Archive for April, 2011

No Subsidies !!

April 30, 2011

  As gasoline prices continue to rise, Pres. Obama has come out against the high profits of the oil industry.

   Well no one can say that Pres. Obama is original. Every time the price of gasoline goes up, the left starts screaming about profits.  Of course the liberals always seem to forget that those profits are taxed. Those taxes are a huge source of revenue for the nation. So why are the liberals always out to cut the profits of the oil industry?

  Well because the oil industry is evil of course. I mean just look at how little they have done for the nation over the years. It’s not like they employ large numbers of people. It’s  not like the nation is dependent on the product that the oil industry provides. It’s not like millions of dollars in 401K’s are invested in the oil industry to provide for the retirement of people across the nation.

  It isn’t the profits that are the problem. The problem is the over regulation and restrictive nature of our government when it comes to the oil industry. Instead of encouraging the industry to expand and find new domestic sources of oil. Our current administration is intent on restricting and actually retarding the expansion of domestic oil drilling.

  Now some will say that even if the regulations were removed that the oil industry would not expand in order to keep prices high. I find that hard to believe. I feel that if the market was freer, that there would be more competition. More competition means lower prices.

  Now, currently Pres. Obama is proposing to remove tax credits and subsidies from the oil industry. One has to believe that this will only lead to higher gas prices. I am not sure how the President is tying the two things together. I’m not sure how you make the argument that removing the subsidies and tax credits will lower prices. One has to know that the companies will just pass the difference on to the consumer. 

  The only way that you can take away the tax credits and subsidies, and not have the prices go through the roof, is price caps. May God help us if that happens.

  Look, I am all in favor of removing all subsidies. But not just from the oil industry. I want to remove all subsidies from all of the green industries also. If we take the credits from the oil industry, only to turn around and give them to the green industry, we have done nothing to reduce the deficit, and nothing to reduce the cost of gas. 

  Let’s face it, the President doesn’t really expect to remove the tax credits or subsidies from the oil industry. He is in full campaign mode and is playing to his leftist greeny base.

   So once again, what do we get from this president ?  Absolutely nothing. At a time when we need real ideas on how to create more domestic supply. All we get is attacks on one of the oldest and most profitable industries in the nation. And why? Political maneuvering and pandering to his fringe base.

  That is not leadership.

Advertisements

Extra ! Extra!

April 27, 2011

   President Obama has finally released the long form birth certificate. The White House has announced the release just minutes ago.

  Will this now pout to rest the whole question about his place of birth.

 We have to at least give credit to Donald Trump for forcing this issues.

  This will also give the birthers another conspiracy issue. They will now be questioning whether the certificate is real. Wait and see.

Unconstitutional Pt.II

April 27, 2011

  In my previous post titled “Unconstitutional”, I gave several examples of Constitutional Amendments that I feel are actually unconstitutional.

  Now of course that idea will seem a bit strange to many people. They will assume that if the amendment has been added to the constitution and was done according to the rules set forth by the constitution, that the amendments are therefore constitutional. But are they?

  To understand the point I am making, we will need to understand how the Constitution was constructed.

  Originally the Constitution was only to consist of the Articles as ratified in 1788. It was because of the insistence of  Thomas Jefferson and others, that a Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution. Jefferson felt that the document lacked many of the explicit guarantees of personal liberties that state constitutions had.

  This demonstrates that the original document was composed of the Articles. These contained the definitions of what the new government would consist of and how the government would be formulated. They laid out the requirements to hold office. The Articles put forth the manner in which the new government would support itself through tax collection and what type of taxes would be allowed, and how these taxes were to be collected and what they were to be based on.

  The Articles stated the balance between the three branches of the new government. It clearly was intended that there would be a separation of powers, with no one branch at a disadvantage, nor with any advantage over either of the other two branches.

  The Articles were the foundation on which the country would be built . They laid out when government would meet, they laid out how bills would be passed into law. The Articles in summary are the road map for the United States of America. They are not laws, they are a governing document.

    So as we see, the Article were, the Constitution. The Constitution had been written, debated and passed. The government could have been formed and run under the Articles. But Thomas Jefferson felt the need to enumerate individual liberties to be guaranteed within the Constitution. He convinced James Madison to create a Bill of Rights, which he did. These were the first ten amendments to the Constitution.

 The Bill of Rights spell out clearly what rights a citizen of these United States has. The Bill of Rights also limits government’s ability to infringe upon these rights. These first ten amendments are what make this the greatest nation, the freest nation in the world.

  So now we can see the original intent of the Constitution. It was first and fore most a document to illustrate the role of government. Second the Bill of Rights is a contract with its citizens. Intended to plainly spell out our rights.

   No where in the Articles are there any laws . No where in the Bill of Rights are there any laws. The Constitution is a governing document, not a document of laws.

  Now this brings me to my point. Which amendments are unconstitutional and why?

  The first thing we must remember is that the original Articles were put together by the Constitutional Convention. It was a process of compromise. This was the document ratified as the Constitution by the states, after being voted on by the Convention, which was made up of delegates selected by their home states.  The Bill of Rights were then added as amendments almost a year later. It is important to note that none of the amendments contained within the Bill of Rights in any way contradict the Articles.

  This bring me to why I feel that the content of  several of the amendments make them unconstitutional.

   I believe that any amendment that contradicts or attempts to set aside any portion of the Articles is unconstitutional. The Articles were put into place at a Constitutional Convention, the only way they could be changed would be to call another Constitutional Convention. The Articles are the Constitution. You can amend the document, but you cannot re-write it through the amendment process. This is why the Articles have never been removed. But how can the document have any legitimacy, when it contradicts itself?

  My first example is the 16th amendment. The 16th Amendment states that;

  ” The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

  This clearly contradicts Article 1, sec.2, 3rd paragraph that says; “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. ‘

  Let me again make my point. The only way that Congress could have imposed an income tax was to have called another  Constitutional Convention and re-written Article 1, sec.2, paragraph #3.

    This was demonstrated by the  Supreme court ruling in the case of Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan and Trust Company in 1895. The case was a challenge to the Income Tax Act of 1894. In the ruling the court found that the Tax Act failed to meet the requirement of apportionment.

   Fourteen years later congress proposed the 16th Amendment, and four years later it was ratified. But I contend since Article 1,sec.2, paragraph #3 is still a part of the Constitution, and cannot be change, short of a Constitutional Convention, that it supersedes the 16th Amendment, and make the 16th Amendment unconstitutional.

  Another example of this happening is the 17th Amendment which contradicts Article 1, sec.3, paragraph #1.

    Now I know that there will be those out there that will say I am crazy. There are others who this idea would frighten. The idea that we have been living under a punitive tax code for over a hundred years, when we never should have been is enough to make you lose your mind.

  But my friends I encourage you to look into this. The Constitution is the third greatest document ever created, behind the Bible and the Declaration of Independence.

  Its simplicity is its genius. But when it is twisted and stretched to serve the government it is intended to rein in, then it can become a burden on the backs of the very people it is intended to protect.

Just Because

April 25, 2011

Unconstitutional

April 25, 2011

   Let’s face it, the TEA movement has become a major force within American politics. Either directly or indirectly, the TEA movement has gotten people up and moving. It has given them a sense of ability to chart the course of the nation.

  Many people who have never before been involved in politics in any way, have taken to the streets in protest. Many more, who never watched the evening news for more than a weather report, are now committed news watchers.

   There have been many positive aspects of the TEA movement. But like many past movements and causes. Many of the TEA followers are just that, followers. They have picked up the language, with no real understanding of what it is they are saying. Probably the most used phrase by many who consider themselves members of the TEA movement is, “UNCONSTITUTIONAL”.

  This one word has become both chant and defence mechanism. It has become the beginning and the ending argument for some who will tell you they are conservative. Many within the TEA movement will tell you that,”if it ain’t in the Constitution,then we don’t need it”. Unconstitutional has now taken on the job of shield and sword. It is used to strike at your political foe, and to deflect any need of discussion.

   Too often those wielding this sword and shield are doing so merely to strike at a law that they personally don’t care for. Maybe a tax or the prohibition of some act that they favor. So immediately this tax or prohibition becomes unconstitutional. Unfortunately many of the people wielding this sword and shield can never actually get past quoting the first and second amendments. I have actually seen this used as little more than a parlor trick.

  The Constitution is a governing document, not a document of laws. The few times that laws have been added to the Constitution in the form of amendments they have been detrimental to the nation.

  The first such “LAW” was the 16th Amendment which imposed an income tax. This may have been and still is the worse legislation to ever come out of Washington. This was the beginning of power mad politicians. The tax code has allowed political leaders to cement their power. Income tax had been determined unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, so congress did an end around. In a future post I plan on delving deeper into this.

  The second such “LAW” was the 17th Amendment. This law changed the way Senators were selected. The orignal intent was to have Senators selected by state legislatures, and in so doing making them the representatives of all the people of their states in Washington. By having them elected by popular vote, we have created another class of vote seekers, who will work for the state, only if it will get them re-elected.

  The next such “LAW” was the 18th Amendment. This was the prohibition of alcohol. The Federal government had no power to make anything illegal within the states. This is not the role of the Constitution. The Constitution is a road map on how government is to govern. It has no part to play in local mores. Any such law must be passed by local governance. That is as long as the laws do not conflict with the Constitution. We need only look to the fact that this Amendment was repealed to see that it was a mistake. Not because the prohibition of alcohol was wrong but because it could not be done on a federal level.

  I do think it important to point out that these three Amendments were proposed and added between 1909 and 1919. This was the era of progressivism’s birth.

  The 22nd Amendment limiting the President to two terms is also an unconstitutional “LAW”. It completely removed the balance of powers within the three branches and robbed the executive branch of much of its original power.

  These examples show what can happen when the Constitution is used as a document of laws. When government over reaches the boundaries of the Constitution, then the document is no longer able to restrain government, which was and is its original intent.

  Also when we run around calling out “UNCONSTITUTIONAL” at every law passed by our local governing bodies, we weaken the meaning of the word. Trust me, there are plenty of unconstitutional laws on the books. And we should work to remove them. But to do so, we must first understand the document. We must respect the document. We must never “USE” the document, but instead, we must exercise our rights. For that is the true value and intent of the Constitution. It is the guarantor of our Liberty.  But it is not an agent of lawlessness, and should never be used as such.

Thank You Senator Booth

April 25, 2011

   Last year after the GOP primary was over and Joe Booth had won, it was announced that he had been selected for a position with Sussex Tech School District. Since he was unopposed by a Democrat, the primary was the election and he was the new senator for the 19th district. Full disclosure. This is my district and Senator Booth is my Senator.

  There was a lot of concern about the clear conflict of interest that Senator Booth’s new job with Sussex Tech would create. Concerns that I had a chance to voice directly with Mr. Booth. He assured me that if any votes were to come up concerning Sussex Tech, that he would recuse himself.

  Well friends that is just what has happened. There is currently a Senate Bill 5 making its way through the senate. This bill is intended to create one consolidated school district for the current five separate vo-tech districts within the state of Delaware. We can only assume that Sen. Booth will have to recuse himself from any votes concerning this bill.

  Well thank you sen. Booth for leaving the voters of the 19th District without any representation on an issue that will have huge effects on them.

   If consolidation is passed, there is the very real chance that taxes will need to be raised, due to teachers demanding equal wages throughout the new district.

  But it will not end at SB5. If this bill is passed, every vote concerning the new consolidated district , be it about wages, hiring of administration, purchasing or whatever, Sen. Booth, my senator and maybe yours also, will have to recuse himself. Leaving the voters of the 19th district with absolutely no say in how our taxes are spent on this new district.

  I am clearly against consolidation of school districts. I am also clearly against having no say in the debate.

   So once again, thank you Sen. Joe Booth.

How High The Cost

April 22, 2011

  As we continue to debate the medical marijuana issue here in Delaware, we should look to what has happened and is happening in other states.

   Of course California is at the fore front of the legalizing of pot. And it all began with medical marijuana. Of course there are other fronts in the battle to legalize not just medical marijuana, but marijuana in general.

   The latest battle has been fought in Massachusetts, where that state’s high court has decided that smoking pot in a car is not a good enough reason for law enforcement officers to as you to step out of the vehicle.

  The court’s decision is based on the fact that Massachusetts passed a bill that decriminalized the possession of an ounce or less of pot. The possession of an ounce or less is now a civil crime and punishable by a fine of $100.00 and the loss of the weed. One has to wonder do they get to keep at least an ounce of the confiscated pot?

  Now Massachusetts has not legalized medical marijuana, though there is a strong effort in progress. It would seem that in that state they have decided that decriminalizing pot first was the way to go. Of course the end result is the same. Total legalization of pot.

  Now back to the law in Massachusetts that says that just the odor of burnt marijuana is not enough probable cause to ask a person to exit the vehicle. The ruling states that the odor alone is not evidence of the possession of an illegal amount of pot.

   In the dissenting opinion, Justice Judith Cowin wrote, “Even though possession of a small amount of marijuana is now no longer criminal, it may serve as the basis for a reasonable suspicion that activities involving marijuana, that are indeed criminal, are underway.”

  The justice went on to say, “The odor of marijuana permits an officer reasonably to suspect that the parties involved are in possession of criminal quantities of marijuana or are in possession of marijuana with intent to distribute,”.

   Now does this decision strike anyone as odd? The court is saying that the smell of pot is not enough to ask someone to step out of their car, so that a further investigation can be made to determine whether or not the person is breaking the law by possessing more than an ounce.

  Does this mean that in Massachusetts that police officers can no longer do field sobriety test, based on the fact that they smelled liquor on the driver’s breath? After all the smell of liquor on their breath doesn’t in itself prove that the driver is over the legal limit.

  Of course all of my libertarian friends will now come back with their usual  reasons why we should have legal marijuana. But it is laws like this in Massachusetts that we should look to, and realize the real dangers that this could lead to. The precedent that they sent and the effect they may have on other laws.

  If someone is sitting in a car and smoking pot, is it not logical to assume that they will drive the car? The high court has now told police officers to ignore that person and allow them to drive under the influence of an intoxicant. Is this what we are headed for in Delaware?

Trump Card

April 21, 2011

    I Know that a lot of people have gotten excited at the prospect of Donald Trump running for president against Pres. Obama in 2012.

   Why not? I mean if you are a conservative, you have to be out of your mind due to the things that pres. Obama has been doing. Add to this the fact that Mr. Trump is saying all of the right things to excite the GOP base and also the fringe elements and you can see why people are excited.

   First let me say that I agree that many of the things that Mr. trump is saying, are exactly the things that need to be said. But more importantly they need to be instituted. But are the conservatives just being played here?

  Let’s face it, Mr. Trump is one hell of a businessman. He has been successful at almost everything he has attempted. Let us not forget however, the thing he does best is self promotion.

  That is why I am still not convinced that he will actually run, or if he should. While he may be saying the right things to gain attention, I am not sure he would be good for the GOP in the long run.

  My level of concern about his commitment went up last Friday when he appeared on the Rush Limbaugh show. During the interview Mr. Trump stated that he would be announcing on the finale of his television show, a date that he would be announcing whether or not he would be running.

 As you can see he is stringing this out for all it is worth and incorporating his TV show into it. Makes for good showmanship, not sure it makes a good candidate.

  At a time when the GOP has made real inroads in taking back control of the political field of battle, can we afford to wager on a person who is little more than a carnie?

 It’s not that I don’t agree with Mr. Trump on the issues, it’s not that I don’t think these issues need to be brought out, I do. And if he causes the discussion to be held, that is not a bad thing. But if he is only doing this for his own gain and self promotion then the question becomes how far will he take this? Will only go as far as announcing that he won’t run a primary? Or will he run in the primary. This could be more trouble for the GOP then it is worth.

  If he runs a primary, does anyone think he can win? Maybe. But I have this itch at the back of my neck that tells me that he isn’t serious. That he won’t even run a primary and waste all of that money. I think he will come out shortly after the end of the season for his TV show and announce that he can’t devote the time needed to run the campaign because too many people depend on him in his private endeavors.

 Only time will tell.

Term Limits

April 20, 2011

    I  think we can all agree that we are tired of the intrenched career politicians. You know the type. The person who has been in office for thirty years. And is the dream of every lobbiest out there. They’re  either the chair of the most important committees or they are the ranking member.

   Often this sparks the conversation about term limits. Though the talk of term limits is usually brought up by the party that is out of power. They feel like the opposition has a strangle hold on certain seats in government and the only way to wrest control is through term limits.

  Personally I think we already have term limits. They are called elections. As we saw in the  2010 GOP primary, career politicians can be unseated. Unfortunately the GOP didn’t pull together afterwards and lost the seat. But the fact remains, that years of service do not guarantee you anything.

    Currently there is talk in Delaware of instituting term limits on state elected officials. This may sound good if you are living in a district that has been held for many years by someone you disagree with. But what if you are happy with your elected official? Obviously the majority of the voters in your district are. So term limits would mean losing someone who has been an effective leader. Simply based on term limits.

  If you happen to be in the minority and you want someone removed from office, then work harder to build support for your own candidates. That is the American way.

  Those supporting term limits here in Delaware are trying to make the argument that term limits would somehow make the elected officials more responsive to the voters.

  I’m not sure I understand just how that would work. The way I see it, term limits would actually have the opposite effect on our leaders.

 Think about it. By instituting term limits we would be creating any number of lame duck officials. Even if they were re-elected for their final term, what influence would they have? Imagine here in Delaware having ten or more legislators who were in their final term. They would be there as a party vote and little more. There would be little  reason for other legislators to work with them.

   Also think about that lame duck official in his or her final term. With no need to heed the will of the people, so as to be re-elected, they could vote on legislation based on special interest groups influence and promises of employment after their term is over. I feel term limits would actually make our elected officials more susceptible to this type of power brokering.

  When we consider the idea of term limits, let us not forget that though we may remove leaders who we don’t agree with. We are just as likely to remove those we do agree with. Think about your local Representative or Senator. Are you happy with their record? Would you like them to continue to represent you in Dover?

  Now imagine that they are in their final term.

Disapointed In The Sussex County Council

April 15, 2011

   There have been times in the past when I have been very happy with the Sussex county Council. I have written on this blog several times, complimenting them for actions that I felt were in line with my views and conservatism.

   Sussex County has consistently met its budget, and has done so without raising taxes. Though they have raised fees from time to time. For the most part Sussex is, in my view the most conservative county in the state. I believe that the council’s leadership has a lot to do with this.

  Unfortunately from time to time the council, like most government  entities fall prey to the seduction of federal funding. The Sussex County Council has done just that in my opinion.

   On Tuesday April 12, 2011 the Council broke ground on its new solar field next to the Sussex County Emergency Operations Center in Georgetown.

   We are told that the county can hope to save up to $15,000 a year on its electric bills. That sounds great, doesn’t it? But when we start to look a little deeper, I feel there is reason for concern.

    What concerns me is that the project is being funded with a $648,000 federal grant made possible by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 . So that means that the Sussex County council is accepting federal dollars to build this solar farm.

  We are told that this solar field could produce enough electricity into the grid to enable the county to sell renewable energy certificates back to the power companies. Again, sounds great, right? Oh! By the way the power companies are required to buy the credits to meet state regulations.

  Flexera Inc. of Harbeson, Del. is the contractor who has the contract to build the field. Good for them at least.

  Okay so what is my problem with this? Well there are four Republicans on the county council, two of them could be described as “fire and brimstone conservatives”. How can anyone who self describes themself as a conservative of any kind, be willing to buy into the Obama stimulus scam?

  The first step in getting the federal government out of the business of running our lives, has to be, in getting state and local governments to stop accepting this type of bribe money. If the council felt that this project was worthy, then take it to the people of Sussex County and fund it out of county revenue. I am pretty sure that people in North Dakota, no more want to fund this solar field, than I want to fund some bridge in Alaska. That federal money has to come from somewhere. It is either taxes from across the country, or more likely in our current state of debt and deficit, it is coming from China.

  So we have four Republicans on council, four people, if asked, who would most likely consider themselves at least moderately conservative. And what do they do? They add to the national debt. And Why? Well I have to believe this is most likely a case of, “well someone is going to get the money, so why not us?”

  Is that how we are running county government now? I certainly hope not.

  One more thing to point out here. The idea that one government entity, the state, can pass regulations that force a private company to purchase credits from another government entity, the county, and in so doing force the power companies to subsidize not only the building of the solar field but also the cost of the county’s power bills.

 I don’t know about the rest of you, but none of this  sounds anything like conservatism to me.

  Okay, I know that this will bring money into the state, but don’t forget that it had to leave the state first.. I know that it will create a few jobs for about three months since it is slated to be finished in July.  But when our elected Republicans participate in this, when they accept this socialist bribe money, then they are participating in the move of this nation to the left.

  We cannot afford for our party to condemn this type of spending on the campaign trail, and then once in office engage in the very thing we condemned. We must stand on principles and values, or else we have neither.