More Nonsense: We're Only Doing What Republicans Have Done To Us First

What a crock the title thinking is! The "Republicans in Congress (ie, so do Republican citizens!) deserve what they're getting because they did it too" argument is total bull. Why you may ask?

Remember, as I have written before, in my 60+ years on this planet Democrats have held veto power in one or both(!) houses 30 years. How many times have Republicans have a veto-proof majority in EITHER house in my 60+ years? ZERO! Republicans haven't been pulling these kind of unconstitutional(!) shennanigans as Democrats actually(!) claim ... BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T! No matter how much Congressional Democrats prounounce it and no matter how much you want to believe The Media Kool-Aid, it CANNOT be true because Republicans haven't had the majority muscle by which to do it. PERIOD!

Republicans have never totally denied Democratic citizens of their representation in legislation the way Democrats did last year and are still trying to do without a veto-proof majority because they COULDN'T. Republicans have ALWAYS worked with Democrats on legislation for the simple reason that they had to. Maybe Republicans WOULD have done the same thing if they ever had a veto-proof majority but we have to judge it on what actually happened, not on made-up characterizations from The Media and current Democratic leadership.

The president and Congressional Democrats have a lot of nerve spreading untruths like this. In my day we called it dishonest, if not outright lying.

To Democrats, how do you actually feel about friends and relatives you love and respect having no voice in Congress ... about their being denied representation in legislation? (Yes, they were 'represented' in terms of having votes registered against bills last year but my point is that their interests aren't represented in the actual legislation which is the real point of the matter.) Is THAT fair? Is it even constitutional? How would YOU feel if Republicans did that to your representatives and, by extension, to you? I know you're STILL thinking Republicans DID it too because you believe (and want to believe?) the lies to the contrary but remember Republican congressional representatives could not and, therefore, have not done this. Sorry, but facts are facts.

What may be most important in this discussion is that it illustrates the key difference between a democracy and a republic. We, in fact, are operating like a democracy where the majority party may completely rule like this. But our founders made the distinction to call this a republic for a reason. They didn't want this form of majority rule that's possible under a democracy. Democrats love to brag about how our democracy has come a long way. What they're saying is they're glad we're no longer a republic. Do you think they'd think this was a good thing if Republicans ever had veto-proof majorities? Of course not. This kind of power in Congress is a good thing to Democrats only when they are in power. It's not right. In fact, it's not constitutional.

I was amazed (and somewhat appalled) by something President Obama told the U of Michigan graduating class last week. He quoted Ben Franklin who, when he was asked what he and the other congressional delegates had just created by signing the constitution, answered: "A Republic, if you can keep it". There IS a reason why Ben said "Republic" and not "Democracy"! After quoting that, President Obama then said we should be proud that we've been faithful to that by, indeed, preserving our "democracy". Taken at face value Obama appears to believe that the founders thought a Republic and a Democracy are the same thing (when, in fact, they went out of their way to make a distinction and preference between them!). We are left to conclude one of two things. Either President Obama is ignorant of the difference between a Republic and a Democracy or he does know and is purposely misleading gullible Americans (both about what the founders wanted and the fact that we don't have what they intended). Question: are you comfortable with either explanation?

Perhaps, because presidents come and go as will Obama, a more important question is, are you comfortable that we've strayed far from what the founders intended and established vis-a-vis the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution? It's important to understand that we have diverged from them quite far(!) and then consciously(!) decide whether that's a good thing. That's what we in the Tea Party and related movements are in the process of illuminating. You're free to make your own choice about whether this is a good thing but please DO make a conscious choice based on knowing what is our actual history and what we are actually doing to our country.

Let's Stop With The Mischaracterizations and Slander Already... It's Counter-Productive

What's actually 'fair' in this country from government is practicing fair and proportional representation of ALL citizens in the creation of laws and execution of the will of The People. The whole point of the constitution was the creation of a limited(!) federal government that was to provide proportional representation (in legislation and laws) of The People who hired them to (constitutionally!) represent their interests, mainly in the areas of national defense and international/interstate commerce. The constitution did NOT grant to the majority party power to do whatever it wants. In fact, the founders' writings cautioned against that kind of tyranny by the majority party.

Is the minority party entitled to consideration and representative participation? According to the constitution, yes! According to any sense of fair play, yes. After all the minority party is contributing about 45% of the resources the government spends, expends or wastes(!). After all, a larger proportion of the minority party's citizens fight the country's wars, putting their lives on the line for ALL citizens, including those in the majority party. In fact, in military poll after poll, conservatives outnumber liberals in the military by a ratio of about 60/40. And what's up with the fact that few liberals in congress have been in the military and the ratios of their kids in the military is so small? They like us fighting (and dying) in greater numbers in their wars but aren't interested in us having fair representation in legislation and laws. What's up with that?

Liberals in government tend to be lifetime politicians. Has anyone who is prominent in the current administration worked in a real job or run a for profit company? How many have executive management experience? You know the answer to such questions. Government doesn't produce anything; it only consumes. What's the likelihood they understand what really makes small businesses run, having never worked in a for-profit small business? What, therefore, is the likelihood that what they think stimulates the 'real' economy actually does so? You know the answer to that too if you're being honest.

I'm wandering a bit from the point I wanted to make which is this. Yes, the 'right' and 'left' disagree on principles ... even on what the constitution means or whether in fact it's even relevant today. The point is, we in the current minority are ENTITLED to our opposing views. We have a right to disagree and express that disagreement ... even vocally although not violently. Civil disagreement and even civil disobedience is not only okay, it's American as the civil rights movement was. It's as constitutional too!

So, why the hostility, mischaracterizations of us for our differing views? Why is it only okay for the left to be vocal or disobedient? Gross mischaracterizations are materializing about our position on nearly every issue, the current one regarding immigration reform being no different. More on that in my next blog with the comments in this blog as a baseline.

Worker Visas Have Been Okay So Far So Why Not Now?

When we needed more workers in high tech, Congress created a visa category (H-1B) to address that need. In fact, we now have 31(!) different categories of temporary visas for such and other purposes. We have ALWAYS used temporary visas for various work in the USA. So why is a temporary worker visa for such workers as those from Mexico not appropriate? Why are people getting so worked up over the notion of requiring non-resident immigrants from Mexico to carry such legal documentation? Everyone else who isn't a legal resident has to! In fact, police have the legal authority ask anyone for identification now after they've stopped them for whatever reason.

A temporary worker visa is a perfect solution to this problem but people are opposed to that too for some reason even though we've been using those for years and years already. For example, look up the H-1B worker visa description on the internet. This argument that Mexican workers are needed for jobs Americans won't or can't do has an EXACT corollary to the high tech worker need and there's no logical reason why the solution cannot be the same. It has worked before. In fact, it has become THE STANDARD way of dealing with non-resident immigrants.

Now Arizona has a law that will require non-resident immigrants to carry documents ... just like the federal government ALREADY requires! The federal government has been enforcing (although erratically!) this requirement for many, many years. So why is it unacceptable for Arizona to say, yes we agree and want to make that very SAME requirement enforceable at the local level too for more effective enforcement. The only thing different with the Arizona law is that they intend to enforce it rigorously. The only difference is that Arizona's law will be enforced by local law enforcement, not federal. The Arizona law is no more unconstitutional than the equivalent federal law.

Arguments against worker visas for immigrants are nonsense. It is constitutional and has been practiced for many years for all other categories of non-resident immigrants.

The fact of illegal immigrants finding a way to get here does not obligate US citizens to grant them amnesty and a permanent stay here. We have a moral obligation to consider all applications for residency and citizenship but we already have processes for that. Come here by one of the many legal means and you can stay. Come here illegally and all you're 'entitled' to is arrest and deportation or imprisonment for breaking our laws. We ARE a nation of laws aren't we? Or do we now prefer anarchy?

And They Call Us Stupid and Hypocritical!

From our local paper last week Friday (04/23/2010) in referring to conservatives, especially Tea Party types:

"What exactly are you complaining about? Almost everyone got a tax cut and most of the deficit belongs to George W. Bush anyway."

Can't help myself. Gotta comment ... again!

What President Obama and most democrats call Obama's "tax cut" was a TEMPORARY, ONE-TIME tax CREDIT. A one-time payment to Americans of $400 ($250 for retirees). We want a tax CUT ... a PERMANENT cut in tax RATES. We also want an accompanying spending cut so that the tax cut does not increase the debt. Neither Democrats nor Republicans reduced spending.

Also, people who keep pointing out President Obama's "tax cut" to us Tea Party types as if WE are the ones not paying attention are themselves the ones not paying attention or they'd understand that we are not just upset with taxes at the federal level. We're upset with taxes, spending and debt at ALL levels of government.

Regarding who's responsible for our national debt, for those who are interested in actual facts, the deficit is NOT mostly Bush's. Congress has 100% of the constitutional authority AND responsibility to increase/decrease spending and taxes. THEY (not the president ... read your constitution please!) are responsible for any debt or surplus. Democrats were in total control of both houses of Congress for two of Bush's eight years. During those 2 years they increased our debt just as much as Republicans did during Bush's first six years in office. So Democrats bear equal responsibility for the "Bush debt" and they're TOTALLY responsible for the mind-blowing debt increase since Obama took office. The fact is that, in only three years(!), Democrats have increased the debt more than ALL PREVIOUS CONGRESSES IN OUR HISTORY COMBINED ... including Bush!

Of the debt created in the past ten years here's the scorecard:
Republicans: $2.5 Trillion
Democrats: 4.2 Trillion (and increasing more rapidly than ever)

Democrats are equally responsible for the Bush years debt and have increased it greatly since then. They have NOT, in fact, given us a tax cut nor spending cut. Tea Party folks are taking the time to understand the constitution and its delegation of authority and responsibility. Based on actual facts, if you're interested, we're neither ignorant of the facts (or constitution) nor hypocritical.

Jobless Recovery Hypocrisy

We've been hearing from the president and legislative democrats for several months now that, yes, this is a 'jobless recovery'. Yes, jobs aren't picking up fast enough but at least it's a recovery. They say that a jobless recovery is a good thing. I suppose that does sound good but do you remember how democrats railed against the economic recovery after Bush's tax cuts? They said that was a 'jobless recovery' too ... yes there's a recovery going on but the jobs aren't picking up fast enough.

So, to these democrats, a "jobless recovery" was a really bad thing during the Bush years but the exact same nature of 'recovery' is acceptable when democrats are in charge. Sounds like a double-standard to me.

A bad thing is unacceptable when the other guy is in charge but the same bad thing is acceptable when we're in charge. Americans are beginning to understand how both parties routinely practice hypocrisy. We crave more honesty, openness, and clarity. To all our elected representatives: have you no self-respect or respect for us? Integrity matters! Practice it or please find another line of work.

Please, Please Listen Up: Just Because You Call It A Tax Cut Doesn't Mean Conservatives Like It!!

President Obama, Democrats in general and letters to newspaper editors are calling Tea Party folks hypocrites and stupid for making an issue out of wanting tax cuts when Obama, as he claimed on tax day, says he gave us exactly that ... a $173B tax cut immediately after taking office. He said, "You would think they'd be saying thank you". And he asks, 'So what do they want'?

What we want, President Obama, is a REAL tax cut and accompanying spending reduction. That $173B Economic Stimulus (delivered in the mail to taxpayers) was, in fact, not a tax cut but, rather, a tax credit. It was temporary and does so little to resolve our over-taxed condition it isn't significant as a 'tax cut'.

The other bad thing about President Obama's tax credit was that it added to the debt. Yes, we conservatives in general, Tea Party folks especially, want tax cuts but we also want spending cuts so the tax cuts don't increase the debt. That is where Bush and congressional Republicans let us down too ... they delivered a real tax cut, yes, but they increased spending (and the debt!) which is a big reason why we're upset with them too. Yes, we're upset with BOTH party's leadership, not just Obama!

Where's A Good Cowboy When We Need One?

Saw an article wondering who does all the domestic/international defense, inventing, etc when (not if!) we become Europeanized (where 50% of GDP goes to welfare, leaving not enough for actually inventing stuff and for other's defense let alone one's own). (Europeans have PROVED you can have welfare or an adequate military but not both!) Now we're 'un-' growing a spine under the 'leadership' of these people.

This utopian state of existence that Obama thinks he can create for the whole world is the most irrational thing I've ever heard from a nation's leadership, perhaps from any human ... ever. It ignores both ALL of history and simple human psychology. Socialists have done stuff like this throughout history and it has invariably led to nations' internal troubles (too much debt, spending, taxes, dependence on government) and wars (inability to adequately defend one's self invites bullies to do harm to you and your friends). This president is doing much the same and expecting different results. Gads!

The important truth is, we could use a few cowboys in leadership. The world will still function like the 'old West', given a chance. We can choose to become spineless and allow the lawless to have their way or we can encourage and welcome men of moral courage and strength to do what needs to be done. Good guys vs bad guys. It's the way things are. Wanting everyone else to play fair just because you do doesn't mean they will. In fact, history proves(!) they won't.

Haven't these guys EVER been on a playground where bullies cause problems? Haven't they ever experienced some sociopathic adolescent walking up to them and kicking them in the groin just for the fun of it? Obviously not because they don't understand bullies happen and weakness is an invitation to them to at least experiment on harming you just to see if they can get away with it. (And when they do, it begs even worse treatment! DUH!) Moral strength (exercised!) and courage beget a measure of both voluntary and imposed civility sufficient to allow people to live decent lives. I worry about where this president is leading us.

God Bless Our Country. We need you more than ever!

Freedom Through Strength

So, President Obama thinks taking the teeth out of our 'deterrent' strategy is a good thing. We don't want our enemies to fear us, right? We want them to like us enough to play fair and dumbing down our nuclear and other strategies achieves that, right?

Well, here's what one of the greatest threats of our age has to say about that:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36212348/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

Hmmmm. Gives one pause, eh?

By the way, President Obama and his administration made a huge deal out of his recent nuclear warhead reduction announcement as a terrific accomplishment. Obama said he's reducing the number of warheads from some 2,500 today to 1,500 which sounds good, right? Problem is Bush left office with us already on track to reduce them to 1,700 so in reality Obama has only increased the reduction by 200. Some accomplishment!

Here are the FACTS if you're interested in them (versus the Koolaid from The Media and the administration):

Jan 3, 1993: US and Russia both have about 10,000 warheads. Today Bush Sr (after working on this throughout his time in office) and Yeltsin signed START II in which they agreed to reduce these levels by 3,000 to 3,500 each. In addition, sea-based weapons were to be cut to 1,750 each and ALL land-based multiple-warhead missiles were to be eliminated. It all meant that by 2003 ¾ of all nuclear warheads possessed by both sides would be destroyed.

May 24, 2002: Putin and Bush Jr signed the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty by which they agreed to cut the nuclear warheads of each side from levels of between 6,000 and 7,000 to between 1,700 and 2,200 each by 2012. By the time Bush Jr left office this plan was on track toward the goal of 1,700 by 2012, having reduced the stockpiles by half so far during his time in office.

April 5, 2010: Under the Bush Jr agreement, the number of warheads has now been reduced to approximately 2,500 by each country and is still on track toward Bush Jr’s goal of 1,700 by 2012. Today Obama announced that he’s reducing the stockpile from that current 2,500 to 1,500 by 2012 which is only 200 less than Bush Jr had agreed to and was on track to accomplish.

While Obama loudly touts this ‘big’ accomplishment in warhead levels, it’s interesting to put his further reduction of 200 warheads in true perspective relative to what Bush Sr and Bush Jr actually accomplished ... from 10,000 to 2,500 and on track to 1,700 by 2012. Hmmmm.

Question, based on actual facts: which party's presidents have done the best job of ridding us of nuclear weapons (by a ratio of 8,300 to 200)?

What About Violence Against Our Constitutional Rights!

I'm among the first to denounce any threats of violence against our elected representatives but what these guys need to understand is that defacto disenfranchisement of half of Americans (by blocking our reps out of the process on legislation that has great impacts on us) is nothing less than violence against our rights as citizens.

I don't think they understand how it feels to have one's rights to representation denied to this extent. They're worried about the disenfranchised illegal alien. Well, we have no more voice in our government right now than those illegal aliens and these guys could care less! Where's the 'justice' that they proudly promote in that?

Health Care Mandates Justified By The Commerce Clause ... HUH?

Two rather significant problems with Dems repeated claims that the Constitution's Commerce Clause gives them the authority to force citizens to comply with these new health care requirements:

1. ANY reading of what the founders intended that clause to cover proves the Democrats are incorrect in applying it the way they are. It is unconstitutional on that basis.
2. The Commerce Clause was created to 'make regular' interstate commerce. Problem is there is NO interstate commerce involved in the way health insurance companies operate. Congress long ago CREATED LAWS PREVENTING(!) insurance companies from competing across state lines. Therefore, the insurance industry is prevented from interstate commerce BY LAW! If they MAY NOT compete across state lines, then the Commerce Clause CANNOT POSSIBLY APPLY! It is unconstitutional on this basis also.

In addition, what they're requiring states to do via this health care bill is a complete violation of states rights as established by the constitution (again, via ANY reading of the founders' intentions). That is so clear to states that at least 38(!) states' attorney's general are prepared to sue Congress over this. 4 states' AG's said they were going to file suit immediately after Obama signs it. The rest will either join the suit or decide what to do based on the results of that.

By the way, our own US representative, Peter DeFazio, when asked in a town hall meeting what authority they have to do this, said their authority for this health care bill is the General Welfare Clause. So, not only can't they get their stories straight, but his claim is also incorrect. This health care reform is NOT covered under the General Welfare Clause either by ANY interpretation of the founders' written intentions. In fact, they made a point of excluding such application in multiple writings.

The ACTUAL constitution means nothing to these guys. They are completely out of control.

By the way, NO major legislation, especially big permanent social legislation, in our history has been rammed through by one party at the total exclusion of participation in its creation by the other and complete lack of yes votes. Social Security and Medicare were also controversial Democratic products but they involved Republicans. Those bills passed with bipartisan involvement, debate, support, and voting. The only thing bipartisan about this one is opposition to it (with some 35 or so Dems ... ie, 14%!!! ... voting against it).