Right is Right, Whether You Are Left or Right.

I saw this on CNN today. I can't really tell whether this woman is conservative or progressive, but it doesn't matter. Her message in this iReport is valid for all citizens of the United States who are fed up with non-representing Representatives and Senators.



Dig it? Learn it. Love it. Live it.

Paradise Valley DeMolay Chapter Regains it's Charter on March 27th

After several years, DeMolay International will once again have a Chapter in Paradise Valley Lodge in Phoenix, Arizona.

DeMolay International is a young men's organization whose purpose is to create a safe environment in which to learn leadership and business skills that will benefit them in their future vocations. This is done through regular business meetings and the teachings of the seven cardinal virtues of a DeMolay: Filial Love (Love of family), Reverence for Sacred Things, Courtesy, Comradeship, Fidelity, Cleanness and Patriotism.

The public installation of officers will take place on March 27th, 2010 at 7:00 PM, to be held at the Paradise Valley Silver Trowel Lodge building.

The members of the chapter have decided that their new Chapter will be named "Paradise Valley Chapter", although the chapter ID will be different and they actually replace Albert Buhlen Chapter.

The initial officers to be installed:

Andy Kendig - Master Councilor (President)

Dakotah Crabtree - Senior Councilor (1st Vice President)

Billy McKean - Junior Councilor (2nd Vice President)

Jared Truettner - Senior Deacon

Sean Sigler - Junior Deacon

Timothy Dougherty - Chaplain

Matthew Kirshman, Jr - Marshal

Phelen Bennett - Junior Steward

Advisory Council to be installed:

Glen Van Steeter - Advisory Council Chairman

Gregory Weisman - Chapter Advisor

Mat Brassard - Ritual Advisor

Laura Van Steeter - Financial/Fundraising/Hospitality

Chris Hagenian - Athletics/Sports

Executive Officer Gary Garafola will be installing the chapter and will also present the charter to the Chapter.

Representative Government is Replaced with Absolutism.

Today, the President of the United States and Congress celebrated the passage of "landmark" health care legislation. In a crowded White House East Room a beaming President Obama signed the United States National Health Care Reform Act into law while numerous senators and representatives looked on.

Although this is not the first time that the US federal government passed unpopular legislation into law, this is clearly the most egregious example from both a procedural and financial standpoint.

Thirteen US states Attorneys General have filed lawsuits against this legislation to challenge it's constitutionality. This is rapidly being seen as a "state's rights" issue. States, who are not able to print money like the federal government can, are wondering how they are going to pay their share of this huge expansion of government involvement in not only the regulation but also the financing of the US health care industry.

Even as he signed it the American people remain firmly opposed to this law as shown in this poll by Rasmussen on March 21st, 2010. 54% of Americans oppose it, while only only 41% are in favor with about 5% undecided.

The manner in which Congress passed it, using a procedural rule instead of a straight up and down vote, has incensed many Americans.

The American people have been left with a rancid taste in their mouth. Even many Democrats are unhappy with this bill, albeit for reasons other than my own. They are also disgusted by the manner in which this law made it through the legislative process. Many of those who voted for it were quite literally offered sweetheart deals for their districts or states in order to entice them to vote for it. In the real world, these are called "bribes".

We have been lied to. How can any reasonable person think that adding 31 million people to the health care system, many of them being persons already very ill, to a health care system with no provision for adding doctors, nurses or facilities to the same system will not result in increases in costs for all? Well, Obama, Pelosi, Reid and a host of other progressives have sold us that bill of goods. Now we'll see.

Why is it that progressives believe that for good "social" programs to work they only have to provide access to those who have little or none, without also working to improve the quality? And damn the consequences.

Why couldn't they also include some cost controls?

Whey couldn't they make the FDA drug approval process less expensive or less intrusive?

Why couldn't they put in some reasonable limits on malpractice lawsuits?

Why couldn't they put in some stronger consequences for filing frivolous lawsuits.

Why couldn't they put limits on how much of a class-action settlement lands in the attorney's bank account instead of the plaintiffs?

Why couldn't the government allow enhanced competition by allowing us to purchase insurance plans from across state lines?

Those are cost controls and none of it is in any of the 2000+ pages of this monstrous intrusion into the private lives of 80% of American taxpayers who are happy with our current insurance plans.

Today, I no longer feel like a citizen of the United States. I feel like a subject of King Barack I and his Parliamentary Lords Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. The federal government has become exactly what Thomas Jefferson and other founders feared it would be.

Thomas Jefferson said "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. " There was never an intention by our Founders for our nation to be a democracy. Yet that is exactly what the Progressives want. He further said "A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government." Well, this new legislation is certainly going to take more of my "bread". Count on it.

On a more local note, whereas Arizona had finally balanced their budget deficit, the moment that USNHCRA became law we were once again $400 million in the hole, because the law requires that we restore 310,000 people to Medicare/Medicaid. Where's the money coming from, Your Majesty? Should we stop ALL road construction? How about if we just close ASU or NAU? No? Let's fire some more state troopers, or eliminate more positions in the National Guard. No?

There is a scene from the Mel Gibson movie "The Patriot" where the South Carolina legislature is debating whether or not to join the rebellion against Great Britain. One of the representatives states: "Our rights are being trampled by a tyrant 3,000 miles away". Mel Gibson's character responds: "Tell me, Mr. Howard, what's the difference between one tyrant 3,000 miles away or 3,000 tyrants 1 mile away?"

Are we at that point? Is our federal Congress no longer working on behalf of their constituency? I argue that it may have been that way for some time and that we are now only waking up to that reality.

USNHCRA passes important milestone. Now what?

On Sunday, the US House of Representatives passed the Senate version of the United States National Health Care Reform Act by a margin of 219 for and 212 against. Not one Republican voted for it and 34 Democrats joined them.

I have been saying for over a year that my primary problem with this "reform" is that it does nothing to contain or control costs while making health care much more easy to access to millions of high risk people who will place more strain on an already overstrained health-care system.

So, imagine my surprise when, while reading the Huffington Post, that a progressive author by the name Bob Samuels is saying the exact same thing.

Here's a couple of excerpts from his article:
"...it is essential that someone clarifies from the left why this bill is a very bad idea. The major problem with this reform is that it expands the number of people being insured without major cost reductions and containment. This not only means that in the near future, the cost of insurance plans will go up, but insurers and pharmaceutical corporations will continue to rake in huge profits."

"Not only does this bill attack the people who do have good employee-based health care plans by taxing them in the future, but also it undermines the efforts of unions that have often traded higher wages for better benefits."

"The simple fact is that if you do not bring down the cost for health care plans, businesses, individuals, and taxpayers will be left footing the bill to pay for increased insurance and pharmaceutical profits."

Well, that's pretty much what myself and about 50 million other conservative Americans have been screaming for over a year.

Bob, than you for your intellectual honesty. Huffington Post, than you for your intellectual honesty in allowing it to be posted on your website. Now that you have your lovely "reform", do you think that we can now take some time to figure out how to actually keep healthcare costs from spiraling out of reach of all but the rich? Please? Pretty Please?

How Will President Obama Respond?

CNN.com reports that Iraqi President Nuri al-Maliki may request that the deadline to withdraw combat troops be extended if the security situation in Iraq is questionable.

The current US administration highly touted the deadlines as both a sign of progress in Iraq as well as one delivering on one of the campaign promises that President Obama made as a candidate for the US presidency.

This is a significant change of President al-Maliki's stand on this issue. He had frequently stated previously that he was inflexible on the U.S. withdrawal deadline. Many believed that this position was necessary to convince the Iraqi people that he was neither a puppet of the U.S. or that U.S. troops in Iraq were an occupying force.

Clearly, al-Maliki is concerned about the apparent inability the of Iraqi military and police forces to step up to the challenge of keeping the peace in a nation and region that has been historically plagued by sectarianism. Only the strong, repressive regime of Saddam Hussein had managed to quell it, through the use of swift and violent retribution against those trying to rebel against his regime or committing violent actions.

President Obama will be put into something of a bind should the Iraqi president make this request. If he refuses then he shows the Iraqi government that the U.S. will not stand by its allies over the long term. If he commits to keeping combat troops in Iraq longer then he will be seen as betraying many of the voters who helped elect him to the U.S. presidency because of his promise to get U.S. combat troops out of Iraq by the end of summer this year.

Well, It's Time to Fight.

In a fifteen minute speech today in front of several lab-coat wearing health care professionals, President Obama called for the end game by rejecting GOP suggestions to "start over" on health care reform.

“The American people want to know if it’s still possible for Washington to look out for their interests and their future,” Mr. Obama said. “They are waiting for us to act. They are waiting for us to lead. And as long as I hold this office, I intend to provide that leadership. I don’t know how this plays politically, but I know it’s right. And so I ask Congress to finish its work, and I look forward to signing this reform into law.”

President Obama clearly believes that this health care legislation now has enough bipartisan elements to it that they can get the votes to pass it.

Even though it does not contain federal-level tort and frivolous lawsuit reform.

Even though it does not hold the FDA and HHS departments accountable for their internal spending or even allow them to be co-litigants when procedures and medicines approved by THEM through an incredibly expensive regulation process are then the targets of class-action lawsuits. Lawsuits that are equally expensive and therefore cost big pharma and health care providers with HUGE malpractice/errors and omissions policies. Cost that are passed to the end consumer.

Even though it does not address how the current health care system can possibly afford to insure pre-existing conditions without driving up costs. President Obama and his Democratic compadres apparently don't realize that only 5% of heavy users of the medical system consume 50% of the resources

Even though it does not accurately estimate how pre-existing conditions or no caps on benefits will effect all of us who use insurance.

Even though it does not address how to deal with the shortfall of medical services that will be available when the so-called "31 million" will flood the system. Doctors, nurses and technicians already work long weeks. How will they become less overworked by adding 1 new insured for every 6 already on the system.? How will costs be kept down when services will go into even greater demand with a proportionally smaller supply?

Even though the current bill steals from Medicare Advantage to pay for part of it's costs.

Even though the current bill gives the HHS secretary HUGE new powers to mandate oversights that, if wielded unjustly, can be used to cause companies to go bankrupt.

Even though the CBO does not agree with the Democrats that the current legislation will not add any further money to the federal debt.

Even though current polls show that over 2/3 of the American electorate do not want this bill to be passed into law. 87% of Americans are currently satisfied with their current coverage and costs, but they believe that if this bill passes then they will either have to accept reduced benefits or higher costs and more likely a combination of the two. Even though most Americans understand that our country cannot afford the deficits that this bill will bring, and that we are at the tipping point of no longer being able to pay back the debt we owe.


The Democrats paid only lip service to including the Republicans and their ideas in this bill. Concessions came too little and far far far too late. While there may be 'bipartisan' elements in it, it is primarily a Democratic boondoggle intended to take direct control of the $2.7 trillion health care industry in this nation.

I will now vote with my wallet as well as my phone. The GOP needs to stand firm. If even one Republican Senator votes for this farce and blatant anti-free market, and arguably unconstitutional bill then they will be electorally crucified in November.

I hate this partisan bullcrap but we simply can't afford this now.

News Flash: Capitalism Works (part II)

See my previous blog posting on this subject here.

According to numerous news websites including www.businessweek.com, Ford reported a 43 percent increase in sales from the previous year. In fact, because of Toyota and now GM recall woes, Ford became the #1 US seller of cars. How long that will last is anybody's guess.

That represented 18.2 percent of all cars sold in the US, with GM turning in 18.1 percent. However, GM only posted a 12 percent increase, largely due to the fact that GM with all of it's brands has a much larger market space.

However, with Ford posting a 2.7 billion dollar profit fourth quarter 2009 shows something else. Quality and efficiency are up significantly, and Ford is effectively meeting the needs of the new consumer who, scared by high gas prices, are trading SUVs and trucks for efficient sedans and coupes.

In other words, Ford is continuing to provide the customer with a high quality product at a price the consumer is willing to pay. Ford is also hiring again, as is GM, although they are hiring newer workers that will work for less than the retirees that they are replacing. Both Ford and GM are rehiring laid off workers as well.

Capitalism works.

Harvard Researchers Say Fuel Taxes Must Rise

Read the NY Times article here.

Most of my friends have heard about "Cap and Trade" legislation as well as "Carbon Tax". But many have no idea what a "Carbon Tax" does. It would be a legitimate question to ask. Here's another. How does a tax on carbon emissions reduce tax emissions? Well, after doing very little research, I found a reasonable answer to my question.

All fossil-based fuels such as petroleum (gasoline, diesel, kerosene and jet fuel), coal and natural gas release carbon dioxide (CO₂) when burnt. Science tells us (and this part is not disputed) that CO₂ traps solar radiation in the atmosphere. The more CO₂ that is present in the atmosphere, the more solar radiation remains as heat, thereby increasing temperature globally. The disputed part of the science is whether the amount of CO₂ being released into Earth's atmosphere by man's activities (factories, vehicles, power generation, etc.) is significant enough to accelerate a warming trend far beyond it's normal rate of progression.

A "Carbon Tax" would authorize the US federal government to charge companies that use fossil-based fuels based on the amount of CO₂ that they release into the atmosphere. This would provide real economic incentive for companies to stop using fossil fuels and instead use carbon free technologies, also known a "green" energy. The reason? No green energy technology has yet been able to produce one unit of energy (such as a BTU, or a joule, take your pick) as inexpensively as carbon-based fuels. The tax on carbon would then make green energy more competitive. This is similar to protectionist import tariffs on some goods (like Asian steel sold in the US) in order to keep American made steel competitive.

I told you all of that so that you can decide whether or not a recent Harvard research press release is worth it to you or not, because according to them: To meet the Obama administration's targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions Americans may have to experience a sobering reality: gas at $7 a gallon."

Our entire economy is based on inexpensive energy. Here are some predictions if these fuel taxes were to be implemented at this level, which sounds like Harvard is advocating a three and one-half dollar tax on every gallon of fuel sold.

While it would force many commuters to park their cars and start taking the bus, the operating costs for those same public transportation companies would literally double overnight, and they would at the same time find that they could not handle the demand, which would require the purchase of yet more buses/light rail. This is a cost almost no major US city can currently afford.

Airlines would park a significant fraction of their fleets because fuel is near the top of costs. Air travel would once again become the province of only the wealthy.

Food costs would increase because of the doubling of the cost of fuel to not only run the farm equipment to produce the food, but the cost to transport it to market and the cost to package, process or preserve it.

Even railroads and merchant shipping, which move product at amazingly small amounts of fuel per ton, would find their profit margins shrink or even disappear.


In May of 2008, the US Dept. of Transportation reported that miles traveled dropped by 3.7% from the previous year (May, 2007). Further, May was the seventh straight month that miles driven for current were less than previous year. That was when fuel cost had increased from roughly three dollars a gallon in 2007 to over four dollars in 2008.

So try to imagine what would happen if gas were to increase from three dollars (where it currently is in March 2010) to seven.

Even if man-made global warming is a real problem, how can we solve it when the fix will bankrupt our nation? Let's get our financial house in order and then come back to this... PLEASE!