Friday, September 9, 2011

Shovel Ready jobs??

If a trillion dollars’ worth of stimulus didn’t work, why will another $450 billion do the trick? What makes him think jobs are "shovel" ready now?  Mr. President, what among your proposals was new?What hasn’t already been tried and failed before? This $450 BILLION dollar plan is PAID for? Really?? Then why are we 15 TRILLION dollars in debt, and why is it continuing to mount?

Things like this, make me want to bang my head against the wall. LITERALLY!!

Friday, August 26, 2011

What has happened to State Rights?

The US Constitution contemplates constant friction between the states and the federal government. The states had to ratify the creation of the federal government, so it is no wonder that they chose to restrict the power of the federal government and to maintain their own. In 1798, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison joined to write the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which declared that “the powers of the federal government … (result) from the compact, to which the states are parties … in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.”

In simpler terms, the states, according to the framers, were duty-bound to resist action by the federal government superseding its allotted authority under the Constitution. To that end, the states reserved to themselves the chief authority to tax, to raise militias, and to carry out the day-to-day activities required by government.

It was a brilliant structure. The federal government could not redistribute money and resources from taxpayers of one state to taxpayers of another without running up against resistance from the states, seeking to safeguard their own sovereignty. The federal government could not take over the states' interest in the education, welfare and protection of their own citizens — and so the federal government remained small.

The states' role was simple: they were to be “laboratories of democracy” run by local citizens. Sadly, states misused their authority. Certain states claimed that it was within their power to sanction slavery. And so the laboratories of democracy became torture chambers of democracy, with majorities oppressing minorities. The federal response to the slavery question was quick and right – President Abraham Lincoln's Civil War restored for all time the founding promises of the Declaration of Independence. Despite the Civil War, however, the legacy of Jim Crow further eroded the moral authority of states' rights. And the federal government, wielding the ethical imperatives of both racial equality, stepped in. States' rights advocates were forever branded as bigoted Orval Faubus types, standing in the doorways of segregated schoolhouses. And so the federal government took control of abortion policy. It took control of tax policy, blaming the states for “regressive” laissez-faire doctrine. It took control of education and health care. And states, eager for federal cash, largely acceded in the shift toward federal power.

Now states are surprised to find that their ability to resist federal directives has been all but extinguished. They are surprised that they are no longer able to set their own standards regarding social, economic, or criminal policy. They are surprised that through a combination of moral blindness and drooling greed, they surrendered their role in the constitutional system.

It is not too late. The first step toward the reinstitution of local government as a force in American life must begin with resistance to the total federalization of the economy. States can start by taking the moral high ground and refusing federal “stimulus” dollars.

If they do not, federal government will, once and for all, become a government of unlimited powers. And the laboratories of democracy will be closed down once and for all in the name of nationalized leftism.

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

If you have 23 this. Rubio is a rock star!

A tribute to Ronald Reagan by a Republican Rock Star!

Republic vs. Democracy

Just after the completion and signing of the Constitution, in reply to a woman's inquiry as to the type of government the Founders had created, Benjamin Franklin said, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

Not only have we failed to keep it, most don't even know what it is.

A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the Constitution).   A democracy is direct government ruled by the majority (mob rule).   A Republic recognizes the inalienable rights of individuals while democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs (the public good). Lawmaking is a slow, deliberate process in our Constitutional Republic requiring approval from the House, Senate, Executive (President or Governor), The Supreme Court, and individual jurors (jury-nullification).   Lawmaking in our unlawful democracy occurs rapidly requiring approval from the whim of the majority as determined by polls and/or voter referendums.   Voter referendums allow legislators to blame bad law on the people.   A good example of democracy in action is a lynch mob.
Democracies always self-destruct when the non-productive majority realizes that it can vote itself handouts from the productive minority by electing the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury.   To maintain their power, these candidates must adopt an ever-increasing tax and spend policy to satisfy the ever-increasing desires of the majority.   As taxes increase, incentive to produce decreases, causing many of the once productive to drop out and join the non-productive.   When there are no longer enough producers to fund the legitimate functions of government and the socialist programs, the democracy will collapse, always to be followed by a Dictatorship.
Even though nearly every politician, teacher, journalist and citizen believes that our Founders created a democracy, it is absolutely not true.   The Founders knew full well the differences between a Republic and a Democracy.   They repeatedly and emphatically said that they had founded a Republic.

Article IV Section 4, of the Constitution "guarantees to every state in this union a Republican form of government".... Conversely, the word Democracy is not mentioned even once in the Constitution.   Madison warned us of the dangers of democracies with these words,
"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths...",

"We may define a republic to be ... a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior.   It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable title of republic." James Madison, Federalist No. 10, (1787)

"A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority.   There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men." Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862)
Our military training manuals used to contain the correct definitions of Democracy and Republic. The following comes from Training Manual No. 2000-25 published by the War Department, November 30, 1928.

  • A government of the masses.
  • Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.
  • Results in mobocracy.
  • Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights.
  • Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
  • Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
  • Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
  • Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
  • A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
  • Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.
  • Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
  • Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

The EPA and how they are destroying America

Right now, someone is sitting at a large oak table in the EPA’s marble palace in Washington, D.C., sipping a vanilla latte and dreaming up a new rule to impose.  Without fail, the EPA continues to come up with ideas that leave you scratching your head in wonderment because of the questionable science used to justify these regulations.  Instead of protecting the environment, these rules dreamed up by the EPA in Washington are destroying American industry and killing job creation, which is just what our economy needs right now.  This type of federal meddling is exactly what causes companies to lay off workers, move overseas, and in many cases, fail.  The purpose of the Environmental Protection Agency is to protect the environment—not to regulate American industry into nonexistence.

Personally, my favorite is the EPA act that SHUT the water off to farmers in California, to save the life of "endangered" MINNOWS. Minnows? So, the life of a minnow is more important to the lives/livelihood of famers here in America? Minnows? Really? How many jobs did that impact? How many lives were turned upside down? Because of a minnow. And Texas the EPA is researching a lizard. Yes...a lizard that could quite possible shut down oil production and cost jobs and God knows what else. A lizard. Don't get me wrong. I love animals. I would walk in front of a bus for my dog. But when the welfare of animals is put before the welfare of humans....WE HAVE A PROBLEM.

The EPA’s blatant disregard of the fragile state of our economy is alarming.  Businesses in the United States already are operating in an environment of uncertainty, which makes investors hesitant to invest in American businesses.  The EPA’s efforts to force companies to comply with its expensive (and many times environmentally unnecessary) regulations will inevitably increase the cost for businesses, and accordingly consumers, and destroy job growth.  If the EPA continues on its crusade of destruction and over-regulation, manufacturing and energy companies will take their business to friendlier lands overseas, jobs will be destroyed, and the environment will not be any better off.

In the name of saving us from ourselves, the EPA continues to abuse its power.  The mother of all mandates is the proposed cap-and-trade regulations.  Houston, Tex., is the energy capital of the world, and home to more energy companies and facilities than almost any other location in the United States.  What I hear most often from the businesses that supply the energy that our country demands is that these questionable regulations will significantly increase costs that make doing business in the U.S. too difficult.  This type of over-regulation will crush the economy and put thousands of people out of work.  What makes the EPA’s proposed regulations most disturbing is that Texas has been successful on its own in ensuring clean air through the Texas Commission for Environmental Quality.  Despite Texas’ own progress, the EPA is looking for more to control, arrogantly ignoring the will of the people and the will of Congress.

The American people have rejected the EPA’s cap-and-trade regulations overwhelmingly, and recently, the REPUBLICAN controlled House of Representatives passed the Energy Tax and Prevention Act that would prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse gasses (i.e., carbon dioxide).  Of course, this caused the fear-mongerers to scream that we don’t care about the environment. What was left out of their talking points is that this legislation does not prohibit the EPA from regulating those hazardous pollutants that are harmful to public health.  We await the Democrat controlled Senate's action on this bill.

The Environmental Police Agency’s assault on our economy and state does not stop there.  It wants to control what kind of light-bulbs Americans use, how much power the utility companies generate, the “particulate coarse matter”—more commonly known as dust found on farms and ranches, how much water we have in our toilets, and one of the newest ones:  What kind of anti-bacterial soap we use to wash our hands.  That’s right, the EPA’s overstepping of authority now touches almost every aspect of our lives.  So, if you’re a mom who has been using the same soap for years to protect your children from spreading germs, sorry.  You need to go to the pharmacy and buy some new “improved” EPA-authorized soap.  While you’re there, you should pick up a box of only-Made-in-China compact fluorescent bulbs—because thanks to the EPA—incandescent bulbs will be banned by 2014.

Despite the unconstitutionality of government controlling every aspect of our lives, we’re left without any grounds for why this nanny state is needed.  The EPA has not adequately defended its destructive policies.  Recently, the EPA has chosen to miss several Capitol Hill hearings. I have heard the EPT referred to as the “Evaporating Personnel Administration.”  But when the EPA has actually chosen to show up for a hearing, what Congress has heard from its administrators is worrisome.  This month, EPA Assistant Administrator Mathy Stanislaus testified before the House Environment and Energy Subcommittee.  Congressman Cory Gardener (R.-Colo.) asked Administrator Stanislaus whether the EPA took job creation into account when it analyzes new regulations.  This simple question sent Stanislaus on a five-minute-long frenzy, where he let it slip that the EPA could care less about job creation.  Apparently, the EPA comes up with regulations in the marble palace without considering the effect that its policies will have on job creation.  You can’t make this stuff up.

The reality is that the EPA policies are driving up energy costs at a time when gas is nearly $5 a gallon, destroying jobs when unemployment is hovering at 8%, and sending companies overseas at a time when investment in America is at a low.  Many of these regulations—such as regulating dust on farms—just make no sense.  It is understandable, but not defend-able, how someone who does not set foot out of his marble palace might think that dust on farms should be regulated.  This just shows how disconnected some people in Washington really are, coming up with rules based on no science or knowledge.  This is why the Constitution does not give the government the power to decide what kind of light-bulb you use.  The pure absurdity of the ridiculous and expensive federal regulations is what makes normal Americans all across our country so frustrated with Washington, D.C.  The regulators sitting at the table in the marble palace are out of touch with America.  The EPA needs to do its job—protect the environment—and get out of the way of American businesses and job creators.

And that’s just the way it is.