Wow, I am impressed they spelled Federalism Correctly!

I have decided that I want to be a writer for the AP! It can't be that hard, nobody double checks your information, nobody complains about anything you do, and you can always operate under the guise of not being biased while actually being biased. It seems that the Associated Press has taken some interest in how the Schiavo Case hurts Federalism. Of course, it is just a jab at President Bush and how they are dragging out some Republicans that disagree in the Congress using their Constitutional authority to try and save someone's life. Before I delve into the article, as is my modus operandi, I will talk a little about Federalism.

Federalism, of course, is an operational term which refers to the delicate balance between the State's power and authority and the powers granted to the Federal government. The reason that Federalism is such an issue is because we have a lot of elected officials who believe that the 10th amendment actually is not as important as the rest of the document. Of course, they also believe that the document is living, breathes on its own and is in need of food and human sacrifice, which begs the question does it have a living will? Must have, because liberals have been trying to kill it for the last 75 years. For education and for the sake of rational discourse, I am going to quote the tenth amendment. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Just so everyone knows, I carry a copy of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence with me wherever I go. I know, my wife thinks I am weird too, however, it is because I love when people say that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is in the Constitution and I am able to do a little re-education. I digress, anyways, the tenth amendment kind of covers the whole Federalism issue, however, the problem always has been that this is the least known amendment and liberals treat it as if it doesn't exist. They can find the right to privacy and abortion on demand in the document, but they cannot READ the tenth amendment! State's have a lot of rights and only have certain things they cannot do on their own, like coin money. Turns out that all these things they cannot do are spelled out in the Constitution. It always surprises the heck out of me when people claim that the forefathers could not foresee what was going to happen in the future. They sure foresaw that the federal government would try to usurp their authority. I am not from the south, but they did have a point during the Civil War and it was not "we love slaves and hate Yankees," although, considering the liberals the Northeast keeps running for national office who can blame them for hating Yankees, it was that the Federal Government should stay in Washington and not try to run the State's business! For anyone who does not think that this is true. Look at the fact that even after the civil war, we had to pass three amendments to get rid of slavery and overt discrimination. So, yes today the Federalism battle is alive and well. Look at the Department of Education for example, talk about redundant and it costs more money for virtually no help to the State financial and educational structure.

Which brings me to the article about how Terri Schiavo's case. It turns out that some Conservative Republicans are complaining about how Federalism is going to be destroyed with Congress and President Bush doing what they did. Well, as I have already stated in previous posts, this would be a good argument if, under the tenth amendment, Congress did not have that authority. However, they do, therefore it is not something that is "reserved to the States" in fact it is "delegated to the United States" Congress by Article III, Section 2. I wish more liberals even Republican liberals cleverly disguised as "Conservative Republicans" by the AP would actually read the Constitution that they claim to defend or protect. Fortunately for us, their dangerous level of thinking has not spread to the courts, nevermind, or the American Universities, nevermind, well at least it hasn't spread to the normal American. We will always fight to protect that fragile document we so endear.

-Cincinnatus

Social (in)Security

My friends at the Heritage Foundation have just put out some interesting numbers on how personal accounts for social security can work. Before I delve into the numbers, however, let's take a look at some of the common arguments against personal accounts.

Number one, private accounts are based on the stock market, the stock market could tank and then where would all the money go? While this is a reasonable complaint (Ok it isn't, since the stock market crash of 1929, the largest reason for the crash, people buying stocks on loans has been well taken care of by legislation, also the chances of there being another crash like it are otherwise slim to none, but I just wanted to humor a liberal or two.) liberals are missing another important point. OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS GOING BANKRUPT!!!!!!! That is right ladies and gentlemen, what do you think will be the first to go if the country starts heading into bankruptcy? Yes you up front...no not Congress' salaries. Yes you in the back... that is right Social Insecurity. Why? Because it is the easiest way for the government to cover its books, in fact they have been doing so since the 1970s! So, while we are suppose to shake in fear that a stock market crash is going to happen in the next year or so, which for the record this is what the liberals have been longing for since September 11, 2001, we are suppose to have unmoving faith in the solvency of the United States Government. How is that dollar doing by the way? Oh, wait, I wasn't suppose to ask that!

Number two, most young Americans hate this plan. Why? A secret squirrel poll told us. Ok, may I be the first young American, I am 24, to point out that I personally never got polled and I love the plan. To the contrary of this, a simple Yahoo search of "polls social security young" will give you multiple hits that all say the same thing. Young people are more willing to "tinker" (a liberal word meaning totally dismantle) with social insecurity than older people. Hmm, may I point out the obvious, younger people understand that it will not be there for us. 2042+ may seem far off for some. To me that is around the year I would like to retire! So, you ask me which one do I prefer. The possibility of only getting a little money, or the probability of getting no money. I may not be a part of the biggest voting block in the United States, but I am no idiot!

So, David C. John points out,in his article for the Heritage Foundation, that Social Security is solvent with private accounts. He points out that the average projected return for Social Security accounts is at 6.5%. This is taking into account that the Social Security accounts will be invested in 50% stock and 50% government bonds. Being that President Bush is asking for 20% to be invested in bonds, that pushes up the average. "This is what makes stocks and bonds perfect for retirement investing. Holding them for 20-plus years virtually guarantees significant profits at a fairly low risk level." If you don't believe this just look at the retirement accounts that all of these Senators and Congressmen have. I bet they resemble private accounts...because they are! What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Of course the biggest thing that any liberal is missing is that they operate under the assumption that Americans should be forced to save. Then they assume that the government can manage their savings better. My biggest point in all of this is that it is my money to lose. Give it to me and I will make the choice. If I suddenly have a change of heart and want to give the government more of my money, I might actually check yes next to giving to the Presidential candidate fund. If I want to blow my money on an IPod instead of planning for retirement so be it, yes it is ill-advised, but it is my choice! That is what drives our economy! People making choices for themselves. The same people that hate Bill Gates for working for a living and having good business sense want to make a governmental monopoly out of my retirement. What is next forcing me to pay taxes on my paid for property or else taking my property away. Oh wait, they do that too. My money is not the governments, it is mine. Taxes are a civic duty that I pay in order to finance a more free society. However, this does not give them the right to claw into my bank account at every turn! It is my duty to respect my elders too but that doesn't give them the right to take their walkers and smack my children upside the head. So, like bad liberals, they don't want to give us a say or a vote they just want to cram our welfare down our own throats. Sometimes, when it comes to social security, I feel as a child at the buffet table of liberty being force fed the brussel sprouts of retirement planning.

If social security is to be saved, it has to be overhauled. The same politicians that drive the "wait 'till it dies" mentality take their vehicles in for regularly scheduled maintenance. We have got to do something now before our government goes completely belly up, not to mention that we can do so by offering younger Americans a "better deal."
-Cincinnatus

A word about feeding tubes, brain waves, and what in the heck are they thinking?

As you all have probably heard by now, Terri Schiavo is now hungry. On Friday, a very dark day in my opinion, her feeding tube was removed. First, I would like to point out a few things. She is not "brain dead" like the media is reporting. She is in fact somewhat functional. Of course, we have all seen the photos of her haphazardly smiling towards cameras. She is able to "communicate" with her parents and she is just what the liberal establishment has come to know as handicapped. She cannot feed herself. Which brings us to the feeding tube. It is just that, a feeding tube. It is not a respirator, it is not an iron lung, it is a feeding tube. While it is true that she will die without the aid of this miraculous means of modern technology, this does not, in my view warrant taking it away. My daughter cannot eat unless she is fed, wait I am bringing a child into this, nevermind, five months ago it would have been alright to kill her too in the eyes of liberals, so it is just a waste of breath to go into that example. Another point, there is NO living will, which by the way I just had one done, it states "Try and kill me you bloodhounds and I will show you your Constitutional rights in eternity!" Call me selfish but I will be around for awhile! So, Terri's husband (I could care less what his name is) claims that she told him she wanted to die. I am sure that this was great dinner talk, but it wasn't in writing! If I claimed Sam Walton whispered to me that I was his heir, I would be laughed at, but she whispers she wants to die and everyone accepts it as a legally binding wish.
So, the courts ruled that this is not a violation of her constitutional rights. Of course, a criminal gets due process but a harmless citizen gets her feeding tube taken away. I have talked about liberals "protecting" things before, I guess they are trying to protect the Constitution now! Now, thank the Lord, Congress is doing something about it. Of course her "husband" says that, " I'm outraged, and I think that every American in this country should also be outraged that this government is trampling all over a personal family matter that has been adjudicated in the courts for seven years," he told CNN. "I think that the Congress has more important things to discuss." This might be logical if they weren't discussing this on their DAY OFF! I for one am glad that they decided to actually come in on their day off. That means that us taxpayers get a little more bang for our buck. Now, would the media be reporting that this was a waste of time if they were discussing important things like tax hikes, abortion on demand, or saving some Caribou in Alaska? Of course not, that is what we pay them for? I don't think so, in fact I vote for these guys to do exactly what they are doing! Telling the courts that they do have jurisdiction and they better do something about this.
That, by the way is the reason that Congress is getting involved in the first place. The Federal Courts decided that they did not have jurisdiction. So, Congress is giving it to them. Which, by the way is their Constitutional right. (Article III, Section 2, Clause 3-Not that I am keeping score) And it is really hard to misinterpret what it states too (not that it matters to the Supremes), "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." Hmmm, sounds to me like this is not a waste of time, BUT THEIR JOB!!! So, let us all say a prayer for the merciless souls in this case. It is bad enough that her so-called husband is lovingly patient enough to let the courts decide her fate and not finish her off himself! Let alone that he has sired two children out of wedlock with another woman. If being on a feeding tube is grounds for dying, I am sure that adultery is grounds for divorce. Don't worry Mr. and Mrs. Schindler, I think I heard Terri say that she wanted a divorce about 15 years ago, maybe we wouldn't be in this circumstance if every so-called whisper was taken into account.
-Cincinnatus

Do Judges Really Need our Protection?

As I was doing my daily scroll through top headline a couple, run by Yahoo News and the New York Times caught my eye. “Protecting Judges” was the one ran by the New York Times and “Judges Lack Protection Politicians Get” was the one ran by the national AP. It seems that in the recent climate of liberal lunacy, liberals are starting to sign America on board protecting their only asset, the Federal Judiciary. Since the evil “Red States” won’t elect them, and the “Conservative” media is out to get them, it appears that ideologically all they have is the Federal Judiciary. Well, I click on the link and discover what appears to be a new national crisis. Federal judges need bodyguards.
Nicole Ziegler Dizon, an Associated Press Writer (as if that means anything anymore, who isn’t?) states that while important “politicians, from governors and mayors down to California’s school superintendent and Chicago’s city treasurer, routinely travel with protection provided by the taxpayers,” judges often do not get that sort of protection. Well, this is a serious problem! Judges are getting “knocked off” left and right. This is a “disparity that is getting more attention after the killings of Lefkow’s (a U.S. District Judge) family members by a man upset over a malpractice case and the recent shooting rampage that began in an Atlanta courthouse and left a judge and three others dead.” Read that statement folks, death count equals judge one and others five. Never mind, just another liberal rant, but I was worried for nearly a minute or two. Dizon goes on to say that right now federal judges and other members of the bench generally get body guards only when there is a credible threat against them. Oh, so judges get protection when they need it? I thought there was a problem! Turns out that, like the media does, Dizon found someone, with a title, willing to support her claim, a Lt. Governor in Illinois thinks that this is such a problem that he gave up his bodyguards to be better used for judges. Where is Martin Scorsese for this picture of human sacrifice? I mean it can get downright dangerous in the hood around Springfield!
So, what is the solution? The government “should do more, from paying for home security systems to assigning psychologists to courthouses to identify people who might be dangerous.” Why didn’t I think of this before? Screw the military or bodyguards, if only we had government security systems and more psychologists, the world would be a safer place for us all. I have an idea! Why not just give every judge a .9mm? Even if you are a conservative who believes in guns causing more fatalities, first get some more information, second this works out perfectly even if they accidentally shoot themselves or get themselves killed. They are Federal Judges and they won’t be missed! Which leads me to my next point…
This problem points out a classic problem with liberal thinking, they do not understand a free market economy. The reason that taxpayers are willing to spend money on elected politicians is they represent our views and if they don’t we vote them out. The reason that taxpayers are not willing to spend money on judges is because they are not worth it. The less judges the better. Why? Because all they do is legislate from the bench and because all the Senate Democrats do is filibuster worthy judges, then why offer these scoundrels protection? Now don’t get me wrong, if a judge is threatened on something other than the fact that they are worthless and have legislated from the bench, then they deserve protection, and according to Dizon, they get it. Although, can I be the first to say if Judge Lefcow’s family had been killed over something like she ruled against baby-killers, then I doubt Dizon would have taken the time! When liberals want to protect something, everybody should be worried. They want to protect ANWR even though there is nothing there. They want to protect the taxing establishment, which should be a clue. They would rather protect baby seals then baby children not to even talk about a woman on a feeding tube in Florida! They even want to protect terrorist’s rights, which for the record don’t exist. I mean if they ever claim to protect me I am going to an exorcist. So, when they start wanting to protect judges, that should be our first clue that maybe there is something ideological to all this filibustering after all.
-Cincinnatus

Votum-Familia-ResPublica

To some it is just a saying. To me and my family it is our way of life. God, family, and country has been instilled in me as our family motto as long as I can remember. Now, as I look at our great nation, I can only help but wonder what will become of this great land for the generations to come. Will my children be able to experience the same things I have? Will they look back upon their life and say I lived all that I could for God, family, and country? I pray that they will.

Cincinnatus