Shane McGonigal

Brady Campaign: All College Students Are On Drugs

2012-02-03T08:30:00.000-05:00

As students continue the call to action to restore civil liberties and allow licensed teachers and students to carry concealed firearms on campus, the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence foolish lashes back using strong language and ridicule as their tactics.
According to the Brady Campaign's statement on Concealed Carry on Campus, college students are almost exclusively irresponsible binge drinkers and drug addicts:

"Introducing guns into a volatile environment where binge drinking and drug use are all too prevalent would dramatically increase the risks of suicide, gun thefts, and the number of gun violence victims."

Although colleges are an institution of higher learning, where only the brightest students are accepted from high school, and only the most responsible and well trained teachers are recruited, especially elite institutions like Ohio State University, the Brady Campaign makes the assumption that all students are just drunken, doped up junkies.
When the liberals cannot respond with facts they resort to bullying, name calling, and unfound assumptions. However the facts are on our side and it is time that we call upon the administration of Ohio State University to open up the conversation of allowing concealed carry on campus.
In my recent interview with Mike Newbern of Buckeyes for Concealed Carry, I was informed of how President Gee has disregarded all invitations to a discussion on concealed carry, and even went as far as to call the members of the group 'vigilantes'

Originally posted on Campus Reform

Obama: Socialism is Godly

2012-02-02T20:34:00.000-05:00

Photo courtesy of AP

At the National Prayer breakfast today, Obama quoted scripture to claim that his socialist policies are biblical. However, as a Christian I must call into question whether or not Obama's theoretical beliefs actually coincide with the Bible's teachings.

"For me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus's teaching that for unto whom much is given, much shall be required," said Obama, quoting a verse from Luke.

However, Obama is making a critical flaw. The bible calls on us to give, not to have others give for us. In no place does the bible command us to steal from our neighbors to give to the poor. God's call for compassion and charity is always appealed to the individual or a group of individuals. There is no scripture that says the rich should forcibly have their wealth taken from them in order to do good work.

What's more is that the money taken from the rich is not necessarily given to the poor. A large portion of government funding goes into programs that are not Godly. I find it hard to believe that God would want us to fund 363 million dollars to Planned Parenthood, an organization that commits thousands of Abortions every year.

I also find it hard to believe that it would be considered Godly to fund bloodshed and wars, such as the war in Libya which cost tax payers an estimated 896 Million dollars. Furthermore, some tax money goes as far as to outright defy the Catholic church. A part of the new Obamacare law will require the Catholic church, as well as other faith based organizations, to contradict their own religious beliefs and force them to provide birth control to employees. I'd like to hear Obama justify that as doing God's work!

I do not believe Obama understands the faith-based principle that conservatives follow when it comes to charitable giving. He denies the right to individuals to give on their own, and to support the people they deem deserving and worthy of financial aid.

Indiana Becomes 'Worker Friendly'

2012-02-01T16:17:00.000-05:00

Indiana has become the 23rd Right to Work state today as Governor Mitch Daniels signs the Right to Work bill into law.

This is a huge win for workers in the state of Indiana as before Right to Work Union members were forced into paying dues. Right to work legislation prevents unions from forcing employees to pay into a union that might not necessarily be desired or representative of what the worker wants.

Although union leaders and Indiana Democrats fought viciously to prevent this law from passing (and why not? The Democrat party is one of the biggest beneficiaries of union dues!) Republicans were still successful in a win in favor of business owners and workers civil rights.

Union members protesting Right to Work legislation. Photo courtesy of REUTERS/Jeff Haynes

The timing of the bills passing into law could not have been any better, as February 1st represents black history month, a memorial of a timeless struggle for civil liberties and natural rights. Fighting forced unionization is the new frontier for the endless struggle to liberate and defend our civil liberties.

Texas Forum for Freedom Nominated for Award

2012-02-01T13:19:00.000-05:00

The Texas Forum for Freedom, an organization made up of liberty-minded campus clubs from across the state of texas, has been nominated for best activism event of the year by Students for Liberty.

I was very fortunate to be a participant in the event, it simply was an amazing time and I really appreciate the hard work and effort that the students put into the project.

The purpose for the event was to protest current politicians movement away from our constitution and it's protection of our civil liberties. During the march to the Texas capitol from the University of Texas at Austin, the "zombies" were chanting such things like "brains back the constitution!".

Please enjoy the video, and later make sure to vote for it while the polls are still up!

To vote, please go here.

Concealed Carry at Ohio State University?

2012-02-01T12:54:00.000-05:00

Recently a bill was submitted to the Ohio state legislator that would allow concealed carry permit holders to carry firearms for self defense in the state.

This bill came shortly after a new student university, the Buckeyes for Concealed Carry at Ohio State University, made local and national headlines in their public call for the university to allow students to carry on campus after a series of violent attacks on students coming to and from school broke out this year.

I had the pleasure of sitting down with Mike Newbern, the president of Buckeyes for Concealed Carry during my recent trip to Ohio.

You can also see Mike Newbern's interview on a local Fox News report, by watching the video below:

Of course this video was made before the legislation was proposed, so we see that the Buckeyes for Concealed Carry on Campus were succesful in helping to get the legislation proposed. The fight now is on to make sure the bill passes!

For more information on how you can support Buckeyes for Concealed Carry, you can contact me at smcgonigal@campusreform.org, and I will be happy to help you help this club!

It's The Economy Stupid!

2012-02-01T12:18:00.000-05:00

All the candidates should be taking a page out of Bill Clinton's book and say one thing: "It's the economy stupid!". Recently, the Congressional Budget Office reported unemployment to be at 10% while home ownership drops to 66%. It's no wonder that alcohol sales have increased while speculation exists that federal taxes will go up 30% in two years.

All of this while the CBO is now reporting that the federal deficit is expected to increase to over 1.1 trillion dollars this year!

And if you didn't think that was bad enough, let me shock you again while I allow Professor Antony Davies, from LearnLiberty.Org, to explain how big the debt really is (I know, you thought the debt was 15.3 trillion dollars!)

That's right, we owe around 65 trillion dollars...more than the rest of the world combined. This has not been brought up at the debates, or by any of the candidates with the exception of Ron Paul, and it is an issue that none of the major contenders have addressed.

This kind of economic activity is not feasible, it is not sustainable, and we must take immediate action to curtail it before we face a huge crisis with our dollar. The current economic policies our administration is pursuing is leading us down the road to another great depression.

Why I Am A Pro Life Libertarian

2011-11-15T00:55:00.000-05:00

Many people talk about their reasons for being Pro-Life or Pro-Choice. Usually, conservatives tend to be Pro-Life and liberals tend to be Pro-Choice. When it comes to all issues we see Libertarians as siding economically with conservatives, and socially with liberals. In this regard, many so-called libertarians are quick to call themselves "pro-choice", and they tend to cite freedom of individual choice as their rationale for being in favor of abortion.

I intend to refute that argument in this article. The essence of libertarianism is that everyone has a right to the pursuit of their own happiness, so long as that pursuit does not take away from another person's right. In other words, people should be free to do as they please, as long as their actions don't harm or hinder the abilities of another person from doing the same (i.e., murder, slavery, theft, etc.)

The concept that a woman has a right to choose whether or not she may have an abortion, because it is her body and no one else's, would be true to this definition of libertarianism if we ignore the rights of the baby in the woman's body. If we say that the woman has a right to kill her baby, then we are also saying the baby does not have a right to its own life. Many people argue that the baby is not yet living, however I find fault with this argument as well. The baby is in fact living, or it will one day grow into a man or woman and have a life, so therefore it is alive. A dead man does not grow into a living person again, he simply rots until he eventually becomes a part of the earth again. His spirit goes on to live if one is to assume, such as I, that God and heaven exist. However, even an atheist will not negate that the man once lived, and that an unborn baby too will eventually live as a person unless that unborn baby is killed. We cannot presume that an unborn baby is not going to live, we know if it is allowed and exclude the rare chance that it dies of natural causes, that it will live. So therefore we must not look at the argument as "when does life begin?" because we know at some point that life will begin, and by allowing an abortion we are choosing to deny that life. So we must instead ask the question of when do our rights begin? If you say we do not begin to have a right to life and liberty until, say, the third trimester, than are we really acting in a libertarian fashion? The idea of libertarianism is by many recognized to be started by the likes of Fredric Bastiat, the French author and political scientist whom favored liberty above all other forms of government. Bastiat rightfully acknowledged that liberty was a gift from God, as our founding fathers also declared in our declaration of independence. Bastiat says

"Life, faculties, production--in other words, individuality, liberty, property -- this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it."

From Bastiat's perspective, we cannot legislate when the right to liberty begins, because that right precedes law...law cannot make liberty, it is there even before we are conceived. Therefore, we may only make laws defending the liberty we already have been given by God.

But what do we say to our atheist libertarians? In order to be a libertarian you must believe in liberty, above all else...and whether or not you believe that liberty is given as a gift from God, you must still believe that right to liberty precedes law itself. Because if we assume that liberty must be given to us through legislation, than we can no longer perceive liberty to be a right since it was given to us, not naturally, but through man. Thus, liberty would be a privilege not a right, and any man to believe in such folly is not a libertarian but a statist, believing in law above individuality. They might be for the protection of liberty for the privileged, and that privileged might even be the majority, but their presumption has denied it as a right.

So then we must forgo the argument of when life begins, and ask instead when liberty begins. If we agree that it begins at our conception, we cannot say a woman has a right to deny her unborn baby its right to liberty. If we presume that the right to liberty begins at any other point in our life, it is no longer a right but a privilege we have earned by achieving some goal in life, such as reaching our third trimester. If the later is the case, our philosophy is no longer libertarian but statist. Deciding to have a baby, or to abort a baby, in essence is not the same as deciding to have a tattoo or a piercing, or what drugs she takes and with whom she sleeps with. As a libertarian, I believe a woman does have a right to choose what she does with her body, but that same right does not grant that she has the right to deny her unborn child its right to liberty as well.

On War Powers

2011-04-04T10:56:00.000-04:00

Many people have been critical of Obama's decision to launch an attack on Libya. However very few people have criticized him for abusing his powers, and blatantly ignoring the constitution.

There is a tragic myth that the president some how has the authority under Article 2, Section 2 as commander-in-chief, or perhaps that the war powers act gives him the authority. To borrow a phrase from President Obama, let me be clear, this is simply not true.

First, the argument that because the president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces and navy, he can commit forces as he sees fit, ignores the rest of the sentence entirely. According to Article 2 Section 2:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.

Clearly, in order to be Commander he must first be called into service. The argument then exists that since there was not a standing army at the time the constitution was written, and since there is today, that the president is then permanently commander-in-chief now so long as we have a standing military.

To this I say yes, he is the commander of the standing army. But he has not been called upon to wage war, only to lead the military in peace. When you are called to service you are clearly directed at to what that service shall be. Second, all one must have to do to discredit this argument is to read Article 1 Section 8 on the powers of congress.

Article 1 Section 8:

(The Powers of Congress)

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
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 to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part 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;

It is evident then, that in any decision to use forces for any reason, Congress must first take action.

The argument then, is that Obama's actions in Libya is not war but a "humanitarian mission". This is not a mission, it is war. When you attack a country it is by default, war. Mike Church on the Mike Church Show, SiriusXM Radio Patriot Channel 166, rightly stated:

(Paraphrased) If Mexico were to launch a missile into the united states then, regardless of what they called it, it is an act of war. Mexico has waged war on the united states.

The founding fathers understood that to give one man the power to wage war was too dangerous, so they put it in the hands of congress. This move was actually unpopular with some, because they believed giving congress the power to declare war, and the power of the purse, was giving them too much. But none the less, this was the decision that they made and still the law we follow today.

In regards to the War Powers Act, this is what the act says on presidential limitations:

(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,(2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. Source

Therefore, the War Powers Act still does not give the president to commit forces without congressional authorization. The only time he may do so is in a national emergency created by an attack on its territory or possessions. No such attack was made by Ghaddafi.

We must respect the rule of law, and we must hold our leaders accountable for their oath to the constitution. Obama has broken his oath, has commit our sons and daughters in the military to harm without our consent and approval. For this, he should be impeached.

Interview with Jason Spencer

2010-06-11T14:50:00.000-04:00

Georgia State House District 180-

Jason Spencer is the leader of Camden County's Tea Party and candidate for State House seat #180. In our interview he touches up on state's rights, nullification, tea party values, and fiscal responsibility. Please listen to this short 15 minute interview here.

To see more about Jason Spencer view his web page at www.spencer4georgia.com

Interview with a Christian Constitutionalist

2010-05-08T19:26:00.000-04:00

Hall County, Georgia -

I interviewed Jimmy Norman today at his home in Hall County. Jimmy is running for State Senate, district 49; he is also the founder of "Georgians for Constitutional Government".

Jimmy is happily married to Pam Norman, and they both have a passion for reading. As you will see in our interview, they have many, many books. Pam told me they also have another three book shelves on the second floor of their home! In fact, Atlas Shrugged (a book all three of us have read, written by Ayn Rand) was only the 3rd largest book Jimmy has ever read! (the book is about 1012 pages long!). It fell behind The Bible, and the Fall of the Third Reich, in that order.

And all that reading paid off, the Norman's are very knowledgeable on the constitution, liberty, and personal property rights! It's too bad Jimmy is only running for State Senate, he would make a fine governor.

Please, enjoy our interview and do not forget to vote Jimmy Norman on May 11th!

How Did Our Economy Become so Fragile That a Typo Causes Market Failure?

2010-05-06T21:25:00.000-04:00

Really? How is that?

Apparently the stock market plunged today after a trading glitch, reports CNN. This is indicative of a government run economy. I am not blaming the government for this particular crash, but it shows how deadly a lie can be.

The trading glitch was like a lie, it was a typo, a mistake. It was the wrong Proctor and Gamble price going across the board which apparently kicked in automated trading software. The software sold, sold, and sold causing the market to plunge.

How is that indicative of a government run economy? Well, our economy is a lie. The money isn't real, it is not backed up by anything tangible. The federal reserve legally counterfeits money and pumps it into the system through banks. Or we "loan" that money to the government to pump into failing companies, who can do nothing but fail. *cough* General Motors *cough*, or pump it into failed states such as Greece.

Remember the housing bubble? Federal Reserve again. Messing with interest rates on homes, the government guaranteeing bad loans for people who couldn't afford them. The government has a bad history of telling us to trust certain markets, to believe in their "cash for clunkers" programs and their stimulus packages.Then we act surprised when the carpet is yanked from beneath us!

No, I don't know really how the bizarre turn of events caused the market to plunge; Not anymore then I have stated. But, our economy is a sham. It's fake, and it's only security is the "Full Faith and Credit of the United States". Well, we lack faith in the United States and she's out of credit.

Doesn't give you comfy feelings about our financial future, does it?

Q & A:

2010-05-06T02:52:00.000-04:00

The following is a Question and Answer session I had with one of the followers of my blog. For security reasons I won't post his/her name. This person asked such good questions I had to share them with you all! Oh, and you will see the name Friedman several times. That would be a Dr. Friedman, whom was one of our Political Science professors in college.

Q: Are you voting for Bert Loftman in the special (I saw him at a GOP dawson meeting a couple months back and I think he said he was running)? Do you support his fair tax ideas (what I remember him talking most about)? And do you really think he won't vote with the party as well? You made a good point in your blog- Friedman seemed to stress that loss of party power was a bad thing, which maybe in some ways it is and others not.

A: Yes I am voting for Bert Loftman in the special election, although we have several good candidates, as well as several poor candidates. I absolutely support his Fair Tax ideas, it's the most sound plan I have heard in a long time to bring a just tax system back to America that also allows us to save the money we earn.

I know Bert fairly well, I have been campaigning with him for several months. I know he is def. not a party candidate. He left the Republican party to join the Libertarians for some time after Bush's first year in office. Now, he is back with the party because he believes people like us will bring the party back to it's conservative roots.

I don't believe the loss of party power is a bad thing, except for the number of progressives and moderates whom vote in the primary during big elections, however I am afraid their has always been progressives in the party even before the parties lost their power. At least we have the opportunity with open primaries and decentralized control of the party system to keep our party on the right track. Essentially, I don't trust any political entity that I don't have a voice - or - a vote in.

Q: I was wondering about the Fair Tax because of Friedman's comments about how people are happy with the income tax and about it's effects on different classes and economy. It does seem like a better option though, the exports tax caught my interest as well. If you have time, I was looking at the 16th amendment and was wondering if you have any opinion about it? I read some of the commentary on wikipedia,not the best place I know, and it seems to make the fair tax look more appealing I guess.

A: People grow accustom to things and adapt. The income tax was put into place long before our generation, and we have known nothing else. I don't think anyone is truly happy with the income tax, basically you commit about 20-30% of your working time to the government. Who could be happy about that? The fair tax will put a rather large 20% sales tax on goods, but you get a reimbursement check for necessities such as clothes and food, and what you don't spend you keep. Part of the reason credit debt is such a problem in our country is because the money we could be saving in a savings account is automatically taken in taxes before we even get it.

I believe the 16th amendment contradicts the will of the founding fathers, the spirit of the constitution, and our individual liberty. I believe it should absolutely be repealed. When it was proposed the state legislatures whom ratified were told that it (the income tax) would only be on the rich, and we all know it is easy to pick on the rich! Now today we are all taxed, and that tax is only going to get worse.

The fair tax also acts as a check on the government, if the government starts spending money or raising taxes in a way that the people don't like, they stop spending, thus revenue is not collected by the government.

With the income tax if the government decides to raise taxes or spend more money we can't do much more then vote out the people who did it to us, and by then it is usually too late. They will take our money whether we want them to or not!

9th District Candidates Survey Answers

2010-05-05T11:17:00.000-04:00

Before I reveal the results of the survey I would like to explain why I chose the questions as I did. First, you will notice most of my questions are to whether or not the candidates would vote for certain bills. This is something I have not seen in too many candidate surveys, and I feel it would show more about our candidates to put actual bills in the survey. Voting on bills is the way most congressmen and women make changes in Washington. Talking about things they would like to have done doesn't make much of a difference if a bill isn't already being considered.

The first question was on the Federal Reserve Transparency Act which would allow congress to audit the Federal Reserve. This is a very crucial bill because thus far the Federal Reserve has conducted business with little to no oversight. Our Government has always acted with checks and balances, and this organization has little to no checks nor balances.

Second, I ask about the End the Mandate Act, another important bill. It would take away the unconstitutional mandate that says people must by health insurance whether or not they want health insurance. The Government has no right to tell us what we do with our health. If you don't believe me see Article I section 8 of the US Constitution.

The Puerto Rico Democracy Act was a hot topic issue, in which I thought the readers would appreciate seeing on this survey. If anyone watched Glenn Beck recently, he had a nice theory going on about how Democrats were using Puerto Rico to gain support for their amnesty plan. I am undecided about the accurateness to the theory so I will leave it up to you to decide on that.

Fair Tax is, I think, the fastest way to restore wealth and financial security in our country. With the fair tax we are no longer unjustly robbed of our income, and our able to put that money into savings. A lot of people don't understand the Fair Tax and mistakenly think it would make products too costly to purchase, or that we would have 80% sells tax rates. This isn't true, and I don't have time to explain so I will just provide you with a link.

I put the American Clean Energy and Security Act in this survey as kind of a freebie question. No one in their right mind believes in man-made global warming, and I didn't expect any of the candidates to answer "yea" to this. This bill is not only unconstitutional, it will hurt our economy.

The last bill is the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Can you say "Keynesian Economics?" because that is what this is. I imagine some Republicans would actually vote "yea" to this. Not in our district though! More regulation just hurts our economy and protects no one but the big execs on wall street and the congressmen they fund. Any bill that has "Wall Street Reform" in the title, should immediately be shredded. An easy bill for our candidates to say no to.

The last question was about special interest money. I was surprised to see how much money Nathan Deal took from special interest groups. Lobbyist really bother me, because I believe it must be hard to take money from special interest groups and still remain fair and constitutional. Nathan Deal is also well known for his corruption charges, which might have something to say about his money trail.

So, without further ado, the results:(Click Here to View PDF)

Special Thanks to Bert Loftman, Steve Tarvin, and Tom Graves for completing the survey. The result of the survey really shows how great a district we live in, where all of the candidates running have the right understanding of the constitution; something many congressmen lack!

Survey for Candidates of the US Congress 9th District of Georigia

2010-05-04T16:48:00.000-04:00

9th District US Congressional Candidate Survey
Below are several bills that have been recently introduced to the floor of the current session of the US Congress. As a congressman will you vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain to the following?

1. H.R. 1207 – Federal Reserve Transparency Act :________
This bill would repeal special audit protections for the Federal Reserve (31 USC 714 – Sec. 714) and calls for a full Government Accountability Office audit of the central bank to be completed before the end of 2010 and submitted to Congress for review.

2. H.R. 4995 – End the Mandate Act: __________
To restore the American people's freedom to choose the health insurance that best meets their individual needs by repealing the mandate that all Americans obtain government-approved health insurance.

3. H.R.2499 - Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2010: __________
To provide for a federally sanctioned self-determination process for the people of Puerto Rico.

4. H.R.25 - Fair Tax Act of 2009: ________
To promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national sales tax to be administered primarily by the States

5. H.R. 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009:_________
To create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution and transition to a clean energy economy.

6. H.R. 4173 – Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act: _______
This is comprehensive legislation to overhaul regulations in the financial sector. It would establish a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency to regulate products like home mortgages, car loans and credit cards, give the Treasury Department new authority to place non-bank financial firms, like insurance companies into receivership and regulate the over-the-counter derivatives market.

7. In 2008 9th District Representative Nathan Deal accepted about 185,200 dollars in special interest money. How do you feel about taking special interest money and do you plan on accepting any yourself? If you do, what do you consider acceptable special interest money?

Additional Comments:

9th District Candidates respond to H.R. 675

2010-05-04T14:58:00.000-04:00

Things are accelerating in the 9th district race with the special election just around the corner! There are a lot of liberties at stake in congress now. We have already had everything from our light bulbs to our toilet seats regulated.

Right now there is a bill that has been introduced to the floor but not yet voted on. It is called H.R. 675, and can be viewed here. Simply put, this bill would arm Department and Defense workers, and allow them to make arrests with or without a warrant.

I have asked all of the candidates what they would do if this bill came to the floor while they were in office. Here is the responses I have received from the three who replied: Eugene Moon, Steve Tarvin, and Dr. Bert Loftman.

Steve Tarvin:

My first consideration on any bill will be "Is It Constitutional" I will have taken an oath to uphold the constitution. I only read the first few lines and it violates the 4th Amendment. I would rule it not available for my consideration. My vote would be "NO" if it came to a vote.

Dr. Bert Loftman:

We have come to a sad state of affairs when the Department of Defense makes warrantless arrests on the citizens that employ them. I agree with Mr. Tarvin that it violates our 4th Amendment right but what is new. Since 1913, the 16th Amendment calling for an income tax has done the same. If we are to save our country, Americans are going to have to take notice and throw the elected violators of their freedoms out of office.

Eugene Moon:

I also would vote NO! it is a direct violation of the 4th amendment...criminal investigator(is a)very loose term (it)could enable DFACS to have arrest powers.

Bobby Reese:

First, I always look at the author of a bill when considering it's merits. You can tell a lot about a bill by the author. Rep Bob Filner is a lib dem from Calif. He also had zero co-sponsors for H.R.675. He votes 97% of the time with his party. Our Government is precluded in the constitution from forming a national police force as a check and balance against their corruptible power. NO is my vote, due to violations of our constituion and common sense!

All three of these answers were very good. In fact Eugene jokingly suggested Lee Hawkins would probably be in favor of this bill. I tried to reach Lee Hawkins for comment, but he was not available. I hope the rest of America gets this message, to stick to the constitution!

2012

2010-02-16T15:03:00.000-05:00

Some of you know, and some of you don't know that I am writing a paper on the effects of the Bush and Obama stimuli packages on our long run economy. I thought I would sneak a little information for you.

On Feburary 11th of this year a Senate Budget committee witnessed testimoney on the effects of current spending and the national debt. They made this analysis:

"...(in a baseline projection) the debt passes 100 percent of the GDP in the late 2020s and 200 percent shortly after 2040 under the very conservative assumption that interest rates and the rate of economic growth remain constant in the face of rapidly growing deficits."' - Rudolph Penner, Urban Institute, Senate Budget Committee Testimony

The debt is projected to surpass our GDP by 200%?! and that will be the current debt too, folks, not today's GDP. They contribute the three most problematic expenditures to be Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid which make up 70% of this years tax revenue. (Surprise anyone?)

They find that from 2009 to 2020, the (nations) debt in public hands rises from 53 to 72%, and its interest quadruples! In those market conditions the Senate Budget committee believes the economy WILL FAIL.

In conclusion, Penner suggested that in order to prevent this, congress HAS to in-act fiscal responsibility, and curb spending by no later then the year 2012 (eerie, huh? maybe THAT is what the Mayan's meant). They also suggested that the budget process is too short sighted, and long-term budgeting should be used. (Geez, isn't Keynesian economics all about short term spending for long term growth?)

So the left says that conservatives are always trying "scare" tactics to stop welfare policies and other big government spending...I read this report and think, "shouldn't we be scared?"

To read the testimony, click here

Books That Should Never Have Been Written

2010-02-07T20:00:00.000-05:00

I am a book worm; I spend hours in Barnes and Nobles trying to find the perfect book. Part of my frustration is stated elegantly by the well known and loved author Ayn Rand said that she only set out to write great books. (paraphrased from her introduction to the fountain head). Unfortunately they don't! And as always the first place I start to look also has half the garbage; The Bestsellers List!

To my amazement the number 1 book on the list shocked me the most! The Politician, which is about the John Edwards scandal mostly. I haven't read the book, but I have heard it is accurate. But lets face it, its biased which makes it pretty much worthless to me (As a polisci major I don't care for propaganda from either side). I don't see why people care to waste their time reading about a man who never had a chance to be president even before the scandal. Ok, the guy destroyed his life, big deal. If this were a book about the Clinton scandal it be more interesting, but not much. Seriously? This book really sold more copies then James Patterson's new book?

Number two on my list of books that should not have been written is called Game Change (number six on the bestseller). Wait did i say number two? This should be number one. Supposbly this book explains the Barack Obama "miracle"of how he won the election. The author claims two absurd things A) the book is unbiased. B) The book claims that the election was close. Absurd! A quick glance through the book shows that the author loves Obama, hates the Clinton's, and considered McCain and especially Sarah Palin to be a joke. I doubt very much that this book is nothing more than a lengthy love letter to Obama. I suggest Mr. Heilemann save us our time, cut out the fat, and keep it a private letter to Obama. He could possibly even paste a few hearts on it!

Number three on my list is On The Brink by Henry M. Paulson (number 41 on the bestseller). The purpose of the book was to give a first hand account of how the fed fought to stop a global financial collapse. The book that should have been written was "How The Fed is Destroying the Economy" a first hand account. Anything that Ben Bernake and his big government cronies write, throw it straight in the garbage. They preach voodoo economics and the magic of inflation and deficits. Instead of reading this pro-fed mumbo-jumbo I highly suggest End the Fed by Ron Paul.

That is this weeks edition of books that should not have been written! Hope you enjoyed it!