I Support AIG Employees

“The vote by Congress to tax Wall Street bonuses out of existence was economic populism run amok. This was legislating by rage, fear, and panic.”

-New York Daily News Editorial

Yesterday was a dark day in the history of the U. S. Congress. Our Congress voted to write a law that would retro-actively attack a small group of private citizens. These are the very tactics our country fought against in the Revolutionary War. Our Founding Fathers specifically outlawed this behavior in the U. S. Constitution. The thugs in Congress have decided they don’t have to play by the rules of the Constitution (assuming any of them still know where to find it to read). Our Congress has ignored the example of Washington, Jefferson, and Adams, and instead have chosen the example of King George during the 1700’s. One Republican even joked that these employees should kill themselves. Every single Republican and Democrat that voted to tax AIG employees at 90% yesterday should be forced to leave in disgrace.

According to varying news accounts, AIG paid out some $165 million in bonuses to between 73 and 463 employees. Most stories report the 73 number; I have seen one that reported the 463 employees. Pelosi, Barney Frank, and Chris Dodd want these people burned at the stake in the public square. Why? Because they had a contract with AIG, and they were arrogant enough to believe their employer would honor it. The employees fulfilled their end of the bargain, and expected AIG to pay them for it. I don’t know how many of you go to work and give your employer the option of paying you. I expect to be paid when I go to work and I know Congress expects the taxpayer to pay them.

Pelosi and other Democrats have stoked popular anger to the point that AIG employees are receiving death threats. According to the International Herald Tribune, “The Connecticut Working Families party, which has support from organized labor, was planning a bus tour Saturday of A.I.G. executives’ homes, with a stop at the company’s Wilton office.” The Democratically controlled Congress and Senate, in conjunction with some Republicans, and with the approval of President Obama are trying to steal money from private citizens simply because they have stoked public opinion against these people. Our elected representatives should be ashamed of what they have done, and we as citizens should be embarrassed by their behavior. Should anything ill happen to these employees, the blood will be squarely on the hands of Pelosi, Frank, President Obama, and their partners in this, “…populism run amok.”

Is Gibbs in Over His Head?

This weekend former Vice President Dick Cheney attack President Obama's policy decisions since entering office. The Vice President attacked decisions to close Guantanamo, stop waterboarding, and close down secret detention camps. These are all policy decisions with pro's and cons. As expected, current White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was asked about these comments. Here is a partial transcript from U.S.A Today:

Question: "One quick followup: Former Vice President Cheney was on State of the Union yesterday. He had a lot -- a lot of criticism of this White House...[h]ow do you respond to those kind of allegations from the former vice president?"

Gibbs: "Well, I guess Rush Limbaugh was busy ... so they trotted out the next most popular member of the Republican cabal...


After Gibbs went on to explain his answer, another reporter asked this follow up question:

Question: "It was a really hard-hitting, kind of sarcastic, response you had. This is a former vice president of the United States. Is that the attitude? Is that the sanctioned tone for the former vice president of the United States from this White House?"{emphasis mine}

Gibbs: "Sometimes I ask forgiveness, rather than for permission ... but no, I hope my sarcasm didn't mask the seriousness of the answer ... that for seven-plus years the very perpetrators that the vice president says he's concerned about weren't brought to justice.

Mr. Gibbs responses to both of these questions are entirely fair and appropriate for a private citizen, a talk show host (such as Mr. Limbaugh), or even a Democratic politician. However, this attitude is entirely inappropriate for the White House, and the White House Press Secretary to use when describing a former Vice President of the United States. I would expect this kind of rehtoric coming from the campaign trail. Mr. Gibbs now speaks for President Obama and the White House any time he opens his mouth. To refer to the Vice President as a member of the "Republican Cabal" is not a new age of bipartisianship as President Obama has pledged.

Mr. Gibbs tries to recover by saying he has to ask forgiveness rather than permission. Again, this isn't acceptable from the voice of the White House. What happens when Mr. Gibbs makes this same type of flippant remark when refering to on of our allies? Will a foregin leader excuse this type of "sarcasm"?

President Obama promised us "Hope", "Change", "Accountablity", and "Bipartisianship". With a Press Secretary like Gibbs, the best we can do is keep hoping...

Update for Georgia Readers

I have a number of readers in the Georgia area. For those of you out there, Freedomworks is advertising two events in Georgia on March 21st. Go to the link for more details, but I have taken everything below directly from their site:

Georgia -

FreedomWorks Georgia is going strong with two important events this weekend, Saturday, March 21 in Duluth and Albany. We hope you can attend one!

Duluth Event:

Rep. Tom Price will be speaking to us March 21st, 8:30 am at Golden Corral in Duluth. Off 85, Pleasant Hill Road Exit. 3270 Satellite Blvd, Duluth, GA 30096 (770)495-7999.

Rep. Price is Chairman of the Republican Study Committee and will be giving us an update on upcoming bills and will speak to us about the “Card Check” Bill. Everyone is invited.



Albany Event:

John Oxendine Georgia Commissioner of Insurance will be speaking to us March 21, 3-4:30pm at the Albany Government Building at 222 Pine Avenue. During his tenure as Commissioner of Insurance, Mr. Oxendine has consistently put taxpayers and small businesses first, increasing the efficiency of his department to better serve constituents and saving taxpayer funds.

In addition to remarks by Mr. Oxendine, attendees will learn how to organize the grassroots in their community and get updates on current issues on the local, state, and federal level. If you are interested in attending the Albany event, please call Donna Driskell at (229) 881-0717.

The Stem Cell Debate

The science behind stem cell research is very confusing. It is a subject I have struggled with for some time, and one I have followed since President Bush authorized some federal funding of Embryonic Stem cell research in 2001. Monday's decision by President Obama was a terrible decision, but you may not realize just how terrible. To help illustrate the point, here is my quick primer on Stem Cell research and my own thoughts on the debate.

The Stem Cell Debate 101

The first fact you should know is that there are currently no treatments and no cures that were created from Embryonic Stem Cells. None. Secondly, there are many, many treatments available from adult stem cells. These include treatments for cirrhosis, Crohn's disease, lupus, sickle-cell anemia, urinary incontinence and many other benefits including for cancer patients, the blind, and restoring bone marrow. There have been zero treatments created from Embryonic Stem Cells. Zero.

Embryonic stem cells are no longer necessary for scientific research. In November of 2007 a team was able to produce the equivalent of embryonic cells without creating or destroying an embryo. This method has continued to improve. When this breakthrough was announced, many cited it as proof that President Bush was correct in instituting restrictions in 2001. Some even suggested this would put an end to embryonic stem cell research. Why destroy an embryo if you don't need too?

President Bush did not ban embryonic stem cell research. He limited federal funding to research involving any line that was in existence prior to August of 2001. In so doing, he became the first President to actually authorize tax payer funding for embryonic stem cell research. Look here for a more detailed history of what previous Presidents have and haven't done. The public is very divided on this issue. President Bush felt it was therefore inappropriate for the federal government to force taxpayers to subsidize what many believe is the destruction of human life.

The Debate

President Obama stated that this (and future executive orders) is about, "…letting scientists…do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient…" That is the wrong approach to take on this or any scientific subject that involves testing on humans. You may not believe life starts in the womb. However, everyone reading this was once an embryo. We are talking about destroying a "pre-birth" human in the name of medicine or science. This isn't a scientific decision, it is a moral decision. If scientists want to experiment on any creature, whether it is an embryo, an inmate, a senior citizen, a monkey, or a dog, politicians need to weigh very carefully the benefit and the morality of such behavior. The scientist says, " I want to run this test on people in jail, or medical patients in a hospital because I think I might one day cure blindness." Policy makers must decide if we are willing to sacrifice those people for such experiments. This decision is not based purely on science, but on what we will accept, morally, as a society. Is it acceptable to destroy life to try and make future generations healthier? As Ryan Anderson wrote this week for The Weekly Standard, "Listening to scientists who tell us what they want to do doesn't mean we should give them a blank check; we need to determine if what they're proposing …is what they should be doing." From the movie Jurassic Park, "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should."

As with other scientific issues, there are scientists on both sides of this argument. Some believe we should take whatever chances we can in the hopes of saving lives down the road. Others argue that there is very little difference in an embryo and a newborn baby. We can't destroy life simply to perform science.

A Slippery Slope

One of the problems with this research is, "Where do you draw the line?" If we start with embryos that "were going to be destroyed anyway" is it that big of a step to start cloning a few in the hopes of saving millions? Any treatment that results from embryonic stem cells will require cloning to be effective, so why not start now? If you are ok with destroying clones and embryos, what about the elderly? What about the disabled who might have a reduced quality of life? Surely the sacrifice of an 84 year old vegetative person is acceptable if it will save lives down the road…

This is a very tough topic. Smart and well meaning people can arrive at different conclusions. However, we need to remember we are destroying unborn humans in this research. Also, this is not a scientific decision. Science tells you there is a potential for a beneficial outcome from these experiments. It does not guarantee any result, and it does not rule on what is right and what is wrong.

Democrats Kill D.C. Scholarship Program

There is a school choice program in D.C. that Democrats in Congress are doing everything in their power to kill. The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program allows parents in the District of Columbia to move their children out of dangerous and failing schools and send them to better performing, safer schools with some federal help. By "dangerous and failing" , Dan Lips and Robert Enlow write:

"One out of every eight D.C. students reported being assaulted or injured with a deadly weapon during a recent school year. That’s equal to the percentage of D.C. eighth-graders who scored “proficient” in reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress."


Currently there are some 1,700 children enrolled in the program. At a cost of $14 million, these children are able to attend schools that help them prepare for college, and keep them safe. In an age of multibillion dollar bailouts to banks and auto companies, this program is on the cutting board because Democrats believe in teachers unions more than they believe in families, children, or freedom. Freedom of choice is o.k if Democrats are talking about killing an unborn child, but it is unacceptable when discussing getting a good education for a student in a bad neighborhood.

The current spending bill as passed in the House kills the D.C. scholarship program after the 2009 -2010 school year. Any students still going to private schools will be forced to go back to their zoned public school. Yesterday, Natasha Shannon wrote in the New York Daily News defending the DC program. Ms. Shannon is able to send her two daughters to a better school than she was able to attend as a kid. She graduated valedictorian of her class in Harlem and began attending a community college. In college she had to attend remedial classes in order to stay in school because her high school hadn't prepared the valedictorian to attend a community college.

Democrats have not argued that the D C public school system is working. Instead, Democrats in Congress are dumping money into the D. C. system, and expressly forbidding it be used for any school choice program like the one currently in place. Without authorizing any study on the success of the current DC program, they are killing its funding. Democrats are showing they care more for teachers unions than for parents and children. I thought it was Democrats who fought for minorities and not big business.

For once there is a government program that appears to be working, and is providing families with freedom. Surely we can fund it at the same time we are trying to save badly managed auto companies and banks.

Atlanta Tea Party Update II

This if for those of you interested in what the Atlanta Tea Party looked like on Friday. Michelle Malkin has a number of videos from other cities on her site. I found this clip there.

Quick Notes: The Stock Market, Maryland, and Twitte

Time for another issue of quick notes. In this issue we look at the stock market, religious freedom, and a new way to keep up with yours truly.


Wall Street Votes on President Obama. Today's market closed down almost three hundred points. By almost three hundred I mean 299.64. Wall Street continues to vote on what it thinks about the future. The votes aren't good. You may believe Obama is the new messiah, but Wall Street doesn't. If President Obama's spending policies don't change, we may one day wish for a 7,000 stock market.


The Maryland Constitution. I am reading Enough is Enough by Rick Scarborough. Mr. Scarborough traces some of the religious origins of our country and quotes the Maryland Constitution. While founded by Catholics, their constitution tried to protect the religious freedom of all Christians. It said:


All persons, professing the Christian religion,are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore no person ought be any law to be molested in his person or his estate on account of his religious persuasion or profession, or for this religious practice; unless, under colour of religion, any man shall disturb the good order, peace and safety of the State.


This passage comes very close to how I believe the founders viewed religious freedom. So long as your beliefs didn't harm the rest of the society, you should be left to your own beliefs.


Twitter. Last night I signed up for a twitter account. You can now follow me on http://twitter.com/andyspolitics in addition to this site. There are a number of times I would like to post a very short thought. I will now do that on Twitter. If you aren't familiar with Twitter, it takes about 3 minutes to create an account. I am still an infant on their, but I have found it really easy to post there, and to find others there.

UPDATE: Atlanta Tea Party

In spite of the weather today, I was able to make it to the Atlanta Tea Party. It looks like there were a number of these events from across the nation. People are mad at President Obama and Congress for the spending of the last thirty days.


The event here in Atlanta was met with a, "...monsoon style downpour...". Despite that, I would guess there were around 200 people there. Here are links to the AJC and to 11 Alive news. Both of these articles are pretty accurate based on what I saw. Here are a few pictures I snapped before the great downpour:




This was my favorite sign. If you look close at the umbrella's, you start to get a feel for the rain. I shot this from my chest hiding under my own umbrella:




Freedom Works seems to be doing a lot of work on these protests. If you are interested in the assorted tea parties, or want more information, check out their website.

The Atlanta Tea Party!!

For my readers in the Atlanta, Georgia, there will be a Tea Party tomorrow to protest our Government's massive spending! The event is tomorrow, February 27, 2009 from 11:30 am to 1:00 pm. The organizers are asking people to bring tea and tea leaves to the capitol in Atlanta. For complete details, see the Peach Pundit here.


This idea originated from Rick Santelli's attack on the wasteful spending on air. If you haven't seen it, go watch it here.


People are getting fed up with the government's spending. Go to the tea party tomorrow if you are in Atlanta. If you aren't, look around, a number of these are popping up around the nation.

Wall Street Judges Obama

"The biggest thing I see here is incredible pessimism...the government is doing a lousy job of alleviating fears." --- Keith Springer, President, Capital Financial Advisory Services.

"There's nowhere to hide anymore." --- Jim Herrick, director of equity trading at Baird & Co.

The day President Obama was sworn into office, the Dow opened at almost 8,300 points. This afternoon, it closed at 7,114.78. This is the worst level since 1997. President Obama is trying to rescue the economy, and investors aren't buying. Democrat's and the media may think President Obama is the savior of our economy. Wall Street is worried he may have no idea what he is doing.


Fred Barnes wrote on Friday that the three biggest day's of Obama's presidency were the worst losses of his presidency. The stock market measures investors confidence in the future. Right now, investors have no confidence.


It is time for President Obama to act on his campaign promise. He promised a new era of bipartisanship. He tried doing things the way Pelosi and Reid wanted. Instead of advising Republicans to ignore Rush Limbaugh, it might be time for President Obama to tune into Rush. If he doesn't, we may long for the good old days of a 7,000 plus market.

Does Money Really Grow on Trees?

Our government has reached a point it may never be able to return from.

A few weeks ago I quoted an article from CNN Money. According to CNN, in 2008 our government allocated $7.2 Trillion in rescue funds for the failing economy. On Tuesday, President Obama signed the largest economic stimulus package in our nation's history. It carried with it a price tag of around $800 Billion. No one is sure just how much this bill will cost us over the next four or five years. President Obama signed this bill after demanding that congress act quickly. He said our economy is in a crisis and time can't be wasted. Congress violated the very bill it wrote, and passed the bill before any member of Congress or the Senate could read the bill. I want my readers to think about that for one minute. Congress voted on the largest stimulus bill in the history of our nation without actually reading the bill. President Obama then showed us how quickly it had to be passed by waiting four days to sign it. Congress could have waited the 48 hours the bill required before a vote and still had it to President Obama on Tuesday.

As the ink is drying on this terrible bill, President Obama is putting a new spending bill before the American public. Now he wants to take $75 Billion of tax payer money to prevent home foreclosures. The President says the housing crisis is unlike any we have ever known. While our economy is in bad shape, I'm still not sure this is the worst housing crisis in our history. If this money is so important, why didn't the President ask Congress to include this money in the economic stimulus plan? Maybe President Obama thinks there are money trees in the halls of congress that can just magically give him $75 Billion whenever he needs it. He spent less than one term there as a Senator, and part of the time he was there he was campaigning for President so he may not be that familiar with the Capitol building.

$7.2 Trillion in 2008. $800 Billion on Monday. Today another $75 Billon. GM and Chrysler need Billions more each to stay afloat.

Where does our government get this money? They get it from taxes. The government forces working Americans to give it money so that it can then waste it however it sees fit. These bills are all going to come due one day, and the American taxpayer is going to have to pay for it. President Obama now asks working people who may have a savings, and may have managed their money for a rainy day to pay for others who gambled that home prices would never go down. President Obama says this $75 Billion won't go to people who knew they couldn't afford the home they were buying. He says it won't go to lenders who tried to profit off of others. How can he prevent that? There is no way to qualify that in a federal bailout.

President Obama has done alot in 30 days. It will take years to fix the damage he and his Democratic Congress has done. If he doesn't stop his runaway spending, our country may never be able to undo this.

Transparency in Government?

Didn't President Obama campaign on a new era of transparency in Government? It seems like that era has already come and gone. The more the American people hear about the economic stimulus plan and it's comprimise, the more they don't like it.

You may argue that this isn't President Obama preventing the American public from reading the bill. It is at his urging that the Democrats are trying to push this through so quickly. I am convinced the Democrats konw the public doesn't like this bill. They are trying to pass it inspite of the fact that we don't like it!

Sit back and think about this for a minute. From the time the compromise bill was made avalialbe to the public (late last night) to when the House and the Senate will vote on it will be less than 24 hours. Already Congress has violated this bill. What makes you think they won't violate the rest of it? And if none of our representatives (Republican or Democrat) have time to read the bill they are going to vote on, how can they not violate it?

More Surprises from the "Stimulus" Package

If you are supporting the Democratic Spending Bill before the House and Senate, perhaps this paragraph from Bloomberg (authors Mark Pittman and Bob Ivry) will make you think twice:


The stimulus package the U.S. Congress is completing would raise the government’s commitment to solving the financial crisis to $9.7 trillion, enough to pay off more than 90 percent of the nation’s home mortgages.


I hope you read that very carefully. The money involved would pay off more than 90 percent of all home mortgages, not just troubled ones. I have written a number of times regarding the insane cost of these plans. However, another Bloomberg author has found another reason to oppose these plans. Betsy McCaughey explains that the stimulus package, as currently debated, will usher in a new world for you and your health care.


In her article, Mrs McCaughey references the exact page number each of these provisions are contained in. For brevity, I have not reproduced the page number. To start with, the stimulus package with digitize your medical records. This sounds innocent enough and is even billed as a way to save your life if you are traveling and need medical attention. The doctor will have access to your medical records via a federal website. Assuming you are confident these records are secure, and there can't be any breach at the federal level, we will continue on. If this worries you, don't read any more because the rest of this will terrify you.


Now that your medical records belong to the federal government, a new entity called "The National Coordinator of Health Information Technology" will begin reviewing your files and the treatment your doctor provides to ensure that your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate. If your doctor isn't, and is trying to treat your specific circumstance, or is trying some sort of experimental treatment on you (even with your consent) then your doctor can face very serious repercussions. The exact language of the bill is vague on this, and will create a separate federal group to decide what that penalty is. According to Mrs. McCaughey, most of these recommendations are out of recent Health and Human Services nominee, and non-tax paying Democrat, Tom Daschle's book. In his book, Daschle says our health care should be more like Europeans. We should slow down the development of new drugs and experimental treatments because they simply cost to much. We should also be willing to accept "hopeless diagnosis". In laymen terms this means if it costs to much to keep you alive, the doctor shouldn't be doing it. To quote the article:


Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt

Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).


If the stimulus package is signed into law, then a person and council named by the Democrats will decide what treatments you should or shouldn't receive, will be able to penalize your doctor or hospital for not following those treatments, and will decide how much it should cost to keep you or a loved one alive. If it costs too much you shouldn't get the treatment.


Consider this fact from Mrs. McCaughey: the bill provides more funding for these provisions than for the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marince Corp combined.


You may believe this new Health Care system should be implemented. I think it will be a dark day in our country if it ever happens. I also believe our country could be permanently damaged by this. However, either way, it should outrage all Americans that the Democrats and President Obama are trying to sneak this in. This shows that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama know the American people will not support it. The Democrats control the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. If they really thought Americans wanted this, they would create a separate bill and pass it. The Republicans would be powerless to stop it.

I encourage you to contact your Senator and tell them to vote against this. Ask them to defend these Health Care provisions to you and explain why they support them. If you don't know their contact info, look it up here. Don't let them sneak in legislation that could affect how, and how long, you and your loved ones live.

Book Review: American Sphinx

Over the last few months I have become more and more interested in the "Revolutionary Generation". I blame David McCullough's 1776 and John Adams, along with the HBO adaptation for this. But another author, Joseph J. Ellis, also deserves some of the blame. I read Founding Brothers a few months back and really enjoyed his section on John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. I thought I would try another one of his books to attempt to get a better understanding of the writer of the Declaration of Independence and the third President of the United States.

American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson is a very unique biography. It is not written in a linear since. Dr. Ellis examines five key moments in Jefferson's life, and discusses them. For example, the first chapter starts with Jefferson arriving in Philadelphia in June of 1775 as a delegate to the Continental Congress. He briefly mentions some of the events leading up to that, but there is no discussion of his birth or any hardships he endured growing up. I haven't seen this type of biography before, and really enjoyed it. Instead of being weighed down with a general biographical sketch, Dr. Ellis was free to talk about the key moments in depth. In addition, the version I bought is the "Vintage" edition, which has been updated since the 1996 edition. Why is this important? Many of the DNA evidence surrounding Sally Heming's decedents came out after Ellis wrote his first version. For the "Vintage" edition, he updated portions of his book, and includes an appendix with his thoughts on the probable sexual relationship between Jefferson and the slave Sally Hemings.

One other difference was that American Sphinx is not an apologist book. It is also not a book written by a professor trying to make a name by trashing a popular historical figure. Until the last chapter, which has a "conclusions" feel to it, it is hard to pin down Ellis' position on Jefferson. Ellis is critical of parts of Jefferson's life we should be critical of, and celebrates many things about Jefferson worth celebrating.

Finally, American Sphinx made me re-examine how I view what our founding fathers would have thought on issues of the day. Dr. Ellis points out that trying to apply Adam's, Jefferson's, or Washington's views to today's issues are dangerous because the world is a different place. American Sphinx is a good book about a god like figure in American Politics. It is worth the read, and might make you reexamine your own views on some of today's issues.

The Pelosi - Obama “Non-Stimulus” Plan

As of this writing, Democrats in the House have passed a $813 Million spending bill. Democrats in the House and President Obama have all called this an economic stimulus plan. In truth, it is a runaway spending plan with very little in it to actually stimulate the economy. I saw two quotes today that really scared me. The first one from the Heritage Foundation Website:

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work." – FDR Treasury Sec. Henry Morgenthau Jr., architect of the New Deal.

The second in today's issue of USA Today:

House Appropriations Chairman Dave Obey, D-Wis., said the goal is to act now and address problems later. During the Depression, he said, President Franklin Roosevelt "tried lots of things. We'll do the same thing."

The two quotes together don't give me confidence that Democrats know what they are doing right now. I really don't like the "act now and address problems later" part either. Obama campaigned on a new kind of politics in Washington. However, what we see is a plan that we are being told will stimulate the economy that includes:

--$20 Billion to increase Food Stamps

--$18.5 Billion for energy efficiency

--$20 Billion to renovate elementary and secondary schools

--$30 Billion for highway construction (out of almost $1 Trillion in spending)

This is without looking at the list of multi-million dollar line items that go to special interest groups such as ACORN, STD education and prevention programs at the CDC, national endowment for the arts, assorted federal "green" jobs, and of course the Smithsonian and the national mall. For more on these non-stimulating line items, see here, here, or here. The last link is from the National Review Online and is probably the best discussion of the plan anywhere. Are the programs in this bill worth funding? Maybe, maybe not. But they don't create jobs, and Democrats shouldn't call this a stimulus bill. An extra $650 million is going to help people convert their TV's to the new digital format. Approximately $80 Billion is going to states that can't balance their budget already.

Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are telling us that this is urgent. We must pass this right now. American jobs are at stake! However, the Congressional Budget Office is saying that less than half of the "stimulating" part of the bill, the $30 Billion in highway construction money, would get into the economy over the next four years! Only $26 Billion of the $274 Billion in infrastructure spending would be used by next fall! The American public is being sold a bill of goods with this plan. This massive spending plan won't stimulate the economy, and only 64 % of the entire bill will reach the economy over the next four years!

The only bright side to this is that Republicans (and 11 Democrats) voted against this bill today. Succeed or fail, this bill is 100% Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama. It will fail, and I am afraid it will take part of the country with it.

Reverend Joseph Lowery and “Change”

Many point to President Obama's inauguration yesterday as a new point in race relations. If a Black man can achieve the most powerful position in the free world, then there is nothing a member of a minority group can't do if they are willing to work for it. This is what everyone wants, a day when people aren't judged by the color of their skin, but by their words and actions. I believe most Americans of all backgrounds are already like this. I believe most Americans want to send their kids to good schools, they want to work an honest job, and get paid a decent salary. Most Americans don't really care about the color of another person's skin.

Apparently that isn't the case in today's Democratic Party, and one has to question what President Obama's own beliefs are. Rev. Joseph Lowery ended his benediction at the Presidents inauguration with these words:

"Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around…when yellow will be mellow…when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right. That all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen. Say Amen"

That paragraph is full of racist remarks. If you think I have taken the comments out of context, here is a full transcript of his remarks. Rev. Lowery is asking "brown" people to stick around, "yellow" people to become mellow, and "white" people to embrace what is right. If similar remarks were said by a white minister (or a white Republican minister) and directed at minorities, it would be wrong and it would be racist. The media would crucify a white minister for saying that. Rev. Lowery should be ashamed of saying that yesterday, and President Obama should be offended that Rev. Lowery would pick the Presidential Inauguration to say these things.

I am also offended that the media has chosen not to cover this story. There are a few stories simply reporting what he said. There seems to be no criticism of his remarks in the mainstream media. Over the last 24 hours, the only comments I can find on the story are from Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin.

If you think I am blowing this out of proportion, let me paint a different picture in your mind. Pastor Rick Warren gave opening remarks yesterday. What do you think would have happened if he ended his remarks by saying that the election of Barack Obama to President meant that it was finally time for "blacks to do the right thing"?

A New Gas Tax

I am usually against any increase in the Federal Gas Tax. My default position on any tax increase is to oppose it until I know more about it. However, I have been stopped cold by a new purposed gas tax increase. Charles Krauthammer writing in the January 12^th issue of the Weekly Standard argues for a "Net-Zero Gas Tax". I have read this article a few times now, and I believe Mr. Krauthammer may be onto something. I wanted to discuss it here because I would like my readers opinions on the plan.

There are a number of reasons to support a gas tax. Typically, any substantial increase in a gas tax is usually government's way of trying to get the people to use less gas. Depending on your political stripe, you may support this in the name of a cleaner environment, or as a way of lessening our dependence on foreign oil. Europeans already have a much higher gas tax than ours. According to Mr. Krauthammer, our federal gas tax is about 18.4 cents on the gallon. In Europe, the fuel tax is closer to $4 per gallon.

The Net Zero gas tax is different from most tax porposals. Mr. Krauthammer argues for an increase in the federal gas tax of one dollar. This is a pretty big percentage increase and would make gas prices jump up to around $2.83 or so for a national average. This is typically not the type of behavior one expects in an economy where new stimulus packages are dreamt up and voted on every other week. However, Mr. Krauthammer couples his tax with a corresponding reduction of $14 per week in the FICA tax. This reduction is to hit the books the week before the extra one dollar gas tax rolls out. Why a $14 reduction? The average American buys 14 gallons of gas per week. By letting that average American keep the extra $14 in his pay check, he has the money for the additional federal gas tax. The net zero tax is designed to be revenue neutral. The federal government gets the same money it has been getting. However, Americans can now chose to continue to buy the same amount of gas each week, or cut back some and have a little extra money.

Are there challenges to this? Sure, and Mr. Krauthammer has a solution for many of them. What about people on welfare or social security? They would get an extra $14 on their weekly checks. What about truckers who buy much more than the average 14 gallons of gas each week? Institute some sort of exception or credit for them to keep the new tax from hitting them so hard.

What I see as the brilliance of this proposal is that it doesn't hurt most Americans and it could potentially cause many Americans to change their driving habits. Many of us are still driving like gas is $4 a gallon. If this tax were enacted soon, we could keep those driving habits and potential get a little money for it. Both parties can claim this as a victory. Democrats love new taxes, and can say this one is to fight global warming. Republicans can say this is a way to cut our oil use, thereby hurting heavy oil countries like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Russia. Both parties get a feather in their cap, we might do some good, and the tax becomes one we can decide not to pay by driving less.

The only way out of our economic problems are with creative new approaches. The Net Zero Gas tax is a creative approach worth looking at.

Why An Economic Stimulus is Bad

It seems like all I am writing about now is the economy. However, I believe that the economy, and our response to it, can greatly determine where our country goes. I also feel like President Bush, President Elect Obama, and the Republicans and Democrats in Congress and the Senate are making poor choices with our money.


Glenn Beck had a great analogy on his show today. Any errors I make in retelling it are purely my own. I am going to paraphrase his argument. Glenn Beck points out what our leaders in Washington are saying: they don't know how to fix the economy, they aren't sure about the stimulus pacakage, but we have to do something. Mr. Beck says to imagine that our economy is a patient at a hospital. The patient is very sick, and the doctor isn't sure exactly what is going wrong. In order to save the patient, the doctor feels he has to do something. He starts using different experimental treatments much like the different stimulus packages are experimental ways to fix our economy. The more drugs the doctor tries, the more sick the patient becomes. Finally the doctor comes to the family and says, "We have to do something, so we are going to give him the biggest dose of the same experimental drug we have been using and we'll see what happens." What do you think the family would say?


Our economy is like that. As I noted in a recent post, CNN says we have allocated $7.2 trillion in economic stimulus packages. So far, our economy has continued into a recession. The patient hasn't shown signs of improvements. We shouldn't try the same drugs. We need a different solution.


The answer is to make our country the most competitive country in the nation for business. We need to lower our corporate tax rates to the lowest in the developed world, and maybe lower them some more. We need to cut taxes on investors and encourage them to invest and create jobs. We need to structure our economy so that any business that wants to survive the storm comes to our shores.

A Quick Note: Washington

I have two books that I am reading every day. One is a daily devotional entitled "What Every Christian Ought to Know Day by Day: Essential Truths for Growing Your Faith". The other book I am reading daily is "The American Patriot's Almanac: Daily Readings on America". Today's entry from What Every Christian Ought to Know had a paragraph I wanted to share with my readers:

A little known fact is how George Washington, the father of our country, died. He was sick, so the physicians bled him. When he didn't get well, the bled him again. When he still didn't get well, the bled him a third time. Without realizing it, they bled him to death! (Could it be that ever since, the politicians have been bleeding us to death to get even?) --emphasis in the original.

I thought this was amusing and decided to share it. Enjoy and have a good week!

No New Economic Stimulus Package

In a speech today, President Elect Obama tried to gain support for an almost $1 Trillion economic stimulus package. "I don't believe it's too late to change course, but it will be if we don't take dramatic action as soon as possible," Obama said. Writing on the Real Clear Politics Blog, Marie Cocco argued against tax cuts in the new package, but also noted, "Without question, a large and quick stimulus is urgently needed." I wish to question the need for a government bailout that adds more money to the insane amount we have already wasted in hopes that something new will happen.

According to CNN Money, the United States allotted $7.2 Trillion in rescue funds for the failing economy during 2008. As of December 2008, $2.7 Trillion had already been spent, and the economy doesn't look any better today. These numbers don't include the FDIC Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program. This program has an unlimited budget, and it is unknown how much it has spent. We have already spent Trillions of dollars and we have allocated Trillions more, and now the President Elect wishes to spend another Trillion. The President Elect intends to spend a portion of this money on alternative energy, updating federal buildings, converting paper medical records to an electronic format, expanding broadband networks, and updating schools and universities. All of those are separate issues that are worthy of their own debate. None of them are going to spur our economy.

We have heard a lot about the infrastructure spending in the new economic stimulus package. Some states are planning their own infrastructure packages. None of our elected officials have bothered to look at Japan's economic infrastructure spending. The Heritage Foundation notes that from 1992 to 2000, Japan took the road most of our elected officials want the United States to take. The massive increase in government spending on infrastructure has caused Japans per capita gross national income to fall to 74 % of that of the United States. The Heritage Foundation notes that between 1992 and 2007 the Japanese economy was almost flat. Yet we are now expected to spend more money than the Japanese while not having the same terrible results.

"We have to do something!" seems to be the motto of today's politician. In any situation there is always the "do nothing" approach. Perhaps the U.S. government should simply get out of the bailout business and let our businesses solve these problems for themselves. Some will fail, others will succeed. That is the nature of a free market. People and business should be allowed to succeed or fail based on their own efforts, not the will of the government. Massive Government spending didn't help the Great Depression, and it won't help our economy either.

“Land of 10,000 Lakes”, More or Less

Minnesota has certified their election today and awarded Al Franken the Senate seat that has been in contest since November. On election night, Norm Coleman had a 725 vote lead. Now, after the combined efforts of a few county boards, and the Democratic Secretary of State, Democrat Al Franken leads Coleman by 225 votes. This election is sure to now head to the courts.

An op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal points out a few of the more laughable moments that have lead to this outcome. First, more than 25 of the precincts in Minnesota have more ballots than voters who signed to vote. According to the WSJ, "State Supreme Court Justice G. Barry Anderson has acknowledged that 'very likely there was a double counting, '". Ramsey County ended up with 177 more ballots than there were recorded votes on Election Night.

In a number of counties there were discrepancies between the number of votes cast and the number of ballots available for recount. It appears from the news today that the state canvassing board decided to count which ever tally benefited Mr. Franken. More votes on election night than today? Go with election night if it helps Al. More votes today? They were probably lost; count them if they were for Al.

Before the recount began, we had a preview of what was to come. Election officials "corrected" typos on their reports from election night. These typos were to the tune of some 500 votes from Norm Coleman to Al Franken. John Lott, Jr. has pointed out that virtually all of these corrections occurred in three counties. Most of these changes occurred in the Democratic precinct of Two Harbors. Writing for Fox News, Mr. Lott points out, "To put this change in perspective, [Two Harbors] corrections accounted for a significantly larger net swing in voters between the parties than occurred for all the precincts in the entire state for presidential, congressional, or state house races."

After screaming "selected not elected" for eight years, it appears the Democratic Party is ready to show the nation how one truly steals an election. When this entire process started, The Secretary of State, Mark Ritchie, remarked that Minnesota is known for its fair and open elections. I guess that reputation is a thing of the past.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

As you may have noticed, my posts have been more infrequent of late. The holiday season has my family pretty busy. It will probably be next year before I return to a more normal schedule. I will still be posting between now and then, but much less frequently.


I hope everyone out there has a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Pop Quiz

During a phone call today, my dad gave me a very interesting quiz. I thought I would share it with my readers and ask for your answers. All of the statements below are taken from the platform of an actual political party. Two "planks" to the platform have been withheld to keep the answer from being obvious. I encourage everyone to submit your guess in the comments section below.

Name the party with all of these positions:

1. Expanded Federal control restricting power at the State level
2. Anti-large corporation management
3. Anti-large financial firms
4. Pro-worker, pro-labor organizations
5. Mandatory profit sharing in all large firms
6. Expanded old age insurance
7. National health care
8. Total separation of church and state, and reduction of religion's influence
9. Political correctness in speech, news, and media
10. Expanded Federal involvement in schools and youth organizations
11. Much tougher environmental laws
12. Animal rights
13. Prohibition of child labor
14. Promote organic foods, vegetarianism, alternative medicine, natural healing
15. Vigorous national anti-smoking campaign & restrictions
16. Restore the nations international image abroad to the favorable place it occupied previously.

Send in your guesses. Even if someone has already guessed the party you thought, send it anyway. I will tally the results and post the correct answer during this week. Good luck!

Should We Trust Democrats with Cars?

The Democrats in Congress and President Bush have been working on a bailout for GM, Ford, and Chrysler. Many of the arguments that have been used to justify this bailout were the same arguments used to justify the $700 Billion bailout of the banks and home lenders. That bailout passed, but we have seen an increase in the percentage of home's being foreclosed on. In the last few weeks it was revealed that even while the Executive and Legislative branches were hammering out a bailout, Secretary Paulson was intending to use the money in different ways than what we were told he would use it for. Congress set up an oversight group to keep an eye on how the money was spent. However, as of this writing, Congress and the President have yet to name any members to the board. With this in mind, is there any reason we should trust the government to pass emergency legislation to bail out the auto industry? Is there any reason we should trust a Democratic Party majority to try and bail out the auto industry?

If we examine the beliefs and goals of the Democratic Party they don't match up well with the interests of auto companies. The Democratic Party believes in man made global warming. They believe it is the crisis of our time. They also believe using oil and gasoline are bad. How many times have they campaigned on taxing big oil? The DNC is the party of the Unions. While Unions aren't the only reason GM, Ford, and Chrysler are in trouble, they are a big reason. No one has ever accused unions of being "pro-industry". Why would they start now? Looking at the planks to the DNC one would question why they would want the big three to survive.

The Democratic Party was trying to force the auto industry to drop lawsuits against California's fuel regulations as part of any bailout. The Democrats in Congress are still trying to force "greener" cars on the auto industry while preventing them from bringing the higher fuel economy vehicles they make overseas into the United States. Why? Because Democrats want the environmentalist and the union members happy with the party. They have never really cared how the auto companies might fare with their laws. Why should they start now?

If Congress really wanted to save Detroit, there are other more meaningful ways of doing it. They could do away with the CAFÉ standards. They could lower taxes in general on both industry and workers. They could allow Detroit to bring in the vehicles they make in Europe. I believe any sort of loan is just going to delay bankruptcy by these auto companies. Perhaps other solutions might work. But either way, why would we expect Democrats to help the auto companies?

A New Kind of Gay Violence?

For years there has been talk of passing hate crime legislation. Some states have laws that make violence against homosexuals a hate crime. Since the passage of Proposition 8 in California, some gay activists have been using their own violence.

Proposition 8 was a move by the voters in California to define marriage as between a man and a woman exclusively. It does not affect "Domestic Partnerships" in California. Proposition 8 was a response by the voters to a California supreme court decision that allowed gay marriage. This court decision took the matter away from the elected representatives in California. The only way to overturn it was with an amendment by the voters. The voters decided they didn't want the California Supreme Court deciding this issue.

Since the election night results, there has been an increase in violence towards the Mormon Church by gay activists. The Church of Latter Day Saints encouraged its members to support Prop 8, and now gay activists are retaliating towards those members. Two churches received packages with an unidentified white powder in them. Gay activists have gone into a church and protested during the middle of the service. They posed as church members, then stood up during the service and shouted at the members, threw papers into the congregation, and had gay people kissing at the front of the church.

Much of the activity being directed at the Mormon Church is outside the boundaries of political discourse. It is ok to be upset with what a church does, or to oppose their message. It is not ok to resort to violence against the church and members of the church.

We may not all agree with the LDS Church, we may disagree with Prop 8, but we can all agree that violence against the Mormon church must stop.

Quick Notes -- Holiday's & Bailouts

Welcome to another edition of Quick Notes. I am sorry for the lack of posts over the last week or so. The holiday and the job that keeps the roof over my families head have kept me busy. I was able to catch my breath for a minute or two today, and I thought I would spend some time with my readers. Let the Quick Notes begin!

Bailouts -- The Big Three auto exec's are heading back to Congress to beg for money. Instead of private jets, they are driving hybrids this time. I still believe that it would be a terrible idea to give these companies the billions they are asking for. If the government bails them out, they won't make any of the changes they need to make to stay in business. These companies didn't suddenly discover they were out of money. This has been coming for a long time. If we bail them out, it will only delay the end. These companies have made some pretty big mistakes to get to this point. They, and not the taxpayers, need to fix those mistakes.

The conventional wisdom seems to be that a new Congress working with President Elect Obama will give the auto executives the loans they are looking for. However, most people believe these loans will come with strings. GM, Ford, and Chrysler will be forced to make more hybrids and more "green" auto's in order to get the money. Hybrids and green technology isn't going to pull these companies back from the brink of bankruptcy. It may be that nothing will save these companies. However, Toyota, Kia, and other foreign companies are making and selling cars in the United States. Maybe Ford, GM, and Chrysler should leave Congress alone and research what the other car companies are doing right.

State Government Bailouts -- The Governors of 48 states have now gotten into the bailout act. They met with President Elect Obama today to discuss a bailout package for state governments. Many of the governors are trying to avoid the term "bailout". Instead, they are asking for a "$100 billion aid package" to go with a purposed $136 billion infrastructure package. I believe Congress, Obama, and many states governors hope that we can throw money at the recession and it will go away.


California represents about half of the total projected budget shortfalls that 31 of the states are facing. California, and many of the other states, should examine their current budgets. Dump the items that aren't critical and then reevaluate your budget. Tough times require tough decisions. Governors are elected to make those tough decisions, not pass the buck to someone else.

Here there be Pirates!

There is a scene that sticks in my head from the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie. As Captain Jack Sparrow is entering harbor, he passes a skeleton hanging in a cage from a cliff. The cage has a note warning pirates that a similar fate awaits them in harbor. The impression is that the skeleton once belonged to a pirate that was left in the cage as a warning to other pirates. The harbor Johnny Depp's character is heading towards apparently takes a pretty dark view on piracy.

And why shouldn't they? Movies and books have romanticized the pirate world, but there is a reason words like bloodthirsty and cut throat accompany pirates. Real life pirates, both in the Caribbean and off the coast of Africa, are bad guys. They are true parasites on the world. They steal the lifeblood of the rest of the world. As Bret Stephens in the Wall Street Journal points out, "Pirates, said Cicero, were hostis humani generis – enemies of the human race – to be dealt with accordingly by the captors. Tellingly, Cicero's notion of piracy vanished in the Middle Ages…" Pirates weren't extinct, but they were close. Now they seem to be reemerging. Many of us have read about the supertanker captured by pirates. Did you know that while that story has been unfolding, pirates have captured nine vessels? Did you know that pirates have attacked 80 vessels this year?

The two articles mentioned above point to one reason for their return: our failure to deal with them in the manner they deserve. In today's world, we have an aversion to severely punishing people, even if their own actions have warranted that punishment. Like terrorists, today's governments are unsure how to handle pirates. Do we give them Constitutional rights? Do we detain them until an impartial jury can be assembled? What happens if they are captured? Do they get Geneva Convention protection? According to the United Nations, if a military vessel suspects another ship might be a pirate ship, it is to first send over a boarding party to discover the true intent of said Black Pearl. Gone are the days of placing a shot across her bow.

But perhaps that is the problem with our society and with pirates, terrorists, and others. We are uncertain how to deal with problems that demand a quick resolution. Some people act with such malice that they deserve no protection from international bodies. Pirates and terrorists play on our fear, and would destroy any society they could lay their hands on. Cicero, and Mr. Stephens have it right: Hang them!

Of Cars and Bailouts

I once heard Joss Whedon discuss the themes of his Buffy the Vampire Slayer series. He said that the one lesson he tried to explore through the entire series was that our choices have consequences. This is a lesson managers of GM, Ford, and Chrysler, as well as Congress and the UAW would do well to learn. Upper Management at GM, Ford, Chrysler, and the UAW are all begging Congress for a bailout. They are looking for a loan of around $50 Billion in addition to the $25 Billion Congress has already made available for them in the form of loans for changing equipment at their factories.

I own a GM vehicle. Today I received an email from GM asking me to contact my representatives and ask them to vote for a bailout package for the auto industry. It is important to point out, there are a number of car manufacturers here in the United States that aren't looking for a hand out, and don't want their competitors getting tax money these better run factories have paid to the government. I think they have a good point.

GM, Ford, and Chrysler aren't looking to change their practices. They are looking for free money. Imagine if a company came to your house one night and asked to borrow money from you because they were on hard times. The company had a history of not turning a profit, said it stood behind its management team and their decisions, insisted on making no major changes to their operations, and wanted you to give them $75 Billion to let them keep their doors open for a few months. What would you say?

Some have argued that the big three are in this situation because of the Unions. I agree that the UAW has some share of the blame, but so does Congress, and the car manufacturers themselves. Congress has long believed they are automotive engineers and have mandated an assortment of standards that they themselves probably can't explain how to obtain. Congress is good at throwing money at problems, but not so good at coming up with real solutions.

George Will points out today that there is a very good solution for these automakers: Bankruptcy. The companies would be forced to restructure and reorganize. They would be able to renegotiate the bad contracts they have currently have with labor. As Mr. Will points out people who have retired from these companies, but are too young for Medicare, might lose their health insurance. That is OK. If they are that young, they can probably find new work. Some argue these automakers are too big to fail. Mr. Will points out they have already failed. The thing to do now is to see if the auto makers can restructure their company for success.

Quick Notes: What Do You Believe In?

A co-worker suggested this post a few weeks ago. Now that the election is over, and the holiday season is about to be upon us, I think it is a great time for it. My friend suggested a post simply exploring what the readers of my blog believe in. When it comes to politics what do you believe?


Personally, I believe the U.S. Constitution should be the backbone of our government. I also believe the Constitution should be read in the original intent of the founding fathers. What about issues the founder's could never have predicted, such as the internet? The Founder's allowed for these things, they included an amendment process.


I believe our government spends way too much on programs the federal government shouldn't be involved in. I believe we need to have more problems solved at the local and state level. I would point to the Department of Education as a great example. There are 50 states. Many of these states have different problems facing them. Let the states be more involved in the curriculum of there schools to help solve these problems. And if the federal government isn't involved in the school system, we shouldn't be taxed to pay for it. I don't believe the $700 Billion bail out is within the scope of what the Federal government should do.


I also don't believe in man-made global warming. If it is science, it isn't consensus. There is a lot of scientific evidence and fact on bot sides of the argument. Most global warming claims are made based off what computer models predict might happen. They aren't made off of real world observations. More importantly, I don't believe the government should legislate based on a "best guess" theory. If there is science supporting both sides of the global warming argument, the government should stay out.


These are just a couple of examples. What do you believe? Do you agree with me? Is there something I didn't touch on that you think is important for our government to do or not do?

Throwing More Money Away

As our government continues to spend money like it grows on trees, I continue to believe that our elected officials have no idea what they are doing. Pelosi, Reid, Obama, and many Republicans seem to believe if the government throws enough money at a problem the problem will suddenly be solved. They aren't changing any of the laws that got us into this crisis, and they aren't asking business to change any of the practices that got them into this problem either.

The latest chapter in this tragedy started playing today. Treasury Secretary Paulson today said that the original, authorized, use of the $700 Billion bailout wasn't working fast enough. No the Treasury Secretary is going to focus on, "…direct capital injections into the struggling financial firms." The government is just going to buy pieces of these firms. This is the same Federal Reserve that refuses to identify how it has spent $2 Trillion in emergency loans already. Does anyone really feel comfortable with our government spending this money as fast as it can without any real accountability? The government does two things well: make war and waste money.

Today I saw an article where a number of different industries are going after the big bailout. The automakers are getting the biggest play on the news, but other groups like credit card companies, auto dealers, boat dealers, and several Hispanic business groups. The Hispanic business groups want to manage the homes the government might own as a part of this bail out. Pelosi and Reid are talking about using part of the bill for the auto industry, and there are signs the details of qualifying for help under the bailout may change under an Obama administration. This coupled with Paulson's desire to spend the money in a different way is probably the worst thing our government can do right now. They are creating more uncertainty. The Great Depression went on as long as it did because business had no idea what FDR was going to do next.

So far, there have been no talk of changing any of the practices that got us here, or making any changes in the way our government does business with financial institutions. If we really want to improve the economy, the government will stop issuing bailouts, and start cutting taxes. We will stop adding clauses and requirements to the auto industry, and start cutting the requirements we have on their manufacturing.

There is some small hope. Some Republicans are against more bailouts. Richard Shelby (Republican Senator from Alabama) has said, "I do not support the use of U. S. Taxpayer dollars to reward the mismanagement of Detroit-based auto manufacturers…" Amen.

The New World Order?

Something happened tonight that was a first for me in the two years I have been writing this blog. I sat down at my computer to do a final proofread on a blog that was going to appear here. It was written and ready to post. Before I uploaded it, I checked out Drudge. The first article I read made me scrap the old blog post, and start over. Here is the first part of the article, as reported by Reuters, and linked to on Drudge:

LONDON (Reuters) – The international financial crisis has given world leaders a unique opportunity to create a truly global society, Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown will say in a keynote foreign policy speech on Monday.

In his annual speech at the Lord Mayor's Banquet, Brown – who has spearheaded calls for the reform of international financial institutions – will say Britain, the United States[,]and Europe are key to forging a new world order.

I have seen no article on President Elect Obama that frightens me half as much as the intent of this article, and a comparable one from Bloomberg with the headline, "Brown Seeks 'Global Consensus' on Tax, Spending at G-20 Summit". Anytime I see the phrase "global consensus" in politics, I get very worried. This is no exception.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown is trying to unite the world's economies to get a coordinated, global plan to trim taxes and boost spending. Since March, Britain has enacted spending increases and tax cuts targeting the low income earners to the tune of $7.6 Billion (U.S.). While I am almost always in favor of tax cuts, low income earners don't hire people to work for them. Brown is ready to increase borrowing and may be looking for a global consensus to protect his own hide. Has the Prime Minister considered cutting spending instead of increasing borrowing? To make matters worse, the Bloomberg article hints that other countries (such as China) may be interested in this new world order. Governments only make matters worse when they try to legislate the direction of the economy. I can't even imagine how much worse a global legislative agenda could make things.

Of course there is an even larger issue here. The United States should not cede our economic policies to any foreign body, global society, or new world order. I envision this new world order would be a United Nations like body focused on its own definition of economic policies. What does our current United Nations do well? Waste Money (with a capital M), and attack U.S. policy. What would supporters of Mr. Brown's position expect out of this UN-like body? Why should the citizens of the United States ever believe a global body would have our best interests at heart?

Our Constitution gives people we elect (Congress and the President) power over our own economic policies. These people are expected to represent us, and we have seen what a mess they have made of the economic crisis. What happens when representatives from France, Russia, Iran, or China get to dictate our tax and spend policies?

President Bush and President Elect Obama should both dismiss this idea from Mr. Brown as quickly as possible. The U.S. Senate should pass a resolution forbidding the President from signing any treaty that would require the U.S. to seek foreign council on economic policies. If we cede our tax policies and our economic policies, what happens next? When do we start suppressing other areas of the Constitution in favor of a New World Order? If you believe Mr. Brown's economic policies are a good idea, read this article on talks in Britain regarding,"…banning the media from reporting on matters of national security…" It won't stop with taxing…

Congratulations to President Elect Obama

Having supported McCain and Palin for President, I was disappointed with the results of yesterday's election. Having said that, I think congratulations are in order for Senator, and now President Elect, Barack Obama. Obama's election is historic for a number of reasons. First, and most prominatly, Barack Obama has proven that our Presidency is no longer only available for middle to old age white men. He disserves credit for that. Anyone claiming that America is a place of racism will have to explain how Obama became President.


Second, President Elect Obama had a very significant win with the Electoral College yesterday. As I write this, Missouri and Virgina are still being listed as too close to call. Even if both of those states should go to McCain, no one will call this a close election. Obama won the election, and won without it being very close. No one will be looking for hanging chads or to try any states election process in court.


Finally, we in the United States take for granted the changing of our Presidency. Yesterday, we had a regularly scheduled election, that no party had to call for. The result of the election was that the party that controled our Presidency was thrown out, and the rival party gained the Executive branch. All of this happened without any use of force, and without any bloodshed. This is very rare in the rest of the world, and we should be proud of it.


In the months to come, we will see what kind of President Obama will be. Will the Obama who voted in Illinios and the Senate, the Obama who never disagreed with his party, become President? Will the Obama from the campaign trail, the Obama who pormised a new type of politics become President? I hope for the centerist Obama, but worry we will get the leftist Obama.


Regardless of what the future holds in store, congratulations Mr. Obama. Good luck in your Presidency.

Quick Notes: Pre-Tuesday Edition

This is likely to be my last post before the country heads to the voting both on Tuesday. Most blogs and news outlets are spending their time today predicting what will happen on Tuesday. I have decided to make a post that you can sit back and enjoy no matter who you support:

Go Vote! I would be a terrible political junkie if I didn't tell everyone reading this site to go vote. Whether you support Obama, McCain, or some third party candidate, take the time on Tuesday and cast your ballot. Our country has had somewhere around a 50% turn out rate on Election Day. That isn't good enough. Voting isn't a gift, it is a responsibility. Go do your duty!

What if no one gets 270 votes? Our election process is based on a Presidential candidate getting a majority of the number of electoral votes, and not popular votes. That means Obama or McCain must get 270 electoral votes to become President. Well, what happens if neither of them gets the required 270 votes? According to the Twelfth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution, the House of Representatives would then meet and elect the President. There are a few rules that govern this. Most importantly, each state only gets one vote. That means Texas = Rhode Island = New York = Alaska when it gets to this stage. It wouldn't matter the percentage of Democrats or Republicans in the House. The Senate would meet and vote for the Vice President using similar rules.

To carry the "what if…?" out a little further, if the voting process in the House drags out to Inauguration day, what would happen? Jefferson's election got thrown into the House and it took some 36 ballots. Should the House of Representatives be unable to declare a President by the end of January, then the current Vice-President would become President as if the President was removed from office. You read right, say hello to President Dick Cheney. Dick Cheney would then be able to nominate a Vice President for confirmation by the Senate until the House could decide what to do. This is potentially the most entertaining possibility of all the different political tales being told.

Starbucks and You. Finally, if you do go vote on Tuesday, Starbucks wants to reward you. They are running spots saying if you come to a Starbucks on Tuesday and tell them you voted, they will give you a free coffee. Just one more reason to go out and do your duty.