What Senator Coburn said...

I yield the floor to the Honorable Senator Coburn. It's nice to know someone is hearing us...

Subject: Senator Coburn's remarks regarding spending cuts

Date: Thu,

17 Feb 2011 19:20:01 -0700

Sen. Tom Coburn is an MD (general practitioner) and Senator from

Oklahoma.

----------------------------------------------------------------

"We are going in exactly the wrong direction. We ought to be standing

on the principles that made this country great. There ought to be a

review of every program in the Federal Government that is not

effective, that is not efficient, that is wasteful or fraudulent, and

we ought to get rid of it right now. We ought to say, you're gone, to

be able to pay for a real stimulus plan that might, in fact, have some

impact.

I would be remiss if I didn't remind everybody that next week we are

going to hear from the Obama administration wanting another $500

billion. Outside of this, they are going to want another $500 billion

to handle the banking system. Still not fixing the real disease - the

pneumonia - we are going to treat the fever or treat the cough, but we

are not going to treat the real disease.

Until we treat the real disease, this is pure waste. It is worse than

pure waste.. It is morally reprehensible, because it steals the

future of the next two generations.

I am going to wind up here and finish, but I wanted to spend some time

to make sure the American people know what is in this bill. I think

once they know what is in this bill, they would reject it out of hand.

Let me read for my colleagues some of the things that are in this bill...

The biggest earmark in history is in this bill. There is $2 billion

in this bill to build a coal plant with zero emissions. That would be

great, maybe, if we had the technology, but the greatest brains in the

world sitting at MIT say we don't have the technology yet to do that.

Why would we build a $2 billion power plant we don't have the

technology for that we know will come back and ask for another $2

billion and another $2 billion and another $2 billion when we could

build a demonstration project that might cost $150 million or $200

million? There is nothing wrong with having coal-fired plants that

don't produce pollution; I am not against that. Even the Washington

Post said the technology isn't there. It is a boondoggle. Why would

we do that?

Tonight, we eliminated a $246 million payback for the large movie

studios in Hollywood .

We are going to spend $88 Million to study whether we ought to buy a

new ice breaker for the Coast Guard. You know what. The Coast Guard

needs a new ice breaker. Why do we need to spend $88 million? They

have two ice breakers now that they could retrofit and fix and come up

with equivalent to what they needed to and not spend the $1 billion

they are going to come back and ask for, for another ice breaker, so

why would we spend $88 million studying that?

We are going to spend $448 million to build the Department of Homeland

Security a new building. We have $1.3 trillion worth of empty

buildings right now, and because it has been blocked in Congress we

can't sell them, we can't raze them, we can't do anything, but we are

going to spend money on a new building here in Washington .

We are going to spend another $248 million for new furniture for that

building; a quarter of a billion dollars for new furniture. What

about the furniture the Department of Homeland Security has now?

These are tough times. Should we be buying new furniture? How about

using what we have? That is what a family would do. They would use

what they have. They wouldn't go out and spend $248 million on

furniture.

How about buying $600 million worth of hybrid vehicles? Do you know

what I would say? Right now times are tough; I would rather Americans

have new cars than Federal employees have new cars. What is wrong

with the cars we have? Dumping $600 million worth of used vehicles on

the used vehicle market right now is one of the worst things we could

do. Instead, we are going to spend $600 million buying new cars for

Federal employees..

There is $400 million in here to prevent STDs .. I have a lot of

experience with that. I have delivered 4,000 babies.. We don't need

to spend $400 million on STDs. What we need to do is properly educate

about the infection rates and the effectiveness of methods of

prevention. That doesn't take a penny more. You can write that on

one piece of paper and teach every kid in this country, but we don't

need to spend $400 million on it. It is not a priority.

How about $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs? That might

even be somewhat stimulative. New sewers. That might create jobs.

How about $150 million for a Smithsonian museum? Tell me how that

helps get us out of a recession. Tell me how that is a priority.

Would the average American think that is a priority that we ought to

be mortgaging our kids' future to spend another $150 million at the

Smithsonian?

How about $1 billion for the 2010 census? So everybody knows, the

census is so poorly managed that the census this year is going to cost

twice what it cost 10 years ago, and we wasted $800 million on a

contract because it was no-bid that didn't perform. Nobody got fired,

no competitive bidding, and we blew $800 million.

We have $75 million for smoking cessation activities, which probably

is a great idea, but we just passed a bill-the SCHIP bill - that we

need to get 21 million more Americans smoking (and paying tobacco

taxes) to be able to pay for that bill. That doesn't make sense.

How about $200 million for public computer centers at community

colleges? Since when is a community college in my State a recipient

of Federal largesse? Is that our responsibility? I mean, did we talk

with Dell and Hewlett-Packard and say, How do we make you all do

better? Is there not a market force that could make that better?

Will we actually buy on a true competitive bid? No, because there is

nothing that requires competitive bidding in anything in this bill.

There is nothing that requires it. It is one of the things President

Obama said he was going to mandate the Federal Government, but there

is no competitive bidding in this bill at all.

We have $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas. Well, that will

put 10 or 15 people to work. Is that a priority for us right now?

There is $6 billion to turn Federal buildings into green buildings.

That is a priority, versus somebody getting a job outside of

Washington , a job that actually produces something, that actually

increases wealth?

How about $500 million for State and local fire stations? Where do

you find in the Constitution us paying for local fire stations within

our (the federal government) realm of prerogatives? None of it is

competitively bid - not a grant program.

Next is $1.2 billion for youth activities. Who does that employ?

What does that mean?

How about $88 million for renovating the public health service

building? You know, if we could sell half of the $1.3 trillion worth

of properties we have, we could take care of every Federal building

requirement and backlog we have..

Then there's $412 million for CDC buildings and property. We spent

billions on a new center and headquarters for CDC. Is that a

priority? Building another Government building instead of - if we are

going to spend $412 million on building buildings, let's build one

that will produce something, one that will give us something.

How about $850 million for that most "efficient'' Amtrak that hasn't

made any money since 1976 and continues to receive $2 billion or $3

billion a year in subsidies?

Here is one of my favorites: $75 million to construct a new "security

training'' facility for State Department security officers. We have

four other facilities already available to train them. But it is not

theirs. They want theirs. By the way, it is going to be in West

Virginia ... I wonder how that got there? So we are going to build a

new training facility that duplicates four others that we already have

that could easily do what we need to do. But because we have a

stimulus package, we are going to add in oink pork.

How about $200 million in funding for a lease - not buying, but a

lease of alternative energy vehicles on military installations?

We are going to bail out the States on Medicaid. Total all of the

health programs in this, and we are going to transfer $150 billion out

of the private sector and we are going to move it to the Federal

Government. You talk about back dooring national health care! Henry

Waxman has to be smiling big today. He wants a single-payer

Government-run health care system. We are going to move another $150

billion to the Federal Government from the private sector.

We are going to eliminate fees on loans from the Small Business

Administration. You know what that does? That pushes productive

capital to unproductive projects. It is exactly the wrong thing to

do.

Then there is $160 million to the Job Corps Program - But not for 20

jobs and not to put more people in the Job Corps but to construct or

repair buildings.

We are going to spend $524 million for information technology upgrades

that the Appropriations Committee claims will create 388 jobs. If you

do the math on that, that is $1.5 million a job. Don't you love the

efficiency of Washington thinking?

We are going to create $79 billion in additional money for the States,

a "slush fund,'' to bail out States and provide millions of dollars

for education costs. How many of you think that will ever go away?

Once the State education programs get $79 billion over 2 years, do you

think that will ever go away? They cry and hue of taking our money

away - even though it was a stimulus and supposed to be limited, it

will never go away. So we will continue putting that forward until

our kids have grandkids of their own.

There is about $47 billion for a variety of energy programs that are

primarily focused on renewable energy. I am fine with spending that.

But we ought to get something for it. There ought to be measurable

results. There are none. It is pie in the sky, saying we will throw

some money at it.

Let me conclude by saying we are at a seminal moment in our country.

We will either start living within the confines of realism and

responsibility or we will blow it and we will create the downfall of

the greatest Nation that ever lived. This bill is the start of that

downfall. To abandon a market-oriented society and transfer it to a

Soviet-style, government-centered, bureaucratic-run and mandated

program, that is the thing that will put the stake in the heart of

freedom in this country.

I hope the American people know what is in this bill. I am doing

everything I can to make sure they know. But more important, I hope

somebody is listening who will treat the pneumonia we are faced with

today, which is the housing and mortgage markets. It doesn't matter

how much money we spend in this bill. It is doomed to failure unless

we fix that problem first. Failing that, we will go down in history

as the Congress that undermined the future and vitality of this

country. Let it not be so."

PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO EVERYBODY YOU KNOW! THANKS!!!

http://coburn.senate.gov/public/http://coburn.senate.gov/public/ >

Wars and Rumors of More War

Does anyone besides me remember Obama’s campaign promise to be out of Iraq within 7 months of becoming President? It’s now been 27 months.

Does anyone else remember Obama saying we had to have a clear cut strategy in Afghanistan and an exit strategy? And that if Pakistan did not help in subduing terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda, we’d have to “take them out”? (That was in a Presidential debate with McCain.)

Now, Libya.

Where is the outrage among the people who condemned “Bush’s War”? Where are the accusations of Obama lied?

While President, Obama has played over 100 rounds of golf, vacationed in Montana, Hawaii, India, and now Rio.

War on 3 fronts, illegal immigrants by the thousands, drug cartels shooting American agents, an economy in crisis, a tsunami and nuclear state of emergency in Japan, crude oil over $100/barrel, national health care judged unconstitutional, Guantanamo is as open as ever, unemployment and underemployment are over 20%, 1 of 5 homes is in foreclosure, the Feds cannot agree upon an economic solution given the massive debt held and the imminent danger of hyper-inflation, and our President flies off to Rio...where ironically, he’s greeted by protestors who rightly identify the hypocrisy of the man who condemned interfering with the Middle East, and is now interfering with the Middle East.

What Would You Do?

Last night, I watched a movie entitled Defiance, produced in 2008. I had never heard of this movie, but was surfing through what was immediately available for streaming and wanted to see something with Daniel Craig (the most recent James Bond).

The story is based on the true story of the Bielski brothers who lived in Eastern Europe at the time of Nazi occupation. Jews were being rounded up and kept in the ghettoes until any usefulness had vanished, or as more availability of death camps made it possible to transport them to their maker. The Bielskis were Jewish, lived in a rural setting, and though many of their family were killed, they escaped and fled to the forest in hopes of survival. There, they encountered more Jews who had made it out, but had little hope of survival against their human adversaries, starvation, exposure and disease.

What is striking in this movie is the decision of many Jews to face their ultimate plight and remain in the ghetto. Although the rumors run thick of their ultimate fate, there is no hard proof, and thus, many choose to stick it out and hope for the best. Those who decide to escape then faced the decision of whether they were really up to the task of actually taking the life of another human. The vast majority were city people, devout in their faith, peaceful, people who avoided confrontation, and relied on God to protect them. For me, it was an excellent movie, and I’d highly recommend it.

Back in the day when I taught American History, when considering WWII, students would inevitably ask why the Jews didn’t rise us against their captors when it became obvious that terror faced them at the concentration camps. “Why didn’t they rush the guards as a group? If I had been there,” students would say, “I wouldn’t have gone along like a bunch of sheep to the slaughter!” (Or something to that effect.)

I couldn’t help think about what Conservatives in America would do today. Most Conservatives are law-abiding citizens who obey the letter and spirit of the law...even when we think it unfair. We don’t bring attention to ourselves. Getting to any type of protest rally is difficult because we are involved in the industriousness of a career, on tending to the needs of our children, or often ministering to the needs of others. We have great faith in the American system and really have a hard time believing that the growth of socialism we are witnessing right now won’t vanish as a temporary flash-in-the-pan, and matters will correct themselves. They always do, right?

If we’ve attended a protest, such as a Tea Party Rally, we note that they are peaceful, polite, and attended by people that we’d like to have as neighbors. When liberals come and attempt to agitate, we respectfully allow them to intermingle and state their opposition. If the police ask us to move off the street for the sake of traffic, we do so. If shop owners insist on not parking in their private parking lot, we move our cars. We tend to stand along the street, holding up signs which state our sentiments, smile and wave at passing cars - some of which carry occupants spitting, cursing, giving us the one-finger salute, and telling us that we’re a bunch of wackos. At the conclusion, we clean up, and no trash is left.

Have you seen any footage of the demonstrations in Wisconsin? Probably not if you don’t watch FOX. There, protestors have stormed the Capitol, threatened the lives of conservative legislators and prevented them from getting in the building - using intimidation as a means to get their way. The place is strewn with litter. The protestors verbally abuse and suggest that the Governor should be killed. One gets the sense that should anyone voice opposition, they would be summarily beaten by the mob.

Interestingly, it is the members of the Tea Party Movement who Janet Napolitano suggested needed to be on the terrorist watch list as a threat to Homeland Security.

Back to the Jews. Hitler blamed the Jews as being the root of Germany’s economic problems. He led a country trying to emerge out of their Depression into believing that Jews were prosperous due to their parasitic practices against the German people. By eradicating the Jews, Germany would be able to return to prosperity.

President Obama has openly ridiculed the Tea Party Movement. In one speech, he assumed the posture of a conniving, Scrooge-like person and talked about how the members of this movement “wave their little tea bags around.” He never once supported the right to express views based on the First Amendment, nor commended the group for their control and positive role-modeling for others - especially the youth - on how to conduct a peaceful protest. No, he belittled the movement. On the other hand, I haven’t heard him criticize the Wisconsin protests, just as he never spoke out against the thuggery of the SEIU’s actions of intimidating voters to stay away from the polls, and actually assaulting dissenters in the crowds.

So, have you ever projected what you would do, if suddenly, you were singled out as the enemy? The mainstream media is in the liberal camp. Those who are “neutral” are inundated with the message of how negative, divisive, selfish, self-righteous you are (if you are a real Conservative), and the source of the country’s problems. If there is an economic collapse in this country, and I truly believe President Obama wants to collapse capitalism, people will eagerly look to blame a group. If the Liberals get their way and a version of “Fairness in Broadcasting” becomes law, FOX news will disappear in a heartbeat, and we’ll be left with networks who do not question the President.

The Jews had to decide whether they would go down fighting, or continue to act as law-abiding citizens, trusting the government despite the signs of the times, and exercise their faith that God would not allow this to happen to His chosen people. The non-Jews had to choose between actively turning in their Jewish neighbors, pretending they didn’t know what was going on, or hiding and assisting the fugitives. In playing “what if” where would you fit in?

Unions Have Ruined Public Education

Education in our country must be re-vamped. The best way to do this is to provide citizens with a non-monopolistic choice, allowing taxpayers to support educational entities which provide superior instruction.

I spent 30 years teaching in the classrooms of public schools. There, I worked with many committed teachers who were devoted to providing excellent instruction. However, there were many among the ranks who had neither the ability nor desire to be an effective teacher. However, the NEA and local unions protected these liabilities, and administrators were powerless to get the “dead wood” out. Who suffered? First the children, then the community, and ultimately, the country at large. At one time, unions protected employees from abusive employers; now they’ve grown into political monsters that are out of control. They control the teachers’ contributions to the point where a teacher has no say in the union whatsoever, if that teacher elects to have his “political contribution” withheld from his dues. The unions are dominated by liberals who promise continued pay raises irrespective of the economy, increased benefits, and increased academic freedom. As a result, there is virtually no power of community standards which can touch the local public school.

Ironically, whether or not a community agrees with the ideology of the liberal movement, they end up supporting it. How? Well, the payroll of a public school is funded by the taxpayers. In most states, unions are a closed shop proposition - the employee has no choice and must belong. A significant percentage of the employee’s dues to the union end up as political contributions to the NEA. - one of the biggest and most liberal unions in the country. The NEA backs liberal candidates 100% of the time. It’s a racket!

Leftist agendas are now firmly entrenched in the entire educational model. College students seeking to become future teachers are indoctrinated as to what is “open minded” and politically correct. As a matter of course, tomorrow’s teachers learn curricula which presumes that global warming caused by human technology is a FACT. That evolution is a FACT, and that evaluation of concepts such as “intelligent design” (such as Creation) are not only baseless and mythical, they MUST be excluded due to “Separation of Church and State.” Instruction in literature is increasingly based on stories which attack traditional values. Geography focuses less on knowledge of traditional geographical concepts, but more on an agenda of globalization.

Because of budgetary considerations, when teacher openings exist, who gets hired? Thanks to the union pay scale, teachers on the bottom of the pay scale - those fresh out of college. The ranks quickly fill with freshly indoctrinated teachers eager to push their college-learned agenda down the throats of their students. They have no experience nor wisdom. Most have no children of their own, and consequently cannot understand the angst of parents feeling helpless over what goes on in the classroom. Most have never held a job in the private sector, and sadly, are completely out of touch that their salary comes from the taxpayer. Oh, but they have energy. When a staff turnover happens quickly, the result is the ranks fill with rookie teachers, too arrogant to listen to the older and fewer mentors, anxious to fill coaching and advising positions to beef up their paycheck, but often having no work ethic in terms of working on their profession a minute past 3:00; after all, the contract doesn’t require it.

In defense of the public schools, unlike private businesses, they are not allowed to choose the “workers” by whom they are measured. In other words, school success is now measured by standardized test scores, drop-out rates, and graduation numbers. If you were an employer of a private company, you’d be very selective about which “employees” you accepted to help your company reach the top. However, public schools do not get to turn away students who will ultimately accomplish the results by which the school is measured. Public schools take on drug addicts, children who are abused and neglected, criminals, the learning disabled, the illegal immigrant, and more. Based on the community being considered, the resultant scores, drop-out rates, and graduation numbers might have very little to do with the quality of instruction.

Additionally, the pressure to improve the school’s standing can, and does, lead to dishonest practices within the school. In my community, a black athlete attended fewer than two years of high school, and at the time of what would be his senior year, was allowed to take tests for the classes he missed - put in a room where he used his cell phone to access Cha-Cha (an online answer-providing service), and ultimately the district falsified his transcript by adding classes he never attended - all so this minority kid could graduate and not be a drop-out statistic. (I know this because his parents are some of our closest friends. They completely opposed the school is this action but were ignored.)

Originally, public education in our country existed to teach children to read, and read primarily the Bible. Anyone can look at the contents of a hornbook if they doubt this. Harvard University began as a college to prepare pastors. And why read the Bible? Because it served to provide insight as to the values embraced by the people, thus acting as a common “cement” for our country.

Today? Today we read news stories of a boy in elementary school being suspended and required to get counseling because he told a friend that he would pray for his problems. Today, my children are required to sit in a “health” class wherein all students are expected to be sexually active, and learn the mechanics of homosexuality. Today, learning about the Constitution is ignored or marginalized. Today, most students can tell you about Martin Luther King, Jr, but have never heard of James Madison, and if they know who wrote the Declaration of Independency, it’s probably that white slave owner who raped Sally Hemings. Today, they know nothing of Latin, but are encouraged to take Spanish so they can show sensitivity to illegals. Today, they learn that diversity is good and that there are no real right answers to moral problems; that to express any value as worthy is paramount to intolerance, (and thereby show intolerance for opposing viewpoints other than those espoused by liberalism).

For those of us who truly believe that competition in the marketplace leads to excellence in product, why do we continue to give public education a monopoly? Please point to any historical example of a monopoly that provided the best product at the best price. Granted, parents may choose to homeschool or send their children to existing private schools, but their taxes are monopolistically fed to the public school system.

Opponents of the voucher argue that this would cause a flight of the upper mild class families and leave the “at-risk” children in public schools. Further, private schools are not held to the same standards in terms of testing. As to the first point, giving the opportunity to make money, there would be scores of schools cropping up with the niche in mind to address “at-risk” kids. If parents were neglectful and didn’t capitalize on the opportunity, perhaps it would be time to evaluate the appropriateness of trying to teach a drug baby about metaphor and simile, and hoping that he’ll be able to pass geometry. Maybe bringing in illegal aliens who had a third grade education in Mexico and putting him in an 8th grade English class studying persuasive writing is a disservice to everyone. Perhaps, some of these students need to be given a break from the template of going to college and given a meaningful education on being a valuable citizen with work ethics, personal economics, and societal needed workers among the blue collar ranks. There is no shame in that; society cannot exist without those workers!

Much of the reason our society is in shambles is due to the educational system - the very one we hope will keep our country moving in the right direction. By allowing liberalism to control our public school system, we are guaranteed a society which fosters liberalism, where competition is a bad thing, religion is a bad thing, marriage is a bad thing, the free market is a bad thing, and the Founding Fathers - well they were all bad as well. Brainwash the children, and you can be guaranteed of a future similar to what we see among generations of welfare and entitlement recipients. It becomes self-perpetuating.

In 2012, Conservatives face an opportunity to take the Senate and potentially the Oval Office. If there was any one time in my lifetime I’d say we are ripe for educational overhaul, it is now. Let the NEA dominate the public schools. BUT, Congress (and hopefully the Executive branch) need to push through tax allowances for parents to take their children elsewhere.

When I taught in Central Washington (prior to 2007), I wanted to impress upon the students how much it cost the taxpayers to pay for their education. I spoke with the district financial people to get specifics. By the time all money was factored in and averaged, it ran a little over $7,000 per student - in Central Washington! Why should a family who chooses to have their child educated in other than a public school not be allotted that money, by way of a voucher, or other such mechanism? If taxpayers had access to that money to spend on a school of their choosing, 1) private schools would be springing up right and left, 2) there would be an exodus of previous captive patrons, and 3) public schools would be forced to become competitive or become a holding cell for those who would not be accepted nor tolerated elsewhere.

And that’s the primordial fear among public school teachers. Their argument is that only the at-risk children, who did not have an advocate would remain, and that would be a grave disparity among the haves and have nots. My snide question in response would be, “Why would it? Wouldn’t those children have the BEST teachers and smaller class sizes?” But let’s assume that argument is valid. Wouldn’t that force our society to deal with the root issues of “at-risk.” I mean, is it possible that perhaps a mother and father in a stable home makes for a stable society? Or could it be that values instilled through faith in God make sense for a cohesive and law-abiding civilization? Might it be that fostering homosexuality and promiscuity has no place in the classroom? Maybe a place of learning does not tolerate in-class texting, profanity, and a blatant disregard and disrespect for authority.

It is my belief that focusing on school choice is critical in 2012. The tactic should not be to demonize public schools (even though that is the temptation). In the heart of this Tea Party phenomenon, people know that iron sharpens iron. Competition produces a better product. People who are allowed to take their children to the educational source of their choosing will set the direction of the marketplace, and schools will truly reflect the desires of the American people as opposed to the dictates of the liberal university system.

Consequently, I implore you to rally this cry. The time is ripe, and the opportunity should not be wasted.

Should a Deranged Person Determine Your Rights?

The tragedy in Tucson rocked the nation and, within a day, the talking heads were addressing gun control. I am so sorry that a member of Congress was shot down, as was a 9 year old innocent girl, with 6 dead and 14 wounded. Their only mistake? Participating in being a citizen - actively embracing the opportunity and right to meet with a representative on the streets of Arizona. What a travesty.

During my lifetime, I witnessed (on television) the assassination of John F. Kennedy. I was sorry it happened. I was also sorry for the killings, shootings or attempts on the lives of Robert Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, James Brady, etc.

Each and every time, I was sorry it happened. But each and every time, we recognized, as a country, the acts were carried out by a fringe element.

Now, in the wake of schizophrenic behavior conducted by a deranged individual, the talking heads are sounding the alarm concerning gun control.

On 9/11, Islamic terrorists slammed three airplanes into pre-determined targets, while a fourth catastrophe was avoided thanks to the brave actions of a few on United Flight 93. Since that time, I have not heard anyone suggesting that the public stop being allowed to fly on airlines as the vessel might be used to commit a horrific act. Nor have I heard serious consideration that perhaps Islam not be allowed in the United States, as beliefs might be used to justify acts of terrorism.

Most of the gang activity in the United States is associated with people of African American descent or those of Latino descent. To my knowledge, there is no credible movement advocating that African Americans or Latinos be regulated as a population at large because of their apparent danger to society.

Drunk drivers usually use a car. How many of you are willing to give up your car when an idiot drinks, drives, and kills innocent people. Cars are also used for car bombings. Where is the clamoring for car regulation due to these acts?

Every instance of rape I’ve heard of, involves using a certain male organ. I’m all for rapists being castrated, but I’m not in favor of giving up my own personal organs. (Although, I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the gals on The View would advocate it.)

This is not to minimize the atrocity. People lost their parents, a parent lost their innocent 9 year old daughter, the country lost a Representative to Congress. This is horrific. So now, deal with the criminal involved in a forceful way. Forget rehabilitation. Make an example for the rest of society. Consider giving the schools which observe the developing problem the teeth to actually do something about it. Following these types of acts, everybody is wondering, “How did this guy go undetected?” I’ll bet you serious money there is a long paper trail of distressing observations from those in Jared Loughner’s path.

Crimes and criminals have been, and should be, considered as individual actions. A person, regardless of his race, creed or color, should be help responsible for his or her actions. Didn’t we learn this from our historical blight of Japanese internment?

Why is it that when some idiots in society claim the Holocaust never occurred, we don’t talk about regulating speech? Or when an obviously guilty person like OJ Simpson is acquitted, we don’t insist on eliminating double indemnity? When a crowd of gays marching across the Bay Bridge in California shuts down traffic, we’re not demanding that the right to assemble is removed? How about when it’s determined that we decide as a nation that we can’t stomach waterboarding known terrorists - are people demanding to eliminate the 8th Amendment which forbids cruel and unusual punishments. What’s that? Did you say those are not endangering society? Pretending the holocaust was a hoax, allowing murderers to go free, promoting a lifestyle that propagates AIDS/HIV, and allowing terrorists to protect their networks - well, yes, those things are definitely endangering America.

The Second Amendment was included within the Constitution immediately following the right to enjoy freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition. The right of the public to maintain arms was placed before search and seizure, trial by jury, and even double indemnity. The Framers of our nation realized, from experience, that the people must have the ability to rise up against a corrupt government. If you don’t believe this, simply read the Declaration of Independence. This fact is beyond dispute.

Those who commit crimes with a gun should pay the price - dearly, and perhaps with something that many in this country oppose - the death penalty. Elements of society who take the rights and life of others away through criminal activity need to receive harsh punishment - whether shooting a member of Congress, a private individual, the owner of a business - anyone. Instead, too often, we soften the sentence to the point wherein we feel more sorry for the criminal than the victim, and the public is stuck paying the bill for grossly expensive trials, a mockery of the system, and life in maximum security. In exchange for the criminal’s activity, the millions of law abiding citizens face another onslaught of their Constitutional right to bear arms.

Do guns kill people? Absolutely. What percentage of legal citizens owning a gun have committed a crime with it? What percentage of Latinos or Blacks belong to a gang? What percentage of Muslims have flown an airplane into a building of people, or belong to a terrorist cell? I am truly sorry for the shooting which occurred in Arizona on Saturday, 1/09/2011 - carried out by a crazy man. But I am not guilty. Nor are the millions of Americans who embrace their Constitutional right to bear arms.

The rights of an Englishman; the subsequent assumptions of Americans

What follows is the second chapter of the book I'm working on - unedited (please forgive my errors).

The English colonists, like all humans, made certain assumptions. Concerning nationality, they assumed they were Englishmen. As a citizen of the United States, you assume you are an American. In the event our country sent you to live in a land declared to be American soil, you’d still consider yourself to be an American. Elemental.

Since the time of the Magna Carta (1215 A.D.), the rights of an Englishmen grew steadily. Initially these rights applied to lords who bailed out King John’s need for money. In exchange for their financial support, the lords of various vassals demanded codified rights. Included in their list were considerations such as the right to a trial by their peers, the expectation that there must be reliable witnesses if accused of a crime, the right to face their accuser, that property may not be taken from a person without equitable payment, and that fines imposed must be reasonable. In time, increasing numbers of Englishmen came to enjoy these rights.

The Glorious Revolution of 1688 wherein King James II was ousted by William of Orange set the stage in 1689 for the English Bill of Rights. Among these rights, Englishmen were insured their right to speak freely without fear of retribution from the government, Protestants were allowed to bear arms, Parliament could not be dismissed by the king, and petitioning the government for a redress of government would be allowable. Again, over time, more and more citizens of England claimed these rights as their own. Importantly, when an Englishman emigrated to the English colonies, since he was still, technically on English soil, he did not forfeit his rights by leaving England.

Between the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights, both documents addressed the raising of money by the government: taxation. Rather than taxes being arbitrarily determined by the monarch, they were to be determined by a group of prominent men who were selected from among the people. Prominent men became Parliament, and Parliament became the representative body which was selected from among the citizens.

Due to the distances between England and her colonies, it was considered impractical to directly rule from overseas. Thus, colonies were allowed to form local governments to take care of local business. As the colonists were no longer directly impacted by the day to day legislation of Parliament, it seemed inappropriate to have colonists participate in parliamentary matters back in England. Therefore, allowing distant colonies representation in Parliament appeared to be a moot point. On the other hand, government was necessary on a local colonial level. Passing needs and decisions across the Atlantic with a minimum of 12 weeks passage plus consideration of requests proved inefficient. Additionally, it quickly became apparent that those back in Mother England had limited understanding of the harsh realities faced by colonists. Practicality proved that a local government could best address local needs.

Still, the colonists prided themselves in being Englishmen - bearers of the same rights of those enjoyed in England. The values impressed by the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights were considered just as important in the New World as the Old. Colonists expected the right to a trial by their peers, that property could not be removed without due compensation, seeking a redress of grievances from government was allowable, representative lawmakers could not be dismissed by a higher authority, and money to be raised through taxation was to be determined by men who the colonists selected.

Colonial government differed somewhat from one colony to another, but most followed a model of a colonial assembly, a royal governor, and a council. The colonial assembly was determined by eligible voters in the colony - primarily white, landowning men. The royal governor was typically selected by the monarch of England and served as a direct representative of the king. The council was typically selected by the royal governor.

The role of the assembly was to make necessary legislation - including taxation for the needs of the colony. Again, the assembly members were selected by eligible voters. A bill being considered for law moved from the assembly to the council, which served as the upper house. Once approved, the bill slated for law was reviewed by the royal governor who could sign or veto it. Unlike today’s Senate, members of the council were not chosen by the colonists. Additionally, the council served as the high court, as well as advisors to the royal governor. While this system was fraught with snagging points, it served the colonial needs for government, largely for two reasons: 1) laws and taxation were initiated by representative colonists who had been selected by eligible voters, and 2) the colonists insisted on their right to pay the salaries of members of the council and the royal governor from their purses - thereby exercising some level of control over the actions of an otherwise detached group.

Most importantly, English colonists believed that their rights as Englishmen were intact. Despite the sting of not being included in Parliamentary participation, the reason for exclusion seemed to make some sense. And, with the allowance of implementing their rights in local government affairs which directly affected their daily existence, the colonists did not object - yet.

Jumping ahead, when America gained its independence, a Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution. These rights included many of the historical rights promoted by the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights, but also included particulars the Framers and Founders wanted codified as a result of their experience in being bullied by a tyrannical government. For instance, the First Amendment includes the right to seek a redress of grievances from one’s government; that definitely has its roots in both the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights, as does freedom of speech and a jury trial. On the other hand, the Third Amendment is specific in preventing the government to require citizens to house soldiers in a time of peace, or during war unless legislated by Congress; this comes from their history with England’s occupation of the colonies.

In any event, like our colonial forefathers, we assume the rights of Americans apply to us today. (Unfortunately, I wonder how many of the ten most Americans could paraphrase.) We well know that we’re supposed to be allowed to speak freely, worship as we please, assemble with like minded people, contact our representative government and speak our minds, maintain a weapon, not have the government bust into our homes without warrant, have access to a trial of our peers, and...? Well, we know there are more - whatever they say. Most people are acutely aware of their right to freedom of speech, and due to the constant debates over gun ownership, are mindful of the Second Amendment.

To most Americans, the Bill of Rights seems to be of more importance than the Articles of the Constitution - probably the Bill of Rights covers guarantees to the people. The Articles provide the blueprint for government. Because they are somewhat tedious, we don’t pay much attention. And because we don’t pay much attention, the animals are maintaining the zoo.

Legend has it, that upon emerging from the Constitutional Convention in 1787, a woman approached Benjamin Franklin and queried, “What form of government have you given us, Dr. Franklin?” The wise, old Franklin responded, “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.” A republic is that form of government wherein people select representatives from their number who are given an appropriate amount of power to conduct the business of government. It is up to the people to select wisely and then hold the government accountable. If they don’t, our Constitution provides checks and balances to correct the abuse, but you won’t find the instructions for this in the Bill of Rights.

We can assume that the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights are mainstays of our country. But if we only have a vague understanding of the Rights, and next to nothing about the Articles, how can we hope to control the animals running the zoo?

In 1887, Lord Acton, a member of Parliament wrote a letter in which he penned the famous line “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Today’s members of government have the “run of the house,” so to speak. They bank on the masses not paying attention nor understanding the workings of government. Tragically, many of our elected officials are ignorant of the contents of the Constitution. Others hide behind obscure legal maneuvers to enable their actions. Still others brazenly thwart the system, Constitution be damned.

The rights of Americans are under attack. The tactics are sneaky, often tucked deeply into voluminous bills written by lobbyists and not read, nor understood by those we elected. The directive of the Declaration of Independence to form a government which protects the rights of the people has long been forgotten. And we have nobody to blame but ourselves.

Upcoming Book: Part 1

Another book? Yep. Title? I don't know yet. Target audience? Concerned adults who need reminder and encouragement from America's roots in addressing today's broken government.

Many of us feel the need to get back to our roots. Those roots may be a vague understanding in our memory. We are sickened that today's children are not really learning America's legacy.

My upcoming book will attempt to draw parallels between our country's beginnings to today's experience. The Revolutionary experiences are strikingly similar to the occurrences of our current events.

Intuitively, most educated Americans are aware that the past speaks to today's news. However, we may not know how to focus our past on contemporary issues. My upcoming book will seek to bridge that gap.

Over the course of my next several entries, I'll share portions of the book as it develops. I hope you enjoy it! Jim

The Essence of the Declaration of Independence

Once upon a time, most school children could tell you the significance of the July 4, 1776. Not now. A query today would almost assuredly elicit the response, “Fireworks!” If you persisted with a followup question as to why, you’d get a blank stare, or perhaps “To blow things up.”

On April 19, 1775 the “Shot Heard ‘Round the World” reported. It marked the beginning of the Revolutionary War, or the War for Independence as it was known then. Despite the misconception that the American colonists stood united in this cause, people were widely divided in their opinions of a response to British oppression as well as appropriate response. Nonetheless, war had begun.

On May 10, 1775, delegates from the respective colonies were to meet in Philadelphia to strategize next steps. Debates were lengthy. The famous Olive Branch Petition seeking reconciliation was ignored as King George III and the Parliament got word of British troops being pushed back into Boston. Finally, on July 4, 1776, a letter had been approved which would be sent to England as explanation and justification for future actions: the Declaration of Independence.

The delegates felt the need to explain themselves. The letter announced the colonies would dissolve ties with England. From there, the cornerstone argument presented is that of basic beliefs, the subsequent need of government to protect the rights of the citizens, a recognition of the need for government and how that government is to be accountable to the people, the justification for change demanded by the people including the right to abolish the government, a listing of grievances suffered by the colonists under British rule, and a pledge by the signers to adhere to the pledge of the letter, unto separation of property, reputation and life.

Let us first examine the state of basic beliefs.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The signers of the Declaration felt that the beliefs they held dear were based on obvious truth: there is equality among men, God had given men specific rights which could not be removed, and to serve as example, the protection of one’s life, the right to be free, and the right to pursue endeavors which fulfilled a human - these were sacred. The key to this belief hinges on the origin of the rights, i.e. they come from God as a gift. As a God-given gift, the possession of these rights is above the dominion of other humans. That is, my right to life is sacred; you and your buddies cannot, by this set of foundational beliefs, remove it from me.

Based on this cornerstone belief concerning rights, action must be taken to protect the rights of all people:

— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

The Founders created our country on the Foundation that 1) our Rights come from God and therefore cannot be taken away, and 2) the reason for establishing a government is to protect our God-given rights. (All officials in government, and all candidates running for public office should know this basic truth. The reason for the existence of a government, according to the Declaration, is to protect the God-given rights of the people.)

Now, I must ask a fundamental question: What if we become a nation that no longer believes in God - or even, that notwithstanding the existence of God, our rights come from another source. In that event, the Declaration’s basic premise is undermined. According to the Declaration, the existence of rights would be up for debate. For if the rights do not come from God, do they then come from the government? If the government, then what the government gives, the government can take away. Do they come from nature? Within the animal kingdom, species will kill their own, frequently - victory goes to the fittest. Shall we live by the rules of animals? If so, our code of conduct and our very safety is at stake, subject to the whims and capriciousness of others. Let’s move on.

— That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Should a government lose sight of its purpose and begins to destroy our rights, it is your right to change or get rid of it. Did the government give you that right? No! It is basic to your natural God-given rights. If not, then the Founders would not have called this action a right. For the action of changing or abolishing the government supersedes the very prominence of the government itself. The chain of command established is God, then people, then government. Further...

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

Our Forefathers wisely recognized the value of a long-standing government and urged us not to foolishly attempt change it for trendy or temporal reasons. A government which had stood the test of time must have done so by successfully protecting its citizens. However, the Founders also understood that human nature tends towards inaction if the people can tolerate bad government. Reasons are not offered for failure to correct the bad government, so we must search ourselves as to why. Are we too busy? Perhaps we see the effort as insurmountable. Maybe we are not interested in politics. Have we grown “fat” and lazy? Now listen to this...

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism...

Abuse is fairly obvious. Usurpation means taking power that does not belong to me. So when our government becomes abusive of our God-given rights, and begins taking our power away from us, without our consent, and the goal becomes clear that the government is attempting to put the people under a form of total control... then what?

... it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Notice, the right to change or eliminate the bad government is not a privilege - it is a right. Again, if the people have a right which trumps the very existence of their government, the right would, by the Founders’ definition, be a God-given right. At this point, the signers of the Declaration up the ante, so to speak. They pronounce that taking action against a government run amok is more than a God-given right; it is the duty of the people to take action - making change when possible, but abolishing the government if necessary for the welfare and protection of the people. If you believe your country, its people, yourselves, and your children are in danger, this Declaration does not give you the privilege, it is more than even the right... it is your DUTY to provide new Guards for your future security.

Our country was established on the premise that the people are above, and must control a government which fails to protect the God-given rights of the people. Once the people fail to remain vigilant, and expect the government to run itself, the people are in grave danger of tyranny. Active participation by the citizenry is not only expected, it is demanded. Further, having a clear picture of the basic beliefs of our Founders is paramount to maintaining the legacy they created and bequeathed.