I'm feeling demoralized. I feel like we who cherish the Constitution,
and the individual liberties it protects, have lost. I still had a spark of optimism until it became clear that the Republican Party will again nominate a RINO
as its presidential candidate. I haven't felt so depressed and
lost about a presidential election since the day Bob Dole was
nominated. The fact that an extremist, yet empty suit, like
Obama can rack up the support he has says volumes about the
intellect of the typical American voter. But, it's not just the
presidential race that bothers me. There isn't but a handful of
true believers in the Constitution in Congress. Fewer still in
the federal judiciary. Not even the congressmen from my
relatively conservative Utah can be counted on to defend our
Constitution, the cultural integrity of the nation, or its
borders. Almost anyone in politics could be the poster child for
term limits, yet it is nearly impossible to vote them out of
office. The root of the problem is that idiots and selfish
voters outnumber the thoughtful and informed liberal, moderate
and conservative voters combined. Or, as one of my economics
professors once said, "The masses are asses." Why bother to vote
when my vote will be cancelled by someone who, if he has any
information at all, gets his news from MTV or Jay Leno
monologues (not that the lazy and biased mainstream news media
is any better)? Talk radio does not, and cannot, reach those
who, by choice, personal neglect, or intellectual laziness,
remain in the dark. And, the education system, controlled by the
NEA, certainly has no interest in educating the electorate. We've made it far too easy to register to vote and to vote. And we're on the road to make it even easier. The only solution I can come up with is that we desperately need a voter test. Before the blue-haired lady at the polling place hands a ballot to a potential voter, he must pass a basic civics test and an English test. No potential voter should get a ballot if he or she can't name the three branches of the federal government and their constitutional roles, the name of the current president and vice president, the name of his state's governor,
and who pays the bill for all government giveaways (taxpayer) -- in English. Purging the voter list of idiots is the only hope I have for this nation. That simple change alone will turn this nation around in one election cycle. But, nobody in politics has the courage or character to even propose such a test. So, I'm feeling demoralized. (11 Mar 2008)
There is at lease one commentator who says that
Senator Clinton is ineligible to be president because she's a
woman. In describing the president, the Constitution uses the
pronouns "he" and "his". It uses the same masculine pronouns in
discussing legislators and judges as well so women presumably
are ineligible for those offices as well. I contend that this
use of the masculine gender to refer to people in general is the
way English was used up until the feminist movement of the '60s
and '70s (ask your 7th-grade English teacher) and referred to
both sexes. That use of the masculine gender in writing is still
correct -- but not politically correct. My read is the Senator
Clinton meets the Constitutional standards to be president. But,
she'd still be destructive to our Constitutional freedoms and
must be defeated. (29 Feb 2008)
The conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq has
resulted in an alarming number of servicemen charged and
convicted of serious crimes. Almost none of the cases involve
criminal intent. Instead, they involve young men and women doing
a tough job in a harsh and hostile environment with extremely
poor senior leadership against an enemy that hasn't the courage
to wear a uniform. Our armed forces have become so crippled by
bureaucrats-wearing-stars-in-nice-clean-offices that the men and
women in the trenches must each have their own attorney in tow
to ensure their split-second life-or-death decisions are always
in perfect compliance with the ideals of those
bureaucrats-wearing-stars-in-nice-clean-offices. What our
soldiers, sailors and airmen need is leadership -- not
bureaucratic Monday-morning quarterbacks. That leadership (and
honest, unconditional support of the troops) needs to start in
the office of the man who sent our youth to war -- in the
Whitehouse. (13 Feb 2008)
Fifty-five senators and 250 representatives have
signed onto a brief that urges the justices to strike down the
ban and assert that the Second Amendment gives individuals the
right to own guns for their protection. I am disgusted by the
fact that Congress has the power and responsibility to terminate
the DC gun ban, thereby putting DC in compliance with the
Constitution and making the Heller case moot. Instead, Congress
chooses to pass the buck to the Supreme Court. This is but one
more example of Congress' failure to do its job by allowing
presidents, judges, and even un-accountable bureaucrats to do
the job of the legislative branch. Every congressman must
immediately take every step necessary to ensure Congress fully
complies with its Constitutional role, yet never overstep it's
Constitutional authority. This practice of allowing other
entities to legislate is unacceptable. (8 Feb 2008)
The number of candidates seeking the Whitehouse
is rabidly dwindling. On the Republican side, the race is
basically down to
Senator John
McCain,
Governor Mitt Romney, and
Governor Mike
Huckabee. I often wonder if the
Mormon question is shaving a
few votes off every Romney primary. Even McCain's mother and
Huckabee himself have taken indiscrete shots at Romney's
religion. With a few exceptions, pilots (like GIs) tend to be a politically conservative bunch. Recently, when our in-flight conversations
have turned to politics, nearly everyone I've flown with for the first time says they'd never vote for Romney because of his religion. When I
challenge that remark by asking why and with a disclosure that I also am
a
Mormon, they get a rather sheepish look.
Throughout my 30+ years of flying, nearly everyone on my crew has learned that I'm
a Mormon and they go away from the experience knowing that I'm not all that bizarre. Once the
conversation gets started into Mormonism, they actually get interested in learning about our beliefs and ask some pretty good questions.
I think too many people are getting little to no accurate information about the church -- and fewer still actually seek out enough information to make a fair judgment on us. And, an awful lot of the misinformation comes from the Huckabees (Baptist ministers) of the world.
A friend shared a
video clip with me a few days ago emphasized that point.
Bigotry is always rooted in ignorance. Our nation's schools would do well to include a class on world religions as a part of its civics curriculum. A little knowledge about each other's faith would go a long way toward inspiring respect for each other. (31 Jan 2008)
Several organizations have been warning about
problems (imagined, potential, and real) with computerized
voting. Computerizing the election process seems like a good idea, but I
also have some concerns:
• Some of the systems provide no backup process in case of failure,
tampering, or challenge.
• I've seen reports that there is no way of checking some of the systems to see whether programmers have biased the software.
• I see it as a step toward lowering our elections to the level of voting for American Idol contestants based on a song and a dance.
I believe voting
and voter registration needs to be made more difficult -- not easier. I suggest a
drug/alcohol test followed by a very simple civics test before the blue-haired ladies at the polling place give a voter his/her ballot. Sample test questions would include:
• "What is the name of your governor and what is his political
party?"
• "How many branches are there in the federal government and
what are they?"
• "Who pays for government programs such as WIC, Food Stamps, and Medicaid?"
• "What document establishes the structure of the federal government?"
My guess is that two-thirds of the voters would be prohibited from voting by such a
simple civics test and the quality of the people we elect will be immediately and substantially improved. Alas, most politicians and the ACLU
(and other Marxists) will vigorously oppose such a voter test.
BTW, have you noticed the correlation between government bloat and women's suffrage?
(Not a topic for discussion with one's wife.) (20 Jan 2008)
As in years past, I expect that Utah's 2008
legislative session will see proposed legislation that could
have the effect of elevating a misdemeanor to felony status.
Federal law permanently strips a citizen of his right to possess
a firearm if he has any sort of felony record, even if his
felony was non-violent, and even if nobody was harmed by his
actions. When Congress passed this law in 1968, it was aimed at
murderers, rapists, armed robbers, and other truly dangerous
criminals who constituted the bulk of convicted felons at the
time. Nowadays, all sorts of minor acts can result in a felony
conviction, which in turn automatically results in a permanent
loss of one’s gun rights. One attorney who specialized in
helping people overcome unjustified Brady Law rejections
estimates that as many as 1/3 to 1/2 of American males could be
subject to being barred from owing a firearm because of a
stupid, but minor act committed as a youth. For example, Martha
Stewart was convicted of a felony a few years ago for having
allegedly told a fib to a federal investigator regarding a
questionable stock trade. She’s now permanently barred from even
touching a firearm or ammunition. While I don’t condone Ms.
Stewart’s actions, I don’t see why she should be permanently
prohibited from having a self-defense weapon or from hunting.
Every year, the Utah Legislature considers several bills that
would confer felony status on relatively minor offenses. Until
the federal gun laws get changed, I will view any such
legislation as a form of back-door gun control and I urge every
legislator and the governor to oppose it. It is time for
legislators at the state and national level to call a halt to
creating new felony crimes and federal crimes. (2 Jan 2008)
Whereas the Republican Party, Republicans in
Congress (including my own from Utah), and Republicans in the
Whitehouse
have:
• demonstrated negligence and lack of leadership in respecting
the Constitution in its legislative agenda (even while in the
majority),
• failed to ignore, discredit, and marginalize the pompous bullies in
Congress such as Ted Kennedy,
• failed to repeal or amend the McCain-Feingold Incumbent
Protection Act to comply with the First Amendment,
• failed to protect freedom of religion from those who distort
and misuse Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and
state",
• failed to protect military chaplains who perform their
religious duties in the manner prescribed by the church which
ordained them,
• failed to repeal or amend all federal laws and regulations to
comply with the Second Amendment,
• failed to acknowledge that the Second Amendment protects an
individual right and is not about the sporting use of firearms,
but personal protection and protection against tyranny,
• failed to protect the citizens of Washington, DC from
unconstitutional gun laws,
• failed to repeal the "Lautenberg Amendment" which voids the
gun rights of persons with certain misdemeanor convictions,
• failed to reign in the out-of-control Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives,
• failed to guarantee the right of law-abiding citizens to
posses firearms on all public federal lands such as National
Parks,
• failed to impeach federal judges who persistently legislate
from the bench,
• failed to execute Social Security reform,
• failed to prohibit abortion as a means of birth control,
• failed to preserve the sanctity of traditional marriage and
family,
• failed to protect Americans from "hate crime" and other
thought-control legislation such as ENDA
• failed to stop congressional misuse of the Constitution's
Commerce Clause to encroach on states' rights and individual
freedoms,
• failed to control federal spending by eliminating "earmarks"
or "pork-barrel" spending,
• failed to stop spending tax money on programs for which there
is no Constitutional authority or mandate,
• failed to repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT),
• failed to terminate federally subsidized flood insurance for
persons who knowingly build or rebuild in flood plains,
• failed to ban federal spending on the reconstruction of New
Orleans and other communities in flood plains,
• failed to ban direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription
drugs,
• failed to eliminate unconstitutional and unnecessary federal
agencies such as the Department of Education,
• failed to protect our children from indoctrination and our
industrial base from destruction by terrorists (ie Al Gore)
working under the banner of environmentalism,
• failed to read and understand legislation before voting,
• failed to enact a Constitutional line-item veto authority for
the President,
• failed to eliminate or consolidate the more than 50 federal
law-enforcement agencies have been created since 1900,
• failed to refuse to give up sovereignty to the United Nations
and to remove the nation from "foreign entanglements" such as
the UN,
• failed to defend our borders and enforce existing immigration
laws,
• failed to free Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Campean and
restore their jobs with full retroactive pay and benefits,
• failed to establish that the intent and language of the 14th
Amendment was about giving citizenship to freed slaves in 1868
-- not children of illegal immigrants and invaders in 2007 and
failed to terminate that practice immediately and retroactively,
• failed to establish English as the nation's official language,
yet maintain websites in Spanish,
• failed to remember and follow the oath taken by all
Congressmen to "support and defend the Constitution of the
United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic [and to]
bear true faith and allegiance to the same",
• the Party is very likely to nominate a presidential candidate
who does not have a clear history of consistently supporting
these same principles, and
• generally lost their way, abandoning the traditional
Republican Party platform and the US Constitution,
I therefore resolve to refuse financial support to the
Republican Party and refuse to vote for certain Republican
candidates. Instead, while I remain a registered Republican, my
money and votes will continue to go to individual candidates
(some of whom are not Republicans) who respect the Constitution,
to selected organizations muzzled by McCain-Fiengold, and to the
Constitution Party. If my support of a third party or a
third-party candidate delivers an election to socialist
Democrats, so be it. There must never be a compromise between
that which is clearly is right and that which is clearly is
wrong. It is time for Republican leaders and Republican
politicians to wake up and pay attention to what is right. (29 Dec 2007)
Today, I received Happy Hanukkah greetings from a
Jew. As a devout Christian, I thanked him for wishing me a Happy
Hanukkah and returned the greeting. How I wish that our politicians
weren't so beholden to the bigoted minority who so fear religion and
religious diversity that they won't respect or appreciate the
religious beliefs of others. It is that rejection of religion that
is the root of all the social ills, including the breakdown of the
traditional family, in this nation. Our nation's leaders, including
legislators and judges, must reject the efforts of bigots to gut the
First Amendment by banning religious expression from the public
square. Happy Hanukkah. (4 Dec 2007)
Over the past few days, I was referred to a couple
of YouTube videos featuring left-wing author Naomi Wolf wherein she
ticks off a list of
10 steps toward tyranny. (To see and hear a couple of her speeches, go to
YouTube and search for her name.) She correctly says that the US
is on that road to tyranny. Top on her list is "Invoke a terrifying
internal and external enemy". She gives the current
administration's use of terrorism as that enemy and attacks some of
the methods Bush is allegedly using to fight terrorism. She notably ignores
the use by other individuals and groups of the global warming scam
to accomplish the same goal of mind and people control on a far
grander scale. One crucial
step toward tyranny that she omitted, but which is as important as any of her top-ten is
gun registration and gun confiscation -- something that has been
happening to varying degrees throughout the US for decades. The lady talks a good
talk, but I'm suspicious of where she's headed. I'm concerned by her
extremely brief mention that among her supporters is MoveOn.org, an
organization that is hardly a champion of individual
liberty and small, limited government. To disarm the few listeners
and readers who have the rare ability of critical thinking, she
cleverly tosses out a small token admiration for
Ron Paul and the Second Amendment. In her speeches, she's mostly
going after the Bush administration (not without cause),
dropping that word, "impeach". Other than impeaching Bush, she
doesn't say what she thinks needs to be done to stop tyranny in
general. Apparently, his impeachment will solve all the world's
problems. His impeachment, or at least emasculation, is obviously
the primary purpose of her new book and her speaking tour. I think she's a
wolf (that is her name, after all) in sheep's clothing. (26 Nov
2007)
The
US Constitution
clearly prohibits any religious test for public office. Those who
would vote against
Mitt Romney or anyone else because of his/her religion does not
know or respect the Constitution -- even if, as some pinheads
erroneously claim, Mormons are not Christians. Far too many voters
are idiots (see my 14 Nov comments on that topic below) and will
readily and happily believe such misinformation from the likes of
professional bigots like Al Sharpton. The longest-lasting and
probably most important effect a president has is who he nominates
for the Supreme Court. I think
Romney will
pick justices who read, follow, and honor the Constitution. Someone
who has a long-standing record of respect for the Constitution such
as Tancredo
or Paul would
be nice, but they're not competitive. Sadly, many of the other
Republican candidates are likewise inconsistent on key issues (ie
Giuliani on gun rights). Of those who are likely to win the
nomination, Romney is probably the closest we're going to get. The
talk he's been talking since his entry into the presidential race is
what I want to hear. But, it's inconsistent with the rest of his
entire life -- including political life. Even more important, his
past stand on abortion is inconsistent with the stand he should have
had when he held a high office (stake president) in the
Mormon church. His
inconsistency is the only reservation I have about him and the most
serious challenge that opponents can throw at him. I believe in
repentance. But, is Mitt's change of heart on crucial issues a true
change? Or, is it political pandering? I hope his conversion is
sincere. Maybe we can spend some time hunting together and I'll find
out. Maybe Bruce Barton was right when he said, "When you're through
changing, you're through." (23 Nov 2007)
What this nation needs is a voter's test. Far too many idiots and ill-informed people are getting their hands on ballots. And, that is why we have the government we have. The test need not be hard, but it must discriminate against stupid people. The test must be printed -- and answered -- in English. It would ask simple questions such as "What is the name of your state's governor?", "What are the three branches of the federal government?", "Who pays for the various welfare programs?" (that'd be the taxpayers), and, in reference to the cases of Mitt Romney and JFK,
"Does the Constitution allow the religious discrimination against
some political candidates?" A voter must score 100% on the voter's test to pass. Maybe we oughta administer the same test to all politicians as well. (14 Nov 2007)
I want to know why we are always expected to pick the lesser of two evils.
Why can't the Republican party simply put up candidates who, by word and
deed, support and embody the party platform? The fact that we have
filled Congress with
RINOs and will likely nominate a RINO for the Whitehouse is the
only reason the
Dumocrats have any power at all. We will lose the
Whitehouse because we are seemingly incapable of nominating a true
Republican for the presidential race. (29 Oct 2007)
In each new Congress
since 1995, Rep. John Shadegg of Arizona, has introduced the
Enumerated Powers Act (HR-1359). The Act has yet to be enacted into
law. In fact, only a handful of congressmen have had the moral
courage and respect for the Constitution necessary to cosponsor this
bill. The bill would require Congress to specify the basis of
authority in the US Constitution for the enactment of laws and other
congressional actions. Congress has reached far beyond the limits
specified in the US Constitution resulting in the establishment
countless unconstitutional federal programs and the unconstitutional
imposition of mandates on the states and local governments. Every
congressman must immediately begin to live up to his or her oath of
office to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States". HR-1359 is a small step in the right direction. (23 Oct 2007)
The First Amendment to the US Constitution clearly says, "Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." This amendment was adopted
to ensure that there would be no state-sponsored religion as was the
case in England and even in some American colonies. Our founders
never intended for the First Amendment to ban religion from the
public square. However, there is an ever growing movement to impose
the religion of atheism upon the nation. The only reason this
movement has any traction is because of the public's gross ignorance
of the US Constitution and the total disregard for the Constitution
among federal legislators and judges. I have learned that a
low-level employee of the US government (Architect of the Capitol
Steven Ayers) bans the use of religious wording in official
documents. He claims his motive for banning “God,” "Lord,” or
similar words was they may offend someone. A lot of what comes out
of Washington is offensive to me, but I believe in free speech and
freedom of religion. Mr. Ayers must cease his censorship of
religious words. (9 Oct 2007)
It is clear to me that neither of the two major political parties
has the ability or intention of representing the people of the
United States nor of respecting, preserving, and abiding by the
original intent of the US Constitution. Both major parties are
infested with politicians who will sell their souls (and give away
my tax money) to stay in power or to achieve even greater. Both
parties are full of morally bankrupt men and women who see pork and
earmarks and accepting unethical gifts as a way of life. Nearly
every Republican in office and nearly every Republican candidate for
president are ideologically left of Franklin Roosevelt. Nearly every
Democrat in office and nearly every Democrat candidate for president
are ideologically left of Vladimir Lenin. Disaffected Democrats want
somebody even farther left than the MoveOn-guided Socialists who
predominate in the Democrat run for the presidency. The political
viability of the Democrat party is not threatened, but guided, by
these leftists. Conversely, disaffected Republicans want to see the
nation run in strict accordance with the original intent of the
Constitution. These people are derisively referred to as radical
right-wing conservatives. Almost nobody in Congress ever asks, "Is
this bill Constitutional?" Certainly, the President never does.
Unlike the Democrat party, the viability of the Republican party is,
indeed, threatened by the disaffection of those of us who want to
see a course correction back toward the Constitution -- and the
Republican leadership seems totally unaware or unconcerned by this
threat. We Constitutionalists are consequently left searching for a
viable politician outside the big two parties. And, our political
campaign contributions will follow that search. I predict that
unless all Republicans in Congress band together to fiercely defend,
and return to, the Constitution and unless the Republican party
nominates a presidential candidate who has a solid history and
platform of defending, and returning to, the Constitution, a
substantial portion of Republicans will vote for a third-party
candidate as it did for Ross Perot and the 2008 election will be a
Democrat landslide in Congress, the Whitehouse, state legislatures
and governor mansions. (24 Sep 2007)
Intelligent and educated people show respect for others by turning
off their cell phones when attending important meetings.
Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, on the other hand,
answered a cell phone call from his wife while speaking before the
National Rifle Association! That tells me that the mayor has no
respect for the NRA, NRA members, and the gun owner vote. Is Rudy
going to pull that stunt during a state-of-the-union speech? That's
hardly presidential. If Giuliani is nominated as the Republican
candidate, my vote will very likely go to a third-party candidate. (22 Sep 2007)
There is a procedural vote in the US Senate today to grant
Congressional representation to residents of the District of
Columbia. In other words, to add a new Congressman to the US House
of Representatives, representing DC residents. That might sound
fine, except for one thing: it is clearly and unambiguously
unconstitutional! As Minority Leader Mitch McConnell noted, “It
contravenes what the framers wrote, what they intended, what the
courts have always held, and the way Congress has always acted in
the past. And to vote for it would violate our oath of office, in
which we solemnly swear to support and defend the Constitution. If
the residents of the District are to get a member for themselves,
they have a remedy: amend the Constitution. But the members of this
body derive their authority from the Constitution. We are its
servants and guardians. And we have no authority to change it on our
own.” Article 1, Section 2, states: “The House of Representatives
shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People
of the several States.” Every resident of a state, therefore, is
entitled under the Constitution to congressional representation. Yet
no similar representation is accorded to the residents of areas that
are not so designated. One of these areas, in particular, is
mentioned explicitly later on in the same Article. The framers
clearly envisioned the federal city as a separate entity from the
states, as an entity they themselves would control. James Madison,
the Constitution’s primary author, explained why in Federalist 43.
The seat of government couldn’t be in one of the states, he said,
because of the potential benefits that would accrue to that state,
either material or in reputation, as a result of that distinction.
Moreover, lawmakers themselves should not be dependent on the good
favor of any one state or its residents to carry out their business.
A third reason, perhaps even more relevant in a time of terrorist
threats, is that the District’s independence would allow it to
relocate if need be. Every Constitution-respecting congressman must
reject this move to give Washington DC its own congressman. (18 Sep
2007)
In his 17 September commentary in the Anchorage Daily News,
Dan Bonney seems to think that low voter turnout is, in itself,
a bad thing. He wants to use the
Permanent Fund Dividend to bribe more people to vote. A 100%
voter turnout would be nice -- if all those people have sufficient
understanding of the candidates and issues to punch their ballots
wisely. Unfortunately, we already have far too many un-informed and
under-informed people at the polls. That's why we have the egregious
taxes and horribly corrupted and over-intrusive government we now
have! Instead of bribing people to vote, I favor a voter test. Each
voter should be able to correctly answer simple questions such as:
"What is the name of your governor?" "What are the three branches of
government?" "Who pays for government programs?" If a potential
voter can't answer such basic questions -- in English -- he or she
has no business influencing the direction of this nation. To use the
PFD (or anything else) to bribe even more village idiots to vote is,
well,
idiocy! (17 Sep 2007)
One of the most hateful men in Congress, Edward Kennedy, wants to
establish a police state of the united States by saddling the nation
with a hate crimes bill. I am disappointed (but not surprised) that
Kennedy is so cowardly that he has attached this bill to the Senate
Defense Reauthorization Bill rather than let this hate crimes bill
stand on its own merits. The Congress and the President must reject
all efforts to criminalize speech or thought in any way. My specific
concerns about Kennedy's hateful hate-crime legislation include:
• Speech bans are a political weapon used by those in power to
silence their opponents and politically unpopular minorities.
• Hate speech bans don’t work. Genuine racism and false hatreds
exist in this world. But bans on hate speech won’t solve the
problem.
• Hate speech bans are unconstitutional. The US Supreme Court has
repeatedly ruled against speech bans.
• Speech bans will be used against the very minorities they were
meant to protect. Speech bans silence some to protect the feelings
of others. But when the government has power to silence expression
that power can be wielded against the very people who once enjoyed
its protection.
• Speech bans chill legitimate and valuable speech. Under the threat
of possible indictment, the people will refrain from discussing
controversial but important ideas. Speech bans greatly reduce the
possibility of healthy, democratic change.
• Speech bans are offensively paternalistic. They presume we can’t
think for ourselves, reject racist or hateful ideas for ourselves,
or deal with the hurt caused by others’ free expression. Speech bans
especially condescend toward the minorities they portray as helpless
victims whose feelings must be sheltered from ideas they can’t
combat in a free intellectual market.
• Speech bans permit government to do something an individual could
not morally do. Speech bans would empower government to silence
individuals by force. This is immoral whether it’s one person
silencing another person or the government silencing a fringe group
of dissenters.
• Bible-believing Christians could become criminals simply because
they speak out about their beliefs.
• Hate-speech laws are thought-control laws and bear an extremely
close resemblance to the thought-control of the Catholic Inquisition.
• To assume a crime is more serious because some prosecutor or
legislator believes the perpetrator is a bigot trivializes crimes
(and their victims) committed by non-bigots.
I therefore oppose any so-called hate-crimes legislation. Congress
and the President must ensure all so-called "hate-crime" legislation
is rejected immediately and completely. Particularly, Congress must reject Kennedy's hate-crime scheme. (20 Jul
2007)
Hate crimes laws are actually "thought crimes" laws that violate
the right to freedom of speech and of conscience and subject
individuals to scrutiny of their beliefs rather than focusing on a
person's criminal actions. Hate crimes laws will have a chilling
effect on people who have moral or religious objections to behaviors
such as homosexuality. Evidence of a person's beliefs will be used
against any individual who is even suspected of committing a crime. Even Rep. Artur Davis, who supported a similar bill that passed the
House in May, admitted that under this law a minister could be
charged with the crime of incitement if the minister preached that
homosexuality is a serious sin and a person in the congregation left
church and committed a crime against a homosexual. The White House
called this bill "unnecessary" and "constitutionally questionable,"
pointing out that "State and local criminal laws already provide
criminal penalties for the violence addressed by the new Federal
crime." I am disappointed that the sponsors of this legislation are
so cowardly that they have attached this bill to the Senate Defense
Reauthorization Bill rather than let this hate crimes bill stand on
its own merits. Congress and the Whitehouse must reject all attempts
to criminalize thought, even if that thought is hateful. (12 Jul
2007)
The growth of talk radio fills an information void
left by a liberal news media that considers the newsworthiness of
the latest antics of Paris Hilton greater than the heroism of
Marines in Iraq. The growth of talk radio is a natural response to a
lazy news media that places more importance on a cutesy
entertainment format and pretty faces on empty heads than on
substantive information. The growth of talk radio is a peaceful
rebellion against the emergence and relentless growth in an
all-powerful nanny state that intrudes into and controls ever more
of our lives and infringes on more and more of our individual
liberties yet refuses to do the jobs it was intended to do. The
growth of talk radio manifests the public dissatisfaction with the
effects on the nation and its people caused by the lack of
understanding of, and respect for, the limitations on government
imposed by the US Constitution. This lack of understanding and
respect for the Constitution is pervasive in in all three branches
of the federal government. The growth of talk radio is the antidote
to politicians and news readers who consider their constituents and
audience to be stupid sheep incapable of understanding basic issues
such as protecting the nation from an invasion of illegal
immigrants. The fact that talk radio is predominantly conservative
is evidence that liberals are satisfied with getting their news and
information from MTV, Jay Leno and Catie Kouric monologues, trite
sound bites from bloviating politicians such as Ted Kennedy. The
failures of liberal talk show programming is evidence that liberals
are happy with a government that controls every aspect of their
lives relieving them from responsibility for the control and
direction of their own lives. The response to these phenomena by
liberals is to silence talk radio. They claim that they want to
infuse balance into talk radio. What they really want to do is to
shut of the light that is shining on the dark ways of bloated big
government and of politicians who defy the Constitution. Even some
purported conservatives in Congress such as Trent Lott are
uncomfortable with their constituents knowing the facts and
information disclosed by talk radio hosts and listeners. Reviving
the Fairness Doctrine would be nothing short of reinstituting
bureaucratic control over free political speech, at a time when
the courts are finally undoing unconstitutional regulations like
McCain-Feingold. Government should not be in the business of
rationing free speech. Congress and the Whitehouse
must reject any effort to restore the so-called "Fairness Doctrine"
or to otherwise intrude on the free flow of political speech and
information. Instead, Congress must immediately repeal all laws,
such as those found in the McCain-Fiengold Act, that infringe on the
rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. (29 Jun 2007)
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has thumbed her nose at the
Constitution and our nation’s laws.
Her recent trip to Syria was
intended specifically to embarrass the President and was also an
obvious attempt to set up separate relations with a terrorist
government, a regime with whom we have severed diplomatic ties. She
even alleged (lied about) successes which were false! Speaker
Pelosi's actions are no joke. Her actions are not a laughing matter
or simple "bad behavior." Her actions are a violation of the Logan
Act, and give aid, comfort and encouragement to America's enemies
around the globe. Speaker Pelosi must not be allowed to get away
with blatantly undermining US foreign policy by meeting with the
leader of a country that supports terrorism. Why aren’t our national
leaders calling for a full investigation of her actions, or censure
or even impeachment? This nation is in the midst of two wars
authorized by Congress. For Ms. Pelosi to flout the Constitution in
these circumstances is not only shortsighted; it may well be a
felony, as the Logan Act has been part of our criminal law for more
than two centuries. It is time to enforce the law! Speaker Pelosi
must immediately be investigated with the same zeal and tenacity
Patrick Fitzgerald showed when he dogged Lewis "Scooter" Libby even
though no underlying crime had been committed... the same zeal and
tenacity that liberals are now showing as they ridiculously pursue
President Bush and the Attorney General over the totally legal
firings of U.S. District Attorneys. (12 Apr 2007)
The question is frequently raised as to whether
Mitt Romney's
religion (he's a Mormon)
should disqualify him as a presidential candidate. A recent
poll indicated that 12% of voters (15% of Democrats, who claim
to be so fond of "diversity") believe Romney's Mormon religion is a
reason to disqualify him from being President. Ignorance is the root
of bigotry. It would appear that many Americans have an egregious
lack of knowledge and understanding of the Mormon religion. I
suggest they get some solid information about the Mormon church from
a source other than another religious bigot. May I remind all
the religious bigots (most of whom profess to be Christians but
don't act Christian) out there that the
US Constitution
(a document too few Americans, including politicians, read and
understand) specifically says, "no religious Test shall ever be
required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the
United States." That includes, Catholics, Moslems, Protestants,
Buddhists, Atheists, Jews, and even Mormons (who clearly are
Christians). Suppose Romney's politics matched your own perfectly
and his opponent were the opposite in nearly every aspect. Would you
still oppose the Mormon? Although a Mormon myself, I'm not ready to support
Governor Romney for president. My reservations are based on his
historical stand on certain critical political issues -- not his
religion. Personally, my vote will be for the candidate who best
represents what I feel is best for the future of the nation and
whose record best demonstrates support and defense of the US
Constitution. BTW, isn't it interesting that of the current front
runners for the Republican nomination, Romney is the only one who
hasn't had multiple wives? (2 Apr 2007)
I thank my House Representative,
Jim Matheson
(Democrat), for his courage in opposing this week's irresponsible
legislation
to set a withdrawal date for the conflict in Iraq. This bill is
irresponsible because it lets our enemies and allies alike know that radical
leftist segments (the same crowd that pressed for our surrender in
Viet Nam) of our nation are willing to surrender to terror. It is an
egregious effort by Congress to again micromanage our military efforts from their
comfortable offices on Capitol Hill. The bill
is also irresponsibly packed with pork unrelated to the war, but designed to bribe
fence-sitting, but unscrupulous representatives into voting for
surrender. This bill clearly is motivated only by hatred and
bitterness in some circles toward the president -- not of for a
concern for what is best for the United States, Iraq, or the world
in general. Governor
Mitt Romney correctly observed, "Democrats in
Washington have established a dangerous policy that essentially
provides the enemy a planning calendar with a date certain
surrender. By voting for such a policy, they have jeopardized our
chances for success and endangered the mission of establishing
democracy and defeating the terrorists in Iraq." Again, thank you, Representative Matheson, for your
courage. (24 Mar 2007)
I oppose the House resolution related to the troop surge in Iraq.
The anti-war actions of Congressional Democrats is clearly intended
to ensure a defeat in Iraq for the sole purpose of embarrassing Bush
-- not for any other reason. Reports are now coming to light
regarding anti-Vietnam-war-style abusive treatment of our servicemen
and service women. The selfish and childish anti-Bush actions of
Democrats in Congress are the direct cause of this abuse. (15 Feb
2007)
I am shocked that Speaker Pelosi would think that she should have
personal use of a C-32 (a Boeing 757
configured for 45 passengers in business-class seating and a crew of
up to 16) which costs as much as $22,000 per hour to operate.
Her predecessor flew on a much cheaper, but still luxurious C-20 (a
Gulfstream III which seats about 12 passengers and five crew
members). If a C-20 was good enough for Speaker Hasert, it's
good enough for Speaker Pelosi. Her request for a C-32 must be
rejected. (8 Feb 2007)
I am very concerned about the latest federal "hate-crime" bill
introduced in the US House of Representatives, This bill is a
dangerous threat to Constitutionally protected rights. HR-254,
introduced by Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas, (ironically, one of
the most hateful people in Congress) would make certain types of
speech a federal offense. So-called "hate crimes" legislation is
dangerous for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the
blatant unconstitutionality of such laws. "Hate crime" laws would
allow federal "thought police" to interfere in the law enforcement
authority of states and localities -- something our founders were
clear was not to be allowed.
HR-254 would require every state to pass and enforce "anti-hate"
laws. It would outlaw stating a "bias" against certain "federally
protected" groups such as homosexuals. So-called "hate crime" laws
could even used to categorize the Bible as "hate literature" and
preaching from it would be "hate speech" because of references to
religious teachings on homosexuality or other harmful behaviors.
Bible-believing Christians could become criminals simply because
they spoke out about their beliefs. To assume a crime is more
serious because some prosecutor or legislator believes the
perpetrator is a bigot trivializes crimes (and their victims)
committed by non-bigots. I therefore oppose any so-called
hate-crimes legislation. Congress and the President must ensure
HR-254 and any other so-called "hate-crime" legislation are rejected
immediately and completely. (5 Feb 2007)
SB190, sponsored by Senator Gene Davis (D-Salt Lake) would make
animal cruelty a felony offense. We recently brought into our home a
dog that had previously lost a leg to a shotgun blast. As the owner
of such a dog, I cannot condone abuse or cruelty toward animals. While I am repulsed by mistreatment
of animals, I am also unalterably opposed to making such behavior a
felony offense. I predict that if enacted, this change will be
misused by "animal-rights" activists against farmers, butchers,
hunters, state wildlife management employees, gardeners who are
trying to protect their apple trees, and even pet owners. (I wonder
if that is the true intent of Senator Davis.) There seems to be a
rapidly growing
feel-good movement in the legislature (particularly among Democrats
from the big city) to elevate every little
offense to a felony. There is also a movement to humanize animals
and endow them with the same rights as man while dehumanizing humans
and diminishing their rights. These movements must be stopped
immediately. I cannot accept the proposal to elevate animal abuse to
the level of a felony so long as this society condones the
dismemberment and killing of millions of unborn humans every year.
Ironically, the people who favor harsh punishment for animal abusers
also oppose fully informing pregnant women and girls about the
nature of abortion and the human characteristics of the child they
intend to kill. These same people even oppose informing the parents
of pregnant girls of the pregnancy and the abortion. Only when the
animal-rights hypocrites get their priorities in order with regard
to human rights can they legitimately ask for such legislation. The legislature and the governor must reject SB190 and
any other attempt to elevate non-felony crimes to the level of a
felony. (3 Feb 2007)
Violent crimes (murder, rape, aggravated assault, robbery,
kidnapping, etc.) have been felonies for a long time. I am concerned
by the trend, in recent years, to felonize all sorts of relatively
minor acts. Utah's
HB70 is another effort to felonize relatively minor acts. This
bill deals with “assaulting a police officer”, elevating this
offense from a class-A misdemeanor (which it currently is) to a
3rd-degree felony. Bear in mind that “assault” does not mean
striking someone, or tackling him to the ground, or kicking him,
etc. That’s known as "battery", or "assault and battery". What HB70
deals with is simple assault, which can actually be a very minor act
involving zero physical contact and no injury. Utah's legislators
must amend HB70 to make it clear that is is dealing with physically
attacking a person the perpetrator knows to be a police officer. (19
Jan 2007)
The "Fairness Doctrine" was a federal regulation imposed by the
Federal Communications Commission from 1949 to 1987. It required
broadcasters to present both sides of a controversial issue. While
the rule was in place, radio and TV stations could face hefty fines
if their stations aired controversial statements on public affairs
without providing equal time to opposing viewpoints. This 38-year
restriction was in direct opposition to the freedom of speech
intended by our founders and which they protected with the
Constitution and its First Amendment. When this rule was dropped in
1987, it led directly to the rise of talk radio that enabled average
citizens to have their voices heard across America. Today, liberals
are enraged by the fact that their message has failed to find a
profitable market in the free-enterprise system and want to use what
they call "fairness" to silence those voices which have found an
audience. So, they want to restore the so-called "Fairness
Doctrine". The intent of this kind of legislation is to silence the
voice of free speech heard today on talk radio. Any effort now to
return to the "Fairness Doctrine" would reverse 20 years of free
speech rights enjoyed by citizens. This is fundamentally a First
Amendment question. The "Fairness Doctrine" was not appropriately
named; it was unfair in inhibiting broadcasters' and callers'
free speech rights. It is not "fair" to impose any restriction on
freedom of speech. Congress and the Whitehouse must reject any and
all "Fairness Doctrine" bills as would effectively silence the voice
of free speech heard today on talk radio. (18 Jan 2007)
The US Senate is poised to pass
Senate
Bill 1 (section 220), which would effectively restrict many
organizations from providing constituents with information on bills
in Congress. Apparently, the cowards in Congress are tired of
getting constituent mail, e-mails and phone calls, and Senate Bill
1(Section 220) is designed to keep information from constituents
that might inspire them to call or write their senators. This (as
well as the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill ( is NOT
the way to address the egregious ethical behavior that plagues
Congress. And every senator knows it! Like the McCain-Feingold
Campaign Finance Reform Bill, this bill is nothing but a scheme to
protect the incumbents in Congress! I would think that Senators
would welcome the opportunity to hear from their constituency.
Instead, Congress is like a bunch of cockroaches scurrying for the
darkness of voter ignorance. Trying to control the information
voters receive from various groups -- liberal or conservative -- is
just plain wrong and is contrary to the rights guaranteed by the US
Constitution. Congress and the Whitehouse
must reject Senate Bill 1 (Section 220). (11 Jan 2007)
I've noticed an interesting phenomenon during the aftermath of
recent elections. When when the Democrats lose, they blame voter
fraud and irregularities and they accuse the Republicans of stealing
the election. When Republicans lose, they look inward to see what
they did wrong and what they need to do to correct their course. (11
Nov 2006)
Some Republican leaders are blaming this years election losses on an
anti-incumbent movement. I believe that analysis is wrong, even
dishonest or delusional. Nobody gets voted out if he or she is doing
what the voters sent him or her to do.
Democrats succeeded in this election only because of an arrogant and
politically tin-eared Republican establishment in Washington. In the
handling of key issues (including those listed below) the White House and Congressional Republicans
displayed incompetence and even failed in getting the word out on
accomplishments!
• This was a repudiation of waging a politically
correct war with one hand self-tied behind your back. We need a new approach in Iraq, and elsewhere, that better
ensures winning and defeating the terrorists or at least better
reporting on our progress there. Perhaps today's Rumsfeld resignation is a step in the right
direction. Even though most Americans
support the effort, they are frustrated with the progress. American
generals, not American lawyers should be running the war. No
American soldier's life is worth a mosque. And, if Iraq won't step
up to the plate and fight for their own freedom from terrorism, what
are we fighting for? You're either all in...or get out.
• They failed to execute meaningful follow-through on Social Security reform.
Instead, Republicans strapped the biggest "entitlement" program on our backs
since Lyndon Johnson (A senior prescription drug program that we
cannot afford).
• The conservatives who came into power
in 1994 determined to clean up the corruption in Washington, yet
they became as corrupt as the people they had run out of town. Republicans
in Congress failed to stop practices (such as earmarking
in the appropriations process) that let corruption run free. They
squandered our tax money on these "earmarks" like drunken sailors.
• When
scandal hit, they handled it badly and winked at a committee
chairman's attempt to use the Congressional page school as a teenage
brothel recruitment program.
• Republicans went to great lengths to ignore and alienate their base
on illegal immigration. They let our nation become infested with
countless millions of illegal aliens and would have us believe the
solution is a 700 mile fence along a 2,000 mile border. 33% of
America's prison populations are non-citizens and 95% of LA's
outstanding murder warrants are for illegal aliens!
• They failed to establish English as the official language.
The Republican Whitehouse and many Republican Congressmen even
accommodate illegals by posting websites in Spanish!
• They failed to protect the traditional family.
• Instead of reducing the size and power of the federal government,
the actually grew the government!
• Republicans failed to get the UN under control and seat an
ambassador to that body.
• They neglected to impeach renegade federal judges.
• They failed to stop Congressional misuse of the Constitution's
Commerce Clause to encroach on states' rights and individual
freedoms.
• They failed to restore basic personal freedoms such as freedom of
religion, property rights (Kelo v. City of New London), freedom of
speech (repeal McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform), and gun
ownership.
For all of this Republicans deserve to be punished by the voters.
The Republicans in Congress proved that they don't deserve to be the
majority party. They continue to ignore the constituency that
elected them. The Republicans lost not because the Democrats are
better, but because Americans, even the most radical Democrats, hold
the Republicans to a higher standard. And they failed to live up to
that standard. It's bad when anyone in public office
betrays their trust, but particularly bad with a conservative,
because a primary principle of conservatism is the preservation of
the moral order. When conservatives misbehave and betray the
trust, it goes to the very definition of who we are. It goes to our
very character. And that's why it is so egregious. I think that is
why people were so grossly offended by it. And it shows in the
election returns. As Casey Stengel said, "Most ball games are lost, not
won." This wasn't the country saying it wanted to go further
left; it was the country saying Republicans had already taken the
country too far left. This wasn't about taking the country in a new
direction; it was about correcting the GOP's course. This wasn't
swing voters swinging over to the left. This was conservative voters
swinging back to the right. Congressional Republicans must completely purge the feckless
and inept Republican leadership and hope that a punished and
chastened Republican party will learn from this painful lesson that
they can no longer betray or ignore their political base. (8 Nov 2006)
The US
Constitution gives very specific and narrow responsibilities and
authority to Congress and the Federal government. One area of
authority given to Congress is to regulate interstate and
international commerce. The US
Constitution grants no authority to enact criminal legislation
at the federal level except for postal fraud, counterfeiting,
piracy, and treason. According to the
Tenth Amendment, the federal government of the United States has
the power to regulate only matters specifically delegated to it by
the Constitution. Whence, then, does Congress presume to get its
authority to enact criminal legislation? Usually by misusing the
Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Congress has no authority
in defining, prosecuting or punishing crime except for very specific
crimes: postal fraud, counterfeiting, piracy, and treason. Congress must immediately
cease to misuse the Commerce Clause and rescind all federal
legislation enacted through this misuse. That legislation is
unlawful anyway! (5 Nov 2006)
One of Utah's candidates for the US Senate, Roger
Price (Personal
Choice Party) said to the
Gun Owners of Utah,
"The misconception that US Citizens have constitutional rights,
including our right to expressive conduct, suggests that another
person or group of persons may give our rights to us or take them
away by means of Constitutional changes or legislation. That is
wrong! We individual humans (all mankind) have unalienable rights,
not constitutional." As Mr. Price said, the
US Constitution does not
give or establish any personal right -- instead, it guarantees those
rights by restricting the government from infringing on the rights
given to us by our Creator. Sadly, due to our collective ignorance
stemming from our grossly inadequate government schools, few
Americans understand this concept, or most other concepts upon which
the Constitution is based. Our founders believed that rights come
from our existence as sons and daughters of God. Most governments
infringe on those rights by allowing the king to control them. Our
founders reversed that process by establishing that rights are
inherent in man and man may establish governments and delegate to
them only the rights necessary for government to function. This
delegation of personal rights and authority in no way diminishes the
citizen's rights. However, due to the neglect and ignorance of our
voters, we are, indeed, losing rights by selecting politicians who
usurp our rights. To illustrate our founder's concept of personal
rights, Mr. Price has a page on his website quoting an
essay by Rich Lowry on the right to privacy. Mr. Price takes
issue with Mr.
Lowry's claim that the US Constitution does not guarantee a right to
privacy. It is true, as
Judge Robert Bork said, the Constitution does not specify a
right to privacy. But that does not mean that this right does not
exist. The right to privacy is simply one of the countless
unalienable rights bestowed upon us by our creator, most of which
are not enumerated in the Constitution. It is true that this right
to privacy has been erroneously and maliciously construed by the
courts to justify immoral acts, such as elective abortion. But the
right to privacy (and all other inherent rights) is just as real as
any right specifically enumerated in the Constitution. I applaud Mr.
Price's desire to "remove all laws of oppression or suppression, not
amend them with other laws!" We desperately need people in Congress
who understand and will fight for the US Constitution, who will
fight to reverse the attacks on our rights, and who will put most
current legislators into retirement. (4 Nov 2006)
The leadership (the most radical 5-10% on the left)
of the Democrat Party is completely out of touch with the values and
goals of mainstream Americans in general, and Utahns in particular.
I challenge anyone to identify even one Republican member of
Congress who is so out of touch with American values as those
Democrats who will take chairmanship of the most powerful committees
in Congress (Boxer, Conyers, Dingell, Frank, Leahy, Rangel, etc.)
and leadership of the House (Pelosi) and Senate (Reid) if the
Democrats win the majority. Unfortunately, neither the remainder of
the Democrat Party nor the majority of the Republican Party has the
will and courage to fight that radical leftist turn. That radical
left is poised to take control of Congress in just a few days. I
have asked my Democrat Congressmen, Jim Matheson, what he will do to
to fight this extreme-leftist takeover of our nation. His silence
has been telling. If, before election day, I do not hear his plan to
fight the radical leftist takeover of Congress, I will be obliged to
vote against him. (31 Oct 2006)
I think many Americans and, especially, the
politicians have taken their eyes off the ball
with what's most important in this (2006), or any other, election. I agree the war
on terror is important as is supporting the troops and their mission
in Southwest Asia. But, this election is about the same issues as
other recent elections: values and morality.
• It is about preserving the Constitution and the
individual liberties it guarantees such as freedom of speech
(including for conservatives, students and talk radio and the muzzling effect
of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act), freedom of religion
(including for Christians), the right to keep and bear arms (it's
not just about hunting or other sporting purposes), the right to life
(abortion should not be simply another form of birth control).
• It is about the protection of this nation from
foreign invaders (illegal immigrants) who are unwilling to
assimilate into our society.
• It is about protecting our freedoms and
sovereignty from the UN other anti-American entities (ie
IANSA).
• It is about demanding that the President, all Federal judges and
all members of Congress to understand and live up to their oath to
support and defend the
US Constitution as written.
• It is about
ever expanding government and its intrusiveness.
• It is about Congress' abuse of the
Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) in the
US Constitution in order to circumvent the
10th Amendment and to
intrude into areas never authorized or intended by the Constitution.
• It is about the
14th Amendment giving
citizenship to freed slaves in 1868 -- not children of illegal
immigrants in 2006.
• It is about requiring Americans to be responsible
for their own welfare whenever possible -- no more "entitlements"
for able-bodied people who won't work -- make them do the work that
we supposedly need "guest workers" for!
• It is about pressing "1" for English and "2" for
Spanish.
• It is about voters who need ballots and other
government forms printed in languages other than English.
• It is about judicial activism.
• It is about forcing Boy Scouts to accept atheism
and homosexuality.
• It is about protecting our children from
indoctrination and our industrial base from
destruction by terrorists (ie Al Gore) working under the banner of
environmentalism.
• It is about the systematic destruction of the
family which is the basic unit of society.
• It is about a dumbed-down education that produces
graduates, even college graduates who are functionally illiterate --
especially with regard to our heritage and the plans our nation's
founders had for us. Instead, our students are systematically
brainwashed and indoctrinated in socialism and atheism at taxpayer
expense.
I could go on, but suffice it to say that the war on terror is a mere side show when compared
to the importance of all these other issues to America's future. The
people gave Republicans the majority in order to accomplish these
goals. They have failed. They have demonstrated that the Republican
party does not deserve to be the majority party. Any Republican who
loses his or her race this year will have lost because they have
taken their eye off the ball. Any Republican who wins will win only
by the power of incumbency. (19
Oct 2006)
The portion of Congressmen who have the courage to
do what is right and what the nation needs is extremely small. The
Republicans were voted into the majority because people grew unhappy
with the direction the Democrats have taken the nation. Did that
switch in parties make a difference in the direction of the nation?
Not a bit. Few Republicans stand up to the bullies in Congress such
as Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, John McCain, and John Conyers and
bullies outside Congress such as George Soros, Jesse Jackson, James
Carville, Howard Dean, Al Sharpton, and Michael Moore. As a lifelong
Republican, I have sadly concluded that the Republicans in Congress
have demonstrated that they do not deserve to be the majority party.
They have a bit over a month to prove otherwise. (26 Sep 2006)
There is a move in Arizona to turn the election
process into a
lottery. Inducing people to vote for the purpose of entering a
lottery is contrary to the civic rights, privileges and duties
inherent in our citizenship. In my opinion, the voting process
already includes too many participants who are ignorant of the
issues and the agendas of the candidates. Too many voters already
cast votes based on their personal selfish interests as opposed to
what is best for the nation as a whole. The voting process clearly
already has too much corruption and fraud. To turn elections into
lotteries will only exacerbate these problems. If a person needs the
incentive of a lottery to vote, he or she doesn't take voting
seriously. And I don't want anyone who doesn't take his or her vote
seriously to vote against me. I don't see either a
high voter turnout or a low voter turnout as inherently a problem,
so long as those who vote do so with a reasonable understanding of
the consequences of their vote. Instead of a lottery, I favor a
voter test. Each voter should be able to correctly answer simple
questions such as: "What is the name of your governor?" "What are
the three branches of government?" "Who pays for government
programs?" If a potential voter can't answer such basic questions --
in English -- he or she has no business influencing the direction of
this nation. Congress must take immediate steps
to prohibit any reward for voting, including a lottery. (20 Jul
2006)
In 1996, US Supreme Court Justice stated, "What
secret knowledge, one must wonder, is breathed into lawyers when
they become Justices of this [Supreme] Court, that enables them to
discern that a practice which the text of the
Constitution does not
clearly proscribe, and which our people have regarded as
constitutional for 200 years, is in fact unconstitutional? ... Day
by day, case by case, [the Court] is busy designing a Constitution
for a country I do not recognize." To help repair this serious
problem US Representative Todd Akin has submitted the "Judicial
Conduct Act". The Judicial Conduct Act provides certain specific
definitions of the grounds for impeachment of federal judges and of
the termination of their terms of office due to lack of "good
behavior." Specifically, this Act would designate that the entering
or enforcement of orders and decisions in contradiction of the
original understanding of the United States Constitution or, based
upon judgments, laws, agreements, or pronouncements or foreign
institutions, governments, or multilateral organizations, are
impeachable offenses. One of the greatest threats to our nation and
its Constitution arises if the other two branches of government
continue to fail at holding the courts accountable to their
Constitutional mandate, its inherent restrictions, and their own
oath of office. Judges who legislate from the bench subvert our
republican form of government of the people, by the people, and for
the people, and threaten all these legislative aims. Therefore, we
must immediately call for an end to Judicial Activism. Congress and
the Whitehouse must immediately hold Federal judges accountable for
their actions by enacting and enforcing the "Judicial Conduct Act".
(22 Jun 2006)
The Republican Governor of Maryland,
Robert L. Ehrlich, expressed his
intolerant attit
The heads of
I wonder if any of the
