Tuesday, November 30, 2010


I'm starting a much needed new job today.

I'm not certain how it will affect my blogging.

I'll not stop blogging, I just don't know when I'll be doing it.

I'll keep you posted (sort of a pun there, get it?)

Monday, November 29, 2010


To the left, Mohamed Osman Mohamud

You saw it in the news this weekend!

Another little old American lady dressed in a Nun's habit was caught in an FBI sting trying to bomb the lighting of the Christmas tree in Portland, Oregon.

She was heard to exclaim, as the feds led her away, "Christmas has been the province of Christianity far too long. It is time someone did something about it and I'm just the one to do it!"


You say that didn't happen?

Let me check.

Oh, yeah...here it is:

A nine year old American kid was apprehended by FBI agents as he tried to detonate a bomb at the lighting of the Christmas tree in Portland, Oregon. The arrest came as a result of an FBI sting that caught the kid actually pressing the button on a cell phone that would have set off the bomb.


That didn't happen either?

Oh, My.

Tell me, Dear Reader, who DID try to set off a bomb at the Christmas tree lighting in Portland, Oregon?

Say What???

It was a Somali-born naturalized American MUSLIM?

Who would have guessed such a thing?

Why the Muslims are a peaceful bunch. They would never attempt such a horrendous thing!

If we had only known there was an iota of a desire on the part of Muslims to bring harm to America, we might have been looking for people who had the physical characteristics of someone from a predominately Muslim country.

We might even have considered it a waste of time to be looking for Nuns and little white boys as suspects in terrorist bombings...you know...like they do at airports.

Man! Have we ever got a lot to learn!

Maybe we should talk to Israel about their security methods.

Saturday, November 27, 2010


The concepts presented in this series are adapted from HOW TO READ THE FEDERALIST PAPERS by Anthony A. Peacock, page 19 and following).

One tenant of conservatism is that of having the smallest possible government.

That is sometimes misunderstood, especially by liberal/progressives (deliberately, in some cases).

The phrase "the smallest possible government" does not really mean that we should have a "small" government. Rather it means that we should have a limited government.

It means government limited to the powers enumerated in the Constitution and established by the consent of those governed.

The authors of The Federalist (Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay), who called themselves Publius, asked in Federalist 51 “what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”

By this he (they) meant that both citizens and government had to be controlled.

The best way to control government is to limit its powers. The federal government of the Constitution was to be a government of enumerated and limited powers.

Aggregate interests would be served by the federal government. All other interests, local and particular, would be served by "state legislatures (The Federalist 10:77-8).

Plubius enumerated four principal interests of the new constitutional union:

1) "The common defense of its members"

2) “The preservation of the public peace, as well against internal convulsions as external attacks”

3) “The regulation of commerce with other nations and between the States”; and

4) “The superintendence of [America’s] intercourse,political and commercial, with foreign countries.”(The Federalist 23:149)

Publius affirms that men are both self-interested and ambitious. Their opinions are driven more by passion and self love than they are by reason. This connection between self-love and one’s opinions is what leads so readily to faction, that most “dangerous vice” of popular governments that “a well constructed Union” must “break and control.” (Read more about this HERE.)

According to Plubius, men's personal opinions are of little import when compared to the necessity of firm and specific rules set forth in the Constitution.

The Constitution, as revealed by Plubius, was intended to mitigate two basic forms of
political conflict: conflict that originates in human passion, especially collective passion such as pride, hatred, and vanity, and conflict that originates in interests, specifically those related to property.

The two principal ends that the Constitution was to secure were the public good and private or individual rights.

The Constitution sought to mitigate the effects of faction by, on the one hand, making it difficult for a majority faction to infringe individual rights or to undermine the public good and, on the other hand, channeling faction into the less volatile forms of human conflict anchored in disputes over interests or property.

In Federalists 9–14, Publius shows how commerce, at least as directed and moderated by the new Constitution, can also promote comity, union, and American greatness. In fact, the most distinct elements of the improved “science of politics” that Publius introduces in Federalist 9 are not the four specific improvements to that science that we learn in any basic American government class: separation of powers, legislative checks and balances, an independent judiciary, and representation of the people.

Rather, the most novel and important contribution to political science that the Constitution will make is “the ENLARGEMENT of the ORBIT,” the extended sphere of territory over which the new federal republic will preside. (9:67)

According to Plubius, Constitutionalism rejected two long-standing assumptions of classical and modern political thought: first, that only in direct democracies or small republics could stability and virtue be promoted and, second, that commerce was debasing and that its promotion spurred inequality, avarice, selfishness, vanity, and undue consumption and pursuit of luxury, as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, perhaps the most famous critic of 18th century commercial society, had maintained.

Institutionally, constitutional provisions such as the separation of powers, checks and balances, the federal structure of government, and the variety of terms and methods of election for Members of Congress and the President could check factions after they had formed. Such factions, however, needed to be undermined before they could form at the level of society as well.

The enlarged republic created by the Constitution would directly assist this object. As Publius famously put it:

"Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength and to act in unison with each other.” (10:78)

The upshot of all of this is that the purpose of the Constitution is to protect and preserve the union while, at the same time, allowing individuals their specific rights, unencumbered by a powerful centralized government.

There are no restrictions imposed on citizens in the Constitution, rather there are restrictions on the powers of government.

If Plubius were alive today, he (they) would be horrified at the enormous powers that have been ascribed to the federal government at the expense of individual freedoms.

According to Plubius, there should never be a law "for the good of society as a whole" that usurped the rights of the individual.

Friday, November 26, 2010


That's turkey soup, made from Thanksgiving Day left-overs.

It's delicious.

There is one problem.

I am so full that I could not eat it if I wanted to.

I may never eat again.

If you believe that, I have a bridge...

At any rate, I cannot begin to describe to you how much I over ate yesterday.

We were at my wife's mother and dad's (for those of you educated in government schools, that would be my in-laws) house for the Thanksgiving meal, and all we had was the most tender turkey I've ever eaten, delicious dressing, sweet potatoes, fancy green beans, salad, pickles, olives, assorted cheeses, and a half-dozen other goodies followed by both apple and pumpkin pie and ice cream.

So, never mind.

My mind is so sluggish I can't even begin to think about politics or the way other Americans might be living their lives.

So, if you're off today, have a relaxing day. If you are working, I hope your work helps to relieve the effects of yesterday's feast.

With (or without) your permission, I will wait until Saturday to post again.

I hope you can get by without me...I know I can.

Have a nice day.

See you Saturday.

In the mean time, enjoy this, which I got at Bread Upon the Waters:

Thursday, November 25, 2010

Tuesday, November 23, 2010


I don't fly any more.

Airplanes are some of my favorite things in the world, and I used to fly a lot.

I have ridden on literally hundreds of types of aircraft, military and civilian, and it was always the joy of my life.

My last flight was from Ft. Myers to Chicago's O'Hare on a 737-800, and I loved every minute of it.

But no more.

Not if I have to be rendered naked by X-Ray or fondled like a common criminal.

Having seen the videos of people being scanned and patted down, including little girls and young boys, I have decided that I am too prudish to undergo that stuff.

Call me homophobic, but I don't want some guy playing with me, and I don't think they'll let a female agent do it...not that I would want that...ever...having a wonderful wife and all.

All of this, of course, has nothing to do with safety or national security.

It has to do with power.

One TSA agent exclaimed to a passenger, "I've got power...I've got power!"

It is also about the incompetence of the Obama administration to carry out the mandate to protect American citizens.

They don't know how. They think this is how, but they are wrong. They don't know how.

I've read comments on other blogs by people who resign themselves to the scan/pat-down thinking that's what we have to do to be safe.

Such people do not understand either safety or liberty.

Freedom carries with it certain risks, and we must live with those risks or give up freedom. There are no other choices.

There are ways to minimize the risks of some Mad Muslim blowing up an airplane without sacrificing the freedom and rights of ordinary Americans. Mad Muslims tend to have a certain observable air about them.

Janet Napolitano needs to study the way Israel handles things at their airports, arguably the safest in the world.

But she won't...for two reasons: 1) she is too proud to learn from anybody, already knowing it all; and 2) we are in "America hates Israel" mode right now and therefore cannot use them as a model.

I was over at GeeeeeZ, reading what she posted on the subject of Muslim exemptions, and in the comments section I found two of the best suggestions for dealing with this I've seen yet.

One came from a blogger called beamish who said...

"I'd say if you're in line at the airport behind a Muslim female, pat her down yourself..."

The other came from a commenter who goes by the name of FrogBurger who said...

"...we should all dress in burqa, men and women, just for the time of going through the scanner. "

Both of these suggestions bring an amazing set of images to mind...too funny!

In the final analysis, though, since I refuse to be scanned to nakedness or fondled by some government (or private) goon, I'll just fly no more.

Monday, November 22, 2010


Charlie Rangel has been convicted of 11 ethics violations.

You knew that.

So many people seem so surprised!

I am not surprised.

I wrote a post referencing Rangel back in February of 2009 and again in August of 2009.

In both of the posts I identified him as a crook...which he was and is.

Now it has come to light officially.

His response is Nixonesque: Just because I behave like a crook is no reason to accuse me of being a crook.

(Maybe that's not fair to Nixon.)

Of course my liberal/progressive friends objected my characterization of Rangel, pointing out that he has been re-elected to represent Harlem for forty (40) years, and that must mean he is a "good person."

So why would the people of Harlem continue to elect a person so obviously devoid of positive character?

There are several possible reasons.

It might be that Harlem is districted in such a way as to guarantee election of a certain ethnic variety of person (read: black), and he was the only one running.

Maybe the people of Harlem would not even consider electing a person of another race. Whether you know it or not, that would make them racists.

Could be that the people of Harlem are just a corrupt as he is, and therefore it just seems natural to elect someone just like them.

If Charlie Rangel was such a good representative of his district, why do its people still suffer such poverty (24.3%)? If Charlie Rangel was such a good representative, why is the child poverty rate in his district so high (30.9%)?

Do the people of his district define his success by how poorly he represents them?

When Charlie faced his peers, he welled up with tears. It was as though he did not understand why they "picked on him." His tears were nothing more than those of a crocodile.

The truth is, as is reported in this Star Parker article, Charlie Rangel's attitude and unethical activities are but a symptom of a much greater syndrome: the corrupting power of power.

In fact, his attitude is the same basic issue as the entitlement mentality: "I want what I want, when I want it, where I want it, for whatever reason I want it, and I want it right now, whether I have earned it or not, and you should provide it for me."

The corrupt politician is no different from the common thief, except that the politician has more power and influence.

He says, "You have it, I want it, I deserve it, therefore I will take it."

Is there ever going to come a time when we demand that our lawmakers be of high ethical quality?

If so, when?

If not, why not?

Saturday, November 20, 2010


(The following is taken from "How to Read the Federalist Papers," by Anthony A. Peacock, page 19 and following).
John Jay (1745–1829) was a New York lawyer of national stature and the oldest of the authors of The Federalist. For 6 years he served as the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Alexander Hamilton viewed Jay as one of the most astute political and legal minds of his day.

John Jay wrote Federalist 2-5 and Federalist 64.

James Madison (1751–1836) has been heralded as the “father” of the Constitution.

To misunderstand Madison’s conduct and ideas is to misunderstand the Founding itself.

Madison attended the entirety of the Constitutional Convention and was influential in virtually every part of its deliberations.

His extensive education and intimate familiarity with both ancient and modern political thought would serve him well both at the Federal Convention and in his work on The Federalist.

Alexander Hamilton (1755–1804) came from inauspicious beginnings.
Born financially destitute on the British island of Nevis in the Caribbean, after emigrating to America in 1772.

Hamilton, not only excelled academically at King’s College (now Columbia University), but wrote some of the most illuminating revolutionary writings while still in his twenties—writings that anticipated many of the arguments he would make in The Federalist.

The Federalist, you will remember, was written as though its authors were one person, who went by the name, Publius.

Although The Federalist has been cited for over two centuries as the definitive historical authority on the Constitution by politicians, jurists, and constitutional commentators, it is its significance as a work of political and constitutional theory that has been least appreciated.

Next Saturday we will begin looking at how the Federalist relates to constitutional government, human nature and American greatness.

Note: In the side bar on the right there will be links to all of the articles we'll study for The Federalist, so that you can browse back through them at your leisure.

Friday, November 19, 2010


Whitman Hanson Regional High School is in Whitman, Massachusetts. It’s about 25 miles from Boston. Leaders in the school think like stereotypical liberal/progressives.

Traditionally at Whitman Hanson, the annual pep rally and Thanksgiving football game has been special, as each class has worn different colors to the events: The seniors wore black; Juniors wore red; Sophomores wore white and Freshmen wore pink.

There have never been any reported issues connected with this practice, and there have been none this year, either.

But a new principal, Jeffrey Szymaniak, says he is not a fan of the color pink because he says leads to teasing.

So far, it hasn’t led to teasing, but it might.

Szymaniak wants students to wear only school colors…red and black.

If you are a student and show up wearing pink, you won’t be allowed in at the pep rally, but will be ushered to a separate room with different activities.

I’m sure that will reduce teasing.

Seven thousand, four hundred and fifty-five years ago, when I was a Freshman in high school (Paris American High, in Paris, France), Freshman initiation was specifically designed for teasing, and we all joined in with great enthusiasm.

Freshmen had to wear their clothes inside out wear different colored socks and a shoe from a different pair on each foot. We had to wear them all day long…to class and between classes.

If we were stopped in the hallway by a Senior, we had to carry his/her books to class and still make it to our class after reciting to the Senior, “I am a pathological, putrid piece of protoplasm, whose prime purpose on this painful path of pedantic progress is to pause and ponder profound platitudes.”

We knew it was teasing…maybe even a little degrading (pardon the pun…think about it…Freshman…9th grade…degrading…get it?), but we knew each Senior had done the same in his/her Freshman year, and we thought of it as our costume party.

In the case of Whitman Hanson Regional High School, Principal Szymaniak hopes to ward off any bullying that might take place because of some perceived dishonor in wearing pink.

Szymaniak is a PC idiot. Watch him in the video here.

If I were a Freshman there, I would wear black and red to the pep rally and football game and pink all the rest of the school year.

But I would be a really old looking Freshman.

Wednesday, November 17, 2010


If you are a regular reader here, you know that I am not a big Glenn Beck fan.

I don't disagree with his political, moral or social stances, I just don't relate to his style...especially on the radio.

But lately, as a conservative spokesman, he has risen in the ranks of liberal/progressives' vilified to their demonized.

They are particularly writhing in fury over his statements about George Soros, that kindly "philanthropist," who has, by his own statements, rejoiced in his ability to bring down economies.

So, let's play a little true/false game.

True or false: George Soros is from Budapest. Good job! That is true!

True or false: George Soros was a courier for the Jewish Council, the Nazi-established and Nazi-run organization that ran the Jewish community. So, how did you do? Turns out, that is true!

True or false: The Jewish Council was ultimately controlled by Adolf Eichmann, the man known as the "architect of the Holocaust." Oh, look! You are doing so well! That one is true, too!

True or false: George Soros' father was Tivadar Soros. Again...true!

True or false: Tivadar Soros wrote, "When systematic persecution of the Jews began," it was carried out not by the Germans, nor by their Hungarian lackeys, but—most astonishingly—by the Jews themselves. One of the first things the Germans did was to form a so-called Jewish Council, consisting of the leaders of the Jewish community. Council members were made personally responsible for the implementation of the various German measures relating to the Jewish population. As a reward, they, their families, and those who worked for them were exempted, at least at the beginning, from these restrictions... The Jewish Council carried out the German wishes far more conscientiously than the Germans could themselves." Well, guess what...this is true!

WOW! How are you doing so far?

Let's continue.

True or false: Tivadar also wrote, "As Jews couldn't go to school any more and their teachers couldn't teach, they were ordered to report to council headquarters. The children were enlisted as couriers under the command of their teachers. My younger son, George, also became a courier. On the second day, he returned home at seven in the evening.

"'What did you do all day?' 'Mostly nothing. But this afternoon I was given some notices to deliver to various addresses.' 'Did you read what they said?' 'I even brought one home.' He handed me a small slip of paper, with a typewritten message [a summons]. 'Do you know what this means?' I asked him. 'I can guess,' he replied, with great seriousness. 'They'll be interned.'" Whoo-whoo! That is true!

True or false: In the intro to his father's book, George Soros wrote, "It is a sacrilegious thing to say, but these ten months [of the Nazi occupation] were the happiest times of my life... We led an adventurous life and we had fun together." Another true!

True or false: George Soros also assisted in the collection of Jewish chattels -- clothing, furniture, and the like -- for shipment to Germany. Guess what...true!

True or false: During a 1998 60 Minutes interview, Soros admitted to the entire story without hesitation, He also stated that he felt no guilt about it. True again!

True or false: George Soros claims to be a benefactor to humanity. That's certainly true.

True or false: This is not the way a benefactor of humanity actually behaves. True!

True of false: The liberal/progressive left will present no facts about Soros' involvement with Nazis and/or the Adolf Eichmann camp, but will only scream, "Liars!" and "It never happened!" Yeah...it's true. That's the only thing they know how to do.

True or false: The liberal/progressive left will continue to call Glenn Beck all sorts of names for his expose of Soros' past, his statements about his past and his lack of remorse for his past. True!

True or false: Glenn Beck is not the evil one here.

That's true, folks!

For more about Soros and the Soros/Beck story, you can visit here or here.

Tuesday, November 16, 2010



If you are a liberal/progressive and there is something in one or more of these you disagree with, feel free to comment, but YOU MAY NOT SIMPLY CALL PEOPLE NAMES, NOT BILL WHITTLE, NOT OTHER COMMENTERS AND NOT ME. YOU WILL BE DELETED.

Make your case logically and with specific facts, not generalities. Tell us which video you are commenting about and the approximate time on the video where the part you disagree with is.

Don't bother to comment if you did not bother to watch the video(s).

If you are a liberal/progressive and cannot abide by these rules, don't bother commenting. Go some place else to voice your venom.

Monday, November 15, 2010


You liberal/progressives actually believe that being "...liberated to say things without thinking about 'OK, how am I going to practically implement this?'" is not lying?

If you are one who understands and goes along with this, there is something extremely wrong with your moral compass. Very wrong. Very, very wrong!

President BO either does not understand liberty, does not understand lying or he does not believe in liberty in the first place.

And since when does a president "assume power?"

The presidency is not about power (in spite of the liberal MSM constantly referring to President BO as the most powerful leader in the Free World), it is about servanthood to the people.

Oh, and BTW...where are all of you liberal/progressives who commented on this blog prior to the election saying how bad the loss would be for conservatives? Where are those who predicted that conservatives were just dreaming? Huh? Where are you?

XO...SK...Quack-quack...Anonymous...where are you?

Don't you think it's time to come back and comment, saying, "Sorry...I was wrong. Conservatives beat us big time...maybe we were just on the wrong track all along?"

Hmmm. I didn't think so. Liberalism means never having to say you're sorry.

Too bad. I wanted to hear your rationalizations.


Sunday, November 14, 2010

This IS America...Isn't It?

He's a thirteen year old patriotic middle schooler who wanted to fly the American flag on the back of his bicycle.

Cody Alicea rides his bike to Denair Middle School in Denair, California each school day. He flies the American flag on the back of it.

Veterans week, school officials told Cody to take the flag off of his bike while on school property because they had received "several" complaints and feared RACIAL TENSION!


What in the world is racial about flying the American flag?

What kind of warped thought process thinks there should be any problem with flying the American flag at an American school in an American city in an American state (California is STILL in America, isn't it?)?

If there were any complaints, which I doubt...this was more likely some stupid "educator" who is enamored with his/her own politically correct agenda...the complainers should have been taken aside and explained to that in America we are proud of our country and that flying the flag is a demonstration of that pride.

It should have been further explained that if they don't feel pride for America because they are in this country here for nefarious reasons (read: illegal immigrants), they should go back to their country of origin, where they can be proud...if they are.

It is my experience that whenever an "official" says he/she has received "several" complaints, that there have really been no complaints and that the official is just trying to justify his/her politically correct motivations.

The same thing happens in other organizations. One person decides something needs to be done or undone and says something like, "People are saying..." or "I've heard a lot of scuttlebutt about...," when in fact that is not true.

Funny thing is, Cody was allowed to have the flag on his bike for two months before anyone "complained." Then, in the week of Veteran's Day, of all times, he was told to take it off.

After much negative media coverage, hundreds of phone calls from citizens and maybe the sudden realization of "Duh...," the school has reversed its decision and Cody has been allowed to fly his flag once again. That's good. It should never have been a issue to begin with.

Is there really no end to the depth of stupidity of the liberal/progressive left?

"How do you know this was a liberal, Joe?" I hear you ask.

Easy. No conservative, not a single one, would ever even think of violating the free speech rights of one who wanted to fly the flag.

You know, this has to stop.

I call on you liberal/progressives who claim to love America to rise up and yell, "Enough!" Then you should shout, "We may disagree on certain political matters, but this is not a political matter! This is about freedom and love of country!"

If you can't do that, I invite you to get out of America. Go to Mexico, France or Iran...but get out! Enjoy the freedoms you'll find there. You are not welcome here any more.

That goes for whoever the inane school official was who originated this horrendous idea.

Just because he/she has an education of some sort does not mean that he/she has any brains at all. Education does not equal smart...witness President BO, and several of the liberal/progressives who occasion the comment section of this blog.

This is America...land of the FREE and home of the brave.

Let's keep it that way.

Here's the original video about it:

Saturday, November 13, 2010


The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States of America are two of the most recognizable (if inadequately studied) documents in the world.

Of equal importance, but very little studied, is the collection of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay called The Federalist (often referred to as the Federalist Papers).

The reason The Federalist is so important is that it gave verbiage to the arguments in favor of adopting The Constitution as the founding document of the United States and it revealed the political and philosophical thinking of its framers as it related to the purpose, scope and sequence of The Constitution.

On this and subsequent Saturdays, I will endeavor to help you understand The Federalist and why it is important to us, both in our beginning as a nation and today.

It is precisely because we have not learned the principles laid out in The Federalist that we have such a sharp division in our country today.

To be sure, not everybody agreed with every doctrine set out in The Federalist. That is why there was considerable political division early on in our history. It is also why we have the philosophical descendants of the dissenters still arguing against The Constitution today.

As it turned out, the arguments put forth in The Federalist, and subsequently in The Constitution, won out, and The Constitution became the ultimate "law of the land."

There are 85 essays in The Federalist, and because the writers originally wanted to remain anonymous, the pseudonym, Plubius (short for Publius Valerius Publicola, the eloquent and noble Roman citizen who saved Roman republicanism)is used, instead of their names.

(By the way, that's republicanism with a small "r," indicating that The United States of America is a Constitutional Republic. It does not mean that we were all big "R" Republicans.)

As we go through the writing of Plubius, I will try to make its principles as simple as possible. I will attempt to express them in 4th or 5th grade English, so that even if you are not smarter than a 5th grader you will still be able to understand its meaning.

As the architect of The Federalist, Hamilton planned in September 1787 to produce 20–25 papers in defense of the Constitution that would be published in newspapers in New York. However, by the time The Federalist began publication on October 27, it had become evident that a more ambitious project would be necessary...thus the 85 essays.

Volume I of The Federalist was devoted to union and the necessity for more energetic government.

Volume II was devoted to the Constitution and its conformity “to the true principles of republican government.”

If you wish to get a head start, or to read ahead, this link will take you to the Library of Congress site where you can read the papers.

In the mean time, here is a summary of The Federalist

VOLUME I [NOS. 1–36]

1. The utility of the UNION to your political prosperity [Nos. 1–14].

2. The insufficiency of the present Confederation to preserve that Union [Nos. 15–22].

3. The necessity of a government at least equally energetic with the one proposed, to the attainment of this object. [Nos. 23–36].

VOLUME II [NOS. 37–85]

4. The conformity of the proposed Constitution to the true principles of republican government [Nos. 37–84].

Nos. 37–40 General form of the Constitution—its republican and federal/national character
Nos. 41–46 Sum or quantity of power vested in the government.
Nos. 47–51 Separation of powers.
Nos. 52–58 House of Representatives.
Nos. 59–61 Congressional regulation of elections.
Nos. 62–66 Senate.
Nos. 67–77 Executive.
Nos. 78–83 Judiciary.
No. 84 Responses to miscellaneous objections.

5. Its analogy to your own State constitution [No. 85].

6. The additional security which its adoption will afford to the preservation of that species of government, to liberty, and to property [No. 85].

Thursday, November 11, 2010


In a word, Nay.

Here's why.

Earmarks are an indication that representation in congress has become nothing more than a way of getting federal dollars for one's home district.

In fact, representation should not be about how to get federal dollars for one's home district, but about how to best use federal dollars for Constitutionally allowed activities that are national in nature.

The argument over earmarks is being waged by the likes of Jim Demint and Mitch McConnell.

Demint says earmarks are symbolic of congressional waste, while McConnell worries that if they don’t keep the pork coming, voters will hold it against them in 2012.

McConnell was asleep last Tuesday. Or drunk. Or whatever.

Look, my Washington DC "friends," what happened last Tuesday was an order from the boss (read: the electorate) to stop wasteful spending and get back to working within the framework of the Constitution.

Why, Mr. McConnell, can't you see that if you have to include earmarks in legislation in order to be re-elected you are in congress for the wrong reason?

If you want to provide special projects for your state, then run and get elected to your state legislature.

But you ran for federal office, not state office.

So please restrict yourself, and your compadres in congress, to things of a federal nature, sanctioned by the Constitution.

Your constituents, by the way, are leaning very heavily for what I have been advocating for more than half of my 68 year lifetime: one bill; one subject.

That means that once a bill is introduced, the only amendments that can be added to it must be directly related to the subject of the bill to modify the subject or to clarify it.

The use of earmarks to satisfy the greed need of your district is nothing more than political pandering at best; political blackmail at worst, and should be considered a breach of ethics.

Making political gains by the use of earmarks speaks directly to the quality of your character as a congressperson and to your ability to hear and respond to the will of the people.

Republicans hear us! We want you to change the process and do away with the earmark system!

Cutting spending does not mean just cutting the big stuff, like the Department of Education, or NEA or PBS, but cutting EVERYWHERE THAT CAN BE FOUND TO CUT, even if it hurts.

Come on, people! We put you there because you said you would listen. So, listen! Then act on what you hear!

Don't make us take back our support!

Today's Proof of President BO's amateurism: While in India he is asked his take on Jihad.

Wednesday, November 10, 2010


There is talk among Republicans about not "rushing into" their mandate to slow the growth of government, balance the budget, extend the Bush tax cuts and other issues upon which their recent tsunamiesque win in the mid-term elections were based.

Governor Bob McDonnel of Virginia said, "I've heard some plans out there that say we're going to take eight years" to balance the federal budget. "I don't think the American people are going to wait eight years to balance the budget."


Republicans, if you don't take a firm, decided stand and fight for those and other issues, such as repealing Obamacare, you will not last!

We sent you to Washington to put people back to work by passing legislation to continue all of the Bush-era tax cuts, further reduce capital gains taxes, and push other specific plans to create jobs.

The American people saw the effects of President BO's agenda and revolted against it.

The president's agenda will destroy America as the land of the free, and will bring it down economically to a third world status.

But Republicans listen up!

If all you're going to do is to slow the demise of America, then we put you there for nothing.

This is not the time to fall back into politics as usual.

This is not the time to re-establish the "good old boy" network.

This is not the time to pretend that the Tea Party was some sort of fluke and that its members will not remember what they stood for during the campaign.

This is not the time to put self interests or home district interests ahead of the interests of the country.

This is the time to deliver on what you promised.

This is the time to do what we sent you to Washington to do.

Unless you just want to go home.

Because if you don't deliver, that's just where we'll send you.

Congressman John Boehner, and friends, you need to get on board with the right agenda, as do the rest of the Republicans.

Senator Lindsey Graham, and your fellow Republican senators, you need to do the same.

America needs you to put aside your penchant for compromising the wrong things and start doing what is right for the American people.

We are awake.

We are watching.

We are ready to act.

The time for action is now!

Tuesday, November 9, 2010



Unrelated Addendum: Be sure to check out my new feature in the side bar, "BHO-The Consumate Amateur." There are too many instances to devote a post to each, so I'll provide links to examples of the rank amateurism, unpreparedness and inexperience of President BO.

Monday, November 8, 2010


I stumbled upon a blog called, Nixon's Ghost while reading a response to an article in Hot Air.

While I do not necessarily recommend the style of the blog, its content is very good.

In the post I read, NG lays out a seven step process for cutting government spending, something which the Tea Party and several lawmakers - new and old - have said they want.

STEP ONE: CUT ALL (JUNK) FIRST - and the list is long. Cut NPR, PBS, Cut NASA funding for Mohammedan “self esteem building – cut the NEA, end embryonic stem cell research – end all federally subsidized research. Cut the United Nations – ensure our contributions match those of France (and encourage the UN to move somewhere else for a change of scenery). Cut welfare – entirely, let the states handle that.

STEP TWO: READ THE 10TH AMENDMENT – then look at the federal budget – cut everything that you can’t make a reasonable 10th amendment argument to keep. Department of Education – GONE! ATF – GONE! (Seriousy – what do they do that shouldn’t be done by the states?). IRS – MOSTLY GONE! (more on this later). The goal here is reduce the Federal Government to a shell of it’s former self. If you’re not FEARFUL at the end that you cut dreadfully too much – then you didn’t cut enough.

STEP THREE: Implement a FLAT TAX - this is a great gift to Americans and will help you get rid of 95% of the IRS. The IRS should be a little office in Washington, DC – staffed by very old military retirees who sit around most of the day telling war stories – it really should be that simple. Also – since we don’t have a complicated Federal Government anymore – we don’t need lifetime lawmakers – implement TERM LIMITS.

STEP FOUR: GO BACK THROUGH THE FIRST THREE STEPS AND LOOK FOR MORE THINGS TO CUT. If the states can do it – get rid of it. By now you have a government that is a shell of it’s former size – and Americans no longer have the “FEDS” breathing down their backs in any way, shape or form.

STEP FIVE: SECURE THE BORDERS AND DEPORT ILLEGALS. Border security comes first – and it must be AIR TIGHT. If you want a “comprehensive” solution to immigration then go for it – but only after the borders are secure.

STEP SIX: LOOK AND SEE HOW MUCH $$ WE NOW HAVE TO PAY THE “BIG” ENTITLEMENTS LIKE SS AND MEDICARE. Sit down – and come up with a fix. It may take raising the retirement age – it may take reducing benefits – it may take a certain amount of privatization – whatever, at this point you know you’re not spending money on stuff so you have a lot more options on what you can do with these entitlements.

STEP SEVEN: GO TO AMERICANS AND SAY – “WE’VE GIVEN YOU YOUR LIBERTY BACK – IN ORDER TO KEEP IT, AND PASS IT ON TO YOUR KIDS – THIS IS WHAT WE’D LIKE YOU TO DO”. Sell them the program based on the fact that you’ve given them their nation back – in wonderful condition and in a state they can be proud to pass on to their children.

I think these steps are worthy of great consideration and should be passed on to our congressment and senators, who don't seem to be able to get very specific about their plans (except for the repeal of Obamacare...a very good idea, by the way).

Saturday, November 6, 2010


"God grant that men of principle be our principal men."

I don't often include Scripture in my political blog. I reserve that for my other blog, Joe's Jottings.

Today is different, because I want to make a point.

So here is a conversation between Jesus and a Jewish teacher of the law (a reference to the Law of Moses).

Mark 12:28-31

28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.
30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’
31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

I will not take the time to list the quotes of our founders that relate to their belief that faith in God is important if we are to remain a viable nation and are to fulfill the promise of our "Great Experiment." You can read those by going to my older posts and reading my Sunday series on the subjects.

For this post I want to focus on the two principles laid out by Jesus in this discussion:

1) Love of God is paramount.

2) Loving our neighbor is equally as important.

I'm suggesting to you, as we face possible "gridlock" in our government, that we don't need any more laws...not a single one.

If we would just practice those two, there would be no robberies, no murders, no stealing, no corruption, no greedy businessmen, no cheating on taxes, no marrying the wrong person, no divorce, no police brutality, no street mobs, no sloppy workmanship, no fake illnesses to get to stay home from work, and so-on and so-on and so-on.

(The fact that there are all of those things is evidence that Romans 3:23 is right: "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.")

In the beginning of our nation, being a congressperson or a senator was not considered a "vocation," but an honor.

Early on, congress was not in session for the whole year, except for time off for holidays and district campaigning for the next election.

At first, congress knew that they knew that the states would take care of most of the laws needed to run the country and the feds would only deal with those issues restricted to them by the Constitution.

With the realization of the power afforded them by the office they held, congresspersons began to expand their influence and to flex their legislative muscle to gain favor and influence, not only in their districts, but in their particular legislative body and in the country at large.

The result was that laws began being passed that were not just for fulfilling the requirements of the Constitution, but to benefit the politicians' local "needs."

To say that practice has expanded is a gross understatement.

I have long been an advocate of "one bill-one subject." No amendments could be added to a bill that did not directly and significantly relate to the need of that bill.

To implement such a process would cause lawmaking to move at a snails pace!


That's what we need!

As it is now, we have bridges built to nowhere, restrictions on every activity under the sun, special buildings built for minute groups of people, unused parks and playgrounds that sit unused - built in order for the congressperson from that district to be able to say, "See what I have done for you!" and hundreds of thousands of other stupid and dangerous additions to bills that have nothing to do with what the bill is about.

The health care bill is a perfect example.

There are dozens of things in the health care bill that have little or nothing to do with health care.

For instance, did you know that the quasi-military force (civilian military force) President BO spoke of during his campaign is a part of the health care legislation?

Of course not. We had to pass the bill in order to find out what was in it (thank you, Nancy Pelosi).

One of the things our newly elected conservative representatives will have to face is that when they introduce a bill, their frustration will grow as the "good old boys" add unrelated amendment after unrelated amendment to the bill in exchange for their vote for the bill.

That is a stupid, dangerous, self-serving practice that offends the dignity that should accompany the office of a legislator.

But people like Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Trent Lott and even John Boehner don't care. All they care about is securing their position of power by bribing their constituents.

They will stand before you with a straight face, looking very sincere and earnest and tell you that's not true, and the practiced expression on their face will convince you that they are only looking out for your and the country's interests.

That is a blatant lie.

They look out for, and only for, their own interests.

Cynical, isn't it?

Yep...but true, nonetheless.

What we need more than anything else to to put in place those most essential principles: Love God and love your neighbor.

So, where will YOU stand concerning those principles?

Will you tell you representatives where you stand?

Friday, November 5, 2010


Dear Senator Rubio;

Congratulations on your election to the Senate!

If you represent Florida in accordance with the precepts you laid out in your campaign, you will be a great asset to the state.

I am certain that you already know these things, but I would like to encourage you to stand firm on the following principles:

1. Respect for the Constitution. Aside from the Bible, this is the most remarkable document ever written. It is the foundation of our country, spelling out the restrictions placed on our government.

2. Respect for life. From conception to death, life is sacrosanct, and mankind is unique on the planet and probably in the universe. Life is God breathed and human life is God ordained.

3. The smallest possible government. More laws, rules and regulations will not make us a better country. Enforcement of necessary existing laws, and the elimination of liberty-quashing laws will.

4. Individual responsibility. Those who voted for you consider freedom and liberty to be the cornerstone of the American Dream. We believe that each person has, by virtue of citizenship, the opportunity to be whatever he/she wants to be through education, hard work, stick-to-itiveness, self sacrifice and taking appropriate risks to succeed. We do not consider the American Dream to be something granted to us by government, but something for which we must work, unshackled by government intervention.

Senator, there will be those, even of your own Party, who will do their best to dissuade you from these principles and will try to lure you into the “good old boy” system that has become our government.

I urge you to resist their efforts and to stand firm in your determination to move government back to the principles laid out by the founders. If there are 99 senators who stand against those principles, I implore you to stand alone for them.

In these difficult economic times, it is good to know that we have a person of your caliber to represent us in Washington D.C.

I look forward to your service.


Joseph E. Scoggins, Jr.

Note to readers: Feel free to use any or all of this letter, with appropriate modifications, to either post on your blog or to write to your newly elected representative.

Thursday, November 4, 2010



Wednesday, November 3, 2010



He spent an awful lot of time explaining why "the other side" had kept things from getting done.

I guess he didn't realize that until yesterday he had a Democrat presidency, a Democrat congress and a Democrat senate.

Why can't he just say, "You know, I didn't really get that Americans felt this way. I didn't really get that the citizens want to govern themselves. I didn't really get that we work for them, not them for us. From now on, I will respect the desires of the American people above everything else, realizing that in a Consitutional Republic, they are the boss, not us."?

I'll tell you why: he is too wrapped up in himself and his personal power to have said that.


Democrat Alex Sink has conceded that there is no mathematical way for her to to win the Florida governorship over Rick Scott. It was very close, and Scott will have his work cut out for him.

In his acceptance speech, Scott said, "...I now work for all the people of Florida.

He knows what he is about.


It just didn't look like it was going to be good.

Even after doing all they could, like checking his name before voters got their ballots, Harry just didn't look like he would make it.

Frantically the Supervisor of Elections looked for some other way to make the necessary adjustments.

Then it happened.

A little after 5:00 PM, a crucial polling place lost electrical power.

Just what was needed: time to make the necessary adjustments to the results.

Within 45 minutes the power was back on, the voting continued and low-and-behold, old Harry was in the lead.

What a convenient power outage it was!

Who would ever have guessed it would happen?

Meanwhile, just to the west, with 17% of precincts reporting, the vote was tied at 47% between Barb and Carly.

Never mind!

We'll just put a check next to Barb's name and call it done.

Sure are they all - all Honorable men.

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Monday, November 1, 2010


It looks as though Republicans will gain majority control of the House of Representatives and will make significant gains, if not control, in the Senate.

So what does it all mean? What should we look for?

If the majority of the newly elected Republicans stand for what they say they stand for, and if the "Good Old Boys" already in power, both Democrat and Republican, don't make it their goal in life to break the political backs of the newbies, and if the newbies are strong enough to resist the pressures of being rookies, then there is a chance that there might be some reasonable and meaningful changes in congress.

Those are a lot of "IFs."

The institutions of government are well entrenched and it is quite possible for those in power to prevent newcomers from being able to be heard, let alone get things done.

Newcomers are "encouraged" to play the game of "I'll scratch your back if you'll scratch mine."

The way that plays out is that if a representative wants to introduce a bill, or a change of rules or whatever, he/she will only get support from the entrenched if they go along with some favorite program or issue of the establishment.

There will come a time when the inductee will be tempted to throw up his/her hands and say, "That's it! I can't fight the system! I'll have to make some compromises!"

This is the point at which those of us who elected them must not rest on our electoral laurels.

If we are going to elect them, and if we expect them to make a difference in the system, then we must go beyond the polls and continue to encourage the rookies and admonish the established to the point that they realize that they must make the proper decisions on our behalf.

Government of the people, by the people and for the people will only work if the people involve themselves in the system.

Part of the reason we got to this miserable point in American history is that too many of us sat quietly by, wringing our hands and complaining but doing nothing while our elected officials sold the American way down the river.

This must stop!

We must not imagine that our task is done once we pull the lever (or touch the screen, as the case may be) at the polling place.

If we are going to insist that "they work for us," then we must be about the business of managing them with emails, letters, phone calls, Facebook entries, text messages and use of "the cloud," along with whatever other marvels of electronics come our way in the next couple of years.

Do we want Obamacare repealed?

All at once, a little at a time, partially, certain provisions (like the civilian quasi-military corps dictated therein) or what?

We must be certain and we must be clear.

We must also be civil and polite about our desires.

But we must be involved.

Tea Parties must continue. Protests at our representatives' offices must take place. We must innundate them with information about what we expect them to do.

In other words, we must be doing what we should have been doing all along: involving ourselves in the process of governance.

There are those in power now who fully expect you to lie down and roll over for them once the tempest has subsided.

Don't do it!

Stay active!

Stay in touch!

There will always be a list of senators and representatives in my sidebar on which you can click and get in touch with yours.

Then, and only then, can we look for meaningful changes to take place in Washington D.C.