Of Government and Men: The Tenth Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

-- Tenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution

In plain English this means: If it doesn't say it in here, the government can't do it. The Tenth Amendment was one of the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution. It, along with the first nine amendments, are labeled the Bill of Rights. I bring this up to illustrate how important our founders thought this amendment was. If you look through any discussion on the debates surrounding the Constitution, there were those who thought this should have been more strongly worded, and those who thought it should carry less weight. However, we in today's world have to operate within the boundaries of what was written and ratified.

Justice Joseph Story (who I mentioned in my last post in this series), in his A familiar Exposition of The Constitution of the United States, states that, "The Government of the United States is one of limited powers; and no authority exists beyond the prescribed limits, marked out in the instrument itself. Whatever powers are not granted, necessarily belong to the respective States, or to the people of the respective States, if they have not been confided by them to the States Governments."{emphasis in the original}. This is perhaps the best summary of the tenth amendment I have come across.

According to Wikipedia, there are 37 states that have introduced sovereignty resolutions in the state legislatures reaffirming their sovereignty under the tenth amendment. The Tenth Amendment Center has a map with each resolution shown on it along with the current status.

It is important to note that there are specific powers that the U.S. Constitution grants the Federal government. For example, the Constitution gives the United States government the power to collect taxes (as much as we may not like that). However, the Constitution is silent on exactly how the Congress is to do that. Likewise, while the Constitution sets up a Supreme Court, it does not specify how many people are to be Justices on that court. These "secondary powers" for lack of a better word, are not reserved for the states because the government must use these powers to comply with the spelled out powers. The government is given specific tasks within the Constitution and must execute those.

There are other areas the government steps out of bounds of the Constitution (written or implied). When you have some free time, Google the "Interstate Commerce Clause". There are a number of powers the government has found out of this small phrase that could (and perhaps should) be challenged. In many cases, the States have given up their powers in order to receive Federal tax money. There is a way to fix this, but it will be a little painful. States must stop looking to the Federal Government to solve their problems. However, this requires the States to own the problem and the solution; something most politicians are afraid to do.

Make no mistake, there are specific duties and powers the Federal government has and should have. However, the federal government has meddled with things the Founders never thought about. The States have the power to reign in this power and to tell the government to buzz off. This requires an elected official to look past how to win reelction. Perhaps one day, we will see more Statesmen in power and less politicians.

Political Friends Family Grows

I warned everyone that my blogging may hit a bump for a few days. Here is the bump:



Jesse was born to us yesterday afternoon. Both baby and Mommy are doing fine. I will keep an eye on comments, but it will probably be a day or two before I post another full length blog. This Sunday's issue in the government series will be posted either Monday or Tuesday.

Book Review: Glenn Beck's Common Sense

If you believe it's time to put principles above parties, character above campaign promises, and Common Sense above all - then I ask you to read this book..."

-- from the back cover of Glenn Beck's Common Sense

This is probably the smallest book I have reviewed for this site. That doesn't mean there isn't a lot of information in this book, or a lot of good ideas. Glenn Beck's Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government, Inspired by Thomas Paine is Mr. Beck's updated version of Thomas Paine's 1776 pamphlet. Mr. Beck applies his own common sense to today's problems. Much of the book is spent setting up the ideas and beliefs that our country was founded on and then asks the reader if those ideas are still being served by our government today.


Glenn Beck argues against a number of current liberal positions, but this is not a Republican vs. Democrat book. If you are looking for something that reinforces today's Republican Party, this is definitely not the book for you. Today's Republican and Democratic Parties are not that different from each other. Both seek power, both want to blame the other party for all of our troubles, and neither sets about solving those problems when they have the votes to do it. You could use the Republican majority under Bush as one example and I suspect you will be able to use the Democratic majority under Obama as another. Mr. Beck argues that we as voters should ignore the letter that comes after a candidates name on the ballot, and vote for the candidate that we think will represent our values and will be honest and accountable to the voters.


There was one part of this book that really struck home with me. I don't vote for third party candidates because I feel it is a wasted vote. Mr. Beck uses Arlen Spector as a way to destroy that logic. He points out that during Spector's last re-election bid, there were two more conservative candidates running (one in the Constitution Party, one in the Libertarian Party). Conservative voters didn't vote for these two for fear that they would end up throwing their vote away. Yet five years later, Spector switched parties simply to do better in a primary bid and in hopes of holding on to the power he has accumulated. Glenn Beck asks, "...who wasted thier vote, the four percent of people who went with the candidates from the Constitution and Libertarian parties, or the 53 percent who voted for a man who later stabbed them in the back by switching parties simply to have the best shot at winning his next election?" As some one who was thought of voting for third party candidate before, but was afraid of "throwing my vote away", I really have to reconsider my opinion on this.

Glenn Beck's Common Sense includes a complete reprint of Common Sense by Thomas Paine, and an "additional reading" section. I am a big fan of "additional reading" sections to explore theories in more detail. The book is less than 200 pages (and is pretty cheap at most book stores). Glenn Beck has asked his listeners to buy a copy and when they are done reading it, pass it along to someone else. I will be passing mine along this weekend. I have included an amazon link where you can buy it:

If you pick up a copy from Amazon or any where else, leave a comment here and let me know. I am also curious to see if anyone gives their copy away. It is a very good book and is packed with good arguments in a small small space.

Quick Notes: Babies and Books

I hope this edition of Quick Notes is exciting even though I don't plan on covering very many political items. Enjoy!


Baby. To those of you who know me in the real world, this won't be a breaking news item. The rest of you may be a little surprised. My family is about to increase by one! My wife is very pregnant right now, and we could be having a baby any day now. Last night we had a false alarm that had us at the hospital until 10 PM. I wanted to share this with you in case you sign on here one night, looking for the latest and greatest political debate only to find no new posts. I plan to keep posting, but have to take care of my family first. If you sign on and it has been a day or two since my last post, fear not! I will return!


Books. In case you haven't noticed, I like to write book reviews on this site. I try to keep them related to our discussions on here. However, all of them are from a point of view that interests me. I thought I would ask if anyone is interested in either 1) writing a book review of a book they have read recently that is relevant to this site, but might have been missed by me, or 2) suggesting a book for a discussion on here. Either suggestion needs to be a book that is relevant some how to this site. It does not have to be one from my conservative point of view. If you know of one that is from a different point of view, but would like to write a review of it, or would like to suggest it to the group for a discussion, let me know. I would love to feature it on here.


Finally... I am looking for someone to write a post on here from a point of view that is different from mine. I am exploring a few other blogs that I frequent, but if a reader would like to take a turn and post here, I would love to have you author a post. The rules are simple, write enough to explain your viewpoint, keep it clean, and no insulting the other readers. Let me know if you are interested!


For either the book or the guest viewpoint, comment in here, or email me.

Of Government and Men: The Nature of the U. S. Constitution

The Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme law of the United States. It is the foundation and source of legal authority underlying the existence of the United States of America and the Federal Government of the United States.

Wikipedia entry for "United States Constitution"

The U.S. Constitution lays out the rules for what our federal government can and can't do. It sets up boundaries for the three equal branches of government: the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judiciary. It also sets up a number of checks and balances to keep these branches equal, and to keep any one branch from overwhelming the other branches, or the citizens. In The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen describes our government as a three headed eagle, with one head being the judiciary, one the executive, and the center head representing the legislative branch, with the Senate and the House each being represented by an eye in the head of the eagle. If the three heads of the government operate as equals, the eagle can fly higher. If they try to overwhelm the others, the eagle won't survive. For a more complete discussion of the details of the Constitution, go to the National Archives website devoted to the Constitution, found here.

One of the most amazing aspects of the Constitution is that the framers knew there would be situations and developments they couldn't foresee. There are those both in and out of our government who claim the Constitution is a "living" document. Under this theory, the Constitution means whatever any generation reads into the words of the Constitution. This method ignores the thinking of the Framers, or the plain meaning of the words in the Constitution. Using this theory, any generation can read into the words a right or power of government that the framers never debated or considered. This is not a process the framers intended.

Joseph Story was Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1811 to 1845. Justice Story served on the Marshall court, was a professor of law at Harvard, and was a son of a participant of the Boston Tea Party. Justice Story said the, "…framers were not bold or rash enough to believe, or to pronounce, [the Constitution] to be perfect…[t]hey desired, that it might be open to improvement; and, under the guidance of the sober judgment and enlightened skill of the country, to be perpetually approaching nearer and near to perfection." This is why they set up the Amendment process.

The framers included a provision in the constitution to amend it. This procedure makes it difficult to amend the Constitution, but not impossible. It requires two thirds of both houses of Congress to start an Amendment or two thirds of the states to call a constitutional convention to purpose an amendment. Any amendment proposed (regardless of where it originated from) requires three fourths of the States approval to ratify. Interestingly, the President has no role or authority in the amendment process. This is a very difficult method for modifying the Constitution, but not an impossible one. Justice Story, writing in his lifetime, stated, "That the power of amendment is not, in its present form, impracticable, is proved by the fact, that twelve amendments have been already proposed and ratified." To date, there are 27 Amendments that have been ratified.

The point to this is that the Founders knew the Constitution would need changes over time. They intended for it to be changed, but not through the courts. They intended the people and the elected representatives of the people to change it. Judicial decisions such as Roe v. Wade may or may not be the law the people want. However, the way it became law is not the way the founders intended. They did not intend a "living document" that each generation could read new meaning too, or derive new meaning from plain words. If the people believe we have a fundamental right to an abortion, this should be purposed as a new amendment and not created out of a judicial decision. Roe v Wade is not the only bad law that has come about this way. Judges should rule on what is currently law, and not what they think society needs or wants. Edwin Meese III writing for the Heritage Foundation says it this way:

"Taking the politics out of the judiciary is a key tenet behind the concept of constitutional originalism. That's the idea that judges should issue rulings based on the original understanding of the authors and ratifiers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights – rather than on outcomes that reflect the judge's personal biases or policy preferences."

In recent years, we have ignored the nature of the Constitution as the framers wrote it. The amendment process is the only constitutionally acceptable method to modify our Constitution. This worked for a long time. In the last 42 years, only two amendments have been added to the Constitution: the 26^th Amendment setting the voting age at 18, and the 27^th Amendment restricting time frames for Congressional pay raises. We should hold our elected officials accountable and force them to abide by the Constitution. If we ignore the Constitution in this, what is the next part of the Constitution our government may try to ignore?

This is the fourth post in my "Of Government and Men" series. This series is designed to cover some of the my fundamental beliefs regarding government in today's world. I have a list on the right where you can page through this series, or look here, here, and here. If you have any thoughts or comments, share them here. I will probably update this series down the road to include some of the discussions from the comments in this post.

Citizen Ronald Reagan Speaks Against Socialized Medicine

Thanks to Aaron for posting this on Face Book. The clip is ten minutes of Ronald Reagan speaking against Socialized Medicine. I love the closing quote: "...will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country, until, one day as Norman Thomas has said, we will awake to find that we have socialism. And if you don't do this, and I don't do it, one of these days, you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it once was like in America when men were free."

Profile of a Supreme Court Justice

Back in 2007 I read, My Grandfather's Son, by Justice Clarence Thomas. It was the first time I had any exposure to the life of Clarence Thomas, and I found his autobiography to be really informative. I have been thinking of Justice Thomas over the last few weeks with the fawning media attention of now Justice Sotomayor. To read the papers, or to watch TV, one would think that all of our previous Justices were the children of wealth and privilege, never once having to overcome any obstacles. Justice Thomas life story quickly shows that simply isn't true.

Clarence Thomas was born in 1948 in a small community just outside of Savannah, Georgia. His father abandoned his family very early on. Clarence Thomas states in his autobiography that he wouldn't meet his biological dad until he was nine years old, and would only see him twice in his youth. His mother did the best she could to raise him, but by the time he was seven, she realized she couldn't do it on her own. There were two boys and one girl counting Mr. Thomas. Mr. Thomas's sister would move in with other family while Clarence and his brother would move in with their grandparents. When they moved in, each boy had a grocery sack that contained all of their possessions. Both of the boys would come to view their grandparents as their parents, hence the title My Grandfather's Son. Clarence would even call his grandfather "Daddy".

His Daddy was hard on him and his brother. The boys weren't allowed to participate in after school activities. "Daddy" felt the boys needed to learn, and was worried that the two boys would get in trouble in after school activities. When school was out during the summer, the kids weren't allowed to lay around and play. The family moved to a farm every summer and worked from sun up to sun down. Clarence Thomas' grandfather / Daddy tried to instill in the boys a strong work ethic that would serve the future Justice for the rest of his life.

As Clarence got older, he began to pursue a future in the Church. He attended school at two seminaries and the College of Holy Cross. Later he attended Yale Law School. All of his educational opportunities were helped because of the life lessons he learned from his Daddy. During his college years, he rebelled against his Daddy, and his Daddy's beliefs. However, when his life finally hit its lowest point, he decided to dedicate the rest of his life to the only parents he really knew: his grandparents.

Before reading, My Grandfathers Son, I was unaware just how much race and racism factored into Clarence Thomas' life. Prospective employers assumed that he only got into Yale, and only graduated, because of race quotas. Because of that, no one wanted to hire him. Justice Thomas recounts taking a 15 cent price tag off a box of cigars and putting it on his diploma to remind him exactly how much the diploma was worth to him. Justice Thomas would remember this lesson later in life when he worked as Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights in the Department of Education and as Chairman of the Equal Opportunity Commission. In spite of the racism he grew up with and saw in college, many of his faults he blames only one person for: himself. The tough parts of his relationship with his Daddy, his drinking, radical times in college and even his failed marriage, he blames only on Clarence Thomas. This is probably another lesson his Daddy gave him: take responsibility for your own actions.

One event in his life that Clarence Thomas shouldn't take the blame for is his confirmation hearings. Democrats may accuse Republicans of racism during the Sotomayor hearings, but Clearance Thomas's opponents took personal attacks to an all new level. The vast majority of people who know Justice Thomas look back at the 1991 hearings and admit that Anita Hill was less than honest in her testimony. Justice Sotomayor may have been asked to defend her public statements. Justice Thomas and his family were put through the ringer.

Justice Sotomayor has a very interesting life story. However, the way the media has portrayed it has inadvertently hinted that the other Justices don't have interesting life stories. Hopefully, this helps put Ms Sotomayor in perspective.

Screwtape Writes Obama

In 1942, C. S. Lewis published the book The Screwtape Letters. In it, the demon Screwtape gives advice to his nephew (a lesser demon of some sort) on how best to tempt a human into sin and away from God. If you haven't read it, I recommend it. I have often wondered what a letter to a mortal from Screwtape might look like. The following is my own humble, much lesser, and vastly inferior attempt to provide an example of a letter to a human from Screwtape. Any failures are my own, and should not reflect on C. S. Lewis, Screwtape, or Wormwood:

Dear Mr. Obama,

First, congratulations on your recent election to the position of President of the United States of America. We have quite a number of field professionals in your country and pay close attention to the politics there. I don't typically write humans, especially politicians. In most cases, I consider them firmly on our side, and see little to be gained by taking my time to address them. However, after the events of the first eight months of your administration, I could no longer withhold my admiration.

Being a demon, you can understand my professional expertise in the subject of lying and "playing loose with the facts". I consider myself an expert in the field, something many of my colleagues would attest too. I thought you deserved the professional courtesy of hearing of my admiration for your handling of opponents and the American public. During your campaign, many of us here at the Lowerarchy kept an eye on some of the tricks and deceptions you were able to convince a large number of people of. Some of these deceptions were so strong they caused your audience to swoon. If you have the time to respond, I would really appreciate knowing if there was a particular spell you used for that effect. I personally most admired the fact that you hid your motives in plain sight: all any voter had to do to understand you was to look at your voting record. You were able to disguise that with a few mentions of "Hope and Change", two autobiographies (at the ripe old age of 47), and the occasional public sacrifice of a friend (as with Jeremiah Wright). All of this was only your opening act.

In your short term in office you have been able to: sell a "stimulus package" that is simply a state and local government bribe package; you have pushed energy and climate legislation in the middle of a recession and in spite of continued evidence that man made global warming is a hoax; you have claimed to have a more accountable government while naming tax evaders and the kind of talent we look for here to some of the highest posts in your administration. Perhaps your greatest deception to date is the recent "town hall" meeting you had to discuss health care with the "mob". While your office stacked the attendees, you were able to hint to the press that there may very well be rabble rousers in the group. Kudos!

I haven't decided which part I liked best. It was either your claim (twice I might add) that AARP endorsed your parties health care bill, when they had not, or the "skeptical" woman who got confused and told the crowd you winked at her while she asked her question. Of course both of these are second to your ability to shift the blame for not passing health care reform to the American people and to Republicans, when your party has all the votes it needs to pass this reform. Bravo!

In closing, it is far too early to know if you might one day be a colleague of mine. However, rest assured that if you should end up in my office, you are guaranteed a position of honor with us.

Your Supernatural Fan,

Screwtape.

Of Government and Men: The Role of God in the Public Square.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

-John Adams

Religion and Politics combine to form the largest taboo one should avoid discussing in polite company. These words of wisdom probably stem from how passionate individuals get whenever discussing these issues. Are there any two subjects that have a greater impact on your life than your religious beliefs and the political system you live in?

In our society today, we have taken 16 words from the U.S. Constitution and used them to censor, and in some cases punish, those who openly express a faith. The Constitution states in Amendment I, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,". In today's society, we have taken this to mean that there can be virtually no mention of God in the public square. However, this isn't the way it always was, and it isn't the way the Founders of our government intended it to be. We, as a nation, are worse for this public ban on God.

Newt Gingrich, has said that to study the history of the United States is to, "…encounter God again, and again." As an amateur historian I can fully agree with Mr. Gingrich. The more I read of our nation's founding and the men and women who created it, the more I come across their belief in God. I am amazed how frequently I encounter religious references in the founding of our nation. Perhaps the most important man in our founding, George Washington, left many, many references to God in his writings and public statements. In his first inaugural address, Washington stated, "…it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe,…No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States…". In Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation, he called on Americans to set aside a day to thank God for the many blessings He had provided for them.

Washington was not alone in his belief in a Divine Being. I encourage everyone to take time to look into the beliefs of John Adams, James Madison, or Abraham Lincoln. Many of Lincolns writings and speech's contained very beautiful references to God. Many of us have read the Gettysburg Address and Lincoln's reference to the United States as a "…nation, under God…", but have you ever read his second inaugural address delivered in March of 1865, shortly before his death? Lincoln says:

"Yet, if God wills that [the Civil War] continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether."

Lincoln was saying that if God demanded the United States pay for the blood of slaves with blood, then that is how it would be. I would not suggest that each of these men I have quoted here, or the other founders of this nation, were all Christian faithful. Lincoln struggled with his faith all of his life, and it's very doubtful that he held to the tenets of any particular sect of Christianity. His faith was probably unique to Lincoln. However, I doubt any of our founders would support the almost total ban of religion in government.

The First Amendment was intended to keep the government from establishing a national American Church. It was not intended to keep high school students from discussing religion in club activities, or to prohibit the teaching of morals in school. Thomas Jefferson called for a teaching of moral values in schools in Virginia.

It is very difficult to study the founding of our nation and not come across the work of Alexis de Tocqueville. He was a French historian and political writer. His best known work was Democracy in America. In it, de Tocqueville states:

"I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion – for who can search the human heart? – but I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or to a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society." Alexis de Tocqueville felt the nations belief in God was key to our Democracy.

I would not support a government that mandated the tenets of any particular faith. I believe individuals should more or less be allowed to worship as they please. However, I think the constant lawsuits about our Pledge of Allegiance, public displays of the Ten Commandments, and school prayer are all misplaced. I believe a healthy respect for God, and an acknowledgment of the blessings He has given our nation are important. Our nations motto is "In God We Trust". Hiding this, and whitewashing our founders faith and their beliefs harms our students and hides from them the nature of the founding of this great nation. Should we have a government established religion? No. Should prayer groups and religious services be allowed on public property? Sure, as long as all faiths are allowed access to the facilities if they wish it.

This is the third post in the "Of Government and Men" series. The introduction and first installment are available in previous issues, or in the list on the sidebar. What are your thoughts on the role of religion in our government? Have we forgotten our heritage? Are there too many lawsuits today challenging our freedom of religion? Or, have we not gone far enough in isolating politics and government from faith?

GIS: Freedom or Invasion of Privacy?

GIS stands for Global Information Systems. These web gis systems can be anything from a UPS tracking software that allows you to see where your order is to a chip in your cell phone that allows anyone with the know how to track your current location. Many of these systems you have to decide to use, such as tracking software. Others are engaged whether you want them to be or not. In those cases, like the cell phones, are they an invasion of your privacy?


There are good points and bad points to these GIS programs. If you are in a car wreck and can't remember where you are, you may very well want someone to locate you via your cell phone. But are you comfortable knowing that "big brother" can find you as long as your cell phone is on? Google maps has spark a number of concerns because of the "candid" pictures of people that have shown up on their program. One friend of mine's father-in-law got caught on the street view version of google maps while checking his mail. If you enter his address into Google maps, you will find him standing next to his mail box.


On the other hand, Google argues their photos were done in public in broad daylight. Anything captured on their program would have been visible to someone driving down the street. Does it then constitute an invasion of privacy? I have a 5 year old daughter and another kid on the way. I would love to be able to pull up a website when she is 16 and know where she is. But do I want other people to be able to do the same?

Most issues I talk about on here I try to argue one point or another. This is one issue that I am really not sure about, and would like to hear other opinions on. What do you think? Are programs such as Google Maps an invasion of privacy? Or are GIS systems simply a new reality that we have to adapt too?

This is a sponsored post.

Am I an “Anti-Reform Mobster”?

By now you have either read or heard the Democratic Parties attack on constituents appearing at town hall meetings to criticize their Representatives. Criticism is one thing Representatives don't like. On the official blog of the Democratic Party (titled "Kicking Ass") the DNC accused people who are critical of the government of the following:

1. They are being funded and organized by out-of-district special interest groups and insurance companies.

2. People are scared because they are being fed frightening lies

3. Their actions are getting more extreme

4. Their goal is to disrupt and shut down legitimate conversation

5. Republican leadership is irresponsibly cheering on thuggish crowds.

My local representative is a Democrat and is holding a town hall meeting at the end of the month I want to attend. Am I an anti-reform mobster? Or am I a concerned citizen trying to voice my opinion and get my elected officials to listen to me? Let's look at each of the DNC points above.

They are being funded and organized by out-of-district special interest groups and insurance companies. This isn't true in the case of myself, anyone else I personally know attending these town hall meetings, or of Political Friends. However, at Political Friends, we are capitalists. Therefore, if any readers of this post have any connections to some sort of group that would be willing to fund this site let me know. You must be out of town (or an insurance company) and it must be enough money for me to do this full time. Otherwise, I am not sure it meets point 1 shown above. Oil companies may also apply as I write about Global Warming from time to time.

People are scared because they are being fed frightening lies. If people are afraid because of what they read in HR 3200, I don't consider that a lie; I consider it wisdom. Page 16 of HR 3200 would make it illegal for you as an individual to buy insurance from a private company after the first year HR 3200 goes into effect. You can go through the government as a middle man, but no more buying straight from the insurance company. I am not sure how this improves health care or health insurance, or makes it cheaper. But it is there in black and white. Here is the official bill, read it for yourself.

Their actions are getting more extreme. There is a chance that I am guilty of this. The first tea party I attended, I simply brought tea bags. The second one, I brought a camera. When I go to this town hall meeting, I think I am going to bring a voice recorder. If that is extreme, they have me. I haven't been anywhere near as extreme as some of the Democratic groups such as Code Pink.

Their goal is to disrupt and shut down legitimate conversation. On the contrary. I have posted about this debate a number of times such as here, here, or here, just to point out three posts. Republicans have introduced their own health care reform. It 's listed as HR 2520, the Patients Choice Act, and weighs in at 248 pages as opposed to the 1100 pages on the DNC side. The Heritage Foundation has also listed a number of reforms it has been working towards. Far from shutting down legitimate debate, we are actively promoting it. I suspect the DNC is upset that this debate is occurring and that people are actually reading the bill it introduced.

Republican leadership is irresponsibly cheering on thuggish crowds. This maybe. Truthfully, the Republicans have been guilty of not listening to their constituents as well. It's time they started paying more attention. Also, consider the fact that the Republican Party doesn't have the ability to arrange these type of protests. They should be taking notes.

There are a number of health care and health insurance reforms I would support. One I won't support is a single payer health care system provided by the government. That is why I am going to my Representatives town hall meeting. The DNC may think I am an Anti-Reform Mobster. I like to think of myself as holding my elected officals accountable. At the end of the day, maybe that is what the Democrats (and Republicans) are really afraid of.

Book Review: Atlas Shrugged

I really enjoyed Atlas Shruggedby Ayn Rand. Atlas Shrugged was written in 1957 and has been growing in popularity over the last few years. I decided to read it because I was hearing constant references too it in the news. I think one of the reasons it resonates with today's audience is that a number of the books events and characters have parallels in today's world.

Atlas Shrugged is set in a "future USA". The economy is beginning to collapse as the book opens, and the government becomes more desperate and more aggressive looking for ways to solve the crisis. The copy of Atlas I read was 1,069 pages long. Early in the book (around page 200), the government starts really interfering with business. Laws are passed restricting who can own what business, and where business can operate. The laws are always passed in the name of "protecting the country", and "are only because of the current crisis". Many of the worst laws and actions of the government in Atlas Shrugged have parallels in today's bailouts, health care and energy bills, and government takeovers. In the world of Atlas Shrugged, most nations of the world have become "Peoples Republics".

As the government continues to pass law after law, the economy continues to worsen. Many of the laws and policies of the "future USA" revolve around need. A guy asks for a job because he "needs" it. Laws are passed forbidding large companies from moving or opening at new locations because the smaller companies "need" a chance. These decisions are made regardless of whether the people asking for jobs can do the jobs. The government passes laws "protecting" small, unsuccessful businesses because the public "needs" them.

This book was the masterpiece of Ayn Rand, and really served as an introduction for her personal philosophy of Objectivism. It is very well written, and it is easy to see how it became a classic. However, it is a very long book, and requires a little bit (my wife sees it as an extreme amount) of devotion to see it all the way through to the end. There is one "three hour speech" towards the end that will probably take most readers a little longer than three hours to make it through.

I really enjoyed this book, and recommend it to anyone who enjoys political thrillers, or classics. However, if you don't think you can handle a 1000 + page book that is pretty thick with politics and philosophy at times, stay far, far away. And I have to leave this review with a message for those of you who have read Atlas Shrugged:

"Who is John Galt?"

Of Government and Men: The Nature of Freedom

Children should be educated and instructed in the principles of freedom.

--John Adams

I would go one step further than the second President of the United States and say that all people should be educated on the principles of freedom. The Webster dictionary that sits on my desk has 13 definitions of "freedom". The first three define freedom as (1) being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint, (2) exemption from external control, and (3) the power to determine action without restraint. I define freedom as the ability to live your life, and to determine your own life, free of the restraints of others.

In the United States, we have the greatest collection of freedoms found anywhere. Here we are allowed to worship, speak, and basically proceed with our life as we see fit. So long as you don't harm others, you are free to decide what to make of your own life. We are blessed with many political and economic freedoms. Some nations have some freedom in politics or some freedom in economics, but I am not aware of any nation has the same degree of political and economic freedom as the United States.

Where do these freedoms come from? The Declaration of Independence says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." There are two very important points here, and they answer our question. Rights are given to us by our Creator, not by man, and not by government. Anything the government or a man can give you, he can also take away. However, there are certain rights that are unalienable. These rights cannot be denied to anyone, except by their own actions. Secondly, in order to have a government, individuals allow that government to restrain their rights to some degree. That authority is given to the government by the permission of those who decide to live under that government.

All rights have limits. You can't run into a crowded theater and yell, "Fire!" without there actually being a fire. You can't walk into your neighbor's house and take whatever your neighbor has as your own. These limits exist because your rights and freedoms begin to infringe on the rights or freedoms of others. You also don't have the freedom not to be offended. In today's society, there are some who believe they should never be offended. That isn't a right.

Nor do you have a right to equal results from your efforts. Equality, as Mark Levin defines it in Liberty and Tyranny, "…is the natural right of every individual to live freely under self-government, to acquire and retain the property he creates through his own labor, and to be treated impartially before a just law." This does not guarantee equal results. Alexander Hamilton is quoted as saying that inequality will exist as long as liberty exists and that inequality will result from the very freedom we live in. You and your friend are both free to create your own businesses. However, both of you will not succeed or fail to the same degree. One of you will make more money. In America, you are your own limit. If you have a goal, so long as you are willing to work hard, you can reach it. If you're not willing to work hard, someone willing to work harder than you will reach that goal. That is the nature of freedom in America.

One of the lessons of the Spider-Man comics is: With great power comes great responsibility. The freedoms we enjoy in our government are no exception. I think those who lived before us have many lessons to teach us. Ronald Reagan once said:

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."

Freedom must be protected by soldiers, and it sometimes requires blood to pay for it. But it also requires an educated citizen voter. I don't mean educated in the since of a high school or college degree. I do mean that you as a voter have a duty to understand your government, understand your freedoms and rights, and to understand who the people you are voting for (or against) are. This does require some work and effort on your part. But as President Regan pointed out, it is the requirement of a free people to protect that freedom.

Are there other limits or responsibilities you feel are important that I missed? Share them in the comments below. As I update this post in the future, I may include your comments. This is the first of a series on our government. The introduction is posted here, and the next chapter in the series will be available next Sunday.

Of Government and Men: An Introduction

On Sunday, I am going to introduce a new series here at Political Friends: Of Government and Men. This series is intended to explore my fundamental beliefs on government in general and our government here in the United States specifically. This is a series I have wanted to do for some time, and I am very excited to finally be putting this out. I plan on exploring some of these topics in detail so the size of these articles may tend to be a little longer. Here is my current list of topics I plan on exploring:

I. The Nature of Freedom

II. The Role of God in a Free Society

III.The U. S. Constitution

IV. The Tenth Amendment

V. Term Limits

VI. Government Spending and Taxes

VII. Personal Accountability

VIII. Industry + Profit = Good

I may expand out this list based on feedback I get from this post and from each of the posts in the series. I also want to allow space to continue to cover current events and other issues that might pop up. Because of that, I will be releasing one post from this series each week, most likely on Sunday. You will be able to easily identify them, and I am going to link them all together with hyperlinks. If you are really interested in this series, I would encourage you to sign up for my RSS feed, or become a fan on facebook. Both options are displayed in the upper right hand corner of this website.

I hope to accomplish a number of goals with this series. First, these posts, as with the rest of this site, are meant to encourage debate. I hope that as you read them, you will gain more insight into my thought process, you might find something you didn't know, and might look at something in a different light. Some of these topics should be reviewed by any voter from time to time to help them remember how our government works, and how it should work. How can we discuss healthcare, taxes, or energy without a proper frame for the responsibilities of our government, and our own responsibilities?

The Most Effective Response to the Gates - Gate

Kudos to dadvocate51 at Alexandria for posting this clip.



I wouldn't normally post this clip after the most recent blog. However, my article here has generated 15 comments (so far) and my post at Alexandria is up to 7 comments. I think people want to talk about this issue, and it can be a part of a larger discussion. However, after watching Mrs. King on this clip, is there really any serious belief that Officer Crowley is a racist?

Alexandria

I have been invited to post on the website Alexandria, Crossroads of Civilization. It's a pretty unique site, and I have added it to my links on the right side of this site. The post I published today, "The Real Problem With Obama's Stupid Answer" also appears at Alexandria as my first piece for that site. I would encourage you to check that site out. I plan on contributing a regular piece to their site. Sometimes it will be a duplicate of what I post here, sometimes it will be a unique piece only viewable from Alexandria. Either way, I will always let me readers here know when I have published something else, including at Alexandria. I have full control of the content and the comments for my posts at there. I will use the same rules there as I use here: If you think I am wrong, let me know. So long as you don't call other readers or authors names, I will post your comments there. I hope you enjoy their site. Political Friends is still my home, and the vast bulk of my work will still be here. Thank you, and enjoy!

The Real Problem with Obama's "Stupid" Answer

There has been a lot of reporting on the comment President Obama made last Wednesday regarding the arrest of "his friend", Professor Henry Louis "Skip" Gates, Jr. The President said Wednesday night, in a prime time news conference, that he felt the, "…Cambridge Police acted stupidly". He said this after twice stating he didn't know the facts of the arrest. Here is the question the President was asked:

Q: Thank, you, Mr. President. Recently Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. was arrested at his home in Cambridge. What does that incident say to you and what does it say about race relations in America?

The President: Well, I should say at the outset that "Skip" Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here. I don't know all the facts…

The first two sentences in his response tell us everything we need to know about the President's opinion on this arrest. If you followed this story at all last week, you are familiar with the sentence where he calls the Cambridge Police stupid. The sentence before it is very important. Before he attacks the Police, President Obama says, "Now, I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that, but…" Twice before he gets to the heart of his answer he says he doesn't know what happened.

By the next morning, Press Secretary Gibbs was trying to backtrack. He stated that the President did not call the officer stupid. In the President's defense, he did say, " …the Cambridge Police acted stupidly…," I will let you decide what he meant by acted stupidly.

By Friday, Officer Crowley, the arresting officer that the President said, "…acted stupidly…" was in front of the cameras with a group of multiracial officers calling on the President to apologize. We had also learned by then that Officer Crowley had taught a racial profiling class at the Police Academy for the last five years. We also know now that Professor Gates was less than 100% cooperative with Officer Crowley during the incident.

All of this lead the President to invite both Crowley and Gates to the White House to have a beer with him. The goal is to allow both parties to bury the hatchet, and for President Obama to show he thinks both sides are really good people.

There are two problems with this whole thing. Like President Obama, I wasn't there, and I don't know what happened. I don't know for sure who did and didn't do what. I am getting a clearer picture with each passing report on this, but I still don't know for sure what happened. However, my first problem is that the President answered the question mentioned above at all. This was a disorderly conduct arrest. There is no reason at all for the President to get involved. An appropriate response would have been: Well, I should say at the outset that "Skip" Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here. I don't know all the facts, and this is a local issue. As such, I am not going to make a comment one way or the other on this arrest or any larger meaning it may or may not have on race relations in America. This is not just a safe answer; it is the correct answer for the President of the United States. This is not an issue for him to deal with.

The second and more concerning question is this: Was this question planted for the President, and was his response scripted? We know that the President has used prescreened and scripted questions at town hall meetings or press conferences before. Was this comment one of them? This question dealt with a friend of his, and the President worked into his response a plug for Obama's history of work on racial issues in the Illinois Senate. Did the President know that Lynn Sweet was going to ask him a question about his friend and how his friends arrest affected larger race relations in America? I don't know the answer. However, because the President has used these prescreened questions before and tried to make them look spontaneous, we have to wonder if this question was one. If it was, then the President's stupid answer to the last question of the night was worse than stupid.

Book keeping issues

I wrote a guest post on Nearly Dr Ferox 's blog. It has nothing to do with politics, President Obama, Republicans, or Democrats. However, I thought I would encourage you to go read it. The good Nearly Dr. was kind enough to let me use her blog to write it, please take a moment and stop by her blog.


I have also started accepting a few sponsored posts around here. My goal is to keep them from distracting from the site. If I recommend anything on here, it is only becuase I personally think it is neat or worth using.


Otherwise, have a great weekend. I hope to have a new post regarding our normal debate topics back up by tomorrow night.

President Obama Saves the Economy?

I've rarely laughed as hard at politics as when I read this headline on The Drudge Report this morning:

"...we rescued the economy..."

Drudge displayed the headline with a picture of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. According to Breitbart.com, President Obama intends to use his Prime Time news conference tonight, "...to talk about 'how [the White House] rescued the economy from the worst recession' and the legislative agenda moving forward, including health care and energy legislation." Considering we currently have unemployment at 9.7% and rising, I am not sure how the President can make this claim. My employer has been furloughing employees, so I will let them know it's not needed anymore. Perhaps the President will also claim to have solved Global Warming, discovered how to give everyone in the world health insurance for less than the price of a cup of coffee a day, and invented the internet.

The President will use his address tonight to push for health care reform before the August recess. Yesterday, we learned the President hasn't read the health care bill, and isn't familiar with much of it. Asked in a conference call if section 102 of the House Bill will outlaw private insurance, the President said he wasn't "familiar with the provision." Luckily for the President, Investors Business Daily has read the bill, and asked the House Ways and Means committee if the bill outlaws private insurance. IBD was right, the bill does. Section 102 of the bill forbids insurance companies from writing new insurance policies after the first day of the year the bill goes into effect. Remember that the next time your told this bill won't kill private insurance. Investors Business Daily also had this to say:

The public option won't be an option for many, but rather a mandate for buying government care. A free people should be outraged at this advance of soft tyranny.

Washington does not have the constitutional or moral authority to outlaw private markets in which parties voluntarily participate. It shouldn't be killing business opportunities, or limiting choices, or legislating major changes in Americans' lives.

It took just 16 pages of reading to find this naked attempt by the political powers to increase their reach. It's scary to think how many more breaches of liberty we'll come across in the final 1,002.

Just 16 pages into the bill. I keep asking why the President demands we pass health care before August. I think we have found our answer. The President wants this bill passed before the public can read it and ask questions.

Why the Rush to Change Health Insurance

As Health Care reform became more in doubt today, President Obama stuck to his guns insisting that both the Senate and the House pass Health Care reform by the August recess. With our economy continuing on a downward slope and with unemployment at 9.7% and expected to go higher, why the rush to spend huge amounts of money we don't have on health care reform?

The House Energy and Commerce Committee postponed voting on its version of health care reform indefinitely. They may pick it back up at a later date. However, Blue Dog Democrats have a large presence on the committee and they are concerned with how to pay for the health care reform the President is asking for. In testimony last week, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office Director, Doug Elmendorf, stated that the various proposals from Congress would not reduce the cost of health care. Yet, President Obama has cited reducing health care costs as a primary reason for reforming health care. If the proposals now before Congress won't reduce our costs, why are we even considering them?

Various estimates have been done on the assorted health care plans and have predicted huge costs to the American taxpayer. Congress is debating a tax surcharge and taxes on health care insurance, both of which are equally noxious. There is some debate that neither of these proposals will pay for the changes Democrats are proposing. With this in mind, why are we rushing to implement these expensive change. We rushed the Stimulus plan through and it has been a failure. It has failed to stop unemployment, it has failed to spur growth in our economy, and it has failed to keep state and local governments from raising taxes. We were told we had to pass the Stimulus plan and we had to do it without debate.

I am not opposed to health care reform. I would like to see a system that includes tort reform, more options for individual insurance, insurance exchanges, and a tax incentive for individuals to buy their own insurance. I would like to see insurance companies allowed to sell insurance across state lines. I would like to see more interaction between individuals and their insurance companies and less face time between the insurance companies and government or employers. These issues need to be debated. On a large fundamental change to our life style like this, the American public needs a chance to read the bills in Congress before they are passed and they need time to weigh in with their representatives. If we rush health care reform through, I can guarantee it won't be right, it will cost much more than our economy can bare, and it still won't cover the people it needs to cover.

Sotomayor on Abortion: A Big Blank

This week the Senate has asked Judge Sotomayor a number of questions regarding law, her thoughts on legal precedent, and her previous "wise latina" comments. Most of this week has been quiet. With Democrats holding 60 votes in the Senate, it would be almost impossible for Republicans to block her from the Supreme Court. Could liberal special interest groups block her? What if Judge Sonia Sotomayor was actually against abortion?

This discussion flows from a conversation my Dad and I had about the Judge. He asked me if I would like something interesting to write about Judge Sotomayor. I am always interested in finding unusual points of view on today's topics. My Dad's is unusual, but also compelling, so I thought I would share it.

Do a Google search for "Judge Sotomayor and abortion" and there are a number of articles about questions she has been asked and her lack of a clear answer. Some pro-choice groups are actually upset she hasn't come out clearly in favor of abortion. You can see in real time what the social media universe is saying about the Sotomayor confirmation hearings at Viral Heat. None of the articles I have read give a clear picture about her personal opinions on abortion. My Dad's line of thought goes like this:

1. Judge Sotomayor is a Hispanic Catholic. Both of these groups tend to be more anti-abortion in poll after poll.

2. She attended Cardinal Spellman High School. Here she would have been exposed to the official Catholic view in her late teens. Cardinal Spellman High School is a prestigious Catholic school.

3. Judge Sotomayor has not spoken out about abortion during her career. This is unusual considering the number of social issues she has spoken out about over the decades of her career. She has spoken out about a number of other issues (such as race) that are coming up in her confirmation hearings. As of yet, I haven't heard anyone say that she discussed the moral implications of abortion during her career.

4. Similarly, there are no papers or rulings. She hasn't written any articles on abortion nor has she ruled very significantly on abortion. These last two together show that she has actively dodged giving her opinion in public on abortion.

5. She has been a leader in a number of liberal groups, but not an abortion rights group. Digging through her memberships, I have found no pro-choice group she has held membership too.

6. Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush. In this case, Judge Sotomayor upheld the "Mexico City Policy." This policy said that the federal government would not contribute money to groups outside of the United States that fund abortions. Judge Sotomayor said the government was within its right to make this decision.

There are a number of other clues, but these seem to be the biggest ones to me. I make no claim to know the inner workings of Judge Sotomayor's brain. However, a number of previous nominees have turned out to have different leanings than the President that nominated them. I haven't seen any evidence to contradict my Dad's position, and the more I dig the more I think he may be right. My Dad stated he would give "60 -40 odds that she is pro-life." I think the chances she is pro-life are higher than that. What would the fallout be for the Obama administration if Judge Sotomayor turns out to be anti-abortion Supreme Court Justice?

This post sponsored by Viral Heat

Who are the Uninsured?

Today the Democrats revealed more details on how they wanted to cover the almost "50 Million Americans who don't have health coverage". Most of the proposals include some pretty scary taxes. I thought this would be a great time to look at some of the numbers behind the "50 Million uninsured" that you and I may have to pay for.

There is a site I have started playing with called Spreety TV Online : Watch TV Shows Online Free. Spreety has links to a number of different political websites and has clips of many of the shows on those sites for free. There are links to Fox News, CNN, and an assortment of other news or current events shows. I used Spreety to find the Fact Check. org site. Fact Check has a very interesting summary of the people we could be taxed to buy health insurance for.

First, according to Fact Check, the number of uninsured is estimated at 45.7 million, not 50 million. That number is constantly moving because people are constantly getting, loosing, or changing their insurance. There is not a static block of 45.7 million people in the United States without insurance. According to Fact Check:

-- 26 % of the uninsured (roughly 11.8 Million) are eligible for insurance, but don't make use of it.

-- 21 % of the uninsured (roughly 9.6 Million) are uninsured immigrants. This includes both legal and illegal immigrants. It is difficult to estimate what percentage of the 9.6 Million are illegal.

--40% of the uninsured (roughly 18.3 Million) are young. The term young as used by Fact Check means between the ages of 18 and 34.

There are a number of new questions that open up with these numbers. For example, regardless of the percentage, should families in this economy be taxed to provide government health care for illegal immigrants? Should people between the ages of 18 to 34 who don't want insurance (whatever portion of the 18.3 Million that is) be forced to buy health insurance? These questions and others need to be examined in the debate on Government provided health care.

If we are going to treat this subject with the respect it deserves, it will take time to answer these questions. If Congress and the President rush to solve this, it won't be right, it will waste money, and it still won't cover all of the 45.7 Million uninsured.




This post sponsored by Spreety TV Online!

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?

The 5 Stories You Missed While Watching Jackson

On June 25^th, Michael Jackson died. We may never know the exact causes. Michael Jackson was at one point in his career a very impressive entertainer. He also had a number of very odd things going on in his private life. Over the last two weeks, the media has covered Michael Jackson's life, death, and funeral as he had been the head of a very powerful country. There were a few important news stories that I thought should be covered. Here they are, in no particular order:

1. Minnesota makes 60. Al Franken finally won his challenge in court and is now a U.S. Senator. As I covered in my last post, the Democrats now have control of the Presidency, a filibuster proof Senate, and the House. They now have the ability to pass any legislation without a single Republican vote. It will be interesting to see what legislation they will try to pass.

2. Thomas v. Gibbs. A few reporters got upset with the White House for only allowing prescreened questions and prescreened individuals at the last town hall meeting. Press member Helen Thomas complained that this isn't what "openness and transparency" is all about. The Press appears to be a little testy that President Obama's town hall meetings are all staged.

3. Stimulus Part Two. By any standard of measure the stimulus plan didn't work. As President Obama begins to argue for a new stimulus bill, we should keep in mind his words from the first one. We were warned that if we didn't pass the stimulus bill, and didn't pass it immediately, unemployment could go as high as 9%. With unemployment now at 9.5% and climbing, President Obama wants a new stimulus bill, maybe even one focused solely on bridges and roads. But I thought that was what we heard with the first one…

4. Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Confirmation hearings for Judge Sotomayor are starting this week. While the world mourned MJ, the Supreme Court overturned Sotomayor's decision against the Connecticut firefighters. The U. S. Supreme Court found that discriminating on the base of race (even if the victims are white) is illegal. Judge Sotomayor may have to answer questions about this and her comments that a "…Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male…" this week. I have seen articles saying Sotomayor's supporters are going to try to attack the character of the firefighters. This might be a good story to keep an eye on over the next few weeks.

5. As Global Warming falls apart, the House acts. The evidence is really starting to look grim for global warming supporters. The tale-tale fingerprint of unusual upper atmosphere warming that the U.N. said would prove global warming hasn't materialized. The global temperature has been declining for the last 9 to 10 years. Things are getting bad enough that global warming supporters are now trying to get everyone to call it "catastrophic climate change". That way, it can explain highs AND lows. Into all this, the House of Representatives voted to enact cap and trade legislation just as New Zealand ditched their version of cap and trade. Cap and Trade will do two things. First, it will raise your energy prices. Everyone agrees on this, it's only the dollar figure that people dispute. Democrats claim your energy bill will only go up be a few measly hundred dollars each year. The Heritage Foundation and others have crunched the numbers and they believe it could be closer to $3,000 a year. Either way, you have a new energy tax coming your way. The second thing this did was violate a campaign promise of President Obama. This tax will be on everyone, not just those earning $250,000 a year or more.

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 Unconventional Mrs. Palin

Governor Sarah Palin has announced she will step down effective at the end of this month. She leaves her office about a year and a half before she would have to run for re-election. She has to her resume currently: Member of Wasilla, Alaska City Council (4 years); Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska (6 years); Chair, Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (1 year); Governor of Alaska (2.5 years); Candidate, Vice President of the United States. If the story was written today, we would probably never hear or see Sarah Palin again.

As of this writing, Gov. Palin has not announced her plans for the future. Most political pundits seem comfortable that Mrs. Palin will be running for office of some sort again in the future. Most seem to believe she has driven a stake through any chance she had at being on the ticket, let alone elected, in the 2012 Presidential election. Fred Barnes, writing in The Weekly Standard boldly proclaims, "Forget about Sarah Palin as the Republican presidential candidate in 2012 and probably ever." There are many smart operatives on both sides of the aisle that would quickly agree with him. In Mr. Barnes own article, he details the experience Republicans have brought to the table since the end of World War II in both successful and unsuccessful presidential bids. And yet…

I am forced to ask if those covering Washington (or Alaskan) politics have already forgotten the lessons of the 2008 Presidential election. If you were writing a book, could you have come up with a more classical stereotype of a career politician? Senator John McCain served as a U.S. Representative or Senator from 1982 to present (26 years). Before that, he was a career Navy man (23 years) and POW (almost 6 years). Headlining the Democratic ticket was a junior Senator from Illinois (close to 4 years). Before that, then State Senator Obama served about 7 years in the State Senate that was unremarkable and included a failed bid for the U.S. House of Representatives. Ask almost anyone two years ago, and it wouldn't even be close. And yet, here we are, with a junior Senator as our 44^th President of the United States.

During her short run as Vice Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin was able to galvanize the base of the Republican Party in ways John McCain was unable to do for the entire election. During her political career in Alaska, she has shown a determination to prove conventional wisdom wrong at every chance she can. Will she run for President in 2012? Who knows? If she decides to, there are a number of political writers who may be forced to eat their words.

A Special Independence Day Review

With this weekend being the anniversary of our country declaring our independence from England, my wife and I have been reading books to our daughter about America. Tonight we read America : A Patriotic Primer, which we all enjoyed. This kids book is written by Lynne Cheney and illustrated by Robin Preiss Glasser. Mrs. Cheney is the wife of former Vice President Dick Cheney. Robin Preiss Glasser has illustrated a number of books that my daughter loves. She is especially fond of the Fancy Nancy series of books. Any parents may feel free to email me asking for more information and that series of books.

America: A Patriotic Primer goes through the entire alphabet describing great things about our nation. For example, J - K - L - and M go to famous Americas Thomas Jefferson, Martin Luther King, Jr, Abraham Lincoln, and James Madison. Some pages are about more traditional concepts kids might learn in school (such as P is for Patriotism that fills our heats with pride). Other pages have concepts for slightly older children (such as S is for Suffrage). Each page is beautifully illustrated. Some have one picture, a few have a number of pictures. One double page entry features a full map of the United States.

I also like that many of the pages have additional information around the edges or under some of the illustrations. One page has instructions for folding a flag written around the border. A few pages have quotes, such as one quote from John Adams to his wife Abigail regarding America's independence, "I am well aware of the toil and blood and treasure that it will cost us to maintain this declaration and support and defend these states. Yet through all the gloom I can see the rays of ravishing light and glory."

The book is very inspirational, and really does celebrate our nation. It would be inappropriate for a book targeted for children to get into a Republican vs. Democrat mode. America: A Patriotic Primer should satisfy any parent in that it does stay away from that. The book is also well made, so I hope to read it on a number of July 4th's still to come. This is a great book to read to your children around any patriotic holiday. I would highly recommend it to any parents who would like to get a good book about America for their children.

Fourth of July Trivia

I was reading in The American Patriot's Almanac: Daily Readings on America today to my daughter. In the Almanac, each day has an "American History Parade" at the end of the entry. These are events that also occurred on this day. I found the entry for July 4th very interesting:

1776 The Continental Congress adopts the Declaration of Independence.

1802 The U.S. Military Academy opens at West Point, New York.

1826 John Adams, age ninety, and Thomas Jefferson, age eighty-three, die.

1831 James Monroe, the fifth U.S. president, dies at age seventy-three.

1872 Calvin Coolidge, the thirtieth U.S. president, is born in Plymouth, Vermont.

1959 A forty-ninth star is added to the flag to represent the new state of Alaska

1960 A fiftieth star is added to the flag to represent the new state of Hawaii.

I just wanted to share these. Enjoy!

Honduras

The Heritage Foundation has the best summary of the "Coup" in Honduras:

On June 28, the Congress and Supreme Court of Honduras ,with the assistance of the Honduran Armed Forces, physically removed President Manuel Zelaya from his residence and expelled him from the country. The new Honduran government states President Zelaya’s removal from office was the result of legal orders issued by its supreme court. In a matter of hours, a new government was sworn in. It promises, unlike Zelaya, to abide by the Constitution, move ahead with national elections, and respect basic rights and liberties. Civilian, not military, leaders have taken charge.

From everything I have read, President Zelaya was trying to sidestep the law in Honduras in order to install himself as a dictator similar to Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. The Honduran Supreme Court, Congress, the national prosecutor, major churches, businesses, and members of President Zelaya's party decided they were not going to allow this to happen. The government (not a fringe military general) seized Zelaya, placed him on an airplane, and sent him to Costa Rica. They then voted on, and installed an interim government until the next elections are held. The interim President, Roberto Micheletti, is from Zelaya's own political party. Coup's are typically power grabs by a party that is out of power. President Micheletti has agreed to serve until the elections in November and promises to step down after that.

As Glenn Garvin points out in the Miami Herald,"[t]he Honduran army clearly did not act on its own when it arrested Zelaya and sent him packing. The supreme court says the generals acted on its orders, and almost every Honduran politician of any note -- regardless of party -- has voiced approval." Outside of Honduras, the actions of the Honduran government have been met with swift criticism.


Chavez has threatened an armed invasion of Honduras if the country swears into office any President other than Manuel Zelaya. Secretary of State Clinton has said the action of Honduras' government should be condemned by all. President Obama has threatened to withhold military aid to Honduras unless they return Zelaya to power.

This appears to be an internal matter to me. It is not a military coup, but appears to be the Honduran government acting with it's power, and using the military to enforce the laws of the land. I think there are some parallels between the actions taken by their government and the actions we would take if we impeached a President here in the U.S. It is very hard to predict how this will play out. While President Obama decided not to meddle in Iran, he has quickly aligned himself with Chavez and the Castro brothers over Honduras. I do not understand why the President would pick Honduras to try and exert influence, and I don't know why he would decide to join the Chavez / Castro team. However, he has. And in so doing, he has placed the United States in a loose - loose situation. As the Heritage Foundation explains:


If Zelaya is returned, he will hail Chávez, Castro, etc. as the true saviors of his regime, with a grudging recognition to the U.S. Zelaya will be granted a six month opportunity to foster polarization, pillory the democratic opposition, and destroy as much of the independent institutions of his country as possible. If the new government resists the OAS resolution, Chávez and company will undoubtedly act, saying their interventions (whether diplomatic, economic, or even military) in Honduras are being done to uphold an OAS mandate and defend democracy. Actions the U.S. clearly supports.


Neither of these situations is good for the country. Red State is asking it's readers to contact their Representatives and ask they support President Roberto Micheletti. There is a chance some Representatives may want to redeem themselvs after Friday's vote. I would encourage you to follow the Red State link. If your representative or senator is on the foreign relations committee, give them a call and tell them to take a deep breath, then back off and let the government of Honduras sort these things out.