Perri Nelson's Website

This is how Liberty died

Sat, 07 Aug 2010 00:19:11 GMT

Not with a bang, but piece by piece.

If you have been a reader of this blog in the past, you know that I am in love with the Country that our founding fathers established and left to us. I wish I could still say that I was in love with the United States, but I have come to the conclusion that this is not the country that our founding fathers gave us. Instead our Liberty is under assault from the political “elites”, judges, and bureaucrats running us from the federal government.

Democrats and Liberals are fond of telling us that we are living in a Democracy. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have NEVER lived in a Democracy, not even since the days of the founders. The founders left us with a representative republic – but we have not kept it.

Recall if you will a bit of history – in the late 18th century there were many European colonies here on this continent. The “new world” was seen as a source of wealth in Europe – hence the incentive for colonization. European conflicts that had simmered for ages spilled over to the colonies – resulting in the occasional war and the exploitation of the native populations as combatants against colonies on behalf of European powers. These conflicts were not cheap – Britain spent huge sums to protect her colonies from the French and their “Indian” allies. Already exploiting the resources of the colonies and over-extended by fighting in a conflict across the ocean Britain decided that it needed more and more money from the colonies – in the form of taxes.

Read the Declaration of Independence. Thirteen united colonies had finally had enough by 1776 (in fact armed conflict had broken out even before that) and unanimously declared themselves to be thirteen independent nations equal to all other sovereign nations throughout the world. They did this in protest of an overreaching monarchy and a central government far removed from local concerns. The British government and its agents had suppressed personal liberties, seized personal property, suppressed and invalidated the actions of local governments and the like. Revolution was the result.

These thirteen independent nations quickly banded together to form a confederacy under the belief that if they didn’t hold together they would be unable to defend themselves against other nations. The confederacy had little power other than to ask these nations to support it. The “States” or nations were sovereign – holding the powers of all nations and governing their people according to the will of those people.

The big problem with the confederacy was it’s general weakness. No state could by compelled to defend another. No state was required to permit free commerce between its people and the people of another state. The national debt was huge (for its time) and the confederacy couldn’t raise the money to cover it, because the states couldn’t be compelled to share their revenues with it. The Constitutional Convention was held to fix these problems with the Articles of Confederation. But, in a result that should stand as a warning to those advocates of a new Constitutional Convention to address what people see as deficiencies in our current Constitution, rather than merely “fixing” the Articles of Confederation the convention instead established a new form of Government in the U.S. Constitution.

A plain reading of the words of the Constitution, as well as a basic understanding of the debates and arguments that took place during the convention and the words of the founders both in the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist papers will make it clear that the founders intended for the federal government to be somewhat stronger than the confederacy but still limited in its powers. The federal government was given very specific explicit powers and obligations. The Bill of Rights established more clearly limitations upon the federal government. The ninth and tenth amendments in particular made it clear that the people had rights that were not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, and that the people and the States were left with any power that was not explicitly forbidden to them by the Constitution.

I think it would be nice to live in that country. The States were for the most part the sole governors of the people. The federal government was to protect and defend the States from foreign enemies – and from each other.

But we don’t live in that country anymore. In fact it seems that for my entire life we haven’t lived in that country. Before I was even born the courts had decided that the federal government could tell a farmer how much of what type of crops he could grow on his own land. While I was a teenager the federal government decided that it could regulate what drugs a person could use as medicine or for “recreational purposes'” without regard for the fact that it had no constitutional authority to do so. Some decades previous to this it took a constitutional amendment to ban the sale, possession or consumption of alcohol in the country – but now by bureaucratic fiat the Constitution no longer mattered.

The trend just continues. The current administration and Congress has no respect for the voice of the people. They laugh at questions of constitutional authority. Some assert that the federal government can do whatever it wants. A single federal judge can call 7 million Californians bigots unqualified to cast a ballot and overturns the California constitution. The government seizes private property – nationalizing the automotive business for one. It dictates how much a private individual can receive in compensation for his services to a company via the whim of an unelected bureaucrat. It demands billions of dollars from a foreign company to compensate victims of its (the governments) misguided policies and tardiness in dealing with an accident. It selectively enforces its own laws and ignores its constitutionally mandated duties to the states – while suing those very states for defending themselves. When nearly three quarters of the voters in a state vote against its unconstitutional mandate that individuals purchase a product that they don’t want or face a federally imposed fine its representatives dismiss that vote as “meaningless”.

The federal government under liberalism has grown into a monster. It bears NO resemblance to the government that our founding fathers created and left to us. We are now slaves to the whim of the “elite” in government.

We don’t even have the option that our founders had. The most recent nominee to the supreme court of the United States doesn’t think that the Declaration of Independence has any meaning. And armed revolt is doomed. The left has worked diligently to take away the one remaining protection that the people have against tyranny. We cannot arm ourselves in any way that would be effective in protecting ourselves from the military might that is under the command of today’s crop of socialists and statists.

Once this was a free nation. I lament that it no longer is, and that it may never be again. I wish I could see things in a better light. I wish that November would bring a real change. But I think it’s long past the time when even the TEA party activists can do anything effective to return our Liberties to us. The majority of people in this country don’t like the way it’s being run from Washington now. And Washington doesn’t seem to care – or even fear the wrath of the people.

Investagated? Even the D.O.J. contributes to illiteracy.

Sat, 26 Jun 2010 17:49:54 GMT

Another public education failure

Fri, 11 Jun 2010 02:32:34 GMT

There’s no need to add anything else, is there?

The Dalai Lama misses the point

Tue, 25 May 2010 11:16:20 GMT

I was reading AllahPundit’s article about the Dalai Lama’s statement that he’s a Marxist and something bothered me about it. Here’s what the Dalai Lama had to say…

“(Marxism has) moral ethics, whereas capitalism is only how to make profits,” the Dalai Lama, 74, said.

He went on to remark how Capitalism had raised the standard of living in China while pure Marxism had not, crediting Beijing’s embrace of market economics for breaking the iron fist of communism. In other words, he acknowledged that the philosophy with “moral ethics” left the people impoverished while the urge for profits had raised the standard of living for most Chinese.

At first you would think that the Dalai Lama is starting to get senile at 74 based on these statements. Either Marxism (communism) is morally superior to capitalism and should result in a better society and standard of living for its people or capitalism is morally superior because it results in a better society and standard of living.

I think the Dalai Lama is simply wrong.

Marxism has the appearance of moral ethics – it doesn’t actually have them. Neither for that matter does capitalism. Both systems by themselves produce “social injustice”. Marxism does this by punishing the innovators and entrepreneurs and capitalism does it by ignoring the downtrodden and the weak. Neither system by itself is ideal. Nor is a mix of the two such as we have today.

In fact, a mix of the two is ultimately just as bad, because it pits the “haves” and the “have nots” against one another. It punishes those factors that result in success under capitalism and rewards those that lead to failure and ruin. Ultimately it will have to collapse into chaos as we see in Greece, or destruction.

People have argued that the United States was founded as a capitalist nation. That’s simply not true. Nowhere in our founding documents do you find a mandate for capitalism. What you do find is a mandate for Liberty, and Independence. You find protection for the rights of the individual, particularly for the right of the individual to recognize and honor his Creator. Throughout the writings of the founders you will find statements that a virtuous and faithful people are fundamental to the success of a republic such as ours.

The founders recognized what the Dalai Lama, the Chinese government, and the political left do not. Capitalism by itself is morally bankrupt but liberty and a free commerce coupled with Judeo-Christian ethics and faith is a path to both prosperity and social justice – without coercion. And THAT is the system that they left to us. That’s also the system that the “social progressives” have willfully abandoned in our name.

Marxism uses the force of government to take from those that have to give to those that will not produce. Capitalism ignores the plight of those stricken by misfortune because it will not reward failure. Both of these are evils. Judeo-Christian faith produces voluntary sharing of accumulated wealth with those in actual need. That is true moral ethics.

It is not moral to reach into your neighbors pocket to give to the downtrodden. It is moral to reach into your own pocket to give to the downtrodden. Punishing success will ultimately have the affect of causing less success. Rewarding failure will ultimately have the affect of producing more failure.

The Dalai Lama and other leftists miss the point. What makes a great society isn’t Marxism or capitalism. It’s faith in God, coupled with the liberty to do His will that makes a man, or a nation, great. Isn’t it strange that a “religious leader” would miss the point so badly.

The Democratic Party never gives up on a bad idea.

Sun, 23 May 2010 04:33:56 GMT

Three years ago the nation debated “comprehensive immigration reform”. The people overwhelmingly rejected it because it was simply a euphemism for amnesty for illegal immigrants despite lawmakers protestations to the contrary. This year it's the hot topic again.

What has changed? Well, there's a Democratic majority in the House, Senate, and the executive branch. They've discovered that they can shove their socialist agenda down the people's throats, but that without a change in voter demographics it will cost them their majority.

Three years have passed, and still the federal government refuses to enforce existing immigration law on our southern border. The drug cartels from Mexico have become more violent taking the lives and property of U.S. land owners near the southern border. Because of the federal government's shameless failure to carry out its constitutionally mandated duty Arizona has enacted a law requiring its police to uniformly enforce the requirement that proper identification be provided by suspects of traffic violations and crimes. If proper identification isn't given immigration status can be questioned, and arrests made. The only thing that really changes here is that the law no longer provides officers the choice to ignore the identification requirement – something they often do when stopping Hispanic people.

This attempt to enforce existing law regardless of the suspect's race is called “profiling” and “racist” by our president, and by the president of a foreign land with even harsher immigration laws than ours - laws that require profiling of suspects and that require local officials to enforce federal law. Our own state department, without ever having read the law declares before China that the idea of uniform enforcement of the law is somehow a violation of human rights. Arizona is chastised by the United Nations for doing something that all sensible nations would do.

Here, the left is making the claim that uniform enforcement of identification requirements is “racist” and that somehow local law enforcement aiding federal law enforcement is somehow unconstitutional. That's funny, I seem to remember that existing federal law has provisions in it that allow local law enforcement, with proper training, and with an agreement with the attorney general, to enforce federal immigration law. (follow the link and go to the bottom of the page.) This is in Title 8 of the U.S. Code (as of 2009), chapter 12, subchapter II. The entire title is available here in PDF format.

Just in case you aren’t interested in following the links, here’s what it has to say…

(1) Notwithstanding section 1342 of title 31, the Attorney General may enter into a written agreement with a State, or any political subdivision of a State, pursuant to which an officer or employee of the State or subdivision, who is determined by the Attorney General to be qualified to perform a function of an immigration officer in relation to the investigation, apprehension, or detention of aliens in the United States (including the transportation of such aliens across State lines to detention centers), may carry out such function at the expense of the State or political subdivision and to the extent consistent with State and local law.

Read Arizona’s law. It’s much shorter than the federal law at only 17 pages of straightforward text (45 lines per page). They’re simply prohibiting local jurisdictions from ignoring federal law. They’re checking identification of EVERYONE that commits a traffic infraction or is arrested (that’s not profiling, it’s the opposite of profiling, since it applies to EVERYONE), and taking steps to check upon the immigration status of people that don’t comply. Arrests are made, and the suspects handed over to federal immigration officials. And of course, the Department of Homeland Security is now considering not taking people arrested by Arizona police into custody. That’s right, the agency charged with ensuring the security of the homeland is deliberately choosing to neglect its own duty!

Three years ago a law was passed requiring a border fence be built. Another law was passed requiring electronic monitoring of the border. Both laws were ignored and now will not be implemented.

Nothing really has changed has it, other than federal neglect of our laws simply getting worse? And now the sadly misnamed Democratic party wants to try shoving their failure from three years ago down our throats. Aren't you convinced yet? The Democratic party is no longer interested in anything but power, regardless of the cost to our nation.

Isn't it about time we defeated them once and for all?

Unfried Hardware

Wed, 12 May 2010 03:12:19 GMT

Well, I got my desktop machine back today. It cost me $20.00 more than originally estimated, because the original machine had a genuine Intel processor and that meant that the AMD-based motherboard that they originally wanted to put in for me wouldn’t work with the version of Windows that was installed – and I insisted on repairing Windows rather than re-installing it. It was worth it though. It would have cost me more than $20.00 to have all of my original software disks shipped here from home and then it would have taken me most of a week to install the software, leaving me with little time for anything else. I “could” have done it I suppose, but I consider that small oval portrait of Andrew Jackson to be a reasonable convenience fee.

Of course, this computer, as it was originally delivered was a high-end system for the time. I’ve had it long enough now that it’s considered a low-end system. My laptop is considerably more powerful, until you count the fact that most of my good software is on the other machine. Still, I ended up with a 2.4 GHz processor (just a little bit more than twice as fast as the old one) and 2 GB of ram – exactly twice what I had before, for less than half of what I originally paid for the system when I bought it new.

Right now it’s downloading all of my “backed up” e-mail. Something like 2,000 messages being pulled from the servers. Carbonite is happy again too, now that it’s backing my system up again. Maybe now I won’t keep getting those messages telling me my backup is overdue.

I’ve got to re-work the sound drivers on the system now too. Apple’s iTunes doesn’t want to play sound because something there is misconfigured. That’s OK though. I moved most of my iTunes library to the laptop anyway. It’s still a bit of an annoyance though. If iTunes doesn’t like it, it’s a fair bet that my video editing software won’t like it either until I get it worked out.

The best part of all of this though is that I can begin my own application development again. Sure, I write code all day at work, or support existing code, or attend design meetings to design new code, or any of a bazillion other things that software engineers do to earn a living, but there’s still something to be said about developing your own software for your own purposes. I consider it a great recreational activity, and it beats watching television. Who knows? Maybe I’ll come up with a “killer app” one of these days.

Hey, a guy can dream right?

I told you

Tue, 11 May 2010 01:22:23 GMT

Some time back, I parted ways with some of my fellow bloggers. You see I have been saying for some time now that if we really want to take our government and our party back from the career politicians that run roughshod over the founders’ principles and the will of the people that we have to do it before they get on the ballot for the general election, and that more than anything else the key to doing that is early involvement of individuals. I was told that, essentially, I was “full of shit”. It was this statement, more than anything else, that caused me to break fellowship with them and to return to “obscurity”.

I would like all of you that think of yourselves as true conservatives to consider for a moment the election of 2008. While many of us rejoiced that John McCain had settled upon Sarah Palin as his running mate – arguing that she was most certainly a stronger conservative than he was, can you honestly say that that election for most of us was anything other than being forced to choose the “lesser of two evils”?

These days, I am still receiving e-mail from John McCain’s campaign – because he faced a real challenge in winning the nomination for the Senate seat that he’s held for altogether too many terms. No true conservative really believes his claims that he honors our founders or that he’s a real conservative. McCain-Feingold should have been enough of a clue – without even considering his attitude toward the voters that wanted the Senate to listen to the will of the people regarding the amnesty program that was so euphemistically called “comprehensive immigration reform” in 2007.

Yes, despite the obvious problems that his own state was suffering at the hands of illegal immigrants, John McCain saw them as a new constituency. He wasn’t interested in the safety of the legal residents of his state – he was interested in the potential votes of the illegal residents. For some time, it looked as though he might be defeated in his campaign for the Republican nomination – until the liberal Republicans in Florida put him over the top, thanks in part to an als0-ran splitting the conservative vote with Mitt Romney. And so it was that we were left with a “maverick” that often “crossed the aisle” to work with the opponents of conservatism as our only choice opposing outright socialism and anti-American rhetoric.

In November of 2008 we truly were faced with a choice – between two evils. Sadly, as a nation we didn’t choose the lesser of the two.

Today, Paul Jacob in his Common Sense program made mention of something remarkable. This past weekend, voters in the Republican caucus defeated ~~the lying sack of~~ three term Senator Robert Bennett, before the state’s primary election. Both of the candidates that defeated him had heavy support from the Tea Party activists. That’s right, a bunch of individuals fed up with career politicians and big government acted to block a sitting Senator from receiving his party’s nomination. What a sweet thing that is.

You see Senator Bennett violated his pledge to hold himself to two terms when he was first elected. He was running for his fourth term – and the individual voter decided that they didn’t want yet another career politician that can’t honor his own pledges, or apparently the express will of his constituents – to represent them. In Utah at least voters won’t be faced with a choice to select the lesser of two evils. The lesser of the two evils won’t be on the ballot.

Instead, it’s pretty much a sure bet that a liberal Democrat will face off against a conservative Republican.

This is what I’ve been talking about. If you want to take back our party, it doesn’t do any good to wait until the general election and “punish” the career politicians that are running it. Get the bad apples off the ballot early – before you have to choose between a “maverick” and a socialist.

Fried hardware

Sat, 08 May 2010 15:49:52 GMT

When I went back to Covington last month, I shut down my desktop PC. I was gone for two weeks, and after I returned I didn’t turn it on for a week. After all, my laptop is much more capable, although it doesn’t have quite as much disk capacity. Still, all of the source code for my web site and my other projects is on the desktop (yes, I have a backup as well), together with the development tools. Anyway, when I wanted to get started on one of my development projects I turned on the power switch.

The silly thing wouldn’t boot up. All it did was beep at me. Then the power supply fan seemed to go into overdrive. It turns out a power surge (when?) had fried several of the capacitors on the motherboard. The machine was toast. Fortunately the hard drive was undamaged. For a fairly low price, I had the machine re-built around the hard drive, costing me less than the original computer did by far, and actually being somewhat more capable. It’s still nowhere near as capable as my laptop, but that’s OK.

I can’t honestly say I’ve missed writing software – I do it every day at work. But… none of what I write at work belongs to me. What I write at home (or at least in this studio suite I call my temporary domicile), on my own time, with my own resources belongs to me. There are some projects that I want to work on, including a complete re-write of my blogging platform that I had started before I left.

I’ve wanted to refactor the code for this platform for quite a while, and I’ve also wanted to modify it a bit so that it can support multiple blogs properly. The code is written for ASP.NET 1.1 as well, and that platform is getting old and crusty. Upgrading to a more recent platform will probably be in my interest anyway, since eventually ASP.NET 1.1 will be demised. Or maybe not. I still see a few sites out there running plain old ASP – but they’re definitely in the minority.

There won’t be too many changes to this site immediately, but they are coming. Most of what I’m going to do will involve the back-end of the site. I’ve wanted to implement a sort of template-driven environment for a while, and I’ll try to make the first templates match the current look and feel of the site. At the same time, I’ve wanted to add new features, and to clean up the generated HTML.

It’s been a long time since I made any serious updates to this platform. I think it’s overdue.

Ah, but maybe it won't be as easy as all that. The shop that's working on the computer is having a hard time getting it to boot into anything other than "safe" mode. I don't have to worry about my data - it's all backed up, but the software – that's the problem. All of the installations disks are about 800 miles away from here, sitting in boxes at home.

One way or another, I’m going to start working on code for my own purposes again. There are lots of things I want to try out.

A man can still have hope can’t he?

Wed, 05 May 2010 12:14:44 GMT

The Patriot Post published a wonderful joke yesterday. The title of the email was “Humor: Meeting the president”. The gist of the joke is that an old man sitting on a park bench across the street from the white house crossed the street one late January morning in 2012 and asked the marine’s at the gate to let him in to see President Obama and one of the marines told him kindly that Barack Obama wasn’t president anymore. This continued for three days in a row and the marines were becoming frustrated with the old man who didn’t seem to be getting the message.

On the third day in a row the man asked for the third time and the marine told him that he had been saying for the last three days that Barack Obama wasn’t president anymore, and the old man replied that he knew that – he just loved hearing it.

I wonder – if there’s really a park bench sitting across the street from the white house gates how many old men will be sitting there with me starting on January 20, 2012.

I could really use some hope and change. A new president and a new Congress that honors the constitution and respects the principles of individual liberty is what I hope for. That would really be a change.

… not dead yet

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 00:52:40 GMT

If you’re wondering, no, I haven’t quit blogging. I’m still just as opinionated as ever, and I think I have even more to say now than I have had in the past. I’ve just been really busy lately.

My trip back home was worth every moment. Spending time with my wife and kids was definitely the highlight of the trip. I had a wonderful time at the National Tartan Day celebration, even though it was held a week and a half before National Tartan Day (April 6). Scottish Country Dancing on Monday nights was every bit as much fun as I remembered it, although my wife wasn’t able to attend either session. NorwesCon 33 was just as much fun as I had hoped it would be, and the people were just as different as usual. Getting to see my lovely granddaughter was a blast.

The thing was, it wasn’t a vacation. I had to work every weekday while I was home with the exception of Good Friday, and I didn’t just put in the standard 8 hour days. I averaged closer to 10.5 hours a day with two or three days running closer to 13 hours.

I’ve been back in Salt Lake now for a week. It’s still 10.5 hour days. It’s not quite as hectic as it has been from time to time, but the work just keeps coming. And I know that I’m fortunate to have it even though I don’t get paid a dime for anything past 8 hours.

I’ve just not had much time for anything outside of work and family. I have been working on a new post – ever since ObamaCare Sunday. I hope to have it up soon. While you’re waiting, you might want to read the Declaration of Independence. My new post is a contrast with the Declaration – sort of what I imagine might come from the Democratic Party leadership today – A Declaration of Dependence. I hope to have it finished this weekend – but no promises.

Once I’m done with it, I plan to take a bit of a new tone here. The actions of our governments at just about every level are too distressing for me. Instead I plan to do a series of articles on first principles and how they relate to life in the twenty-first century.

Listening to Rush’s podcast is always fun, and today as I was driving home I heard a black man talking about how hard it was to convince his friends that conservative principles were worthwhile when conservatives continue to talk about returning to our foundational principles – principles which his friends and family claim would have him and them treated as less than whole people. He was basically saying that he would lose the argument because his friends and family consider the founders to have been racist bigots and foundational principles to be racist because of that clause in the Constitution.

Yes, it’s there. It doesn’t mention race, but anyone with half a brain knows that it was talking about black people for the most part in the southern states where slavery was a way of life. So reading the following might lead you to conclude that the founders didn’t consider black people to be as good as other people…

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

The thing about this is it doesn’t mention race at all, save for “Indians not taxed” – which we would take to mean “Native Americans” today in our politically correct culture. It mentions “free Persons” and includes among them those “bound to Service for a Term of Years”, by which it meant people who were not free, but were indentured into servitude for a limited time. In this context “all other Persons” obviously meant anyone that was permanently bound into service – in other words slaves. And – contrary to what you may have heard otherwise – not all slaves were black people, although by far the majority were.

It’s truly a shame that people only look that far and assume that the founders were racists and bigots. It’s a real shame that the reason for that clause is often overlooked when people are taught about our founding and about the Constitution. It’s a shame because the importance of this clause is completely misrepresented in the minds of so many people. This man, and his friends and family have either been taught a completely erroneous interpretation of this clause deliberately, or they have never been taught the context in which the Constitution was written.

Far from being the first “racist” clause in the Constitution this is the first anti-slavery clause in the Constitution. And yet, it’s not taught that way at all. When the reasons for its existence are mentioned it’s merely considered to be a compromise that allowed both the major slave-holding states in the south and the states with economies that weren’t based upon slavery to come to an agreement allowing the establishment of the Constitution – which is true as far as it goes, but only that far.

As I said, this is the first anti-slavery clause in the Constitution. When you consider that the legislature is and was intended to be the pre-eminent branch of the federal government each state’s representation in that legislature was important. The fact that the Senate was ordered so that no state would be able to have more Senators than any other makes it somewhat more difficult for any given state to take advantage of that body – but the House of Representatives is another story entirely.

Each Representative gets a single vote when it comes to legislation. The more Representatives a state can send to the House the more power that state can wield in the federal government. By basing representation in the House upon the population of the states, power within the House was skewed toward the larger and more populous states. In the non-slave-holding states this power and the representation of the state was closely related to the number of people within the state that had a voice in the selection of that representation. Not so in the slave-holding states.

If population alone were the factor in the slave-holding states then the the people able to vote, which most certainly would not have included any person bound to permanent servitude (a slave) would have a disproportionately stronger voice. Such states could simply “import” more persons (slaves) to increase their population and thereby their representation. Having a disproportionately stronger representation in the slave-holding states would have ensured the perpetuation of the institution of slavery.

Do the math – assuming one Representative for every 30,000 persons counted in the census (as the same paragraph of the Constitution recommends), all a slave-holding state would have to do to gain an additional Representative would be to import 30,000 new slaves – but under this clause of the constitution they would have to instead import 50,000 slaves for the same result. On the other hand, a slave-holding state with 150,000 slaves could gain two extra Representatives simply by freeing the slaves – without changing its population at all.

Rather than being the enshrinement of racism and slavery in the Constitution, this clause was a direct attack on the institution of slavery. Rather than looking upon this clause as evidence that the founding principles upon which our nation is based are evil and racist one has only to examine it closely to see that those foundational principles are the principles of liberty for every person, and that a return to them is in the interests of us all.

But of course, the statists in our educational system and the liberals that despise conservative principles don’t want you to know that. Do they?

It’s not going to happen

Tue, 16 Mar 2010 00:38:50 GMT

Paul Jacob suggests that Congress send the full text of the “health care reform” bill to every voter, and that every voter must pass a 500 question multiple choice quiz on its contents before they move ahead. Imagining for a moment that our Congress would agree to such a thing, it would never happen. But let’s look first at why Congress won’t ever agree to this.

First of all, our President has essentially said that even though he knows that “his” bill is overwhelmingly unpopular he’s going to see to it that it becomes law anyway. The Democratic Party’s leadership knows that they simply can’t get this bill passed through the normal process. So they’re willing to invent an abnormal process to get it done.

First, there’s the “reconciliation” process. You know the one – the one we were told on the night of the “health care reform summit” that nobody was talking about – only to hear about it the very next Monday as the way the bill was going to get passed.

So what exactly do the Democratic Party’s leaders mean by “reconciliation” anyway? We certainly aren’t talking about the bill drafted by and passed by the House of Representatives. That died in the Senate. So we must be talking about the bill drafted by and passed by the Senate right?

Isn’t that bill filled with taxes? And deferred health care “benefits” in order to pass the sham test of revenue neutrality? Doesn’t something smell fishy about that to you?

Need I remind you of these words? All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills. Oh well, I know that the Democratic Party leadership doesn’t consider such questions to be serious – after all, it’s only a question about honoring the plain language and meaning of our Constitution. That’s nothing “serious” after all.

So, already our esteemed elected Representatives and Senators have ignored one of our basic founding principles in order to move their agenda forward. Not that that’s anything new.

We are told that the reconciliation process is meant to overcome the objections of Democratic Representatives to the content of the Senate bill. Democratic Representatives are encouraged to vote for and pass the Senate bill and that it will then be returned to the Senate where their objections will be dealt with through “reconciliation”. We’re told that this will short-circuit debate in the Senate only requiring a simple majority to pass – despite Senate rules that require 60 percent of the quorum to approve ending debate.

This is of course true – to a point. If the House were to agree to the Senate bill under these terms it most certainly would cut short debate in the Senate – there wouldn’t need to be any. If the House should pass the Senate bill unchanged there would be no need for the bill to return to the Senate, nor would there be any need for a conference committee to resolve any differences between the bill as passed by the Senate and the bill as passed by the House. Both houses of the Congress having passed the bill it would immediately go before the President.

Democratic Representatives would have no recourse. Since they would have voted for the bill “as-is”, they would have nothing to say about it becoming law. After all, they would have voted for it. Reconciliation is nothing but a sham and a diversion. It diverts attention from what’s really happening, and it’s a shameless attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people and the members of the House of Representatives.

That the Democratic Party’s leadership is willing to perpetrate this sham is indicative that they really don’t care about the will of the people – or for that member even the will of the elected members of their own party. They really only want to pass this bill – even if it means that they lose their majority in the House of Representatives and their supermajority in the Senate (which is already lost thanks to the election of Scott Brown). More on that in a bit

Think about that for a minute. Then return to the original question – why in Hell would the leadership of the Democratic Party be willing to abandon their chances at getting this bill passed by putting it before the American voter? Especially with the requirement that the voters be able to demonstrate that they actually understand the bill? Remember the words of the Speaker of the House? “[W]e have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it”. She doesn’t want us to know what’s in it – until it’s too late.

Her own words damn the Democratic Leadership and the hidden agenda behind this bill. “Prevention, prevention, prevention -- it's about diet, not diabetes. It's going to be very, very exciting.” Let that sink in for a moment.

Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic Party leadership, together with a number of their constituents want to dictate your diet for you, as well as many of your other day to day decisions. This isn’t about health care. It’s about dictating your choices to you – backed by the iron fist of the government.

Even so-called moderate or “blue dog” Democrats have been infected with this way of thinking. I recently attended a question and answer session with one of Utah’s Congressional Representatives. He sounded oh so reasonable, talking about managing costs, and the like – until he made the statement that it would be necessary to regulate behavior in order to keep costs low. He may be a “fiscal conservative” – but in the end he’s just another Statist seeking to take away our liberties.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility and freedom? Just because a behavior carries with it associated risks doesn’t mean that it should be prohibited. Drinking alcoholic beverages for example carries with it the risk of cirrhosis of the liver – not to mention the fact that drinking to excess can lead to an otherwise destroyed life. Alcoholics Anonymous doesn’t exist without reason. Still, in moderation drinking alcoholic beverages also has health benefits. Red wine for example has been associated with cardio-vascular health. Shouldn’t it be the individual’s responsibility to weigh the risks, benefits, and yes even pleasures associated with certain behaviors and make up his own mind?

And what if in some cases the risks turn into eventualities? The responsible individual will accept the consequences of risky behavior along with the potential rewards. If cirrhosis should develop for example it means a curtailed life span – unless medical care can be found – medical care which under our current system can be purchased at need but which might be denied in the name of “cutting costs” under the “health care reform” bill – with no option but to seek care outside the system.

No, the Democratic Party leadership has no interest in having the American voter understand their bill. It will never be presented to the voter – especially since the majority of informed voters want no part of it. But… if you want to really kill any chances of ever seeing this bill move forward – why just add Paul Jacob’s second criteria to this. Make Congress wait until every voter can pass a 500 question multiple choice quiz regarding the contents of the bill.

Do that and the bill will NEVER have a chance of passing. Why? Because a snowball has a better chance of surviving a millennium in Hell than the average American citizen would ever have of being able to pass that quiz. After all, this bill stands at a whopping 2,000 pages of convoluted legalese. By contrast, the Constitution of the United States of America is a mere 4,494 words long, or about four large sheets of parchment. The legislation is about 500 times as long as the Constitution – and the majority of American people can’t even base a basic civics quiz!

Oh, and remember I promised more on the Democratic Party leaderships’s willingness to give up their majorities? Think about it. Who benefits from an increasing large and bureaucratic state? Think about it seriously. If this “health care reform” bill passes, it will create a vast new entitlement at the federal level. The notion that “health care” is a “right” will be enshrined in federal law. Once the benefits finally kick in people will come to accept that they have a right to health care, and any effort by the Republicans – once the Democratic Party is out of power – to repeal this abomination will be cast in that light. The old playbook used time and again by the Democratic Party will once again be effective – because it will be true. Republicans really will want to take away your “right” to health-care. Never mind that what they really want is to return your liberty to you, and to eliminate the slavery that will result as health care workers become indentured servants to the masses.

No, Paul Jacob’s idea sounds nice, but it’s just not going to happen.

Looking for a job?

Sat, 13 Feb 2010 02:59:51 GMT

My friend Karma forwarded this to me. While I have nothing against free trade, this is a fairly populist notion of why there are so few jobs available. The real problem is that the business climate in this country is pathetic. With financial markets under attack by the current Congress and administration, and uncertainty about taxes, fees, and the government mandates regarding health care, it’s just too hard to know whether it will be a good economic bargain to hire people.

But I figure we can all use a bit of humor.

Looking for a job?

Tony started the day early, having set his alarm clock (made in Japan) for 6:00 AM. While his coffeepot (made in China) was perking, he shaved with his electric razor (made in Hong Kong).

He put on a dress shirt (made in Sri Lanka), designer jeans (made in Singapore), and tennis shoes (made in Korea).

After cooking his breakfast in his new electric skillet (made in India) he sat down with his calculator (made in Mexico) to see how much he could spend today.

After setting his watch (made in Taiwan) to the radio (made in India) he got in his car (made in Germany), filled it with gas (from Saudi Arabia) and continued his search for a good-paying American job.

At the end of yet another discouraging and fruitless day checking his computer (made in Malaysia) he decided to relax for a while. He put on his sandals (made in Brazil), poured himself a glass of wine (made in France), and turned on his T.V. (made in Indonesia). Then he sat there wondering why he can't find a good-paying job in America.

Now he's hoping he can get help from his President (made in Kenya).

Well... I found it funny anyway.

Revisiting "The 545"

Thu, 11 Feb 2010 01:57:08 GMT

A good friend of mine that I used to work with and who helped me out in my racing efforts some time ago passed around the latest incarnation of Charley Reese’s “The 545” today. It reminded me that I had seen it a couple of years ago – the thing about it is what Charley Reese wrote back in the 1980s still resonates today – with a little tweaking to keep events current. Realizing that I’ve decided to repost what I wrote about it then.

There’s one thing that’s missing from Charley’s article, as well as my posting below though. While it’s true that 545 people are responsible for most of what our government does – assuming they’ll take the responsibility and the blame (as well as the credit that they’re oh so happy to claim) for what they do – It’s also true that Congress and the President are only responsible for a small amount of what our federal government is into anymore.

Charley neglected to mention, and I did as well, the federal bureaucracy. While Congress may draft huge bills these days in their sweeping attempts to re-regulate this and control that, the federal bureaucracy is a vast army of clerks, middle managers and the like that end up drafting regulation after regulation affecting just about every aspect of our lives. These regulations often carry the force of law – and NOBODY votes for or against them. If there’s anything that needs reform even more than Congress it’s this system of bureaucrats running our lives without anybody’s advice or consent.

What exists is what we want to exist

My dad sent me an interesting article titled "The 545" via email attributed to a Florida Reporter named Charley Reese. [Update: I read a few of Charley's articles. He's not a modern-day conservative, but rather a paleoconservative with some libertarian ideas. His more recent writing sounds decidedly like some of the things the Democratic party has been saying of late. Even so, he's occasionally right.] I found it to be an interesting and spot-on read.

The original publication date is unknown, but it was reportedly originally published in the Orlando Sentinel Star newspaper. From the context, it was written many years ago (Tip O'Neill is referred to as the Speaker of the House, which dates that article at least back to the 1980s). I think it's still relevant today.

Just from the number 545, I'm sure you can guess who he's referring to. If not, he spells it out.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 235 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

There are some interesting points in the article that struck me. Who do you think is responsible for the national debt and for deficit spending? Who's responsible for the federal budget?

Often times, we hear that "under Reagan" we had massive deficit spending. We hear that "George W. Bush" brought back deficit spending. Why is it that the President is given the blame when our federal government outspends it's revenues? What gives William J. Clinton the gall to take credit for the revenue surplus during his Presidency?

The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating appropriations and taxes.

The version of the article my dad sent me is modified somewhat from the original. It doesn't reference Tip O'Neill for one. Instead it refers to the Speaker of the House as "She", obviously meaning Nancy "the felon" Pelosi. Rather than referring to the marines being in Lebanon, the updated article refers to Iraq.

Isn't it interesting, how with a few minor changes this old article still applies?

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts - of incompetence and irresponsibility.

I can't think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to defense overruns, that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.

When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ.

"It must follow that what exists is what they want to exist."

Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation" or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people and they alone are responsible. They and they alone have the power. They and they alone should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided they have the gumption to manage their own employees.

Have we got that gumption? There are 300 million of us and 545 of them. In a representative republic we ought to be able to choose more honest leaders than the ones we've been choosing for the last several decades.

The names and the places may have changed, but politics in Washington hasn't changed in over 50 years. The fact that we keep choosing scoundrels to represent us tells me something about the American people…

"It must follow that what exists is what they want to exist."

For a people that seeks change, as the popularity of Barack Obama suggests, we keep putting the same type of scoundrels into office. Shame on us all.

With President Obama's popularity down to an all time low and disapproval - even anger at the federal government's policies running at over 80% perhaps the people will finally do something about it. Nobody else can - unless the Chinese decide to call in our debt.

It’s a nice place to visit but...

Wed, 10 Feb 2010 04:46:40 GMT

About ten months ago I lost a job that I had held for several years. I hadn’t really enjoyed working where I was for most of two years before that, but being unemployed made a change in my life that I didn’t really like. Shortly after I left, my former boss lost his job. Other people working for the same company started losing theirs too.

Getting a new job took me close to eight months, the longest time I had been without work in my adult life. I sent out thousands of copies of my resumé and got very few hits. I became a member of more than a couple of job search sites. I talked to my network of former coworkers. In all that time I ended up interviewing for maybe four jobs.

The first one was just a month or so after I re-entered the labor market. I ended up spending about three months talking to those people. I went to multiple interviews with them. They brought people across the country to talk to me. Near the end of the process things were looking pretty good – and their funding dried up. I never heard from them again. It was also near the end of that particular process that I ended up talking to two other potential employers.

One would have required me to move across the country – and I was actually looking forward to it. Betty and I have wanted to move to the East coast for a while now. Still, that job didn’t pan out either. Ultimately the company I would have ended up working for simply expanded the territory of one of their existing consultants. At least they let me know what had happened.

The other was a very short term thing – possibly producing a prototype of a new software product. Unfortunately the man that had that project had funding problems as well. He had a great idea for a product. Hard economic times just didn’t allow him to develop it.

And then I started talking to some people in Utah. Interview after interview – phone call after phone call. Something clicked with them and with me, and they decided they wanted me on their team. Then the real work started. Background checks, drug screening, information disclosure forms. It took weeks. Worst of all, I was afraid that something would turn up and they would decide that I wasn’t really suitable for the job.

No, I wasn’t worried about a positive drug test. No, I never lied in any of my applications or anything like that. But my prospective employer was a big banking firm and they had a tougher screening process than I went through getting a government security clearance for my first real job, and I have led a less than exemplary life from time to time – including … well we’ll not go there OK?

Still, the day came and the job turned out to not only be real, but it was mine. The only hitch was I’d have to relocate to Utah for the duration of the contract – about a year. My younger son was finally doing better in school – and liking it. Betty and I decided that there was just no way we could uproot him for us all to move out to Utah. And so here I am in a small studio apartment/hotel room for the next year while my wife is back home in Washington.

Utah has some lovely scenery. It has seasons. It has work (and it’s a really nice job too). But it doesn’t have my wife and family. Oh, I have aunts and uncles and cousins here, but that’s not quite the same. I’ve got a web camera and so does my wife (gifts from my mother this past Christmas), so I can see her from time to time, but it’s still not the same.

Fortunately I’ll be able to return home occasionally. I’ll be home for a couple of weeks at the end of next month (but I’ll still have to work remotely, and attend my meetings by telephone – at six-thirty in the morning for the first meeting). That’ll be much better I think, actually seeing my wife in person and spending evenings with her instead of alone.

The way I understand it, the unemployment rate has been hovering around 10% for most of a year. The rate of people that don’t have work but have given up looking is even higher – hovering around 17% to almost 20% and has been that way for a while too. I’m grateful to have a job – even if it does take me away from my family for a while.

But I really pray that the people in this country wake up to the cold hard facts and dump these tax-and-spend politicians that have sapped the heart of our economic prospects in the name of bigger government and “things that are too big to fail”. The only sector of our economy that seems to really be growing is government. There seem to be plenty of jobs there – paid for at the expense of private sector jobs.

The stimulus plan needs to be scrapped. The unspent money needs to be used to pay down the national debt, and we’ve got to stop spending money hand over fist. The idea of punishing success through punitive taxation has to be scrapped too. You’d think by now that we’ve had a fabulous demonstration of how poorly it works at resolving our unemployment problems. At the same time, we’ve got to stop rewarding failure through “tax credits”and “bailouts”.

Everyone knows how to train animals. You reward them when they do what you want and you punish them (gently) when they do what you don’t want them to do. Either the statists in our government want the economy to fail or they’re simply to stupid to understand the principle of reward and punishment. The people need to learn too that we can’t keep rewarding Senators, Representatives, and Presidents that continue to fail us by re-electing them.

Please wake up this election cycle people. Utah is a great place to visit but… well, you get the picture. Still…

… I’ll do what I have to for my family.

Oh look! A squirrel!

Tue, 09 Feb 2010 04:50:27 GMT

Sometimes I wish that we didn’t have all of the modern technology that we enjoy. When I was a very young boy we didn’t have a television – at least not that I can remember for a long time. We had radio and LP recordings. We had books, and we had toys – real, physical toys. If we were bored, we read or we went outside to play.

I remember my parents’ stereo set. It was bigger than the table that I have my printer, monitor and keyboard on now. That’s it behind my brother in this photo (yes, this was a long time ago).

Give it enough time though and technology creeps into our lives until we think we can’t do without it. There’s the television front and center in the room one Christmas morning. We’d had it for a while – a small black and white set.

My dad had an interesting way of preserving historic events. In 1969 when men landed on the moon, my dad recorded it – with his camera. Yes, I know it says “Live Color TV Pictures of Moon”, but we only had a black and white TV. Still, technology was really on the move.

Yesterday, I played World of Warcraft on my computer in my room in Woods Cross, UT. My son was playing at the same time on his laptop in Covington, WA. We were both watching the Super Bowl, shooting “leper gnomes”, bears, and snow leapards in the imaginary land of Dun Morogh – just outside Gnomeragon and Brewnall Village. I’ve got a big screen projection TV at home that he plays other video games on at times. I’d guess it’s five times the size of that old stereo, and my stereo fits in my pocket.

At home we can pause live television and re-wind it if we miss something. I used to pause whatever I was watching when there was too much noise in the house. We’ve got DVDs, MP3 players, headphones, computers, and all sorts of gadgets. I receive about 150 e-mail messages a day on my personal accounts (only about 20 or so are spam) – not to mention the e-mail I get at work. I’m sitting behind a computer monitor for ten to twelve hours a day. It seems anymore that it takes a special event to get outside.

Unless the electricity is working and the internet is up – my kids are bored. Even with them both available sometimes they’re still bored – or at least they complain that there’s nothing to do. Pink Floyd was right. “Got thirteen channels of shit on the T.V. to choose from.”¹ Well, it’s more like 250 channels anymore and there’s seldom anything worth watching. Even as I write this I’m listening to the “Celt in a Twist” podcast, doing a search on the Internet to verify the lyrics I just quoted, updating my iPhone’s OS and downloading a few more podcasts – even though my internet connection is dog slow.

With all of the entertainment devices we have today is it any wonder we’re putting on weight? Forgetting our history? Losing touch with one another? Losing touch with the world?

- Oh look! A squirrel!

¹“Nobody Home” — Pink Floyd, The Wall, 1979

Interestingly enough, as I'm lamenting the sapping of our intelligence and imagination that comes from too much info-tainment The Hill's RSS feed is touting The need for broadband Internet adoption. I don't believe in coincidence. That's all we need, another NGO lobbying our government to pursue yet another program we don't really need government to get involved in.

And finally, some GOOD news. Thanks to the snow in Washington D.C. there will be no votes tomorrow in the House of Representatives. Climate Change finally does something good for the United States. While our Congress is out playing in the snow they aren’t doing anything to make our economy even worse – even if it’s only for a day. But wouldn't you know it... Steny Hoyer made the announcement via Twitter!