Republicans Take Control of the House of Representatives in an Historic Election

It’s been awhile since I’ve posted. I just haven’t seen anything in the last several months that made me feel like writing, but the win on November 2 by the Republicans has given me something to comment about. In an historic election Republicans took control of the House by gaining an astounding 60 seats. As a result, Republicans now control the agenda in Congress.

In January, Republicans must run hard at the issues and undo the destructive policies of the Democrats. Republicans must repeal Obamacare, make the Bush tax cuts permanent, and reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They must kill Cap and Tax, and must address the problems with the Finance Reform bill that was passed. They must address the size and scope of the Federal Government, and they must put an end to earmarks.

There must be no compromise in the first year. Republicans must draw the line on the issues and make the Senate and the White House take a stand. It is a concern of mine that some Republicans will be too eager to run to the compromise table. This is a mistake. By doing so we are surrendering our positions and ignoring the will of the American People. We must first fight hard and make everyone reveal where they stand on the issues, and only after can we even begin to think about compromise. But we must not give in on any of our positions until they give in on theirs, and maybe not even then.

Now in this election, it is the first time the House has flipped and the Senate has not. Don’t be concerned. There were fewer Democrat seats up than Republicans. There were only 16 Democrat seats to 18 Republicans, and the Republicans took 6 seats from the Democrats. In 2012 the Democrats will have 21 seats to the Republican’s 10. There are also two Independent seats. That is a lot of seats for the Democrats to defend in a Presidential election. The class in 2012 is the same class that gave the Democrats control of the Senate in 2006. Republicans could gain control of the Senate in 2012 and they should.

The Republicans over the next two years must hold to conservative principles of fiscal discipline, low taxes, and economic growth. I’ve had discussions with friends that the reason Republicans lost control of the House and the Senate in 2006 was because they strayed from conservative principles and lost their way. I explained that conservatives lost faith in Republicans because they were acting more like Democrats, compromising on principle and acting against the will of the American people. I’ve explained that when Republicans campaign on conservative principles and hold to traditional values, they win. Tuesday’s election is proof of that opinion. If Republican’s don’t hold to conservative principles and do as I’ve suggested above, then they will not hold onto the majority in 2012.

Extremus

Gun Right Laws Do Not Increase the Probability of Violence

Recently I had the opportunity to attend a corporate event. At the event I watched a presentation by a security expert about the issues facing corporate security. The individual referenced recent changes in gun laws, particularly in Arizona, which would increase the risk of workplace violence. The two laws passed by Arizona were one which eliminated the requirement to have a permit to carry concealed, and another which allows CCW holders to lock their firearm in their vehicle at work.

What the expert failed to mention however, is that it is illegal to carry a firearm concealed anywhere a firearm is prohibited, such as a school, post office, or voting place, and also any place that posts that concealed weapons are not allowed, such as a place of business or a bar or restaurant. Also, he failed to mention that it is illegal to have a firearm locked in your car at your place of business if the business specifically prohibits it. The simple fact is, the expert was wrong.

Just because Arizona changed their law does not increase the probability of violence. If the law were not changed, the pre-existing law would not be a deterrent to a person committed to causing harm. As it is, it is against the law to murder someone. But that does not always deter criminals from committing murder. Laws do not exist solely for the purpose of preventing crime, because no law can prevent crime if someone is committed to breaking it. Laws exist so that punishment can be metered out to those who break the law. The use of a firearm to commit a crime is a felony. So why do we need laws that deny law-abiding citizens the right to carry? We don’t. We all know that it is the criminal who breaks the law and the law-abiding citizen who obeys the law. So laws that take rights away from the law-abiding citizen only harm the law-abiding citizen and do nothing to the criminal.

Extremus

Leftist Says The Conservative Movement Is All About White People.

I was driving home from work on Wednesday June 9, 2010, and I happened to switch to a liberal talk radio station. Of course they don’t call themselves a liberal station, they call themselves a progressive station. And the person who was on said something that shocked me, though I guess I should not have been shocked. He said that the conservative movement in this country was all about white people, that it was all about creating a culture just for white people. In other words, if you are a conservative, you are a racist. Racism is at the core of the conservative movement. He was equating the racist morons in Prescott Arizona who were upset that a Hispanic child was prominently displayed on a mural, to conservatives in general. Well, I’m going to say it, if that’s what that commentator believes, then he is the racist, because all he can see is race.

I should not have been surprised by this individual’s ignorant comments. This is a ploy that the left uses. If you are white, religious, socially and economically conservative, then you are a racist, bigot, homophobe, ignorant, whatever. The left will describe you in the worst way possible. They do this because they know that good people, who believe in right from wrong, don’t want to be identified in that way, so those good people avoid taking conservative positions. Who likes being called a bigot? No one does. However, we cannot allow ourselves to be intimidated into abandoning our values because they want to call us disgraceful names and denigrate us.

The conservative movement is not racist. The conservative movement is raceless. The conservative movement doesn’t care what race you are. The conservative movement believes in equality of opportunity, not equality of income, and it believes in equality of opportunity regardless of race. Yes, the conservative movement has people in it that are ignorant racists. But do we abandon the core principles of the movement because of a few nut jobs who think the quality of a person is defined by the color of their skin? Of course not. The liberal movement has people in it who are socialists. Does that mean the liberal movement is socialist, that all liberals are socialists. No. Are all Muslims terrorists? No. But the left will label all conservatives, and the whole conservative movement as racist.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Limited government knows no race. Lower taxes knows no race. Liberty knows no race. So where is the racism? If there are conservatives who espouse racist views, they are not espousing conservative views, because conservative views do not look at race. As a conservative I want economic opportunity, freedom, and liberty for all people, not just white people. I want the black community to enjoy happiness and prosperity. I want the Hispanic community to enjoy happiness and prosperity. I want all people to enjoy those things, and there is nothing racist about that. So the next time you hear a liberal radio host say the conservative movement is racist; know that they are just propagating a lie.

Extremus.

Radical Islamists are Our Enemy

According to White House counter terrorism adviser John Brennan we can no longer call our enemies Jihadists because it gives legitimacy to what they are doing. We cannot call them radical islamists either, because that describes them in religious terms. So, whom are we fighting, who is the enemy? Brennan said the enemy was members of Bin Laden’s network. Okay, but who are they and how do we identify them? Brennan says they are victims of "political, economic and social forces." So the murderous terrorists are victims.

It gets better. Brennan described jihad as “a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one's community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children.” Well the Qu’ran says many things about jihad. Here are some of those sayings.

9:73 “O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed.”

25:52 “Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness, with the (Qur'an). “

2:218 “Those who believed and those who suffered exile and fought (and strove and struggled) in the path of Allah,- they have the hope of the Mercy of Allah. And Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.”

3:142 “Did ye think that ye would enter Heaven without Allah testing those of you who fought hard (In His Cause) and remained steadfast?”

4:95 “Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-“

5:54 “O ye who believe! if any from among you turn back from his Faith, soon will Allah produce a people whom He will love as they will love Him,- lowly with the believers, mighty against the rejecters, fighting in the way of Allah, and never afraid of the reproaches of such as find fault. That is the grace of Allah, which He will bestow on whom He pleaseth. And Allah encompasseth all, and He knoweth all things.”

60:1 “O ye who believe! Take not my enemies and yours as friends (or protectors),- offering them (your) love, even though they have rejected the Truth that has come to you, and have (on the contrary) driven out the Prophet and yourselves (from your homes), (simply) because ye believe in Allah your Lord! If ye have come out to strive in My Way and to seek My Good Pleasure, (take them not as friends), holding secret converse of love (and friendship) with them: for I know full well all that ye conceal and all that ye reveal. And any of you that does this has strayed from the Straight Path.”

So based on the parts of the Qu’ran above, the radical Islamists who engage in terrorism believe that they are engaged in a holy struggle against the Unbelievers. Would it not make sense then to acknowledge that they are followers of Islam regardless of the radical view they take of it? They believe that they will have a greater reward in heaven because they have striven and fought in the cause of Allah.

I no longer believe that the President is acting in the best interests of the American people. He and his advisors like John Brennan have weakened the security of the United States by refusing to take a practical look at the enemy we are facing and identify them so that we can take steps to protect ourselves. If you do not identify our enemy and clearly define the things about him that make him want to harm us, then how can you possibly have any hope of stopping him. How do you know what to look for?

I know who our enemy is. Our enemy are the radical adherents of Islam who strictly follow the Qu’ran and have identified us and our allies as their enemies. Let’s find out who they are and deal with them.


Extremus

Arizona Illegal Immigration Bill is Right.

Arizona got it right with their illegal immigration bill, and as it typical of the left they are spreading lies and misinformation about how the law will be enforced, it’s constitutionality, and it’s affects on the people in the state. The law directs police to verify the immigration status of any person they have “reasonable suspicion” to be in the country and the state illegally. Individuals found to be in the country illegally will be arrested and turned over to I.C.E.

The left is yelling that this will result in racial profiling and that people will be questioned because of the color of their skin. No lie could be worse than that one. The law requires that a police officer have “reasonable suspicion.” That means they can’t question someone because of the color of their skin. Skin color is not justifiable as a “reasonable suspicion.” Any officer that does so will be committing racial profiling which is illegal under state law.

The other lie is that the law is unconstitutional. That idea is founded in the belief that it intrudes on the Federal Government’s authority to enforce immigration law. No it doesn’t. Federal law makes it illegal to sell or possess narcotics. State laws say the same thing. Are states intruding upon the Federal Government’s role to enforce drug trafficking laws? No. Likewise, by making illegal immigration in the state of Arizona a state crime, it does not interfere with the role of the Federal Government. This is why. Arizona is not deciding what makes an individual legal or illegal. The Federal Government decides what makes a person legal or illegal. State law is not exceeding Federal law in this instance. Also, Arizona is not going to deport people, I.C.E. will deport them. So Arizona will not be performing the deportation role of the Federal Government.

Lastly we see that violence is a creature of the left. Because of this issue we have seen leftists fighting with police and a swastika was smeared on the state capital building using refried beans. Guess I’ll have to stop eating refried beans now. For a year the left has accused the Tea Party of inciting violence, and the first real of act of violence is not committed by the Tea Party, but by the pro-illegal immigrant crowed on the left.

Arizona is stepping up where the Federal Government has failed to take a stand. My hope is other states impacted by illegal immigration like Arizona will do the same.

Extremus.

Arizona Sales Tax Increase Bad For The State

Facing billion dollar deficits and a drop in tax revenue, the state of Arizona is proposing a temporary 1% increase in their state sales tax, which would raise it to 6.6%. Of course, the usual arguments for supporting a tax increase are being made, it will prevent cuts to education, to hospitals, to police and fire, etc. You get the point. But I believe that an increase in the sales tax will have the same effect, and will not be temporary.

Back in 1991 the State of Rhode Island passed a similar 1% increase in their sales tax, increasing it from 6% to 7%. It too was supposed to be temporary. The reason for the increase was to pay back depositors who had placed money in Rhode Island state banks backed by RISDIC, Rhode Island Share and Depositors Insurance Corporation. RISDIC was going bankrupt, largely due to embezzlement by Joseph Mollicone. The citizens of the State, leery of any tax increase were assured that this increase was only going to be temporary. And the citizens of Rhode Island agreed to it. After all, this was about helping each other impacted by this event. And Rhode Island is a close nit state.

Well, as the saying goes it’s easier to raise taxes than to cut spending, so years later the temporary 7% sales tax was made permanent. The state saw all the revenue being pulled in, and decided they couldn’t lost that in the budget, so the sales tax was made permanent. The state really hasn’t recovered from the effects of that increase.

Massachusetts had a 5% sales tax which they increased to 6.25% in 2009, and Connecticut has a 6% sales tax. Since Rhode Island increased their sales tax Emerald Square Mall was built in North Attleboro, just over the Rhode Island border and twenty minutes away from the Lincoln Mall, and businesses along state route 6 in Seekonk have grown. A Super Walmart was built in Whitinsville MA. There is also the Shoppes at Blackstone Valley that went up, and Putnam, Connecticut has seen it’s share of growth as well. In comparison, Woonsocket’s retail business has declined and Providence has also suffered, though the construction of Providence Place Mall has reversed that decline somewhat. After Rhode Island increased it’s sales tax to a full 2% above Massachusetts it was like the state of Massachusetts put up a sign that said “Shop Here.”

Rhode Island is also known to have one of the highest tax burdens in the country and is routinely criticized for having the worst business climate in the country. The result is an unemployment rate right now of 12.6% and a state budge deficit of $220 million.

Arizona should be looking at Rhode Island right now as a lesson of what not to do. If the voters of Arizona increase that state sales tax, it’s my belief that when May 31, 2013 comes around, the government of Arizona will see the money they stand to lose by reducing the sales tax. They will be unwilling to make the cuts they would have to make by reducing the sales tax and will seek to either extend it another 3 years or make it permanent. After all, in 3 years I expect people will say that Arizona has grown accustomed to paying the higher tax and will try to keep it in place. People will say, “Look at what this money does for education, for hospitals, for police and fire. We can’t lose this money.” I think you get the argument that will be made.

Higher taxes are not the way to go. Responsible tax policy promotes economic growth by allowing people and businesses to keep more of what they earn which gets reinvested into the economy. I believe that when you increase economic activity you increase tax revenue. This has been shown to be the case, because economic activity means more people working and more businesses engaging in commerce which increases tax revenue. The more people who are working, the less are on government assistance, and the number of people on government assistance declines which decreases the cost to government. In that way the people who really need help can be helped and those who are able to work can find work. And those who want to start a business will have an easier time starting one.

Arizona needs to be smart. It needs to reject the increase in the sales tax and focus on tax policies and economic policies that will increase investment in the state and increase economic growth and employment. We’ll see if Arizona is smart enough to make the right decision on May 18.


Extremus

Individual health insurance mandate started as a Republican idea‎ - yeah, so what?

One of the most recent things being brought by the left about the individual health insurance mandate, is that it was originally proposed by Republicans years ago. And the only thing I can say in response to that is, that is good enough reason for liberals to oppose the individual mandate.

Think about it, liberals are opposed to anything Republicans propose right? I mean, if Republicans originally proposed it, and they are supported by the insurance companies, then it has to be a bad idea because it supports the insurance companies.

In fact, guess who supports the individual mandate in the current law? The insurance companies. AHIP, America's Health Insurance Plans has been supporting the individual mandate for the past year. They have told the Democrats that they can accomplish the goal of universal health care, lower costs, and no denial of pre-existing conditions so long as there is an individual mandate that pushes everyone to have insurance. Go to AHIP's website and look up their press releases for the past year.

So who are the hypocrites, Republicans for opposing the individual mandate, or the Democrats for adopting the individual mandate and siding with the insurance companies? I'll leave that for you to figure out.

One other thing though, papers are saying Senator John McCain (R-AZ) proposed the idea and saying he's a conservative. Interesting that McCain is a moderate when they like him and a conservative when they don't. They are also attacking Mitt Romney. For the ignorant liberals who see a contradiction that isn't there, the Federal Government does not have the plenary powers that states like Massachusetts have. What is constitutional for Massachusetts to do may not be constitutional for the Federal Government. For some reason liberals have trouble telling the difference between Federal and State.

More About the Individual Health Insurance Mandate

After my post yesterday I spent some more time reading opinions about the Individual Health Insurance Mandate. A couple almost had me convinced, but after I shook my head and cleared my eyes of the hypnotized look I came back to reality.

One of the principle uses of the commerce clause to defend the mandate is that even if you don’t have health insurance you affect interstate commerce when you pay out of pocket. You are not part of a pool to keep costs down yet you still contribute to the demand for health insurance. Therefore the Government can require you to join a private health insurance plan where you become part of a risk pool and the cost of health care is spread out by premiums, thus the group as a whole benefits and that is good for everyone.

The penalty is defended as a tax penalty. Which is allowable under the government’s taxation authority. That one almost had me convinced.

As far as the commerce clause goes, there is just one problem. When you purchase health care in a state, you are not engaging in interstate commerce. When you purchase health insurance, you are not engaging in interstate commerce. The states control the health insurance companies in their own state, and health insurance companies are prohibited by the Federal Government from selling across state lines. So how do I affect interstate commerce when I pay out of pocket?

One of the examples about interstate commerce is a case involving a wheat grower, Roscoe Filburn who grew wheat for his own consumption above his allowed quota. Back in the 1930s, the price of wheat had dropped to all time lows. Farmers were growing wheat faster than it could be sold. Storehouses were filled up, railroad companies were rejecting shipment, and thus supply was outstripping demand. This was a problem around the world and the price of wheat globally was in decline. Therefore, to make money, farmers had to grow more wheat, and thus the price dropped more because they couldn’t sell it.

To combat the problem, the Federal Government put quotas in place to limit the amount of wheat grown and raise the price of wheat through the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. Well, Filburn decided to grow wheat for his own consumption and keep it apart from the wheat he wanted to sell in the market under the quota system. He was allowed to grow 20.1 bushels on 11.1 acres, but grew on 23 acres. He was taken to court in Wickard v. Filburn, and it went all the way to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court ruled that even though he was growing wheat for his own consumption, it still affected interstate commerce because he was growing wheat for himself instead of buying it from the market. If everyone did that, than the controls the government put in place to raise the price of wheat would be useless and the price of wheat would continue to drop.

This example is used to support the individual mandate, because if you buy health insurance out of pocket you are buying health care that you would otherwise get through insurance, and thus you are affecting the price of health care to the insured. Your additional demand for healthcare contributes to rising costs.

The difference between these two examples is that in Filburn’s case, the government was trying to control supply. In the health care example, they are trying to control demand.

One point I have and others have raised is, can the government compel you to buy a product because failure to do so negatively impacts interstate commerce? General Motors is often used as an example. General Motors, as we know, went bankrupt. The reason was, they could not sell enough vehicles to keep up with the cost to make them. Very simple economics, if I make a product I need to sell enough of it to make up the cost, if it costs more to make a product than to sell it, then I go out of business. That’s what happened to General Motors.

Instead of bailing out General Motors, what if the government had instead told all of us to go buy a new car. Your failure to buy a new car from General Motors negatively impacts interstate commerce. Because you are driving around in a used car or a foreign car, General Motors stands to go out of business, which would affect their employees, their suppliers, the suppliers to the suppliers, and so on down the line. It would devastate the economy. So the Government will compel you to buy a new car from General Motors, and if you can’t afford one, they will subsidize it. They’ll create new taxes to pay for it, they’ll have a real Cadillac tax, and they’ll even tell you the minimum type of vehicle you must own. And they’ll tell General Motors what type of vehicles they have to make. And you’ll be required to buy a new care every three years, and it’ll be great. It will stimulate the economy and drive new technologies, and we’ll all be better for it. And if you don’t buy a new car, you’ll pay a tax penalty to the IRS, and the IRS will be setup to know when you have bought a new car and how long you’ve driven your current one. They can get it from State Departments of Motor Vehicles.

So what the government is doing in that example is they are using you to manage the economy. That throws the ideas of free commerce on its head. It’s not the governments role to tell you what product you must buy and from whom and threaten you with penalties if you don’t. It’s your role to decide for yourself what goods and services you want and can afford to buy. It’s the role of suppliers to attract you to buy their product and manage their costs to make a profit. But what’s happening here with health care is the Federal Government is ordering you to buy healthcare regardless of it’s cost, regardless of if you want it, regardless of the insurance industries ability to control costs and attract you to buy product. Now you will not have a choice. The government will tell you the minimum product you must buy and you will have to buy it. Is there anything more backwards than that?

As for the penalty, I have read other people’s writing saying it’s just a tax. If you don’t have insurance, you’ll just pay more in tax. No where in the bill is the penalty defined as a tax or a tax penalty. It is called a penalty, that’s it. I also saw someone say that the bill doesn’t require you to buy health insurance. Well that person apparently didn’t read the bill. Here is what the bill says;

Subtitle F—Shared Responsibility for
Health Care
PART I—INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY
SEC. 1501. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.
(b) IN GENERAL.—Subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new chapter:
‘‘CHAPTER 48—MAINTENANCE OF MINIMUM ESSENTIAL
COVERAGE
‘‘Sec. 5000A. Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage.
‘‘SEC. 5000A. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.
‘‘(a) REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.—
An applicable individual shall for each month beginning
after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the
individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum
essential coverage for such month.
‘‘(b) SHARED RESPONSIBILITY PAYMENT.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—If an applicable individual fails to meet
the requirement of subsection (a) for 1 or more months during
any calendar year beginning after 2013, then, except as provided
in subsection (d), there is hereby imposed a penalty
with respect to the individual in the amount determined under
subsection (c).
‘‘(2) INCLUSION WITH RETURN.—Any penalty imposed by
this section with respect to any month shall be included with
a taxpayer’s return under chapter 1 for the taxable year which
includes such month.
‘‘(3) PAYMENT OF PENALTY.—If an individual with respect
to whom a penalty is imposed by this section for any month—
‘‘(A) is a dependent (as defined in section 152) of
another taxpayer for the other taxpayer’s taxable year
including such month, such other taxpayer shall be liable
for such penalty, or
‘‘(B) files a joint return for the taxable year including
such month, such individual and the spouse of such individual
shall be jointly liable for such penalty.


With that said, I’ll repeat what I’ve been saying about this requirement. If this is Constitutional, then it represents the greatest threat to liberty and freedom we know. It will give the National Government unprecedented power to compel its citizens to engage in commerce, something it has never done in history. If this remains law it only represents the beginning of what the current Congress and Administration are prepared to do. There is no telling how far they will take this new power.

Extremus.

Arguments That the Individual Mandate to Have Health Insurance Is Constiutional Fall Flat on Their Faces

Since the signing today of the health care reform bill, I have been reading comments by people on a number of different sites. I have taken particular note of those who agree with this bill and argue that the individual mandate is Constitutional. Often sighted as examples that it is Constitutional are the fact that we have Medicare and Medicaid, and Social Security. I even saw one poster use Civil Rights and Selective Service as examples. Clearly an individual who has little in the way of education and probably couldn’t tell you one thing about what the Constitution said. Now that I’ve gotten my frustration out on that poster I would like to use those examples to point out why supporters are wrong.

Medicare as you know is a program designed to help senior citizens with healthcare. It was challenged in the Courts and the Courts found it to be Constitutional as it helped the “General Welfare” of the United States. The Medicare tax is permissible under Article 1 Section 8 and the 16th Amendment to the United States (which did not create the income tax, we already had one before the 16th Amendment). The Federal Government can create just about any tax it wants under the Constitution. It’s our duty as citizens to oppose those taxes politically and vote out the people who pass them when we disagree with the tax. But here’s the thing; you don’t have to sign up for Medicare. There is no mandate that you sign up for Medicare. Medicare Part D has a late enrollment penalty, but still you don’t have to sign up.

Medicaid is a program that is administered by the States; but States don’t have to administer it. If they don’t administer it however, they lose matching Federal Funds. So again, it’s Constitutional, and you don’t have to sign up for Medicaid.

Social Security was actually created to get older workers out of the work force and into retirement to make way for younger workers. The tax is Constitutional, see my argument above on that. You don’t have to retire at 65, you don’t have to retire at all, and you don’t have to collect it if you don’t want it. Don’t file for it and you won’t get it.

Selective Service is the military draft that all men must register for when they reach the age of 18. Article one section 8 provides that Congress shall have power to raise and support armies, to provide and maintain a navy, to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces, to provide for calling forth the militia…, and to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such parts of them as may be employed in the service of the United States. That means the congress can create the Selective Service.

As for Civil Rights, the government has a right to protect your rights of due process and equitable treatment, in order to keep the peace. But you don’t have to exercise your civil rights, though you would be foolish not to.

The Government doesn’t have the power to compel you to buy a product or enter into a contractual agreement for either the public good or in support of interstate commerce, and I’ve argued that in an earlier blog as to why. I still contend that if the government can order you about at will, that it is a threat to our freedom and liberty. We will no longer live in a republic; we will live under a tyrannical government that will feel compelled to watch you to make sure you comply with the law. The IRS will become the agent of enforcement.

So there is no way, based on the examples above, that an individual mandate to buy health insurance is Constitutional. It is my belief that anyone who believes the government has the power to order you to buy a product, or else, does not believe in individual freedom and liberty, which were two principles this nation was founded on. They are socialists. They are telling you that you don’t have freedom. That should scare you. This is almost Orwellian. The IRS is going to track, every month, whether or not you have health insurance? 1984 may not be as far away as it seems. Heck Joe Biden has already tried to change history by suggesting Iraq would be the Administration’s greatest achievement.

The “General Welfare” clause was never meant to give this much power to the government. When the Constitution was drafted, people attacked this clause as giving too much power to the government. A favorite passage of mine in the Federalist Papers is one in Federalist 41. “It has been urged and echoed, that the power ‘to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States,’ amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alledged to be necessary for the common defence or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labour for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.” What James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, is saying is that the “General Welfare” clause does not give the government unlimited power.

He went on to say. “Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expression just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some colour for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms ‘to raise money for the general welfare.”

If the “General Welfare” clause of the Constitution gives the Congress unlimited power to do what it wishes then James Madison either lied to the people of New York, or he was flat out wrong. Would you dare to try and argue that one of the principle authors of the Constitution was wrong about the “General Welfare” clause? And if he lied, then the Constitution was passed through deceit and the States need to amend the Constitution to restore the balance of power between the States and the National Government.

It’s my firm belief that if the States fail to overturn this law in the Courts, then they must be prepared to defend the freedoms of its citizens any way that it can. The Founding Fathers, like James Madison knew that in order for the government to become tyrannical, all three branches of government must be in agreement and the States and the people must become subservient to them. The Founding Fathers believed that the States and the people would not allow that to happen. We must preserve that belief and remind people that power of the Federal Government comes from the States and the people, not the other way around.

Extremus.

Health Care Reform Won't Reduce Costs

Health Care Reform won't reduce costs. Any argument that it will is false. Economically it's not possible to increase demand without increasing supply and reduce cost. It's not possible.

When demand increases and supply doesn't, two things can happen. First, if the price doesn't change a shortage will occur, because more people will demand the product at the same price, but the quantitly supplied at that price will not increase. Second, prices will increase resulting in an increase in the quantitly supplied, but then some people will not be able to afford the same product at the new price. That is what happens today, increases in demand result in higher prices which means fewer people can afford the same amount of health care.

There is nothing in the bill to increase the quantity supplied or the amount of supply. If prices are not allowed to increase to meet the new demand, then shortages in health care will occur. This is why Health Care Reform won't reduce cost.

Extremus

Health Care Reform- Deem it Passed is Constitutional

This past week, conservatives were up in arms, and after listening to them, I was too. But then I read Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution and realized there isn't anything to be up in arms about. Let me explain. The Democrats are planning to use a procedure this week called "deem it passed." What they are planning to do is vote on a rule that says if the package of changes to the Senate bill is approved, then the Senate bill is deemed passed.

Conservatives has said that Article 1 Section 7 says "the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each house repsectively." But they make a mistake by taking that sentence out of context. Article 1 Section 7 actually says the the following in its entirety, "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the house of representatives; but the senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.

"Every bill which shall have passed the house of representatives and the senate shall, before it become a law, be presented to the president of the United States; if he approve, he shall sign it; but if not, he shall return it, with his objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two-thirds of that house shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other house, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of that house, it shall become law. But in all such cases the votes of both houses shall be determined by yeas and nay, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each house respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the president within ten days (Sundays accepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a slaw, in like manner as if he had signed, unless congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

"Every order, resolution, or vote, to which the concurrence of the senate and house of representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the president of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or, being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two-thirds of the senate and house of representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill."

The section of Section 7 that conservatives have been referring to deals with overturning a presidential veto. If the President vetoes a bill, the bill is returned to the house which originatted the bill, and if that houses chooses to vote to override the veto, the votes of that veto must be recorded.

Deem it passed, can be considred Constitutional because, by the rule, everyone who votes to deem it passed will no that they are voting to approve the bill along with the changes to it they want to make. So the vote is a vote on both the Senate bill and the house changes.

Now what's not clear to me is if by doing this, the House passes two seperate bills, or one new bill. If the it is considered two seperate bills, then the Senate has no obligation to approve the changes the house has made, and the Senate bill passes as it is to the President for his signature. If it is one new bill, the bill must return to the Senate for debate and a vote according to Senate rules, and it would be subject to amendments by the Senate, which would then force the bill back to the conference committee where the Senate bill ended up before Scott Brown was elected to the Senate.

So forget arguing that "deem it passed" is unconstitutional. I don't agree. But I do agree that this bill is bad for the United States, and I will make that arguement in my next piece.

Extremus

Illegal Immigration - my idea for a solution

I realize I haven’t been on in a while. With so much going on, I found it hard to decide what to write about. One of the topics I did want to write about is immigration. I propose some ideas, and wish to clarify my position so both the left and right knows where I stand. I don’t believe my view would be agreeable to either side, but I believe my view is fair.

The Constitution of the United States gives Congress the power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;” This means that Congress can establish laws regarding immigration and how a person may enter the United States and become a citizen of the United States. Those on the left want open borders and no enforcement of immigration law, while those on the right demand enforcement of immigration law and that all those in the country illegally be deported. I believe that immigration law needs to be enforced, and that those in the country should be deported. However, with an estimated 12 million or more illegal immigrants in the United States, deporting them all is easier said than done.

My solution is this. First, we must secure the borders of the United States. No proposal to solve the problem of illegal immigration can succeed without first securing the border. Second, once the border is secure, I propose we set a date at some time in the future whereby we demand all illegal immigrants report themselves to Immigration, and tell us who they are, where they are living, where they are working, and why they are here. Then give them two options; ask them if they want to be citizens or legal resident aliens. If they want to be legal resident aliens, visas exist for that. If they want to be citizens, they go to the back of the line of everyone else that has already applied. Any illegal alien that is caught before they report to immigration gets deported, no questions asked. Enforcement doesn’t stop before or after the deadline is met.

This proposal allows us to accomplish certain things. First, it secures the border. This is important not simply as a security measure, but as a humanitarian measure also. People crossing the border illegally; regularly take their lives into their own hands by doing so. They cross inhospitable terrain at great risk to themselves and their families; they are smuggled into the United States in box trucks and packed into vans and minibuses by people out to make money. Organized Crime gets involved by brining people into the United States, setting them up with a place to live, many times packed into a residence with many people in it, and they are given employment which is under the table and not reported. Securing the border will get a handle on these practices and end them. In my view, the greatest crime done to these people is by their so called advocates who do not speak out against these atrocities committed to their own people.

Second, by getting the illegal aliens to report to Immigration, we find out who they are, and we can find out if they are wanted in the home countries, we can determine if they are allowed to stay in the United States or are sent back. We find out where they work, and then we know which employers are obeying the law, and which are breaking it. We may uncover links to organized crime, and we also uncover illegal housing.

I don’t support making them pay fines or back taxes, as I believe those ideas are counter productive, and don’t really accomplish anything. I know too, those on the right would look at this and cry that it’s amnesty. I don’t agree amnesty would just give everyone a pass, and my idea does not. It allows us to enforce the law. Those on the right need to understand that just demanding all of them to be deported is like screaming into the wind. It doesn’t accomplish anything. If you believe we should deport them all, please tell me how we deport 12 million people en masse. It’s not going to happen. And I also believe there are some on the right and left, who don’t want immigration reform because they profit from it.

Now to be fair, the open borders crowd on the left doesn’t like my idea because it doesn’t give everyone a pass. They need to understand that people who enter the United States illegally or over stay their visas, don’t have rights. They don’t deserve them either. I get a laugh out of illegal immigrant rallies that demand their rights, because they don’t have any. If you want rights, leave the United States and come back legally, then you will have rights. Until then, stay hidden, as it is best to not be seen.

That’s my 2 cents on the issue of immigration. I hope to write some more about this in the future.

Extremus

Citizens United v. the FEC - Victory for the First Amendment

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for the bills of rights." - The Federalist Papers No. 84 Alexander Hamilton.

I include the quote above, not to oppose the Bill of Rights, but as proof of the power not given to the national government, and which the Supreme Court of the United States agrees. The Supreme Court's recent decision in Citizens United v. the FEC to overturn parts of McCain-Feingold has been described as an affirmation of the First Amendment by some, and as a decision that favors big business over the individual by others. But those that see it as a decision favoring big business over the individual fail to understand the Constitution and the First Amendment. When the First Amendment was proposed as part of the Bill of Rights prior to the ratification of the Constitution, there was opposition to it. Alexander Hamilton wrote specifically about why he opposed bills for rights and used the First Amendment as an example. His quote above details the power of the national government with respect to speech and freedom of the press. The national government has no power. Hamilton's fear was that if an Amendment was passed protecting freedom of speech and the press, others would infer that the national government must have power to regulate free speech and the press, when it does not. Hamilton's own position justifies the decision by the Supreme Court.

By allowing the national government to prohibit businesses from speaking out on political issues, the national government is preventing both speech that is legitimate and truthful and speech that goes against the public interest. The national government's position was essentially that there is a greater interest to prohibit speech that can harm the political process than there is to allow speech that is helpful to the political process. In essence the national government places itself in the position of deciding which speech is good and which speech is bad. That is not a power the Constitution gives the government and it would be wrong to give government that power.

As to why it would be wrong to give government that power, let us consider an example. The Democrats and the President in particular have been saying that greedy banks that gave mortgages to people who couldn't afford them and traded those mortgages as commodities caused the housing crisis in this country. The banks were, until this ruling, prohibited from taking out ads pointing out the the crisis was not in fact their fault, but the fault of politicians in Washington, D.C. who for thirty years have passed laws forcing banks to make loans to low income people. They cannot point out that for thirty years, Congress has encouraged home ownership among the lower class and people with credit scores too low to qualify for a conventional mortgage. They are not permitted to point out that interest rates over the past ten years have been among the lowest in the nation's history. They cannot point out that they would not have been able to deny mortgages to people if they wanted to, because to do so could result in action against the bank by the government. So you have the Democrats and the President accusing the actions of the banks, but the banks cannot respond to those accusations. I that right? Is that constitutional? What is the result of this? The result is people hearing and believing the spin by the Democrats and the President without being presented with the facts from the group that is being attacked.

By allowing the government to decide who can speak and who can't, the government actually gives the advantage to the side that can speak to whatever it wants without the risk of being attacked. This can lead to one side twisting the truth, because they know the other side can't respond. That is why the national government does not have the authority to take freedom of speech from one group. To do so would threaten not just freedom of one group, but also our freedom as a whole.

Extremus

Guantanamo - Why Closing it Won't Matter.

Shortly after Barack Obama signed an executive order to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay Cuba. The reason for the order, as the President has told us, and as we hear from people who want it closed, is that the terrorists are using it as a recruiting tool, thus making us less secure than we were prior to 9/11. That's right, by capturing terrorist and putting them in a detention facility outside the United States we make the country less secure than we were the day 19 radical Islamic terrorists hijacked four planes and flew two into the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon, and one into a farmer's field in Pennsylvania. Yeah. I'd like to know what the terrorists were using as a recruiting tool when they committed those attacks.

Closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay isn't going to make a difference. The detention facility itself and where it is are not the reason it is used as a recruiting tool. The fact that detainees are held at all is the reason. It doesn't make a difference to the terrorists where their comrades are held. It's that they are held at all. If the detention center is closed and the detainees are moved somewhere within the United States, then that location becomes the new recruiting tool for the terrorists. It won't matter that you give these people civilian lawyers and place them on American soil inside the United States. The terrorists will still say their comrades are being held by the Great Satan of America, that they are being abused, and that they must wage jihad to liberate their brothers. By moving the detainees to a location in the United States, you now make that location a target for terrorists which is more accessible than Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

So the arguments that closing it will make us safer are false on their face. It is not going to matter. Instead the left is going to make the place these people are held a terrorist target, and spend millions more on security, just so that it will make us look good to the rest of the world. It's not going to make us more secure. The left does not respect the threat that terrorism poses. You need only look at their response to the Christmas bomber to see that.

There is no reason to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay that makes us more secure. None. Guantanamo Bay is United States territory. We can keep the detainees there and give them all the rights we want. They don't have to come to the United States for that. But go ahead, let's close it, do what you want. It's not going to make a difference.

Extremus

Gay Marriage - It's Okay to Be Against It.

Ever feel like there are people in this world that hate you just because you are who you are? For instance, are you a person of faith who attends Mass on a regular basis; a person who believes in what the Bible says and takes its words to heart? Are you a person who listens to your pastors sermon and try to do the best you can to live by God's Law? If so, there are people who will call you a bigot. They will call you things I just cannot write. They will insult your intelligence. I say, don't be intimidated by them.

There are good people, who know the difference between right and wrong, but who get intimidated into changing there positions, because they don't want to be thought of as a bad person or a bigot. Nobody wants to be called those things. But that's no reason to change your position when people say such things. Realize that they are the bigots, the extremists, the radicals, who simply hate us for who we are.

Take the issue of gay marriage. There is nothing wrong with opposing it on moral grounds or for reasons of tradition. Yet people will say if you don't support gay marriage that you are a hateful person. Not true. I don't support gay marriage, and I'm not a hateful person. Two consenting adults can do what they want for all I care. I will hold no ill will towards them. But I will not support gay marriage.

My position is this. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman, for the purpose of starting a family. It is a thing of nature, a thing of tradition that has been the foundation of our civilization for more than 2,000 years. Without the tradition of marriage, we would not be the society we are. It would be vastly different, a society without morals or values. It is a thing of nature because a man and a woman are meant to be together. God made animals male and female, and designed them such that their union is essential for the survival of their species. Two people of the same sex can produce no fruit. They can't procreate. That is why society in general recognizes marriage between a man and a woman, because their union produces a benefit to society in the form of children.

Gay marriage produces no benefit to society. None. If two people of the same sex want to live together and build a life and do what they want to do in the privacy of their own home, that's fine by me, but society does not need to give a certificate of approval for two people to do that. That's how I see it, and that's why I'm opposed to gay marriage.

Don't be intimidated into giving up your values. There is nothing wrong with them. Anytime someone calls you a bigot, or an extremist, just point back at them and call them the bigots and the extremists. They are the radicals trying to change your world to fit their view. Stand up to them.

Extremus

Congratulations Scott Brown, Go Scott Go, Gas Up the Truck and Take it to Washington.

On January 19, Massachusett's voters shocked the nation and did something they haven't done since 1972. They elected a Republican to the United States Senate. I wish to congratulate Scott Brown. His election takes away the Democrat's filibuster proof majority. While we can only speculate the effect this will have on the Democrat's agenda, the election is definitely significant. I thought I would leave you with video of his victory speech, courtesy of Fox News. Just a note, the length of the speech is over 20 minutes and may take a little time to spool on your computer, so please be patient. The only other thing I can say is, gas up the truck! Gas up the truck! Gas up the truck!

The 2nd Amendment and The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

This year the Supreme Court will be reviewing a case involving the 2nd Amendment, McDonald v. Chicago. The central question to be decided in this case will be whether or not the 2nd Amendment applies to the states. In my opinion it should.

The 2nd Amendment says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Through it's expression, "the right", the 2nd Amendment is stating that right is a pre-existing right. It doesn't create the right to exist, it declares that the right does exist. In the absence of law, Man has certain natural rights. Among those are the rights to self-defense and self-preservation. In order to exercise the rights to self-defense and self-preservation one must have the means to exercise them, and thus must have the right to keep and bear arms for ones protection. The 2nd Amendment, therefore, declares the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms, and prohibits that right from being infringed.

However, one may ask, "why does the 2nd Amendment reference the militia?" I believe to answer that one needs to look at the Constitution and consider how the Bill of Rights were added to the Constitution. When the Bill of Rights was drafted James Madison had wanted the first 10 Amendments to be inserted into the Constitution. However, this did not happen. Instead the Bill of Rights was tacked on at the end of the Constitution rather than having the individual Amendments inserted in various places within the Constitution. So, the way I see it, one needs to look at where the 2nd Amendment may have been inserted into the Constitution.

The place to look is Article 1, section 8. which states "The congress shall have power, To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such parts of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." If you add the 2nd Amendment to that clause it would look like this; "The congress shall have power, To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such parts of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Seen in that manner, I believe it makes more sense.

The militia section of the 2nd Amendment explains the importance of the militia in protecting a free State, it does not mandate membership in the militia to keep and bear arms, but rather protects the right to keep and bear arms in order that the Congress should be able to organize, arm, and discipline the militia. If states and their municipalities were able to take away a person's right to keep and bear arms, then the ability of Federal Government to call forth, organize, discipline, and arm the militia could be put at risk. As section 8 says, states are limited to appointing officers and training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. It doesn't give states the right to take arms away from the people who would make up the militia. From this perspective my belief is that the 2nd Amendment is related to Congress' authority to organize the militia and it applies to the states through the 14th Amendment.

Extremus

Individual Insurance Mandate - A Threat to Liberty

One of the features of the health reform legislation in Congress is the individual mandate that requires everyone to have insurance. The Senate bill justifies it by discussing the impact insurance has on the economy and the risk the uninsured have on the industry. Therefore the Senate bill justifies it through the commerce clause of the Constitution. But is this right? Can the Federal Government order you to buy a product because your failure to buy it can affect interstate commerce? I would argue no.

Article 1 section 8 says, "The Congress shall have power, To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." The primary reason behind giving the Federal Government power to regulate commerce among the several states was to protect exporting states from other states their products would have to pass through in order to reach foreign or domestic markets. James Madison provided a cursory review of it in Federalist Paper Number 42. "A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out, to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter, and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruption of the public tranquility." So, the purpose of the power was to protect the goods of other states when they cross over state lines from the power of other states so as to maintain public tranquility. No where in that power does it give the Federal Government the power to force you to buy a product to maintain that tranquility.

If the Federal Government were to have the power to order you to buy a product, consider what this would mean to liberty. The health reform legislation requires that you purchase minimum insurance where they will decide what that minimum is. If you do not purchase that insurance, then you will be subject to fines by the IRS. Fail to pay the fine, and you will be subject to sanctions from the IRS, such as garnished wages, or lose of property, you could possibly even go to jail. This is an abuse of power by the Federal Government.

If the Federal Government has this power, what is to limit them from telling you that you need to buy something else because failure to do so would negatively impact interstate commerce. Consider the bail out of the auto manufacturers. Could the Federal Government order you to go and buy a car made by General Motors, in order to save the company and other companies contracted with General Motors. Let's take it back to insurance, will they be able to regulate what you eat, or how much you exercise because they argue that failure to eat right and exercise could impact interstate commerce? If the commerce clause gives the Federal Government such authority, what does that do to our freedom when the Federal Government has the authority to order us about without limit.

The commerce clause does not give the Federal Government the authority to order you to engage in a commercial transaction. They may create the conditions to encourage you to engage in a commercial transaction, but can't make you do it. That is a decision you must make for yourself, and if you don't want to make that decision, that is your right. This is a nation founded on the principles of freedom and individual liberty. I believe that health insurance reform in its present form, threatens those freedoms and liberty.

Extremus

Thoughts and Prayers to Haiti

I give my thoughts and prayers to the people of Haiti. The devastation and tragedy are much to bear, but the people of the world are with you. In response to the earthquake that has struck that nation, I have chosen to forgo any political commentary tonight, as it has no place this day. Instead I've decided to provide you with a list of organizations you can reach out to, and contribute to, to aid the people and country of Haiti. This list comes from Fox News and you can find the original article at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,582902,00.html.

American Red Cross: http://www.redcross.org/
CARE: http://www.care.org/
Catholic Relief Services: http://crs.org/
Direct Relief International: http://www.directrelief.org/EmergencyResponse.aspx
Habitat for Humanity: http://www.habitat.org/
International Medical Corps: http://www.imcworldwide.org/Page.aspx?pid=183
International Relief Teams: http://www.irteams.org/index.htm
Lutheran World Relief: http://www.lwr.org/
Operation USA: http://www.opusa.org/
Salvation Army: http://www.salvationarmyusa.org/usn/www_usn_2.nsf
Save the Children: http://www.savethechildren.org/?WT.mc_id=1109_hp_logo
Unicef: http://www.unicefusa.org/
World Concern: http://www.worldconcern.org/disasters/haiti-flooding.htm
World Food Programme: http://www.wfp.org/
World Vision: http://donate.worldvision.org/OA_HTML/xxwv2ibeCCtpItmDspRte.jsp?funnel=&item=1958776§ion=10324&go=item&
Americares: http://www.americares.org/
Partners in Health: http://www.pih.org/home.html
The International Rescue Committee: http://www.theirc.org/
American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee: http://www.jdc.org/
Yele Haiti: http://www.yele.org/

Why the title to my blog?

So, you may be reading this right now, and asking yourself, "Why the title Another Right Wing Extremist?" To confess, the title is more of a spoof on myself. I don't consider myself a right wing extremist, but my views may cause some to consider that I am. I consider myself a normal person, raised in a lower to middle class community. I am Roman Catholic and do not support abortion or gay marriage. I'm a member of the Knight's of Columbus, a member of the NRA, and a registered Republican. I don't always vote Republican in general elections though, but it's been years since I've voted for a Democrat. I support lower taxes, and economic policies that reduce dependence on welfare and spur growth and job creation. So, I don't doubt that some of you reading this will think, "this guy is an extremist." So, that explains the title. It's a spoof on what others may think of my views and opinions, and that's fine. I have no problem with that. If I'm an extremist because I believe life begins at conception, that marriage is between a man and a woman, that people have a right to keep more of what they earn, and that the 2nd Amendment means what it says, then so be it. I'm not afraid of the label. I'm not intimidated into being a liberal for fear that someone may believe my views are out there. I believe my views are what has been the basis behind the rise of Western Civilization over the last 1,000 years, and there is nothing wrong with that.

The reason I started this blog was to create a forum where I can express my own views. Which is another reason for the title "Another Right Wing Extremist". There are plenty of conservative bloggers out there, and I'm just one more of them. My goal is to talk about the things they don't talk about, or give a different view than the one they give to discuss aspect of an issue I think they may miss. I am not looking to be the farthest one on the right, nor am I looking to capture the middle. If you agree with me, that's good, and if you don't, that's too is okay with me.

Extremus