The Rights of Man

I am sure that you know there are 2 document that our country were founded upon: The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

The Constitution has lately become little more than toilet paper for the current administration but that is a topic for another post.

It is the latter document that I would like to talk about. A specific piece about it in fact.

The Declaration of Independence states that there are 3 rights that men have. These rights are given to us by God. Not by the government. By God.

These rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

By stating that these rights were given to us by God and no by any man or institution, it states for fact that nobody has the right to take them away from us. Not another person. Not a government institution. Nobody.

I would like to discuss each of these rights in a little bit further detail, one by one.

Life.

This one is a pretty simple one. Everyone knows that we have the right to live. No man has the right to take away the right for another man to live.

However, does the government have the right to take a life?

One can argue that the government has no right to take another person's life and lead that conversation into a debate on the death penalty.

The law states that, in general, if you take a person's life, that is if you murder someone, you are to be sentenced to death. So if you, knowing that this is the law, take another person's life, does the government have the right to take yours? Yes. If you are looking at it from the point of view of the law.

However, the question that comes up is, should this be the law. Should the government be allowed to take the life of a murder?

To be honest, this is a really touchy subject and I am not willing to take that one on in full force today.

For now, I believe that because it is the law, a person should deal with the consequences of their actions.

Liberty.

What is liberty? Is it just freedom?

It is freedom. But it is a specific freedom.

Liberty, literally defined, is the freedom to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.

So when you think of liberty and how it applies in the Declaration of Independence, or more importantly how it applies to you and I, the government has no right to take away a person's right to act, believe or express themselves as they see fit. Any government that does, is taking away a person's liberty and in my opinion, a government that is not fit to govern.

This is where the Bill of Rights comes into play. The government has no right to restrict freedom of speech or freedom of the press, or freedom of religion, etc..

The Bill of Rights is all about Liberty. You should read it sometime if you haven't.

The Pursuit of Happiness.

This is where things are going to get personal. There is a lot of debate over this one and its meaning.

I think if we break this phrase down to its two main words, we can explain it a little better.

First word: Happiness (I am doing this out of order on purpose)

What exactly is happiness? Does wealth equal happiness? Don't they say money can't buy happiness?

As I look around, I see rich people that are happen. But I also see rich people that are not happy.
I also see poor people that are happy. But of course there are poor people that are unhappy.

I don't think that happiness equals wealth or financial success. I think happiness is a state of mind.

I think that when the Declaration of Independence was written, Jefferson was meaning something more along the lines of contentment.

But by adding that other word to the phrase, this is where the idea of acquiring wealth comes up as meaning the same as happiness.

Although I am not 100% that happiness and wealth go hand in hand, I will address this idea of the pursuit of wealth.

The statement that is made is that a person has the right to the PURSUIT of happiness and that this right can not be taken away by another person or the government.

It does not say that the government is responsible for providing the happiness itself. Only that it is responsible for protecting the right of its pursuit and to remove the barriers from that pursuit.
In other words, it is the responsibility of the government to provide the means in which a person can pursue happiness, but not to provide the happiness itself.

Entitlement programs generally do little more than provide the happiness in most cases. They do nothing to assist a person along with any sort of pursuit of happiness. And in most cases, the person receiving the entitlement is given no incentive to improve their situation. They have the money. Why bother doing something that would take that money away from them? Why bother improve their station in life?

There are of course exceptions to this rule such as those that are physically unable to go out and work. But that is something we can discuss at another time because that is a different matter entirely.

I think my point has been made fairly clear enough on the pursuit of happiness.

In a later post, I think I might touch on the ways I think the government can, does and should provide for the pursuit of happiness without providing entitlements.

A lot of the problems with our country I believe began a long time ago but really started a little over a half a century ago when the administration got the idea that our citizens are entitled to certain things without having to work for them. Their ideas have steadily turned our country into a welfare state.

It seems as if the goal of our government is to spend less time performing their actual Constitutionally required duties and to spend more time coddling those that don't want to do anything for themselves.

The government of our country is becoming nothing more than a huge non-profit charity organization.

In fact, in my opinion, I think that the reason that there are less charitable organizations that provide assistance for the poor and hungry operating today is because of the government "takeover" of charity.

The government should not, should not have ever been, nor should it ever be, a replacement for non-profit charitable organizations. Ever.

It is the duty of the government to respect and protect the rights of its citizens. The rights of life, by protecting our borders and providing for a strong national defense; liberty, by removing any restrictions of its citizens freedoms that are ascribed in the Bill of Rights; and the pursuit of happiness, by removing barrier on the path of bettering one's self.

Life. Liberty. Pursuit of Happiness. These are the most basic human rights of man given by God and no government entity ever has the right to take these rights away from us.

The Welfare State

In a comment on my latest blog What is General Welfare, the question was asked of me:

"...do you think that we should do away with programs like Food Stamps or WIC? Don't you think that we, collectively through the government, have a moral obligation to help those in need?"

The question was asked by my good friend Dave so I know his intentions are honorable.

He even put up his own post on his blog titled A Moral Responsibility.

His argument states entitlement programs should not be done away with completely because as he states:

"It is my belief that one of the core functions of the government is providing a safety net for the citizenry. This is done through labor laws, anti-trust/anti-monopoly laws, and through welfare programs."

I both agree and disagree with Dave's statement here.

I agree that it is the core responsibility to provide a safety net for its citizens. But not in the manner of which he is referring to. I believe it is the job of the federal government to keep our citizens safe. Safe from invasion though. Not from circumstance.

Another point in his post that I agree with is that we, as a people, do in fact have a moral obligation to help out those that are poor and needy. However, I think this is a moral obligation of the people of the United States, not the government of the United States.

Today's liberals (and I am in no way trying to lump Dave into this group) believe that the government should not legislative morality. In essence, it seems to me that these entitlement programs are in fact legislating morality.

If the left (again just a generalization here, not trying to point figures at any specific person) wants to claim that it is a moral obligation of the government to provide for those that are less fortunate, than they must also agree that it is okay to legislate morality in other ways. They can't take one without the other.

I do not believe that any government program is going to provide any long-lasting permanent relief of poverty.

Personally, I think that while the intentions of past Presidents like Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson in their creation of some of these entitlement programs was very noble, I think that, especially in the case of FDR, these programs should have been temporary solutions, not permanent entitlements that have spread from generation to generation.

And in my opinion, if you want to get really literal about it, these programs are unconstitutional. Creating these programs does not fall under the responsibility of the federal governments according to our Constitution. That was the whole point of my last post.

The point I was making is that many people think that providing for our 'general welfare' actually means to provide for welfare as the term means today when in fact, they were just referring to the general well-being, the safety of our people.

It is the job of the government to ensure that the people of the United States have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is not the job of the federal government to guarantee happiness.

As I mentioned in that last post of mine, it is the job of the federal government to protect our citizens and our borders, and to collect taxes in order to provide those functions efficiently.

History has shown us that, in the past, the federal government has been very efficient in these areas. For instance, until 2001, no foreign power has ever invaded our country since Pearl Harbor. And before that since the War of 1812. Our government has a pretty good track record of keeping us free from invasion.

The areas that they have been found lacking in efficiency are those areas that they had no business getting involved with in the first place.

Welfare. Its intended purpose is a failure. It only provides temporary relief and provides no incentive for people to own up to personal accountability and pick themselves back up. Welfare only serves to make its recipients more dependent on the government and makes them less apt to go to work and get themselves off the program. In my opinion, this program only makes people more dependent on the program so that they are easier to control. Which is why I think that many of the power-hungry politicians want to not only keep welfare going but expand it.

Social Security. In shambles. It is a program that is going bankrupt.

Medicare. Also going bankrupt. However, I will give Medicare one thing. It has succeeded in one thing. Contributing to the rising costs of medical care. Although I don't think that was one of its original intentions.

Another example of the inefficiency and failure of government involvement in recent years: Years ago, the housing market was having some trouble, so the government got involved by chartering the Federal National Mortgage Association, also known as Fannie Mae. Well, we all know how well that turned out.

The brutal fact of the matter is that the federal government does not make a person's life better by trying to do things they were never intended to do.

The federal government quite simply should stick to doing what we know it can do effectively. Protect our country.

The federal government should no longer be allowed to continue to follow the path that has unfortunately turned our country into what it is now.

A welfare state.

What is General Welfare?

General welfare is a term that is used more than once in the United States Constitution.

First, it is mentioned in the Preamble:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare.."

Next, it is mentioned in Article 1, Section 8:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..."

The preamble itself does not institute any laws or lay down the rights of duties of any section of government. The preamble is merely an introduction if you will. It is just stating why the Constitution was being written.

Article 1, on the other hand, is the section of the Constitution that deals with the powers of our legislative body.

Section 8 is stating that Congress has the power to, among other things, provide for the defense and general welfare of the United States.

So what does "general welfare" mean?

I think the word welfare has come to mean different things to different people.

Today, when you mention the word 'welfare' the first thing that immediately comes to most people's minds is government assistance to the poor.

However, that is not what the Constitution is talking about. The Constitution was never intended to entitle people to financial assistance from the state. In fact, most of the framers of the Constitution were very distrusting of government and would have never proposed such a ridiculous idea.

If you want to know what type of general welfare the Constitution is talking about you have to go back and read what the term meant in 1787.

Not only that but you need to read the term in context with the rest of the paragraph. "Provide for the Common Defence and General Welfare of the United States..."

The term 'general welfare' in 1787 is a term that means (and should still mean if you ask me) general well-being. The terms common defense and general welfare go hand in hand. The framers of the Constitution are talking about Congress having the power to provide for the defense of the country and the safety of its citizens. Nothing more. Nothing less.

So the next time you hear someone tell you that everyone is entitled to certain things because the Constitution says they are, explain to them how wrong they really are.

This country was never meant to become a "welfare state" as the term is used these days.

It is up to Congress to establish laws that:

(a) protect our country from invasion

(b) protect our borders

(c) provide safety for our citizenry, and

(d) collects taxes to fund the aforementioned functions.

It is not, however, the duty of Congress to make sure that everyone in the country who thinks they are entitled to certain things has a decent place to live, or a decent place to work, or has enough money to support their family, or has adequate health care. It is not their job. Those types of things fall under the heading of what I call personal responsibility.

I believe, however, that it is well within the rights of Congress to establish laws that remove barriers that allow our citizens to obtain these things more easily, but it is not their job to hand a person a job, or a house, or a check, or give them free health care.

Okay, I am rambling a bit now, back to the topic at hand.

The term general welfare was not written with the intention of giving every citizen a handout.

It was written with the intention of providing for the safety of our nation's citizens. Pure and simple.

MLB Roundup!

Wow, I have not done one of these since June!!

AMERICAN LEAGUE

East
NY Yankees (Boooo!)

Boston

Tampa Bay

Toronto

Baltimore

Central
Detroit
Chicago White Sox

Minnesota

Cleveland
Kansas City

West
L.A. Angels

Texas

Seattle (sadly, 10 games out of 1st)

Oakland

NATIONAL LEAGUE

East
Philadelphia
Atlanta

Florida

NY Mets

Washington

Central
St Louis
Chicago Cubs

Houston

Milwaukee

Cincinnati

Pittsburg

West
Los Angeles Dodgers
Colorado

San Francisco

Arizona

San Diego

LEAGUE LEADERS

Batting Avg

Mauer (Twins) - .373

Ramirez (Florida) - .365

Ichiro (Seattle) - .359

Home Runs
Albert Pujols (St Louis ) - 40
Reynolds (Arizona) - 38

Pena (Tampa Bay) - 37

RBIs
Prince Fielder (Milwaukee) - 112

Howard (Philadelphia) - 107

Pujols (St Louis) - 107

Wins
C.C. Sabathia (NY Yankees) - 15

Wainwright (St Louis) - 15

Beckett (Boston) -14

ERA
Zack Greinke (Royals) - 2.43
Hernandez (Seattle) - 2.73
Jackson (Detroit) - 2.96

Strikeouts
Justin Verlander (Detroit) - 211

Greinke (Kansas City) - 197

Lester (Boston) - 187

ESPN Power Rankings (1st 10)
NY Yankees

Angels

Phillies

Dodgers

Red Sox

Cardinals

Rangers

Rockies

Rays

Braves

The Mariners are in the 16th position in the Power Rankings.

Otters Picks for the World Series!

I know it is still a bit early but this is my prelimary pick for the 2 teams that will play each other in the World Series.

I am going with the LA Dodgers and the Detroit Tigers.

Becoming An Elephant

This post is basically my political autobiography and will chronicle how I came to align myself with the Republican Party.

At the age of 18, I registered to vote. At the time, I lived in a state where you had to declare a party when you registered. My parents were both Democrats. My father, in fact, was a delegate for Presidential hopeful Gary Hart in 1984. This being my only real knowledge of politics at the time, other than what I was taught in Civics class and the fact that the only President I knew anything about was President Reagan, I chose to register as a Republican.

I remained a Republican up until after the Presidential primaries in 1992. I voted as a Republican in the Presidential primary. I do not remember who I voted for in that primary but I know that it is was the current President at the time, George H.W. Bush.

I would also like to mention that at this point in time I was a little bit more involved with educating myself in the political process. In fact, I was a member of the Student Senate at the college I was attending.

After the primaries were over, and Bush won the nomination, I felt myself very unimpressed with the Republican Party. I was also not too terribly impressed with the Democratic Party either, however, after having looked at both candidates, including H. Ross Perot, I felt more in tune with the Democratic nominee, Bill Clinton. At this point, I decided to re-register as a Democrat, even going so far as to ascend to the Vice Presidency of the Young Democrats.

After Clinton won the election, I of course, remained a Democrat. I remained a Democrat until toward the end of Clinton's 2nd term. I never did like Al Gore (I still don't). I did not really want to see him become President. But I also at the time did not want to see the son of the President I despised back in the early 90s become President either. By the time the primaries came around for this election, I registered as an Independent because I was completely disenfranchised with both parties and began to really hate the two-party system. Registering as an independent in the state I was living in however made me not eligible to vote in either primary.

Not knowing who to vote for, I began looking at all of the options for Independent candidates and began to feel more in tune with the Libertarian Party. So I supported, campaigned and voted for the Libertarian Party's candidate, Harry S. Browne. I also campaigned and voted for an Independent candidate for that state's gubernatorial election. Neither one of them won, of course, but I began to realize that I was not in tune at all with either political party and remained an Independent for a very long time after that.

Fast forwarding to 2008, the Presidential primaries were in full swing and I of course was registered as an Independent which meant I could not vote in the primaries. Oddly, I re-registered as a Republican just in time to be able to vote in those primaries and voted for Mike Huckabee. Shortly after the primary, I switched back to Independent. I did this switcharoo because I genuinely like Huckabee as a person and had not quite decided at that point in time which Independent I was going to support in that Presidential election. I did not re-register before the primaries as a Democrat because I did not like any of the choices.

With the general election going on, I briefly supported Obama (very very briefly) until I came to my senses and realized how much I truly did not (and still don't) trust the guy. I was not a fan of Senator McCain either and did not support him either. In the end, in the last few weeks of the campaign, I decided to throw my support behind Ralph Nader. Not necessarily because I believed in his policies (although I did agree with some of them) but because I felt like he was the best chance an Independent had of making a strong showing.

Immediately following the election, I realized that being an Independent was truly a lesson in futility. There was no way, especially not in the state in which I was living at the time and currently still live in, an independent candidate in any elected office will ever make enough of a showing to make any kind of difference. I realized that the entire time I remained staunchly Independent I was in fact kidding myself.

So I began a sort of political soul-search to figure out where I belonged.

I began to think about which Party I truly was more in tune with.

At first, I realized that there were a lot of issues that I agreed with the Republican Party platform on but there were some I disagreed with so there was little chance that other Republicans would warm up to me being in their party.

On the other side of the coin, I had little desire to join the Democratic Party. This was the Party that put the current administration into office and that was something that I could never support. On top of the fact that I had very little in common with this party and it's stand on the issues.

So after much thought and discussion with members of both parties (and discussions among other fellow Independents), I decided that since I agreed with the ideals of the Republican Party more often than I disagreed with them and that I truly did feel more in tune with their conservative principles, I decided to throw my hat into the GOP ring.

In some ways, I still consider myself to be an independent voter. I am not a blind partisan and there are still a couple of things that I disagree with the party on but I believe it was Reagan who once said if you are with me 80% of the time, you are with me and that is my take on this because I am sure that I agree with the GOP more than 80% of the time.

In any case, I am conservative and for now, the Republican Party is the party that espouses conservative ideals. So unless the GOP does a complete shift to the left at some point in time, the Republican Party is where my loyalty lies.

And that, my friends, is how I became an Elephant.

Oregon's Healthcare Reform for Idiots

Recently a bill was passed by the Oregon State Legislature to expand health care for children by creating the Health Care for All Oregon Children program, which is in addition to their already running Children's Health Insurance Program, aka CHIP.

To fund this program they are requiring all private insurance companies that offer policies to Oregon state residents to pay 1% of their total premiums to the state.

Of course, anyone with common sense can tell that these means Oregon residents can expect a 1% (at least) increase in their premiums when this bill goes into effect.

The reason I bring this up is not because I think expanding health care to children is a bad thing. The problem I have with this is requiring that the private industry fund this program. I know 1% is not a whole lot and in the long run it is possibly that it might not have any sort of negative impact on the people of Oregon.

What worries me is with every new government program comes more government bureaucracy. Somebody is going to have to run this thing. Somebody is going to have to administer this thing. With every new government program, the idea of smaller government decreases more and more.

What I don't understand is why do they need a totally new program to fund health care for children? What is run with the currently running CHIP program? Isn't one government bureaucracy enough for these people? If you want to expand health care to children, expand the program you already have running!

Again, I have to use my blog to point out the lack of common sense in government and it appears that this lack of common sense is not restricted to just the federal government.

What America Needs

The American people are becoming more and more disenfranchised with their government. And rightly so.

The things that America needs are not being addressed by our elected officials. Our representatives in Washington DC are more concerned with making headlines and increasing their bank account and getting re-elected than they are about actually fixing problems.

Maybe they are not sure what America needs. Could this be the case?

It is with this thought that I decided to list 7 things that America needs. Simple things but things that I feel for one reason or another are not being addressed.

Here they are:

1. Tax Reform - personally I feel we should institute a program like The Fair Tax
2. Smaller Government - simple in theory but where do we begin?
3. Strong National Defense
4. Protect Our Borders – End Illegal Immigration
5. Reduce Our Dependence on Foreign Oil – Research Alternative Energy Sources
6. Protect States’ Rights
7. Protect Liberty & Property

So there they are. This is what I think American needs. If you can come up with anymore that you think are not being addressed, or if you would just like to discuss these issues in greater detail, or have some ideas on how to fix these issues, I urge you to use this post as a discussion forum so that we can help our representatives in Washington DC to actually attempt to do something to fix these problems.

Results of Recent Poll: English the Official Language

It looks like the aye's have it on this poll.

I recently conducted a poll where the question was asked 'Do you think English should be made the official language of the United States?'

70% of those that voted think yes and I agree with them. I think that if you are going to move and live and work and go to school in this country, it should be expected that you speak our language.

For instance, no school in another country is going to take time out of their schedules and time away from the majority of the students so that they can help out someone that does not speak the native language.

You want to live here. Assimilate. Learn the language. I am tired of having to hear an operator ask me if I want to press 2 for Spanish.

The Union Blues

This article from The Union News (which it actually got from The Bowling Green Daily News)

"Boeing...a huge aerospace corporation that employs directly and indirectly more than 150,000 people..recently announced that it is searching for sites to build another plant. Unfortunately, Kentucky won't be in the running because it's not a right-to-work state. In Seattle, where Boeing is currently building the 787 Dreamliner, it is running about 2 years behind, in part because of a strike by 25,000 members of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. Last fall, the machinists union staged a 57-day strike at factories around Seattle. It was the union's 4th strike in 20 years. This is why Boeing is considering a 2nd assembly plant for its 787 to make up for the repeated delays. Boeing is said to be looking at South Carolina and Texas because they are right-to-work states, which means that employees aren't required to join a union if one exists at a company."

So here we have one of the largest aerospace companies in the world, one that was originally founded in Seattle, WA, and it is looking for other places to locate, largely due to problems with its biggest union.

And here is another article taken from The Seattle Times:

"The start of the school is near and so, too, the unfortunate threat of class delays if teachers go on strike in three Western Washington school districts......A state mediator has been called in to negotiations in the Mount Vernon School District and Shoreline teachers are moving toward a strike.
Every year, families face uncertainty because of contract negotiations....
Yes, strikes by teachers ARE ILLEGAL but they occur...State law forbids strikes to prevent a breakdown in critical services such as fire, police and eduction. But they happen....."

Yes, you read that right. Strikes by the teachers union here in Washington is illegal, yet they happen.
Most of the school districts in Western Washington are broke and yet these people are screaming for more money. They are lucky they have a job and don't get their butts fired.
Although I think that teachers are one of those professions that are by and large underpaid, I find myself having no sympathy for these teachers that go on strike, especially in the middle of a recession where unemployment is skyrocketing.

Teachers unions in the Seattle area seem to be constantly going on strike for more money. And it is illegal! It befuddles me why the state does not enforce the laws that are already on the books and allow these strikes to happen.

It is because of things like these that my respect for unions has diminished quite a bit over the last few months, even to a point where I think that unions have outlived their usefulness and they are no longer needed.

There are a few reasons that labor unions got organized to make improvements in their respective workplaces:

(1) They wanted to stop child labor.
There are now child labor laws and putting children to work is illegal. The minimum age to work in most industries in the United States is 16. No need for unions in this regard.
(2) They wanted to establish an 8-hour work day.
This is already commonplace in most industries and those where it is not common, employees get overtime pay for working more than 8 hours. Again, no need for unions to get this established.
(3) They wanted to improve worker safety and health.
OSHA was signed into law in 1970 by President Richard Nixon. No need for the union to help improve worker safety and health.
(4) They wanted to improve wages for workers.
The first minimum wage law in the United States was introduced in 1938 and has risen consistently every few years. Why do we need unions to improve wages?

The fact is, they are obsolete. They enacted some major changes in the country's labor laws and for that they can be applauded. But now, they are not necessary and as I have pointed out, are causing more harm than good.

Because of the machinist labor union here in Seattle, there is a strong chance that thousands of jobs will be lost when Boeing decides to up and move to a right-to-work state. On top of that, the state of Kentucky was thrown out of the running for a brand new plant that would have created hundreds if not thousands of jobs in the Bowling Green area because Kentucky is not a right-to-work state. Boeing is only considering right-to-work states to build their new facilities. Why? Because they are tired of having to deal with union strikes every few years and getting behind in production because of them.

Maybe I am off base here but I really think that the time for unions has come. It is time to make every state in the country a right-to-work state.

If an employee wants to belong to a union for whatever reason, fine, let them join one. But if an employee does not want to belong to a union just to get a job with a particular company, they should have the option not to join.

Most opponents of right-to-work state that making a state right-to-work undermines the union and makes it less attractive to employees to join a union if they are not required to join one. Well I say that is the unions problem. Unless they can come up with a better way to attract employees other than by coercion, then they have no right to complain about it.

I will say it again. The time for the labor movement union has come and gone.



Kudos to the NW Republican for pointing out the Boeing article.

Inslee's thoughts on the Fair Tax

I wrote Congressman Jay Inslee (Democrat - Washington's 1st Congressional District) an email a couple months back regarding the Fair Tax Act to see what his feelings were on it and here are some excerpts from the email that I got from him today:

"...the Fair Tax Act..seeks to repeal all federal taxes and abolish the Internal Revenue Service. I believe that by abolishing the IRS, the Fair Tax Act goes too far. The bulk of the tax revenue collected by the IRS is used to provide for the defense of our nation, pay monthly Social Security checks, fund Medicare, and pay down our national debt....This bill suggests that a national sales tax would serve this purpose."

He is right, the Fair Tax would serve to abolish the IRS but where he gets the idea that if we repealed the income tax that we would stop funding national defense, Social Security, etc...is beyond me. These are the very programs that the Fair Tax would continue to fund. The Fair Tax does not proclaim the end of all taxes, obviously they are needed to fund necessary government programs like protecting our borders and defending our country. His claim that only the IRS can collect money for these purposes is asinine.

"The problem with a sales tax is that it is a regressive tax system. This means that if we changed to a sales tax system people who are working middle class folks would see their taxes go up."

No Jay, what it means is that middle class folks would be able to keep their entire paycheck so they would be more likely to spend more money, which puts money into the economy. More money placed into circulation means a better economy. Hmm, novel idea, eh?

And while I am on this subject, what the hell does Jay Inslee know about the "working middle class?" I will tell you what he knows about it. Not a damn thing!

This guy has been an elected official for almost 2 decades and on top of that his wife's family is independently wealthy. He wouldn't know a 'working middle class folk' if he ran over them in the street.

So here is another example of a politician that is basically okay with the current tax system and in my opinion has not done his research on the Fair Tax proposal. If he had actually read anything about it, or have even been given a summary of Neal Boortz's book The Fair Tax Book by one of his aides, he would sound a little more intelligent when talking about it.

Currently Reading: Common Sense

Okay, this is the book that I am ACTUALLY Currently Reading (I was Currently reading the aforementioned The Law by Frederic Bastiat but since I actually bought that one and only borrowed this one from the library, I figured I would read the later first.

TITLE: Common Sense

AUTHOR: Thomas Paine

PUBLISHER: Bantam Books

YEAR PUBLISHED: 2004 (originally published in 1776)

Currently Reading: Republican Party History

Saying Currently Reading is actually not entirely accurate. I actually just finished reading both of them. These were 2 different but short books (only about 100 pages each) about the History of the Republican Party.

TITLE: The History of the Republican Party

AUTHOR: Heather Lehr Wagner

PUBLISHER: Infobase Publishing

YEAR PUBLISHED: 2007

TITLE: The Republican Party: The Story of the Grand Old Party

AUTHOR: Dale Anderson

PUBLISHER: Compass Point Books

YEAR PUBLISHED: 2007

The one thing I have noticed after having read a few different books on the history of the Republican Party is that over the years since its founding, its platform, at least until that last couple of decades, was really inconsistent. It seems (based on what I have read) is that they have swapped back and forth between being liberal and being conservative.

Fortunately (for the most part) they have remained the party for conservatives fairly solidly since just before the election of Ronald Reagan. It seems that ever since Barry Goldwater campaigned as a Republican, the party has remained mainly conservative in its platform.

Currently Reading: The Law

TITLE: The Law

AUTHOR: Frederic Bastiat

PUBLISHER: Foundation for Economic Education

YEAR PUBLISHED: 1998 (originally published in 1850)

Here is part of the blurb from the back of the book:

"The Law has been acclaimed for more than a century as the classic moral defense of liberty and limited government. Here is a timeless message of immutable principle - in the immortal words of one of history's most courageous thinkers and brilliant writers."

In this book, originally published as a pamphlet, Bastiat states that "each of us has a natural right - from God - to defend his person, his liberty, and his property." And that the State is a "substitution of a common foe for individual forces" to defend this right.

Another Thomas Paine Video

Here is another one:

Thomas Paine Speaks Again

I saw this video on YouTube and had to share it!

New Poll: English the Official Language?

New poll up on the sidebar!

This one is simple. Should English become the Official language of the United States?

There are 2 answers to this question because it is such a simple question. You can choose Yes or you can choose No.

If you would like to discuss the question, feel free to comment on this post.

Currently Reading: Immigration Policy

TITLE: Immigration Policy

AUTHOR: Alan Allport

PUBLISHER: Chelsea House Publishers

YEAR PUBLISHED: 2005

No Amnesty!

I am currently reading a book about the nation's immigration policy and I am finding out some very interesting things.

Here is something I would like to share:

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 gave amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens. That's right. 3 million people that were in this country illegally that the government decided was okay to just let them go ahead and be criminals and that we would essentially pardon them all and let them live here.

A study done in March 1992 surveyed some interesting statistics about those 3 million illegals:

55% of them lived in California. No big surprise there in my opinion.

70% of them were originally from Mexico. Again, no surprise at all.

15% of them spoke English. Only 15%? That is a little bit shocking.

80% of them used public health services. You know what that means to me? Of that 80% I will bet you dollars to pesos (pun intended) that a large majority of them were on welfare.

We need to seriously start cracking down on people entering our country illegally. Congress approved the building of a fence on our southern border. Why hasn't it been built yet?

And I don't want to sound like a jerk but there is no way to say this without sounding like one so here goes. I even think we need to start decreasing the number of legal visas that are given as well. I won't go so far as to say our country is full, we are closed for business but we are having some huge economic problems in this country and I would venture as far to say that our lax immigration policies are part of the cause. I really think that it is in our country's best interest if we start being a lot more selective about who we let in our country.

I understand that the countries these immigrants are coming from are oppressive or economically challenged but we really need to stop being the country that takes care of everyone else's problems. We have our own problems here at home that need to be dealt with and if we continue to try and fix problems (such as illegal immigration) that we never really should have had to deal with in the first place, we are never going to get the things done with our country that seriously need to be done.

So get that fence built! Keep those illegals out! Absolutely, positively, without a doubt, NO AMNESTY whatsoever! There is no reason that we should just let these people get away with being here illegally. You find someone here illegally, deport them. If you have found them having committed a crime, deport them. Don't spend our tax dollars keeping them in our prisons. Turn them over to their governments and let them deal with them in their own prison system. It is not our job to babysit the world's criminals!

Is This Any Way to Run a Country?

Since Obama has taken office:

There are approximately 14.7 million unemployed..and rising. The worst since the Great Depression.

Our country has lost 3.5 million jobs and our unemployment rate is 9.5%.

The economy of the nation's most populous state, California, which also has the largest GDP, is collapsing.

Cities and states are being forced to cut their budgets.

Our country has the biggest deficit in 200 years.

Our national debt has reached $12 trillion!

Medicare is in the hold for $48 trillion!

We are not the most indebted county in the history of civilization.

You can blame Bush for this but before you do that remember that (1) it did not get this serious until Obama too office and (2) Congress was run by the Democrats for Bush's last 2 years in office.

I ask again, is this any way to run a country?

It is time to take our country back. Next year, when it is time to vote for your congressional representatives, be sure to remember what damage has been done in less than a year and think about how much more damage can be done if we don't get some of the tax and spenders out of office.

Vote for the Right Kind of Change in 2010!

The End of the Line

The ride was short but fun.

I am officially announcing here that my run for U.S. Congress for the state of Washington is at its end.

Some family issues have come up recently that will not allow me to put in the necessary time and energy needed to run for public office.

It is with great regret that I end the campaign but perhaps in the future I can make another go at it.

Even though I am not continuing my run, I urge you all to continue your search to elect congressmen and senators that will help bring some real change to Washington DC and truly work for the people that they represent.

Thank you all for the support you have given me thus far.

Top 10 Radio Programs

I was interested in knowing what the top listened to talk radio shows and this is what I found:

1. Rush Limbaugh (14.75 million)


2. Sean Hannity (13.75 million)


3. Glenn Beck (8.25 million)


4. Michael Savage (8.25 million)


5. Dr. Laura Schlessinger (8.25 million)


6. Laura Ingraham (5.75 million)


7. Mark Levin (5.75 million)


8. Neal Boortz (4.75 million)


9. Mike Gallagher (4.75 million)


10. Michael Medved (4.75 million)

What I find interesting about this find is that out of these 10 only 1 is not a "conservative" talk show host. And even him (Neal Boortz) generally supports conservatives but actually considers himself a Libertarian.

What I am wondering is, are there any worthwhile "liberal" talk shows out there and if so, why don't they have more listeners? What's wrong, don't liberals know how to turn on a radio? (Just a joke of course).

More Quotes of the Day

Here are a few by George Washington:

"Mankind, when left to themselves, are unfit for their own
government."

"The Constitution is the guide which I never will abandon."

"To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving
peace."

And one by Thomas Jefferson:

"A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government,
and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference."

10 Questions Politicans Won't Answer

This article was found on National Review Online and written by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK).

The article deals specifically with the health care issue.

And these are the 10 Questions his fellow politicians won't answer:

1. Why do we need to increase spending on health care by at least $1.6 trillion and steal prosperity from our children and grandchildren when we spend nearly twice per person what other industrialized nations spend on health care?
2. What programs will you cut and whose taxes will you raise to pay for health care reform?
3. What earmarks or pet projects that you have sponsored will you sacrifice to help finance the cost of health care reform?
4. Will you vote for a public option that requires taxpayer-funded abortion?
5. If the public option is so wonderful, will you lead by example and vote for a plan to enroll you and your family in the public option?
6. Will you vote for a plan that will allow a board of politicians and bureaucrats to override decisions made by you and your doctor?
7. If you sponsor a "comparative effectiveness" board, what qualifies you to practice medicine?
8. How will a government run public option run better than other failing government programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Indian Health Care?
9. If increasing spending on health care was the solution, why hasn't it worked yet?
10. Are you more committed to doing reform right or quickly? Would you consider backing a thoughtful alternative to the public option? If so, which one?

These are questions that you can ask at town hall meetings with your elected officials (if they even show up at these meetings). These are questions you can demand answers of if you call or email your elected officials.

Senator Coburn has introduced a bill entitled the Patient's Choice Act that guarantees coverage and choice for Americans without raising taxes or increasing spending. Novel concept, eh?

Quotes of the Day

"The jaws of power are always open to devour and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking and writing."
-- John Adams

"If freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."
-- George Washington

"Public opinion sets bounds to every government. And is the real sovereign in every free one."
-- James Madison

Disinformation....Really?

Born Alive

This video nearly made me vomit:

Make photo slide shows at www.OneTrueMedia.com

Currently Watching: The Fog of War

TITLE: The Fog of War: 11 Lessons From the Life of Robert S McNamara

DIRECTED BY: Errol Morris

DISTRIBUTED BY: Sony Pictures

YEAR RELEASED: 2003

This is a documentary was an interview conducted by the director with the former Secretary of

Defense. It won an Academy Award in 2003 for Best Documentary.

The 11 Lessons spoken about in the title refer to the 11 Lessons he learned from the Vietnam War.

The Special Features section of the DVD contains 10 additional lessons that pertain to politics in general. Here are those 10 lessons:

1. The human race will never eliminate war, but we can reduce the brutality of war by adhering to the principles of a "just war", particularly in the area of proportionality.
2. The indefinite combinations of human fallibility and nuclear weapons will lead to the destruction of all nations.
3. We (the United States) the most powerful nation in the world - and we are likely to remain so for decades ahead. But we are not omniscient. If we cannot persuade other nations with similar interests and similar values of the merits of the proposed use of that power, we should not proceed unilaterally except in the unlikely requirement to defend directly the continental U.S., Alaska and Hawaii.
4. Moral principles are...guides to foreign policy and defense policy, but surely we can agree that we should establish as a major goal of the U.S. foreign policy...the avoidance, in this century of carnage...caused by conflict in the 20th century.
5. We, the richest nation in the world, have failed in our responsibility to our own poor and to the disadvantaged across the world to help them advance their welfare in the most fundamental terms of nutrition, literacy, health and employment.
6. Corporate executives must recognize there is no contradiction between a soft heart and a hard head....they have responsibilities to stockholders, but they also have responsibilities to their employees, their customers and to society as a whole.
7. President Kennedy believed a primary responsibility of a president is to keep the nation out of war, if at all possible.
8. War is a blunt instrument by which to settle disputes between or within nations, and economic sanctions are rarely effective.
9. If we are to deal effectively with terrorists across the globe, we must develop a sense of empathy - I don't mean "sympathy" but rather "understanding" to counter their attacks on us and the Western World.
10. One of the greatest dangers we face today is the risk that terrorists will obtain weapons of mass destruction as a result of the breakdown of the Non-Proliferation Regime. We in the U.S. are contributing to that breakdown.

What The Heck is a Right-To-Work Law?

Right-to-work laws are laws that prevent labor unions and employees from requiring employees to join unions or require them to pay dues.

These laws were allowed by federal government by the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, also known as the Taft-Hartley Act.

Personally, I support right-to-work laws. Employees should be free to either join or refrain from joining unions.

I believe it is unethical to require an employee's membership of a union as a condition of employment.

I believe it further unethical to require an employee to pay dues which are usually used to support political causes that the employee may or may not support.

Opponents of these laws state that it is unfair for employees that do not pay dues to benefit from collective bargaining agreements and makes it less attractive for unions to attract employees.

Perhaps it is unfair to allow non-union employees to benefit from the hard work of the labor unions in their negotiations with an employer. It seems to me that it should be the right of the employer to bargain with these employees differently than it bargains with its union employees or to treat them all the same. The federal government has not place in these decisions.

Opponents of right-to-work laws have also stated that these laws endanger the safety and health of employees and leads to lower wages.

The problem with these arguments is that (1) the OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Act), created in 1970 essentially made labor unions obsolete in the matter of protecting worker safety and health. This act covers all private and public sector workplaces; and (2) minimum wage laws have been in effect in this country since the early 1900s. There is no need in most cases for labor unions to attempt to control wages for its members because most skilled laborers will not accept work with employers that offer less than what they think they will work.

Simply put, in the matter of wages, employers are well aware of the average wage for a skilled laborer and are not dumb enough to offer someone less unless the person has no experience. In those cases, there is a lot of room for negotiations.

All this being said, I do not want to come across as anti-union. In some cases, having a labor union represent you with an employee can be a good thing. However, for the most part, I can honestly see that labor unions have become more or less obsolete.

In my current campaign for U.S. Congress, there is little change that I would support a bill to amend the Taft-Hartley Act (which by the way, is actually an amendment to the 1935 National Labor Relations Act, aka the Wagner Act) to make all states enact right-to-work laws. I totally believe that this is a matter best left to the state legislatures and their citizens.

Currently, there are 22 states that have right-to-work laws. They are:

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

Florida

Georgia

Idaho

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

Mississippi

Nebraska

Nevada

North Carolina

North Dakota

Oklahoma

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Wyoming

Go Long in 2010! The Right Kind of Change!

Wasteful Spending

The so-called "Cash for Clunkers" program that has recently been allocated another $2 billion is one of the most wasteful government programs in recent memory.

First, the government is giving away $4500 on vehicles are worth far below that amount, sometimes thousands of dollars less.

I am not sure if any of the people that came up with this idea learned anything about basic economics but if they did, they must have forgotten a large portion of it.

On top of that, the automobiles that are traded in are completely destroyed. The government has required that all cars that are traded in and taken to scrap yards and crushed so that nothing is salvageable. This is the same government that insists that we recycle more.

This is government waste at its very worst.

So we have a government who has put us in so much debt that we can never hope to repay it within our lifetime. And to stimulate the economy here is their plan: to spend the tax dollars of hard working Americans and then pay someone else thousands more than their (more often than not) perfectly functioning vehicles are worth so that they can also drive themselves (no pun intended) further into debt.

Great plan.

The very idea that we can solve our nation's financial problem by spending more money bailing out financial institutions, mortgage companies and stimulus packages is nonsense.

That is like you or I making the decision to fix our own financial problems by going out and maxing out our credit cards and then going out and getting more credit cards and maxing those out too.

This is not a way to fix our economy. This type of thinking is dangerous.

Don't let your government waste any more money?

Say no to increased deficit spending and say no to your elected officials by voting out those congressmen and senators that voted for the bailouts and the stimulus package and who voted to further fund the "cash for clunkers" program.

It is time to finally change Washington DC for the better.

It is time for a RIGHT kind of change.

Go Long in 2010!

Health Care Bias?

It has been said by some that in regards to my feelings toward health care that I hold a particular bias against it.

I work for a large health insurance company in the Puget Sound area. So some would say that my viewpoint is skewed and that I can not be non-biased when it comes to my opinions on this health care bill.

Those people are dead wrong.

I make no apologies for who my employer is.

Yes, my employer is a health insurance company.

But I think rather than give me a biased viewpoint toward health care, that it gives me a more balanced perspective of the bill and gives me additional insight as to how to judge the bill on its merits, or in this case, lack of merits.

It is true that I am concerned that this health care bill will effectively put the private market out of business.

But even more so, I am concerned with the idea that the government wants to take over another part of our lives. They want to restrict our freedom of choice.

I am concerned with the idea that the government wants to interfere with our health decisions.

I am concerned with the idea that the government wants to create a large new bureaucracy to put the private market under their control to regulate who they are allowed to enroll, how much they are allowed to charge, and the type of plans they are allowed to offer.

The fact of the matter is that yes, I work for an insurance company. But it is also a fact that my opponent works for a company with a biased viewpoint. He works for the federal government. He works for the Democratic Party. He works for a corporation that desires higher taxes and a stronger, more centralized government.

The fact is that both Inslee and I have a bit of a biased viewpoint toward the health care bill.

But I ask you this question: Between Jay Inslee and Steve Long, who do you think has the best interests of the American people in mind? A person who has spent the last two decades of his life as an elected official and has completely lost touch with the people? Or a person that is untainted by the bureaucracy of government and truly is one of the people?

Next year, when it comes time to vote for your next Congressman, I hope you will ask yourself that question and think long and hard about your answer.

Go Long in 2010!

Currently Reading: Leadership 101

TITLE: Leadership 101: What Every Leader Needs to Know

AUTHOR: John C. Maxwell

PUBLISHER: Thomas Nelson Publishers

YEAR PUBLISHED: 2002

Quote of the Day

This is a quote taken from a discussion by Senate candidate Wayne Glover from Washington on the 9.12 Project.

"The government has taken the power away from the people. Over the past 80 years the government has become what the Founders feared the most about a strong central government............

The solutions are simple. Over the next few election cycles we must replace all the politicians with people who have experience outside of government, people who know what it is like to make ends meet, and people who know what it is like to have to decide whether to pay the IRS or provide for their family.

No solutions.........can be implemented unless we get rid of the entrenched politicians that have been stonewalling the people who have had real solutions to the real problems we face. Many have went to DC to change the way things are done there but have either given up or given in. We must take back our country from the people who are trying to destroy it every day."

I totally agree. It is time that we take our government back from the career politicians that do not understand the plight of every day Americans and give it to those of us that are untainted by the system. It is time for real change in our government. Not lip service change. Not empty promises.

It is time for a right kind of change.

Go Long in 2010!

Currently Reading: Liberty and Tyranny

TITLE: Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifestro

AUTHOR: Mark Levin

PUBLISHED BY: Threshold Editions

YEAR PUBLISHED: 2009

Sounding Off On Education

I believe that the best way to reform our national education system is to get the federal government out of the education business.

I am in favor of dismantling the federal Department of Education. Who do you think knows better how to educate our children in Washington state? A Washington D.C. bureaucrat or a local agency?

I believe that we should return the important issue of education back to the state and local communities because they know what the educational needs of our children are.

However, since I can tell you that almost as fact, this will never happen. The Department of Education will probably never be dismantled. Not in our lifetime anyway. So for now we have to figure out ways to work within the current system.

School vouchers are a great start to getting on the right track. Parents should be given the choice as to where they want their children educated. I do not believe that school vouchers undermine the public education system. I believe that school vouchers will foster healthy competition so that even public schools will force themselves to have better teachers, better curriculum, better test scores, and ultimately, better all around education.

Go Long in 2010!

Sounding Off On Immigration

I don't understand why there is even a debate on this.

Illegal immigration is wrong! That is why it is illegal. There is process to go through by which a person can become an American citizen. It is not that hard a process. It merely takes the drive and ambition of wanting to become a citizen of the greatest country on earth.

But there are millions of people every year that are allowed to sneak into our country. These people are allowed to take our jobs and further put a further drain on our economy by collecting benefits such as food assistance and welfare benefits. These people are getting free medical care at our taxpayer's expense and not living in this country legally!

I have no problem with people moving to our country and wanting to become citizens. Why wouldn't those from other countries want to come live here and benefit from our freedoms? This is the greatest country in the world! If those outside our country want to become citizens of the United States, there is a proper and legal way to do it. Not sneaking in through the back door and becoming a citizen by default. This is not a residency is 9/10 of the law sort of thing.

I do not agree with amnesty. Amnesty is not an answer to the illegal immigration problem. Amnesty only leads to more illegal immigration. Amnesty is quite simply making the illegal, legal.

I do not support the Guest Worker program. I believe that the guest worker program is just another form of amnesty.

The biggest thing standing in the way of preventing illegal immigration is that our borders are effectively open to all. Up to now, our government has proven unsuccessful at keeping illegals out, despite previous laws requiring the building a fence along our borders. The first step toward stopping illegal immigration is by finishing the building of heavily-guarded fence along our border.

Along with the building of a fence, we need a well-maintained and well-trained border patrol.

The next step is ensuring that those who are not citizens do not gain financial benefits from our system. I believe that if our human services departments can not verify a person's citizenship status, then that person should not be eligible for social services, including free medical care.

I also believe that there should be a legally mandated employment verification system and that those employers found to be violating our immigration laws by hiring illegal immigrants should pay the consequences. Those that entered the country illegally are breaking the law and those that employ illegal immigrants are breaking the law by providing them with employment. Any employer that knowingly hires illegal immigrants in order to avoid paying an American citizen a decent wage should be penalized.

Illegal immigration is a burden on the taxpayer and a burden on hard working American citizens.

Illegal immigration is a stain upon all those that have chosen the legal path by which to become an American citizen.

This is Steve Long. And I approve of this message. LoL!

Go LONG in 2010!