Cheshire Cat

What is it with that goofy smile that McCain flashes at the most inappropriate times? It's freaky.

Sit Down John!

Sit down John,
Sit down John,
For God's sake John, sit down!

John you're a bore,
We've heard this before;
Now for God's sake John,
Sit Down!

(1776)

Bite of the Night

The best sound bite from the candidates' comments after last night's Florida Republican primary came from Mitt Romney: "We won't change Washington by sending the same people back just to sit in different chairs."

The Goose that Laid the Golden Egg

A bill under consideration in Colorado would compel religious non-profit organizations that accept State funds to comply with State non-discriminatory hiring practices. This would of course conflict with the tenets of many religious organizations on matters such as homosexuality and couples living together in sin, to name a few. With regard to the specific question in this bill, organizations must realize that the Golden Rule applies; whoever provides the gold makes the rules. No government largess comes without strings attached. Since any government financial gift is really the accumulated tax dollars of all of the citizens of the State, some money given to say a Catholic charity is coming from die hard atheists.
The solution is two-pronged. First, why should governments be in the business of giving tax dollar subsidies to such private organizations? These governments lament that they are chronically short of funds and many run regular deficits. Why not cut out these gifts? Secondly, I believe that private organizations should seriously consider refusing any government handouts. They should live within the means provided privately by citizens who truly support their causes, not those coerced into 'donating' their tax dollars by the government. Furthermore, why should non-profit organizations operate in a tax-free status with regard to say property and sales taxes? Again, along with such gifts can come undesirable constraints imposed by those bestowing the gifts. If we did away with the tax breaks and government subsidies perhaps taxes could be lowered for all thus giving people more money in their wallets to then donate to the charities that they personally support. It would also be a much simpler and more direct system, providing more net funds to the receiving organizations. When government collects taxes and then doles out gifts there is a steep administrative cost that reduces the amount that is ultimately handed out. Cut out the middleman!
The principle at issue here is a launching pad for a much broader discussion of how and why governments treat people and organizations differently. In a nation founded on the idea that all men are created equal, we have certainly come to a place where some men are treated more equally than others. We have government dictated hiring practices that require special consideration be given to certain sexes and ethnic groups. People with different income levels are taxed at different rates. Some businesses and industries are given government subsidies, tax breaks and protection from imports. People who commit 'hate crimes' are treated more harshly than people who merely commit what I suppose are 'love crimes.' And the list goes on. Doesn't the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee all U.S. citizens the equal protection of the laws? Apparently not.

It's mine, no it's mine. No, Mine. MINE!

So who does the Constitution belong to? The federal government? No. The President? No. The Congress? No. The Supreme Court? No. It belongs to the people. The people, acting through their States wrote the Constitution which created all of these federal entities. The thing that is created cannot own the thing that created it. The creator is always greater than that which is created. Think about it. God and Man. The people giveth and the people can taketh away.
The people can amend the Constitution; not the President, not the Supreme Court (though heaven knows they in essence have), not the Congress alone. The people created the federal governement and set the constraints, the boundaries within which it must operate and not stray beyond. The people hold all of the power and granted the federal government a small, limited slice of that power for the collective good of all people. They then set a fence around the federal government. Power does not flow from Washington to the people, but rather from the people to Washington.
The rights of the people set out and protected in the Constitution came from God and the natural state of human freedom, not from the federal government. It is not the role of government to confer rights upon people but rather to protect the rights that the people already enjoy. It is the people who tell the federal government what rights it has, not the reverse. And the people can change those rights bestowed upon the government, but the government cannot alter the inalienable rights of the people.
It is not the role of the federal government to interpret the meaning of the Constitution to the people. The people, who wrote the Constitution can interpret it for themselves and to the government. No government entity, particularly the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution says and means.
The challenge for the people is enforcing the Constitution upon the federal government. The various branches and institutions have shown that they clearly have no compunction about flagrantly violating the letter and intent of it. Sadly though, while brazenly ignoring and violating the fundamental and supreme law of the land the very same government expects the people to obey every obscure and obtuse rule and regulation that it promulgates. And beyond the lengthy and difficult amendment process, the people have precious little power to force the government into compliance. After all, the government is the police power, not to mention the tax and spend power. If we try to sue the government we wind up in courts and before judges that are essentially representatives of the people that we are bringing suit against. They are all complicit and in league together, thus enabling and providing cover for the other branches of government. Where is justice?
The people need a sheriff.

Sanity is not Statistical

"If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
--Anatole France

Frosty the Snowman

It was six degrees below zero with a windchill of 24 degrees below zero this morning in Colorado Springs. I propose that we bring Algore up here, strip him down to his undies, chain him to a light pole and make him chant all night, "I do believe in global warming, I do believe in global warming." Let's see if that keeps his hiney warm!

Last Person to Leave Please Turn Out the Lights

Mercury light bulbs. Government remote-controlled thermostats. When are the good, hard-working people of California going to tell the Hollywood nut crowd to jump in the ocean and swim? Pretty soon, I think. Speaking of Hollywood, has anyone really missed the writers? I don't think so. The world is still revolving on its axis. No one is really missing those pitiful shows.

Constitutional Amendments

"Article. V. - Amendment
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
Let's see, can the President amend the Constitution by Executive Order? No.
Can the Congress amend the Constitution by simple legislation? No.
Can the U.S. Supreme Court amend the Constitution? No.
Then who can amend the Constitution? Well what do you know, it's the States. I wonder why that might be...