Arizona

What happened in Vegas ain't helpin' the Left

Remember  back in the summer, when liberals were thinking the election was just a speed bump on the way to a more statist America?

Oh, yes, the Netroots of the far Left do. And remember wistfully their "Tip of the Spear" symposium at Netroots Nation.  At a posh Vegas hotel, the true believers huddled to determine how they could get President Obama and Speaker Pelosi to enact programs even more liberal than what had been passed in 2009-10.

Two Congressman decided that hanging with lefty activists was more important than working back in their districts for their own re-election.  My Congressman, Chris Murphy, obviously found "the Strip' more alluring than fielding questions about closed businesses on Straits Turnpike.

He was joined by AZ's favorite open borders fanatic, Congressman Raul Grijalva

Murphy was living in his own world in Vegas, self-assured that liberals were on their way to inevitable success

"I would hope that the movement continues to understand that what we’re trying to do is supposed to be hard," said Rep. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., who was first elected in 2006. "What I worry sometimes is that people who come into the Netroots community, when they don’t get an immediate victory… they walk away. The frustration level builds rather quickly."

Giving an upbeat scenario for Election Day, Murphy said, "When we retain the House, some members are going to come back with some extra steel in their spines, having cast some tough votes and having survived what’s likely the toughest election of their career."

"Some members don’t want to cast tough votes before November," Murphy said, but he argued "that doesn’t mean that permanently excludes the ability to vote on things like immigration reform and energy."

Well, he got Congressional cowardice right. In fact, by voting to adjourn prior to voting on tax relief extension he was an eager participant. As for the election predictions, well let's say Charlie Cook and Nate Silver ain't buying it.

And Murphy's own constituents's aren't buying the extreme liberalism, the extreme partisanship, the pandering double talk, and the take it for granted attitude of Chris Murphy. 

In an independent poll, Murphy is losing by 50%-44%  National Review says the "dam has burst."

Maybe the 5th District has decided Chris Murphy can take that "steel in his spine" and , hmmm, put it somewhere else?

Oh poor Chris, after going to Vegas to tell lefties to put steel in their spine and reject moderate policies he's trying to claim back here in Connecticut he wants to work with Republicans.   Please. We can use the Internet , too. Selling a bridge?

As for Murphy's buddy in Arizona, he's lost favor with his voters in a gerrymandered Democratic district.  He leads by a mere 7 points. Some people don't like it when a Congressman calls for his own state to be boycotted.

On November 2, voters will be able to make a positive change for America. We will effect a bigger change not by just knocking out the craven and cowardly Blue Dogs, but by making sure that when Markos looks for politicians for next year's Netroots Nation no one more prominent than a college town councilman shows up.

Yep, let's give Chris Murphy and Raul Grijalva the tip of OUR spear. 

Go Sam Caligiuri

 

 

Research Proves Global Warming Models Wrong

 

By Richard Boren

(Rick Boren is a contributing writer at LowDownCentral.com)

There is new research (review of it attached) which you may want to pass along to anyone who has been persuaded that (1) humans are causing the planet to warm, (2) this will have a disastrous effect, and (3) we should try to do something about it such as passing Cap and Trade legislation, installing subsidized wind and solar power plants, buying hybrid cars, CFL bulbs and so forth.   The more scientifically-oriented of you can go right to the attachment.  The article begins at the bottom of the first page. Others may choose to read the rest of this e-mail. Everyone should understand that it is NOT a proven fact that humans have any effect on the climate.  However, the media and some politicians treat it that way.  Those who say that "the science is settled" are just plain wrong.  Even Mr. Gore, if pressed, would have to admit that the predictions of warming are 100% the result of computer models. That's right, 100%.  It's all a prediction somewhat like predicting the weather, only much, much, harder. The people making these computer models insert the known facts.  They also insert various assumptions of how these facts will interact with one another, coming up with what they hope will be a model of the climate that will produce accurate predictions.  Those assumptions mean everything, and now the research proves that they are wrong.  And not just a little wrong.  It turns out that the assumptions are exactly backwards. At the risk of using a dated computer expression, don't forget that it's still true that Garbage In = Garbage Out (GIGO).  Have you ever worked with a computer spreadsheet?  Have you ever inserted your estimates of future revenue and expenses and seen how  a few little changes here and there can result in either huge profits or devastating losses?  You might, for example, realize that at 3% revenue growth you'll go broke in four years, but at 7% you'll be a billionaire in six years.  It's hard to be objective in those circumstances, especially if you have investors.  In the case of the climate modelers, virtually all of them are funded by grants designed to study the climate "problem."  No problem, no grant.  No fame either.  No political power.  Objectivity can be difficult to maintain.  The computer models on which all of the fears are based rely on the assumption that carbon dioxide (CO2), a weak greenhouse gas, will trigger something called positive feedback which will amplify its weak effect, causing the effect to grow and grow.  (Positive feedback here is not the same thing as getting compliments about your job performance.  In this case, it means that when more of something happens it triggers even more of it to happen, with a snowballing effect.)  The climate models on which the current fears are based all assume that this positive feedback will occur. Without this assumed positive feedback, no human-caused global warming will occur.  Without the positive feedback assumption, the predictions of the models wouldn't scare anyone. The good news for the planet is that instead of having to make feedback assumptions there is now real data, and it shows that in the real world the feedback is negative. This means that the warming effect of CO2 triggers an effect that offsets it.  Therefore, all of the models are wrong. In plain English, this means that increased CO2 will not warm the planet. Whoopee! You can read more about this in the attached newsletter, Access to Energy, with the article beginning at the bottom of the first page. (I've been a subscriber for over 30 years.)  For more background, and what you should do, please read on. As most of us know, Earth has warmed by about 1 degree over the last century.  It has been much warmer in the past, and we are still here.  It has been much colder in the past and we are still here.  Today we are in one of the better heat ranges.  Of course, at some point it would be too hot to sustain life as we know it.  As most of us also know by now, carbon dioxide (CO2) is a "greenhouse" gas.  That means that it tends to trap the sun's heat in the atmosphere rather than allowing it to escape into space.  CO2 is what humans and all animals exhale after breathing in oxygen.  It is also what is produced when we burn so-called fossil fuels like wood, coal and petroleum products.  No one doubts the benefits of the energy we get from these inexpensive sources.  Furthermore, plants need CO2.  Increased CO2 has greatly improved the growth of plants and trees.  However,  a legitimate concern is whether there is a serious or even catastrophic downside because of CO2's greenhouse effect.  Studying this issue has been the right thing to do to. CO2 is a relatively minor greenhouse gas, which means that its effect in and of itself is small.  There is not much of it in the atmosphere, about 300-400 parts for every million parts of air.  However, we are adding to it at a fairly good rate.  Given the economic realities, there is virtually no chance that countries like China and India are going to stop or even slow down very much.  To hear some people tell it, the very existence of mankind is threatened. That is, of course, unless we here in America turn our lives upside down and spend trillions of dollars on more expensive energy.  That will apparently convince the rest of the world to do the same.  Well, maybe not, but at least we'll be "green" --  green and poor.  Have you ever noticed that the poor people of the Third World don't care about being "green?"  Food and shelter come first. President Obama has advisors who are committed to the belief that humans are causing global warming and that we need to stop it.  Their mantra is "the science is settled."  I do not believe that they are intellectually honest.  Why else do they refuse every offer to debate the scientific issues?  Why do they resort to name-calling rather than dealing with the evidence? They will never admit that they are wrong, and Obama is not going to hear anything else. The information in the attachment is not going to get to him. Can you imagine Al Gore walking into the Oval office and saying, "Mr. President, there is new evidence on global warming.  It turns out that I was wrong.  There's no problem. We don't have to do anything about it."  It has been said that Al Gore is going to make a billion dollars off of cap and trade.  In my view he would deserve to make even more if he actually helped save the planet.  But he and the others who stand to make money or wield political power don't want to hear the good news.   And they won't unless you and others do something about it.  Last Friday, Glenn Beck interviewed Christopher Monckton, who briefly presented what I've discussed above.  This is probably the largest exposure this will get in the mass media.  If this troubles you, please tell others, including your elected representatives.  Spread the word: the sky is not falling.

 

What the right needs to do to regain acceptance and credibility by the mainstream

The right has lost its way and a lot of people are starting to recognize this.  Books are being written (The Death of Conservatism, Republican Gomorrah: Inside the Movement that Shattered the Party, etc.)  Here are my thougths on what is wrong and what needs to be done about it.

Discredit those who are not helpful

Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, etc. have said a lot of downright crazy and dumb things (people with AIDS should be quarantined, etc.)  and are far too tied to Christianity.  They should be called out for that and pushed to the side so that true leaders on the right can rise to the top and give the right a real chance at regaining credibility and the minds of those who are undecided or in the center.  Those who espose hate, and anger should also be discredited and pushed to the side (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc.).  It is long past time for Conservative talk radio to become more academic, constructive, and hopeful sounding, and cater to the best in us (love, hope, unity, civics, etc.), rather than the worst (fear, anger, race, etc.).

Stop catering to the Christian right

Christianity has nothing to do with conservative ideas and theory on money, foreign policy, etc.  There is also supposed to be a strong seperation of church and state.  Our country was formed partially for freedom of religion, and if our government is run by someone who wants to impose their religion through laws and perspective, then we lose that.  In addition, America is not a Christian nation; though nearly 80% are Christian, there is still another 20% that are not.

Stop simply opposing every idea President Obama has and propose alternative solutions

The right has really been a thorn in our Presidents side instead of working with him to solve the problems in America.  The way to gain credibility and get some conservative ideas into law is to honestly work with the left to create good policy, and also proactively propose laws to solve some of our problems before the left takes up the problem.

Stop supporting causes that have nothing to do with Conservative ideology

The right should disassociate itself with such issues as abortion, and other things that are outside of the ideas of conservatism.  Abortion is an issue thats argument against it is primarily based in religion.  The same applies to marriage equality for gays; the argument against it can only be made from a religious standpoint.  Because of this, and because no party should be tied to any religion, just as our government should not be tied to any religion, the right as a whole and Republicans as a party should disassociate theirselves with abortion and start supporting equal rights for gays.  These two issues alone keep some of those in the center and on the left from ever supporting a Republican candidate.  It might cause a lot of those on the Christian right to be upset, but then they can choose the party that best conforms to what their idea of government should do on all other issues, or form a new 3rd party that is tightly tied to Christianity.

Stop being inconsistent

Right now many on the right are opposing government run health care on the idea that even though it may save a lot of lives, it isn't proper for the government or taxpayers to help others.  Yet, many of those same people are in support of the war in Iraq to give people in another country freedom and save their lives.  Why should we spend taxpayer dollars to police the world yet not spend taxpayer dollars to save those within our own borders?  Either we shouldn't spend money to help others, or we should and if we should then we should definitely want to help those within our own borders before those who are not within our borders.

Stop being hawks

The right has become a group of hawks and this is contrary to conservative ideas on foreign policy.  Conservative ideas on foreign policy are as spelled out by the Cato Institute:

Cato's foreign policy vision is guided by the idea of our national defense and security strategy being appropriate for a constitutional republic, not an empire. Cato's foreign policy scholars question the presumption that an interventionist foreign policy enhances the security of Americans in the post-Cold War world, and maintain instead that interventionism has consequences, including the formation of countervailing alliances, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and even terrorism. The use of U.S. military force should be limited to those occasions when the territorial integrity, national sovereignty, or liberty of the United States is at risk.

Conservatives need to re-embrace those ideas.  They are the ideas that our nations founders had in mind, and they are the ideas that are the most ethical and that might also allow some on the left to consider the rest of our ideas.

Have a well thought out income tax policy

There either should not be an income tax as Libertarians would like, or there should be an income tax that works to support Conservative values.  A tax that is progressive helps strengthen families at the lower incomes and therefore helps literacy rates, etc. which helps to preserve conservative values of strong families, an educated populace, etc.  Right now the government has taken on far too much responsibility and therefore spends too much and our national debt is growing because of it.  It is time to start cutting back on spending, but at the same time increasing revenue and the only realistic way to increase revenue is through a progressive income tax because those in the middle and lower class cannot support any higher tax burden.

Start supporting alternative energy and embrace that global warming is real and might be caused by us

The science is in, global warming is real and it is probably caused by our actions (and can we afford to gamble that it is not?).  Most of the oil that is easily available is in countries with citizens that do not like us.  Because of these two things, it is long past time to start looking into energy sources that do not emit CO2, and that do not require us to work with countries that are not friendly to us.

Stop catering to Israel

We give far too much money and support to Israel and it hurts our credibilty around the world and doesn't help to reduce the hatred towards us in the Muslim world.  It is time to treat Israel as we would any other country that is a friend and ally of ours.  We should work with them, and be friends with them, but we should point out when they are doing something that works against peace in the middle east and use our monetary aid as a tool to help control their actions rather than blindly supporting them at all times.

Start rethinking drug policy

The war on drugs does not work, and will never work so long as it is punitive rather than based in medicine.  It only makes organized crime stronger, and leads to a larger role of government and often leads to violations of our constitutional rights.  The punitive war on drugs was originally based on racism, and is now based in morality that is derived from religion.  For these reasons, it is time for the federal government to take a non punitive role and start considering policy that would put organized crime out of business, make drug use safer and less damaging to society, and help those who are ready to reform their lives through cessation of drug abuse.

 

 

Emissions Standards: The Global Siege on America >>

Let me begin by pronouncing the agreements that I share with Democrats. Or rather: let me be clear. The Earth is a gift from God, and is, aside from perhaps the feminine form, the most stunning thing in existence. No man alive is so base as to devalue what we have. This vehicle, like the Hand that created it, yields beyond sustenance and gives inspiration.

Now with that caveat out of the way, I submit that the Liberals, the Greens, and the Radical Left’s feel-good ideas of castrating the industrial machine are reckless and downright dangerous for America. The Left (and by extension the Democratic Party), in what has become an international battle royale for energy, prefers to surrender our arms and engines.  They are gruelingly unable to comprehend nuclear and fossil energy as a game-changing tactical weapon like steel and gunpowder. Nor are they able to accept that environmental stewardship treaties ratified by international bodies actually hold deliberate, ulterior motives to tightly bind America in other ways. And a shrugging regard at such powers is one of the most imminent dangers of the new century.

And to temper this sentiment, I believe that America can and should reduce its negative impact on the environment; namely by shifting from coal to nuclear power as a staple like France did and John McCain suggested. It seems that Liberals only like the bad ideas from Europe, but none of the good ones. As a case in point, we would have already reached the Kyoto emissions goals through the nuclear option that Republicans have proposed for years.

 

If President Bush had not pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol that President Clinton signed in 1997, we would have shouldered the burden of what other nations turn and ignore. Sadly, many of the global shirkers were Kyoto's chief architects within the European Union! Aside from ignoring the pollution of China and India which clearly no longer deserve special exemption, it held America to an unreasonable standard.

Europe's Performance:       

The European Union has had mixed results since signing the Kyoto Accord. Spain failed abysmally at achieving its goals and Italy approached underdeveloped Russia to buy carbon credits. To contextualize Russia’s position, the fall of the Soviet Union led to "Perestroika" and an industrial collapse, and Kyoto’s lax standards on Russia were assessed on this collapse. Similarly, Germany claims to have decreased their overall emissions. Yet, the integration of East Germany and the other ex-Soviet states (whose outmoded production stood to be revamped anyway) has tilted this statistic grossly. The reunification of West Germany to East Germany made it much easier to restructure the rusting coal-fired production of the Cold War. This overhaul was slated to happen anyway, making such a benchmark much easier to reach. Now having lived in Spain, I saw the staggering unemployment that fluctuated between 12-18%, and that is one thing that haunts me with upcoming legislations in the pipeline. Spanish Economist Gabriel Calzada detailed the consequences of these legislations in his “Study of the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources,” which demonstrates the damaging falsehoods of the “green job,” whatever that is. According to this perplexed academe, the subsidy of every 1 green job costs 2.2 regular jobs through inefficiencies, displacement, and re-allocation, and he expects the same results in the United States with President Obama’s Cap-and-Trade deal.

The liberal admonitionary chatchprase that “the debate is over” has battered many eardrums, not just yours. In the video below is an interview with Ex Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar of Spain. It’s not in English, but I can tell you that he treats the question of climate change as we do in America. His affiliates call climate change a religion, fettered with dogma, and state we have a “blue planet, not a green one.” Like many in the US, he claims not to be a “denier,” as that label presupposes something to deny. He concludes by stating that the debate is not over, because it has yet to even commence, and that there has been a marked decay in parliamentary spirit and democratic debate in Spain in years past, and that people should return to it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MD_bDfFaeI

China’s Performance:    

    The People’s Republic of China had recently surpassed the United States in CO2 emission in mid-2008, debunking the notion that America is the #1 offender.  But according to the environmental lunatics on the Left, we, The United States of America, must lead by example through blind faith and hope without assurance, that a military despotism like China will get warm fuzzies and turn green long after we have sacrificed trillions in GDP, millions of jobs, and the strategic high grounds that come with robust productive capacity. Yep. After watching America sadomasochistically self-immolate for a decade, China will want to join the rip-roarin’ fun!

India’s Performance:

Recently, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited India, and India’s Environmental Minister laid out a stalwart launch pad from which to negotiate future accords with the West. In short, he was not willing to sell his nation down the postmodern drain. I wish I could say the same for our leaders. Take a look for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyfJKgIQPXQ

Hillary’s refuted olive branch in New Delhi will be a microcosm of times to come, as we become the poor little match girl, passing from door to door and selling our eco-wares at no avail to a world hurtling in the opposite direction towards Ayn Rand.

The Ghosts of Energy Present and Future:

In America, we are a nation of people, not “masses” as the planeteers tend to esteem us. Hence, Carl Sagan’s hint at microbes having rights superseding those of humans will not fly far amidst a people unable to subtract anthropocentrism from stargazing, and who care little to imagine the giant unknowable workings of space and time after humans. Politically, it would be madness for a politico to expand his constituencies to mother earth, time, and space (gerrymandering would have to be done in either 3D or parsecs). The only manner in which to mobilize the public, or massage them into becoming pliant, would be to create a false sense of crisis, fear, and to literally demonize opposition as paid off or "flat-earthers." So it comes as no surprise that both Cap-and-Trade and ObamaCare are to be rushed. Despite that, the pending Waxman-Markey Bill puts forth many of the directives of “Old Europe” that will scare away manufacturing to the hills of Asia and Latin America. And Washington DC is counting on your docility to pass it.

Now according to the CIA World Factbook, America produces 14 trillion dollars in GDP as a total of our economy while China produces over 4 trillion. We dump 5.9 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere while China chugs out a full 6 billion. Now comparing the GDP in ratio to national emissions, a revelation emerges: We produce .00042 tons of CO2 per dollar of production. China produces .0015 tons of CO2 per dollar of production. So if cleanliness is the utmost goal, then the United States should already serve as an example to China, given that with a smaller population we produce more goods for the world at cleaner levels. 

Two points highlight China’s energy strategy for the 21st century: a petroleum highway and an emissions-free nuclear grid to make up for it. They already foresaw that T. Boone Pickens would abandon windfarms (which he did) and all the takeout joints in Hong Kong cannot accumulate the biodiesel grease to power fleets of buses. To put it another way: they’re not screwing around.  

According to Westinghouse Electric International, China has made it a national priority to build 100 nuclear power plants by 2020 (more resemblant of the Space Race than ObamaCare). And this national mobilization utilizes United States technology! Lord knows that the EU is already jacked into the atomic grid as well. We are not.

What’s the matter?  Did I frazzle your hippiemojo-windpower vibe and shatter your image of the avuncular T. Boone, who you learned was so hip during the hopeandchange era? Too bad, undergrad. It gets worse.

Aside from holding our debt, China is leveraging its surpluses to purchase assets around the globe, opening up trade channels to fan out their empire. Africa has become the next battlefield for resources, and China is pulling no punches in applying the same colonial takeover methodology as the powers of Europe did a century past. Nearly one third of all of China’s petroleum imports come from the African continent, and they have begun courting nations like Angola, The Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, and yes…Sudan. With an economy growing at 9% for the past two decades, they are jealously vying for control of new sources of timber, coal, copper, and oil, and doing so in side by side competition with the United States. Traditionally, China has taken a hands-off approach towards meddling in the affairs of another nations (since they themselves have no desire for scrutiny), but has recently scrapped this diplomatic dogma by cozying up to local oil-friendly African nations and their government officials. A crux of their tactic has been to lay “investments” into roads, fiber optics, technology training, bridges, and other infrastructures that would otherwise bollix African nations to quickly build for themselves. This colonial paradox for a once insular power demonstrates that the searing growth of their nation has alarmingly trumped old wisdoms, and is goading them to do what it takes to win…Confucius be damned and anyone else who stands in their way.

In this quest to outbid America in global energy sources, arms have become a desired currency for petty dictators and warlords, and China is in no short supply. While Western powers have done the same for some time in supporting unsavory regimes for regional interest, the rabbit hole goes much deeper in China’s case. Dangerous regions like Sudan receive their arms shipments from China (and military trainers), while 60% of Sudanese oil output heads in the other direction. This transcontinental circulation of arms-for-oil has been used to curry favor with African members of the United Nations, allowing for more votes to disregard China’s human rights violations and it even compells African nations to rebuff the ineffectual African Union in overseeing Sino-African commerce in its own continent.

Brazil, the fastest-growing economy in Latin America and by far its largest nation, has announced that China has surpassed the United States as a trade partner in an historic demand sweep for iron ore. In February of this year, Brasil’s state-run oil company accepted a $10 billion-dollar loan deal from the People’s Republic of China, and agreed to supply China’s national oil company, SINOPEC, with petroleum output. Through decades of cultural drift from North America, and socialist Brazilian President Lula da Silva at the helm, who blames American capitalism for the global meltdown, totalitarian wheels have been set in motion in our own, western hemisphere.

An Old Bear, still tired of American power, has bellowed out a roar to be heard across Eurasia. It is common knowledge that Russia has been buying up utility companies in Eastern Europe, and providing shelter in the United Nations for Iran, a country with its own untapped resources. The recent invasion of Georgia and South Ossetia impinged into their Caucasus pipeline—one of the few pipelines that flows into Europe independently of Russia. It is no small wonder that Vladimir Putin threatened to sever the pipeline into Europe to keep the west at bay. 

The Final Word:

With exploding demand, China, Russia, and other hostile powers will continue to buy, to seek, and to prod for more economic hegemony, and weave it into their mutual fatigue with America’s superpower status. And what do they all have in common? They purchase assets with government-run oil companies, treating utilities like defense commodities and branching out with the backing of infinite subsidy under the guise of corporate buyout. And to add insult to injury, they are all exempt from Waxman-Markey and Kyoto mandates. Here in the States, we own literally oceans of natural gas beneath our bedrock, and deluvian reserves offshore. We even have three times the reserves of Saudi Arabia in the Rocky Mountains. All of this is capable of being transported with modern technology that has come a long way since the Exxon-Valdez spill ages ago; yet drilling remains illegal in spite of marvelous precautionary advances and a clean record since. This vainglorious distaste for black crude serves as an object of haughty disdain for the Liberal elite, and from others it is merely a reckless childishness regarding the stern realities of this world. Tanks are not powered on corn oil, F-22 fighter jets do not run on solar power, and aircraft carriers do not use windmills. We fuel these battle weapons with fossil fuels and nuclear reactors—the twin strategic pillars of the Republican energy platform and still the beverage of choice for the grown-up world.  

Nothin’ like the real thing. 

As I exit stage right with reminiscence, I recall President Bill Clinton rejecting a Republican push in 1995 to drill in ANWR, a frozen desert, claiming that the project would not yield oil until 2005. This stance would then contort into blatant denial when in 2008, the Democratic Party would then accuse Republicans of short-sightedness for wanting to drill in Palin Country. Fittingly enough, either party has yet to accuse China, a 4,000 year-old kingdom, of being short-sighted.

America is under siege. I suggest we start guarding our aqueducts. >>

 

 

Barry Goldwater, John McCain and Arizona Politics

Not to undermine the administrators since apparently my log-in had been blocked, but for any members of this organization which claims to be a conservative site and which is in some areas would like to email me with any questions on Barry Goldwater or John McCain (since I lived in Arizona over 45 years, and campaigned for Senator Goldwater, and graduated one year ahead of Cindy McCain from the same grammar and high school), please let me know.

I am an expert on both "Republicans" and also was a member of the Republican Party for many years, until the first Bush, and also have much local information about both candidates that is a little more enlightening than what you will find in the media.

My blog is also available for any interested Constitutionalists, at www.backupamerica.org.

Good luck to you on your mission of the "Next Right," but I do think the Republican and Democratic labels are long, long dead.  And Goldwater and McCain are as different as night and day, and after Keating, Senator Goldwater did not have much good to say about Senator McCain - and that "general" information can be found online.

Oh, and there are many, many homeless veterans in Arizona now due to the support Senator McCain has for the illegals along with Ms. Napolitano, who was also my Governor for six, , and for which blame can be laid directly on his misrepresentation of Arizonans on this issue for years - so much so that Phoenix now has the distinction as the "Kidnapping Capitol of the World."

If any are interested in either the blog, or any further information on the fractured party, Arizona is fundamental in what has occurred there, since Senator McCain really was not an Arizonan, but a politician who simply moved to Arizona after his marriage to an Arizona native.

Again, good luck on trying to change this beleagured party, but there is not a shred of true "Republicanism" left in it at this point, and has not been for quite some time.

 

James Madison Quotes on War, Stimulus, Property Rights

Since the founding fathers quotes with respect to their views on our country, and reasons for many of the provisions in our Constitution can be ascertained from historical records which are in the public domain for all to see, publish or expound on at will, below are some of James Madison's comments with respect to Congressional legislation (such as the recent stimulus), war and citizen's property rights.

Mr. Madison is credited with being the father of the Constitution actually, so felt his thoughts in light of the challenges America is now facing might be of interest to those of you who believe still in the America of the founders rather than the America it has become:

"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood."

"With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

"The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war."

"The personal right to acquire property, which is a natural right, gives to property, when acquired, a right to protection, as a social right."

"The rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which Government was instituted."

"War should only be declared by the authority of the people, whose toils and treasures are to support its burdens, instead of the government which is to reap its fruits."

"Wherever there is interest and power to do wrong, wrong will generally be done."

"Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions." 

Lawyers Strike Back: California Ruling Over Gay Marriage To Be Challenged

As could be expected in the United States of America, a country with more lawyers in this nation than all of Europe and many other nations combined, the decision of the California Supreme Court upholding the Proposition 8 initiative passed by the residents of the State of California is now going to be challenged by two members of the American Bar Association in a "bipartisan" partnership.

And which two lawyers are seeking another 15 minutes of fame and the spotlight?

The two primary lawyers involved in the Bush v. Gore election challenge which was, in the end, settled again in a bipartisan manner after the United States Supreme Court justices failed to unravel the mystery of just exactly what happened in Florida those many years ago, with Mr. Gore relegated then to the global warming and book tours.

Strangely enough, the challenge "officially" is being brought on behalf of two gay couples who have been refused the "right" to marry in California by a recently formed legal organization, the American Foundation for Civil Rights.

Ever since the ACLU was successful in getting a federal law passed providing for the legal fees for plaintiffs or defendants involved in civil rights matters, a whole slew of challenges to our Constitution over religion and now marriage "rights," have been filed throughout the nation.  All courtesy of the U.S. taxpayers.

Most of these organizations are listed as 501(c)(3) foundations with claimed "educational" classes and seminars tied to them so that they also can receive federal grant monies as educational institutions.  And most are headed and run by lawyers, the largest political group of contributors to both state and federal election campaigns as a whole than any other "industry."

And who also had a hand in writing some of these laws that consistently come up for challenge through their advisory capacities to members of Congress.

So as far as social welfare, the American Bar members are head and shoulders above the pack, and would appear just maybe this "new" organization may be one of the recipients of those federal stimulus monies.

After all, as advisors to Congress, they have the inside track on where all that funding was earmarked, and to which agencies.

As a community property state, and with domestic partnerships laws already in place, powers of attorney and wills available for ownership, health concerns or property distribution, I just wonder what "equal protection under the law" provisions that are denied to gay individuals given traditionally married couples in that state these attorneys will use for their court challenge, since there really is no protection anymore for individuals in marriage after "no fault" divorce laws were passed and California is one that has such provisions.

If it's the tax laws, then just what was that Head of Household option for anyway but to provide acknowledgement of support by the major wage earner of supporting children or elderly parents actually for?

Since marriage is an institution that is governed by the "common law" or "natural law" which has existed for thousands of years and which the founders referred to, I wonder what arguments will be used to justify such a challenge, since it appears the other four states in which these measures were passed didn't consult the Constitution or common law basis upon which our civil laws actually hinge when enacting their legislation or rendering their judicial opinions.

And I wonder just which industry will profit the most if this ban is lifted?  It wouldn't be the legal industry for all those potential divorces, if only a third of them eventually wind up in the lawyer's offices, would it? 

Isn't California having a claimed "budget crisis" as it is, wanting the rest of the nation to bail them out?

And I wonder just how many new judges from the legal industry will be needed in order to handle those cases at the taxpayer's expense?  Seems that this challenge is more being brought as a job stimulus for the lawyers more than anything else, so I guess those stimulus or grant monies this organization most likely is or plans on receiving will be well spent providing more jobs for lawyers.

So citizens of California who worked and supported the ban and who poured all your energies and dollars into getting that measure on the ballot in recognition of the history and civil common law upon which our Constitution is based, the "bi-partisan" legal industry has spoken.

Equal protection under the law doesn't apply to you.

Nor our Constitution, apparently.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/27/same.sex.marriage.court/

The DHS Memo: Are YOU On The List?

World Net Daily has published an article which includes the March 26, 2009 interdepartmental memorandum prepared by DHS for local law enforcement regarding the "extremist" groups of potential domestic terrorists.  The list is so lengthy it took over 10 pages in order to outline them all. 

You most likely are on the list, since it doesn't appear they left anyone out, unless you are a government employee drone or work in the mainstream media.

There was an interesting paragraph regarding who it was that actually identified these potential terrorists groups:

"Definitions were derived from a variety of open source materials andunclassified information, then further developed during facilitated workshops withDHS intelligence analysts knowledgeable about domestic, non-Islamic extremism inthe United States."

I wonder if these "intelligence analysts" got their degrees online?  There is now an online university that is cashing in on this booming surveillance industry offering courses that can be completed in the comfort of your own home for less than it costs for two years at the average technical college.

The memo, Ms. Napoliano claims, was immediately yanked.  But, of course, it does appear that many local and state authorities mustn't have gotten that message prior to the Missouri memo surfacing, nor was it addressed in any fundamental way after the tea parties, other than apologies made to the American Legion, a Congressionally created veterans organization.

http://www.tdbimg.com/files/2009/04/30/-hsra-domestic-extremism-lexicon_165213935473.pdf

Boycotting Discretionary Air Travel: Are Random Strip Searches Next?

Recently an article was published in CNN Money quoting the Air Transport Association, an association of executives from the airline industry, predicting there would be approximately 7% fewer airline passengers this summer due to the economic conditions now in the United States.

I would state as a former primarily vacation airline passenger that the reduction in Americans traveling during the summer months has declined for discretionary travel steadily since 9/11.

Not out of fear, but due to the fact now that traveling to vacation destinations for many Americans is more hassle free driving than flying anymore.  Driving to California from Arizona takes six hours by car, but now can take just as long or longer by air.

It isn't simply the expense involved, it is the invasive security procedures now conducted for domestic travel in the United States that is primarily to blame, in this writer's view.

It has gotten to the point where the surveillance industry in this country is one of the fastest growing industries, and largest stakeholders in government contracts.

So lucrative has this industry become and vital to the U.S. government domestic surveillance program that the Department of Homeland Security is now purchasing, with stimulus monies, full body scanners for major domestic airports, to be used primarily against its own citizens due to the free entry and exit passes awarded international travelers during and prior to the Bush Administration.

Since most of the incidents which have compromised American citizen's security have been from foreigners as demonstrated by 9/11 and the shoe bomber incident, the focus on domestic travel rather than international security does seem backward, since "foreigners" actually travel from outside the U.S. in order to get here in the first place, or breach the U.S. borders and enter illegally through our borders with Canada and Mexico.

At the present time it take no less than two full hours prior to flight time in order to undergo the security checks for both passengers and baggage.  And though it was a British citizen responsible for the shoe bombing incident, all domestic travelers in the U.S. are now required to remove even their shoes before boarding.

That doesn't take into consideration the amount of time that is also lost waiting on the tarmacks for flights to depart or arrive due to the amount of both domestic and international flights, many of which are less than half full.

Deregulation of our national airports has actually resulted in more pollution, and higher costs in the long run.  And crowded airports that have made most vacations anything but relaxing.

In fact, since my last experience flying to a funeral for a relative on the East Coast from my home in the West that took more than twelve hours to complete with the new "shoe removal" requirements, I haven't flown in four years.

The American people were not the cause of 9/11, yet it is the American people who are now being strip searched and monitored in ever increasing degrees domestically, while the international airport procedures are becoming less and less secure with each passing year.

I guess so that at least the next potential international terrorist is not denied the opportunity to visit Disneyland, or attend the next global corporate board meeting.

Expect to now be charged more and more fees in order to take your baggage with you.  It appears banking practices have now infiltrated the airline industry.

Soon, I'm sure, there will be additional fees instituted for those bag lunches, and the privilege of those xrays prior to boarding at the security checks.  Also charges for the upgrades for the shoe removal procedures in order to now track your carbon footprints. 

We wouldn't want to interfere with our "free trade," agreements, or the "free market" competitive airline industry and their profit margins in order to effectively reduce that non-existent excess carbon instead in perhaps restricting U.S. international ports of entry and flights, now would we? 

Apparently not if it affects the lucrative gadget industry stakeholders and their economic growth at the cost of the American taxpayers obviously.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/15/news/economy/summer_air_travel/index.htm

What's Wrong With Roe v. Wade?

Even thirty years after this controversial decision, the jury is still out on Roe v. Wade.

Decided in the early 70's, I remember well when the case was decided, as I had just completed high school.

For many, it was one of those days embedded in your brain due to it's reach and "precedent," along the lines of the day Kennedy was assassinated. A monumental moment in history, and now even in the 21st Century, the controversy still reigns.

When the decision was reached, it turned our country quite upside down and polarized.

Interestingly, historians and others who bring Roe to the forefront in political discussions and discourse, and of course at election time, fail to also mention that at the time Roe was decided, the Pill and other rather reliable methods of birth control were becoming more and more available.

Planned Parenthood had just opened it's doors to "free birth control" during this "free love" era, and AIDS was nothing more than someone's assistant. At the time it was decided, there were many states which did allow early abortions, since this also was the time when the "globalists" had started their scares about overpopulation, and the destruction of our planet.

It is now, of course, being resurrected by many of those former hippies, and capitalists types as the new scheme in which to become a millionaire before 35.

Seems out in California there is now a blend of "hippie capitalists." They don't mind being that dirty word "capitalists" so long as they are making their fortunes along environmentally friendly lines, and saving the planet from overpopulation is one of them.

Many of these left wing pro-choice activists believe in unrestricted access to abortion, such as third trimester partial birth abortions, including from all accounts the Democratic nominee. The defense has been with respect to that Illinois bill a fear that in supporting the partial birth ban it might overturn Roe v. Wade, and was worded incorrectly.

My understanding is that was what the Committees in the state legislatures were for, writing and reviewing laws for Constitutionality prior to bringing them to the floor, and Roe actually only addressed and upheld the right to first term abortions since those were already allowed in most of the states, for rape, health of the mother, and had been expanded for teen pregnancies so long as there was parental consent.

Hey, it's for the good of the planet, and expands the "free market" for the abortion clinics in the process.

For all the scare tactics the libs like to throw out every election about the "threat" of Roe being overturned if, horror of horrors, a conservative should get into office and further stack the Supreme Court, I have just one thing to say.......don't you think it's about time that decision was reviewed, and in the 21st Century now?

At this point throughout the country, we now have even the "Morning After" pill, for heaven sakes. Birth control pills now in many areas of the country can be obtained by even teens without their parent's consent, and due to the AIDS and other STDs epidemic, the use of contraceptives between committed or uncommitted couples has never been higher.

Isn't it about time we pulled the plug, at least, on second and third trimester abortions nationwide, except in the event of health risk to the mother or child in continuing the pregnancy?

Just what are you liberals afraid of, that in so doing we will go back to the dark ages, where abortions were performed in dark alleys with unsterilized equipment, when now there is even a pill that can abort during the first trimester?

I believe abortion should be restricted to the first trimester at this point in our history, and not simply for moral reasons but legal ones.

This was never a "right to privacy" issue to begin with, it was always a "right to life" issue, since if the founder's were not concerned with "life" they certainly wouldn't have based an entire document in order to secure "life, liberty and happiness" for "us and our posterity" if they were unconcerned with just what the "Creator" would think.

And it's pretty clear there is 10 Commandment law behind that Constitution, whether the atheists in this country wish to believe it or not. Those rights referred to as unalienable are acknowledged as "endowed by the Creator."  A Creator they clearly acknowledged.

Religious tolerance is actually a Christian doctrine, it is not a Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist doctrine, and the freedom of religion provision was also provided in order to prevent a NATION-WIDE or "State" religion, such as they had experienced in England with the decades long fighting between the Catholics and the Protestants.

 "Loving thy neighbor," and the story of the Good Samaritan are examples of the scriptural basis upon which the "freedom of religion" provisions were meant to flesh out in our "new" government which had been denied them in England under the Church of England's dominance during the 18th Century.

Read Ben Franklin's speech when the Constitution was ratified, and he specifically alludes to the problems they were attempting to avoid by recognizing each individuals right to worship God according to their own understanding, and in their own way, without "nationalizing" a state religion such as in Britain and the Church of England, and in more recent history, Israel.

It does seem the founder's knew what they were doing, since even today those countries with "national" religions do seem to be engaged in much more strife, both internal and external, than others.

The problem that I do have with the far, far right wing evangelical Christians is their rather rigid interpretation of when life begins, since Jesus never truly addressed it.

Most pastors and members of the evangelical churches relate to the biblical passage of God "knowing you in your mother's womb." The problem I have with that is that adultery was a criminal matter in Jesus's time, and the punishment under the 10 Commandment law at the time was death by stoning.

If life truly begins at conception rather than viability, then God allowed innocent fetuses to be killed along with their mothers since I'm sure a great many of those adulteresses were pregnant.

It is also biblically clear that the first life God created, Adam, he did so by "breathing" life into dust, and that in then creating Eve, he clearly then gave them, not he, the gift of procreation by directing them to "go forth and multiply."

And it's also pretty darn clear that he intended children to be raised in two sex households optimally, since he didn't give us the ability to recreate independently of the other sex.

What is truly amazing to me is that for all the bravado of the "pro-choice" movement and those mostly liberals who even today with medical knowledge and technology the way it is, still cling to this decision as a benchmark of a candidates worthiness.

It is interesting that while the radical liberal element protest over global warming and how it is affecting the whales, polar bears, and other Arctic creatures, they were nowhere to be seen when Teri Schiavo was judicially literally starved and dehydrated to death for almost 14 days while she clung to life, breathing on her own, before dehydration of her vital organs caused her body to literally feed upon itself until her execution. 

She was also a practicing Catholic, and nowhere in the court documents does it appear her civil rights, and individual religious beliefs were even given any consideration during that entire multi-year fight over the removal of her feeding and hydration tubes.

The most painful type of death any human can experience ending in progressive organ shutdown, and a judge in this country so ordered it.

Her "right to life" without clearly artificial life support in its termination by fiat was nothing more than judicially sanctioned murder.

Better watch out, liberals, since your definition of "pro-choice" and "freedom" sounds more like Germany, circa World War II.

Syndicate content