Friends,
Today is the ninth anniversary of the atrocity perpetrated by Islamic extremists. September 11, 2001. Can anyone not remember what they were doing when they heard about the attack by Muslim extremists on the United States? I certainly remember. I was working in the shop listening to the machinery cutting lumber for a piece of furniture. I had to make a phone call to a company with which I was doing business and was greeted by a lady sobbing. When I asked her what was wrong, she seemed incredulous that I was not watching the news, and she told me what was happening.
On that horrific day consumed by those horrific events, all we could think about was the tragic loss of life and who could have possibly carried out such an attack. We soon learned that it was a radical Muslim organization called al Qaida. Most of us had never heard of al Qaida before or at most as just some organization in the background noise of the news. Today it is a household discussion item.
This day, September 11, 2010, may have passed as another day of patriotic remembrances and speeches except for two events. First is the anticipated building of the “Victory Mosque” just a few hundred yards from the sight of the collapsed World Trade Center towers. The second, which at this writing has been canceled, is the mass Koran burning at a small church in Gainesville, Florida.
I will address the second “non-event” first. You will never hear me try to defend an ideology that advocates the destruction of non-believers of Islam, however, as Christians we must remember and follow the teachings of Christ. There have been death threats on the pastor of that church in Florida and I'm sure others of the church. Numerous US and international organizations have urged that the event be cancelled.
We have been taught to love our enemies, not incite them. As Christ said, “But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Matthew 5:44-45) I submit that an appropriate celebration of the 9/11 attacks would be a gathering for prayer to ask God to work in the hearts of terrorists and all Muslims so that they may see where their salvation truly lies.
The other event that is of concern is the planned building of the “Victory Mosque” just a few hundred yards from ground zero. This is not the official name given by the Muslim imam in charge of the project, Imam Rauf. The last I heard, it is being called the Cordoba House which is actually a perfect name for it. When you go back and look at the history of the Muslims building their grand mosques, all of them have been built on or in commemoration of great victories over their enemies. When Mecca finally surrendered to Mohammad in 630, he declared that the former pagan holy city would be forever the holiest city of Islam.
The Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem is built on the site of Solomon’s Temple. This was their declaration that Islam had defeated the “People of the Book,” as Mohammad called the Jews and the Christians. This was their victory mosque in Israel.
Another example is the Great Mosque of Cordoba in Spain. After the Muslim conquest of the area in the late eighth century, a Visigoth Christian church was converted to a mosque. It stood as a victory mosque until the area was retaken by the Christian Castilian king Ferdinand III in 1236.
You can see from these examples that the Muslims make it a practice to put an exclamation point on their major conquests. Looking at news clips of Muslim areas around the world on 9/11/2001 you will not see crying or anguish. You will see cheering and adulation for the cowards and their accomplices. The Muslim world saw this day as a victory over the Great Satan. To most Muslims around the world this was a great event.
As I have mentioned, as of this writing, the Koran burning has been canceled. According to Pastor Jones, the stated reason for the cancellation is that he has been given assurances that the victory mosque will be moved. This promise has been refuted by Imam Rauf, but Pastor Jones is in New York to confer today with the planners of the victory mosque. I would be very surprised if the mosque is moved. The radical Muslims are too proud of the events of 9/11/2001 to make any concessions to the Great Satan.
The common view of Islam is that it is a religion. I would dispute this view for a number of reasons, but that is the subject of a future Discourse.
As always, I welcome your questions/comments.
Dan
Dan Lanotte
- The Carpenter's Mate
- Falcon, Colorado
- I am a 31 year Navy veteran, 15 years as a SONAR Technician and 16 years as an Intelligence Officer. I am a Goldwater-Reagan Conservative with a deep love for this wonderful country of opportunity and am concerned about the continued abrogation of our freedoms. In addition to putting my thoughts and political philosophy in these pages I enjoy teaching firearms and personal protection in keeping with the spirit of the Second Amendment. My courses are listed at www.carpmateconsulting.com.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Thursday, April 22, 2010
The Constitution, The Contract With the States, Pt. 2
Friends,
In my last discourse I began a discussion on the contract that the original 13 colonies signed that we today call the United States Constitution. This contract made very clear that the federal government served at the pleasure of the states. The first nine amendments of the Bill of Rights set down very concisely the rights of individuals that could not be infringed upon by either state or federal government. The Tenth Amendment put a cap on the Bill of Rights by telling the federal government that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” These words are pretty clear and easy to understand. This invites two questions, 1) is the federal government adhering to the Tenth Amendment; and 2) if not, where did we stray?
The first question is fairly easy to address. The theory, as I understand it, is that each and every law passed and signed by the president must have a justification under one or more of the provisions of the Constitution. Let’s take a look at some of these laws.
Anyone in business with employees well knows the agency called the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Did you know that an OSHA inspector can walk into your office or factory and hold an unannounced safety inspection of your premises? The business owner or his representative has the right to refuse permission for this inspection but the OSHA inspector will just go to a federal judge and obtain a warrant for the inspection. This will only cause a 24 hour delay. This inspector has the power to write a ticket for an infraction, whether justified or not. To fight these tickets is time consuming and expensive. But let’s go back to the concept of these safety rules. I have been over the Constitution many times and I have not been able to find any passage that says that the federal government is responsible for the safe working conditions of businesses operating in the US. Obviously, it is smart business practice for the company to maintain safe working conditions. It is expensive to continuously train employees to replaced injured ones. But there is absolutely no justification under the Constitution for the regulations enforced by OSHA or for OSHA to exist at all.
Now I'm going to take an easy shot; the new Health Care Law that the OWH has recently signed. I have worn my eyes out pouring over the Constitution and I have yet to find anywhere the federal government has the authority to force anyone to buy anything. If you decide to walk to work in the snow without shoes, the federal government cannot make you buy shoes; you will just get cold on your own. The preamble of the Constitution says “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” One key phrase is “promote the general Welfare,” not insure it. Another key word in the preamble is “for.” The framers established a constitution for the states which had decided to be united. This may seem like a petty thing but believe me, it is not. In the next Discourse I will go into this difference in more detail.
Now let’s discuss the second question. I think that I have established that the federal government is violating the terms of the contract. But where did we stray? I say “we” because the people who allow the federal government to operate outside the confines of the agreed upon contract were elected by the citizens of the United States.
It did not take long for our new government to try on its coat of power. In 1798 four bills called the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed and signed into law by President Adams. The Naturalization Act was the first attempt at immigration regulation. It extended the time requirement for naturalization to 14 years. This act was repealed in 1802.
The Alien Friends Act gave the president the power to summarily deport any alien considered “dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States.” This law had a two year expiration date and was allowed to expire. But it gave the president a great deal of discretionary power; you might even call it a “kingly” power.
The Alien Enemies Act, the only one still in force, allowed the president to deport resident aliens if their home countries are at war with the US. We all know how this law was bent with the internment of Americans of Japanese heritage during World War II, irrespective of their citizenship status. However, I have not found any mention of Americans of German heritage being interned (but I digress).
The Sedition Act was the first effort for the federal government to dictate what was acceptable to print and what was not. It made it a crime to publish “false, scandalous, and malicious writing” against the government and/or officials. Its expiration date was the day before John Adams left office. If this law were still in force, these pages would land me in jail.
What is really sad is that these acts were signed into law by one of the Founders. The stage was set. In 1861, the slave states seceded from the Union, primarily over the issue of slavery. While I fully agree that slavery was and still is an abomination, there is still some question whether President Lincoln had the authority to force the Confederate States back into the Union. Looking back at the original intent of the Constitution we will remember that the primary concern was the rights of the states and the individual. If that was the primary concern, how could the federal government in Washington DC justify removing the rights of the states to secede? After all they had entered into the agreement of their own free wills.
In retrospect, I believe that this country is much stronger as a whole than it would have been as two separate countries. However, the federal government took a major step toward completely changing the relationship between it and the states.
In my next Discourse we will look at how the structure and interpretation of the federal/state relationship changed.
As usual, your questions and discussions are welcome.
Dan
In my last discourse I began a discussion on the contract that the original 13 colonies signed that we today call the United States Constitution. This contract made very clear that the federal government served at the pleasure of the states. The first nine amendments of the Bill of Rights set down very concisely the rights of individuals that could not be infringed upon by either state or federal government. The Tenth Amendment put a cap on the Bill of Rights by telling the federal government that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” These words are pretty clear and easy to understand. This invites two questions, 1) is the federal government adhering to the Tenth Amendment; and 2) if not, where did we stray?
The first question is fairly easy to address. The theory, as I understand it, is that each and every law passed and signed by the president must have a justification under one or more of the provisions of the Constitution. Let’s take a look at some of these laws.
Anyone in business with employees well knows the agency called the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Did you know that an OSHA inspector can walk into your office or factory and hold an unannounced safety inspection of your premises? The business owner or his representative has the right to refuse permission for this inspection but the OSHA inspector will just go to a federal judge and obtain a warrant for the inspection. This will only cause a 24 hour delay. This inspector has the power to write a ticket for an infraction, whether justified or not. To fight these tickets is time consuming and expensive. But let’s go back to the concept of these safety rules. I have been over the Constitution many times and I have not been able to find any passage that says that the federal government is responsible for the safe working conditions of businesses operating in the US. Obviously, it is smart business practice for the company to maintain safe working conditions. It is expensive to continuously train employees to replaced injured ones. But there is absolutely no justification under the Constitution for the regulations enforced by OSHA or for OSHA to exist at all.
Now I'm going to take an easy shot; the new Health Care Law that the OWH has recently signed. I have worn my eyes out pouring over the Constitution and I have yet to find anywhere the federal government has the authority to force anyone to buy anything. If you decide to walk to work in the snow without shoes, the federal government cannot make you buy shoes; you will just get cold on your own. The preamble of the Constitution says “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” One key phrase is “promote the general Welfare,” not insure it. Another key word in the preamble is “for.” The framers established a constitution for the states which had decided to be united. This may seem like a petty thing but believe me, it is not. In the next Discourse I will go into this difference in more detail.
Now let’s discuss the second question. I think that I have established that the federal government is violating the terms of the contract. But where did we stray? I say “we” because the people who allow the federal government to operate outside the confines of the agreed upon contract were elected by the citizens of the United States.
It did not take long for our new government to try on its coat of power. In 1798 four bills called the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed and signed into law by President Adams. The Naturalization Act was the first attempt at immigration regulation. It extended the time requirement for naturalization to 14 years. This act was repealed in 1802.
The Alien Friends Act gave the president the power to summarily deport any alien considered “dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States.” This law had a two year expiration date and was allowed to expire. But it gave the president a great deal of discretionary power; you might even call it a “kingly” power.
The Alien Enemies Act, the only one still in force, allowed the president to deport resident aliens if their home countries are at war with the US. We all know how this law was bent with the internment of Americans of Japanese heritage during World War II, irrespective of their citizenship status. However, I have not found any mention of Americans of German heritage being interned (but I digress).
The Sedition Act was the first effort for the federal government to dictate what was acceptable to print and what was not. It made it a crime to publish “false, scandalous, and malicious writing” against the government and/or officials. Its expiration date was the day before John Adams left office. If this law were still in force, these pages would land me in jail.
What is really sad is that these acts were signed into law by one of the Founders. The stage was set. In 1861, the slave states seceded from the Union, primarily over the issue of slavery. While I fully agree that slavery was and still is an abomination, there is still some question whether President Lincoln had the authority to force the Confederate States back into the Union. Looking back at the original intent of the Constitution we will remember that the primary concern was the rights of the states and the individual. If that was the primary concern, how could the federal government in Washington DC justify removing the rights of the states to secede? After all they had entered into the agreement of their own free wills.
In retrospect, I believe that this country is much stronger as a whole than it would have been as two separate countries. However, the federal government took a major step toward completely changing the relationship between it and the states.
In my next Discourse we will look at how the structure and interpretation of the federal/state relationship changed.
As usual, your questions and discussions are welcome.
Dan
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
The Constitution, The Contract With the States, Pt. 1
Friends,
When the American colonists decided that they had had enough of England’s onerous rule they took action. Two of the more celebrated events took place in Massachusetts, the Boston Tea Party, on 16 December 1773 and the “Shot heard around the world” at Concord on 19 April 1775.
Even though much of the early action took place in the New England area all 13 colonies were involved and contributed to the effort. Each of them sent representatives to the first and second Continental Congresses but they were first and foremost individual colonies. The Congresses tended to be rather contentious affairs with each colony’s representatives fighting to ensure the interests of his own colony was fairly represented.
This emphasis on the interests of the colonies carried over into the writing and ratification of the Articles of Confederation, written by the direction of the Second Continental Congress. Under the Articles the states maintained a mostly sovereign position within the whole. The union was a very loose confederation and that was the way the states wanted it. One of the main complaints against the Articles was that there was no power of taxation; the central government had to ask for funds to operate, to wage war, to carry out diplomatic missions, etc. and the states were not obligated to accede to the request. It was recognized by the states that there needed to be a structure to bind them together but it was not going to be a strong central government like that which they were battling at the time. The emphasis was on the freedom and sovereignty of the individual states.
This sovereignty was so important that the smaller states came to feel that they did not have commensurate economic power or balance with the other, larger states. The concern was that the larger states’ economic power would dominate them. Also, the larger states felt that they contributed more to the Union but each state had only one vote and therefore the small states held too much power.
These concerns were addressed and corrected by the establishment of the US Constitution in 1788. Like the discussions in the Second Continental Congress over the provisions of the Articles, the Constitutional Convention was no less “spirited.” For four months in the summer of 1787, delegates from all of the states met in Philadelphia to hammer out the Constitution. A great deal of the discussion and dissention was based on how to fairly represent the states. The result was the Constitution without any amendments.
With the emphasis on States’ Rights, the Constitution was ultimately drawn up as a contract between the States to establish the federal government. This is an important concept, that the states established the federal government by use of a contract called the Constitution.
The new nation had just come through a long war to free themselves of the tyranny of a strong central government and these new states needed some assurance that the new federal government would not become the same type of tyrannical government from which they had just freed themselves. The states intended to ensure that that would not happen by writing certain guarantees into the contract, the Constitution. These guarantees set down the duties and responsibilities of the federal government and the states. There were also restrictions that delineated the relationship between the federal government and the states. This relationship was quite clear. The states were still in the driver’s seat and the federal government served at the pleasure of the states.
In addition, the states’ representatives were concerned about the rights of their citizens, so, to the end of the contract they added a codicil, the Bill of Rights. Make no mistake the first nine amendments in the Bill of Rights were meant to guarantee the rights of the individual and the Tenth Amendment specifically told the federal government where their authority ended. This was the contract drawn up by the states to set down the limitations and responsibilities of the federal government.
This has merely been a primer on the background and reasoning underlying the drafting of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In my next Discourse I will delve a bit more deeply into the relationship requirements and limitations set down by this contract.
As always, your comments and discussions are welcome.
Dan
When the American colonists decided that they had had enough of England’s onerous rule they took action. Two of the more celebrated events took place in Massachusetts, the Boston Tea Party, on 16 December 1773 and the “Shot heard around the world” at Concord on 19 April 1775.
Even though much of the early action took place in the New England area all 13 colonies were involved and contributed to the effort. Each of them sent representatives to the first and second Continental Congresses but they were first and foremost individual colonies. The Congresses tended to be rather contentious affairs with each colony’s representatives fighting to ensure the interests of his own colony was fairly represented.
This emphasis on the interests of the colonies carried over into the writing and ratification of the Articles of Confederation, written by the direction of the Second Continental Congress. Under the Articles the states maintained a mostly sovereign position within the whole. The union was a very loose confederation and that was the way the states wanted it. One of the main complaints against the Articles was that there was no power of taxation; the central government had to ask for funds to operate, to wage war, to carry out diplomatic missions, etc. and the states were not obligated to accede to the request. It was recognized by the states that there needed to be a structure to bind them together but it was not going to be a strong central government like that which they were battling at the time. The emphasis was on the freedom and sovereignty of the individual states.
This sovereignty was so important that the smaller states came to feel that they did not have commensurate economic power or balance with the other, larger states. The concern was that the larger states’ economic power would dominate them. Also, the larger states felt that they contributed more to the Union but each state had only one vote and therefore the small states held too much power.
These concerns were addressed and corrected by the establishment of the US Constitution in 1788. Like the discussions in the Second Continental Congress over the provisions of the Articles, the Constitutional Convention was no less “spirited.” For four months in the summer of 1787, delegates from all of the states met in Philadelphia to hammer out the Constitution. A great deal of the discussion and dissention was based on how to fairly represent the states. The result was the Constitution without any amendments.
With the emphasis on States’ Rights, the Constitution was ultimately drawn up as a contract between the States to establish the federal government. This is an important concept, that the states established the federal government by use of a contract called the Constitution.
The new nation had just come through a long war to free themselves of the tyranny of a strong central government and these new states needed some assurance that the new federal government would not become the same type of tyrannical government from which they had just freed themselves. The states intended to ensure that that would not happen by writing certain guarantees into the contract, the Constitution. These guarantees set down the duties and responsibilities of the federal government and the states. There were also restrictions that delineated the relationship between the federal government and the states. This relationship was quite clear. The states were still in the driver’s seat and the federal government served at the pleasure of the states.
In addition, the states’ representatives were concerned about the rights of their citizens, so, to the end of the contract they added a codicil, the Bill of Rights. Make no mistake the first nine amendments in the Bill of Rights were meant to guarantee the rights of the individual and the Tenth Amendment specifically told the federal government where their authority ended. This was the contract drawn up by the states to set down the limitations and responsibilities of the federal government.
This has merely been a primer on the background and reasoning underlying the drafting of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In my next Discourse I will delve a bit more deeply into the relationship requirements and limitations set down by this contract.
As always, your comments and discussions are welcome.
Dan
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
The Four Scandals
Friends,
This is another in the on-going series of Global Warming articles written by Andy Pico.
Enjoy,
Dan
The Four Scandals
The Massive Scientific Fraud known as Anthropogenic Global Warming or Climate Change is collapsing with unprecedented speed like a house of rotten cards built on quicksand. The revelations of scientific misconduct now coming from some of the core scientists have reached a daily flood with example upon example of fabricated data, pre-conceived results, perversion of the peer review process, manipulation of station data to fabricate or exaggerate warming trends, reliance on environmentalist advocacy fiction substituting for peer-reviewed research, and so on.
This is a scandal of monumental proportions. Many of the claims of the Climate Change Alarmists have become little more than comedy punch lines.
In reality, there are four scandals, each built upon the others and closely linked. These linked scandals did not start out as such. The building fraud was more of a case of various individuals and groups jumping onto a convenient bandwagon headed in a direction the perpetrators each wanted to go for their own reasons.
The first scandal is the obvious one, the fraud of AGW science built upon a theory the original author himself disavowed almost a century ago. Once started, scientists jumped on board in pursuit of research grants and many other reasons. Most of them fell for their own fraudulent science and ignored the violations of basic scientific processes and ethics. With the recent admissions by some of the scientists at the core of this fraud that no statistically significant warming has occurred in a decade and a half, that the debate is not closed and there is no real scientific consensus (as if such a thing were even credible, valid or legitimate) the collapse of the Scientific Fraud of AGW stands exposed.
The second scandal is the political scandal of those who jumped on the AGW bandwagon to push a political agenda and to simply pull in votes. The political agenda is one of control and the seizure of energy markets through governmental over-regulation. The marriage of environmentalist extremist groups and opportunist politicians resulted in an agenda leading to a world-wide movement that would have derailed freedom, individual liberties, economic prosperity and life itself for many. Other agendas included population control measures, unelected international government controls, and the stifling of economic freedom resulting in poverty and starvation for hundreds of millions.
The third scandal is the financial one. The artificial carbon market including such risky schemes as carbon credits, carbon off-sets and carbon trading under various names is built on the first two scandals. The financial bubble of carbon trading is quite literally built on nothing more than hot air and adheres to no standards consistent with securities trading or financial regulations. Carbon trading has been a fraud from the start and those who have pushed this scheme have been nothing more than carbon profiteers. As the Scientific Scandal crashes, the entire basis for the Carbon Swindle evaporates. This is a world-wide financial bubble about to burst and add to the stress of financial markets worldwide. The holders of carbon credits should take a close look at just what it was they bought.
The fourth scandal is the media cover-up and whitewash. Here in the U.S., the media have largely been complicit in pushing the Scientific Fraud, have aligned with the Political Agenda and ignored the Financial Swindle. Now that the Scientific Fraud is collapsing, the media here in this country for the most part continues to ignore it, cover it up, or white-wash the investigations. The media overseas, in contrast, are covering the daily meltdowns much more thoroughly. The failure of the national “Mainstream Media” will further fuel the declining readership and ratings of what the broad population has come to recognize as the Propaganda Press. The victims of media outlets such as NPR and PBS can be excused in their ignorance, but to remain so in the face overwhelming evidence of fraud and corruption can only be classified as willful ignorance.
The monumental combination of fraud and deceit crossing science, politics, financial and the media will go down in history as the greatest attempted fraud and swindle of all time. As the financial bubble of carbon swindling bursts, the hearings on securities fraud must soon follow.
Andres Pico, of Colorado Springs, is a retired Navy Commander, Naval Flight Officer and project manager in the defense industry. He is a signatory of the Manhattan Declaration.
This is another in the on-going series of Global Warming articles written by Andy Pico.
Enjoy,
Dan
The Four Scandals
The Massive Scientific Fraud known as Anthropogenic Global Warming or Climate Change is collapsing with unprecedented speed like a house of rotten cards built on quicksand. The revelations of scientific misconduct now coming from some of the core scientists have reached a daily flood with example upon example of fabricated data, pre-conceived results, perversion of the peer review process, manipulation of station data to fabricate or exaggerate warming trends, reliance on environmentalist advocacy fiction substituting for peer-reviewed research, and so on.
This is a scandal of monumental proportions. Many of the claims of the Climate Change Alarmists have become little more than comedy punch lines.
In reality, there are four scandals, each built upon the others and closely linked. These linked scandals did not start out as such. The building fraud was more of a case of various individuals and groups jumping onto a convenient bandwagon headed in a direction the perpetrators each wanted to go for their own reasons.
The first scandal is the obvious one, the fraud of AGW science built upon a theory the original author himself disavowed almost a century ago. Once started, scientists jumped on board in pursuit of research grants and many other reasons. Most of them fell for their own fraudulent science and ignored the violations of basic scientific processes and ethics. With the recent admissions by some of the scientists at the core of this fraud that no statistically significant warming has occurred in a decade and a half, that the debate is not closed and there is no real scientific consensus (as if such a thing were even credible, valid or legitimate) the collapse of the Scientific Fraud of AGW stands exposed.
The second scandal is the political scandal of those who jumped on the AGW bandwagon to push a political agenda and to simply pull in votes. The political agenda is one of control and the seizure of energy markets through governmental over-regulation. The marriage of environmentalist extremist groups and opportunist politicians resulted in an agenda leading to a world-wide movement that would have derailed freedom, individual liberties, economic prosperity and life itself for many. Other agendas included population control measures, unelected international government controls, and the stifling of economic freedom resulting in poverty and starvation for hundreds of millions.
The third scandal is the financial one. The artificial carbon market including such risky schemes as carbon credits, carbon off-sets and carbon trading under various names is built on the first two scandals. The financial bubble of carbon trading is quite literally built on nothing more than hot air and adheres to no standards consistent with securities trading or financial regulations. Carbon trading has been a fraud from the start and those who have pushed this scheme have been nothing more than carbon profiteers. As the Scientific Scandal crashes, the entire basis for the Carbon Swindle evaporates. This is a world-wide financial bubble about to burst and add to the stress of financial markets worldwide. The holders of carbon credits should take a close look at just what it was they bought.
The fourth scandal is the media cover-up and whitewash. Here in the U.S., the media have largely been complicit in pushing the Scientific Fraud, have aligned with the Political Agenda and ignored the Financial Swindle. Now that the Scientific Fraud is collapsing, the media here in this country for the most part continues to ignore it, cover it up, or white-wash the investigations. The media overseas, in contrast, are covering the daily meltdowns much more thoroughly. The failure of the national “Mainstream Media” will further fuel the declining readership and ratings of what the broad population has come to recognize as the Propaganda Press. The victims of media outlets such as NPR and PBS can be excused in their ignorance, but to remain so in the face overwhelming evidence of fraud and corruption can only be classified as willful ignorance.
The monumental combination of fraud and deceit crossing science, politics, financial and the media will go down in history as the greatest attempted fraud and swindle of all time. As the financial bubble of carbon swindling bursts, the hearings on securities fraud must soon follow.
Andres Pico, of Colorado Springs, is a retired Navy Commander, Naval Flight Officer and project manager in the defense industry. He is a signatory of the Manhattan Declaration.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
More on States' Rights - The Census
Friends,
I have written about States’ Rights several times in the past. A couple of links to previous articles are here and here. Sometimes I feel like the guy standing out in the middle of the forest who wonders, “If a tree were to fall, would anyone hear it?” There is a growing movement for States’ Rights taking place in America now as discussed in this New York Times article.
There are examples of states such as Utah, Wyoming, Oklahoma, and others that have stood up and told the federal government that they are not going to kowtow to their every whim. Now let us take a look at the latest example of government action in excess of their powers, namely the Census.
Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution states “The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.” The Constitution is quite specific as to the purpose of this enumeration which we have come to know as the Census. The Census is to be taken specifically for determining how many Representatives are to serve in the House from each state. There is to be one Representative for each 30,000 persons, but each state shall have at least one Representative.
Now, let us fast forward to today. I received my Census form in the mail a couple of days ago and looking at the envelop, it starts off telling me that I am required to complete the Census form and return it. Depending on to whom you listen, failure to do so could land you a fine from $100 to $5000. I’m sure the fine is on the high end if you falsify some information.
To be perfectly honest, I did not find anything on the form to be terribly objectionable but I have a serious question as to what the requested information has to do with determining how many Representatives a State will have. The very first block looks like the only legitimate question on the whole thing. It asks how many people live in the house. Well, that takes care of the enumeration part, but then they start to break it down into the characterization of the residents. Are there children; nonrelatives; roommates; who owns the dwelling; is the dwelling an apartment; etc.? They asked my phone number in case they don’t believe my answers and have to call me. They ask for my name and my wife’s name and what our birthdays are. They ask what our race is. They didn’t leave me a place to say “My race is American.” They even asked if my wife or I sometimes live or stay somewhere else.
As I said, none of these questions were particularly objectionable, but I have to ask what business is this of theirs? What does it have to do with deciding how many Representatives Colorado sends to Washington? Do we get more Representatives if we have more Cubans? Do we get more Representatives if we have more Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin people? I wonder what the weighting factor is for each racial group.
I’m sure you are asking by now what this has to do with States’ Rights. Well, I'm glad you asked. Included in the envelop was a blue flyer from the Director, US Census Bureau, whoever that is, that states all of this information is important because it is used to determine not only the number of Representatives, but also how much government money my neighborhood receives. I looked up and down my road (I live out in the country, kind of) and was not able to spot any box where they were going to put my neighborhood’s money. It says that this money is to be used for children, the elderly, and our roads. We are in trouble. There aren’t many children along our road and, depending on the cut-off age, not a lot of elderly. Also, the last time I checked, our road belongs to El Paso County, not the federal government.
Where is the federal government getting all of this money it is doling out? It is getting it from you, me and our State. This money rightfully is not the property of the federal government. It is our money that they are redistributing to people and areas that do not pay as much as we do. In other words they are making everything and everyone the same.
This is where our States’ Rights come in. It is long past time that we tell the federal government that we don’t want their help with our children, our elderly, our roads or anything else. The federal government works for us, not the other way around! Over the past 200 years that concept has been lost. It is time that the citizens of the States stand up and inform the government of their contractual responsibilities.
That is a great segue into the next article which will be out in a few days.
As always, I welcome your comments and discussion.
Dan
I have written about States’ Rights several times in the past. A couple of links to previous articles are here and here. Sometimes I feel like the guy standing out in the middle of the forest who wonders, “If a tree were to fall, would anyone hear it?” There is a growing movement for States’ Rights taking place in America now as discussed in this New York Times article.
There are examples of states such as Utah, Wyoming, Oklahoma, and others that have stood up and told the federal government that they are not going to kowtow to their every whim. Now let us take a look at the latest example of government action in excess of their powers, namely the Census.
Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution states “The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.” The Constitution is quite specific as to the purpose of this enumeration which we have come to know as the Census. The Census is to be taken specifically for determining how many Representatives are to serve in the House from each state. There is to be one Representative for each 30,000 persons, but each state shall have at least one Representative.
Now, let us fast forward to today. I received my Census form in the mail a couple of days ago and looking at the envelop, it starts off telling me that I am required to complete the Census form and return it. Depending on to whom you listen, failure to do so could land you a fine from $100 to $5000. I’m sure the fine is on the high end if you falsify some information.
To be perfectly honest, I did not find anything on the form to be terribly objectionable but I have a serious question as to what the requested information has to do with determining how many Representatives a State will have. The very first block looks like the only legitimate question on the whole thing. It asks how many people live in the house. Well, that takes care of the enumeration part, but then they start to break it down into the characterization of the residents. Are there children; nonrelatives; roommates; who owns the dwelling; is the dwelling an apartment; etc.? They asked my phone number in case they don’t believe my answers and have to call me. They ask for my name and my wife’s name and what our birthdays are. They ask what our race is. They didn’t leave me a place to say “My race is American.” They even asked if my wife or I sometimes live or stay somewhere else.
As I said, none of these questions were particularly objectionable, but I have to ask what business is this of theirs? What does it have to do with deciding how many Representatives Colorado sends to Washington? Do we get more Representatives if we have more Cubans? Do we get more Representatives if we have more Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin people? I wonder what the weighting factor is for each racial group.
I’m sure you are asking by now what this has to do with States’ Rights. Well, I'm glad you asked. Included in the envelop was a blue flyer from the Director, US Census Bureau, whoever that is, that states all of this information is important because it is used to determine not only the number of Representatives, but also how much government money my neighborhood receives. I looked up and down my road (I live out in the country, kind of) and was not able to spot any box where they were going to put my neighborhood’s money. It says that this money is to be used for children, the elderly, and our roads. We are in trouble. There aren’t many children along our road and, depending on the cut-off age, not a lot of elderly. Also, the last time I checked, our road belongs to El Paso County, not the federal government.
Where is the federal government getting all of this money it is doling out? It is getting it from you, me and our State. This money rightfully is not the property of the federal government. It is our money that they are redistributing to people and areas that do not pay as much as we do. In other words they are making everything and everyone the same.
This is where our States’ Rights come in. It is long past time that we tell the federal government that we don’t want their help with our children, our elderly, our roads or anything else. The federal government works for us, not the other way around! Over the past 200 years that concept has been lost. It is time that the citizens of the States stand up and inform the government of their contractual responsibilities.
That is a great segue into the next article which will be out in a few days.
As always, I welcome your comments and discussion.
Dan
Monday, February 22, 2010
The Second Amendment and Other Things
Friends,
I make the mistake of tuning in Bill O’Reilly this evening, 22, Feb, and boy, did he get my dander up.
I was already upset with his anti-Second Amendment rhetoric a few days ago. In case you didn’t hear it he tried to make the case that during an emergency, like Hurricane Katrina, government has the right to suspend the Second Amendment and confiscate personal firearms. I was aghast when I heard that. You just can’t cherry-pick application of the Constitution. The Constitution is applicable at all times. Unfortunately, our Colorado State Legislature seems to have the same opinion as Mr. O’Reilly. A couple of weeks ago the Democrats in the Senate Veterans and Military Affairs Committee decided that they were going to protect the government from us radical citizens by denying us our Second Amendment rights during emergency situations. The governor still can declare an emergency and take our guns.
This same august group also decided that they really do not want to acknowledge that the States have rights that supersede the federal government. They voted to table a bill that would have made any gun manufactured in Colorado, sold in Colorado and intended for use exclusively in Colorado exempt from federal regulations. This is the same bill passed in a number of other states whose legislatures and governors have shown the courage to be Americans as envisioned by the Founders. It looks like our Colorado Legislature doesn’t want to exercise the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. I can understand that; exercising rights is hard work and requires that you take responsibility for your decisions and actions. We sure don’t want the Colorado Democrats to be too stressed out by being responsible for anything.
However, as usual, I have moved myself off on a tangent. I was talking about Mr. O’Reilly. Tonight he showed a clip of Rush Limbaugh doing a parody of him. Mr. O’Reilly seemed to be flattered that he would be parodied by such as Mr. Limbaugh. But I have to wonder, was it a parody or was he being mocked. Juan Williams thought the later. I agree. Mr. Limbaugh was mocking Mr. O’Reilly’s take on the OWH’s political philosophy. Mr. O’Reilly doesn’t believe that the OWH is a socialist. Really, he isn’t? As Speaker Gingrich pointed out, the OWH has taken over a great deal of the banking industry, garnered control over two of three major auto manufactures, and is trying to take over the entire health care system, fully one-sixth of the American economy. I have to ask Mr. O’Reilly, “What qualifies for socialist in your political science dictionary?”
It seems that he wants to give the OWH the benefit of the doubt to see what will come out of this grand experiment on the American economy, and our very way of life. I can’t be that generous. The OWH has worked tirelessly to eradicate out freedoms and the very foundations of our society. The Founders realized that the strength of this country was in the individual, not the government. That is why the Constitution could only be ratified with the guarantee that a bill of rights would be soon forth coming. As I have pointed out in these pages numerous times, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights specifically enumerate the limits on government and the individual rights guaranteed to all citizens. That government derives its power from the people, not the other way around.
Bill O’Reilly is wrong. This is not the time to give the OWH a pass on anything. We, as strict Constitutionalists, must constantly hold the OWH to the standard set down by the Founders. In this the first year of this administration he is failing us. American ingenuity and exercise of the free market, only, will pull us out of the depression that this administration has plunged us into.
As always, I welcome your comments and discussion.
Dan
I make the mistake of tuning in Bill O’Reilly this evening, 22, Feb, and boy, did he get my dander up.
I was already upset with his anti-Second Amendment rhetoric a few days ago. In case you didn’t hear it he tried to make the case that during an emergency, like Hurricane Katrina, government has the right to suspend the Second Amendment and confiscate personal firearms. I was aghast when I heard that. You just can’t cherry-pick application of the Constitution. The Constitution is applicable at all times. Unfortunately, our Colorado State Legislature seems to have the same opinion as Mr. O’Reilly. A couple of weeks ago the Democrats in the Senate Veterans and Military Affairs Committee decided that they were going to protect the government from us radical citizens by denying us our Second Amendment rights during emergency situations. The governor still can declare an emergency and take our guns.
This same august group also decided that they really do not want to acknowledge that the States have rights that supersede the federal government. They voted to table a bill that would have made any gun manufactured in Colorado, sold in Colorado and intended for use exclusively in Colorado exempt from federal regulations. This is the same bill passed in a number of other states whose legislatures and governors have shown the courage to be Americans as envisioned by the Founders. It looks like our Colorado Legislature doesn’t want to exercise the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. I can understand that; exercising rights is hard work and requires that you take responsibility for your decisions and actions. We sure don’t want the Colorado Democrats to be too stressed out by being responsible for anything.
However, as usual, I have moved myself off on a tangent. I was talking about Mr. O’Reilly. Tonight he showed a clip of Rush Limbaugh doing a parody of him. Mr. O’Reilly seemed to be flattered that he would be parodied by such as Mr. Limbaugh. But I have to wonder, was it a parody or was he being mocked. Juan Williams thought the later. I agree. Mr. Limbaugh was mocking Mr. O’Reilly’s take on the OWH’s political philosophy. Mr. O’Reilly doesn’t believe that the OWH is a socialist. Really, he isn’t? As Speaker Gingrich pointed out, the OWH has taken over a great deal of the banking industry, garnered control over two of three major auto manufactures, and is trying to take over the entire health care system, fully one-sixth of the American economy. I have to ask Mr. O’Reilly, “What qualifies for socialist in your political science dictionary?”
It seems that he wants to give the OWH the benefit of the doubt to see what will come out of this grand experiment on the American economy, and our very way of life. I can’t be that generous. The OWH has worked tirelessly to eradicate out freedoms and the very foundations of our society. The Founders realized that the strength of this country was in the individual, not the government. That is why the Constitution could only be ratified with the guarantee that a bill of rights would be soon forth coming. As I have pointed out in these pages numerous times, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights specifically enumerate the limits on government and the individual rights guaranteed to all citizens. That government derives its power from the people, not the other way around.
Bill O’Reilly is wrong. This is not the time to give the OWH a pass on anything. We, as strict Constitutionalists, must constantly hold the OWH to the standard set down by the Founders. In this the first year of this administration he is failing us. American ingenuity and exercise of the free market, only, will pull us out of the depression that this administration has plunged us into.
As always, I welcome your comments and discussion.
Dan
Friday, February 19, 2010
Post-Mortem of a Fraud
Friends,
The following is another excellent guest Discourse from Andy Pico.
Enjoy,
Dan
Post-Mortem of a Fraud
The widening scandal known as Climategate is snaring an ever increasing number of scientists and organizations. Much of the media coverage so far has focused only on the emails which revealed a cabal of unethical scientists at the core of the scandal. These emails show a clear intent to deceive. The key issue is that the emails, bad enough as they are, constitute less than a quarter of the release. The other 3/4 of the files includes the data, analysis and programming code used to fabricate a fraudulent climate history and exaggerate the recent warming trend.
The scandal has gone far beyond the unethical and criminal misconduct at the Climate Research Unit (CRU). The widening scandal has uncovered scientific misconduct in the fabrication of data at the CRU as well as other surface station reporting agencies in Australia, New Zealand, and the US (NASA and NOAA) which deliberately reduce earlier, recorded temperatures and inflate recent temperature rise.
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has now been caught in the manipulation of data, the suppression of viewpoints, and the use of non-scientific papers from environmental advocacy groups as the basis for multiple “findings”.
To put this in perspective one has to go to the earlier reports of the UN IPCC. In the first and second reports, the climate history was based on research by hundreds of scientists using a wide number and variety of proxies to reconstruct the climate history of the world. This history described the significant climate cycles including the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), the Little Ice Age (LIA) and the current “Unprecedented Warming” Period (UWP). This climate history posed a problem for the IPCC in trying to raise urgency about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) in the UWP since the IPCC’s own reports showed the MWP was several degrees warmer than the current UWP.
The IPCC third report included the now infamous Hockey Stick Graph which eliminated the earlier climate variation and showed a flat climate history with a recent, sharp rise. What was done was to carefully cherry-pick data sets and eliminate any which didn't support the intended result. A small data-set in central, northern Russia was used. The result was based on a single data set consisting of just 12 trees in a small geographic area. Within that small data set the results are skewed by just one unusual tree. Just. One. Tree.
The station data from CRU and NASA was then used, after manipulation to magnify the warming trend, to append to the tree ring data and present a falsely contrived climate history with greatly exaggerated, recent warming. One example of this manipulation is the dropping of cooler stations and replacing real stations with “constructive stations” based on the retained, urban heat islands.
This fraudulent data was used to zero out natural climate variations in the input to the 22 climate models which form the entire basis for the IPCC climate change predictions and upon which all of the rest of the so-called “overwhelming climate science” is based. This is how natural climate change has been falsely attributed to human activities.
The scientific fraud of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is collapsing with almost unprecedented speed. Many scientists on the IPCC are themselves calling for a complete overhaul and even abolition of this agency.
The size and depth of this fraud goes far beyond the direct scientific misconduct so far exposed. The theory of AGW, or climate change, has been used as the justification for a massive expansion in international, global governance and control or seizure of global energy markets. Here in this country, the Environmental Protection Agency is moving towards the extra-legal regulation of every activity that emits greenhouse gasses, based entirely on the now fully discredited science of the IPCC. Carbon Markets across the globe are based not on clearly defined securities valuation, but solely on the cap and trade value manufactured out of hot air. This market bubble is now in the process of worldwide collapse as the extent of the greatest attempted fraud and swindle in history crashes into rubble.
Andres Pico, of Colorado Springs, is a retired Navy Commander, Naval Flight Officer and project manager in the defense industry. He is a signatory of the Manhattan Declaration.
The following is another excellent guest Discourse from Andy Pico.
Enjoy,
Dan
Post-Mortem of a Fraud
The widening scandal known as Climategate is snaring an ever increasing number of scientists and organizations. Much of the media coverage so far has focused only on the emails which revealed a cabal of unethical scientists at the core of the scandal. These emails show a clear intent to deceive. The key issue is that the emails, bad enough as they are, constitute less than a quarter of the release. The other 3/4 of the files includes the data, analysis and programming code used to fabricate a fraudulent climate history and exaggerate the recent warming trend.
The scandal has gone far beyond the unethical and criminal misconduct at the Climate Research Unit (CRU). The widening scandal has uncovered scientific misconduct in the fabrication of data at the CRU as well as other surface station reporting agencies in Australia, New Zealand, and the US (NASA and NOAA) which deliberately reduce earlier, recorded temperatures and inflate recent temperature rise.
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has now been caught in the manipulation of data, the suppression of viewpoints, and the use of non-scientific papers from environmental advocacy groups as the basis for multiple “findings”.
To put this in perspective one has to go to the earlier reports of the UN IPCC. In the first and second reports, the climate history was based on research by hundreds of scientists using a wide number and variety of proxies to reconstruct the climate history of the world. This history described the significant climate cycles including the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), the Little Ice Age (LIA) and the current “Unprecedented Warming” Period (UWP). This climate history posed a problem for the IPCC in trying to raise urgency about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) in the UWP since the IPCC’s own reports showed the MWP was several degrees warmer than the current UWP.
The IPCC third report included the now infamous Hockey Stick Graph which eliminated the earlier climate variation and showed a flat climate history with a recent, sharp rise. What was done was to carefully cherry-pick data sets and eliminate any which didn't support the intended result. A small data-set in central, northern Russia was used. The result was based on a single data set consisting of just 12 trees in a small geographic area. Within that small data set the results are skewed by just one unusual tree. Just. One. Tree.
The station data from CRU and NASA was then used, after manipulation to magnify the warming trend, to append to the tree ring data and present a falsely contrived climate history with greatly exaggerated, recent warming. One example of this manipulation is the dropping of cooler stations and replacing real stations with “constructive stations” based on the retained, urban heat islands.
This fraudulent data was used to zero out natural climate variations in the input to the 22 climate models which form the entire basis for the IPCC climate change predictions and upon which all of the rest of the so-called “overwhelming climate science” is based. This is how natural climate change has been falsely attributed to human activities.
The scientific fraud of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is collapsing with almost unprecedented speed. Many scientists on the IPCC are themselves calling for a complete overhaul and even abolition of this agency.
The size and depth of this fraud goes far beyond the direct scientific misconduct so far exposed. The theory of AGW, or climate change, has been used as the justification for a massive expansion in international, global governance and control or seizure of global energy markets. Here in this country, the Environmental Protection Agency is moving towards the extra-legal regulation of every activity that emits greenhouse gasses, based entirely on the now fully discredited science of the IPCC. Carbon Markets across the globe are based not on clearly defined securities valuation, but solely on the cap and trade value manufactured out of hot air. This market bubble is now in the process of worldwide collapse as the extent of the greatest attempted fraud and swindle in history crashes into rubble.
Andres Pico, of Colorado Springs, is a retired Navy Commander, Naval Flight Officer and project manager in the defense industry. He is a signatory of the Manhattan Declaration.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
A Resurgence of Patriotism
Friends,
Has anyone besides me noticed the upsurge in patriotism over the past year? It seems like every few days someone sends me another email linking to a new rendition of the National Anthem or a new patriotic song about America, or some stirring story about our brave men and women in uniform. I have been reflecting on this phenomenon over the past few days and have come up with some conclusions as to the cause of this new-found national pride.
In November 2008, the voters became enamored with “hope and change.” We had had eight years of an administration that concentrated on defense and, I believe, that it was effective. However, fiscal and social policy had some serious problems; then came the new administration and a completely new philosophy of governing. This strange new philosophy may be called the “Philosophy of the Campaign” because the OWH has been campaigning since early 2008, nonstop. I have never made any secret about the fact that I don’t trust him or any of his czars. Also, I am sick and tired of seeing him on this interview or that interview where people are “getting shivers up their legs” just for the thrill of talking to him.
Let’s take a look at what all this campaigning has been about. He and his socialist minions decided that it would be appropriate to undermine the free market by bailing out anyone who had a sad song to sing. This is just a short look at some of the bailouts:
AIG - $70B (ever look at where the congressmen and senators have their retirement funds?)
Asset Guarantee Program (Citigroup/BofA) - $12.5B
Automotive Industry Financing Program (GM, GMAC, Chrysler, Chrysler Financial) - $80.1B
Public-Private Investment Program (bailing out toxic assets from financial institutions) - $100B
I will admit that not all of these funds have been used and some that have been used have been paid back. But my point is that the OWH and his minions are using the taxpayers’ money, our money, to subvert the free market. Why is this necessary? I would like to take a quick glance at a couple of the above examples and see what is behind them.
The automotive industry arguably played a major role in the boom in American industrialization. When Henry Ford came up with the assembly line process, the manufacturing industry took off running. There are two things that I see as sucking the automobile industry dry. The first is government regulation. The government has regulated the automobile industry to such an extent that GM, Chrysler, and Ford spend millions each year just in regulation compliance. The other factor dragging down the auto industry is the unions. The unions have an incredible strangle hold on the auto manufacturers, and of course, the unions maintain this strangle hold by buying and running politicians. Congress cannot allow GM, or Chrysler to go out of business because they would be letting down their major constituents, the unions.
The Public-Private Investment Program is one that has been a long time coming and the sad thing is that everyone saw it coming. The Feds told bankers to loan money to people to buy houses even if these people did not qualify for the mortgage. But everyone got a house. Now, we, the taxpayers, are paying for people who cannot make their mortgage payments. This is part of that “entitlement mentality” I keep talking about. Here’s a quick quiz for you: What do you call someone who can’t afford to buy a house? Answer: A renter. (Thanks, Tom)
Another area I could waste several pages on is the government’s attempted takeover of 1/6th of the US economy in the form of health care reform but that is a topic for another Discourse.
Taken all together, I think that the average US citizen looks at all of the egregious actions taken by this Congress and the administration and they long for another time when America was great, when we were looked up to on the world stage. This has prompted a resurgence of patriotism as we look longingly at better days gone by and hope for a better tomorrow.
I think that better tomorrow is coming. The socialists in charge of the government today are so blind that they do not understand that their takeover of so many segments of our society is literally shredding the fabric of our nation. The Founders saw this danger and put safeguards in place to prevent it. Those safeguards are the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is past time for the Congress, the OWH, and the courts to reinstitute those documents. It is past time for the government to get out of the private sector and allow it to operate the way it was designed.
As always, I welcome your comments and discussion.
Dan
PS: On a personal note, I would like to wish my little brother a Happy Birthday.
Has anyone besides me noticed the upsurge in patriotism over the past year? It seems like every few days someone sends me another email linking to a new rendition of the National Anthem or a new patriotic song about America, or some stirring story about our brave men and women in uniform. I have been reflecting on this phenomenon over the past few days and have come up with some conclusions as to the cause of this new-found national pride.
In November 2008, the voters became enamored with “hope and change.” We had had eight years of an administration that concentrated on defense and, I believe, that it was effective. However, fiscal and social policy had some serious problems; then came the new administration and a completely new philosophy of governing. This strange new philosophy may be called the “Philosophy of the Campaign” because the OWH has been campaigning since early 2008, nonstop. I have never made any secret about the fact that I don’t trust him or any of his czars. Also, I am sick and tired of seeing him on this interview or that interview where people are “getting shivers up their legs” just for the thrill of talking to him.
Let’s take a look at what all this campaigning has been about. He and his socialist minions decided that it would be appropriate to undermine the free market by bailing out anyone who had a sad song to sing. This is just a short look at some of the bailouts:
AIG - $70B (ever look at where the congressmen and senators have their retirement funds?)
Asset Guarantee Program (Citigroup/BofA) - $12.5B
Automotive Industry Financing Program (GM, GMAC, Chrysler, Chrysler Financial) - $80.1B
Public-Private Investment Program (bailing out toxic assets from financial institutions) - $100B
I will admit that not all of these funds have been used and some that have been used have been paid back. But my point is that the OWH and his minions are using the taxpayers’ money, our money, to subvert the free market. Why is this necessary? I would like to take a quick glance at a couple of the above examples and see what is behind them.
The automotive industry arguably played a major role in the boom in American industrialization. When Henry Ford came up with the assembly line process, the manufacturing industry took off running. There are two things that I see as sucking the automobile industry dry. The first is government regulation. The government has regulated the automobile industry to such an extent that GM, Chrysler, and Ford spend millions each year just in regulation compliance. The other factor dragging down the auto industry is the unions. The unions have an incredible strangle hold on the auto manufacturers, and of course, the unions maintain this strangle hold by buying and running politicians. Congress cannot allow GM, or Chrysler to go out of business because they would be letting down their major constituents, the unions.
The Public-Private Investment Program is one that has been a long time coming and the sad thing is that everyone saw it coming. The Feds told bankers to loan money to people to buy houses even if these people did not qualify for the mortgage. But everyone got a house. Now, we, the taxpayers, are paying for people who cannot make their mortgage payments. This is part of that “entitlement mentality” I keep talking about. Here’s a quick quiz for you: What do you call someone who can’t afford to buy a house? Answer: A renter. (Thanks, Tom)
Another area I could waste several pages on is the government’s attempted takeover of 1/6th of the US economy in the form of health care reform but that is a topic for another Discourse.
Taken all together, I think that the average US citizen looks at all of the egregious actions taken by this Congress and the administration and they long for another time when America was great, when we were looked up to on the world stage. This has prompted a resurgence of patriotism as we look longingly at better days gone by and hope for a better tomorrow.
I think that better tomorrow is coming. The socialists in charge of the government today are so blind that they do not understand that their takeover of so many segments of our society is literally shredding the fabric of our nation. The Founders saw this danger and put safeguards in place to prevent it. Those safeguards are the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is past time for the Congress, the OWH, and the courts to reinstitute those documents. It is past time for the government to get out of the private sector and allow it to operate the way it was designed.
As always, I welcome your comments and discussion.
Dan
PS: On a personal note, I would like to wish my little brother a Happy Birthday.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
What's Wrong America?
Friends,
Let me say right up front that this is going to be a rant. I haven’t done an old fashioned, down home type of rant in a long time and I'm over due.
Would someone please tell me what has happened to the gumption in this country? What happened to people standing up for injustices whether in the public halls, the corner grocer, or on the streets of Mogadishu? Every day I read about some pervert or other who has been caught and charged with child pornography or some gang of leaches being busted for running drugs, drugs that incapacitate and kill our kids; those same drugs that contribute to the delinquency of young and old alike. Where is the outrage?
What is just as bad if not worse is the absolute criminal behavior that takes place in the halls of Congress. In the name of progress, Congress and the OWH have decided that you and I don’t work for the betterment of ourselves and our families; we work for the betterment of the state collective. Does that ring a bell with anyone out there? Where in our Constitution does it say that each and every one of us is responsible to pay for someone else’s health care insurance? Where is it written in the Constitution that we are responsible for paying for Nancy Pelosi’s travel with several hundred of her closest friends and supporters?
I remember hearing a story out of Viet Nam where a small Vietnamese child walked up to a US GI and gave him a nice cold Coke. The GI took it, smiled, said “thank you,” and drank it. The Coke was laced with acid. The GI died. That is what those animals did; they recruited innocents to do their dirty work for them. Now we have radical jihadists doing the same thing all across the world because anyone who is not Muslim must die. Do you ever hear about a suicide bomber over the age of 30? There may have been some, but I don’t remember hearing about it. Have we become so desensitized that it just doesn’t matter anymore? Where is the public outcry?
In the halls of Congress, and even in the White House, there is a constant question about whether or not we should be the world’s police force. Where is the outrage in Congress and the White House when some over sexed and frustrated Muslim teenager blows himself and a few dozen of the surrounding citizenry into the next world? If we aren’t going to put the pipper on these guys, who is? What other country out there has gone into some absolute mess to clean it up, left with nothing to show for it, even gratitude, and gone on to the next mess without leaving a bunch of strings? And yet, the OWH went around the world and apologized for our actions. Where is the outrage?
We are told that we should be more tolerant and understanding of Muslims. Why? They want to kill us and our way of life; I feel no obligation to be tolerant and understanding. We are told that the drug problem is just too hard and that we should treat the addicts with kindness and compassion to dry them out. Why? It’s called tough love. We are told that the illegal immigrants just want to find a better life and that we should let them in to work. Why? This is our country; if they want to better themselves they should make their home country better so that they can have the appropriate opportunity. Instead of turning tail and running from the problems in their country, fight them and clean up the place.
Where is the outrage? Back in the ‘60s and ‘70s we heard about “The Silent Majority.” Well, congratulations, folks, that silent majority has matured into “The Mute Majority.” It’s time we all stood on our own hind legs and tell the bad guys that “I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore.” The Coalition for a Conservative Majority, the Tea Partiers, and the 9/12 folks are doing a great job, but they can’t do it without the rest of us.
We, as Americans, should be proud enough of our country to want to protect it from “enemies, foreign and domestic.” That came from the oath I took in service to my country and I was not released from it when I retired, and neither are you.
As always, comments and discussion is welcome.
Dan
Let me say right up front that this is going to be a rant. I haven’t done an old fashioned, down home type of rant in a long time and I'm over due.
Would someone please tell me what has happened to the gumption in this country? What happened to people standing up for injustices whether in the public halls, the corner grocer, or on the streets of Mogadishu? Every day I read about some pervert or other who has been caught and charged with child pornography or some gang of leaches being busted for running drugs, drugs that incapacitate and kill our kids; those same drugs that contribute to the delinquency of young and old alike. Where is the outrage?
What is just as bad if not worse is the absolute criminal behavior that takes place in the halls of Congress. In the name of progress, Congress and the OWH have decided that you and I don’t work for the betterment of ourselves and our families; we work for the betterment of the state collective. Does that ring a bell with anyone out there? Where in our Constitution does it say that each and every one of us is responsible to pay for someone else’s health care insurance? Where is it written in the Constitution that we are responsible for paying for Nancy Pelosi’s travel with several hundred of her closest friends and supporters?
I remember hearing a story out of Viet Nam where a small Vietnamese child walked up to a US GI and gave him a nice cold Coke. The GI took it, smiled, said “thank you,” and drank it. The Coke was laced with acid. The GI died. That is what those animals did; they recruited innocents to do their dirty work for them. Now we have radical jihadists doing the same thing all across the world because anyone who is not Muslim must die. Do you ever hear about a suicide bomber over the age of 30? There may have been some, but I don’t remember hearing about it. Have we become so desensitized that it just doesn’t matter anymore? Where is the public outcry?
In the halls of Congress, and even in the White House, there is a constant question about whether or not we should be the world’s police force. Where is the outrage in Congress and the White House when some over sexed and frustrated Muslim teenager blows himself and a few dozen of the surrounding citizenry into the next world? If we aren’t going to put the pipper on these guys, who is? What other country out there has gone into some absolute mess to clean it up, left with nothing to show for it, even gratitude, and gone on to the next mess without leaving a bunch of strings? And yet, the OWH went around the world and apologized for our actions. Where is the outrage?
We are told that we should be more tolerant and understanding of Muslims. Why? They want to kill us and our way of life; I feel no obligation to be tolerant and understanding. We are told that the drug problem is just too hard and that we should treat the addicts with kindness and compassion to dry them out. Why? It’s called tough love. We are told that the illegal immigrants just want to find a better life and that we should let them in to work. Why? This is our country; if they want to better themselves they should make their home country better so that they can have the appropriate opportunity. Instead of turning tail and running from the problems in their country, fight them and clean up the place.
Where is the outrage? Back in the ‘60s and ‘70s we heard about “The Silent Majority.” Well, congratulations, folks, that silent majority has matured into “The Mute Majority.” It’s time we all stood on our own hind legs and tell the bad guys that “I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore.” The Coalition for a Conservative Majority, the Tea Partiers, and the 9/12 folks are doing a great job, but they can’t do it without the rest of us.
We, as Americans, should be proud enough of our country to want to protect it from “enemies, foreign and domestic.” That came from the oath I took in service to my country and I was not released from it when I retired, and neither are you.
As always, comments and discussion is welcome.
Dan
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Personal Responsibility
Friends,
Let’s have a brief discussion about personal responsibility. Now, before you get mad at me, I know that is a taboo subject in today’s world, but let’s think about it – please humor me.
When I was a kid, as I can remember, there was only one kind of credit card that was in common use and that was a gas company credit card. Since I was too young to have one I can only assume that the debt that was incurred had to be paid. I know that is a silly concept today but, as I said, bear with me. If I recall correctly, Sears and Roebuck had a “revolving credit” account. That meant that if you charged a washer on the account in January, and then paid it down to within a few dollars, then charged a drier on the account and then paid it down to within a few dollars, then charged a refrigerator on the account and then half way down the payment schedule you defaulted on the account they could come pick up all three appliances.
Was this unfair? Maybe or maybe not, but the point is that this is the way the account was structured and you understood the consequences of not paying. That is what I call enforced responsibility; consequences for your decisions and/or actions.
Every day I hear advertisements on the radio or TV saying something like “Do you owe the IRS $10,000 or more? Now you can negotiate that down to pennies on the dollar,” or “Do you have over $10,000 in credit card debt? Now you can be forgiven most if not all of it.” When and how did we get to the point where we expect to incur debts and not have to make good on them? Friends, there is a very simple word for this concept, THEFT. When a person makes a commitment, they follow through with it. If they don’t, they are a liar and a thief. Strong words? Maybe so, but that is the way I feel about it.
But wait, I am being completely insensitive and politically incorrect about this situation. After all, our president the OWH advocates making this attitude public policy. In his State of the Union blather he said:
To make college more affordable, this bill (speaking about an education bill) will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer-subsidies that go to banks for student loans. Instead, let’s take that money and give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants. And let’s tell another one million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only ten percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after twenty years – and forgiven after ten years if they choose a career in public service. Because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college. And it’s time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs – because they too have a responsibility to help solve this problem.
There are two very blatant things wrong here. The first goes along with the theme of this Discourse and that is personal responsibility. As a public policy we are going to tell college students that after 10 or 20 years they will have their debt completely forgiven. Well, I'm one of the folks loaning them that money and I have a vote on that public policy. I VOTE NO! These people assume a debt and I vote that they pay their assumed debt.
The second thing that is wrong with that quote is that the OWH is intentionally encouraging the growth of government in the hiring of college students who will be able to work in one bureaucracy or another for 10 years and be free of the student loans THAT I LOANED THEM.
The OWH has said and done a lot of stupid things in the last year, but this one is right up there with the best. He has absolutely no idea how to solve our economic or social problems. As I have stated in these Discourses in the past, when you are out of money, stop spending. As Newt has said, when you can’t afford to buy a house, don’t buy it. If you can’t afford to go to college, work your way through it.
The only way I can see to get this country back on its collective economic feet is to get rid of the myriad of non-constitutional departments and bureaus and give those functions back to the states and the people where they belong. In that way, billions of dollars that we are hemorrhaging into bureaucracies could go to our debtors and put us back into the black ink territory. A result of these cuts would be massive cuts in social programs. You say that we can’t do that because so many people depend on them? How about making people depend on themselves? That is what the “Greatest Generation” did. They weren’t great just because they won the war against Fascism; they also persevered against the economic crisis brought on by failed government policies.
Friends we are headed there again. These bureaucrats and incompetents in Washington are doing what we used to call “featherbedding.” It is past time we put a stop to it.
As always, I welcome your thoughts and discussions.
Dan
Let’s have a brief discussion about personal responsibility. Now, before you get mad at me, I know that is a taboo subject in today’s world, but let’s think about it – please humor me.
When I was a kid, as I can remember, there was only one kind of credit card that was in common use and that was a gas company credit card. Since I was too young to have one I can only assume that the debt that was incurred had to be paid. I know that is a silly concept today but, as I said, bear with me. If I recall correctly, Sears and Roebuck had a “revolving credit” account. That meant that if you charged a washer on the account in January, and then paid it down to within a few dollars, then charged a drier on the account and then paid it down to within a few dollars, then charged a refrigerator on the account and then half way down the payment schedule you defaulted on the account they could come pick up all three appliances.
Was this unfair? Maybe or maybe not, but the point is that this is the way the account was structured and you understood the consequences of not paying. That is what I call enforced responsibility; consequences for your decisions and/or actions.
Every day I hear advertisements on the radio or TV saying something like “Do you owe the IRS $10,000 or more? Now you can negotiate that down to pennies on the dollar,” or “Do you have over $10,000 in credit card debt? Now you can be forgiven most if not all of it.” When and how did we get to the point where we expect to incur debts and not have to make good on them? Friends, there is a very simple word for this concept, THEFT. When a person makes a commitment, they follow through with it. If they don’t, they are a liar and a thief. Strong words? Maybe so, but that is the way I feel about it.
But wait, I am being completely insensitive and politically incorrect about this situation. After all, our president the OWH advocates making this attitude public policy. In his State of the Union blather he said:
To make college more affordable, this bill (speaking about an education bill) will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer-subsidies that go to banks for student loans. Instead, let’s take that money and give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants. And let’s tell another one million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only ten percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after twenty years – and forgiven after ten years if they choose a career in public service. Because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college. And it’s time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs – because they too have a responsibility to help solve this problem.
There are two very blatant things wrong here. The first goes along with the theme of this Discourse and that is personal responsibility. As a public policy we are going to tell college students that after 10 or 20 years they will have their debt completely forgiven. Well, I'm one of the folks loaning them that money and I have a vote on that public policy. I VOTE NO! These people assume a debt and I vote that they pay their assumed debt.
The second thing that is wrong with that quote is that the OWH is intentionally encouraging the growth of government in the hiring of college students who will be able to work in one bureaucracy or another for 10 years and be free of the student loans THAT I LOANED THEM.
The OWH has said and done a lot of stupid things in the last year, but this one is right up there with the best. He has absolutely no idea how to solve our economic or social problems. As I have stated in these Discourses in the past, when you are out of money, stop spending. As Newt has said, when you can’t afford to buy a house, don’t buy it. If you can’t afford to go to college, work your way through it.
The only way I can see to get this country back on its collective economic feet is to get rid of the myriad of non-constitutional departments and bureaus and give those functions back to the states and the people where they belong. In that way, billions of dollars that we are hemorrhaging into bureaucracies could go to our debtors and put us back into the black ink territory. A result of these cuts would be massive cuts in social programs. You say that we can’t do that because so many people depend on them? How about making people depend on themselves? That is what the “Greatest Generation” did. They weren’t great just because they won the war against Fascism; they also persevered against the economic crisis brought on by failed government policies.
Friends we are headed there again. These bureaucrats and incompetents in Washington are doing what we used to call “featherbedding.” It is past time we put a stop to it.
As always, I welcome your thoughts and discussions.
Dan
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
The Tenth Amendment
Friends,
There is currently a movement fostered by the Coalition for a Conservative Majority, Colorado Springs to encourage the Colorado Legislature and governor to tell the federal government that we are going to uphold the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution and expect the same from them. I don’t have to tell you what prompted this movement. At this point I think we should review the Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
That seems pretty simple to me. That tells me that the powers granted to the federal government are specifically enumerated in the Constitution and no other powers are to be assumed by that government. It also says that if a power is not specifically granted to the federal government, it is reserved for the individual states or passed directly to the people.
This is a good place to discuss the purpose of the Bill of Rights. The first nine Amendments were drafted specifically to enumerate and ensure those rights that the founders believed the citizens possessed by virtue of being citizens. The Bill of Rights was drafted to set restrictions on government. It could be cogently argued that each individual Amendment of the first ten is more important than the others. However, I would argue that the first nine Amendments equally detail the rights of all citizens of the United States and the Tenth Amendment sets the boundaries for the federal government with respect to those rights.
While I am not a constitutional scholar, I have read it many times and have yet to find where the federal government has the authority to hold such massive control over the states. All of that control has been legislated since 1791. This points out two problems; first is that Congress and successive presidents have taken it upon themselves to exert that control and second that the states and citizens allow them to do it.
I see two ways to view the power of the federal government. The first is that the feds give the states, communities, and individuals money for various purposes under various programs. In exchange for these monies they demand certain “paybacks.” The overwhelming tendency today is to give the federal government what it wants because states, communities, and individuals want the money. The second way to look at it is to question why are we so willing to accede to their wishes, especially considering that it is our money that they are giving us? The US government has a very poor track record when it comes to living up to its self-proclaimed obligations. Congress just changes those obligations at will, not bothering to consult with the people most affected.
One concept to “encourage” the feds to live up to their obligations is to put all monies slated to go to them into a “sequester fund” until such time that they live up to their stated obligations. The problem with this concept is that we would be admitting that they have the authority to enact and carry out the many programs that come out of Washington. I would argue that they do not have that authority as stipulated in the Tenth Amendment.
I would urge all state legislatures to pass binding resolutions to disassociate themselves from the mandates of the federal government except those specifically set down by the Constitution. Why should we in Colorado pay for the housing of someone who cannot or will not work in Detroit? That is a city and/or state issue and not within the mandate of the federal government. It is time for us to take our rights back!
Find out just what the people will submit to and you will have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.
Frederick Douglass, August 4, 1857
For more on this subject refer to my Political Discourse of 10 June 2008 entitled Constitutional Authority on this blogsite.
As always, I welcome your thoughts and discussion.
Dan
There is currently a movement fostered by the Coalition for a Conservative Majority, Colorado Springs to encourage the Colorado Legislature and governor to tell the federal government that we are going to uphold the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution and expect the same from them. I don’t have to tell you what prompted this movement. At this point I think we should review the Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
That seems pretty simple to me. That tells me that the powers granted to the federal government are specifically enumerated in the Constitution and no other powers are to be assumed by that government. It also says that if a power is not specifically granted to the federal government, it is reserved for the individual states or passed directly to the people.
This is a good place to discuss the purpose of the Bill of Rights. The first nine Amendments were drafted specifically to enumerate and ensure those rights that the founders believed the citizens possessed by virtue of being citizens. The Bill of Rights was drafted to set restrictions on government. It could be cogently argued that each individual Amendment of the first ten is more important than the others. However, I would argue that the first nine Amendments equally detail the rights of all citizens of the United States and the Tenth Amendment sets the boundaries for the federal government with respect to those rights.
While I am not a constitutional scholar, I have read it many times and have yet to find where the federal government has the authority to hold such massive control over the states. All of that control has been legislated since 1791. This points out two problems; first is that Congress and successive presidents have taken it upon themselves to exert that control and second that the states and citizens allow them to do it.
I see two ways to view the power of the federal government. The first is that the feds give the states, communities, and individuals money for various purposes under various programs. In exchange for these monies they demand certain “paybacks.” The overwhelming tendency today is to give the federal government what it wants because states, communities, and individuals want the money. The second way to look at it is to question why are we so willing to accede to their wishes, especially considering that it is our money that they are giving us? The US government has a very poor track record when it comes to living up to its self-proclaimed obligations. Congress just changes those obligations at will, not bothering to consult with the people most affected.
One concept to “encourage” the feds to live up to their obligations is to put all monies slated to go to them into a “sequester fund” until such time that they live up to their stated obligations. The problem with this concept is that we would be admitting that they have the authority to enact and carry out the many programs that come out of Washington. I would argue that they do not have that authority as stipulated in the Tenth Amendment.
I would urge all state legislatures to pass binding resolutions to disassociate themselves from the mandates of the federal government except those specifically set down by the Constitution. Why should we in Colorado pay for the housing of someone who cannot or will not work in Detroit? That is a city and/or state issue and not within the mandate of the federal government. It is time for us to take our rights back!
Find out just what the people will submit to and you will have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.
Frederick Douglass, August 4, 1857
For more on this subject refer to my Political Discourse of 10 June 2008 entitled Constitutional Authority on this blogsite.
As always, I welcome your thoughts and discussion.
Dan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)