tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-47479309438485890502024-03-04T23:15:27.178-07:00The Carpenter's MateThe Carpenter’s Mate site is intended to be a discussion forum for conservative issues.
My wish is to assist in moving the attitude of patriotism back to that which we experienced in the 1940s; a time when Americans knew that their way of life was threatened and everyone pulled together to protect that way of life.
Our time is much more complicated, but the threats against America are no less great.The Carpenter's Matehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15199315377010119350noreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4747930943848589050.post-72067829750650946942010-09-11T08:59:00.002-06:002010-09-11T09:06:57.529-06:00Remembering September 11Friends,<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />As always, I welcome your questions/comments. <br />DanThe Carpenter's Matehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15199315377010119350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4747930943848589050.post-19010405812407470532010-04-22T05:48:00.005-06:002010-04-22T06:03:02.332-06:00The Constitution, The Contract With the States, Pt. 2Friends,<br />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? <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 <strong>for</strong> 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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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).<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br />In my next Discourse we will look at how the structure and interpretation of the federal/state relationship changed. <br /><br />As usual, your questions and discussions are welcome.<br /><br />DanThe Carpenter's Matehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15199315377010119350noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4747930943848589050.post-55091391701977020302010-03-30T10:55:00.000-06:002010-03-30T10:57:19.461-06:00The Constitution, The Contract With the States, Pt. 1Friends,<br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />As always, your comments and discussions are welcome. <br /><br />DanThe Carpenter's Matehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15199315377010119350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4747930943848589050.post-11792874975168502582010-03-24T04:22:00.003-06:002010-03-24T04:26:15.988-06:00The Four ScandalsFriends,<br />This is another in the on-going series of Global Warming articles written by Andy Pico. <br />Enjoy,<br />Dan <br /><br />The Four Scandals <br />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. <br /><br />This is a scandal of monumental proportions. Many of the claims of the Climate Change Alarmists have become little more than comedy punch lines. <br />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. <br /> <br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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 <a href="http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=1">Manhattan Declaration</a>.The Carpenter's Matehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15199315377010119350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4747930943848589050.post-21317425650056992982010-03-17T19:19:00.006-06:002010-03-17T19:30:43.886-06:00More on States' Rights - The CensusFriends,<br />I have written about States’ Rights several times in the past. A couple of links to previous articles are <a href="http://carpentersmate.blogspot.com/2010/01/tenth-amendment.html">here</a> and <a href="http://carpentersmate.blogspot.com/2009/04/enumerated-powers-act.html">here</a>. 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 <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/us/17states.html?th&emc=th">New York Times article.</a> <br /><br />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. <br /><br />Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution states <em>“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.” </em>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.<br /> <br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /> <br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />That is a great segue into the next article which will be out in a few days. <br /><br />As always, I welcome your comments and discussion. <br />DanThe Carpenter's Matehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15199315377010119350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4747930943848589050.post-87756128132212247702010-02-22T21:07:00.003-07:002010-02-22T21:19:31.025-07:00The Second Amendment and Other ThingsFriends,<br />I make the mistake of tuning in Bill O’Reilly this evening, 22, Feb, and boy, did he get my dander up. <br /><br />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.<br /> <br />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.<br /> <br />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?” <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />As always, I welcome your comments and discussion.<br /><br />DanThe Carpenter's Matehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15199315377010119350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4747930943848589050.post-5205055541332948752010-02-19T18:04:00.002-07:002010-02-19T18:09:10.873-07:00Post-Mortem of a FraudFriends,<br />The following is another excellent guest Discourse from Andy Pico. <br />Enjoy,<br />Dan<br /><br />Post-Mortem of a Fraud<br /><br />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.<br /> <br />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. <br /><br />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”.<br /> <br />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. <br /><br />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. <br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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 <a href="http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=1">Manhattan Declaration</a>.The Carpenter's Matehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15199315377010119350noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4747930943848589050.post-55593578791522019882010-02-11T08:42:00.002-07:002010-02-11T10:09:17.127-07:00A Resurgence of PatriotismFriends,<br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /> <br />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:<br /><br />AIG - $70B (ever look at where the congressmen and senators have their retirement funds?)<br />Asset Guarantee Program (Citigroup/BofA) - $12.5B<br />Automotive Industry Financing Program (GM, GMAC, Chrysler, Chrysler Financial) - $80.1B <br />Public-Private Investment Program (bailing out toxic assets from financial institutions) - $100B<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /> <br />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)<br /> <br />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.<br /> <br />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.<br /> <br />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. <br /><br />As always, I welcome your comments and discussion.<br /> <br />Dan <br /><br />PS: On a personal note, I would like to wish my little brother a Happy Birthday.The Carpenter's Matehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15199315377010119350noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4747930943848589050.post-89548576758963039042010-02-02T19:36:00.004-07:002010-02-02T19:48:05.928-07:00What's Wrong America?Friends,<br />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. <br /><br />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? <br /><br />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?<br /><br />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?<br /> <br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /> <br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />As always, comments and discussion is welcome. <br /><br />DanThe Carpenter's Matehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15199315377010119350noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4747930943848589050.post-31271975872026993292010-01-28T06:58:00.002-07:002010-01-28T07:04:51.776-07:00Personal ResponsibilityFriends,<br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /> <br />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.<br /> <br />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. <br /><br />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: <br /><em>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.</em><br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />As always, I welcome your thoughts and discussions. <br />DanThe Carpenter's Matehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15199315377010119350noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4747930943848589050.post-50250808099064252042010-01-05T20:42:00.006-07:002010-01-05T20:52:28.791-07:00The Tenth AmendmentFriends,<br /><br />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:<br /><br /><strong>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.</strong><br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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!<br /><br /><em>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.<br />Frederick Douglass, August 4, 1857</em><br /><br />For more on this subject refer to my Political Discourse of 10 June 2008 entitled Constitutional Authority on this blogsite. <br /><br />As always, I welcome your thoughts and discussion.<br /><br />DanThe Carpenter's Matehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15199315377010119350noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4747930943848589050.post-72555728004153695162009-12-08T13:18:00.004-07:002009-12-08T13:26:08.787-07:00ClimategateFriends,<br />Below is an article by my friend Andy Pico who is passionate about the climate change debate. <br />Enjoy,<br />Dan <br /><br />Climategate <br />The last few weeks in the world of climate change and science has been, if anything, entertaining. The show in the Gazette opened with Professor Horner’s invective against what he erroneously labels “science denial”, Gazette, 19 Nov 09. In his tirade against the non-believers he equates anthropogenic climate change skeptics with science denial and lists a series of psychological pathologies. <br /><br />On the following Monday, Nov 23rd, the Associated Propaganda’s (AP) local hysteria outlet for one-sided propaganda, formerly known as the Gazette News Division, ran Borenstein’s rant of how climate change has worsened beyond the grimmest warnings issued in 1997. <br /><br />Between these two blatant pieces of hysterical propaganda was perhaps the most significant breakthrough in climate science in decades. The posting of the Hadley Climate Research Unit (CRU) data by perhaps an inside whistleblower, has revealed what many in the Climate Realistic Skeptics branch of Legitimate Science have long charged. The systematic and intentional manipulation and outright fabrication of climate data has now been fully confirmed and the Skeptics vindicated.<br /><br />To make clear the importance of this data in the climate change debate, this is the core data upon which the entire Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Theory is based. This is the data upon which the climate modelers of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change based its work. This manipulated and fabricated data is the foundation upon which the rest of the fraudulent theory of AGW is built upon. <br /><br />The revelations and analysis is on-going and new revelations are reported daily. Continuing coverage is available <a href="http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3943/Read-All-About-it-Climate-Depot-Exclusive--Continuously-Updated-ClimateGate-News-Round-Up ">here</a>. What is clear so far is that the scientists at CRU were engaged, together with co-conspirators across our naturally climate changing planet, in an intentional and massive fraud driven by a political agenda. The technical details of how the data was manipulated together with the data are included in the revealed files which go far beyond mere emails. These techniques were shared across the planet with like-minded political zealots in scientific positions across academia and government positions. Similar fabrications have been previously exposed through independent analysis of NASA data and other agencies.<br /><br />Perhaps the most egregious scientific manipulations now exposed by Climategate are the intentional perversion of the peer-review and publication processes. These faux-scientists collaborated to block publication of opposing views in scientific journals. Those editors of scientific journals who adhered to ethical processes were removed from their positions and replaced with political zealots. The faux-scientists then made the specious claim that there were no opposing viewpoints published in those peer-reviewed journals. Those journals which maintained scientific impartiality and adhered to ethical conduct were black-balled and presented as being less than mainstream and merely the fringe of lower order scientists who could not be published in the mainline journals. <br /> <br />This formula has been widely used and some of our own local AGW Hysterics have stated as much, often citing a blatantly phony “study” that claims 97% of scientists and published papers are in support of AGW, after of course ignoring any journals or scientists who disagree. One of our local scientists went so far as to claim in an on-line exchange that he could find only 29 papers that disagreed with AGW Theory, when challenged on that point cited the above where only those journals who have been taken over by editorial zealots were counted and all of the previous work on climate history covering previous climate cycles, which used to be the “Scientific Consensus” on climate history prior to the IPCC commissioned fabrication by Dr. Mann of the fraudulent “Hockey Stick”. Dr. Mann’s data manipulations have been previously debunked and have now been fully exposed; programs, data and all.<br /><br />The thousands of scientific papers that touch on climate change and climate history across many fields of study have been ignored by the faux-scientist cabal of political operatives engaged in unethical and illegal misconduct. In their emails between co-conspirators, the faux-scientists at the core of AGW Theory operating from their tax-payer funded agencies across the cooling planet admitted between them that the climate had stopped warming and that they had to “hide” this fact from the public and coordinated that scientific sophistry of deception.<br /><br />This certainly vindicates all of us who have pointed out the inconvenient fact of global cooling over the past decade and been attacked for doing so. And yet, with their fraud fully exposed and their perfidy open for all with the intellectual and moral integrity to see, the propaganda continues and the real denial of science by the AGW Hysterics continues. The President plans to commit the US, without any legislation passed to do so, to carbon reduction targets. The House has passed a Cap and Trade bill and the Senate now has before it a true monstrosity of epic proportions designed to impose government control of energy with enormous costs to individuals and horrendous economic impacts. It is not science denial or an exaggeration, as Professor Horner put it, to identify the costs and point out where government seizure of businesses, which is socialism, and oppressive government control of businesses, which is economic fascism, combined with corrupt cronyism will result in enormous costs to society and the destruction of freedom, pushed for by those who are “proud to call themselves Liberal”. The liberal/progressive adherents to AGW Hysteria like to push the notion that the costs of doing nothing are too high, when in fact the costs of doing nothing are, nothing, and the costs of their programs are enormous. <br /><br />It is not a denial of science to reference a vast body of scientific work and solid evidence that supports theories of natural climate change and climate cycles. It is far more accurate to state that the outright data fabrication and cynical perversion of peer review is the true denial of science. Those faux-scientists, illiterate in economics, ignorant of history, aided and abetted by the incompetent and corrupt agenda-journalists of the Propaganda Press, are the true deniers and cynical manipulators of science in pursuit of a false political agenda. Indeed, when questioned on Climategate, Carol Browner, the Mendacious One’s Climate Grupenfuhrer, stated that the corrupted data did not matter. It has never been about the data, which was fabricated from the start; it has always been about the political agenda that hijacked the science. Now, the EPA proposes to regulate, without any legislation, greenhouse gasses as a threat to human health.<br /><br />Perhaps now we can have an honest, open and ethical review of the science in a process that respects the real principles of open discussion and pursuit of real science, while this still remains a free country.<br /><br />Andres PicoThe Carpenter's Matehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15199315377010119350noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4747930943848589050.post-71224857011522984622009-11-23T19:24:00.004-07:002009-11-23T19:28:45.743-07:00Health Care BriberyFriends, <br /><br />I have written on several occasions about things Congress does that are not, in my opinion, justifiable under the Constitution. The health care package that the OWH is desperate to sign is just the latest. The Socialists in Congress are pushing this piece of FOD harder than I have ever seen in my lifetime. The House version wasn’t even allowed to see the light of day until massive pressure from you, the citizens of this country, raised a howl. It seems that their urgency comes from the fear and reality, that if the citizens of this country are given enough time to look it over we will go on an impeachment spree. (Hmmm, now that’s not a bad idea; but I digress.)<br /><br />I think that at this point in the discussion it is appropriate to take a look at how the Socialists are getting the job done. In the movie <em>The Godfather</em>, Don Corleone made an offer that couldn’t be refused. Well, it looks like <em>Don</em> Harry took a page out of the godfather’s playbook. He made an offer to Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana that she couldn’t refuse. In this case it was a bribe of $300 million to support cloture. <br /><br />Now, folks, I don’t know about you, but where I come from bribery is a crime. In this case, it is a crime of the highest order. <em>Don</em> Harry has promised $300 million of our money for Senator Landrieu to take back to Louisiana. This will enable her to tell her constituents that she is working for them, and in a way she will be right. She is cutting backroom deals to steal a large sum of money from the rest of us. Please do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that I want some of that money for our state. That is not the issue. The issue is that she was bought, just like practitioners of the world’s oldest profession.<br /><br />But Senator Landrieu was not the only one to get in on this deal. Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas was another key vote that <em>Don</em> Harry courted. The deal that Senator Lincoln got has not been disclosed but it was surely a good one. <br /><br />I’m going to make a few demands here. There are several attorneys and several law makers who receive my postings. I want one or more of them to tell me how this kind of crime can go by without drawing the scrutiny of the FBI. Bribery is a crime in every jurisdiction in which I have lived. I want the FBI to explain to me why they are not opening a case file on this situation. I want my senators, Mark Udall and Michael Bennet to tell me why they are not screaming from the top of the Capitol Dome for an investigation. (Of course, I already know the answer to the last one.) Senator Bennet has even said that he will vote for the bill even if it costs him his job. Well, Senator Bennet, I intend to make sure that is exactly what it costs you!<br /><br />The most important question I want answered is one I have posed numerous times before. Where is the constitutional justification for the health care program that Congress and the OWH want to shove down our throats? Where is the constitutional justification for forcing the citizens of the United States to buy ANYTHING; whether it is health care or stocking caps? The federal government has NO authority to make us buy anything.<br /><br />This country has become one of hand-outs; welfare recipients, unions, and special interests to name a few. We all need to go back to the lesson that John Smith learned in Jamestown, Virginia. When the colony was first established, all goods produced went into a common store and everyone would draw equally from that store. The lazy drew the same as the industrious. They almost starved. When you take the work incentive away, there is no reason to work to support those who would not work anyway. That is the way the United States is becoming, facilitated by the federal government. Captain Smith set down the rule that if you did not work, you did not eat. It is time we re-institute that rule. <br /><br />It is high time we elect representatives and senators to Congress who have the good of the nation in their sights and not just their own power base. It is time we put in representatives and senators who will get up on their desks and do an Indian war chant when these abused take place. This slippery slope we have been riding for the last two years will be hard and painful to reverse but we have no choice. We have to stop it and we have to take our country back from the power brokers in Washington DC. <br /><br />As always, I welcome your comments and discussion. <br /><br />DanThe Carpenter's Matehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15199315377010119350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4747930943848589050.post-67282872902645061992009-11-09T20:15:00.003-07:002009-11-09T20:33:52.284-07:00Veterans' Day 2009Friends,<br /><br />As we approach another Veterans’ Day I would like to take the opportunity to expound on a few thoughts related to our service men and women past and present. <br /><br />The Founders understood the necessity of having an army and a navy. Provision for these protectors of our freedoms was set down in the Constitution. Since the early days of the Republic we have, at times, revered and vilified those protectors.<br /><br />My service was lack-luster at best but I am proud to have served with true heroes who fought selflessly to protect all of us from those intent on denying us our freedoms as set down in the Constitution. That document is unique to the United States. No other country can boast of its like. For that reason it is incumbent upon all of us to work diligently in its defense; but those who work the hardest are the brave men and women who lay their lives on the line every day. To them it is just a matter of doing what is right; it’s no big deal. <br /><br />We have all received the emails about the Marine escorting the remains of a fallen comrade, or the stories about a soldier charging down the murderous barrage of gunfire to save his down buddy, or fighting house to house to free a town from the thugs trying to impose their warped ideology on the populous. As Admiral Nimitz said of the Marines on Iwo Jima, “Uncommon valor was a common virtue.” Countless stories of valor have come from Iraq and Afghanistan over the past eight years. These humble warriors simply have a job to do and they do it – better than anyone else in the world. <br /><br />I would challenge all of you to stop and say “Thank you” whenever you see one on the street, in the grocery store or at a gas station. Chances are they will be embarrassed or surprised when you say it, but they will appreciate the thought. <br /><br />Last week, a friend sent a You Tube link to a recording of The Ten Tenors singing “<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LL-0mdEg0U4&feature=related">Here’s to the Heroes</a>.” If you haven’t watched it, I highly recommend it. Even if you have, it is well worth watching a couple of dozen times. <br /><br />To all of you young men and women who now constitute the new “Great Generation” I say Thank You. <br /><br />As always, your comments and discussion are welcome.<br /><br />DanThe Carpenter's Matehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15199315377010119350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4747930943848589050.post-73530855486953273542009-11-04T19:41:00.003-07:002009-11-04T19:46:44.764-07:00Health Care FraudFriends,<br /><br />A lot of us subscribe to on-line news letters, blogs and such. I am no different. One news release site I subscribe to is from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). It always makes me feel a little better when I hear about bad guys being indicted, getting caught, and sentenced. Over the past year of so that I have been receiving these news releases it has struck me that at least four or five times a week there is an item about someone being charged or sentenced for health care fraud. The latest example is about a “<a href="http://neworleans.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel09/no102909c.htm">Wheelchair Company, Its Owner and Physician Sentenced for Health Care Fraud</a>.” Just today there were three news releases about such cases. Two more are: “<a href="http://detroit.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel09/de103009.htm">Michigan Clinic Owner Pleads Guilty in Massive Medicare Fraud Scheme</a>;” and “<a href="http://miami.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel09/mm103009.htm">Florida Man Sentenced for Money Laundering Related to Health Care Fraud</a>.” The good news is that some of the bad guys are being discovered and caught, but how many are getting away with their nefarious activities? <br /><br />My first thought is that these cretins are stealing from us, the taxpayers of the country. While this is certainly true, this crime needs to be viewed from another aspect. What makes this type of crime so common is the ease with which the criminals are able to manipulate the public health care systems of Medicare and Medicaid. It is my contention that this is possible because these bloated and completely broken programs are being run by career bureaucrats who are not staying on top of their responsibilities. <br /><br />These bureaucrats are able to get away with incompetence because the system allows them to. I have no doubt these programs were established with the best intentions, but where are the checks and balances to keep this type of fraud from taking place? Has there ever been a top-to-bottom review to try to discover if industry best practices are being employed? <br /><br />The bottom line of this discussion is that every program established by the federal government is riddled with efficient management that comes from bureaucratic bloat. Medicare and Medicaid are only two broken and mismanaged programs in a long line. The during the Johnson administration the feds decided that all the money in the Social Security system was just what they needed to increase social programs under the war on poverty, part of the Great Society. <br /><br />The US Post Office has continued to operate much as it has for the last 200 years. It is common for commercial businesses to look for new and innovative ways to improve their business processes. This is a concept that seems to have been lost on the US Post Office. Not only are they unable to operate efficiently, they seem to have little interest in looking for ways to improve their operations. Consequently, they have been eclipsed by UPS and FEDEX. <br /><br />Now, the federal government is intent on taking the best health care system in the world and put it into the same category as Medicare and Medicaid. That is the category of failed programs. Never mind the fact that there is no place in the Constitution that gives the feds the authorization to even address medical care. Speaker Pelosi, Senator Reid, and the OWH are determined to establish a health care system under their direct control. What I find especially sad is that with the feds abysmal record at running programs we are likely to see our health system reduced to the status of a third world country. <br /><br />With an increase in bureaucracy, there is a corresponding increase in propensity for corruption. Looking at the proposed health care legislation as it currently is proposed in the House of Representatives, the House Republican Conference has compiled a list of new federal bureaucracies that would be established by that 2000 page tome. They add up to 111 new organizations. They are listed below with the section and page number from the bill. <br /><br />1. Retiree Reserve Trust Fund (Section 111(d), p. 61)<br />2. Grant program for wellness programs to small employers (Section 112, p. 62)<br />3. Grant program for State health access programs (Section 114, p. 72)<br />4. Program of administrative simplification (Section 115, p. 76)<br />5. Health Benefits Advisory Committee (Section 223, p. 111)<br />6. Health Choices Administration (Section 241, p. 131)<br />7. Qualified Health Benefits Plan Ombudsman (Section 244, p. 138)<br />8. Health Insurance Exchange (Section 201, p. 155)<br />9. Program for technical assistance to employees of small businesses buying Exchange coverage (Section 305(h), p. 191)<br />10. Mechanism for insurance risk pooling to be established by Health Choices Commissioner (Section 306(b), p. 194)<br />11. Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund (Section 307, p. 195)<br />12. State-based Health Insurance Exchanges (Section 308, p. 197)<br />13. Grant program for health insurance cooperatives (Section 310, p. 206)<br />14. "Public Health Insurance Option" (Section 321, p. 211)<br />15. Ombudsman for "Public Health Insurance Option" (Section 321(d), p. 213)<br />16. Account for receipts and disbursements for "Public Health Insurance Option" (Section 322(b), p. 215)<br />17. Telehealth Advisory Committee (Section 1191 (b), p. 589)<br />18. Demonstration program providing reimbursement for "culturally and linguistically appropriate services" (Section 1222, p. 617)<br />19. Demonstration program for shared decision making using patient decision aids (Section 1236, p. 648)<br />20. Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicare (Section 1301, p. 653)<br />21. Independent patient-centered medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302, p. 672)<br />22. Community-based medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302(d), p. 681)<br />23. Independence at home demonstration program (Section 1312, p. 718)<br />24. Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research (Section 1401(a), p. 734)<br />25. Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission (Section 1401(a), p. 738)<br />26. Patient ombudsman for comparative effectiveness research (Section 1401(a), p. 753)<br />27. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1412(b)(1), p. 784)<br />28. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for nursing facilities (Section 1412 (b)(2), p. 786)<br />29. Special focus facility program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1413(a)(3), p. 796)<br />30. Special focus facility program for nursing facilities (Section 1413(b)(3), p. 804)<br />31. National independent monitor pilot program for skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities (Section 1422, p. 859)<br />32. Demonstration program for approved teaching health centers with respect to Medicare GME (Section 1502(d), p. 933)<br />33. Pilot program to develop anti-fraud compliance systems for Medicare providers (Section 1635, p. 978)<br />34. Special Inspector General for the Health Insurance Exchange (Section 1647, p. 1000)<br />35. Medical home pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1722, p. 1058)<br />36. Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1730A, p. 1073)<br />37. Nursing facility supplemental payment program (Section 1745, p. 1106)<br />38. Demonstration program for Medicaid coverage to stabilize emergency medical conditions in institutions for mental diseases (Section 1787, p. 1149)<br />39. Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund (Section 1802, p. 1162)<br />40. "Identifiable office or program" within CMS to "provide for improved<br />coordination between Medicare and Medicaid in the case of dual eligibles" (Section 1905, p. 1191)<br />41. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Section 1907, p. 1198)<br />42. Public Health Investment Fund (Section 2002, p. 1214)<br />43. Scholarships for service in health professional needs areas (Section 2211, p. 1224)<br />44. Program for training medical residents in community-based settings (Section 2214, p. 1236)<br />45. Grant program for training in dentistry programs (Section 2215, p. 1240)<br />46. Public Health Workforce Corps (Section 2231, p. 1253)<br />47. Public health workforce scholarship program (Section 2231, p. 1254)<br />48. Public health workforce loan forgiveness program (Section 2231, p. 1258)<br />49. Grant program for innovations in interdisciplinary care (Section 2252, p. 1272)<br />50. Advisory Committee on Health Workforce Evaluation and Assessment (Section 2261, p. 1275)<br />51. Prevention and Wellness Trust (Section 2301, p. 1286)<br />52. Clinical Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1295)<br />53. Community Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1301)<br />54. Grant program for community prevention and wellness research (Section 2301, p. 1305)<br />55. Grant program for research and demonstration projects related to wellness incentives (Section 2301, p. 1305)<br />56. Grant program for community prevention and wellness services (Section 2301, p. 1308)<br />57. Grant program for public health infrastructure (Section 2301, p. 1313)<br />58. Center for Quality Improvement (Section 2401, p. 1322)<br />59. Assistant Secretary for Health Information (Section 2402, p. 1330)<br />60. Grant program to support the operation of school-based health clinics (Section 2511, p. 1352)<br />61. Grant program for nurse-managed health centers (Section 2512, p. 1361)<br />62. Grants for labor-management programs for nursing training (Section 2521, p. 1372)<br />63. Grant program for interdisciplinary mental and behavioral health training (Section 2522, p. 1382)<br />64. "No Child Left Unimmunized Against Influenza" demonstration grant program (Section 2524, p. 1391)<br />65. Healthy Teen Initiative grant program regarding teen pregnancy (Section 2526, p. 1398)<br />66. Grant program for interdisciplinary training, education, and services for individuals with autism (Section 2527(a), p. 1402)<br />67. University centers for excellence in developmental disabilities education (Section 2527(b), p. 1410)<br />68. Grant program to implement medication therapy management services (Section 2528, p. 1412)<br />69. Grant program to promote positive health behaviors in underserved communities (Section 2530, p. 1422)<br />70. Grant program for State alternative medical liability laws (Section 2531, p. 1431)<br />71. Grant program to develop infant mortality programs (Section 2532, p. 1433)<br />72. Grant program to prepare secondary school students for careers in health professions (Section 2533, p. 1437)<br />73. Grant program for community-based collaborative care (Section 2534, p. 1440)<br />74. Grant program for community-based overweight and obesity prevention (Section 2535, p. 1457)<br />75. Grant program for reducing the student-to-school nurse ratio in primary and secondary schools (Section 2536, p. 1462)<br />76. Demonstration project of grants to medical-legal partnerships (Section 2537, p. 1464)<br />77. Center for Emergency Care under the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (Section 2552, p. 1478)<br />78. Council for Emergency Care (Section 2552, p 1479)<br />79. Grant program to support demonstration programs that design and implement regionalized emergency care systems (Section 2553, p. 1480)<br />80. Grant program to assist veterans who wish to become emergency medical technicians upon discharge (Section 2554, p. 1487)<br />81. Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee (Section 2562, p. 1494)<br />82. National Medical Device Registry (Section 2571, p. 1501)<br />83. CLASS Independence Fund (Section 2581, p. 1597)<br />84. CLASS Independence Fund Board of Trustees (Section 2581, p. 1598)<br />85. CLASS Independence Advisory Council (Section 2581, p. 1602)<br />86. Health and Human Services Coordinating Committee on Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1610)<br />87. National Women's Health Information Center (Section 2588, p. 1611)<br />88. Centers for Disease Control Office of Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1614)<br />89. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Women's Health and Gender-Based Research (Section 2588, p. 1617)<br />90. Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1618)<br />91. Food and Drug Administration Office of Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1621)<br />92. Personal Care Attendant Workforce Advisory Panel (Section 2589(a)(2), p. 1624)<br />93. Grant program for national health workforce online training (Section 2591, p. 1629)<br />94. Grant program to disseminate best practices on implementing health workforce investment programs (Section 2591, p. 1632)<br />95. Demonstration program for chronic shortages of health professionals (Section 3101, p. 1717)<br />96. Demonstration program for substance abuse counselor educational curricula (Section 3101, p. 1719)49. Grant program for innovations in interdisciplinary care (Section 2252, p. 1272)<br />97. Program of Indian community education on mental illness (Section 3101, p. 1722)<br />98. Intergovernmental Task Force on Indian environmental and nuclear hazards (Section 3101, p. 1754)<br />99. Office of Indian Men's Health (Section 3101, p. 1765)<br />100. Indian Health facilities appropriation advisory board (Section 3101, p. 1774)<br />101. Indian Health facilities needs assessment workgroup (Section 3101, p. 1775)<br />102. Indian Health Service tribal facilities joint venture demonstration projects (Section 3101, p. 1809)<br />103. Urban youth treatment center demonstration project (Section 3101, p. 1873)<br />104. Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for diabetes prevention (Section 3101, p. 1874)<br />105. Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for health IT adoption (Section 3101, p. 1877)<br />106. Mental health technician training program (Section 3101, p. 1898)<br />107. Indian youth telemental health demonstration project (Section 3101, p. 1909)<br />108. Program for treatment of child sexual abuse victims and perpetrators (Section 3101, p. 1925)<br />109. Program for treatment of domestic violence and sexual abuse (Section 3101, p. 1927)<br />110. Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1966)<br />111. Committee for the Establishment of the Native American Health and<br />Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1968)<br /><br />With 111 new bureaucracies, boards, etc. there is a golden opportunity for crooks to make millions off you and me, the average taxpayer while we take a number and wait in line for someone to set a bone or try to find out why we have a 104 degree temperature. <br /><br />I ask you all to contact your congressman and senators to tell them that your health care is not the government’s business and to keep their hands out of our wallets. <br /><br />As always, I welcome your comments and discussion. <br /> <br />DanThe Carpenter's Matehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15199315377010119350noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4747930943848589050.post-80790632594725706932009-10-29T18:28:00.002-06:002009-10-29T18:35:38.702-06:00Government Power ExcessesFriends,<br /><br />It seems like every week there is at least one more conservative group that starts up to advocate for one or another of our constitutional rights. I applaud all of their efforts, but it seems like I am reaching overload. Like most of you, I am a go-to-work kind of guy; and like most of you I don’t have time to read all of the blogs and information that comes in every day. But scanning over the plethora of information I find a common thread in the complaints and concerns with our current governments; yes, I said governments, plural. <br /><br />The common thread is that no matter what level of government the blogger is discussing, or the issue, the issues all seem to eventually boil down to an excess hunger on the part of our legislators, executive department personnel, and judges to exercise power that is not afforded them by our city, state or national charter or constitution. Since I don’t have time to write a volume on the excesses of government I will limit this discussion to a few of my hot buttons. <br /><br />I recently received an email discussing Social Security as the system relates to our congressional representatives and senators. They do not seem to be bound by the same constraints that we mere mortals are when it comes to collecting Social Security. The crux of the email was that everybody should be covered by the same system. I agree. However I have a different idea. Why not just do away with Social Security! My proposal is to grandfather all individuals who are currently drawing benefits and those within 10 years of Social Security eligibility. For all others, move their accumulated money into whatever investment vehicle the individual chooses. Mandatory payroll deductions would still be made but instead of the Feds getting it to squander, the money would go into investments that each citizen deems right for him. There could be stipulations on the types of investments that could be made but the bottom line would be to keep the money out of the hands of the politicians. This would apply to ALL citizens. This is my concession to the federal government telling us what to do but it falls short of allowing them to do it for or to us. <br /><br />Another area that is kind of sticking in my craw is in the area of our right to keep and bear arms. The OWH has appointed a fair number of “czars” whose decisions carry the weight of law. Take, for example, the Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein. He has called for the end to all hunting and even goes so far as to advocate animal rights to the extent that a human can sue another human on behalf of a “wronged” animal. If I shoot a bear charging me in my own yard do I go to jail or face a law suit on behalf of the bear that is trying to make me his dinner? <br /><br />What about a ruling from the head of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, David Michaels. If Mr. Michaels says that having a pocket knife in the work place is dangerous and I carry mine to work, am I subject to being fined or charged with a crime? To carry this a little farther, Oklahoma passed a law forbidding companies from discharging employees who carry their personal protection guns to work and keep them locked in their cars. This law has been upheld in federal court. However, the way federal regulations are structured, Mr. Michaels could declare that guns locked in personal cars pose an unacceptable risk in the work place. This declaration by an unelected official would carry the weight of law and negate the Oklahoma law. Someone needs to explain the constitutionality of that to me. <br /><br />The recent abrogation of our first amendment rights comes in the form of the so-called hate-crimes bill. Now the feds can charge us under this act for not only the act of a crime, but for the reason for the crime. That gets into the category of retribution, not justice. Also, it does not apply equally to all citizens. “<a href="http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102919">As WND reported</a>, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder admitted a homosexual activist who is attacked following a Christian minister's sermon about homosexuality would be protected by the proposed federal law, but a minister attacked by a homosexual wouldn't be.” It seems that Congress and the OWH are trying to foist class warfare on us. One class of citizen is more equal than other classes. This comes very close to double jeopardy. As I have written in previous posts, there is an element of hate in every crime. Further adding a characterization of the crime just to add retribution is far outside the realm of justice.<br /><br />As I have stated numerous times, I am not a constitutional scholar, but I do refer to that revered document often. As many times as I have read it, I have yet to discover where it says that the federal government has the authority to do or say ANYTHING about our health care. As far as I am concerned, this entire debate is a complete waste of the taxpayers’ time and money. The bottom line of this waste is that it is going to cost every taxpaying US person a great deal of money. Of course, those who do not pay taxes will get off with a free ride. <br /><br />Now to the bottom line; all of these regulations, social welfare programs and non-constitutional departments are not only breaking our bank but our backs. As well as not being a constitutional scholar, I am not an economist, just a working stiff. However, I think I have a way to pay off the national debt AND get our country back on the track set down by the Founders. It is a fairly simple solution. Eliminate all government departments that are not enumerated in the constitution; stop federal spending on all items that are not specifically laid out in the constitution (that includes all social welfare programs); eliminate the “death tax;” lower corporate taxes to 10%; and lower the income tax rate to 15% for all wage earners who earn over $35,000. Presidents Kennedy and Reagan proved that when you lower taxes, revenue to the federal government increases. Putting the tax burden on those who pay wages simply does not make sense. <br /><br />This Discourse seems to have spread all over the spectrum but as I stated up front, there is a common thread throughout, and that is the excessive power assumed by the federal government. It is my crusade to assist in reversing that trend. I would hope you would join me in this effort. <br /><br />Your comments and discussion are welcome. <br /><br />DanThe Carpenter's Matehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15199315377010119350noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4747930943848589050.post-15918546127706826862009-10-06T07:30:00.002-06:002009-10-06T07:35:09.900-06:00New Secretary of Defense?Friends,<br />There was something very scary in the rumor mill this last week. Columnist Bill Kristol has speculated that the Obama administration is going to cut and run in Afghanistan. These are not his words, but it is the bottom line of his predictions.<br /><br />When Robert Gates was selected to continue as SECDEF for the new administration a lot of folks were surprised, myself included. I am not aware of one cabinet officer of a previous administration being held over to the next, new party administration. This says a lot for the capability and, presumably, apolitical stance held by Gates. From outward appearances, the Secretary enjoys the support of his senior military officers. At any rate, he certainly seems to be intent on winning in Afghanistan, despite the ruling party’s penchant to cut-and-run. However, this may be his undoing. <br /><br />Mr. Kristol has speculated that the OWH is going to reject General McChrystal’s request for additional troops and ask Secretary Gates to resign. The OWH obviously has no experience dealing with professionals. The Secretary and the General are part of a team with a common goal in mind. This does not seem to be the same goal as the OWH.<br /><br />The first question to come to mind is, why doesn’t he just tell the Secretary to draw down troop levels until they have to pull out? That way the goal is accomplished. But I have a feeling that the Secretary and the General may not go “quietly into the night.” No, these two have too much integrity to dishonor all those brave fighting men and women who have given so much to help the Afghan people. So, what has to happen?<br /><br />The first thing that has to happen is for Secretary Gates to go away. In his place, needs to be someone who would have no shame in losing a war and a people in the process. This is where not-to-soon-to-cut-and-run former senator Chuck Hagel comes into the picture. Krystal speculates that the OWH will pick Hagel as the new SECDEF. Let’s take a brief look at Hagel’s history. He voted in favor of using troops in Iraq in 2002. However, in 2007, he was one of three Republicans who supported starting the troops home within 120 days of a Senate vote. <br /><br />Senator Hagel was a decorated E-5 Army sergeant during Viet Nam. One can only speculate on the effect this experience may have had on his feelings toward the Iraq war. But this support for withdrawal certainly brings into question what actions he would take as SECDEF, should he be chosen and confirmed. <br /><br />Just yesterday (05 Oct), the OWH said, through his press secretary, that he is not anticipating pulling out of Afghanistan. Does that include going against the experts in the field, implementing disastrous tactics, and causing many more casualties? The result of this strategy will be to declare that he is getting us out of Afghanistan to prevent more American lives from being lost. <br /><br />Chuck Hagel is the perfect fall-guy to implement this strategy. He is a Republican for the liberals to point to, thereby somewhat shielding the OWH from criticism. With Senator Hagel’s demonstrated proclivity for giving up the fight, the blame will flow off the OWH’s back. <br /><br />But what would be the consequences? The Taliban, al Qaida, and their affiliates only respect strength. It could be argued that US interests really became a target after the Beirut bombing in 1983. The Iranian “students” tested the waters in 1979 but seemed to be unwilling to face newly inaugurated Ronald Reagan. Hezbollah tested the waters again in Beirut and when President Reagan withdrew US forces from Lebanon they knew where our national resolve lay.<br /> <br />Withdrawing from Afghanistan will be no different. Once the Taliban, al Qaida and the rest of the gang sees that our national resolve is just as rubber-spined as always, they will be emboldened to take action where ever they please. This action will not be limited to outside our borders. In just the last two weeks, two plots to create massive craters in two of our cities have been foiled. How many other plots are in the works at this time, just waiting for final arrangements or for the word to come from some coordinator?<br /><br />I sincerely hope Mr. Kristol is wrong. The consequences of this sequence of events could be devastating. <br /><br />As always, I welcome your comments/discussion.<br />DanThe Carpenter's Matehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15199315377010119350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4747930943848589050.post-4772409347279476402009-07-12T19:06:00.002-06:002009-07-12T19:08:59.305-06:00A Side Trip for a Memorial ServiceFriends,<br />The following was sent by a friend, Colorado State Representative, Larry Liston. I gladly pass it along. <br />Dan <br />Friends,<br /> This is no joke. This man was real. Read on.<br /><br />> > May God Bless Shifty Powers.<br />> > <br />> > Saturday, July 11, 2009 2:38 PM<br />> > <br />> > Subject: Memorial Service: you're invited.<br />> > <br />> > Men like "Shifty" R few & FAR Between these days! May he rest in peace with the thanks of a grateful Nation! <br />> > <br />> > SPOOK<br />> > <br />> > Memorial Service: you're invited.<br />> > <br />> > We're hearing a lot today about big splashy memorial services.<br />> > <br />> > I want a nationwide memorial service for Darrell "Shifty" Powers. <br />> > <br />> > Shifty volunteered for the airborne in WWII and served with Easy Company of the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, part of the 101st Airborne Infantry. If you've seen Band of Brothers on HBO or the History Channel, you know Shifty. His character appears in all 10 episodes, and Shifty himself is interviewed in several of them.<br />> > <br />> > I met Shifty in the Philadelphia airport several years ago. I didn't know who he was at the time. I just saw an elderly gentleman having trouble reading his ticket. I offered to help, assured him that he was at the right gate, and noticed the "Screaming Eagle", the symbol of the 101st Airborne, on his hat.<br />> > <br />> > Making conversation, I asked him if he'd been in the 101st Airborne or if his son was serving. He said quietly that he had been in the 101st. I thanked him for his service, then asked him when he served, and how many jumps he made.<br />> > <br />> > Quietly and humbly, he said "Well, I guess I signed up in 1941 or so, and was in until sometime in 1945 . . . " at which point my heart skipped. <br />> > <br />> > At that point, again, very humbly, he said "I made the 5 training jumps at Toccoa, and then jumped into Normandy . .. . . do you know where Normandy is?" At this point my heart stopped.<br />> > <br />> > I told him yes, I know exactly where Normandy was, and I know what D-Day was. At that point he said "I also made a second jump into Holland , into Arnhem ." I was standing with a genuine war hero . . . . and then I realized that it was June, just after the anniversary of D-Day. <br />> > <br />> > I asked Shifty if he was on his way back from France , and he said "Yes. And it's real sad because these days so few of the guys are left, and those that are, lots of them can't make the trip." My heart was in my throat and I didn't know what to say.<br />> > <br />> > I helped Shifty get onto the plane and then realized he was back in Coach, while I was in First Class. I sent the flight attendant back to get him and said that I wanted to switch seats. When Shifty came forward, I got up out of the seat and told him I wanted him to have it, that I'd take his in coach.<br />> > <br />> > He said "No, son, you enjoy that seat. Just knowing that there are still some who remember what we did and still care is enough to make an old man very happy." His eyes were filling up as he said it. And mine are brimming up now as I write this.<br />> > <br />> > Shifty died on June 17 after fighting cancer.<br />> > <br />> > There was no parade.<br />> > <br />> > No big event in Staples Center .<br />> > <br />> > No wall to wall back to back 24x7 news coverage.<br />> > <br />> > No weeping fans on television.<br />> > <br />> > And that's not right.<br />> > <br />> > Let's give Shifty his own Memorial Service, online, in our own quiet way. Please forward this email to everyone you know. Especially to the veterans.<br />> > <br />> > Rest in peace, Shifty.<br />> > <br />> > "A nation without heroes is nothing."<br />> > Roberto Clemente<br />> >The Carpenter's Matehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15199315377010119350noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4747930943848589050.post-53574068263295692462009-06-23T13:58:00.005-06:002009-06-23T14:08:58.124-06:00Constitutional Authority 2Friends,<br />A few days ago I started a series looking at what I call “extra-constitutional” federal departments. Today I would like to continue that discussion by looking at the Department of Labor. As with the last Discourse, I will link Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section8">here</a> for your reference. <br /><br />The Department of Labor came into being under Present Taft in 1913 with the enactment of The Organic Act of the Department of Labor. Prior to this enactment labor issues were under the purview of the Department of Commerce and Labor; this act split the two. “The purpose of the Department of Labor shall be to foster, promote, and develop the welfare of the wage earners of the United States, to improve their working conditions, and to advance their opportunities for profitable employment. [Public Law 426-62]” The mission statement of DOL is: <br /><br /><em>The Department of Labor fosters and promotes the welfare of the job seekers, wage earners, and retirees of the United States by improving their working conditions, advancing their opportunities for profitable employment, protecting their retirement and health care benefits, helping employers find workers, strengthening free collective bargaining, and tracking changes in employment, prices, and other national economic measurements. In carrying out this mission, the Department administers a variety of Federal labor laws including those that guarantee workers’ rights to safe and healthful working conditions; a minimum hourly wage and overtime pay; freedom from employment discrimination; unemployment insurance; and other income support.</em><br /><br />This sounds great, giving the impression of a kindly grandfather making sure all of the kids play nicely together. But what happens when one of the kids is able to gain more influence over grandpa then the other kids, and what happens when grandpa allows that influence to make a difference in his judgment? You then have the same relationship as the US government (grandpa) and labor and management (kids). They will do all of this benevolent work on a budget of $10.5B with 16,848 full-time employees. <br /><br />Let’s take a look at one situation in particular. With enough research I could undoubtedly fill a few volumes on the subject of union corruption but I will just look at the most recent one. <br /><br />Last year the Bush administration advocated and initiated the bailout of the auto industry. This package has evolved a number of times in the last year, so many times that I am not sure I have the complete picture but I will try to put some of the larger pieces together. <br /><br />As of 13 June of this year, the United Auto Workers’ health care fund was set to receive 17.5% of General Motors; the government was set to receive 60%; the Canadian government was set to receive 12.5%. That leaves only 10% for the only legitimate claimants to the company, the bond holders. I'm not going to give a blow-by-blow account of the rape and pillaging of the largest auto company in America by the government, but rather concentrate on the macro role played in this travesty by Big Federal Government (I’ll call it BFG), the DOL, and the UAW. <br /><br />Looking at the DOL mission statement above, how does that square with participating in the destruction of a viable company like General Motors. There are three major players here; the BFG, the DOL, and the UAW. BFG forced the downfall of GM by placing unreasonable restrictions on auto manufacturing over a period of decades, causing the price and complexity of cars to skyrocket. I’m sure there may be a more regulated industry than the auto industry, but one does not come immediately to mind. These regulations cover everything from air bag safety requirements to tire manufacturing specifications, bumper crash survival rates, and gas mileage. Just managing the compliance paperwork alone must be a major cost of doing business. <br /><br />The DOL is supposed to be looking out for the workers. Where was their advocacy to keep the company viable? I have not found any place where they have performed this function. They have taken on the mantle of surrogate for the UAW against the “big mean management team.” Where has DOL worked to ensure GM’s viability? This is the only way the workers will be able to maintain their jobs. Remember, if GM closes their doors, millions of people are out of work. <br /><br />So, now we have a situation where we are throwing $10.5B at an agency of BFG that seems to be working for the destruction of jobs. Also, where in the Constitution is BFG given the authority to take such a hand, heavy or light, into matters of free enterprise? It is a historical fact that when BFG sticks its fingers into a situation, it invariably heads south; just ask the folks at Mustang Ranch (you can Google that one).<br /><br />Why is DOL working so hard to paint big GM as such bad guys; because their masters at UAW have told them to do so. The unions hold such an iron grip over the DOL that they are sure to get their way; thus they will be receiving a big chunk of GM. But wait, remember BFG’s propensity to screw things up? With their 60% and given their track record, GM should be out of business within two years (I'm being generous here; I don’t think it will take that long). Where is the workers’ advocacy in this situation?<br /><br />The DOL has not only existed in an extra-constitutional framework, it has actively worked to put American workers out of work. This is another BFG department that needs to go away and let the marketplace work. An adjunct to this is for BFG to let the marketplace determine the regulations placed on the industry. One lesson that BFG has never learned is that the consumer will ultimately determine what features they want and what they do not want. <br /><br />As always, I welcome your comments and discussions. <br /><br />DanThe Carpenter's Matehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15199315377010119350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4747930943848589050.post-51539087310864512482009-06-11T20:22:00.002-06:002009-06-11T20:28:10.357-06:00Constitutional Authority #1Friends,<br />It is time for me to get back up on my soap box. Not a day goes by that this administration and its stooges in Congress don’t make my blood boil. Whether it is the “stimulus package” or the federal government taking over our health care or Attorney General Holder giving consideration to prosecuting the former administration for their decisions, it all boils down to one issue. Where is the constitutional justification for any of their actions? <br /><br />The more I look at this administration as well as administrations for the past 80 years (and I am being generous) I realize that most, if not all of our economic problems have come as a direct result of the federal government violating its constitutional authority. In this series of Discourses let’s concentrate on just the establishment and operation of what I call extraconstitutional cabinet-level departments. First, I suppose that we should determine which departments are authorized, expressly or by implication, by the Constitution. <br /><br />I would submit that Treasury, State, Justice, War (now Defense), and Commerce are authorized or implied by the Constitution; there might also be a case for the Department of Interior. I have linked Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section8">here</a>. This article details the powers of the Congress. You may want to open it in order to refer to it while I go through this discussion. <br /><br />The first extraconstitutional department I will discuss is the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) which came into being during the FDR administration with the enactment of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937. HUD was elevated to cabinet-level by the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 during the Johnson administration. The stated mission for HUD “is to increase homeownership, support community development and increase access to affordable housing free from discrimination.” I discussed <a href="http://carpentersmate.blogspot.com/2008/12/our-uncontrolable-debt.html">Our Uncontrollable Debt </a>in December of last year. <br /><br />Being the simple-minded soul that I am, I have to ask, “Why?” What happened to working toward homeownership? Before you get all riled, I know that in years-gone-by discriminatory lending and home sales practices existed and may still today; but there are free market forces that can and should deal with that. Much of the current financial folly we are enjoying now is a direct result of “making” people eligible for homeownership when they just hadn’t gotten there on their own. What happened to good old American work ethic? What happened to the concept of setting your goals and working toward them? Why is the federal government in the business of business anyway? As a friend of mine is want to query, if you are not a homeowner, what are you? You are a renter. Is that bad? I don’t think so. Someone owns that house or apartment and is living the American dream. If you think it is easy being the owner of a rental unit, just ask those who do. If you don’t want to be a renter why do you have to have a department of the federal government behind you pushing you into a mortgage you can’t afford? If you want homeownership badly enough you go out there and work for it. <br /><br />This great county has grown because individuals worked. At first it was just to subsist. Then as they worked harder they began to realize that their efforts could pay off and make their lives even better than just subsistence. Is this an easy path? No, but nothing worth the pride of ownership is easy. That is what makes one stick his chest out and say, “I worked for that and I earned it.” Where is the pride in saying “HUD got me this house”? <br /><br />Looking at the Constitution and the enumerated powers, I do not see any place that allows the federal government to manipulate the marketplace for any group or for any reason. This interference in the marketplace is a very sharp overreach of constitutional authority. <br /><br />The current budget for HUD is $41.5B. That is money that comes from people who have worked for that dream of homeownership. I can think of a lot more productive ways to spend that money, such as paying down our enormous debt. I can think of a lot more productive ways for people to earn their way into homeownership than working the federal bureaucracy to get a home. Working toward homeownership puts productivity in the community. Achieving that goal and purchasing that home means that someone earned a wage when the home was built, or the prior owner is going into another home that someone had to build. That is the way of economics. <br /><br />By my way of thinking, if people have achieved the dream of homeownership or they are working toward it, that is good for the state and community in which they live. Doesn’t that make it a state issue? The states and municipalities should be more in tune with the individual citizens than the federal government. Why, then, is the federal government trying, and succeeding, to assume the duties of the states and local communities? While they are doing this, it is a continual degradation of states’ rights and responsibilities; a place the federal government has no business visiting. <br /><br />This Discourse is very high-level and not in depth. That would take much more time and space to cover. These highlights should be enough to start you thinking. <br /><br />This is the first in a series of Discourses discussing the gross assumption of power by the federal government. Hopefully, it will encourage a renewed interest in taking our communities and states back which, in turn, will give us our country back. <br /><br />As always, your comments and discussions are welcome. <br /><br />DanThe Carpenter's Matehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15199315377010119350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4747930943848589050.post-72832119360314664162009-05-19T15:41:00.003-06:002009-05-19T15:46:31.171-06:00Obama and the UNFriends,<br />As you know, I am no fan of the United Nations. Now, it looks like President Obama is becoming more of a Globalist than an American; I will not get into the birth certificate issue. The president wants badly to be seen as a “good guy” by the international community. <br /><br />Last month, he traveled to Europe, and the Middle East looking for good will. At every stop he apologized for perceived wrongs of America, such as our arrogance. Not to put too fine a point on the issue, but is it arrogant to point out that twice in forty years this country saved the world from the despotism of megalomaniacal tyrants? Is it arrogant to point out that when Europe was in shambles after World War II it was the United States that funded much of the recovery from the utter devastation of that war? Is it arrogant to point out that America, along with our good ally England was able to face down the Soviet Union and end the cold war? Is it arrogant to point out that when Saddam Hussein invaded an ally, it was an American president who built a coalition of world nations to remove him? I might also point out that in none of these circumstances did the United States benefit financially. We did not take over the manufacturing base, agricultural base, or oil production base of any country we assisted. But I digress.<br /><br />The president even went to Saudi Arabia to pay homage to the Saudi King. For an American president to bow to a foreign head of state, or for him to bow to anyone, for that matter, causes me to question whether he fully understands the role he has accepted. Let’s look at the relationship the United States shares with the international community, specifically the United Nations. <br /><br />After World War II, this country joined with our war-time allies to establish a body that would prevent war and other international “man-made disasters.” The problem with the concept is that we made the pact with two devils, the Soviet Union and the Peoples’ Republic of China, not to mention the questionable friendship of France. <br /><br />Over the history of this body, only one action that I can find has resulted in a victim of aggression being even partially protected, that being South Korea. Even that “police action” has never been finally put to rest. UN presence often results in either complete inability to accomplish the job or deploying thugs that terrorize the local populous, such as has been reported in numerous locations in Africa, or both. Seldom are these failures or abuses addressed by the whole body. <br /><br />With this kind of track record what is the justification for President Obama to want to snuggle up to the UN? The Obama administration is attempting to gain a seat on the UN Human Rights Council. This is one of the agencies that is advocating for ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). As we all understand, any ratified treaty has the force of law over established US law. <br /><br />The aforementioned treaty sounds wonderful until you start to dig into it. The UNCRC seeks to raise the best interest of children to a higher level. Who could argue against that? Well, it seems that the Supreme Court could. The Supreme Court held in Reno vs. Flores in 1993 that “‘the best interests of the child’ is not the legal standard that governs parents’ or guardians’ exercise of their custody.” <br /><br />The main problem seems to be who will determine what is best for the child. According to the UNCRC it is not you, the parents. This is a major “nanny state” advocacy program. The UN will become the determiner of appropriate discipline of your children. Not only does it supplant US law, it supplants your parental rights. <br /><br />President Obama may be comfortable turning his daughters over to the state to determine how they are to be reared, but are you ready to do the same?<br /><br />One of the provisions of the Convention is that if a child does not like the way his or her parents are exercising their responsibilities, the state must provide legal representation for that child in court against the parents. I have a problem with the concept that a child can take the parents to court if the child objects to being grounded for staying out after curfew, of if he or she objects to having a curfew in the first place. <br /><br />Those countries that have signed this treaty must go before the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child on a regular basis to report their progress toward implementing the treaty. This just adds another layer of bureaucracy to our already bloated federal government. <br />This is the direction our president wants <br />to take our country. With each passing day, we are losing more and more of our national identity. Our president is spending an inordinate amount of time and energy denigrating our standing in the world community, not to mention our sovereignty. It is incumbent on all of us to tell him that he is on the wrong track. We are a nation of laws decided upon by our elected officials, not those of other nations. <br /><br />In Thomas Jefferson’s first inaugural address he warned, <strong>"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances with none, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration."</strong><br />President Obama’s desire for ratification of the CRC tracks very well with his disdain of all things culturally American. This is the kind of man elected by those wanting “change.” Well, how is this change working out for you? How is this global lack of respect sitting with you? How is the loss of your parental rights going to work out for you?<br /><br />If you would like to read more about this problem I would like to direct you to <a href="http://www.minthegap.com/2009/03/03/a-problem-for-parental-rights/">here </a><br /><br />As always, I welcome your comments and discussion.<br /><br />Also, I would like to thank Shyrl for her diligent research in support of this Discourse. <br />DanThe Carpenter's Matehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15199315377010119350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4747930943848589050.post-7094073203441544372009-04-15T19:32:00.002-06:002009-04-15T19:44:31.063-06:00Beware of Right-Wing ExtremistsFriends,<br />When little boys were growing up in the age of true American heroes like Lieutenant Audie Murphy, General of the Army Dwight Eisenhower, General of the Army Omar Bradley, General George Patton, and Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock, they pictured themselves doing heroic things such as saving their comrades from certain death or rescuing the city from certain calamity. One picture they did not have of themselves was that of a terrorist. <br /><br />We grew up steeped in patriotism. We had just emerged from under the cloud of three despotic megalomaniacs who wanted to split the world into three pieces for them to rule with their iron fists. Our thoughts were of the preservation of our freedoms and our nation. However in this day of globalism, these thoughts put my generation and those of like minds squarely in the crosshairs of our new administration and the agency tasked with preserving those freedoms. <br /><br />I question whether members of our current administration fully appreciate how close we have come to losing our very national identity. With few exceptions, we have never gone into a war with a certainty of success. The number of Americans killed in action during all major wars since the Revolution stands at over 2.7 million. Those lives were sacrificed to guarantee that we would not have to live under the boot heel of despots. <br /><br />The current list of patriots now includes the soccer moms, who want to protect their kids from crushing debt and oppressive government regulation; citizens who work every day to support their families and don’t want to see illegals come in and take their jobs; caring, loving parents who cherish their children and do not believe that a child is a throw-away commodity; and ordinary citizens, like myself, who “cling to their guns and Bibles” because they are guaranteed under our Constitution by the Founders. <br /><br />The Department of Homeland Security sent a memo out to all law enforcement agencies in the US giving their assessment of Right-Wing extremist groups. You can view this memo <a href="http://wnd.com/images/dhs-rightwing-extremism.pdf">here</a>. (If DHS takes the link down you may email me and I will send you a copy of it.) The most astounding part of their concern is that they characterize returning veterans as potential terrorists. Why is this list of patriots now viewed by the DHS as potential terrorists and worthy of being watched? This may seem like a perplexing question but there is a simple answer. The current crop of Liberals has a major problem with criticism as evidenced by their push for reinstatement of the “Fairness Doctrine.”<br /><br />One question that we patriots should be asking ourselves is “What freedoms will we lose under the guise of preventing Right-Wing-Extremism?” Already mentioned is curtailment of our First Amendment rights under the “Fairness Doctrine.” Additionally, if Right-Wing groups are seen as a threat, will the government try to limit our right of free assembly? Will groups like the Coalition for a Conservative Majority, <a href="http://www.ccm-cos.com">www.ccm-cos.com</a>, be banned from meeting or at least be required to obtain a permit? What about our Second Amendment rights? If those of us clinging to our guns and Bibles are viewed as a threat, can gun confiscation be far behind?<br />This egregious memo closely resembles one put out by the Missouri law enforcement folks a couple of months ago. They received so much heat for their memo that they removed it from distribution. <br /> <br />Now, Secretary Napolitano has released a <a href="http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr_1239817562001.shtm">statement</a> saying that her department is not profiling anyone but that it is the department’s responsibility to safeguard the country and they are constantly “on the lookout for criminal and terrorist activity but we do not – nor will we ever – monitor ideology or political beliefs.” This sounds like a bit of double-speak. The department’s memo tells law enforcement agencies across the country to beware of all of these Right-Wing groups, including returning veterans. Someone please correct my thought process. How can you be associated with a Right-Wing group unless you have political beliefs that lean to the right? But the secretary says that they do not monitor ideology or political beliefs. Maybe I’m missing something. <br /><br />The bottom line is that Secretary Napolitano’s “clarification” falls a bit short. The memo is still out there providing guidance for our country’s law enforcement agencies. I find this to be offensive to the extreme. This administration is pitting the government against its citizens just the way Lenin, Stalin, and Mao did. It is past time for the citizens of this great nation to tell the federal government to stay out of our meetings, churches, and homes. <br /><br />As always, I welcome your comments and discussion. <br /><br />DanThe Carpenter's Matehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15199315377010119350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4747930943848589050.post-12689076980470810892009-04-14T17:36:00.001-06:002009-04-14T17:41:55.570-06:00The Enumerated Powers ActFriends, <br /><br />Wow! There is a new concept brewing in Congress, HR 450, also known as the Enumerated Powers Act. If this bill passes it would state “Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act. The failure to comply with this section shall give rise to a point of order in either House of Congress….”<br /><br />What a concept, basing the actions of the federal government on only those powers granted by the Constitution. Now why didn’t I think of that? Actually, the Founders did think of it and spelled it out quite succinctly in the 10th Amendment which states, “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.” This tells me that Congress, the President, and the Courts have specific powers and only those powers. <br /><br />My hat is flying off my head to salute Representative John Shadegg, R-Ariz. and the 19 other representatives who have signed on to this ground-breaking bill that will receive no notice in the main-stream press or by the Democrat leadership. <br /><br />As it turns out, this is not the first time Representative Shadegg has introduced the bill. He has introduced it every year he has been in Congress. I have a couple of questions for every member of Congress; “Why is it necessary that this bill should even be required?” and “Why do I not see every member of the House of Representatives name as a cosponsor and the same in the Senate on a companion bill?” I do not think that these are rhetorical questions. I want an answer from each and every one of these individuals. For over 150 years, successive congresses, presidents, and courts have taken on powers not specifically spelled out in the Constitution. To see the cosponsors of this bill go <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR00450:@@@P">here</a>. <br /><br />As I have noted on numerous occasions, I am no Constitutional Scholar, but in my reading of this venerable document I have found no constitutional justification for bailing out any private corporation; no constitutional justification for ordering a corporate executive to resign; or even the constitutional justification to tell petroleum companies when or where they can explore or drill for oil. Where in our Constitution does it say that the federal government has the authority to tell us who will have health care insurance, or who will pay for it? Please do not misunderstand me, I want everyone to be able to have access to health care but it is not within the purview of the federal government to determine the scope of that need or provide it. <br /><br />The continuous over-reach of the federal government has accelerated to the point where we will not be out of debt for at least three generations unless we turn this trend around now. This means taking a number of immediate steps:<br />1. Cancel the “Stimulus Package”<br />2. Cut corporate taxes to a maximum rate of 14% <br />3. Repeal the 16th Amendment<br />4. Pass a new amendment that guarantees all taxes will be fairly and equitably levied<br />5. Eliminate all cabinet/federal departments that do not directly fall in line with the enumerated goals and powers in the Constitution. <br /><br />These measures only address the financial mess with which the federal government has saddled us. There are many more measures that should be taken to return the United States to the greatness that we once enjoyed. But our economy is arguably at the fore of our thought process at this time. <br /><br />As usual, I welcome your comments and discussion<br /><br />DanThe Carpenter's Matehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15199315377010119350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4747930943848589050.post-82547199475178644822009-03-19T20:39:00.002-06:002009-03-19T20:43:53.851-06:00Guest Writer - RNC "Survey"Friends,<br />How many of you have received “surveys” from the RNC. These surveys are merely restatements of RNC policies and positions. They always end up asking for money. A friend of mine received one in the latest round of mailings and responded with a letter to Chairman Steele instead of filling out the “survey.” This is what he said:<br /><br />Mr. Steele, et al,<br />The survey that precipitated this note is nearly the same as scores of previous surveys…you ask obvious questions. But yet I should be asking you the questions:<br /><br />1. Precisely what are the top 3 innovations you will implement, different from all prior RNC efforts that will recapture Washington? Spare no detail - - I want to see your entire plan. <br />2. Why are you asking questions with verbiage such as “Should Republicans unite…?” and “Should we resist…?” etc? These are pathetic questions - - these actions should be already nailed down: unity, resistance, opposition, etc. If you are still asking these “feel good” questions, you are arriving at the dance too late. You’ve got a lot of time and lost ground to make up…now. <br />3. You and the RNC appear to have no fight. When the Dems are so bold as to publicly announce that they will exclude us from legislative deliberations (because “we won”). You tuck your tail and crouch in the corner. You should be raising ceaseless noise about it. You should be encouraging and leading the “tea parties.” You should be broadcasting all the e-mail addresses, the phone numbers, and the surface addresses for all members of the DNC, White House, and cabinet. You should lead the opposition, not merely observe it. In short, you and RNC hi-visibility senior leaders should be multiplying American voices; there are millions who hate the directions we see in our future. But no one feels threatened by ordinary people - - - but if we act together, the synergism will be noticed. Get out there. <br />4. Immediately use some of your budget to quickly publish a directory of the Dem’s info in “3” above. Flood the market with it. Send it to more than RNC members – make it available to Dems who also are worried about Obama. I’d like to see that directory on the streets in 30 days – we can’t let another month go by with the DNC railroad in full operation. You can do this - - - - Right?<br /><br />Mike and team: I am in my second career, serving the aerospace industry. I already completed my first career, having served in the U.S. Air Force for more than 26 years. Mark it well: I did not serve for more than a quarter century so that my America can be stolen away one piece at a time. I did not serve so that I can watch any of the following:<br />• Gun rights weakened or eliminated<br />• Human life killed for research<br />• Statecraft reduced to kumbaya sessions with terrorists<br />• Release of terrorists who still want to kill you, me, and my family<br />• Doctors prosecuted for following their moral conscience<br />• Transfer of wealth from honest earners to productivity refuseniks<br />• The environment elevated to god-like status that trumps the American way of life, productivity, Divine authority, academic truth, and national security<br />• Military force structure and posture reduced to another Carter-like and Clinton-like shell, the remnants of which might be subordinated to the UN<br />• Cooperation by the US with forces wanting one-world governance and/or currency<br />• Punitive tax rates that drain money from every family, business, and estate<br />• Education based on union-driven mediocrity that eschews superior achievement by teachers or students<br />• Illegal immigrants being awarded front-of-the-line status to citizenship, free medical care, preferential in-state tuition, and government shields from arrest and deportation, abetted by “sanctuary city” officials<br />• Intrusion of family privacy, such as government access to medical records or submission of thumbprints to sell a home in Chicago - - - and similar invasions equally insidious<br />• Etc. etc, etc.<br /><br />The list goes on and on, but I do not have time to write more. I sincerely hope I made myself crystal clear. I am exponentially disappointed in the RNC. The time is ripe for historic reversals in Washington in the 2010 elections. Yet there is not anything I see, hear, read, watch, receive, or research that indicates that my disappointment will be reduced one iota.<br /><br />Forget the grade school-level surveys. Just go out and be a tiger. You and senior RNC and elected Republicans already know the right positions.<br />Thanks for listening,<br />Bill Weiford,<br /><br /><em>I would like to add to this letter, but to do so would be to detract from its effectiveness. It clearly states the Conservative viewpoint. This is the direction Conservatives must move to take back our State and our Nation. </em><br /><br />If you agree with this letter, join us at the Coalition for a Conservative Majority <a href="http://www.ccmajority.org">www.ccmajority.org </a>and our local Colorado Springs chapter <a href="http://www.ccm-cos.com">www.ccm-cos.com</a>. <br /><br />As usual, your comments and discussions are welcome.<br /> <br />DanThe Carpenter's Matehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15199315377010119350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4747930943848589050.post-43911031152515013452009-03-18T19:10:00.002-06:002009-03-18T19:17:44.639-06:00Guest Columnist - A Letter to Senator BennetFriends, <br />A couple of weeks ago, a friend of mine sent an email to our newly appointed Colorado senator, Michael Bennet. I will let her speak for herself. <br /><br />Date: Friday, March 6, 2009<br />Senator Bennet:<br /><br />All I've seen so far out you, the rest of the Congress and the President is a huge waste of my tax payer money. How dare you even begin to hint that what you and all the other self-serving government officials have done so far is what I believe in or has done any of us any good. The only people you have served are those who were foolish enough to vote your party into power - I would hope that you would have more integrity than being such a lap-dog for the unions.<br /><br />Exactly why, as a practicing Catholic would I think that reinstituting a program for sending money to foreign counties to support their abortion laws is a good thing?<br /><br />Why would I think that sending $900 MILLION dollars to the terrorist organization of HAMAS in the Gaza Strip is something that is good and right?<br /><br />Why would I think that this unbelievably HUGE bail out scheme is anything that I believe in or want to have happen?<br /><br />Have you ever lived any place that had Nationalized Medicine. I sincerely doubt it so let me explain it to you since, I, Senator Bennett have lived with that type of health care.(Germany and Italy). If you think health care is expensive now, just wait. Not per unit of care expensive, but in the TAXES to support it, plus the co-pays that you'll have to fork over. Oh are you one of the delusional people who think that nationalized health care, once you've paid all your taxes is free??? Do you think and self-respecting doctors are going to continue to practice under those conditions. In the 1940's England instituted National Health Care and lost about half their doctors in the process. Why do you think Canadians seek to come to the States for specialized care? Because you might die waiting for care in Canada, or England or Germany or Italy. But then you won't have to worry about that will you Senator. YOU, won't be stuck with a system that will decide if you are too old to bother with other than to put you in hospice care until you conveniently die. There will be at least two separate classes of care. One for people in the Nationalized system and one for those rich enough to afford private health care. Oh yes and whatever wonderful health care system you people in Congress vote for yourselves.<br /> <br />You Senator and your ilk have done nothing for me, for people like me - why??? Because we paid our taxes, we paid our loans and mortgages on time, we played by the rules and NOW, NOW you want me and the righteous people like me to bail out companies that should go into bankruptcy, people who should have stayed in apartments or rented homes until they could afford a home, people who have taken out extravagant 2nd mortgages and lived the high life.<br /> Well Senator, I live in a 1100 sq ft condo, I served my country faithfully for 27 yrs, I've worked every day since I retired in 2004 and now I'm being laid off and you want me to be HAPPY about the crap you and the Obama supporters are shoveling at me and people like me and be happy and proud to pay MORE taxes. <br /><br />Sincerely yours, a very unhappy constituent<br /><br /><em>In fairness to the senator, he did send a reply. </em><br /><br />Friend -<br />A little more than a month into my term as your U.S. Senator, we've taken bold steps in Washington to help American families and grow our economy.<br /><br />We acted to provide quality, affordable health care to eleven million children from low-income families - because parents shouldn't have to choose between feeding their kids and filling their prescriptions.<br /><br />We made sure every person in America, regardless of race, age or gender, receives fair and equal pay for equal work - because given the times, folks can't afford to take home any less than they're owed.<br /><br />And we enacted an economic recovery plan that saves or creates 60,000 jobs in Colorado, cuts taxes for 2.1 Coloradans, and lays the foundation for long-term growth and prosperity.<br /><br />I'm proud to have served with a core group of Senators that provided a leadership role in developing the details of this recovery plan to ensure it targets the help to the right areas.<br /><br />I supported these measures because I know American families are struggling. I know because I've heard, first-hand, the stories of how this economic crisis has affected folks in rural and urban communities across the state.<br /><br />These are important and significant steps. But as President Obama said to America in his speech before Congress, they are only first steps.<br /><br />Americans are still losing their homes and folks are still finding credit harder and harder to come by.<br /><br />Health care is still falling further out of reach and young people are dropping out of high school at an alarming rate.<br /><br />And our dependence on foreign oil threatens our economy, our security and the health of our planet.<br /><br />While the steps we have already taken - on children's health insurance, on an economic recovery plan that makes historic investments in education and energy - give us reason to be proud, there's still a lot of work to be done.<br /><br />But we'll only realize the change we need once we understand our problems will not be solved with Republican or Democratic answers, but American answers.<br /><br />We'll overcome the challenges we face not with petty politics as usual, but pragmatic policymaking that puts the American people first.<br /><br />Surely, we will have our differences. But with a little common sense, I'm sure we can find common ground.<br /><br />And although the road ahead will be tough, I'm confident that, together, we can get the job done.<br />Sincerely,<br /> <br />Senator Michael Bennet<br /><br />The first thing that jumped out at me is that he obviously has had these concerns expressed before because his reply looks pretty canned. I have gone over it pretty carefully and am still looking for an answer to my friend’s concerns. My main concern with his response is that it advances unconstitutional behavior. I have read the Constitution fairly carefully and have yet to find where that wonderful document authorizes expenditures of this type. I’m not talking about just the magnitude of the expenditure, but the type of expenditure. Senator Bennet seems to be perfectly content to allow this country to gather speed down that socialist “nanny” state that he and his cronies have us going down.<br /> <br />As always, your comments and discussions are welcome.<br /><br />If you want to help us fight this ever-pervasive liberal slippery slope join us at <a href="http://www.ccm-cos.com">www.ccm-cos.com.</a> <br /><br />Dan <br /><br />Daniel C. Lanotte<br />dlanotte@falconbroadband.net<br />719-683-5506The Carpenter's Matehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15199315377010119350noreply@blogger.com0