Upcoming Topics

I intend to write about the following topics in the near future:

* Gun rights and government control
* Keynesianism vs. the Austrian School
* Prohibition and the drug war
* Minimum wage
* Internet and the law

Prohibition's St. Valentine's Day Massacre - Chicago, Feb. 14, 1929 

If you have a topic you would like me to write about, leave a comment.

Mandates Galore

First, President Obama orders religious institutions to offer insurance coverage for contraception to its employees, even though they object to providing such coverage on religious grounds - a clear violation of the religious freedom ensured by the Constitution.

Then, after much backlash, the President offers a "compromise," telling religious institutions that, while they still have to offer such coverage to their employees, the government will make the insurance company pay for the coverage, rather than the institution.  This second mandate forces a company to offer a product without being able to charge for it - basically, the insurance companies are being required to give people insurance for contraception for free.  This is akin to telling a car dealership that it must give cars to people for free because it furthers some goal the President finds beneficial to a specific group of people or the nation as a whole.

And, of course, there's the now-infamous Obamacare mandate that requires Americans who don't have insurance through an employer to purchase it on their own, and if they refuse, they are penalized by steep fines.

Flow Chart of Obamacare, or Definition of Bureaucracy

The concept of mandates as employed by this administration violates those principles on which this country was founded - namely, that people are free to pursue life, liberty, and happiness as they see fit.  These mandates significantly disturb that freedom by forcing people and companies to offer products for free, forcing companies to offer employees benefits they are religiously opposed to, and forcing people to buy a product they may not want.

The liberal media is doing its job of "PR wing of the democratic party" by not exposing these constitutional violations, and by embracing them as positive changes in the marketplace.

You can't force people to buy stuff; you can't force companies to offer benefits they object to on religious grounds; and you can't force companies to give away products for free.  But then, the Constitution is merely an inconvenient impediment to progress for Obama and his socialist party members.

Public School Sings the Praises of Allah

A Colorado high school is making its school choir sing a muslim song praising Allah, but I bet you  haven't heard anything about this.  But we've heard plenty about how Christian institutions and conservatives are off their collective rockers for opposing Obama's mandate requiring religious institutions to offer contraceptive insurance coverage to their employees.  Does this seem like a double standard to anyone else?

In it's simplest terms, separation of church and state means that public schools can't favor one religion over another.  They can't display the 10 commandments, and they can't force their choir to sing muslim songs.  I can't think of a valid explanation for this, but some school personnel gave it their best try.  Check it out...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/15/colorado-student-reportedly-quits-choir-over-islamic-song/?cmpid=cmty_email_Gigya_Colorado_student_quits_high_school_choir_over_Islamic_song_praising_'Allah'

They Only Believe In Votes

I was reading some liberal blogs today and it occurred to me that a major difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals almost always base their positions (the publicly stated ones at least; maybe not their true agenda) on what garners the most popularity, while conservatives tend to base theirs more on what they actually believe in.  I'm not saying all conservatives and liberals act this way, but there are more conservatives that stand true to their beliefs than there are liberals who do so.

And political expediency is how the liberals view the world.  Here are some examples from a liberal blog showing how liberals think politicians should stand for whatever is most popular rather than what they believe in:

"Does Chris Christie really think that vetoing gay marriage is going to look smart in 2016?"

"Romney has to double down on bailout bashing in a desperate effort to erase Santorum’s 15 point lead in [Michigan]."

"The problem for Romney is the only way to beat Santorum is to adopt the same anti-gay, anti-woman and anti-progress positions in the primaries and bet that he can somehow reverse course this fall."

"The longer the contest draws out, the more Romney has to pander."

See, the liberals think politicians should act only on what increases popularity or helps overcome another politician's lead in popularity.  It doesn't occur to them that maybe Christie opposes gay marriage (assuming the quote above is true) because it's what he believes in.  The liberals would have him take a stance based only on what attracts more voters rather than what he truly believes in.  I prefer my politicians to be honest and tell me what they stand for, not merely what I want to hear.  Liberals want politicians to tell them what they want to hear.  They like feeling warm and fuzzy inside - I'd rather be told the truth.

Liberals don't seem to understand that politicians are supposed to stand up for what they believe in!  It's not about lying and shifting to gain votes - it's about putting forth your view for America and hoping that you can convince people that your view is the right way to go.  Liberals have such a shallow and dishonest approach to politics.  This is why you can't trust anything Obama says - he says whatever is politically expedient for that day, and it may change if the mood in the country changes.  Many conservatives do this too, but it just seems like the ones that stand for something rather than just trying to gain votes tend to be most conservative - like the tea party.

Big Brother

If you haven't read 1984 by George Orwell, you should do so.  While Orwell was a little off on the year, our nation is being transformed into his dystopian Oceania more and more each day by the progressives, currently led by Barack Obama.  Oceania is ruled by a central government that is the omnipotent, all-seeing eye in the sky, known as Big Brother, that controls all human action through tyranny and propaganda.  One day this book may hold a spot near the top of our government's censorship list.  But, it can't happen here, in the United States of America, right?

Historical Debt Ceiling Levels

A picture is worth a thousand words (click to enlarge).  Or go here to see a really big version of this chart with accompanying wisdom from The Cato Institute:

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-debt-ceiling-and-the-balanced-budget-amendment/

Broken Promise of the Highest Magnitude!

February 23, 2009:  Newly inaugurated president Barack Obama stated:  "Today I'm pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office. This will not be easy. It will require us to make difficult decisions and face challenges we've long neglected. But I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay - and that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control."

February 23, 2009, through February 13, 2012:  The deficit each year has remained just over $1 trillion (each year, the govt spends $1 trillion more than it brings in) since Obama took office, and spending has skyrocketed, raising the national debt from $9 trillion to over $15 trillion.  Epic promise fail!

February 13, 2012:  The president initiates three websites comprising his "truth team" resources, which his supporters are encouraged to refer to in discussions with others to increase Obama's chances at re-election.  The trio of sites are called, respectively, AttackWatch.com, KeepingGOPHonest.com, and KeepingHisWord.com.  KeepingHisWord.com presents a list of promises Obama has made that he has followed through on.  Notably absent from the list is his pledge to cut the deficit in half.

Chart:  The horizontal line demarcates where Obama's 2013 budget starts, and the red line shows debt as a percentage of GDP.  Notice the sharp increase beginning in 2009, when Obama took office, and the staggeringly high level he proposes to keep it at through 2022.

And it's not that he's tried but simply underestimated the gravity of the problem.  He made a promise for purely political reasons, and has made no serious effort at all to reduce the deficit.  Spending is through the roof under his administration, in part due to gigantic stimulus initiatives and auto, insurance, and bank bailouts. 

Concerning one of the most ominous monsters threatening to completely derail our economy, the national debt and annual deficit, the president has not only ignored it, but has actively worked to feed it and grow it more monstrous.

Until I get around to blogging about exactly how the interest alone on a $25 trillion national debt will strangle our economy, you will have to use your imagination to grapple with that enormous monster which is projected to engulf this nation if Obama snakes his way into a second term.

Keeping his word?  Not when it comes to spending your money!

Response to Think Progress

Think Progress, the liberal think-tank funded by billionaire socialist George Soros, has posted an article about the contraception controversy on their website which is rife with lies.  I will address some of them here.

(1)  "Under the compromise, religious institutions will not be required to provide contraceptive coverage because insurers will provide contraception directly to employees at no cost, completely removing religious institutions from the equation."

Response:  Actually, the compromise DOES force religious institutions to provide contraceptive coverage to their employees, it just says they don't have to pay for it.  The coverage is a specific benefit of employment - it begins when employment starts, and ceases if and when employment terminates.  The coverage is a direct benefit of employment - the institutions are being forced to include this coverage in their package of benefits.  Far from removing the institution from the equation, the institution is actually the trigger for the coverage.  If they were truly removed from the equation, it would mean that employment with a religious institution would have no effect on the coverage - rather, the employment is the defining factor for whether coverage for contraception exists or not.

(2)  “It does not force an institution that has religious principle to offer or pay for benefits that they find objectionable, but it guarantees a women’s right to access."

Response:  Again, it DOES force them to offer benefits they object to on religious grounds.  That they don't have to pay for it just removes the insult from the injury.  Also, no one is suggesting that women should be prohibited from accessing contraception.  A woman's right to access contraceptive choices is already guaranteed, whether they have a job or insurance or not.  There is a big difference between guaranteeing access to it, and guaranteeing payment for it.

(3)  "As Republicans stand with the conservative Catholic bishops in opposition to allowing women to receive contraception at no cost, they are embracing an increasingly extreme anti-contraception position."

Response:  This is true, and that's the whole point.  The Constitution protects a person's or institution's right to oppose contraception.  They are constitutionally permitted to "embrace an increasingly extreme anti-contraception position."  The liberals may not like this opposition, but the Constitution protects numerous rights, even ones liberals don't like.  In being permitted to oppose contraception, institutions are permitted not to offer coverage for it as a benefit of employment.  The "compromise" violates that right by forcing religious institutions to offer coverage for contraception as a direct benefit of employment.

As I've said before, the difference between being forced to provide something and being forced to pay for it are not the same thing.  The objection was never to the cost of the insurance coverage - the objection is the provision of it as a benefit of employment because it violates their religious values.  This compromise still forces religious institutions to provide insurance coverage for contraception, and therefore, still violates the Constitution. 

It's the same as telling a Jewish institution that they have to provide pork as a lunch choice in their cafeteria, they just don't have to pay for the pork.  Employees of that Jewish institution have access to pork at all sorts of restaurants, cafes, and grocery stores - they just shouldn't expect that their employer will provide it for them as a benefit of their employment, because the institution has a religious objection to it.

Think Progress understands this, they just don't care.  The Constitution is an impediment to the creation of a nation with a central government that may force people and institutions to do whatever they want them to do, and prohibit them from doing what they don't want them to do.  Those darned inalienable rights keep getting in the way of their progress, but once they get their foot in the door all our rights are at stake.

Think Progress article:
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/12/423563/gop-continues-to-oppose-contraception-coverage-plan-now-supported-by-large-catholic-institutions/

Obama's Budget

Obama will release his budget for 2013 on Monday.  Here are the highlights:

(1)  More stimulus spending, including increases for highway construction and increases for modernization of schools.

(2)  A new tax on banks, called a "financial crisis responsibility fee," which sounds like a vengeance tax to me.  I hope whoever came up with that fancy, clever name for what is simply a punitive tax on banks gets a promotion - he/she seems to have a good grasp of progressivespeak.

(3)  A new tax on airlines and private jet owners in the form of a $100 per-takeoff fee.

(4)  A clever, gimmicky accounting trick that says the budget reduces spending by $1 trillion - gimmicky, because that $1 trillion is simply money saved from ramping down the wars, and has nothing to do with how Obama structured this budget.  That money is "saved" whether Obama has a budget or not.  But it's there, so why not take credit for it, right?

(5)  Enactment of the "Buffet Rule" - households which bring in $1 million or more, however they do it, must pay at least 30% of it in taxes.  Whether it's capital gains, business income, gifts, whatever - we can't let rich people get away with their crimes anymore.  They are just too clever and employ too many good accountants who help find tax savings - so now we are doing away with the tax code essentially for the rich and just taking 30% of everything, because allowing the rich to find savings in the tax code like everyone else is just too risky and lets too many rich people stay rich.

(6)  The budget results in about a $1 trillion deficit - for the youngsters out there, this means the government will spend $1 trillion more than it brings in, so our national debt will increase by $1 trillion.

Overall, the President will tell the American people that his plan saves $4 trillion over the next decade, which is progressivespeak for "we will continue to increase spending and run deficits every year, but we will increase spending by $400 billion less each year than we were originally projected to."  It's a spending increase, but this is what the progressives like to call a spending cut.

I like analogies, so I'll leave you with one in closing this post.  Imagine your boss comes to you on Jan. 1st and says he's going to give you a 5% raise this year.  "Great, thanks," you say.  He explains that he was projected to actually cut your salary by 12% this year but he managed to rework his budget so that he only has to cut your salary by 7% instead.  Therefore, he is cutting your salary by 5% less than originally projected, which, in progressivespeak, means you are getting a 5% raise.  After all, you'll be getting 5% more than you would have if the original projections were followed through on. 

So now you can go on Facebook and tell all your friends and family that you received great news at work today - you are getting a 5% pay raise, with your salary going from $50,000/year down to $46,500/year.  When your friends and family act surprised, just tell them you work for the government and increases and cuts are defined a little differently there.  Also, tell them to vote for Obama so that these clever definitions can be applied to national budgeting process as well.

Contraception Debate, Part 2

This is an update on the mandate that required Christian-based organizations to pay for insurance that covers contraception, even though contraception violates their religious beliefs.

I'll start off with an analogy:  Obama tells a Jewish company that they are now required to serve pork in their cafeteria.  They object because it violates their religious beliefs.  So Obama "accommodates" them, saying that he'll make someone else pay for the pork, but they still have to serve it in the cafeteria - after all, some people like pork, and it's not right to deny them their right to eat pork.  The objection is that, no matter who pays for it, it still violates the company's values to serve pork, and if one of their employees wants to eat pork for lunch, they just have to go out for lunch - their rights are intact, while the company's rights are violated.

Obama has backtracked...sort of.  Rather than calling it a compromise, Obama has said this is an accomodation aimed at satisfying the Christians' concerns.  I will say that it is basically not an accommodation at all - it's the same thing, just with the money coming from somewhere else.

Instead of the Christian-based entity paying for the contraception, the insurance company is now required to pick up the tab, but the Christian-based entity still has to offer that contraception coverage to its employees.  So this is still the same violation it was before, just that the Christians don't have to pay for the violation of their beliefs.

I'm pretty sure the objection to this was not the minimal cost of the contraception provision in the insurance contract.  This is akin to saying that if you're Christian, you have to join a Muslim organization, but instead of paying the monthly membership yourself, we'll force someone else to pay for it, but you still have to join.  How is that any kind of accommodation??  And the liberals' argument is that opposing this mandate means you don't support the rights of Muslims because you don't want to force people to join the Muslim organization. 

It's not about the money, it's about being able to stand by your religious beliefs.  The "accommodation" still requires Christian-based organizations, like schools, hospitals, etc., to violate their beliefs by offering contraception insurance coverage to their employees.  That they don't have to pay for it themselves just removes the insult from the injury, but the injury remains.

No one is saying that women don't have a right to use contraception, like birth control pills or whatever.  What they're saying is that if a women chooses to work for a Christian-based organization, she'll have to find an alternative means of paying for her contraceptive choice, because her employer, due to its religious beliefs, won't offer it.  No one is trying to ban contraception for women.

This is not about violating the rights of women, it's about violating the rights of religious organizations by making them give their employees benefits that violate their beliefs.  It's that simple.  When you choose to work for a company, you get whatever benefits they offer.  If you don't like the benefits, you don't have to work there.  Not every company will offer every benefit.  The ones that aren't provided by your employer, well, you'll just have to find another way to provide those for yourself.

And even if you're not Christian yourself, this issue still matters to you.  When the government finally gets around to forcing you to do something that violates your beliefs, there may not be anyone left to stand up for your rights because they all lost theirs while you sat around thinking their issues didn't matter to you.

Once the government gets its foot in the door and is allowed to force people to violate their religious beliefs, it sets a precedent that will permit an inevitable avalanche of government assault against all sorts of values we hold dear and which are supposed to be protected by the Constitution.  If they get away with it once, it will just be a matter of filling in the blank:  "The government hereby mandates that ______ shall be required to violate their beliefs.  Authority for this mandate is supported by prior precedent of a mandate requiring Christian-based organizations to offer contraceptive insurance coverage in violation of their beliefs."  Get it?

The Constitution protects various rights.  One of them is religion.  The government can't force people to violate their religious beliefs any more than it can force people to join any particular religion.  Obama's mandate forces religious companies to violate their religious beliefs, which violates the Constitution.

Obama's disregard for the Constitution is staggeringly brash.  He's made it clear that the Constitution is merely an inconvenient impediment to creating his own vision of what this country should look like.  He continues to violate it, and we need to continue to oppose it, because the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.  If you sit by and allow this, your rights may be the next to be taken away!

Debt Ceiling Crash Course

It's almost that time again - we have just about maxed out the debt ceiling credit card again, and once again, the liberals in Washington would have us believe that the United States will default on its debt obligations if the debt ceiling is not raised for the second time in less than a year. 

This is a blatant scare tactic, designed to garner support from the naive masses.  If they can convince the average, hard-working, middle-class American that we need to raise the debt ceiling again to avoid financial armageddon, the fiscally responsible in our government (a rare animal indeed!) will be hard-pressed to oppose raising it unless without a PR nightmare in advance of this year's election.  But it's becoming a harder and harder sell as the national debt grows bigger every day and more and more Americans get wise to the game they are playing with our hard-earned money.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the sole power to borrow money on the credit of the United States.  In 1917, Congress established the first debt ceiling, limiting the amount of bonds the U.S. Treasury could issue.  The first debt ceiling, called the First Liberty Bond Act, set this borrowing limit at $5 billion.  Since then, the debt ceiling has been raised 103 times.  During President G.W. Bush's two terms, the ceiling was raised 7 times; under Obama, it has already been raised 4 times.  Usually, raising it is a mere formality.  Congress raises the credit card borrowing limit and then proceeds to max out the credit card again.  Today's debt ceiling is about $15 trillion dollars, which is roughly 3,000 times greater than the first debt ceiling in 1917.

Unfortunately, our fearless leaders' unrelenting spending spree is unsustainable, and we are now at a crucial crossroads - we can no longer continue to borrow and spend without being buried under by our mounting debt.  So we need to either leave the borrowing limit where it is, forcing the politicians to live within their means, or combine a raise of the debt ceiling with cuts in spending to ensure that we don't simply repeat what has been done 103 times already.  Ideally, we should be reducing the scope of government, not merely the amount it spends.  If a government department's budget is cut, it can easily be raised again later; however, if the government department is eliminated entirely, there will be no budget to raise later.  And there are plenty of government agencies and departments that should be eliminated, ensuring permanent reductions in spending.  There are only 18 enumerated powers of the federal government in the Constitution, yet there are literally thousands of government agencies and departments -  the government has been acting beyond the scope of its constitutional duties for a very long time.

But what about this unavoidable default the progressives keep warning us about?  Well, let's look at the numbers.  In 2010, the federal government spent $3.55 trillion dollars, and they spent even more in 2011.  In fact, since the Republican-dominated Congress balanced the budget and produced a budget surplus in the mid-90's, Congress has raised spending every single year.  During this period, whenever their spending spree bumped up against the debt ceiling, they raised it so we could borrow more money to keep the spending machine runnng without a hitch.  If they don't raise the debt ceiling again, the government may not have enough money to cover all of its financial obligations in the short-term.  They won't be able to fund everything on their wish list, meaning they'll have to prioritize spending for a change. 

Since the Constitution requires the government to fulfull its debt obligations, payments on our debt would naturally be paid first.  Medicare and Social Security would most likely be next to get funded.  But as they get near the bottom of the list, they would run out of money, and things like subsidies to oil companies and banks might not continue.  Items such as funding research/treatment for alcoholic prostitues in China and giving hundreds of millions of dollars to the Hamas-run Gaza Strip would also be eliminated. 

Far from defaulting on our debt obligations, and far from seniors being left to die on the street, the government would merely have to stop spending money on stuff it has no business spending money on.  There are thousands of items that can and should be eliminated from the federal budget which would not affect our lives at all, but that would, in total, greatly relieve the fiscal stress we are under.

Don't let the politicians confuse or mislead you - there is plenty of pork that can be trimmed from the budget.  The problem we are suffering from is not a lack of revenues, but rather a lack of even the slightest shade of responsibility in the politicians we elect.  The culture of Washington needs to change, but that won't happen until they know the American public is onto their con-game and willing to throw the thieves out of office.  The threat of taking away their power is just about the only thing that sways these "civil servants."

Movie Day Gone Horribly Wrong!

There's controversy in Dallas!  Dallas public schools recently had movie day, and they took 5,700 elementary school boys to see the movie Red Tails, about the African-American fighter pilot squadron from WWII, while the girls were shown Akeelah and the Bee, a movie about an African-American girl who competes in a spelling bee.

Apparently, recognizing that boys and girls are not identical in every way is not acceptable anymore in this country.

A school spokesperson said that the school district often holds gender-specific events, so the showing of different movies to the boys and girls was "not out of the ordinary."  But one of the still-living pilots that Red Tails was based on said he was "almost speechless."  "I've heard of everything else, but this is the first time I've heard that [Red Tails] was inappropriate for female students," the former pilot said.  Does he think the school district is similarly saying that Akeelah and the Bee is inappropriate for boys?  The school was simply trying to make movie day as enjoyable as possible for the kids.  It would have been much easier to just show everyone Old Yeller, but instead, the school made more of an effort, coordinating the showing of separate movies to enhance movie day for the kids.

Maybe I'm missing something, but what is the big deal here??  Girls were shown a movie about a girl, and the boys watched a movie about war.  Sounds like the district made appropriate movie choices for the kids.  I mean, where do these people think phrases like "chick flick" came from - boys and girls have different tastes in lots of things, especially movies.

Instead of criticizing the school district for recognizing that boys like war movies and girls like dramas, I would expect them to be applauded for showing both the boys and the girls movies about African-American success stories.

I'm all for gender equality, but that doesn't mean there aren't gender differences.  Maybe we should start putting urinals in all the girls bathrooms, and men should stop helping the women open the jar of pickles.

Providing equal rights to different genders or races or religions doesn't mean we can't recognize their respective differences.  After all, isn't the whole point of diversity to celebrate equal but different qualities??  It would be a pretty boring world if everyone truly was identical in every way.

Read an article on the controversy here:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/10/schoolgirls-excluded-from-dallas-screening-red-tails/?test=latestnews

Thou Shalt Violate Your Beliefs, Because the Government Says So!

The big issue of the week in politics has been Obama's position that employers be required not only to give their employees health insurance, but that the insurance cover things like contraception.  Republicans have been objecting to this for a very simple reason, but the liberals (politicians and media) continue, as usual, to misstate the opposition and mislead the public.

No one is arguing that women don't have a right to contraception.  The point is that the government should not be allowed to force anyone to pay for a woman's decision to use contraception.  If a woman wants to use contraception, she is free to do so, and if her employer's health insurance plan doesn't cover it, she'll just have to find a way to pay for it on her own.

Why would an employer object to being forced to give health insurance to employees that covers contraception?  Well, there are many organizations in this country that are Christian-based, and contraception violates their religious beliefs.  The government should not be allowed to force people to violate their religious beliefs any more than they should be allowed to force religion itself on anyone.

A private company, like a Christian-based school, is property - it's an asset owned by someone.  People own houses, people own cars, and sometimes people own companies.  And some of these people are Christian and hold certain beliefs, and they conduct their business in accord with those beliefs. 

When someone owns something, they ought to be free to use it as they see fit, as long as they aren't infringing on the rights of others.  If a private company wants to offer health insurance to its employees, so be it.  If it doesn't want to offer it, that should be fine too.  If you don't want to work for a company that doesn't provide health insurance, then look for employment elsewhere.  Some employers do choose to offer health insurance to their employees, in which case they evaluate the myriad of insurance plans in the marketplace and choose one that they feel is cost-effective, sufficient, will help lure good job candidates, or covers health issues they deem necessary enough to cover.  Or maybe they don't want to offer health insurance at all.  Any of these choices should be permissible for owners of private entities.  Christian-based schools often do offer health insurance to their employees, but they choose plans that don't cover things like abortions and contraception, because those things violate their religious beliefs.  It doesn't mean female employees of Christian-based schools aren't allowed to get abortions or use contraception - it just means their employer won't pay for it.

When the government starts forcing people to do things against their will, or in violation of their religious beliefs, it is a violation of the tenets of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  It violates the Constitution, and it violates the idea that people are free to run their lives and use their own money and property as they see fit.

But to hear the liberals tell it, conservatives are trying to prohibit contraception altogether.  That's not the objection at all.  But facts aren't really important to the liberals if those facts get in the way of a good nanny-state agenda.

The bottom line is that we all have to work for a living, and there are lots of companies out there with job positions.  People should consider the advantages and disadvantages of each job, and then choose one that has the most advantages.  If contraception is that important to a woman, and she is dead-set against paying for it herself, then she will just have to narrow her job prospects to those employers which offer health insurance that covers contraception.  But I fail to see why the government should be allowed to force companies to offer things they don't want to offer.  No one is forcing people to work for one company or another, and no one should force companies to offer any particular set of benefits.  Both employers and employees should be free to contract with each other and agree on what wages and benefits will be provided.  A woman is always free to walk away from a job opportunity if she doesn't like the health insurance benefits of that job.  The government should stay out of it completely.

Tanning and Tattoos for Minors

The West Virginia legislature is considering prohibiting minors from going to tanning salons and using tanning beds, and also prohibiting minors from getting tattoos - minors aged 16 or 17 could get a tattoo with a parent's consent.

I support this legislation, which at first blush may seem like an unwarranted intrusion on individual liberty.

First of all, this is a state legislature, not the federal legislature, that is considering these new laws.  What that means is that it's constitutional.  The Constitution is basically a limiting document, limiting the the ways in which our governments, both state and federal, may infringe upon our rights.  The federal government is only granted 18 specific powers under the Constitution, while everything else is reserved for the states.  Many would argue that tanning salons and tattoo parlors fall under the commerce clause of the Constitution, granting the federal government the authority regulate them and pass laws like the ones being considered in WV.  The Supreme Court might agree, but I don't - but the implications of the commerce clause and it's jurisprudential history can be the subject of a future discussion.  In any event, there can be no argument that the State of West Virginia is free to regulate tanning salons and tattoo parlors within its borders.  That the state may regulate them, however, does not mean that I automatically think it is wise or prudent to do so.

In this case, I think it is appropriate to regulate these industries with regard to minors.  As a society, we recognize that people under the age of 18 are not old enough to make adult decisions.  We have to draw a line between childhood and adulthood at some age, and 18 is generally accepted as the right age at which to draw this line.

Artificial tanning (and natural tanning, for that matter - although the state would have a rather hard time regulating the sun!) raise legitimate health concerns.  Adults should be free to evaluate the risks and rewards of tanning for themselves and decide whether it is a worthwhile activity to engage in.  Minors, not having the maturity or capacity to make such informed risk v. reward decisions, should not be permitted to engage in an activity that poses a potential health risk.

Regarding tattoos, they last forever.  Again, adults should be fairly permitted to evaluate for themselves whether they want to mark their bodies with permanent art.  Minors, for the same reasons as with tanning, should not be permitted to make the decision to permanently mark their bodies on their own.  At least providing for parental consent allows parents to make this decision which falls within the realm of how best to raise one's child(ren).

I am all for allowing adults to run their own lives as they see fit, as long as they aren't infringing upon the rights of others.  But we recognize that there is an age below which a person is not mature enough to fully appreciate the risks and repurcussions of their decisions.  A 5 year old may want a tattoo, but surely a 5 year old doesn't fully appreciate the wide range of ways in which a tattoo may affect their lives going forward.  Maybe some 12 year olds do.  Perhaps most 17 year olds do.  But in recognizing that parents are responsible for deciding how they will raise their children, we draw a line at an age that separates children from adults so that parental control over child-rearing is protected.  Since we have drawn that line at age 18, anyone below that age should not be free to engage in a great number of activities that adults are free to engage in, and I think it's fair to put tanning and tattoos into that category.

This issue can also be approached as a health care issue.  Parents are accountable for making health care decisions for their children - no doctor will perform any exam, evaluation, or procedure on a minor without written consent from the minor's parent.  Tanning and tattoos seem to fit squarely within the realm of health care, so that parental consent at the least should be required before such procedures may be used on minors.

In closing, I would like to point out that we ought to have consistency with this bright-line age rule.  You can die for your country at age 18, but you can't drink a beer until you're 21.  All in all, the age demarcations are satisfactory, but we could tweak them for consistency across the board.  Either 18 or 21 is fine by me, but I'd prefer we pick only one and apply it universally.

Here's the article in the local paper about the legislature's consideration of the tanning and tattoo laws:

http://journal-news.net/page/content.detail/id/574825/Bills-would-ban-tanning--tattoos-for-kids.html?nav=5006

Minding Our Own Business

Sen. John McCain said this morning in an interview on Fox News that he thinks we should be using all means necessary, including military action in the absence of success with less aggressive methods, to stop the violence in Syria.  Syria's dictator, Assad, has been murdering an average of 100-200 Syrian citizens each day as the revolutionary uprisings continue.  I don't even think the dude has a chance of getting into his muslim heaven with conduct like that, but what the hell does it have to do with the United States that we should use any means at all, let alone a myriad of means, to intervene in Syria's problems??

Our foreign policy should be guided by one principle and one principle only:  Is action X good for the United States or does it further any United States interests?  The answer to these questions with regard to Syria is a resounding NO!

I don't know exactly how it happened that our foreign policy shifted entirely from protecting United States interests to running around the world interfering in anyone's and everyone's affairs trying to spread democracy like it's the one-size-fits-all solution to every country's problems.  Personally, I don't care if Syria ever embraces democracy....or any other political, philosophical, or societal structure or ideal.  It's none of our business.

If we were to intervene in every situation where some country's citizens were suffering what would be injustices under our Constitution, we'd literally be fighting wars all the time, have military bases everywhere, and be spending umpteen billions of dollars each year on other countries' problems.  Oh wait, that is what we are doing.

We don't need military bases in Europe - they can defend themselves.  We don't need to be sending money to the Gaza Strip, which is run by Hamas.  We don't need to be deposing dictators that pose no threat to the U.S., such as Saddam Hussein, Hosni Mubarak, and Muammar Qaddafi.  And we shouldn't worry about how ruthless the dictator of far-away Syria is.

It's really sad what's happening there - I feel for the people of Syria who are being murdered for simply demanding the most basic of human rights for themselves.  But it is none of our business and has no bearing on U.S. national security or interests.

But the stage is being set for yet another war.  Before long, we will be engaged in military action against Syria's government, and like with Libya, we will be attacking a sovereign country that hasn't provoked us in any way, and we'll be killing Syrians soldiers and government officials who have not threatened or attacked the U.S. at all.  Does anyone else see the hypocrisy there?

We have enough problems at home.  The world is a harsh place, and we neither can nor should try to solve every problem in the world.

Image:  Map of the middle east - notice Israel, the small island in a sea of anti-semitic, muslim nations.

Justin Amash - A Model of Transparency

In our country, there is a long-standing principle of transparency in government at the local, state, and federal levels.  Transparency is enforced through "sunshine laws," meaning that all actions elected officials take must be done in the open light, the public eye, allowing the citizenry to see how and why they are voting on things.  Transparency is crucial in a democracy, if not only to prevent corruption, but to also expose those who are engaged in the corruption.  But what good is it to have members of Congress voting on things in open sessions that no one really sees or knows about unless one is an avid C-Span viewer?  I'll admit that C-Span is slightly less exciting that watching paint dry.  Is there perhaps a better way to provide transparency for the American public?  Wouldn't it be nice if, for example, every member of Congress had a Facebook page where they posted explanations of all of their votes?

Well there is one member of Congress who actually does do this!  He's Justin Amash, republican member of the House of Representatives, elected from the State of Michigan. 

Rep. Amash has a Facebook page where he dedicates time each day to explain why he votes the way he does on every single issue that arises.  And he does so without exception and with great pride.

I encourage everyone to add Rep. Justin Amash to his/her friends list.  Not only do his updates provide insight into his individual beliefs, values, and principles, but they also shed light on the sheer number of issues that members of Congress are faced with, and on how business is conducted in Washington.  You'll see all sorts of laws being proposed by one party or another - some are reasonable, some obvious, some crazy, some wasteful, some...well, you get the point.  There's no end to the type of laws these people propose and vote on day after day.  I didn't realize the depth of it until I started following Amash's Facebook updates. 

There are literally thousands of votes each year, and I can only guess at how much time Rep. Amash spends posting vote explanations on his Facebook page - some days I see upwards of 20 posts from him on various matters that were brought up for a vote.  He puts in a lot of time and effort to explain his votes, and it's a shame that more people aren't paying attention.  His posts are educational in so many respects.

That is what transparency is supposed to look like!

But there are two sides to the transparency coin.  The other side of the coin is our civic duty to stay apprised of what our elected officials are doing.  It doesn't do much good if we don't bother to follow the direction our country is going in.  The votes Rep. Amash and his colleagues cast each day affect our lives and shape our future.  Homework isn't always fun, but it still needs to be done before you go outside and play.  As citizens, we have a duty to do our homework and keep up with the goings-on in our government.  This civic duty of ours seems to have fallen by the wayside over the last 225 or so years, and our corrupt politicians have taken full advantage of our intentional ignorance.  Everyone should dedicate at least a small portion of each day checking out what business has been conducted by our leaders in Washington.  If you don't do your civic homework, how can you honestly complain about anything our government is doing?

It's this complacency that has allowed corruption to flourish and take over the political arena in Washington.  They do the bare minimum to abide by the sunshine laws, and we do even less than the bare minimum in keeping tabs on them.  This all leads to a corrupt mob running a nation of disinterested sheep.

Rep. Amash is doing his part to foster maximum transparency and accountability, and we ought to make use of his daily updates, and pressure more members of Congress to provide the same service.  Instead, we let them hide their bought and sold votes behind the "transparency" of C-Span which nobody watches.

So check out Amash's FB page/updates, push for your own representatives to provide the same service, and do your civic duty by staying informed about what's going on in Washington.  It's unfortunate that we have to force our elected officials to abide by the tenets of transparency, but it may be even more unfortunate that most of us are too lazy or complacent or disinterested to care.

Thank you Rep. Amash for you service!  And shame on the rest of you who refuse to follow his sterling example!

Passion Inspires Me

While Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney play negative politics, attacking each other more than touting their own views for America, Rick Santorum has won the Minnesota caucus and the Missouri primary tonight with passion for his plan of returning America to its founders' principles.  The founding fathers used to be revered in this nation not so long ago, but the progressives continue their assault on the tenets of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  With Santorum, those principles may again guide our nation back toward the exceptionalism this nation has for so long been known and revered for.

There are exceptions to every rule, but I believe the rule for elections is that you cannot win without passion - a passion for your beliefs, a passion for leadership, and a passion for founding principles of the United States of America.  Rick Santorum's passion for all these things was evident in his speech following his win tonight in Missouri.  He has no executive experience (Mitt Romney was a governor) and not a whole lot of D.C. political experience (Newt has been in D.C. since Reagan was president), but he won Minnesota and Missouri with the passion and positivism that is so scant these days with Romney and Gingrich.  That passion, along with back-to-back wins tonight, may help boost his campaign and make him a legitimate contender for once.

Santorum is also the most consistent conservative of the four remaining republican candidates.  Ron Paul has been a consistent libertarian for decades, but he's still too libertarian to win an election; which seems odd to me since his views more closely reflect those of our founding fathers than any of the other three R candidates in the race.  The explosion of the Tea Party onto the scene in the last few years shows that Americans are increasingly attracted to the libertarian agenda, but we're not there yet.  Santorum is not a libertarian, but he's not a big government republican either, like Romney and Gingrich may be.  It's hard to know exactly what Romney and Gingrich stand for sometimes because they are just too busy attacking each other rather than presenting a coherent message for America's future, which Santorum has been relentless in doing.

Give Santorum credit.  He stands by his beliefs and values whether they are popular or not, and he refuses to sell out for political expedience.  Some say he's too religious.  "Well, that's who I am," he says.  He's too socially conservative.  Well, he always has been, and he's not going to change for anyone.  If it means he doesn't win, then so be it, but he has integrity, and that counts for a lot in my book.

I'm very interested in the republican race, not because it may sway how I'll vote in November - I'll vote for any of the four republicans over the socialist Obama.  But I'm interested in seeing how four unique and different conservative republicans handle themselves in the debates, present their views, and how and if they remain consistently committed to their own beliefs and values.  Only Ron Paul and Rick Santorum remain consistently positive in their message and stances on the myriad of issues and problems facing this nation.

We are at a crossroads.  Another four years of Obama and hyperinflation may become a household word; double digits may dominate the unemployment statistics; and the Constitution will continue to become just a passing inconvenience to the progressive agenda of furthering the nanny-state.

We need a leader who will put American exceptionalism and individual liberty first, and stop selling out our future to China.  With Obama, we are like the addicted gambler who keeps doubling down with his bookie as his debt continues to rise to the inevitable point of a visit by the "collection agent" with a Louisville Slugger.

I'll vote R in November, but I'll do so with a little more optimism and passion if Santorum's name is on the ballot, because his consistency and passion inspire confidence that we may just be able to turn this ship around sooner rather than later....or never.

Image:  Constitutional Convention

They're Komen for You!

The Susan G. Komen foundation is one of the leading supporters of breast cancer research and awareness in the nation.  They have regularly provided millions of dollars to another organization that deals with breast cancer issues - Planned Parenthood.  Planned Parenthood, in addition to supporting breast cancer awareness, research, and treatment, also provides funding for abortions.  Of course, abortion remains one of the most divisive political issues in the country today.  Pro-life, pro-death, pro-choice, etc. - the monikers for whatever your position is on the issue span the spectrum from accurate to incendiary.  Everyone is entitled to their opinion on the issue - except Komen, apparently.

Recently, Komen ceased providing money to Planned Parenthood because it is a pro-life organization and doesn't want any of its money going toward abortions, and I can respect that.  If you are against abortions, why would you want to fund an organization that pays for them.

The liberal backlash against Komen has been unrelenting in the last week or so.  Komen's money is its own to use as it sees fit.  If they see fit not to fund abortions, so be it.  That's part of the greatness of America - people and organizations can use their money to support causes they believe in.  And there are enough organizations on both sides of every issue that no issue goes ignored or unfunded.

But to hear the liberals tell it, Komen is an evil entity that should be relegated to the depths of hell for pulling its funding from abortion supporting Planned Parenthood.  They are essentially calling for a war on Komen.  How dare they stop giving Planned Parenthood money!  If they won't cave to the liberals' demands to continue funding abortions through Planned Parenthood, then Komen has no place in our society.
Well, guess what, liberals?  Komen can do what they want with their money, and I respect their move to stop funding an organization that they disagree with on such an important issue as abortion.  There's nothing evil or unlawful about it.  They are pro-life and don't want to give money to an organization that pays for abortions.  What's the outrage for?

Well, I'll tell you what the outrage is:  if you don't support liberal causes, then you don't deserve to be left alone; you don't deserve to have a right to use your money as you see fit; you don't deserve the same freedoms that liberal organizations enjoy.  It's the whole "free speech for me but not for thee" and the holier than thou mindset of the liberals today.  If you dare to stand up for what you believe in, and it's not in line with the liberal agenda, then you are evil and should be attacked, shut down, boycotted, destroyed.

The real outrage is that Komen, which stood up for what it believe in, has caved to the pressure from the hypocritical liberals.  Chalk one up for the liberals.  Just remember this when a liberal organization of the same magnitude of Komen decides to stop funding or supporting an entity that holds a conservative point of view.  Instead of hearing unrelenting attacks, I suspect the liberal media will be pinning medals to their chests and applauding the principled integrity of the leftist organization.

It reminds me of Obama's continuous opposition and attacks against super PAC's, until recently embracing them and deciding to utilize them in his own campaign, which has been well undeway for over a year now, all of which is being paid for by us.  Instead of leading the nation, he's spending our money to fly around the country to important states in the upcoming November election to campaign for another term.

The liberals are hypocrites and have no shame.  You're free, until you don't support one of their pet projects - then you're evil.  Freedom means respecting the decisions and positions of those who disagree with you.  It doesn't mean trying to shut down and demonize those who disagree with you.  There's a proper way to oppose those who don't agree with you, and then there's the way the liberals have been attacking Komen.

Biggest Government Ever

In 2008, there were 1.2 million federal government employees (not including military personnel).   Today there are in excess of 2.1 million.  This is the largest federal payroll ever!  Since Obama has taken office, the size of the federal government, in terms of the number of people comprising it's payroll, has almost doubled.  Meanwhile, the private sector is experiencing one of the worst job markets in many decades.

I have no axe to grind with people who work for the federal government.  It is the elected officials - the president, namely - that are the problem.  Every person that is taken from the private sector and placed in government employment reduces the productivity of our country.

Think about it - people who work for the private sector, in doctor's offices, auto factories, bakeries, drycleaners, Wal-Mart, etc., all produce something of value for our country.  They create value and are paid according to how much value they produce.  The more the private sector grows, the more value our country produces.  Increases in private sector employment greatly benefit our economy.

In contrast, when the government employs more people, it is a drag on our economy.  Government workers don't create value in our economy - they process government beauracracy and receive paychecks comprised of tax dollars - money taken out of the economy, from the paychecks of those in the private sector.

When private sector employment drops and government employment increases, it is a recipe for economic ruin.

Chart:  Increase in Number of Federal Government Employees, through 2006

WWOD?

Obama recently cited scripture during a speech in which he calls on Americans to pay more taxes.  He apparently thinks that a passage in the Bible about how those that receive benefits in life should also give to others.  There is a big difference between voluntarily giving to others and having the government taking your money away from you to give away to others.  It's not in the spirit of giving for the government to steal your money and give it away - it is when you voluntarily give to others.  It's outrageous that Obama is abusing the words and teachings of Jesus to call for more government theft of our hard-earned money, as if that somehow qualifies as charity according to the Bible.  It's a disgrace to the Bible and Christians should be appalled!

But I've heard nary a complaint about this from the liberal media.  Fox News, that evil conservative, corporatist, elitist, un-American, lying, propaganda network did cover it - accurately and appropriately.

Fox News is not the problem.  Obama and the big, growing, thieving government is the problem, and at least one network continues to expose the socialist conspiracy that is upon us.

If you think Jesus supported charity, then give more.  But don't let the government use Jesus to steal your money in a sort of forced charity...not that robbing from the rich to create a nanny-state of government dependence is any sort of charity.  It only serves their goal of turning our nation into another failed socialist experiment.

And then Obama says that the founders set in place a system which makes it harder for him to set in motion changes.  Thank god he still finds our founding principles an impediment to his "progress!"

Vote for Romney, or Gingrich, or Santorum, or Paul - whoever is the R candidate.  They all have many flaws, but at least all of them will at least slow our descent into ruin by varying degrees.  If Obama wins again, start stocking up on guns, canned goods, and gold so you're prepared for all the charity we are bound to receive through his highness King Obama.

Teachers Laid Off

People better start getting used to the idea that we, as a county, state, and nation need to start cutting back. We have lived beyond our means for too long, and tough decisions will dominate the political landscape for some time to come - unless we do nothing, and are then prepared to face bankruptcy.

65 people who work for the school system in my county just got laid off.

http://journal-news.net/page/content.detail/id/574406/Board-backs-all-RIF-layoffs.html?nav=5006

If Jefferson County taxes are raised, people get upset. If teachers are laid off, people get upset.  If the school levy goes up, people get upset. When our county's share of the gambling revenues at the track can only be used for capital improvements at the schools, people get upset.  What do people think we are supposed to do when the school board faces a $5.4 million shortfall in its budget? There was a big protest today to these layoffs. It's tough-decision time, people - get used to it.

My county's school board laid off 65 school personnel today to help fill that $5.4 million shortfall in their budget.  Even with these cuts, they still remain about $4 million short.  Plenty of people showed up today to protest the cuts. 

http://journal-news.net/page/content.detail/id/574405/School-cuts-protested.html?nav=5006

I don't recall hearing/reading about any alternative solutions these protesters had though.  People, you can't just bitch about tough decisions being made just because you want to have your cake and eat it too.  If you don't want teachers laid off, then what?  Cut out the books and pencils?  Get rid of the school buses?  No desks?  I've yet to hear anyone consider that the teachers' unions should stop extorting the school boards around the country - that would alleviate a lot of fiscal stress.  They push school boards into a fiscal corner and then bitch when the school board tries to escape.  It's not like the school board is just being stubbornly frugal for Christ's sake.  Something had to give eventually, and today something did, and no one is relishing in it, but I've never known life to be easy or fair.  Unless you're in a union, maybe.

A lot of times, in situations like these, federal money relieves the fiscal stress locally. But all that does is pass the problem up a few levels. All the money at all the levels comes from the same place - our paychecks. We can't continue to fund everything forever, but no one wants to cut anything.  I wish our national politicians would start making tough decisions.  They ought to dump the federal Dept. of Education altogether.

Unfortunately, those we elect to make these tough decisions are usually too cowardly to put their political life on the line to save our nation. At least the local officials in Jeff. Co. made a tough decision to fix a problem in the long-term. I understand the pain that the protesters today felt, but a little pain now is better than a lot of pain later. It's one or the other.  And this is already a lot of pain somewhat later, but the longer you let it lie, the more pain builds up waiting to be unleashed.  Unions don't understand this.  They want more, more, more, and when the golden goose is dead, they villify the goose.  They'd rather enjoy a few years of the spoils of extortion than a few more years of fair recompense that would contribute to systemic stability rather than undermine it.  And what message is sent when our fearless politicians bail out companies that are collapsing under the weight of union extortion, while turning a blind eye to the extorters?  It delays the inevitable, condones the extortion, wastes OUR money, and keeps the weak cog in place.  Back to the education issue...

Spending on education has increased dramatically over the last few decades, with no improvement at all in the education itself. Test scores have been stagnant for 30 years while a graph of spending on education rises steadily at a 45 degree angle over the same time period.  There will be many more days and decisions like this to come. The alternative is bankruptcy, which should not be considered a viable option to anyone. Hiding your head in the sand is also not a real option. 

Spread the word and vote - that's all a single person can do.  Added up, those individual words and votes can change things though.  I wish us the best of luck.