GOVERNMENT LIVING UP TO IT'S REPUTATION

If you will remember, one of Barack Obama's consistent claims since becoming president is that "green" energy is the wave of the future.  He has been so dogmatic on this that you might imagine that Obama feels that green energy is going to single-handedly turn the tide for our economy.  Do you remember Obama's stimuls weatherization program?  Is this all ringing a bell?  Millions of dollars were allocated to these weatherization programs to make houses more "green" and energy efficient.  We are talking some serious cash.  In fact, Illinois ALONE was awarded $242 million to weatherize 27,000 homes.  That would be the total federal income tax payments of 24,000 American households. 

Fast-forward to today, and what do we have to show for this weatherization experiment, at the expense of your tax dollars?  A new report by the Department of Energy found problems with Obama's weatherization program "so severe" that homes are not only no more energy efficient but are actually dangerous for people to live in.

I'll give you a little taste of their findings, as highlighted in this column in the Washington Examiner.

The findings are grim. "Our testing revealed substandard performance in weatherization workmanship, initial assessments, and contractor billing," the inspector general report says. "These problems were of such significance that they put the integrity of the entire program at risk."

Department inspectors visited 15 homes that were being weatherized by CEDA and paid for by stimulus funds. "We found that 14 of the 15 homes...failed final inspection because of poor workmanship and/or inadequate initial assessments," the report says. In eight of the homes, CEDA had come up with unworkable and ineffective plans -- like putting attic insulation in a house with a leaky roof. In ten of the homes, "contractors billed for labor charges that had not been incurred and for materials that had not been installed." The report calls billing problems "pervasive," with seven of ten contractors being cited for erroneous invoicing. And the department found "a 62 percent final inspection error rate" when CEDA inspectors reviewed their own work.

Sounds like government work at its best.  What else did we really expect?  Unfortunately your tax dollars went to pay for this shoddy you-know-what.  And you want to put the government in charge of your healthcare?  Your house is bad enough, but what about your life or the life of people you love?  Oh ... and you continue to send your children to the government to be educated?  I want to smoke out of YOUR bong. 

THE CLASS WARFARE BATTLE OVER BENEFITS or WHAT TO DO ABOUT UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS

While the battle over tax increases stalls, the battle over jobless benefits heats up. And why not! This is absolutely perfect for the class warfare warriors out there. Yesterday House Republicans blocked a bill that would have extended jobless benefits through the end of February ... at a cost of adding $12.5 billion to the nation's debt. It didn't do so well. If the Democrats had found a way to pay for this bill ... like cutting $12.5 billion from some worthless government program ... the extension would have passed.
Democrats love this stuff ... especially around the holidays. If you listen closely you can hear the leftist outcry even before it arrives ... (though I'm sure it's here in full force by this morning) .... Here are the headlines:
Republicans block extension of jobless benefits for holidays.
As the holidays approach, Republicans want jobless to go without benefits
GOP destroys Christmas for jobless families.
Republicans fight for tax cuts for rich, while denying extension of jobless benefits

The truth? The Democrats WANTED this benefits extension of unemployment benefits to fail. They PLANNED for it to fail.

You got it. The Democrats never intended for this benefits extension to pass. This was a designed and intentional failure. Remember ... the Democrats still have the majority in the House. They can pass pretty much anything they want to. But ... they DIDN'T want to. They were after some ammunition to use against the hated GOP, not extended unemployment benefits for jobless Americans (and those sitting on their ever-broadening asses while their benefits run out). Here's how they pulled this off:
The bill extending unemployment benefits is put on the floor of the House under what they call "fast-track rules." I think "fast and furious rules" would be more appropriate. Under these rules a two-thirds vote is required for passage. 

The Republicans were not permitted to offer any amendments to the bill. All the GOP wanted to do was to introduce an amendment calling for this $12.5 billion price tag on this bill to be covered with spending reductions in some other areas. Now come on ... with government spending having doubled and doubled again in recent years, don't tell me these people couldn't find a way to cut spending in some unnecessary areas to cover these extended benefits. The Republicans had some suggestions ... cut stimulus spending in some less effective areas. Now on what level does that NOT make sense?
Now being the brilliantly though insensitive guy that I am, I have developed my own solution to our long-term jobless benefit crisis. It goes a little something like this:
Unemployment benefits paid from unemployment taxes collected from employers (who collect them from their workers) would last for 36 weeks. That's nine months. During this period of time anyone receiving these benefits would be required by law to accept any offered job that pays them 90 percent of their average earnings for their last year of employment. Failure to take the offered job without just cause results in an immediate termination of unemployment benefits ... and a public caning.
After the 36 weeks of unemployment benefits expire the unemployed person will be eligible to apply for a program of financial support for the unemployed; but only after collecting unemployment for 36 months while actively searching for a job. Any further benefits paid at this point shall be in the form of a loan, not a straight cash payment. Once the unemployed person finds a job he will be given a grace period of six months during which time he can try to get his financial feet on the ground. After that time the supplementary benefits - the loan - will be paid back through payroll deductions equaling no less than 10% of each paycheck. That percentage will increase as the amount of the paychecks increase.
I'm going to sit back here for a moment and soak up your adulation for this wonderful plan. In the meantime ... as you hear all of these Democrats screaming about how evil Republicans are for not extending unemployment benefits ... remember that this was all carefully planned by the Democrats. This is the outcome they wanted. They were looking for ammunition to use against Republicans, not more help for the unemployed.

---

NOW WE KNOW FOR SURE

RAISING TAXES....LOSING JOBS...AND SEX

Look .. I know this talk of taxes and unions may not be all that sexy, but it is affecting you whether you like it or not. It is affecting our economy at large. It is affecting the businesses community, investors and entrepreneurs. It is affecting your children's futures.
For many Americans, talk of tax increases on the rich -- or as the Democrats say, "millionaires and billionaires" - probably doesn't affect you directly. In other words, you yourself may not be worried about tax increases. But what about your employer? Your employer may earn more than $250,000 a year for your business, which is reported on his or her income tax return. THAT person IS facing a tax increase, and the more they pay in taxes the less they have to pay you. The less money they have to give you a raise or a bonus. The less they have to buy you a new printer or computer for your work. The less they have to hire another worker to help with your workload. In other words, even if you are not "rich," these tax increases DO concern you.
If you don't believe me, then try arguing with the Heritage Foundation ...

The Obama tax hikes on the "rich" would result in 238,000 fewer jobs in 2011, and the U.S. economy would average 693,000 fewer jobs each year over the next decade. The loss of potential jobs affects other workers as wages do not increase as fast. For a typical family, disposable income would be $1,000 lower each year for the next five years. Business investment and personal savings would fall by over $70 billion each year for the next five years. These lost jobs and incomes would make it even harder for the economy to reach its full potential.

If this is the case, then how can Nancy Pelosi - officially elected as House Minority Leader - stand up and say, "The message we received from the American people is that they want jobs," and then continue to push for tax increases on the rich. Please, explain to me how she plans on making that happen? If the Democrats were really serious about jobs, they would put their Marxist utopian dreams aside and commit to maintaining lower tax rates for all Americans. 

---

More Effective And Less Obtrusive Airport Security Is Possible

Rather than "nickel and diming" travelers with what now has developed into an excessive security search that has a dubious success rate, a better defense against a terrorist threat would be to focus on locating and neutralizing a suspect at an airport before he or she can even get to the security check. After all, a terrorist could kill as many people in an airport departure hall as on an aircraft.

Curbside handling of luggage is a good start to isolate any baggage that might contain a bomb from where the public congregates.

Indispensible to airport security are canines trained in explosive detection. Their training takes no longer than 10 weeks; they are without a doubt the best method to unmask a suicide bomber and find hidden bombs. Trained dogs ought to be deployed outside and inside terminals in greater numbers, even if on a varying schedule due to restraints on deployment, where they could check the departing passengers. Such a measure is dissuasive as well as being potentially very effective. Even high-volume cargo can now be quickly and efficiently screened using a new method that extracts a small quantity of air from a sealed container, that in turn is then injected into a special filter, the filter is then presented to a trained dog for detection.

In December of last year (2009) I wrote an article on how CCTV systems could be used in airports along with "intelligent" video-surveillance software with digital memory that could vastly improve security without overly stressing passengers. Below is a partial reprint of part of that article.

Terrorists and mentally disturbed persons tend to act differently compared to the run of the mill public, sometimes their behavior is subtly dissimilar, sometimes their actions are blatantly obvious to even an untrained eye.

As a rule, even subtle, unusual activity can now be "read" by trained personnel and sophisticated computers linked to cameras called CCTV systems. They have been deployed in casinos for some time now and EL AL; the Israeli airliner has used them in and about their airline terminals with great success over the years. Considering the dangers passengers now have to confront from terrorists, such systems should be made obligatory at all major airports and if that can't currently be done, due to budgetary constraints, then they should be secretly deployed at selected airports, that way a wannabe terrorist will not know which airport is under such surveillance. 

Scientists are working hard on even more "intelligent" video-surveillance software that can spot subtle variances in behavior that is out of the ordinary. For obvious security reasons, rather than disclose what the operators look for, suffice to say their approach is pretty sophisticated. On the other hand, the software technology flags a suspicious subject using algorithms to profile human behavior in the environment where the system is deployed. If it detects behavior different from the norm it gives a warning signal. It can track the individual even in low light and in crowded spaces having memorized the shape of the person.  The suspect can then be safely intercepted and questioned or given a heightened security inspection.

Digital memory has a prodigious memory, far surpassing what the human mind is capable of; as a result the effectiveness of the surveillance feeds on itself and multiplies. Furthermore, suspects can be fed into the database and will then be spotted as soon as they enter the range of the camera's observation.

This year a new invention by two Norwegian physicists, Vibeke Jahr and Morgan Kjolerbakken involving sonar technology, I believe could be adapted and incorporated into the CCTV system described in my earlier paper of airport security "Identify your Enemy" Dec. 2009.

The Norwegian invention, called the AudioScope consists of an audio zoom that can home in on and pick out any conversation in any sized gathering, such as crowded areas in an airport. It consists of about 300 microphones arranged in circular fixture used along with a wide-angle camera that can zoom in on a subject directly.

The software of the AudioScope, using visual clues, subsequently calculates the time span it takes for the sound to reach the microphones and making use of high-level signal processing algorithms digitally adjusts each audio feed to synchronize them with the target subject, making that single conversation distinctly audible to someone intercepting it.

This device could be used in conjunction with the CCTV system previously mentioned, to aid in indentifying potential suspects and intercepting terrorists proactively.

The front line defense should be on the sidewalk outside the terminal where sniffer dogs could screen incoming people. The second line of defense should be the intelligence gathered inside the terminal using the above-mentioned high-tech systems. The third line of defense should be the TSA security check. This multi-tier defense would be far more efficient than the single layer system now in operation and would help to relieve the delays in screening innocent passengers.

WHO DO YOU TRUST???????????

It's hard to understand the need for TSA security searches of airline pilots.  Of course, it's theoretically conceivable that a pilot might become suicidal or might develop terrorist tendencies.  Still, it's hard to imagine why he'd need to smuggle explosives onto the plane when he could simply crash it.

But what about the TSA agents themselves?  If we can envision that a pilot might fall sway to radical Islam, what about the TSA agents?

Pilots enjoy some of the best of what America can offer.  They are highly paid, and the public loves them.  This can't be said for TSA agents.  They are not highly paid, and the public hates them.  Which group is more likely to harbor a rogue, someone with a hatred of America?

I fly occasionally and have found most TSA agents to be reasonably professional.  A few are rude, but most are courteous.  Undoubtedly most TSA agents are not terrorists.  But undoubtedly most pilots aren't either.

Do TSA agents go through a scanner or enhanced pat-down each day when reporting for work?

JIMMY FRICKEN CARTER

Who is the most appalling A-hole on the planet?  Given that Pol Pot is dead?  Michael Vick might have had that distinction until John Edwards happened.  Mel Gibson?  Bernie Madoff? Osama Bin Laden?  Excuse me, but I don’t think so.  Not so long as the 39th President of the United States is alive.

Jimmy Carter. The very name triggers a physical cringe-gag reflex.  Jimmy Carter is a walking emetic.
 
Did you see him on “60 Minutes” Sunday?  How did you manage to sit through that?  We owe a debt of gratitude to Lesley Stahl for adding conclusive corroboration of everything we’ve ever thought about the crazy meddling bastard: Jimmy Carter is Earth’s most detestable person.

Let’s list his attributes:

Okay, let’s forget it…
He has none.

Maybe one.  He’s 85 years old.  So he can’t possibly be around much longer to annoy everything that breathes. I know the whole thing about how he served aboard a nuclear submarine and all of that.  But did he just stand too close to the reactor, or did he actually stick his head inside?  Because he is a clinical idiot.
And a bitter one at that.

You saw his latest idiocy Sunday evening:  Accusing Ted Kennedy, a dead guy, of stopping a health care bill that Carter whined he tried to get passed back in the 70’s.  He said it was personal.  America would have had a reformed health care system today if Kennedy hadn’t ruined everything because he didn’t want Carter to have any sort of major accomplishment because he hated him.  The only problem with Carter’s analysis is this:  Everybody hated him.  Hated him then and hates him now.  I hate him.  Whether you admit it or not, you hate him.  Has there ever been a more bellyaching, sour, moaning, wimp-assed, incompetent sulking turd?  No there hasn’t.  He says Kennedy stopped his health care idea back when evil planets aligned to somehow actually make Carter the president…because Teddy didn’t want him to have major achievements.

Can you identify any major achievement he had?  Let’s list a few Carter Accomplishments:

1: He presided over the fall of the Shah of Iran and the installation of Ayatollah Khomeini, the crazed fruit loop who took over our embassy for 444 days and left the world in a condition where 9-11 could happen. Carter called Khomeini “a liberator.”  Jesus.
2:  He gave the Panama Canal to China. 
3:  He signed off on the “Community Reinvestment Act” that brought us subprime loans and, today, an America that is owned by China.
4:  And, speaking of the insane regimes, Carter never met a murdering despot he didn’t like.  Yugoslav’s Marshal Tito:  “A man who believes in human rights.”  North Korea’s Kim Il-Sung:  “Vigorous, intelligent, surprisingly well-informed.”  Romania’s Ceausescu:  “Our goals are the same.”  And Castro and Noriega and Marcos and Mao and on and on.
5:  He had that “Ripley’s Believe it or Not” family of mutants.
6:  And he grew peanuts.  What the hell did we expect?

When Eugene McCarthy was asked why he voted for Reagan in 1980, his explanation was that Carter had “abdicated the whole responsibility of the presidency while in office.  He left the nation at the mercy of its enemies at home and abroad.  He simply was the worst president we ever had.”

McCarthy nearly had it right.  But he really could have gone just a little further to say, “There simply never has been a dumber sonofabitch in a position to f- -k up everything in recorded history.  Never.”   There’s dumb - that's forgivable.  Then there’s repulsive and dumb - that’s not. 
And that’s Jimmy Carter.  Thanks a lot, A-hole.  

CRUISE THIS !!!!

I have  been on a cruise.  I shall not be on a cruise again..  Among the myriad reasons why I will never be on a cruise is the episode that befell 4,500 people in the middle of a Carnival Cruise Lines voyage aboard some mega ship named The Splendor, which, as it turns out, was anything but “splendid.” 
The dopey boat’s engine room inexplicably caught on fire…knocking out everything from its motive power to its toilets.  And so it sat, dead in the water, stinking up the Pacific off the Mexican Riviera.  “The Mexican Riviera?”  What the hell is “The Mexican Rivera?”  Someplace, I guess, where the drug cartels are only decapitating around 5 people a day instead of 50.  Besides, haven't the waters off Mexico suffered enough recently?  Apparently not.
Anyway, people who go on cruises mystify me.  What’s the appeal, you just don’t stand enough chance of getting norovirus or some other non-bacterial outbreak of gut-wrenching gastroenteritis at home so you want to jump on board a floating “food poison prison” and guarantee it? 
Given the recent, and continuing, history of the cruise industry it seems to me that that’s pretty much what the whole enterprise entails:  Being trapped in a portajohn next to a food stand serving rancid chimichangas at a street fair packed with fat drunks throwing up on each other 24-hundred miles from home…listening to a 56-year-old Elvis impersonator, who failed in Vegas, take a meat cleaver to “Heartbreak Hotel” – and getting to pay a couple of grand for “5 days/4 nights” of, basically, waterborne rat vomit.  Dear God. 
And these poor slobs – our 45-hundred “cruisers” – actually wound up having to be rescued by a United States Navy Nuclear Aircraft Carrier to keep from starving to death…after the brie, and 5,000 calorie cuts of Filet Mignon, all went south because the “Splendor’s” refrigerators conked out when the generators seized. 
Sounds great. Where do I sign up?   No thanks.  I’ll be busy that week shoving sheetrock screws in my nostrils.

MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES

I am really sick to death of the over-use of this phrase "tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires." Our own president is still using this line to refer to the Bush tax cuts! On Monday, Obama said, "I believe it is a mistake for us to borrow $700 billion to make tax cuts permanent for millionaires and billionaires. It won't significantly boost the economy, and it's hugely expensive. So we can't afford it." The "millionaires and billionaires" line works though ... it's a transparent and direct play for the wealth envy crowd.
Know this ... Obama is fully aware that these tax increase on the high achievers will cost jobs. Obama is a smart guy. He knows that when you punish people for the very behavior you are seeking you are going to get less of that behavior. This is not about tax revenue. This is all about punishing high achievers. Obama's mindset here - his programming - is that the wealthy got where they are by exploiting other people. This wealth wasn't fairly earned. It was acquired by abusing and plundering those in the lower income brackets. To Obama the high income earners are symbolic of countries that colonized Africa and other parts of the world. They are plunderers. They steal wealth and resources from the people to make themselves rich. They have abused those below them, and I'm here to make things right.
Now we have the union goons out there parroting the same line. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka is frustrated that Obama is even willing to consider a temporary extension of tax cuts for the evil rich. Trumka called an extension of all the tax cuts "absolutely insane," adding that "millionaires don't need it and won't spend it." Well, that's Trumka. This fool believes that it is the government's job to determine just how much of the wealth a person earns that person actually "needs." There's a nice Marxist thought process for you. Typical Trumka. 

---

NEW WARNING LABELS

ALREADY SMELLING TROUBLE IN WASHINGTON

Maybe you've sensed it too. The rhetoric coming from some Republicans leaders in Washington has been, shall we say, just a bit odd. Well, for one, they're upset with the Tea Party movement because the Republicans say that the Tea Parties cost them at least three Senate seats by pushing unqualified candidates (Sharron Angle, Cristine O'Donnell and Ken Buck) in races the GOP could have won.
Say what? Is it sounding to you like the Republicans actually went out there and won this midterm election on their own? Now there attitude seems to be "Well, we're in power again. Time for these Tea Party people to go back to their Bibles and stuff."
You would have thought that some of the brighter minds in the Republican Party would have realized that the voters didn't vote FOR them ... they voted AGAINST Democrats. This "Hey! How cool are we!" stuff is going to get tiring.
This John Boehner guy? Still not sure about him. As Andrew C. McCarthy pointed out in this column, Boehner wrote an op-ed for The Wall Street journal about the election and opportunities for Republicans and didn't once use the word "debt" in that article. At the start of World War II a single American's share of our national debt was about $370. Today that figure is at $44,370. Boehner focused in that article on earmarks. Earmarks account for less than one percent of our budget. Hey, Boehner ... how about a little focus on the REAL problems out there?
We need to ride the Republicans even harder than we did the Democrats. With the Democrats there were alternatives. If the Republicans start enjoying their power a bit too much, and forget why they were put back in charge of the House ... then where do we turn?
And the GOP social conservatives? Concentrate, for a while, on how you live your own lives. Nobody is going to force you to have an abortion. Nobody is going to force you to marry someone of your sex. Nobody is going to coerce you into a homosexual act. And you can still pray whenever and wherever you want. Getting back on those tired rants isn't going to save our country .. it will serve, instead, to deliver us right back into the hands of those who want to destroy --- or "fundamentally transform" - America. 

---

FOUNDING FATHERS WISDOM

Surely the people who wrote and signed the Constitution of the United States of America can be trusted to tell us what it means. Original letters written in their own words give us a much truer understanding of their intentions than third party commentaries written a hundred years later.
Listen to the original writers, especially when new historians contradict the original intent of those original authors of the law of this great land.
LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS

President Abraham Lincoln reminded the nation of that great truth contained in the Declaration of Independence when he said, "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." He reaffirmed faith towards Almighty God as Creator of mankind.
In the Declaration, the Founders established the foundation and the core values on which the Constitution was to operate. The Constitution was never to be interpreted apart from those values expressed in the Declaration. Those expressed values are of God and from God.

The First Amendment was clearly understood and explained by the man who wrote it and the man who first applied it as law. Fisher Ames wrote it. John Jay applied it as law while he was the first Chief Justice of our Supreme Court.
Fisher Ames, the same man who wrote the First Amendment, also wrote that the Bible should always remain the principle text book in America's classrooms.
John Jay, original Chief-Justice U.S. Supreme Court, said it is the duty of all wise, free, and virtuous governments to help and encourage virtue and religion.

The Constitution of the United States of America was penned by the man who was head of the committee which created the final wording. That man, Governor Morris of Pennsylvania, was also the most active member of the Constitutional Convention. He spoke 173 times. He also advocated that "education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man towards God."
An early House Judiciary Committee affirmed the Founder's lack of pluralistic intent when it declared: "Christianity ...was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants."
" You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention." George Washington
" Let...statesmen and patriots unite their endeavors to renovate the age by...educating their little boys and girls...and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system." Samuel Adams
"History will also afford frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion...and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern." Benjamin Franklin
"Only one adequate plan has ever appeared in the world, and that is the Christian dispensation." John Jay, ORIGINAL CHIEF-JUSTICE U.S. SUPREME COURT
"The United States of America were no longer Colonies. They were an independent nation of Christians." John Quincy Adams
A page of history is worth a volume of logic. History shows the intent and purpose of our founding fathers. Contemporary logic is wrong whenever it contradicts the clear explanations of those men who wrote the Constitution.

97% of the founding fathers were practicing Christians and exercised their faith in public office, at work, at home, and had it taught to their children in their schools.
187 of the first 200 colleges in America were Christian, Bible teaching institutions. Entrance to Harvard required strong knowledge of the Bible.
Noah Webster wrote the dictionary with Bible verses explained so children could understand the words of God and know the truth of Jesus Christ. Webster even wrote a translation of the Bible for the American speaking people.

You could hardly find a school in America that wasn't Christian based with the Bible as its main text book until the 1830's. As a result of the attack upon children learning the truths of God and Salvation, the American Sunday School League was formed during that same decade so those children who were deprived could still get Bible knowledge.

Fewer and fewer people remembered the exhortations of those men who established this nation to follow Christ and give Christian teaching in the schools, as the backbone and main course of our schools.
The Declaration of Independence appeals to God no less than three times. Four to those who can see His Name in the phrase "protection of divine providence".
Five to those who can admit the phrase "created equal" means created by God, not evolved from chaos.

Contrary to what is currently taught at most federal and state schools, Samuel Adams pointed out this strong lesson which is contradicted in courts today: "Before the formation of this Constitution...this Declaration of Independence was received and ratified by all the States in the Union and has NEVER been disannuled."

The men who wrote the Declaration of Independence declared within it their undying faith towards God for all generations to see and follow.

The Articles of Incorporation call the entity into existence and the By-laws then explain how it will be governed. Therefore the governing of the corporation under its by-laws must always be within the purposes and framework set forth in its Articles. The By-laws may neither nullify nor supersede the Articles. The Constitution neither abolished nor replaced what the Declaration had established; it only provided the specific details of how American government would operate under the principles set forth in the Declaration.

PROOF of the Declaration being attached to the Constitution is found in Article VII .
The Constitution attaches itself to the Declaration by dating itself as being signed in the twelfth year of the independence of the United States of America! Now that proves the founding fathers considered themselves to have been living in the United States of America for twelve years under the government document of the Declaration of Independence. Not only was the Constitution dated in recognition of the Declaration of Independence, also the later government acts were dated from the Independence of the United States of America.

"The Jubilee of the Constitution" by John Quincy Adams explains the Constitution as dependent upon the virtues proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. That's why the Ten Commandments are inscribed in stone on the Supreme Court building. Those men saw the law of God as the basis of all law for all men always, never to be changed! How can we withhold God and His truth from our educational classrooms for children today? One Nation Under God. United we stand together with Christ.

They erected a beacon to guide their children, and their children's children: for all men who would pursue life, liberty, and happiness...they pointed us to God and to His Son Jesus Christ. They desired that their posterity might look again to the Declaration of Independence and take courage to renew that battle which their fathers began, so that truth, justice, mercy, and all Christian virtue not be extinguished from the schools of this land.

ORIGINAL INTENT OF GOVERNMENT

If the Founding Fathers were to come back, I doubt if they would recognize the United States today. Oh, they wouldn't be surprised by its size or its population or its technological progress. They expected that and encouraged it.
What would disturb them is how fond Americans have become of government. They would be disturbed at how we have allowed politicians and judges to turn the Constitution into an excuse instead of a restraint. They would be uneasy about the large standing army we have maintained since the end of World War II. And they would certainly disapprove of our foreign policy, which can only be described as imperialistic.
The Founding Fathers were suspicious of government and wary of it. They recognized that government is always the greatest threat to liberty. George Washington likened government to fire – "a dangerous servant and a fearful master." The whole purpose of the Constitution they devised was to keep the government divided and weak.
First, they expected the sovereign states to act as a brake against any attempt by the federal government to usurp their powers as defined by the Constitution. Abraham Lincoln nullified that concept with brute force. Under their original plan, U.S. senators were selected by the state legislatures and were clearly intended to act as ambassadors from the states. Later generations foolishly eliminated that safeguard by amending the Constitution so that senators are elected by the people.
Clearly, the Founding Fathers did not approve of the modern concept, imposed by federal courts, of one man, one vote. They designed the House to represent the people, but each state, regardless of size, was given two senators. When federal courts eliminated the states' ability to follow the example of the Constitution, they shifted political power from the rural areas to the big cities. It's been more or less downhill ever since.
The Founding Fathers rejected the parliamentary system, in which the executive and the legislative majority are one. They wanted a House and Senate that were elected independently of the president. They intended for Congress to act as a check against attempts by the executive branch to usurp power, and they intended for the president, wielding his veto, to act as a check on Congress.
The modern two-party system has nullified this safeguard. Both Democrats and Republicans act like slaves to the man in the White House if he shares their party label, thus nullifying the most important of the checks and balances the Founding Fathers built into the Constitution. By acting like lap dogs when their man wins the White House, both Democrats and Republicans have imposed a parliamentary system on us.
Americans, in defense of their own liberty, should make sure that whatever party holds the White House does NOT have a majority in Congress. It is to our advantage and was so intended by the Founding Fathers that the president and Congress be at odds on all but the most important issues.
To ensure an independent judiciary, they made those appointments for life, which has turned out to be a mistake, given how reluctant Congress is to impeach a federal judge. My Confederate ancestors recognized this problem, and in their constitution a federal judge could be impeached by the legislature of the state in which he sat. That would cure a lot of abuses committed by the federal judiciary.
A reading of the Constitution makes it clear that the federal government was designed to be an agent of the states and authorized to act only on behalf of all the states in a few, clearly specified areas. None of those includes education, welfare, medical care, foreign aid and domestic pork-barrel projects.
Future historians, when they come to write the obituary of the United States, will note that we started out with the best system ever devised by man and willingly dismantled it for a bowl of federal porridge.

PELOUSY OUT BOEHNER IN

Don’t worry.  In two years we get to vote these bastards out.  Of course, not a great deal gets done in this manner, but, if you are familiar with my thinking, this is “just the way it is.” Happens every couple of years and it has happened again: We have just exchanged one set of crooks for another set of crooks.
So, Republicans make gains in the Senate and will take control of the House.  Wonderful.  The only visible change will be the absence of a woman at the Speaker’s rostrum who appears to be mummified, and the debut there of a man who appears to have been dipped in emulsified Cheez-Its. Nancy Pelosi, out; John Boehner, in. 
You thought Ms. Pelosi was a long day?  They’ll have to come up with a new method of telling time to measure Boehner’s capacity to wear you out.  And it already started with that horrifying display of blubbering the other night when Boehner was addressing his supporters at the Grand Hyatt in Washington. How many people in that room do you think were saying to themselves, as Boehner went all “Mike Schmidt” on them, “and I actually voted for this pansy?”  That was gruesome.  Talk about needing to “man up.”  Jesus.  The guy is going to be second in line for the Oval Office, for godssake…  And he’s crying?  Explain to me what message that sends to Bin Laden. 
And every last one of these new people is swearing that they won’t be joining the Washington culture club.  Incorruptible.  “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.”  But there, waiting for “Mr. Smith,” is Trent Lott.  Washington’s answer to Don Vito Corleone. He’s already said – already – that he’s salivating at the thought of co-opting these doofusses within seconds of them landing on Capitol Hill.  How’s that work?  There’s a knock on “Aqua Buddha” Rand Paul’s Senate office door…he opens it…and there stands the equivalent of Luca Brasi saying, “We need to talk.” 
The bottom line isn’t complicated: The faces are changing.  But not their two-faced nature.  And the chances of anything actually improving, sadly, are just about zero. 
So, when fugly Frank Luntz or some other pollster approaches you two years down the road and asks whether you’re “better off today than you were in 2010,” you can feel confident in replying, “Yes,” if your previous address was Mogadishu.

WWJD?

No ... not Jesus. That stands for "What Would Joe Do?" I understand. You're probably saying to yourself "Self. You don't really give a flying carpet what Joe would do. He's an old Grumpy, Cranky guy without a radio or television show or hair ... so who gives a big screaming damn?" Well ... know what? My ego needs some feeding, and since I know hundreds of thousands of people will read these notes ... so here you go: This is what I would do if I was Speaker of the House. Here is what I would put on the table. First, the things that are arguably possible with the Democrats in control of the Senate and the White House:

Immediate resolution limiting increases in government spending to two percent above the rate of inflation and population growth for the next annual budget, and one percent thereafter. The House controls the budget .. this can be done and it would lead to a balanced budget within five years. Do everything that can be done, using every parliamentary trick in the books, to stall the implementation of Obamacare.


Create a commission with a heavy representation from the medical and business community to study and suggest private sector options for the delivery of health care services to the American people.


Immediately pass a bill allowing health insurance companies to sell high-deductable health insurance policies across state lines. Make the Democrats explain to the people why this is a bad idea.


Immediately cut capital gains taxes by one-half.


Also cut corporate income taxes to 10 percent.


Eliminate the death tax.


Declare a federal tax amnesty on corporate and individual earnings that are being held in foreign accounts. Allow that money to come back to the United States to be put to work in our economy with no tax consequences.


Begin hearings on the FairTax


Change the law so as to provide that federal tax credits are just that .. tax credits. If the person receiving the credit has no federal tax liability then the balance of the credit expires. No direct payments to individuals under the guise of tax credits.


No tax increases on any Americans for at least two years.


Form a 10th Amendment Commission to study and develop a plan to move governance back to the states and local governments.


Hold hearings on the effectiveness of the Department of Education and catalogue improvements in government education since the DOE was formed. Build a case for elimination of this expensive and useless behemoth and the return of education funds to the states.


Resolve that the continued manned exploration of space is a critical national security issue and proceed to undo the damage that Obama has done to our space program.

Well ... that's certainly not the complete list, but as nap time is approaching here I wanted to add a few items to the WWJD list that would take a House majority, 61 Senate seats and a sane occupant in the White House.

Immediately de-certify all federal employee unions. No more collective bargaining for government employees.


Deny federal education funds to any state which does not de-certify teacher's unions and which does not promote school choice with a voucher system.


Pass resolutions calling for the repeal of the 16th and 17th Amendments to the Constitution and send the resolutions for repeal to the states for ratification.


Pass the FairTax with the provision that it would go into effect on the first day of the first year following repeal of the 16th Amendment.


Allow any American who chooses to do so to immediately opt out of the Social Security system if they wish to relinquish any claim to future benefits. Create a private account option for those who wish to stay within the system.


Repeal federal drug laws and start to start treatment programs for drug users rather than treating them as criminals. Tremendous amounts of money would be saved, crime would be reduced along with drug use.

Look ... I gotta go get dinner and head to the beer store. So that's it for now. Besides ... it's not like I'm going to get a chance to implement any of this anyway.

---

2012

OK .. so maybe it is a bit premature to already be looking at the 2012 elections, but before we know it, presidential candidates are going to be swarming around Iowa and then Barack Obama will be steeped in a deep battle for his second term. Heck, the media is already conducting polls of potential Obama match-ups! As of right now, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney actually beat Obama in generic polling. But two years is a long time in politics.
But let us not forget that in a presidential election year, we also have a lot at stake for races in the House and Senate. Particularly the Senate in 2012. Democrats have 21 seats up for election. The Republicans have 10 seats up for election, while there are two Independents (who caucus with the Democrats). As of right now, nobody wants the job of heading up the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee of 2012. Can you blame them? While I find it hard to believe that the Democrats will endure another "shellacking," the balance in the Senate is very close - 52 to 46 with two races still outstanding, but Alaska going to the Republicans no matter what. If the current mood prevails, I can't blame anyone for not wanting to step up and be in charge of defending Democrats in 2012. All they can hope for is that people get very distracted over the next two years -- that American Idol has a particularly thrilling season or People Magazine ups the number of pages in its subscription.

---