in home ownership and enjoy some of the economic benefits of the middle-class, a seemingly noble humanitarian goal.

While it’s a worthy goal to want to help as many low-income citizens as possible join middle-class America through home ownership, what may have seemed initially like a blessing has now become a curse. In the medical profession’s Hippocratic Oath it encourages physicians to do all they can in the interests of the patient, with this final caveat: But above all, DO NO HARM.

Since the mid-1990’s almost all lenders have been making subprime and creative mortgages. These loans are called subprime because the homebuyer is at significant risk of not making payments and of defaulting on the mortgage at some time in the near future. In the originating lenders’ rush to collect the inflated fees and points that were producing huge profits for themselves, lenders often overlooked or failed to verify creditworthiness, employment status, citizenship, or ability to repay the loan.

Since originating lenders quickly bundle and sell the mortgages they write to Fannie, Freddie, other large financial institutions, and Wall Street firms like Goldman-Sachs, what should they care if the homebuyer should default some time in the future? The originating lender has made its profits by charging low-income homebuyers more to make a subprime loan than it charges for other homebuyers.

While the low-income homebuyer gets hit with a huge bill from the lender for advancing the loan, these loan costs are usually hidden in the loan amount to be advanced and taken off the top by the lender, so the homebuyer doesn’t feel it until later on in the loan repayment schedule. After signing loan documents, and before the ink is dry, the originating lender immediately sells the mortgage. The subprime hot potato has been passed to someone else, who will pass it along to again another or multiple other investors (i.e. Fannie, Freddie, Bank of America, Citibank, JPMorganChase, and Wall Street firms such as Goldman Sachs).

Subprime homebuyers take another hit when the loan terms are written. Typically, an Adjustable Rate Mortgage (ARM) is set up providing for an initial low monthly, low interest, interest-only house payment. Then over the subsequent 3-5 years, the homeowner sees his interest rate increase and also begins paying back principle along with the interest payments which often doubles or triples the initial monthly payment to a level that the homeowner had not anticipated, a level of payment that the homeowner cannot sustain for long without exhausting all resources. Many of these subprime loans have a large balloon payment due at 3-5 years. Also, virtually all subprime borrowers are required to purchase mortgage insurance which adds a significant sum to the monthly payment.

The lender predicts while making subprime loans that the homebuyers are likely to default within the first 3-5 years. Even if the originating bank holds the subprime mortgage it makes, the bank makes money from making the loan, collects monthly payments for the duration of home ownership, and forecloses on and takes possession of the home for resale when homeowners default. As long as home values continued to rise, if the bank had to foreclose on the home, the bank stands to make a profit on this too. In addition, since all subprime mortages require mortgage insurance, if the homeowner defaults, the bank can turn to the mortgage insurance company (AIG ring any bells?) to pay off the defaulted mortgage.

Many subprime lenders utilize predatory loan practices that benefit the lender at the expense of the homebuyer. Such as lending to low-income, would-be homebuyers, where the lender knows in advance there is high risk of default, higher loan costs are charged the homebuyer but hidden in the loan amount, ARMs are set up as described above where over several years a reasonable payment becomes two to three times it’s original amount, there may be an unrealistic balloon payment required, and the cost of mortgage insurance is added to the monthly payment.

If not too many homeowners default on their mortgages at once, this is not an unmanageable or unprofitable situation for banks. So, while lenders making subprime mortgages clearly reap huge profits from these predatory practices, the low-income homebuyer takes another hit with foreclosure, eviction, and financial and psychosocial-emotional loss. Rather than being a benefit to low-income families, hundreds of thousands of subprime mortgages have defaulted and are in foreclosure; many more such loans are due to default over the next several years. Massive subprime mortgage defaults resulting in collapse of the housing, financial and insurance markets, and the ensuing Great Recession has brought about untold misery for these families and for most Americans.

The fact that most mortgages are federally guaranteed (using taxpayer money), explicitly or implicitly, encourages the financial sector to consider these high-risk, subprime mortgage bundles and the Wall Street securities and derivatives based on them as low-risk investments.

The government mortgage guarantee converted a known high-risk investment into a low-risk one, being secured by mortgage insurance companies and also by the good faith and credit of the United States. These mortgages were securitized and sold by Wall Street as prime investments, not based on the usual anticipated high homeowner debt repayment level, but based solely on the insured value and the government mortgage guarantee.

When millions of these homeowners began to default on their subprime mortgages as predicted, a glut of troubled or foreclosed upon homes on the market produced a fall in home values, making most American homeowners upside-down in their mortgages (the mortgage balance owed is greater than the current appraised home value). Securitized subprime mortgages were leveraged as derivatives at 100:1 and greater, and when the housing market collapsed and mortgages were defaulted, the value of the derivatives evaporated as well leaving the Wall Street investment banks owing 100:1 on their products which now no one was buying.

In 2006, the Bush administration tried to rein in Fannie, Freddie and the other mortgage banks and halt any new subprime mortgages with government guarantees to people who could not afford them. Democrats in Congress resisted all efforts to provide judicious oversight or regulation of this high-risk activity. As late as 2008, Democrat leadership in Congress assured the American public that Fannie, Freddie, and the U.S. housing and financial markets were in good shape and as strong as ever.

When the subprime mortgage housing crisis began to grow and spread, Wall Street firms and other large financial institutions filed insurance claims based on the defaulted subprime mortgages, that led to the failure and federal bailout of large insurance companies like AIG, that were insolvent and unable to satisfy claims. The financial sector next went to the federal government for the guarantee and the government gave the financial and insurance companies taxpayer money to bail them out.

The bubble of subprime mortgages was contrived and executed and Wall Street and other financial company excesses were subsidized by Democrat policies that led directly to the current Recession. While the Bush administration was admittedly far from perfect, Bush is not responsible for the current recession—this blame is more appropriately laid at the feet of the Democrats.

While the Bush administration did little to hold down government spending and deficits, Obama has raised spending and deficits more than twice as high as levels under Bush. Most of the Bush deficit expenditures were for a prescription drug program for seniors, and providing justifiable action for national security defense against Islamic Jihadist terrorists.

On the other hand, most of the Obama expenditures have been political payback to Democrat cronies, like Wall Street, the unions, environmentalists, ACORN and other subversive groups, and increasing the size of government and the number of government employees, along with ensuring that federal employee salaries and benefits were more than twice those of comparable workers in the private sector.

The fact that Bush did a limited amount of damage to America through deficit spending on widely desired and other essential, constitutional government functions, does not justify Obama’s multiplying Bush’s deficit many times over with frivolous and wasteful, pork-barrel, political payback while aggressively acting to destroy American free market capitalism, abridge American freedoms, stifle the voice of opposition and critical analysis, weaken American and allied national security defenses, increase American subservience to international interests and secure long-term power to himself and the Democrat Party.

Big Labor, and high corporate taxes, both strongly supported by Democrats, have forced companies to leave the United States and take their businesses elsewhere to remain competitive. If we could have stopped the unions in the 1980’s, and maintained a more reasonable business and investment tax policy we might still have a private auto industry, other manufacturing, and a stronger business sector with higher employment in our economy. Even now, we have the opportunity to dramatically reduce corporate and investment taxes and see business and industry return and boom in the U.S.

However, in order to hire employees, expand the business and increase production, business needs capital. Despite a massive infusion of taxpayer dollars, money is still tight. The banks still are not lending to the economy what the economy needs to grow. When the banks get back into the business of providing the needed capital to the economy instead of just investing overcautiously in Treasury Bills, the economy will have a chance to start growing again.

In the United States we don’t have a typical parliamentary system, but we do have a fairly strong two party system. Many times in the past, third parties have been formed, and while they may temporarily sway American thought and the direction of the two major parties, none have been successful in being any real, long-term influence on American politics. The plan of the Tea Party from the start was to take over, from the inside, the Republican Party, taking it from the establishment which had lost its way and return the party to its roots in fiscal responsibility, smaller government, lower taxes and free markets within the framework and freedoms of a Constitutional Republic. The Tea Party did not want and refused to go down that pointless, third-party road.

Large numbers of individual, average Americans, most for the first time in their lives, moved beyond their comfort level, took a stand against the fiscally irresponsible policies of both major political parties, and worked long and hard hours to get good people with Tea Party views to win in the Republican primaries. Many progressive incumbent Republicans were replaced in these primaries with a Tea Party-supported Republican candidate. In the general elections, many progressive Democrats and earmark and spend establishment Republicans were roundly defeated and replaced with Tea Party Republicans committed to sound fiscal policies.

Over time, the goal is to replace progressives of all party affiliations with Tea Party Republicans such that the Republican Party will be the party of Tea Party principles and values, and the majority party in federal, state and local government. The “Tea Party” is not an actual political party, but a loose organization of Republicans, Independents, Constitutionalists, Libertarians, Unaffiliated and even some Democrats fed up with politics as usual forming thousands of small patriot groups that together make up a rather disjointed but broad-based and committed, grass-roots political movement.

There is nothing illegal, immoral or unethical in being a Tea Party Republican. Rather than serve to prop up the corrupt Republican or Democrat establishment in Washington, Tea Party Republicans have been charged with the special mission of restoring the Republican Party and the nation to correct, constitutional principles of government that promote freedom and prosperity.

There is less than zero basis for any type of legal or ethical challenge to these newly elected lawmakers for not being “real” Republicans. The Tea Party movement believes that real Republicans ascribe to Tea Party principles and values, and that establishment Republicans have strayed far too long from their true conservative roots. The Tea Party movement may, in fact, be a part of another “Great Awakening” spreading across America and even well beyond her shores, presenting the possibly of a second chance for other great nations as well.

With an influx of Tea Party Republicans into governments across the land and a Republican majority in the House, slowing down if not actually stopping altogether and reversing the relentless and destructive Obama socialist/anti-colonialist juggernaut is a real possibility. If the average American continues to stand against what is wrong with America, and fights for what is right for America, in the next several election cycles there will be Tea Party Republicans in power across the country, in the House, the Senate and in the Oval Office.

If the millions of Americans who relate to the Tea Party movement continue to stand up for the God-given, inalienable rights guaranteed by the Constitution, corruption and destruction will fail, freedom will prevail, and America will be back on the road to honest industry and real, non-bubble prosperity, building a better life for our children and grandchildren, instead of selling them into future slavery to foreign powers.

Earmarks are a perversion of the normal congressional funding process

Funding of government activities begins with the passage of an appropriations bill specifying the gross sums of money that will be spent during the fiscal year. The executive branch proposes to Congress exactly how the allocated money will be spent. Congress, representing the interests of the people, then holds hearings, writes, debates and votes on bills funding specific projects or programs, or agreeing to the President’s proposed expenditures. Spending bills passed in both chambers of Congress then go to the President’s desk for signature or veto.

Where contracts are to be made with private companies to perform any such funded project, the contract is properly put to competitive bid, and the bid with the highest cost-to-benefit value wins the contract. This process is wholly transparent, is subject to public scrutiny and serves to involve rank-and-file congressional members in the process of deciding how much will be spent on which projects.

Earmarks (Em) are a perversion of the constitutional provisions for funding government. Earmarks are requests by individual congresspersons to congressional leadership that portions of the year’s total appropriated money be directed to specific entities for specific projects, bypassing the open bidding process. While the constitutional appropriations process is based on merit and cost-benefit value, Em are not merit-based, but based on seniority, state or locality, congressional district, committee assignments, party power, political connections, and perceived need for reelection campaign support

These earmark requests are often funding projects, companies, universities, organizations and individuals that are located in the congressperson’s district (bringing home the bacon), or benefit those that provide generous campaign contributions for the congressperson’s reelection and preservation in office, whether or not these entities are located in the particular district.

Proponents of congressional earmarks argue that it is the only way for Congress to specify how the allocated dollars will be spent each year, that earmarks allow Congress to fund local projects and industry, providing jobs in their districts, and that earmarks only provide for congressional dollar allocation while not increasing total spending levels.

Ems are made anonymously without public hearing, transparency or accountability, are granted by congressional leadership on a seniority/majority/party/political connections basis, are placed inside other bills at the discretion of the leadership, are not vetted, debated or voted on for their merits, and the congressperson who submits the earmark request is obligated to vote for whatever bill the leadership attaches the Em to, even if that bill entails bloated budgets or wasteful spending. In this manner, congressional leadership, controlling the very structure of Congress and every step in the process of passing bills, exerts an undue dominant influence on what Congress does each year. This Em interplay between leadership and rank-and-file members, serves to continually raise levels of government spending.

As explained above, the Constitution provides an open process for funding government activities including specific projects or programs desired by Congress; the Em process is not required for Congress to exercise its prerogative of designating how taxpayer funds will be spent. In the self-serving rush to assure each congressperson’s share of the federal pie, and to assure that the executive branch doesn’t get to spend all the money by itself, the option of not spending all the appropriated, hard-earned taxpayer money is rarely considered.

Ems to fund projects in the congressperson’s district (to garner local support for reelection) or to specific entities in exchange for campaign contributions are a corrupt mechanism to promote an individual congressperson’s interests over the interests of the American people. Bypassing the open bid process leads to government paying more than the actual value and getting lesser quality of the service or product provided, and fosters corruption behind closed doors.

The fact that earmarks are granted by congressional leadership at their discretion allows leadership to carry out their top-down agenda and control rank-and-file members, often at odds with fiscal responsibility and the goals of the people and their representatives. Leadership, seeking support for unpopular legislation, will insert many Ems into such a bill, guaranteeing the votes of those who requested the Ems, even where the individual representative may be opposed to the bill in question because of its excessive spending or other significant objections.

Government agencies estimate the direct cost of Ems at less than 2% of federal spending, and many have suggested that due to the relatively small amount of money spent on Ems, the practice should not be condemned. However, indirect and hidden costs are considerably greater and are truly significant. When major appropriations bills go through Congress, lawmakers pad each bill with excess dollars in anticipation of taking Ems further on down the line. Data showing a direct correlation between the annual costs of Ems with total annual federal spending suggests that the practice of earmarking contributes significantly to excessive government spending.

Many Ems are simply add-on expenses to bills that, without question, directly increase total spending. In other instances, involving only redirection of previously appropriated funds, projects unvetted for merit are funded by defunding other programs that had been justified on a merit basis. With the Em redirection of funding away from merit-based programs, a greater portion of taxpayer dollars is spent on non-meritorious and often frivolous and wasteful projects.

Many Ems are not even included in a bill, but in the conference reports on the bill. In this case, the Ems are given the full effect of U.S. law, despite the fact that they are not an actual part of the bill that was given public hearing, debated and voted on by Congress, and signed into law by the President. A convincing argument can be made that such Ems are illegal and unconstitutional and should be publically declared as such.

The entire system of congressional rules and structure greatly favors leadership agendas, which are often contrary to fiscal discipline and the best interests of the American people. Eliminating Ems would greatly diminish leadership power and influence; a bitter battle is likely to ensue with Washington powerbrokers desperately resisting any reduction in their influence and power despite this being a necessary component of government reform to further the interests of the American people.

The Heritage Foundation and others have called for complete elimination of Ems and total reform of the majority/seniority system congressional rules and structure with the goal of real power-sharing with rank-and-file members, full disclosure of interested party/lobbyist/lawmaker relationships, and full reporting of campaign or favored cause support by those making and receiving contributions.

Other sound proposals for government reform include the institution of term limits, moving congressional members and their retirement funds into Social Security, moving congressional members from congressional health plans to those that are available to the public, eliminating members voting on their own salary increases, and assuring that lawmakers are subject to every law they pass. The prime motivating factor for lawmakers must be the best interests of their constituents and the American people, not what’s best for self or party.

Kiss Your Social Security Goodbye

Unfortunately, you can kiss your Social Security goodbye from the day it started, and the victims of this scandal are the American people. When FDR hatched the scheme of having workers contribute a portion of their income to the Social Security Trust, it was with the promise that those who contributed to the “insurance” program would receive benefits from that Trust upon retirement.

In reality, the money taken from your paycheck is not insurance and does not go to the Trust Fund, it goes to the general fund and Congress spends your contributions each year.

Your hard-earned money that you contributed to the Trust Fund has been spent from day one of the program and there is NO money in the Fund today. Currently, more money is paid out to Social Security beneficiaries than comes in in contributions, and this will only worsen as the baby-boomers retire en mass and leave only a relatively few workers left contributing.

What this means is that we have to borrow more and more money each year to continue paying benefits at the current level for more and more people; this is UNSUSTAINABLE, we can’t continue on this path for long.

If the Social Security contributions, from the beginning, had been placed in a true retirement account in low-risk investments in the market, there would be billions of dollars in the Fund, even after the 2008 market decline. Instead, Congress has consistently robbed the Fund and there is ZERO dollars in the account.

If we continue on the current path, there will be no Fund in a few years, and no further benefits will be paid out to anyone. So, with your choice being NO Social Security versus reforming Social Security, which would you prefer? How can we preserve something from Social Security?

We have to make choices that are neither fair nor easy, and this involves the consideration of private accounts, increasing the retirement age, increasing payroll contributions, decreasing benefits, and limiting benefits to wealthy retirees who don’t need them.

Academic elites resist true reform and criticize current proposals as “pretty drastic” and “horse manure”; they’re right about drastic, and drastic reform is all that will save any vestige of this program. We can’t afford to continue to “kick this issue down the road” anymore as Congress has for the last 20 years.

As far as whether or not Social Security is constitutional, this is a moot point. The fact that a Supreme Court packed with FDR yes-men said that Social Security was constitutional is more a reflection of political corruption than jurisprudence. The fact is, it’s a crime perpetrated on the American people by the federal government over the last some eighty years, and this has to stop.

Given the history of the U.S. Congress’ abuse of the Social Security Trust Fund, if there were a choice, would you choose to trust Washington, your state government, or a private, personal investment account that you hold and will grow your retirement money and actually have something for retirement?

My preference would be to have a private account in my name that I possess and have inheritance rights to that the government cannot confiscate and spend that will BE THERE when I retire. One way or the other, we’re going to have to do something dramatically different from what we’ve done in the past, if we want Social Security to exist in the future.

Connor Boyack Questions Utah Candidates for U.S. Senate

In August of this year, Connor Boyack, previously with the Mike Lee for Senate campaign and currently a Scott Bradley supporter, submitted eight questions to the Constitution Party, Democrat Party, and Republican Party candidates for U.S. Senate from Utah, asking their positions on a number of issues. Only the Constitution Party candidate, Scott Bradley, elected to respond to this questionnaire, and his rather lengthy response was published on Boyack’s blog site. I have chosen to respond to Boyack’s questions, listed below, from Mike Lee’s perspective.

1. What should be done in regards to our current military engagements in the Middle East, and why?

2. What should be done with the Federal Reserve, and why?

3. What is your position on the war on drugs, and the legalization of marijuana?

4. What is the constitutional authority for our current immigration law? What reforms, if any, do you support?

5. Do non-citizen terrorists have any constitutional rights?

6. Are you for or against term limits, and if for them, in what form?

7. Is a balanced budget inherently problematic, or only because it may possible trigger a constitutional convention?

8. How should tariffs be used? How do you define economic protectionism, and do you support it?

Several of Connor’s questions are already addressed on Mike Lee’s website, although perhaps not in the detail that political aficionados would like. Mike addresses the issue of the current war on terror as manifested by the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and his views do not differ greatly from those of Mr. Bradley.

Mike has also clearly expressed his position on illegal immigration: secure the borders, no amnesty, no more anchor babies (via original intent of 14th Amendment clarified by legislation as Mr. Bradley explains), no healthcare/welfare benefits for illegals, and enforce current law including preventing employers from hiring illegal workers so they will pack up and go home.

Mike Lee is also in favor of a balanced budget amendment, and has expressed his view on his website that members of both chambers of congress should not become career politicians, but serve no more than 12 years.

Mike has also outlined his views on fiscal responsibility, smaller government, strengthening national security, preservation of freedoms and tax reform. Mike Lee is a constitutional scholar undeniably committed to returning to constitutionally limited federal government.

As for the other questions, they concern controversial issues where simple answers are insufficient with a public that is unschooled and uninformed regarding current libertarian issues and thought such as the role of the Federal Reserve.

Without such a foundation for discussion, a candidate’s well-reasoned position in these areas will be easily misunderstood and motives misconstrued. However, there is no doubt that Mike Lee will adhere to the Constitution on all issues.

The comments here predominantly commend Mr. Bradley for his straightforward response to each of the questions. His responses are detailed and lengthy and are evidence that Mr. Bradley dedicated significant energy and effort to this work. I was personally disappointed, however, that he deftly side-stepped some of the major concerns regarding these issues.

Mr. Bradley’s proscription against war is well taken, however, when we are attacked by an enemy we have the right and the obligation to defend ourselves. It is undeniable that Congress has the power to declare war and the executive branch has the power to wage war. Abuses of executive power must certainly be stopped. And the United States should not have a mission of nation building.

The difficulty is that the Taliban government of Afghanistan was willingly hijacked by al-Qaeda and served as a base of operations for attacks on the West. Even now, if we were to abruptly pull out, the Taliban/al-Qaeda insurgency will return to dominate and abuse Afghanistan as a base for terrorist attacks. Without some “nation building” assistance, how will the Afghan government ever become strong enough to resist on their own a Taliban/al-Qaeda takeover?

After further terrorist attacks we would have to return to Afghanistan again to finish the job we justifiably started after 9/11. In the interests of our very real national security needs and a mission to eliminate the root of terrorism that threatens our land, we cannot afford to go down this road. I would like to know how Mr. Bradley would address this part of the issue.

As far as illegal immigration, as others here have pointed out, Mr. Bradley deals with the constitutionally designated federal control of naturalization, but fails to mention that the Constitution does not give the federal government jurisdiction over immigration, which is a separate issue.

In such cases, the power to control immigration is constitutionally relegated to the states or to the people. While state control of immigration may be difficult and impractical, if we are to adhere to the founder’s intent of the Constitution, that’s the way it is.

Also, Mr. Bradley says that we should enforce immigration laws and then penalize any illegal caught after a grace period who has not submitted to forced self-deportation. In the past, enforcing immigration laws has meant in practice primarily detecting and deporting illegal workers.

Mike Lee believes that by enforcing laws that prevent employers from hiring illegal workers, jobs for illegals will dry up and they will pack up and go home without any coercion. Where does Mr. Bradley stand on employer enforcement?

Nixon’s Blood Cries From the Grave for Obama’s Resignation

Nixon resigned the Presidency largely because of Administration “enemies lists”, slush funds to finance “dirty tricks” to influence voters, and the cover-up after the fact of these activities authorized by the President. Illegal Nixon Administration activities, like the Watergate break-in, are now known to have occurred without the President’s knowledge or approval.

President Clinton was impeached by the House essentially for lying to the American people, and remains indebted to the Senate for having the mercy not to convict him of high crimes and misdemeanors. What Obama is doing is little different from what Clinton and the Nixon Administration did that led to Clinton’s impeachment and Nixon’s forced resignation. Except that Obama is better organized, better funded, better connected, has the full support of the lapdog, lame-stream media, and is much more dangerous.

President Obama, as a candidate for the presidency, flagrantly violated campaign financing laws in raising the record number of millions of dollars to finance his campaign. As president, Obama encouraged and sanctioned the thuggish activities of ACORN and SEIU, and his stimulus bill sent millions of dollars to these groups for their illegal activities. President Obama has blatantly lied to the American public on many occasions such as when trying to sell Obamacare, the new financial law and the DISCLOSE Act to the people.

Obama’s Justice Department has failed to prosecute criminals intimidating voters or assaulting Tea Party members, investigate serious voting irregularities across the nation, or defend in the courts the Defense of Marriage Act. Supreme Court Justices have been appointed that lack a healthy respect for the Constitution and refuse to abide by the oath of office that requires Justices to render equal judgment without regard to race, status or condition of wealth.

Virtually daily Obama initiatives are slotted to repress personal freedoms from silencing the free speech of those who oppose his agenda, to registration, limitation and confiscation of personal firearms, and even to outlawing sweetened drinks at schools or the addition of salt to our food.

Where Arizona passed a law to permit state law-enforcement to help do the job of enforcing laws governing illegal immigrants that the federal government refused to do, the DOJ sued the State of Arizona to stop the state from upholding the law.

The Obama Administration actively promotes illegal immigration, wants to secure health and welfare benefits for illegals, encourages illegals to vote in U.S. elections thereby violating voting-rights laws, and wants to grant amnesty to more than 12 million illegal immigrants currently working in the country that would lead to assuring the Democrats’ grip on power for many years to come.

Many scabs are being hired by the Left to infiltrate Tea Party and 9/12 Project groups and stir things up, creating controversy and behaving badly to attract negative attention, to divide, discredit and incapacitate our grassroots efforts. In a number of locations around the country, the Left has also fielded and funded candidates to run with the Tea Party name on the ballot, to confuse voters, split the conservative vote, and give the elections to Democrats.

In the early 1970’s, there was such a public outcry against President Nixon for being involved in half the offensive activities that President Obama is today involved in, that Nixon was forced to resign the presidency. When George W. Bush was running for president, the public had to see his school transcripts and check his attendance records with the National Guard.

However, Obama has a team of high-powered lawyers criss-crossing the nation daily at taxpayer expense to fight in court the legitimate demand that official records of his stateside hospital birth and school records be released, records that would reflect on Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be the U.S. President.

Are there no longer any waves of shock and shame that our President would stoop or bow to these depths? Does it even matter today that our President is a liar and “…a crook”?

Is former President Clinton secretly frustrated that he was impeached for lying about mere sexual indiscretion while Obama’s many flagrant lies about serious issues that affect the lives of every American go with little public criticism and remain unpunished? While Obama strives for social justice and income redistribution, does the blood of Nixon cry out from the grave demanding of Obama “equal justice”?

And what about all the taxpayer money Obama gives to cronies to promote Obamacare, the financial law, the proposed cap and tax scheme, the Obama Presidency and agenda? And all the taxpayer money spent on criticizing and denigrating the Tea Party movement? Is there no longer any respect for the voice of the people?

Why is my hard-earned money being spent by the government to try and convince me that what I’m diametrically opposed to, is something I really should support? Save my money, it’s not working. And why is my money being spent to neutralize a grass-roots movement of which I’m a part and that is the only hope for preserving our free country?

Is there no longer any respect for property, a right constitutionally guaranteed? Is there no longer any respect for the rule of law where citizens and leaders and black and white alike are held to the same standard of compliance? If we are not a free nation of laws, based on inalienable rights granted man by his Creator and secured by the founding law of the Constitution, then we are no longer a free nation.

If we are no longer a free nation, then we must all join the fight to restore our freedom and a respect for our Constitution and all the other laws that proceed from a constitutional basis. Along with this secular renewal, we must also recommit ourselves to a respect for the laws of our Creator and seek to develop a spiritually-centered individual life and public culture.

When asked by a spectator of the Constitutional Convention what they had made, Benjamin Franklin answered “A Republic, if you can keep it.” Mr. Franklin predicted correctly that without continual vigilance, it would be difficult to preserve our free society in the face of constant and unrelenting assault on our Constitutional Republic from sources both foreign and domestic.

The American people have turned their eyes to heaven to repent from having elected President Obama and given him a Democrat majority in Congress, which, combined have worked to destroy all that makes us a great country, including our spiritually-centered culture of doing that which is right and morally responsible. The full measure of our penitence will be required at the ballot box.

Once we have secured honorable people with strong moral and conservative ideals to high office, we must continue to be vigilant to help our leaders continue to walk the straight and narrow path to which they are committed.

If we persist in this struggle with the far-Left radical extremists that currently are running this great country into the ground, and we continue to win new support on a constant basis, eventually we will succeed in restoring liberty and the rule of law, limited by the Constitution according to the founding fathers’ design which was guided and led by the Creator in the sacred work of founding this great free nation.

Today we would answer Benjamin Franklin’s statement as he left the Constitutional Convention that day, in saying “By the Grace of God we will fight to keep our Constitutional Republic and our freedoms.”

Controversy Over Ground Zero Mosque Gives America "Black Eye"

News outlets in the Muslim world have reported on the controversy surrounding the plan to build a mosque and Islamic Center near Ground Zero in New York, expressing Muslim sentiment that this would give America a “black eye” for its intolerance.

In these recent reports, a Cairo housewife questioned the purported reasons for this American resistance and was quoted as saying “It’s not that important for Islam to have a mosque at Ground Zero”. If Islam is truly disinterested in the precise location, why not build this center elsewhere?

If it was just about freedom of religion and building a place of worship, why have the developers refused to even discuss any other location, even one provided at public expense? If it was really about building understanding, cooperation and good will between different faiths, the Ground Zero location would never have been seriously considered.

The Ground Zero site selection was no coincidence. It was chosen precisely because of its symbolism of Muslim conquest over the U.S. Cordoba, Spain, was the historic center of Muslim conquest of Southern Europe where a Christian cathedral was torn down and a grand mosque built in its place to commemorate the victory over Christians.

The Ground Zero site was chosen in order that the U.S. might be symbolically denigrated by the traditional Muslim insult of victorious Muslim feet treading on “the bones and ashes” of the murdered 9/11 victims. This is the site where the landing gear of the plane piloted by Mohammed Atta, which slammed into the World Trade Center, fell through the roof of the Burlington Coat Factory Building. This is the site of the Islamic Center “Cordoba House”.

Muslims are encouraged to lie to infidels (all non-Muslims) if it furthers Islam. What better cause to lie about to the West, then building a celebratory mosque at Ground Zero which would serve as a center for indoctrination, training, command and control for jihad and the forcible imposition of Shariah Law on America.

Islam understands that the freedom we enjoy in America also makes us vulnerable to this kind of manipulation by those who have as their ultimate goal the overthrow of the U.S. Constitution and the forced, total subjugation of the American people. The very word Islam means “submission”.

America and the West have been viciously attacked by Islamic Extremists over at least three decades. At the same time, we supported the Afghan mujahedin in their fight with the Soviets, we fought to remove Saddam Hussein’s armies from Kuwait after his ruthless invasion of a sister Muslim country, we fought for Muslims in Bosnia, we freed Afghanistan and Iraq of brutal totalitarianism and are still fighting in Afghanistan to defend the Afghan people and give them a chance at freedom.

Because of all America has done for them, we should apologize to Muslim nations and do whatever we can to return to their good graces?

In a country where religious freedom abounds, Muslims, notorious for their intolerance of other faiths, may take advantage of this freedom in claiming the right to build a mosque wherever they please, despite the sentiments of those who perished and those who survived the horror of 9/11.

If it gives America a black eye because we refuse to be rolled over by these Islamic Extremists, then I say, let us have two black eyes.

Open letter to Pastor John Reed of Sonrise Church, Reno, NV, Sharron Angle’s former pastor

Reverend John Reed of Sonrise Church, Reno, Nevada, and former pastor to Sharron Angle, Republican candidate for U.S. Senate from Nevada, has come forward with a tirade of bigoted anti-Mormon propaganda apparently aimed at Angle’s opponent in the 2010 Senate race, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV). The following is an open letter to Pastor John Reed:

You claim that Mormons are a “kooky” faith that does illegal and secret things, including hiring people to kill those not in favor with the Church. I’m sure the same kind of false and misleading comments were made by many of the Jewish faith when Jesus Christ introduced his Gospel to the world in the Meridian of time. Is it your wish to be judged on that final day, even as the leaders of the Jews in the time of Christ who rejected Him for teaching new, different and competing ideas?

For someone who claims to follow the Lord’s teachings, your bigoted and false criticisms of the LDS faith are distinctly un-Christian. What about the biblical charge to love one another (even your enemies, which Mormons are not), not to bear false witness, and do unto others as you would have them do unto you? The Bible says that you will know the true Christians by their fruits: the fruit that you are yielding in this regard is bitter, and the tree of the bitter fruit will eventually be hewn down and cast into the fire by the Gardener.

Harry Reid claims to be LDS, but based on his observable actions and beliefs, this is in name only. He would do well if he could be persuaded to follow the guidance of LDS Church leaders and fight against abortion, fight for traditional marriage and family, and fight for individual responsibilities and rights as opposed to “collective salvation” at the hand of the tyrannical nanny state.

Unfortunately, Harry Reid’s creed has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with progressivism/socialism and the domination and coercion of man, according to the plans of the Evil One, stripping man of his God-given freedom and free agency.

Far from hurting Harry Reid’s campaign, your words of ignorance and hatred towards Mormons have unfortunately hurt Sharron Angle’s campaign, which has had much support from the LDS community in Nevada and elsewhere. Was this your intent from the beginning, to hurt Angle and help Reid? Are you a plant from the Left and a subscriber to social justice, an Obama pawn and sleeper cell?

And about things you call secrets: these things are sacred to the LDS people and are between the individual and God and no others. LDS garments are also sacred and symbolic of our faith in Jesus Christ; perhaps you have an article of clothing that you similarly hold as a sacred symbol of your commitment to the Lord, such as a collar or other token.

I call on Sharron Angle and leaders of faith everywhere to denounce this bigotry and un-Christian behavior towards Mormons. How is such wickedness any different from that which marched 6 million Jews to the gas chambers, led to unmeasurable suffering during the Spanish Inquisition, or that which motivated Islamic Jihadist Extremists to bring down the twin towers? How can decent people anywhere sanction such behavior silently?

Far-Right Extremists with a Radical Agenda Are Set to Descend on Washington

The devastating recession was caused by Democrats insistence on banks, Fannie & Freddie providing government guaranteed mortgages to people who could not afford them. These “subprime” loans were turned into stock assets whose value was determined not by the belief that the loans would be repaid by the borrowers, but by the value of the federal government guarantee of these mortgages. Predictably, when borrowers began to default on these mortgages in large numbers, the house of cards created by the Democrats collapsed creating the current recession.

The radical Obama/Democrat agenda led to bailing-out Wall Street and the insurance industry, taking over auto manufacturing, spending billions of dollars in “stimulus” money on pork-barrel and political payback projects which have failed to prevent the ongoing loss of millions of jobs. Instead of helping small businesses create jobs and get the economy going again, Obamacrats have created large, expensive bureaucracies in a takeover of healthcare and financial regulations and taxes that hamstring businesses and prevent job creation and growth.

Obamacare, the new financial law, higher taxes and Washington’s anti-business positions have paralyzed American business and prevented any real economic recovery. Those who want to reduce taxes for all and facilitate the business expansion and job creation that are necessary for real economic recovery are condemned and ignored.

The new Democrat financial law not only raises serious obstacles to economic prosperity, but fails to cure the conditions that produced the mortgage banking and Wall Street collapse. Rather than preventing any further collapses, this puts Obama’s policies of bailouts into law. Now Wall Street is assured that if it takes excessive risk in its ventures and is successful, it will pocket the profits. At the same time, if taking excessive risk results in failure, Wall Street can rely on a federal government bailout.

Given this situation, there is little incentive for Wall Street to limit risk-taking that can lead to financial collapse and recession. The new financial law also does nothing to halt Fannie and Freddie from continuing to back up new subprime mortgages with taxpayer money, the original root of the problem that led to the current recession.

Passage of Obamacare was paid for with more than $500 billion dollars stolen from and weakening Medicare. While Medicare is facing insolvency in the near future, the Obamacrats have done nothing to help sustain this program.

Everyone in today’s workforce knows that they cannot depend on Social Security being there for them when they need support in retirement. The main reason for Social Security going bankrupt is that Congress steals all the Social Security funds collected each year and spends them on general projects, leaving the Social Security Trust Fund empty.

Obamacrats fight desperately against any change that would prevent them from robbing this trust fund each year, and anyone that offers a plan that would restrict Congress’ ability to gut this fund is accused of wanting to eliminate Social Security. All attempts to fix Social Security and Medicare so that they will be there for retirees in the future are condemned by the Obamacrats.

Billions of dollars are collected from the states by the federal government and a small portion of this money is returned to the states by the Department of Education in funding that is given, provided that the states adopt federal government criteria, methods, curricula and teacher and student indoctrination.

Programs to deal with the unproven theory of a “Climate Crisis” (or global warming, global cooling, or just plain climate change), many through the Department of Energy, are designed to make insider politicians and favored corporations rich from taxing the American public for energy usage.

Obamacrat initiatives have shut down American fossil fuel industry precipitating the loss of thousands of jobs, while financially supporting foreign oil production (even that of Mexico in the Gulf), and denying Americans energy independence.

Obamacrats claim that they support a woman’s right to the privacy of reproductive choice, or the “Right to Choose”. For those who understand that abortion is the killing of a human being growing inside the mother, this is no less than the “Right to Choose Death”. There never was such a “right” to kill one human being just because it inconveniences another. However, there is the well-established, God-given and Constitution-assured right to life.

Problems in this country due to illegal immigration are largely due to the imbalance between U.S. demand for illegal workers and foreigner’s lack of viable employment in their home countries. The U.S. government should use policy and diplomacy to strengthen neighboring economies so that home countries can provide the needed employment for these displaced workers. In addition, immigration law should be enforced such that businesses no longer hire illegal immigrants as workers. If U.S. business ceases to employ illegal immigrants, especially if there are good jobs in their home countries, they will pack up and go home.

The Obamacrats claim to be the defenders of American rights; however, there are consistent actions by these people to restrict inalienable and constitutional rights. Free speech that opposes the Obamacrat agenda is to be suppressed. Obamacrats want to register and limit the right to keep and bear arms in preparation for eventual arms confiscation planned by the federal government. The freedom to practice one’s religion is to be suppressed if religion in any way differs from the political thought of those currently in power.

The Obamacrat socialist agenda also calls for government controlling what kind of insurance you’ll buy, what kind of car you’ll drive, what kind of food you’ll eat, whether you can add salt to your food, whether you can drink sweet drinks, and how much you are permitted to weigh.

The Obamacrats have moved the Democrat Party so far to the Left, that regular Americans are now labeled “far-right extremists” and dismissed as favoring a “radical” agenda harmful to America.

Regular Americans who care deeply about individual rights and responsibilities, who want to restrain big government and put America back to work, and who care about the Constitution and the survival of our country and our culture of freedom are cast by the Obamacrats as deluded, manipulated and ignorant “Astroturf”. But these Tea Party, regular American patriots have no intention of being so summarily dismissed; they will be heard.

Candidates for office who have a similar vision of America are supported by regular Americans and condemned by the ruling class who see this wave of American will as disrupting their carefully crafted world of privilege and power. The truly radical agenda is that of the Obamacrats and the ruling class, and with any luck, the American people will replace the Washington elite with these new American candidates and the radical Obamacrat agenda will be discarded onto the trash heap of history.

The Emperor’s New Clothes

TARP was supposed to rescue our financial system from total collapse by providing capital to failing financial firms; when the firms had stabilized and then paid back the money borrowed plus interest that returned money would be used to pay down the deficit. Contrary to express language in the bill, the Obama Administration bailed-out a number of imprudent financial and insurance firms, not only by the provision of capital, but also by the purchase of stock in these institutions.

TARP funds were also used for the hostile takeover of most of the nation’s automobile industry by stealing the value of the companies from investors and transferring it to the favored unions as part of a grand wealth redistribution scheme. Money returned by the financial firms has not been used to pay down the deficit, instead, it’s become a massive slush fund for Obama to distribute to his favorite special interests, like SEIU and ACORN.

The DISCLOSE Act was forged in dark, smoke-filled back rooms, behind closed doors, with Obamacrats and a gaggle of Most-Favored Lobbyists nose to nose as the special interests wrote in carve-outs for themselves, and the Obamacrats added language that hamstrings the opposition. They claim their legislation increases transparency and provides a more level playing field for more fair campaign financing. In reality, the Act does nothing to increase transparency and skews the playing field in favor of the Democrats by giving them an unfair advantage.

The Act goes on to provide for warrantless, compulsory submission of sensitive, private donor and member lists to the government, exposing vulnerable opposition supporters to government intimidation and persecution. While 2010 pre-election efforts to pass this legislation have been unsuccessful, the ideas behind the proposal have not been abandoned, and similar legislation is planned for the future.

Attempts by the Obamacrats to limit constitutionally guaranteed rights are not restricted to campaign free speech. Laws and executive orders have been promoted to restrict the free practice of religion, to limit other forms of free speech, and to abridge the right to keep and bear arms. In addition, the government takeover of student loans for higher education is being used to promote student indoctrination by providing financial aid only to students attending schools “approved” by the government. Other Obamacrat measures seek to control what kinds and how much energy Americans use, which energy industries will be permitted to survive, what body-mass index (BMI) is acceptable for Americans, and which foods and condiments Americans will consume.

President Obama touts the new financial reform law as ending any further taxpayer bailouts and as a boon to the consumer. In reality, the financial takeover legislation creates more layers of bureaucracy and red tape that dramatically increases cost to any business offering credit or financial services; this increased cost is passed along to the consumer. Millions of small businesses, including doctors, dentists, and local retailers, are no longer able to offer payment plans to their customers. Credit card companies have already raised interest rates and banks are no longer offering free checking in light of the new rules.

Written into the financial reform bill, the President and Secretary of the Treasury, are obligated to bailout, with taxpayer money, any company that they deem, at their sole discretion, to have serious financial difficulties. Favored companies will be propped up and preserved with taxpayer money. Politically unfavored companies, especially those that actively oppose the government’s agenda, will be placed in receivership, assets will be liquidated and sold at bargain-basement prices to favored companies, and favored companies will benefit from the reduced competition.

Two companies that played a big role in the housing and financial collapse that precipitated the Obama Depression, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, received a blank check from Obama as a perpetual, unlimited and continuous bailout using taxpayer funds, permitting these companies to continue to make the same high-risk, sub-prime loans that triggered this financial collapse. Likewise, the highly-leveraged mortgage-backed derivative market continues unchecked, where high-risk vehicles can produce eye-popping gains that are pocketed, or staggering losses that are bailed-out by Uncle Sam.

These companies were not included in the new financial law, and the business plan and practices that led to the failure of Fannie, Freddie, and Wall Street firms have not been corrected. The continuous drain on the treasury to pump life into the failed Fannie, Freddie, and others, along with the promise of bail-out for Wall Street and other large companies as needed, does nothing to restrict excessive risk-taking and adds daily to skyrocketing government spending and deficits.

Businesses and individual taxpayers shoulder the burden of higher taxes needed to help people who can’t afford a home buy one anyway, and to enable Wall Street’s gambling addiction by allowing them to enjoy their winnings without suffering the negative consequences of their actions in terms of losses that are bailed-out by taxpayers.

The financial legislation also gives the Administration unrestrained power to determine at its arbitrary and sole discretion, if a business should be declared insolvent or about to be insolvent, to take over that business, and distribute assets to cronies. This has sent a chill over the business community, as it is forced to think twice before donating to the opposition, when doing so could lead to very real dissolution of the business, in retaliation, by Obama’s lethal financial weapon. All of this contributes to iron-fisted control by the government of the American economy on an apparently unstoppable march to socialism and totalitarianism.

Obama’s Stimulus Bill is credited by the Administration with “saving or creating” millions of jobs, and breathing new life into a severely injured economy. The Stimulus Bill was advertised as principally funding “shovel ready” infrastructure projects. The truth is less than a third of the Stimulus money spent went towards anything that even slightly resembled infrastructure projects. Instead of saving or creating jobs, since the Stimulus Bill was signed into law, there has been a net extinction of millions of jobs, most of which were losses suffered by the private sector, and unemployment lines have never been longer, outside the Great Depression.

Most of the Stimulus money, which was primarily supposed to help the private sector, hardest hit by the Obama Depression, has been squandered. At a time when the average government worker makes over twice the income of non-government workers, the majority of this taxpayer-funded windfall went to government and union jobs and benefits, cementing organized labor support for the Obamacrats. The remainder was wasted on pork-barrel payback to other cronies to further strengthen the political base.

Obama and his minions have stumped the country proclaiming the “Bush Recession” over and prosperity in view, believing, against hope, that if they ritualistically repeat the words often enough, they will magically come true and naïve Americans will accept them at face value. On their way to imaginary prosperity, Obama and the Democrats swallowed whole, Keynesian economic theory: if the government could just spend enough billions, the consumer-driven economy would turn around. In reality, despite over a trillion dollars of stimulus, growth remains at a dismal 1.6% and true jobless figures remain at a devastating 15% plus.

The Obama-led race to spend money we didn’t have led to an astronomical deficit; these huge deficits imperil the financial and national security of the nation. As deficits rise, interest on the debt rises exponentially. The excesses of today will be paid for by the sweat of our grandchildren in the future. This is not the legacy that Main Street Americans want to leave for their posterity. Part of the American dream is that our children should have a better life than we did. How can this American dream come true when our children and grandchildren will be saddled with the monstrous debt that this generation has accumulated over our lives? The Obamacrats continue to insist that our country is still much better off, even despite the massive deficits.

But the Family on Main Street is still out of work, and is trapped, upside-down in a high-interest mortgage, unable to refinance despite record low mortgage rates because appraisal value is significantly less than the balance owed. The Family is behind on payments or fighting foreclosure, owes $10-15 thousand dollars in credit card debt at recently raised exorbitant interest rates (another benefit of the financial bill), has exhausted savings and tapped into retirement accounts for living expenses, and has put off necessary expenditures for major items like a new roof, furnace replacement, auto repair or an expensive, indicated healthcare procedure. Despite active searching, no prospect of employment is apparent, and discouragement sets in.

The Small Business (SB) on Main Street is not doing much better: SB has been through downsizing and belt-tightening, trying to remain profitable in a marketplace where demand has dropped precipitously. The SB has too much debt, at unfavorable rates, production is down and receipts are too little. Money is tight, and the SB no longer has a standing line-of-credit with its bank, which it had used on occasion to cover cash-flow shortfalls. On some paydays, the SB owners do not draw a paycheck in order to make payroll for others in the company. What assets remain available are horded by the SB and spending on supplies or maintaining large inventories is curtailed.

A tidal wave of new regulations coming from Washington (Obamacare, the Financial Bill, the DISCLOSE Act and other legislation, executive orders and regulatory agency rulings), many yet to be written by their respective agencies, are casting a pall of uncertainty on the Main Street SB. Heavy regulation, such as that seen over the last 18 months and including the financial reform bill and Obamacare, dramatically increases the cost of doing business.

Without knowing exactly how these regulations will affect it, the Main Street SB knows it’s going to take a major hit. However, it has no way of determining the magnitude of the damage to be done, or to plan for the anticipated increase in costs, restrictions, reporting requirements and red tape. In this overburdened, uncertain and anti-business climate, the SB is paralyzed. Hunkering down, the SB is cutting personnel and other expenses to the bone, is struggling to get out of debt, is conserving capital and deferring any plans for hiring or expansion. Waiting on the sidelines for months and years for the business climate to improve, hope for the promised economic recovery has begun to fade and the SB contemplates permanently closing its doors.

Obama has promised on multiple occasions, that those with an income of $250,000 or less would not be subject to any tax increases. New Obama initiatives, astronomical government spending and deficits, and refusal to renew the Bush tax cuts have crushed that promise by imposing higher taxes on all Americans at a time when Americans can least afford it.

With Obamacare, the President promised “If you like your health insurance and your doctor, you can keep your health insurance and your doctor”. Obama promised that government would not get between the doctor and patient, and that there would not be rationing of healthcare or any “death panels” deciding who will live and who will die on a cost-benefit basis. Obama promised that public funds would not pay for abortion, that government healthcare spending would be contained, that healthcare and insurance expenses for the consumer would be reduced, and that actual savings from Obamacare would help pay down the deficit.

Estimates of the true cost of Obamacare have recently been dramatically revised upward, and this is now shown to be adding significantly to the deficit instead of reducing it. The cost of healthcare and insurance to the consumer has also increased because of Obamacare. Avoiding congressional and public scrutiny, Obama recess appointed “Dr. Rationing and Death Panel” as the director of CMS, the agency that runs Medicare and Medicaid, and this Director, with Obama’s approval, is planning on limiting the healthcare anyone can receive, making healthcare decisions previously made between the physician and patient, and withholding care when the government determines that the value of the individual to society is not worth the cost.

Public funds provided through Obamacare may be used to pay for abortions depending on the individual states. Also, most people will not be able to keep their same doctor or health insurance. During the Obamacare debate, a majority of the people recognized Obama’s dishonesty and fought passage of the bill. A smaller but not insignificant percentage of the people, took Obama at his word, and passively accepted passage of the bill, patiently awaiting Obama’s promises to be fulfilled. It is rapidly becoming apparent, even to this smaller, more passive group of Americans, that Obama was not being truthful and is not to be trusted.

President Obama and his Administration have been braying loud and proud about all of the good things Obama has done for the country, the economy, small business and the little people across the nation. However, this self-congratulatory trumpeting rings hollow on Main Street where the lack of any positive Obama accomplishment is glaringly apparent.

The Emperor’s procession moved slowly down the central road of town, lined with peasants cheering the Emperor. The Emperor’s advisors motioned for the peasants to come close to admire the Emperor’s new suit of clothes, handmade of the finest silk by the most skilled tailors in the land. “Only the most intelligent among us can truly appreciate the excellence of the Emperor’s new clothes”, they said, and the peasants clucked approvingly. As the procession neared the center of town, a small boy on the side of the road tugged at his father’s sleeve, “The Emperor has no clothes” he said. On hearing this, all the peasants looked again at the Emperor, and realized the boy was right, The Emperor Has No Clothes!

Amnesty (Is) For Dummies

Amnesty is defined as the action of governments by which persons or groups who have committed a criminal offense of a political nature that threatens the sovereignty of a country, are granted total or partial, conditional or unconditional, immunity from prosecution for that crime. Amnesty law, the core of “Comprehensive Immigration Reform”, is not the solution to our illegal alien crisis, despite misguided claims from the Left. Indeed, past amnesty law dramatically increased illegal immigration, and any suggestion of new amnesty law only encourages more of the same, with illegals crowding into the country to get in under the wire at the prospect.

Even the potential for amnesty rewards lawlessness, penalizes legal immigrants & lawful citizens, leads to a dramatic increase in illegal alien immigration, contributes to the deterioration of American sovereignty, culture & language, undermines our socio-economic stability & growth, and promotes unchecked, single-party dominance, destabilizing our two-party political system. No Amnesty should be offered and no illegal aliens should ever be allowed to vote.

One of the key components of the current illegal immigration crisis is “birthright citizenship”, based on misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, Section 1, where it says:
____________________________________________________________________

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”
____________________________________________________________________

Based on this “Citizenship Clause”, even children born in the U.S. to illegal alien parents are currently considered citizens. This definition of birthright citizenship has led to the practice of foreign women crossing the border into the country illegally, for the sole purpose of giving birth to a child in an American hospital, so that baby would be a citizen of the U.S. and serve as an “anchor baby”, facilitating the legal immigration of the entire extended family, and, in turn, the extended families of each individual of the original extended family, and so on. Recent reports have found that, while illegal aliens comprise only 4% of the U.S. population, they account for more than 8% of babies born in the United States.1

Considering this rate of birth of anchor babies, the subsequent family members that will immigrate based on these births, and the current and projected rates of illegal immigration, the sheer numbers of illegal aliens constantly breeching our borders are overwhelming. There is a huge toll to be paid for this; the cost to American taxpayers and culture vastly outweighs any benefit from work done and taxes paid by illegals.2,3,4 Illegal aliens must not receive welfare, medical coverage, Social Security, or any other services at the expense of taxpayers, as this costs the public millions of local and federal dollars, and voraciously consumes local and national resources.

This clause of the 14th Amendment was intended to assure citizenship to the children of African-American, former slaves, in anticipation of Southern challenges to black citizenship rights. Many have the erroneous belief that birthright citizenship applies to all children born on U.S. soil. In fact, children of foreign diplomats born in this country are not U.S. citizens.5 Furthermore, the 14th Amendment was never intended to extend birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens. U.S. Senator Jacob M. Howard was the author of the 14th Amendment “Citizenship Clause”. During debate over this clause, Senator Howard confirmed that children born in the U.S. to foreign or alien parents were not birthright citizens. This was recorded in the Congressional Record of the time: 
____________________________________________________________________

“This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the family of ambassadors, or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”6
____________________________________________________________________

Congressional debate at the time also established that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. meant that children born in the U.S. to parents who owed any allegiance to a country other than the U.S. (i.e. a foreign citizen), would not automatically be citizens. Congress was referring, in the 14th Amendment, to those who were completely subject to U.S. jurisdiction, those who would enjoy the full rights and shoulder the full responsibilities of a U.S. citizen, including being subject to military draft, voting and holding office, and being capable of being charged with treason. Illegal aliens simply do not meet this qualification.7

To fix the anchor baby portion of the illegal immigration crisis, it is not necessary to repeal the 14th Amendment, as some have proposed. Rather, congressional legislation could reaffirm the original intent of the “Citizenship Clause” and all children subsequently born in the U.S. to illegal immigrant mothers would retain their foreign citizenship, would no longer be birthright U.S. citizens and would no longer be able to serve as anchor babies.8 

Immigration law mirroring federal statute was passed in Arizona in 2010, in response to a virtual invasion of illegals, with thousands of people crossing the border from Mexico each day. Other States have also noted an influx of illegals and are planning similar legislation. State immigration laws like Arizona’s are necessary when the government fails to uphold, and continues to delay, fulfilling federal obligations to provide border security and protection from violent illegals and foreign drug cartels.9,10 While Arizona went to great lengths to assure there would be no racial profiling and the law would meet constitutional muster, many, including U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, criticized the Arizona law as racist and unconstitutional, before admitting they had not yet read the law.

In fact, President Obama indicated to U.S. Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona that he is holding border security hostage until he gets the necessary political cooperation to pass Amnesty law.11 In addition, rather than provide assistance to this embattled State, the Obama Administration, acting through the U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, filed against the State of Arizona in federal court and was granted a stay of several key portions of the law. The injunction was reported to have been issued based on the Constitution’s “Supremacy Clause”, where, if there is overlap, federal statutes supersede those of the States. This temporarily halted meaningful implementation of the Arizona Immigration Law SB 1070, pending appeal.12

Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 4 of the Constitution grants power to the Congress to uniformly regulate “naturalization”, which is the process involved in a foreigner obtaining citizenship. However, since the power to regulate “immigration”, the relocation of foreigners into the U.S., is not granted to the federal government, this power, by default, belongs to the States. As such, Arizona and all other States in the Union, have the right and obligation to establish and enforce their own immigration laws.

Article 1, Section 10, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution clearly gives Arizona the right to wage a defensive “war” based on the imminent danger of the illegal immigrant invasion of Arizona and President Obama’s persistent delay in providing assistance:
____________________________________________________________________

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress…engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”
____________________________________________________________________

Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution organizes the judicial system, and determines that where a legal action involves a State, the Supreme Court is the only court where such actions can be tried:

____________________________________________________________________

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
____________________________________________________________________

Having filed an invalid action in federal court and obtained an invalid ruling from a federal judge in regard to the State of Arizona, Mr. Holder finds himself in another awkward situation. Any action the federal government wants to take against Arizona, must be correctly tried only by the Supreme Court. Whether the federal or State government, in the end, takes responsibility for the border, it is essential that it be secured without delay. The imperative of border security is a key part of National Security and is heightened by the ease with which known terrorists can illegally traverse the border without detection, to infiltrate American society with murderous intent.

Some have proposed, as a solution to our illegal immigration crisis, “Comprehensive Immigration Reform”, which is Washington-speak for Amnesty. However, we have seen that Amnesty is no solution and would only worsen the problem. The key to a real solution is strengthening and enforcing current immigration law. If proper enforcement prevents U.S. employers from hiring illegal aliens, these jobs will “dry up” and illegal aliens, most of who came here to work, will pack up and go home without further incentive.

Those choosing to commit the crime of illegal immigration understand that family separation is an integral part of this choice. However, families should not be torn apart, if at all avoidable. Rather, as unemployed illegal aliens repatriate themselves, they are encouraged to keep their families intact by taking them along with. Serious consideration should also be given to advancing the legal immigration and naturalization of more highly-educated and skilled workers, if demand exists.

References

1.  Jordan M. Illegal Immigrants Estimated to Account for 1 in 12 U.S. Births. The Wall Street Journal, U.S. News, August 12, 2010. http://tinyurl.com/2cmgbp2

3.  McNeill JB. Amnesty as an Economic Stimulus: Not the Answer to the Illegal Immigration Problem. May 18, 2009, The Heritage Foundation. http://tinyurl.com/25nyobo

4.  Smith L. Immigration: Many Questions, A Few Answers. October 3, 2007, The Heritage Foundation. http://tinyurl.com/2gyz7rj

5.  Gordon R. The Diane Rehm Show: The Debate Over Immigration and Birthright Citizenship. Case Western Reserve University School of Law News. http://law.case.edu/Home/News.aspx?id=807&content_id=57

6.  Howard JM. The Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, Senate, 1st Session, May 30, 1866, p. 2890. http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcg.html

7.  Feere J. Backgrounder: Birthright Citizenship in the United States, A Global Comparison. Center for Immigration Studies, August 2010. http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship.

8.  Lee M. More Key Issues: Illegal Immigration. Mike Lee for U.S. Senate 2010. http://www.mikelee2010.com/

9.  Archibald RC, Cooper H, Hulse C. Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration. April 23, 2010, New York Times. http://tinyurl.com/22q2h4b

10. Brewer J. Arizona Border Security Information: Brewer Letter to President Barack Obama on Immigration. April 6, 2010, Governor Jan Brewer’s website. http://azgovernor.gov/AZBorderSecurity.asp

11. FOXNews.com. Kyl: Obama Won’t Secure Border Until Lawmakers Move on Immigration Package. June 21, 2010. http://tinyurl.com/358m6au

12. Markon J, McCrummen S, Shear MD. Arizona Immigration Law SB 1070 – Judge Blocks Some Sections. July 29, 2010, The Washington Post. http://tinyurl.com/28ry299
2.  Wagner PF, Amato D. The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Facts, Figures and Statistics on Illegal Immigration. http://tinyurl.com/ybtwl8s