Can Congress Read?

"If every member pledged to not vote for {the health care bill} if they hadn't read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes."

-- House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD)

This was Mr. Hoyer's response when asked about a petition being circulated asking House members to read everything they vote on. Mr. Hoyer believed the thought of members reading what they vote on was worth a few chuckles on camera. Quite often members and their staff don't read the bills they vote on. Some of this is laziness and some of it is due to the size and speed Congress now passes legislation. For example, the Stimulus Bill was 1,100 pages long (at a price of $787 Trillion) and members were given 13 hours to review the full bill before it passed. The Cap and Trade bill was 1,200 pages and had a 300 page amendment added at 3 AM the day it was voted on. The final version of the Cap and Trade bill didn't exist in written form when it passed the House. A printed copy of the U. S. Constitution is only about 10 pages long.

To be fair, this is not a Democrat only issue. The 108^th Congress, which was controlled by Republicans, passed 2,900 pages worth of legislation in a combined 48 hours (at the bargain price of slightly less than $1 Trillion). Both Republicans and Democrats have been embarrassed when provisions of these bills finally saw the light of day. Republicans were surprised to find their Ominbus spending bill included a provision to allow Republican leaders to review anyone's tax return they choose. Democrats outraged voters when it was discovered the Stimulus bill included provisions for AIG bonuses after the government bailed them out. After campaign finance reform passed in 2003, members had to hire experts to tell them exactly what was in the bill they just passed.

Most people would probably say this is a problem. President Obama campaigned on a 5 day period for bills to be posted on the internet and reviewed by the public. Conservative, liberal, and libertarian groups have all started petitions to get lawmakers to read what they vote on.

If bills are too long to read, they shouldn't be passed. If it can't be read in the time members get to debate it, they should take more time to review the bill. Our expectations of our representatives are so low, we wonder if we can make them read something that may tax us or our children. We give them a pass on legislation that may outlaw things we do, limit our freedoms, or may affect our children. In a reality, when they vote on something they haven't read, they abuse their power and insult their constituents. It isn't enough to read a summary a lobbyist puts in their hand. If they can't read the bill, why are they even there?

Democrats don't need Republicans

I first saw this add at Red State and I really enjoyed it. It points out something that voters need to remember between now and November 2010: The Democrats control all of it. Any legislation the Democrats want to pass, they can pass without a single Republican vote. They have enough votes to pass anything in the House and they have enough votes to stop a filibuster in the Senate.

Any laws they write can go to the President. If he signs it, they get it. Want higher taxes, cap and trade, government run health care, they can do it all without a single Republican vote.

Remember this in the coming weeks when they say Republicans are trying to stop them or the Republican Party is the "party of no". The only way Republicans can stop any bill is to win the support of the public. Any legislation the Democrats want to pass, they can pass without any Republican support.

Remember this the next time you here Democrats say that the Republicans are preventing them from doing what they want. The only thing that will stop Democrats is the fear of being held accountable for the laws they pass.

The Specter Defection

There has been a lot of commentary in the media over Senator Arlen Specters move from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party. Many are portraying this as a wakeup call in some form or another. One of the best pieces I have read on Specter's move is by Noemie Emery of the Weekly Standard. Mrs. Emery uses Specter's defection as a call for more of a big tent in the Republican Party. I think she is right.

Mrs. Emery points out a fact that many voters on the right and the left forget: Conservatism is a movement and not a Party, while the Republican Party is not a movement. The goal of a movement is to advance a set of ideals. The goal of a political party is to get more people elected and to implement a political platform. Republicans need Conservatives to win national elections. Conservatives need Republicans (even the not so conservative version) in order to get their ideals acted on. As good as Mrs. Emery's article is, there are two points she and most commentators seem to be missing.

First, many elected Republicans have pushed the parties platform aside. Elected Republicans have forgotten the Contract with America, and have become as big government as their Democratic counterparts. Many voters who traditionally vote Republican are upset with that. To make matters worse, since the 2006 elections, the Republican party has had trouble convincing voters that they want to get back to the Party of the 90's, let alone Regan's big tent party of the 80's. Many Republicans talk about attacking new voters. But they phrase this in how they wish to change the party. Republicans should be looking at ways they can phrase their message or better communicate it to traditionally Democratic voters.

The other point that seems to get lost is why Specter changed parties. Mrs. Emery touches on it, but then forgets it. Arlen Specter was most likely going to lose his primary battle. He looked at the numbers, and in order to stay in the Senate, switched parties. He is very likely to get reelected as a Democrat. In my opinion, this speaks to a larger problem. Specter has been in politics since the 60's. He started his career as a Democrat, and switched to the Republican party after his first election. He has been in the Senate since 1981. He is approaching 30 years in the Senate. Mrs. Emery and other Republicans seem to think it is tragic that he would loose his primary. I think it would have been a good thing. Do we really need Senators in office for 30 years? One of our problems in the Congress is that these older Senators are more concerned with winning another term than they are with fulfilling their role as the outlined by the Constitution.

Specter's defection should be a wake up call for the Republican Party. I think Republicans needed to be doing some soul searching right now for a number of reasons. However, I believe Specters defection should call us all to examine a different issue: Term Limits in Congress and the Senate. Specter switched parties to stay in office. Do we really need any Representative or Senator in office for thirty years? I don't think so. If a President is term limited to two terms, why should a Senator (or Representative) be able to make a full career of sitting in the Senate or the House?

Maui Tea Party

Having attended a Tea Party in Atlanta a while back, I was very excited when the national tea parties started showing up for Tax Day. I was going to be on vacation, but was able to coordinate with the organizers in Maui to be at their tea party today.



Unlike the last one I went to, the weather was great. I asked around, and I estimate there was probably 200 to 300 people at the event by the time I left. This is pretty amazing because most of the people were residents of Maui. Many of them were complaining about their local representatives.

I have heard today's events reported as "tea parties that were started by conservative bloggers, talk show personalities, and republicans." This isn't true. These tea parties are grass roots movements. The one I attended today was organized by a self proclaimed Democrat. In an email to me, he stated that he has supported a number of liberal groups over the years, but he felt the spending in Washington has really gotten out of hand.

As I am on vacation, I thought most of this post would be some of my favorite pictures from today's event in Maui. This first one made me laugh the most:



Considering this weeks revelation of what the Deparment of Homeland Security thinks of out spoken conservatives, I thought this one was pretty good too:


This sign also appeared at another Tea Party in Lahaina earlier in the day:



One participant was kind enough to let me borrow his sign so I could get a photo of me at the demonstration for my readers:

A Terrible, Terrible Decision by Our Government

Something has been bothering me the last few days, and I have decided to use this forum to get it off my chest. Our government passed a $700 Billion economic bail out package last week. We were told last week that the government had to do something. Some members of the House who voted against the plan on Monday, justified their vote on Friday by saying, "Things are bad, and we can't sit by and do nothing, so I am voting for this plan I don't like." Let's put aside the millions of dollars of earmarks (bribes?) that were associated with this bill. This logic is terrible because there are more than the two options of (a) do nothing, and (b) pass a bill that is so large, I can't even consider the amount of money it encompasses.

The "funny" thing about this is we were told we had to pass this bill. The Senate passed it, the House passed it, and the President signed it. Both Presidential candidates voted for it. The market, however, seems to have other ideas. The market tanked on Friday, and tanked again today. The market closed just below 10,000 points for the first time in a long time.

We are now being told that these things take time. The market will respond over the course of the next few weeks. We are also being told that the government has to take its time when using this $700 Billion so they don't abuse it and don't misuse it. What happened to "we have to do something now?" What happened to "we were going to see a crisis if Congress didn't act"?

The truth of the matter is there was always the (c) option. This option entailed looking at other options that might fix this situation without costing $700 Billion. This option entailed taking time to examine the situation, examine the failures of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and then proceed with that knowledge and with the caution this situation required.

However, this is an election year. Obama and McCain have now both showed that nothing trumps looking like you're doing something in an election year. Most Representatives and Senators have done the same thing. Political commentators that I admire spent last week arguing that something needed to be done so that this won't be saddled on their presidential candidate.

For the first time I can think of, I am truly mad at my government. I honestly believe our government got it wrong last week. Getting it wrong if you think you are doing the right thing is one thing. Getting it wrong with the intent to simply win an election is an entirely different can of worms.

Over the next few weeks, I will be adjusting a few things. We have reached a point where more seems to be required of me and like minded individuals. I don't know what my new course of action will be, but I am going to chart a new one. This blog will continue to be a forum for open, honest, political debate. However, I will be getting more active somehow, and I will be bringing my readers along on the journey.

Government 101 – Me and My Soap box

I have been spending some time this week reading up on the economic crisis. I have been struggling with the question of if I believe our Congress should give the Executive branch a $700 Billion check. Proponents say if we don't do it, then our economy (and the economy of the rest of the world) will collapse. Opponents say that bailing out the market is irresponsible, will saddle taxpayers with a huge debt, will devalue our dollar further (thus hurting our economy and the world's), and may not fix the problem. Some have argued for other solutions such as suspending the capital gains tax for two years. They argue that there is private capital out there waiting for the right price to jump in. Warren Buffets infusion to the market of $5 Billion yesterday sure seems to give this argument some weight. What is the right answer? Honestly, I think all of the arguments have their strong points and their weak points. The bailout check would be used to buy up bad mortgages. Managed correctly (which I don't know if the government can do) this could actually return a profit to the government and to taxpayers. I am always a fan of removing taxes and getting private capital flowing, but is suspending the capital gains tax for two years enough to get that money moving? If we have learned nothing from the Great Depression, we should have learned two lessons. First, business and the market hate uncertainty. It scares them. Businesses will hold on to money, and not invest, until they are sure what the government plans to do. Second, passing laws just to pass laws can sometimes make matters worse. What if giving the Fed's a $700 billion check simply delays a much worse crash?

My wife made me watch Glenn Beck last night. If you didn't see it, you should go look for it on CNN or YouTube. I found the transcript for the show here. If I am recommending you view a CNN program, you really should sit up and take note. Glenn Beck had former Shell Oil executive John Hofmeister on and asked viewers to call in to ask any question they wanted of Mr. Hofmeister. Mr. Hofmeister has a new organization called Citizens for Affordable Energy. While watching that episode, and talking to my wife about the economic crisis and the energy crisis I realized we haven't come up with the correct solution yet because we haven't asked the right question yet. The right question is: When are we going to start legislating like adults, and not like children who just want to feel good?

Go look for articles on the economic crisis. Most of them blame it on the "Sub prime mortgages" or "bad mortgages" or "questionable lending". This is code speak for "loans that were given to people who should have never gotten a loan in the first place." Congress encouraged / forced banks to give loans to people who wouldn't have qualified for them. They did it under the guise of "making homes affordable for everyone." This is the problem. Any sane adult should be able to take a step back and look at the world and realize there are people in this world who will never be able to afford a home. There are charities that have as their goal fixing this. This is a noble goal. However, it isn't a realistic one, and it isn't one our government should be legislating to fix.

Another example is Polar Bears. How? Simple. Recently our government, under the evil George Bush, placed Polar Bears on the threatened species list. Bear in mind (no pun intended) that the worldwide Polar bear populations are at a high point. There are now more Polar Bears in the world than at any point in the twentieth century. Why did they get placed on the threatened species list? Because it "felt good".

We can't drill in water closer than 50 to 100 miles from our shores. Even though the most productive oil rigs are within the 50 mile mark, congress has decided we shouldn't drill there. Why? Sun bathers don't like to see oil rigs. What if there is an accident? Who will protect the birds? The safety record of the oil industry is actually pretty impressive. You have heard of a few spills, but by and large, oil is moved around this country every day and the only time we hear about it is when our gas prices go up. For those of you who think we can get rid of oil and replace it with solar or wind power, you are living in a pipe dream. If you think political environmentalist are going to let you construct wind and solar energy "plants" you haven't been paying attention. Already there are concerns with wind mills killing migratory birds. Sane adults can pass a comprehensive energy plan that uses oil, coal, nuclear, solar, wind, hydro and anything else we can safely squeeze energy out of.

What about our tax code? Here is a colossal waste. We have a cumbersome tax code that is designed to make the wealthiest people in the United States give their money to the "poor". Think Robin Hood with a gun and the federal government. We don't tax business and individuals to keep the government running and for the government to do those things the Constitution gives it power to do. We tax to try and earn votes, and because it "feels good" to stick it to the wealthy and to Big Business. What this really does is to drive businesses over seas and to take money from the people who might be able to bail us out of our current financial troubles.

I have great faith in the American people. At some point, Americans are going to wake up and tell their representatives to start passing laws like adults and not like 60's era hippies. When that happens, you will see a real energy policy, a tax code that makes sense, and as Glenn Beck would say, the few surviving hippies running for the hills while the rest of us chase them there with torches, cell phones, and SUV's.

Quick Notes -- Gang of 10, Energy, and Georgia

The late William F. Buckley once said, "I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University." I wish to change that just a little. After watching the campaigns of both Senator Obama and Senator McCain, I would rather be governed by a random lottery of 1000 people in the United States than our current elected Congress and Senate. I have lamented many times that neither Obama nor McCain represent the best from their parties. This week has further depressed me on the ability of our currently elected representatives. This means you get to enjoy a somewhat expanded version of Quick Notes.

Energy. Without looking at the polling data, I think it is safe to say that Energy has become the number one issue of the election. This can always change. On a daily basis, I see more in the paper, on radio, and on TV about energy and gas prices than any other issue. There are a number of positions out there. Obama wants to stop using oil in our country in the next ten years. He also wants to give "middle class families" a $1000 check to help with prices at the pump. How would he pay for this? With windfall profit taxes on big oil companies. If we put profit taxes on oil companies, what do we really think will happen to the price of gas?

McCain has been better on this issue. He has changed his position on off shore drilling. He wants to increase nuclear power in the U.S. He even wants to increase our alternative energy production. I agree with these issues, but don't believe they go far enough. I am an "all of the above" kind of guy. I believe we need to drill for oil in our country wherever we believe it is economically feasible. If that means off shore, in ANWR, or in the Grand Canyon, then do it. We need to build more nuclear power plants in the U.S. If France can get 80% of their energy from nuclear power, why can't we. The Pickens Plan calls for more wind energy. I am skeptical, but the plan calls for it to be financed 100% from private sector funds. Any alternative energy that private financiers want to go for, I support. They use their money, they drive the market, and if they are successful, they should reap the profits. This is Capitalism at it's best.

This is a long winded way of saying that there is an issue out there that both McCain, and the Republicans can win on this year. Conventional wisdom is that this year, Obama should win, and the Democrats should pick up seats in both the House and the Senate. Imagine turning that on it's head. However, into this discussion steps...

The Gang of 10. Democrats aren't the only one trying to drive a stake in the discussion of off shore drilling. 5 Republicans in the Senate have joined the fray. There is a great article on this at Get Drunk and Vote 4 McCain. If you follow politics, and are a conservative Republican, all you need to hear is Lindsey Graham and bipartisan compromise. These two phrases generally mean Democrats get what they want, and Republicans get screwed. The Gang of 10 plan allows off shore drilling, but only in a few states, and with the permission of those states. It bars drilling in ANWR, it provides $84 billion of tax incentives for alternative fuels that are paid for with new taxes on oil companies. These senators have decided they can tax certain companies to provide incentives to their competitors. Imagine Congress taxing Microsoft and giving the money to Apple. Or taxing Starbucks and giving the money to McDonald's. It is arrogant, unwise, and against the very nature of our market economy. The five Republicans, Graham (R-SC), Chambliss (R-GA), Isakson (R-GA), Thune (R- SD), and Corker (R-TN), have shown a colossal lack of judgment.

Georgia. Turning to world events, Russia has started a full scale war with the nation of Georgia. This is a very complicated matter that I may more fully explain in a future post. However, something to keep an eye on is the possibility of a nuke being used in this engagement. When the Soviet Union collapsed, 5000 small nuclear weapons went unaccounted for. The government of Russia said they were destroyed, and that all evidence of their destruction, and all correspondence ordering their destruction was also destroyed. In addition, Georgia was sitting on some nuclear weapons, which they turned over to Russia in exchange for U.S aid. In both of these cases, there is a chance that some nuclear weapons (some as small as 44 lbs) may be in the hands of the Georgian government, or some of the smaller groups fighting in this engagement. If they feel that Russia is about to take over their entire country, Georgia may feel it has no option but to set one of these off. Keep an eye on that part of the world to see what happens.

Bill Russell for Congress!

I am a Conservative.

I believe in the sovereignty and security of this one nation, under God. I believe the primary role of government is to provide for the common defense and a legal framework to protect families and individual liberty. I believe in rugged individualism because individuals can make far better choices than any government entity in providing for families, protecting households, choosing doctors and health care plans, and deciding which teachers and schools are best for children. I believe prosperity is best ensured by what Adam Smith called the "invisible hand" of a natural, price driven economy.

-- Lt. Colonel William Russell

Wow. These are the words I am dying to hear a Republican presidential candidate say. I would also love to hear them coming from a Republican running to represent me. In this case, they come from Lt. Colonel William "Bill" Russell, who is running for the Pennsylvania 12^th Congressional District. You may ask, "Who is the current Representative from the 12^th District, Pennsylvania?" That would be John Murtha. If you follow politics, and know who Murtha is, you are probably thinking that Lt. Colonel Russell doesn't stand a chance. Let me give you a few facts Michelle Malkin reported on today:

• The Second Quarter reports brought some troubling news for Rep. Murtha: Russell outraised him 6 to 1. By the way, active duty military personnel (such as Lt. Colonel Russell) are not allowed to actively campaign until they complete their military service

• A judge ruled in February that Russell had failed to collect enough signatures to get on the primary ballot. However, more than 4,000 write in votes later, Russell's name is now on the general election ballot.

• On the morning of September 11, 2001, Russell and his pregnant wife were working at the Pentagon. They both escaped unharmed.

• Lt. Colonel Russell has served for 28 years in Active and Reserve service. This includes six tours in hostile fire zones. He is a veteran of both Iraq wars.

Went I went to the William Russell for Congress website, I kept finding more and more reasons to support the Lt. Colonel over John Murtha. Murtha is as corrupt as they come, and even some Democrats are tired of him. During the write in campaign, Russell had to get 1000 votes to get on the ballot. He got 4,000. He also got an additional 1,000 Democratic write in votes!

I don't ask my readers to contribute to a political campaign very often. Michelle Malkin points out that the bulk of his donations during the 6:1 route of Murtha were $50 or less. If you are thinking of contributing to a campaign this year, this is the one. Lt. Colonel Russell can't actively campaign until September 1^st, so anything you can spare ($5, $15, $20 or more) would help him out, and may put a corrupt politician out of a job.

Democrats and Oil Just Don't Mix.

It would be hard for anyone alive not to know that gas prices are at an all time high. I would bet a gallon of gas that gas prices are going to factor big in the election this year. Everyone running for election or re-election this year is going to have to address the price of oil.

So, what do we do about the price of gas? To solve any problem, we must first find what may be the cause or causes of said problem. If the Republicans have any brains, they will make the argument that gas prices are directly the result of a Democratic Congress. Don't believe me? Sit back and prepare to be dazzled.

I did a little homework (something most members of Congress and the Senate fail to do). The price of a gallon of gas on January 22, 2001 was $1.46 per gallon. On June 9th, 2008, the price of a gallon of gas is $3.98. Today, most people are placing the average price of gas around $4.00 or $4.05 per gallon. It would be easy to look at this and say, "Well, we have two oil men in the White House, it must be their fault!" Of course, one would think that oil men would understand perfectly well how oil prices work. But lets dig a little deeper (no oil pun intended).

Over the course of the Bush Administration, the price has gone up 63% over seven years! That translates into 9% per year! Before my Democratic fans get outraged, I have more numbers to share. The price of gas on January 23, 2006 was $2.31 per gallon. That translates into an increase of $1.67 since Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Reid, and the Democratic Congress took over. Again, on a per year basis, Pelosi and Reid can claim credit for a 21% increase per year in gas prices! And, worse still, if we give Bush credit for all the gas increase before the Democratic Congress, he gets 86 cents over 5 years. I think Pelosi and Reid still win.

Some of you out there might think I am skewing numbers to my own benefit. Let me end with a question based on what the Democrats want to do, and what most Republicans want to do.

Question 1 (Democratic Plan). Many Democrats are in favor of a "wind fall profit tax" on oil companies. What do you think this would do to the price of a gallon of gas?

Question 2 (Republican Plan). Most Republicans are in favor of domestic drilling. If Pelosi, Reid, Obama, and Clinton had a press conference tomorrow and said they would remove all obstacles to domestic exploration of oil, what do you think would happen to the price of a gallon of gas?

John McCain, Democrat, Part Deux

"The bright side of the Florida debacle is that I no longer fear Hillary Clinton. (I mean in terms of her becoming president -- on a personal level, she's still a little creepy.) I'd rather deal with President Hillary than with President McCain. With Hillary, we'll get the same ruinous liberal policies with none of the responsibility.


Also, McCain lies a lot, which is really more a specialty of the Democrats."

This is an exert from the latest post from Ann Coulter. She is pretty honest about her feelings on McCain in this post and in her previous one. And she's not alone. Rush has been quoted many times over the last week attacking McCain's so-called "conservative credentials". He goes so far as to say that for the first time in his career he can understand not voting for the Republican candidate. He is very careful in his choice of words. He stresses that he isn't encouraging it, but he can understand it.

McCain shares many of the same policy positions as Hillary and Obama. If he were elected, it is likely that taxes would increase, there would be more laws passed prohibiting free speech, he would nominate more "main stream" judges, he would allow terrorist civil trials within the United States, and would probably close Guantanamo. This is all before he gets to addressing illegal immigration. Can the President sign an executive order outlawing the word "illegal immigrant"? It would attack free speech and pander to the left in the same bold move. I think President McCain (or Vice President Lindsey Graham) might go for it .

When icons of the modern conservative movement like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Michelle Malkin all believe McCain to be a Democrat, and when these same people start talking about pulling any lever but the Republican one, I think we are in trouble. What does it say about the potential Republican nominee?

There is still a lot of time between now and November. I for one plan on writing a check to Romney's campaign (yes even in the current economic crisis). I am truly worried about the Republican Party. I believe the only people who will defend McCain at this point are either Republicans who want the party to win above all else, or Democrats.

Romney is Winning!

I am a little confused by the coverage of the primaries so far. If you have been following the Republican Primaries, then you know that Huckabee won the Iowa Primary, and McCain won the New Hampshire primary. Many political commentators are saying Romney must win Michigan, or pull out of the race. Some have even said it is time for him to pull out of the race now.

An important point to remember: the Republican Presidential nominee may not be decided by the number of states he wins. Most states split their delegates in proportion to how the primary goes in that state. For example, while Huckabee won Iowa, he doesn't get all 40 Iowa delegates. Instead, Iowa has assigned its delegates as follows: Huckabee gets 17, Romney gets 12, McCain and Thompson both get 3, and Paul gets 2. I believe the remainder are "unpledged delegates". These delegates can vote for whichever candidate they wish too.

New Hampshire's primary was won by McCain, but once again, the winner doesn't get all of the votes. And here is one more piece of information you may not have heard: Wyoming has already had it's primary. Guess who won it: Romney. If you are keeping score at home, the current delegate count (including unpledged) is as follows: Romney (30), Huckabee (21), McCain (10), Thompson (6), Paul (2), Giuliani (1). So currently Romney is actually winning the Republican race!

There are still a lot of states left to vote. Some of them divide out their delegates and some don't. In order to win the Republican nomination, a candidate has to get 1,191 delegates. Things can change between now and September when the Republicans will actually nominate their candidate, but keep the points in mind as you watch the coverage this election season. I have no idea why the points aren't talked about more often. However, feel free to return here periodically to see what the current score is.

Quick Notes, Issue One

Here are a few items I have wanted to post on, but haven’t had time to write my normal length post on each. I hope to make more of these types of posts. So as a reader advised (thanks Jayne), I am going to, “…go where my instinct takes me.” Here are some thoughts to discuss with your friends.

1) Iran. Much has been made about the new intelligence that Iran may have stopped its nuclear program a few years ago. I certainly hope this is true. Few things scare me as much as a fanatic who believes he can bring about a divine apocalypse and who might have a nuclear weapon. That is a very bad combination. While I hope the National Intelligence Estimate is correct, I have a few concerns. Many people on both sides of the aisle have questioned our intelligence capability in the Middle East. This is a valid question. The NIE says Iran may not have a nuclear warhead for a few years. Ahmadinejad has said he is willing to use a nuclear weapon against Israel. I say, “When in doubt, take the mad man at his word.” We should continue to act as if Ahmadinejad is pursuing a nuclear weapon. Until the people of Iran force a regime change or Ahmadinejad truly stops pursuing nuclear weapons that is the only safe course for our country.

2) Mike Huckabee. If you are following the 2008 election news at all, by now you know that Huckabee has had a surge in the polling. Many people are trying to figure out why. Some have suggested it is because he is running as a conservative. Some have suggested it is a media conspiracy to get the easiest Republican candidate to beat. Others have suggested that these supporters were always there, just waiting until the right moment to strike. I have a different take. While I disagree with Huckabee on a few key points (such as illegal immigration), he is running on a pro Fair Tax platform. I am a huge supporter of the Fair Tax. There are a lot of Republicans and Libertarians who are as well. I think his surge in numbers is coming from that. Time will tell, but the next time you hear Huckabee or see him at a campaign stop, look for a Fair Tax reference.

3) “Global Warming Kooks”. Last week, Drudge had a link to a British paper that ran an article about women in the UK who were getting sterilized to stop global warming. These women thought having children was the worst thing anyone could do to the environment. If I remember correctly, one was 29 years old and the other was 32. If you follow the global warming argument to its conclusion, this is where you end up. Time will tell how many people are willing to subscribe to this idea. There are a lot of groups who have been preaching this openly for some time. There are other groups who believe it, but are concealing that fact. Just a point to keep in mind the next time someone screams about global warming and starts talking about “solutions”.

I hope you enjoyed this column. Look for more of this type of post in the weeks to come. As always, I welcome civil comments and discussion on these topics, or any others.

New York to Issue Driver's License to Illeagl Aliens

This is the first line from a CNN article covering New York’s plan to give illegal aliens valid drivers license: The Bush administration and New York cut a deal Saturday to create a new generation of super-secure driver’s licenses for U. S. citizens, but also allow illegal immigrants to get a version. My first response: What?!

It seems what my high school Drivers Education teacher, and my license examiner told me is incorrect. Both of them informed me many times that driving was a privilege and not a right. However, the Governor of New York and his administration have argued that in New York it is the other way around, people (both citizens and illegal aliens) have the right to drive. Governor Spitzer is wrong. Driving is a privilege that is earned, not something that is freely given out. In many states, certain traffic violations can remove that privilege. However, the Governor believes that if you break the law to get into our country, you should be given a license.

I have read numerous articles on this subject over the last few days, and almost all say the same thing. The new id’s that New York wants to give away are suppose to be more secure, and these ID’s should make it harder for terrorist and those who want to harm us to travel in the United States. However, New York wants to give these new super secure driver’s licenses away to law breakers.

The new super secure driver’s licenses could allow illegal aliens to get jobs, get social services, get an education, and vote. Wait, you may not have caught that last item. These new illegal alien driver’s licenses would allow illegal aliens to vote. While these new ID’s will have a special “not a valid federal id” note, the New York Board of Elections says it will be more difficult to combat voter fraud under the Governor’s plan. The Board says it is unusual for the polling officials to check immigration status if the voter shows up with a valid driver’s license. Could this be the real reason the Governor is behind this issue?

If you happen to be searching for an issue that Republicans and Democrats don’t agree on, this is one. Many of the top Republican candidates have criticized this plan, some more harshly than others. However, according to the L.A. Times coverage of the Democratic debate, “…five of the seven candidates indicated they would support states issuing driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants.” Mrs. Clinton has flipped back and forth over the course of the debate as to whether she would support illegal alien driver’s licenses or not.

Driving is a privilege, ask any State Trooper. The Governor of New York wants to give a secure form of identification to someone who broke the law entering the United States. The Governor of New York is risking providing criminals with identification, encouraging voter fraud, and allowing terrorist easier movement in the United States under this clearly boneheaded idea.

What Happens if We Leave Iraq?

There is a growing political argument to leave Iraq. Some Republicans have jumped ship to ask the President for a new course. The Senate exercised more political theatrics last night by staying up all night to debate calling for a withdrawal from Iraq. In the end, the bill failed. I think we have all seen a lot of debate on whether or not we should be in Iraq. But what would happen if we left?

As the war in Iraq has been fought, many have drawn comparisons with the U.S. war in Vietnam. At the end of the Vietnam War, the U.S. Military was winning on the ground. However, the political war was being lost. Much like then, our enemies in Iraq know that while they can’t beat our military, they can use our media to defeat our political will. There have been 3,600 military deaths in Iraq to date. For a “bloody civil war” that is a relatively low body count. The deaths in Iraq are nothing compared to what happened in Vietnam.

At the end of Vietnam, when our politicians voted to cut off all funding to our allies, there was an incredible blood bath. The North Vietnamese swept into South Vietnam and brutally killed and tortured untold numbers. The Khmer Rouge killed an estimated 2 million people in Cambodia. This was done in the name of giving the people of that region peace. Is this the peace we want for Iraq?

I think we should all take a step back and try to imagine a world where the President has given in to the demands of the Democratic Party and pulled out of Iraq. If we were to leave, Al-Queda and Iran would quickly carve up the pieces of Iraq they wanted like a Thanksgiving feast. Turkey would probably move in to grab the Kurdish area of Iraq. Iraqis would try to resist all of this. There would be violence in Iraq unlike anything we have seen there to date. Very likely, this violence would spread into the surrounding areas as well.

And in case you’re thinking, “That is tragic, but at least American soldiers won’t be trapped there anymore.” They wouldn’t be in Iraq, but they would still be in Afghanistan. What would that suddenly look like? Our enemies would draw their own comparisons. If they look back at our history, at Vietnam, at Beirut, at Somalia, and now at Iraq, what lesson would they learn? They would quickly learn that Osama bin Laden is right; if you hit the United States hard enough, it will walk away. If they study their history, what do you think they would do in Afghanistan? And how long before those same politicians who are now saying that we need to focus on Afghanistan decide that the death toll in Afghanistan is now too much?

People can argue on what the best course of action is in Iraq. Do we ignore the short term political gain for a possible long term gain with a stable Iraq? Do we stand by an ally and help to repair our image or do we live up to the “Paper Tiger” label? Do we decide that our military doesn’t know what it’s doing and 3,600 deaths is simply too many in war? And exactly what should we tell our allies that are now going to suffer violence we can only begin to imagine?

Senate listens to American people

The comprehensive immigration reform bill that has been heavily discussed in the Senate this past week has been shelved. While the bill is not “officially” dead, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has pulled it off the table for the time being. I believe pulling this bill off the schedule is the right thing to do. Many Senators on both sides have already talked about making amendments in the coming weeks to get this bill back on track.

I believe this has been a small victory for the American people. This bill has been polling at lower and lower numbers. There are aspects of this bill that those on the left and the right disagree with. However, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate and the President have been pushing very heavily to get this bill made into law.

I know there are many people that don’t believe their voices matter in Washington. They think the two parties control everything and our voices don’t matter. I think the American response to this bill illustrates a different reality. If enough people don’t like something, and they are willing to speak out against it, our officials have no choice but to listen. That is what happened with this bill.

I think this should be celebrated because the voice of the voters was heard over everything else in Washington. For those who didn’t believe, we now know that our voices have weight.

In the coming weeks, the Senate will try to revive this bill. They will want to let the noise die off and try again. Our jobs as voters is to watch them, and when they bring it back up, we must let them know what we think. If they backed down from the voters once, we can make them do it again.

Book Review: No Retreat, No Surrender

I recently picked up a copy of No Retreat, No Surrender: One American’s Fight by Tom DeLay with Stephen Mansfield. It is a short book and a fairly quick read. When I initially saw it at the book store, I picked it up because it has a Forward by Rush Limbaugh and a Preface by Sean Hannity. I thought to myself, “There is a cover that will really upset some people.”

I was unfamiliar with Rep. DeLay prior to reading the book. I knew a little about him from the media reports. Most of what I new about Congress during the time DeLay served centered on Newt Gingrich. The book is part biography, part explanation of the inner workings of Congress, and part Political Manifesto.

Tom DeLay was born in 1947 in Texas. The DeLay family moved around a lot while he was growing up. Mr. DeLay grew up in Texas and Venezuela. He went to college and met his future wife there. After college, Mr. DeLay worked with a few extermination businesses before running for State Congress.

The lessons he would learn in State Congress helped him be more effective in the US Congress. Mr. DeLay served in the US Congress from 1984 to 2006. When the Republicans took control in 1994, he was elected Whip. He was nicknamed “The Hammer” due to his ability to get people to vote for bills. However, this was usually done in a spirit of cooperation. Rep. DeLlay points out in his book that he had learned from Texas politics the way to get votes was to work with people. Know the other Representatives, and you can learn what their important issues are. Find away to address those issues in your bill, and you can get their vote.

Mr. DeLay spends a decent portion of the book explaining his own political beliefs beginning with his Political Manifesto. I found this the most interesting part of the book. He explains Political Manifesto to mean, “…the body of ideas that I believe are clear and evident, and to which I have committed my life.” I won’t list all of his ideas, but a few were very interesting. He believes that US Senators should be elected by State Legislatures. He believes the Departments of Education and Commerce should be removed. These jobs are better performed at the State level, and he doesn’t believe the US Government has any business making those decisions.

The overall message I took from this book is that Mr. DeLay believes politics should be about people with different ideas coming together to get a job done. He believes very passionately in our country and our government, and wants the best people running the government. He believes our Federal government has gotten too large, and because many Republicans have helped increase the size of government (including President Bush) they have lost the faith of some of their constituents.

I would encourage anyone interested in politics or political ideas to read this book. It is a short read, and very enjoyable. I would encourage every member of the Republican Party to read this book. Some of the lessons it contains might get the Republicans back in power and bring the voters back to their side.

Public Service Announcement

I believe it is a voter’s duty to keep up with how their representatives in Washington vote. Regardless of your political beliefs, it is up to you to monitor what your Senator or Representative votes on and how they vote. If they vote for something you don’t agree with, let them know. I contact my representatives often to let them know how I feel on issues.


Sometimes it can be pretty difficult to find out exactly how a particular individual voted in Washington. The Senator or Representatives office may not be forth coming with exactly how they voted. It turns out there is a free service everyone can sign up for and get emails on how your elected official votes. The emails tell you how each of your Senators and Representative voted during the previous week, and what bills are coming up. It is only one email a week, and so far it hasn’t added me to any spam list.


Go to www.congress.org and look for the link to “Vote Monitor” on the left hand side. Supply your zip code and email address and you will be signed up. No one has an excuse for not keeping an eye on their politicians.


On a personal note, I am on vacation with my family. I am trying to monitor comments a few times a day, but I will probably post a little less often for the next week or so. I will be back up to the normal posting schedule in about two weeks. Thanks for your understanding. I hope this doesn’t temper anyone’s ideas or comments.