It was passed in California. It is working its way through the New York state legislature, and it is on the radar for a number of other blue states. It will bring more government intrusion into our lives, curtail our individual liberties, under the myth it will reduce crime. It is called micro-stamping.

What is micro-stamping? It is technology that is added to semi-automatic handguns that would imprint identifying information about the make, model, and serial number on a shell casing before it is ejected from the gun. The theory is that at a crime scene the police would be able to retrieve spent shells and through laboratory analysis, identify the last legal owner of the gun they were fired from. Today, the police rely on ballistic tests to compare the markings on a bullet that was fired with a test firing from the same gun to see if they match. The problem, they say, is to do that they have to recover the gun that was used, but with this new technology the shell casings will have a return address! Voila! Crime solved. Not so fast.

Leave the gun, take the cannolis

You can learn a lot from the movies. For those who are familiar with the Godfather trilogy, those goodfellows knew a thing or to about using a gun in the commission of a crime. When the mob boys did a hit, they typically dropped the gun at the scene so that they would not be caught with it later, and therefore tied back to the hit. A return address is of little use if it only brings you to the other side of the room you are standing in.

Under many guises the government is becoming more Orwellian every day. A couple of villages on Long Island have posted cameras at choke points into and out of the village to photograph cars coming and going, it then checks the license plates against a database to detect suspicious or stolen vehicles. EZPass is a convenience for taking tolls on highways, but information on your whereabouts are also captured in that database. We are constantly being reminded to watch out for identity theft and this new proposal will inscribe information about a legal handgun and toss it on the ground. How much information about you do you want the government to have?

Loss of Liberty

The Constitution recognizes our right to bear arms. But consider this nightmare scenario under micro-stamping. You take your legal handgun down to the firing range to practice your marksmanship as well as your safe gun handling skills. When you are done, you pick up what you can find of your shell casings, but you miss a few. Later on some miscreant rummages around the floor and picks up some of the shell casings you missed. He later goes to visit the girl who just broke up with him to make sure that “if he can’t have her no one will.”

He dispatches her with two shots of the same caliber as your gun. He finds the shell casings from his gun and leaves the ones he picked up at the range from your gun on the floor near where he retrieved his own. The police come to investigate and jackpot, they recover micro-stamped shell casings. They call your house but no one answers because your wife is out and you are working late. Shortly after you get home the cops arrive, but not sure if they are coming up on a killer they arrive ready for the worst. They have a warrant and knock at the door, battering ram at the ready. You open, they rush, slamming you to the floor and handcuffing you. Just then your wife arrives home as the police are searching your house. An officer tells your wife about the murder, and she goes off because of all the late hours she “thought you were working” she accuses you of cheating with the dead girl.

Ballistics later prove that your gun was not the murder weapon, but have fun putting your life back together. The real purpose of this bill is to raise the cost of owning a gun, not just in monetary terms but in social terms as well.

Wishful Thinking

The sales pitch for micro-stamping is to reduce handgun crime. But that is a myth.

• Micro-stamping is not entirely accurate.  Toolmarks Examiners. Firearms examiner George Krivosta, of the Suffolk County, N.Y., crime lab, found that the “vast majority” of “micro-stamped” characters in the alphanumeric serial number couldn’t be read on “any of the expended cartridge cases generated and examined.” –38 AFTE Journal 41, 2006
• Micro-stampings are easily removed. Now who would do that?! Criminals?
• According to the BATFE, 88% of crime guns are acquired through unregulated channels, and the median time between a crime gun’s acquisition and its use in crime is 6.6 years. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, most criminals get guns via theft or the black market.
• If guns are traceable, then it is very likely that there will be an increase in gun thefts. Since micro-stamping will tie a gun to the last legal owner, increases in theft will prevent traceability to the criminal, and make micro-stamping useless.
• Micro-stamping is only good for semi-automatic handguns. Revolvers do not eject spent shells and therefore are not left at the scene. Also, stopping to pick up the spent brass also negates the micro-stamping.

This is just another government power grab. While making it harder and harder for law abiding citizens to defend themselves, the government is protected from any liability for failing to protect you (see Warren v District of Columbia). The only people typically at the scene of the crime are the criminal and the victim. The police usually show up later to investigate the crime after the fact. Therefore what gun “control” laws typically do is to make sure law abiding citizens are defenseless and easier prey for law breakers. Criminals neither care for nor follow gun control laws.

In a free society, laws should be about what we do, not what we own.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Score one for Mr. Boehner. He has been getting lambasted by conservatives for being had on the 2011 budget deal he negotiated. But if you dig a little deeper you can find a nugget of gold.

As part of the budget deal Boehner got the Democrats and President Obama to sign off on not only keeping but expanding the school voucher program in the District of Columbia. Why is that a big deal? Well, two reasons. Between 1990 and 2010 the two largest teachers unions, the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers have donated over $50 million to Democrats while giving $2.2 million to Republicans. Republicans overwhelmingly support school choice vouchers while Democrats oppose them. The second reason is that currently about one million kids drop out of school every year and 70% of eighth graders cannot read proficiently. A recent study shows that,

that voucher recipients had graduation rates of 91%. That’s significantly higher than the D.C. public school average (56%) and the graduation rate for students who applied for a D.C. voucher but didn’t win the lottery (70%).

It shows that vouchers work. It also shows that it even helps those who are motivated to learn in their traditional schools, it’s not just cherry picking those students who are better than average regardless. The teachers’ unions for all their talk about “being for the children,” are really about the money. Dues money. The teachers’ union doesn’t care any more for the students than the steelworkers’ unions care about the steel. The difference is that the steelworkers are honest about it.

So do we have to wait for another study to prove that vouchers work or can we start graduating students that can do the kind of jobs American companies need to fill without going overseas for talent? Can we now shut down the Department of Education as the dismal failure it is after spending $1 trillion of taxpayer dollars to have one million dropouts a year? Let the free market do what free markets do best. Through competition a better solution is developed. Through government monopoly we have atrophy and failure.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

You almost have to wonder, why in the world did he run for president? Was he swept up in the ego trip? Was he reading too much into his own press clippings? Did the historic opportunity of being the first real black president, sorry Bill Clinton, in U.S. history overwhelm a careful consideration of what the job entailed?

For those who believe in federalism, as James Madison said, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined.” As the powers of the federal government are (supposed to be) few, so are the responsibilities of the President of the United States; important and focused, yes, but few. So why does President Obama look to avoid those few responsibilities and get involved in so many that are not in his purview?

From golf, to beer summits, to healthcare, to golf, to conferences on bullying, to golf, and now on guns, he seems to find that which is least related to his job to focus his energies and those of his administration. Even senators from his own party decry his lack of leadership on perhaps the most important issue of the day, spending and the debt. The Middle East is in flames and he talks tough but does nothing.

A Gun Summit

A deranged man in Tucson, Arizona, slipped through the cracks of existing laws that prohibit the sale of a gun, under both Arizona law and federal law to someone who is mentally ill or a drug user. Jared Loughner is guilty of both, but no one bothered to take the step to have a court declare him mentally unstable and no one made sure the system was updated with his drug use. If the laws on the books aren’t enforced, what will the addition of more laws do, other than further curtail liberties?

Of course that does not stop President Obama from wading in. On his team he picks Eric Holder and Hillary Rodham Clinton. I hope I am not being overly critical by saying, with the Middle East crumbling into chaos, a major ally recovering from an earthquake and tsunami in the Far East, and the function of the State Department being how we interface with other nations, am I the only one who thinks HRC is probably a little busy right now, or should be?

Then there is Eric Holder, who wouldn’t know a terrorist if he were jumping up and down on his desk screaming Allahu Akbar, while sweeping a sword inches over his head. Who sees Black Panthers intimidating voters in Philadelphia as just a couple of guys from the ‘hood hanging out. Who will twist himself in paroxysms to avoid saying in Congressional hearings that the possibility that Major Nidal Hisan was a radical Islamist, instead saying, “No, I don’t want to say anything negative about a religion.”

One of the knee jerk comments you hear from the gun opponents if you criticize gun restrictions is, “Should we allow machine guns!!” Considering that the U.S. government and this president have abdicated their responsibility to defend our border, even to the point of putting signs up 100 miles inside our country warning travelers that it is unsafe to travel in parts of Arizona, the idea of a couple of .50 caliber machine guns mounted on the roof of some rancher’s home in that area might not be a bad idea. With drug cartel members active in that area with automatic weapons, why not?

A Simple Approach

Let me suggest a simple approach. The laws should not be about what property you own, but what you do with it. Laws should apply to actions, not who we are, what we own, or what we think. The rules can and should be different for people who have violated laws by their actions or who have diminished capacity to safely operate something that could be dangerous. Felons should not be allowed to buy a gun nor someone who is mentally unstable. We are allowed to drink. We are allowed to drive. We are not allowed to drink and drive. The prohibited action is the combination of the two. If you drink and drive repeatedly, you don’t get to drive at all.

Our government should not stand in the way of its citizens being able to defend themselves. In a Supreme Court case Warren v District of Columbia, it was ruled that a police department is not responsible for failing to protect its citizens. It should be my responsibility to protect myself and my family. The Supreme Court seems to agree that you cannot blame the police if they do not respond.

So Hillary, go back to the State Department and focus on foreign policy not on guns. Mr. Holder, try being our chief prosecutor not a busybody. Mr. President, put away the golf clubs and start figuring out how to cut a very large slice out of the $1.6 trillion deficit you are running. If you didn’t want the job in the first place, you shouldn’t have asked for it.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours.  Please comment below.

Let the games begin.  The Republicans now control the House of Representatives and have pledged to cut $100 billion from the budget in short order.  About half a beat later came the howls from the transportation lobby that they can’t possibly mean highway and mass-transit projects.  Why is this even a matter for debate?

Budgets for highway and mass-transit projects have been growing for the past twenty years, and  they are beloved by the states, the construction industry and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.  But why do these programs even exist?  The only highway and mass-transit projects that should be the province of the federal government are within the roughly ten square miles of the District of Columbia and territories under U.S. jurisdiction.  The federal government has authority in these areas, the states have their own governments.

This is another giant shell game.  Georgians pay for a highway project in Alaska, Alaskans pay for mass transit in New York, New Yorkers pay for a highway in Arizona, Arizonans pay for trolleys in Baltimore.  This kind of shell game is one where no one but the taxpayer gets screwed.  The politicians go to ribbon cuttings and fill their reelection literature with pictures of the projects they have brought home.  They don’t talk about how they have impoverished their district by paying for every other politician’s project as well.

In the spirit of the new House rules concerning “Cut as you go,” I propose cutting all highway and mass-transit funding from the federal government.  At the same time I propose eliminating the federal fuel taxes and the Highway Trust Fund.  Take whatever money is in the Highway Trust Fund, parcel it out to the states and ceremoniously shut down the operation.  States would be free to pass the savings along to consumers or they could increase state fuel taxes necessary to maintain their own roads and mass-transit.  The federal fuel tax is currently nine cents per gallon.  Let each state collect and pay for their infrastructure with the revenues from these usage based taxes and not have to go begging to Washington for this project and that.  Why should a project entirely within one city, for example, the Big Dig in Boston that cost $17 billion be paid for by the rest of America (Answer: Ted Kennedy represented Massachusetts).

Shrink the federal government and let the state’s motorists pay as they go.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours.  Please comment below.

Comments submitted in response to a previous post, “The Progressive War on Federalism,” focused on the Electoral College and a movement called the National Popular Vote (http://www.nationalpopularvote.com) bill.  Rather than argue against my point it only seemed to reinforce it.  The objective of this movement, which before this commenter’s contribution I was unaware of, is to abolish, or should I say neuter, the Electoral College and replace it with the direct election of the president.  This movement looks to further weaken the states and move us away from federalism and toward a strong monolithic central government.  Here is my analysis.

The Case in Favor of Direct Election of the President

The commenter and the website for the National Popular Vote (NPV) bill make several points in favor of the change.  In my view it boils down to the following:

1. In the current system, after the primaries, candidates only campaign in a handful of competitive states and ignore the rest where one candidate is either far ahead or far behind.
2. The Electoral College that we have today, was not designed, anticipated or favored by the Founding Fathers
3. This does not abolish the Electoral College
4. It does not require a Constitutional Amendment
5. The power of states are neither increased nor decreased
6. The National Popular Vote bill would end the influence of the “mob” in a handful of closely divided battleground states
7. The current system does not provide a check on the “mob”

This seems pretty compelling.  Most polls show that this idea is strongly favored over the Electoral College that we have today.  However, who is being asked the question?  In the federal system of government that the Founders designed, the people did not have the power to directly elect the president, so asking someone who doesn’t have power if they would like it, is like asking someone who is hungry if they would like some food.  Let me present my case against it.

The Case against the Direct Election of the President

The first argument that somehow having the direct election of the president would compel candidates to actively campaign across the country is stated but not proven.  If the outcome of the election is determined based on who has the most votes, what would compel a candidate to campaign in Montana or Alaska?  There just aren’t that many people in  those states and are we to believe that if a candidate does not show up in a state to campaign that the citizens there are going to stay home and not vote? That is absurd.

The more likely scenario is that candidates will focus on major media markets.  If you take Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., not the cities but the media markets, you will cover about 25% of the population of the U.S.  Add Chicago, LA, San Francisco, Houston, Dallas, and Miami, and you probably don’t have to campaign anywhere else to have a shot at reaching enough of the popular vote to win.  Those in favor of this proposal make no compelling argument otherwise.

The second argument that the Electoral College that we have today was not designed, anticipated or favored by the Founding Fathers is a myth.  They created the Electoral College, they left the method of choosing the electors up to the states.  “The Framers not only rejected the direct popular election of the President, but also left it to the state legislatures to determining how the states’ electors were to be appointed.” (Heritage Guide to the Constitution, p.185).  This raises several points.

If the Founders specifically rejected the direct election of the president how can the supporters argue that this will pass Constitutional muster without an Amendment?  Also the argument that it does not abolish the Electoral College may be true, but it renders it meaningless, which is the same as abolishing it.  If the NPV bill is adopted by all the states, the outcome of every presidential election going forward would be a vote of 538-0.  Anyone who thinks that is more than a rubber stamp is deluding themselves.

The argument that this does not require a Constitutional Amendment, which I believe I have refuted, is based on the argument that states can band together in compacts and agree on the all for one selection of electors.  The supporters point to Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution in support of this.  However, this clause states that the approval of Congress is required.  Furthermore in “United States Steel v. Multistate Tax Commission (1978), the Supreme Court declared that state compacts require congressional approval only if they ‘encroach upon the supremacy of the United States.’”  (Heritage, p. 179).  What could be more of an encroachment than the states banding together to effectively nullify the Electoral College without a Constitutional amendment?

Federalism recognized the national government and each of the state governments as sovereign entities.  Therefore the voters in one state determining the electors in another state would also likely draw constitutional challenge.  If all the voters in Texas chose candidate A, but the national popular vote chose candidate B, under NPV the electors from Texas would vote for candidate B against the wishes of the people of Texas.

The Cato Institute studied the NPV proposal and found that about an equal number of states would garner more candidate attention from this proposal as would lose attention.  It looked at the electoral power of the states under both systems.  Under the current system it considered each state’s power as the current electoral votes as a percentage of the total number of electoral votes.  Under the NPV system it looked at the population of eligible voters as a percentage of the total number of eligible voters.  In their analysis twenty states would have greater influence under NPV among them Pennsylvania, New York, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois; thirty states would lose influence among them Wyoming, the District of Columbia, Alaska, Rhode Island, Connecticut and Louisiana; one state, Alabama would be unchanged.  So the argument that smaller “flyover” states would suddenly garner more attention is not borne out by the analysis.

The last argument is a check on “mob rule,” which oddly was the purpose behind the design of the Electoral College in the first place.  The argument against this is best illustrated by a hypothetical example.

Let’s say over the next six years there is a massive migration to California and at the same time NPV is approved in every state.  Maybe California finally gets marijuana legalized and maybe they even declare it a fundamental right that every Californian is entitled to a free pound of the stuff every year.  The migration results in 51% of the population living in California.  Now in 2016, governor Jerry Brown decides to run for president.  On Election Day, everyone in California lights up a spliff and heads to the polls to vote for Jerry Brown.  The vote in California is unanimous.  Elsewhere in the country everyone is shocked at what is taking place in California and votes for another candidate, say, Marco Rubio.  The popular vote is 51% for Jerry Brown, 49% for Marco Rubio.  Rubio carries 49 out of 50 states plus the District of Columbia.  Jerry Brown carries one state, California.  In the system we have today, Brown would get 54 Electoral votes and Rubio would get 484 and easily win the presidency over the “mob rule” in California.  But under NPV, Brown wins 538 -0.

Okay, forward to 2024 and let’s say the population has remained the same as have the voter sentiments, but another census has come and gone so the House of Representatives and subsequently the electoral votes are reapportioned.  If you take 51% of 435, gives California 222 plus 2 electoral votes for a total of 224 electoral votes.  Now the same election is held with Bill Maher running for president from California and Alan West from Florida running against him.  When the smoke clears the results are the same, Maher with 51% of the popular vote and West with 49%.  In the Electoral College, as it exists today, West would win 314 to 224, again carrying 49 out of 50 states plus the District of Columbia, while Maher carries one state.  However under NPV, Maher would win 538-0.  Therefore NPV enforces mob rule rather than preventing it.

The Wisdom of the Founding Fathers

The Founding Fathers designed our form of government out of a mistrust of power.  They designed the system so that the people would directly elect the House of Representatives and they also gave control of the purse to that body.  They designed the Senate to represent the interests of the sovereign states, until the progressives abolished that with the seventeenth amendment.  They designed the system where the Electoral College would choose the president, but left it to the individual states how they would choose their electors.  They designed the system where judges would be chosen by the president with the advice and consent of the senate.

The Electoral College was a way to protect the voice of small states from the tyranny of the majority.  What the progressives want to do is to follow up what they did with the seventeenth amendment.  Instead of having fifty-one election districts for president, represented by the states and the District of Columbia, they want to have one election district consisting of the entire nation.  Why not then abolish the state boundaries and the states themselves?  State capitals can then become district offices of the federal government carrying out the directives that come down from Washington. 

This is not the great country our Founders gave us.  It is moving this country to a omnipotent federal government where the individual has no voice of consequence and no liberty either.

That’s my opinion. I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

If I asked you a simple question, what government organization works well, what would you say?  Let’s take a look at two government organizations and compare their effectiveness and motivation.

The Military

Whether you support our troops on the battlefield or want them to always stay home in their barracks, most Americans will say the military does a pretty good job.  Why? That is, why are they effective, not just why do people think so?  Well, they put a lot of investment in training and technology.  They seem to have solved the problem of integration, being based on merit rather than racial prejudice.  These are all important things, but I don’ t they get to the core of the issue.  The key question is, what happens if they don’t do their job?  They die…they die, the guy beside them dies, their buddies die, and depending on the size of the conflict, their families and country may eventually die.  With that kind of motivation, race is not even secondary.  If the guy next to me has got my back and I have his, I don’t care what color he or she is.  We do it right, we live;  we don’t, we die.

The K-12 Teacher

K-12 education comes under fire in this country, and rightly so, for failing to produce an educated workforce.  In New York, for example we spend over $14,000 per student, per year on education, far above the national average of around $9,000.  Are students in New York 50% smarter than the country in general?  Hardly.  Is the nation as a whole turning out well educated students?  Sadly, no.

Our K-12 public schools are a government run monopoly.  So what happens to a K-12 teacher if they fail to do their job?  If they have been in the job long enough to get tenure, nothing.  They will get a raise like everyone else.  So what motivates them to turn out outstanding students?  I’ll wait.

Let me be clear that I don’t want to lump all teachers together.  They are many teachers who, by having what  I suppose is a strong moral streak,  do a great job because they want to teach.  Okay, so let’s look at the teaching profession where there is a group that does their best because they get satisfaction from doing a good job.  Now, some studies come out that say the way to improve results is smaller classroom size.  The teachers’ unions get behind it and eventually push it through.  So what does that mean?  If you cut the size of the class in half, you double the number of classes.  If you double the number of classes, you have to double the number of teachers and thus have to go deeper into the labor pool to find them.  Before you took this step, we can probably assume that all the self-motivated teachers were already on the job.  So the additional teachers are motivated by what?

Co -conspirators

That brings us back to the teachers’ unions.  When government’s come under pressure to cut educational expenses, the airwaves are soon flooded with the heart wrenching commercials pleading to restore the funding “for the children’s sake.”  What you don’t hear is the trailer that says, “This commercial paid for by the PTA,” or “This commercial paid for by the Association of Concerned Parents.”  No, what you typically hear is, “This commercial paid for by the X Teacher’s union, Joe Blow, President.”

Who do the unions really represent…really? The students? or the teachers?  They want the funds restored so that their membership is not hurt and their dues are not curtailed.  If their true concern was for the students, why not support school vouchers and charter schools?  They fight the former with a vengeance and the latter, if it is not union organized.

Let’s Not Pick on K-12 Education

Let’s look at other government areas.  Government is the only area where union membership is growing.  How many people relish going to their Department of Motor Vehicles?  How efficient is the Post Office?  Amtrak?  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have a bonus compensation plan, which is a step in the right direction unless it leads to cooking the books and making extremely risky loans that lead to the near collapse of our economy.  How can we get this under control?

Controlling the Uncontrollable

Our government is trying to install a massive health care program that will cost a trillion dollars.  At the same time, tens of billions of dollars are stolen from Medicare every year and they can’t stop it.  Early this year, the Obama Administration passed a $787 billion stimulus package, spent $18 million to build a website to track it, and put Joe Biden in the role of watch dog.  How is that working out?  A recent report from ABC News, of all places, found that credit for creating jobs was given on the web site to Congressional Districts that do not exist.  A $1,000 grant was purported to have created 50 jobs.  The New York Times investigated and found that the $1,000 went to purchase a lawn mower.  It took from the time of the founding of the Republic until about the mid 1990s to accumulate $6 trillion in debt.  It has doubled since then, and it is projected to go from $12 trillion to $14 trillion by next year!

It cannot be controlled.  It is impossible to control.  The only solution is to cut the federal government down to size.  Take out the Constitution and read what the true functions of government are supposed to be.  The military, absolutely;  the Post Office, yes it’s in there; coin money; establish patents and copyrights; establish the courts; control the District of Columbia; regulate interstate commerce; make treaties; give the State of the Union address.  That pretty much sums it up and everything else should be left to the states and local government or the people.

We should jettison all the rest and cut this government down to size and get out of debt.  Department of Labor–gone;  Department of Health and Human Services–gone; Department ment of Housing and Urban Development–gone; Department of Transportation–gone; Department of Energy–gone; Depatrment of Education–gone; Department of Veterans Affairs–gone, rolled into the Department of Defense;  Department of Homeland Security–gone, rolled into the Department of Defense; Department of the Interior–gone; Department of Agriculture–gone.

The amount of money saved would be enormous.  Selling all the real estate and buildings would bring in more money.  We could then cut taxes to jump start the economy and run a surplus to cut the debt.  The next step would be to make it illegal for unions to organize government workers without a referendum approved by all the voters.  Side benefits would be less campaign money because there would be less government to influence.  Government would be more accountable to the people because it would be closer to the people, that is, at the state level or local level.  We can do this proactively, or wait until the government is bankrupt and we have to sell off the parts to the Chinese.

Did you ever watch a historical movie about how some fringe group ominously takes over the government and leaves everyone scratching their head wondering how it happened?  At the end of the movie you say, “Whew, I’m so glad that could never happen in the good ol’ USA.”  Then you watch the news and see things that are eerily familiar to the movie and you say, “Nah, that’s just my imagination running away with me.”  Until the next piece of news drips on your head.

A news story this morning gave me that uneasy, pit of the stomach feeling again.  It probably shouldn’t have since it was about Venezuela.  Hugo Chavez got the term limit restriction lifted in his country that will allow him to be president for life.  That measure had previously failed but now it passed by a wide margin.  So why am I feeling uneasy about our liberties and what is going on in this country?  Here are some of my concerns.

Bipartisanship

After all the talk of bipartisanship by candidate Obama and the need to change the tone in Washington, the reality was something completely different.  In a so called “stimulus package” that will triple the budget deficit and was rammed through the Congress with no one, and I repeat no one, reading it, one party was virtually shut out of the legislative process.  At the same time 44% of the American people, in a Rasmussen poll, said names picked at random out of the phone book could do a better job on the economy than this Congress.  This package is chock full of 40 years of liberal programs that could not pass muster on their own, but as Rahm Emmanuel says, “You never want a serious crisis go to waste.”  When  Republicans protested about being shut out of the process, the response from the other side was, “We won.”

Fairness Doctrine

In the movie there will come a scene when the incoming powers break into the newspaper offices and smash the printing press, overturn the typesetting table, dump papers on the floor and set them ablaze.  The message is clear, there will be no opposition press.  There is only one message and that is of the new dictator and the new news will be his indoctrination.

Today, there is more and more talk about reviving the Fairness Doctrine.  Here is what former President Bill Clinton said:

“Well, you either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side,” Clinton said, “because essentially there’s always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows and let face it, you know, Rush Limbaugh is fairly entertaining even when he is saying things that I think are ridiculous….”

Liberals tried to bring balance to the discussion with Air America and it failed dismally.  Why?  People didn’t want to listen to left wing rants all day.  But face it, the main stream media overwhelmingly votes liberal.  So although no one will be smashing printing presses and torching newsrooms, the objective is to stifle the conservative point of view.  Once you do that the only voice that is heard is reinforcing the new ruler.

What the First Amendment says is:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for the redress of grievances.”

Congress shall make no law…so what are they doing? The line between news and opinion has long been crossed.  It used to be you couldn’t tell what Walter Cronkite’s politics were, because he kept his opinions, for the most part, out of the news.  But today there is little difference.  For a great example see this piece by Russ Roberts. (They Report. I Edit. You Decide). They will defend the Fairness Doctrine by saying it is not censorship, but here’s the dirty little secret.

Let’s say you are a radio program manager and you put on three hours of Rush Limbaugh.  Great show. Great ratings. You make lots of money.  Now along comes the Fairness Doctrine.  You don’t have to touch Rush’s show because that would be censorship.  What you have to do, however, is give three hours over to Air America to be “fair”.  Three hours of Air America hate <fill in the blank: Bush, religion, gun owners, pro life> rants.  Ratings for those three hours go in the tank.  No revenue. You’re making no money.  Listener’s start complaining.  So what is a station manager to do?  It’s what they used to do when the Fairness Doctrine was here before, tell Rush he has to close up shop, dump the Air America crowd and play Top 40s songs all day long.  The fact that it wasn’t censorship doesn’t matter, the effect is the same.

The Census

The census, conducted every ten years, is important in two regards.  One, it helps allocate how money from government programs is distributed, and it determines how the number of Congressional seats will be apportioned among the states.  Based on current estimates states like New York (Blue) will lose one or two seats and states like Texas (Red) will gain seats.  That could mean a shift in power from the Democrats to the Republicans.  Uh oh.

The scene in the movie shifts to a darkened office with a light over the conference table.  “We cannot allow the opposition to gain any strength back, we have to consolidate our power.  What do we do?”

“Comrade, we can take control of the census.  Under our control we can count homeless people and illegal immigrants in Blue states and ignore them in Red states.”

“Brilliant!  You see that the census is directed out of your office rather than in some Department.”

You chuckle only for a minute, when you realize that Rahm Emmanuel will be overseeing the census, operating out of the White House, rather than handling it in the Commerce Department as it has been done for years.  Suddenly, the scene seems very real.

The Stimulus and ACORN

In the so called “stimulus bill” there appears to be about $4.1 billion for “neighborhood stabilization activities.”  The money was initially limited to state and local governments but later changed to include non-profits, such as ACORN.  ACORN is surrounded by allegations of vote fraud.  It doesn’t take much of an imagination to understand how close races can be tipped by an organization that perpetuates voter fraud.  Now think about how your tax dollars are being funneled to them to do it.

We Need More Votes in The House.  So Let’s Add a Representative

In consolidating power, what better way than adding votes where you need them.  One way is to add a representative in the House for the District of Columbia.  It is a heavily Democratic district, so why not?  The Constitution? Ignore it.  Just go ahead pass a law.  If the Republicans object, just crank up the racist machine.

Handouts

Of all the tried and tested methods for turning around an economy in trouble, the Democrats seem to be picking all the ones proved not to work.  If you want to stimulate the economy through tax cuts, you cut marginal tax rates.  Instead the Democrats want to give rebates to people who pay no income taxes.  That’s welfare not tax cuts.  But the goal is not to turn around the economy.  The goal is to consolidate power.  What better way than to make sure more than 50% get something from the government and less than 50% are stuck with the bill.  Majority rules.  We won.  Once that threshold is crossed, the majority can start jacking up taxes on those evil rich, so that the “working and middle class” get checks from the government.  Comrade, it from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.

Calling Dr. Mengele

In the movie a sinister doctor approaches the “patient” and plans how he is going to improve life for all of us.  For the “patient”, not so much.

Another provision in the stimulus bill is to establish a new bureaucracy that will “compare drugs, medical devices, surgery and other ways of treating specific conditions.”  This organization will take a role in your medical treatment that was formerly between you and your doctor. “Supporters of the research hope it will eventually save money by discouraging the use of costly, ineffective treatments.”  Isn’t that what medical journals are for?  Isn’t that why the AMA has conferences, to share such information?

“I’m sorry Mrs. Jones, we think you child has Down’s Syndrome, therefore you really must have the abortion, or your medical bills for your childbearing treatment won’t be covered by our national health care.  And you know the costs run into the hundreds of thousands.  What would you like to do?”

Do you really want some bureaucrat in Washington playing with a statistics program  telling your doctor what treatment he can and cannot perform to treat you?

Is This Real?

As you leave the theatre you laugh nervously that this couldn’t happen here.  But every time you pick up a newspaper, the similarity about how a dictator seizes control and then consolidates his power is just too eerie.  But as we have seen in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and now in Venezuela, it can happen and once it does it may be decades before it can be undone, if at all.  The Founding Fathers were very wary of a strong central government.  They believed that the only powers that the Federal government should have are limited and they went to the trouble to spell them out in the Tenth Amendment:

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

Where does it say in the Constitution that education is a federal function? I’m not against education by any stretch of the imagination, but how can the federal government do a better job than the local school board?  Why is the federal government putting cops on the street?  Shouldn’t each municipality handle this? The Federal Government has gotten too big and too powerful.  It is so vast no one can manage it.  We keep pushing so much up to the federal level we are almost begging for a dictatorship to form.  And with everything they take, and they will take all they can grab, your liberties go with it.

We better wake up, people, and start cutting this monster down to size.  Otherwise it will either consume all of us leaving nothing but a wasteland, or we will be reading our founding documents and see that they are telling to prepare for the Second American Revolution.

A bill is moving through Congress to give a Congressional seat to the District of Columbia. Guess which party would benefit from that? The problem is that it’s unconstitutional.

If the residents of Washington, D.C. want representation in Congress there are ways of going about it:
1) Return the District of Columbia to Maryland. In that way they will be counted in the population of Maryland for the apportionment of representatives and will be represented in both the House and the Senate;
2) Make Washington, D.C. the 51st state; there is a process for this that should be followed.

But to just say, okay, let’s add another seat to the House of Representatives is unconstitutional. The District of Columbia was specifically formed in the Constitution, to change it would require an Amendment to the Constitution