New Years Resolutions

Once again the calendar has rolled over, and we’re now beginning the year of our lord 2011. It’s dating me I guess, as I can remember having trouble remembering the date when 1950 rolled around. Where does the time go!? Among other things, it’s traditional for us to make New Years Resolutions, and then promptly break ‘em. (With that, I don’t even bother making resolutions anymore.) In some ways, the "hope," "change," and "yes we can" shenanigans of the ‘08 presidential election seem like yesterday, with “hope” having shifted to despair, “change” has become a disaster, and “yes we can” appears to be stalled somewhere between “no we can’t” and “Why bother”. Still, we’re only a few days into the New Year, and a new Congress will shortly be sitting in the puzzle palace on the hill. Might there be a few New Years Resolutions we can think of that our legislators should make, and hopefully remember to abide with?

It often seems like every political news article I read manages to get in the one liner “It’s the Economy Stupid!”, and yes, nearly all our current set of national problems stem from the unpleasant economic situation we face. The national debt has most of us quite concerned, as we realize that the bottomless well is rapidly going dry. According to CNS News, "The federal government has accumulated more new debt -- $3.22 trillion ($3,220,103,625,307.29) -- during the tenure of the 111th Congress than it did during the first 100 Congresses combined." (Huh… So much for Nancy Pelosi's promise of "no new deficit spending".) Rep. John Boehner, the new House Majority Leader, has promised to roll back spending to 2008 levels. I’ve got a better idea, let’s roll it back even further, like say to about 1960 or so levels… Rand Paul (R-Ky.) recently declared, "I think that every piece of major legislation that goes forward from now on needs to have attached to it spending cuts." That’s one of the best ideas I’ve seen recently, but I have serious doubts about its viability. Politicians at all levels seem to be of a mind that they should constantly raise taxes, so they’ll have more money to spend on “services”, and whenever someone mentions cutting back on those services, we promptly hear the lament “which school teacher do you want us to fire?” Well, at the local level many of those services are a necessity I suppose, but by the time we reach the federal level about all that’s a dire necessity is the military and probably the Post Office! I will strenuously suggest that congress cut spending (and borrowing), before they bankrupt the country, and I’ll bet that’s not a long way into the future either!

ObamaCare seems to be a real hot button subject with most folks, including me. The United States has about the best medical care available in the world… if you can afford it, which is giving a lot of people economic and political heartburn. ObamaCare does little more that present us with a European style, government controlled, socialized medicine program, and drag our showpiece medical system down to a third world level. Yes, the system needs an overhaul, or at least the economic side of it does, and I’d hazard a bet that the medical industry could do a much better job of straightening things out than could congress. It's time to completely cut the funding for ObamaCare right now, and get hot on a long-term commitment to repeal this bucket of worms. If it's not funded, it won't happen.

It's time to stop worrying about what may or may not make us popular around the world, and start doing what will promote our economic and national security. That means tackling the problems of Social Security and Medicare. According to a recent CNN poll, 40 percent of us have the most confidence in congressional Republicans on major issues facing the country today, compared to 35 percent who have more confidence in President Obama. A lone 15 percent have more confidence in the Democrats. So, to the members of the 112th Congress, we're counting on you to pull our national chestnuts out of the fire. Put an end to business as usual and wishy-washy “feel good” nonsense. Give us back our states rights and stop spending money we don't have. Cut the vague promises along with the empty rhetoric, and reject “compromise” that will only hasten the destruction of our country.

Remember Mr. Congressman, the Republic will be nothing more than a chapter in the history books if you fail… and your names will be in those history books as well… accused of leading that destruction.

Holidays

Do You Say “Happy Holidays” or “Merry Christmas” as your seasons greeting? That was the subject of a recent impromptu poll on the internet. We’re all aware of the ‘politically correct’ push to remove religion from our lives, based on the common excuse that we wouldn’t want to offend anybody. Considering that the politically correctness “movement” seems to be gaining popularity in our increasingly progressive world, the poll results were interesting, and quite revealing as well. The response was:

Merry Christmas – 88.54% (148,369 votes)

Happy Holidays -- 1.81% (3,027 votes)

Season's Greetings -- 0.21% (346 votes)

Any or all of the above -- 7.57% (12,684 votes)

Undecided -- 1.07% (1,788 votes)

Other. 0.81% (1,352 votes)

So, of the hundred and sixty-seven thousand respondents, 88% say Merry Christmas, and 11% may or may not use some other term…

If we look back at our country of fifty or so years ago, we would see a much more conservative nation that knew its values, and knew where to draw the line. But nowadays it appears we’ve become so sensitive to almost everything that no one can walk even a few inches without stepping on somebody's tender toes. So, I’ll pose the question: Has political correctness gone TOO far? Or, if it hasn't, will it soon? Where do we draw the line between basic rights and unfair advantages? Or has the fog of political correctness twisted our national character into something that would make our forefathers weep? Nor is political correctness just a matter of terminology either, its tentacles reach into every aspect of our lives. Nowdays, if your son gets an F on a school test, he hasn’t failed, he gets a “passing grade” despite not having absorbed the required knowledge. We certainly can’t have his feelings hurt. (But he still failed.) If Humpty Dumpty falls off the wall, somehow we must put him back together again so little children will not be upset. I could go on but there’s really no point, and I may offend someone by doing so.

Political correctness = thought control. Its goal is to remove individualism and homogenize society into a one-size-fits-all world, to remake us all in a common image. The question here is, why are we letting it happen? Since when did the feelings and the supposed needs of the few offended outweigh that of the many? I, along with millions of other Americans, am totally fed-up with all the tip-toeing around, trying not to "offend" anyone's tender sensibilities. We are in America after all, a Christian nation founded on the Freedom of Religion. That means, or at least is supposed to mean, that I have the right to worship in whatever manner I see fit. Or I have the right to not worship if that strikes my fancy. I don’t mind if you choose not to celebrate Christmas, as that is your right. If you prefer a "holiday" tree and you choose not to display a nativity scene, be my guest. BUT… December 25th is Christmas .. and established as a Christian celebration for quite some years now. If anyone doesn’t wish to celebrate Christmas then simply don’t participate. But on December 25th… It’s my right to celebrate Christmas in my own manner, complete with nativity scene, and wishing everyone else a Merry Christmas! I'm a Christian so I always say Merry Christmas to others. I have no problem with others saying happy holidays their own way, BUT nobody should tell me that I can not say…

Ón teaghlach Fogarty, Nollaig Shona agus Athbhliain faoi Mhaise! (From the Fogarty household, a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year) to each and every one of you.

Wolf Wars IV

The latest episode of the Wolf War is heating up in Boise, and locally as well. The state legislature is reportedly working on a “Nullification Resolution” that essentially tells the Feds to take their wolves and stuff it. Nullification is the legal theory that a state has the right to nullify (invalidate) any federal law which that state has deemed to be unconstitutional, and is based on the viewpoint that the Sovereign States formed the Union, and as such have the final authority regarding the power of the Federal government. With this, the states can, and must, refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal laws. Or at least so said Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and even Patrick Henry among others. I can see where this could become a long and drawn out legal process however. If it can be brought about, it does open the door to eventually dumping the entire endangered species act, and if we’re really lucky we can get rid of the EPA while we’re at it! But… I’m sure that the enviro’s will fight that tooth and nail, with every dollar and shyster lawyer they can drum up. A lot of folks will tell you that attempts at nullification have never been successful, but two dozen American states nullified the REAL ID Act of 2005, and more than a dozen states have successfully defied the federal government over medical marijuana. Nullification initiatives of all kinds, involving ObamaCare legislation, Cap and Trade, and even Second Amendment issues, are popping up in several states including Idaho. We’ve tried just everything else that’s legal, and nothing seems to stop the relentless march of big government, so, we need the mechanism of defense that Jefferson left us, not just the odds and ends that doesn’t offend Katie Couric or the New York Times. (Which I think is even more proof that it’s a good idea.) But… it is a legal means to get something accomplished to control our wolf infestation… which will probably take several years… and I question if our wildlife or even domestic animal populations could survive that long!

On the local front, and of questionable legality, we have the proposal from “The Committee for a Safe and Wolf Free Idaho”, in that we just shoot the darn things and be done with ‘em. Personally I think that’s the best idea to come down the pike in many a year, but I have very serious doubts that we’d get away with it for long. Face it, such action would have the fairly small population of Idaho County (the possibility of Clearwater County joining in was mentioned) going head to head with the federal government. And the feds do have far greater resources that we do, which not only includes the Fish and Wildlife Service, but also the FBI, and if things got bad enough probably the US Army as well! Does anyone really believe that the feds would even hesitate to use every weapon in their arsenal against us “anti-government rednecks” if we were to seriously challenge their authority? I wouldn’t be too concerned about “Black Helicopters”, but we might see a few missile armed reconnaissance drones flying over the Nez Perce! ‘Course if everybody were to agree, we could become the modern version of Ft. Sumter I guess…

Rex Rammell, who unsuccessfully ran for governor last spring, is pushing a plan to take wolf management policy away from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and give it to the county. Rammell wants the county commission to pass an emergency ordinance giving Sheriff Doug Giddings authority to kill wolves. "The legal vehicle for removing wolves is an emergency ordinance. We already have an emergency declaration, now we need an emergency ordinance to give us the authority to actually start killing them," he said. "We think that is a legal avenue and trumps the Endangered Species Act because it's a county emergency." The Idaho Attorney General's office and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have declined to comment on Rammell's idea (probably too busy sharpening their legal knives), while County Prosecutor Kirk MacGregor said he would give the commission his legal opinion on the matter if (when) asked. County Commission Chairman Skip Brandt said the commission can not pass an ordinance that will give a citizen the ability to go against federal or state law. “Any such action would be misleading to the folks we represent. Outside the 10J rule, if a citizen shoots a wolf, ordinance or not, the shooter is on their own with the federal legal system. The constitution is very clear that there are states’ rights but it doesn’t give county rights. The counties operate under the state, period.” Skip’s quite right I’m afraid, and I certainly don’t advocate anyone’s breaking the law, nor could I afford the long and gory court case were I to do so. (A hundred thousand dollar fine, and five years of making license plates in a federal slammer doesn’t sound like a real good way to spend my remaining years!) With the federal courts in their current shape I certainly couldn’t expect any more justice than the person caught shooting a wolf, and that’s “little to none”. I do ‘spect we’d all be guilty of conspiracy or something. However, if the State of Idaho were to get fed up with the status quo, and adopt Wyoming’s wolf management plan…

But for the moment, the wolf is at the door, and the region is beginning a new and ugly chapter in the reintroduction fight. We just might see a whole new round of civil disobedience where "shoot, shovel and shut-up" is no longer a local joke, but has become the battle cry. Well, I still have my ‘ol musket and a “bad attitude”…

More Gun Control

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, 1788

The United States seems to be engaged in multiple wars of late, ranging from the real thing in Iraq and Afghanistan to the so called “wars” on poverty, drugs, crime and what-have-you. Now we have the slop-over from Mexico’s drug war seriously affecting us as well. Granted that us “country hicks” in the northern tier haven’t seen much of that fuss yet, we may rest assured that before long the fun and games will soon start showing up here as well. In fact, some rural folks in the south-west are already involved, and some are dieing as a result. With the possible exception of Governor Rick Perry of Texas, no US public official will admit that the United States has a major threat developing on our southern border. Mexico’s drug war is developing into a serious threat to both the government of Mexico, and to the lives of American citizens. Mexico, with more than 28,000 murders so far, is being terrorized by the drug cartels, and the Mexican government is slipping into oblivion. Now, instead of illegals coming across our borders in search of jobs (and becoming a steady stream of recruits for the cartels), many refugees are now fleeing Mexico and Central America just to stay alive. However, if you thought that only some areas of Mexico were under the control of the cartels, an examination of the map shows that much of Mexico has been taken over by the cartels, and they are moving into the United States as well, with Florida, Alabama, Texas, Arizona, and California rapidly becoming part of the combat zone! And, despite the claims and wistful thinking of the liberal press, I don’t have a lot of hope for our law enforcement agencies to handle the situation either, considered that they’re seriously outnumbered, and heavily outgunned. The US armed forces could handle the problem quite easily, except for the fact that they’re rather busy defending our country… in the mid-east.

It’s a common Liberal strategy to create a crisis, and then present a utopian “emergency” solution. So, on the current subject, a perennial war is the ultimate crisis situation, and our government is handing us a loose-loose situation for America with the DREAM act. With our left wing government tied in knots, and the current regime in the White House bending over backwards appeasing all and sundry beyond our borders, it appears that we’re about to get into another fight, with Mexico once again! About the only thing we can hope for is that some General will finally mobilize the USMC for a live fire exercise… on our southern border! Baring that, I suspect it’s about time to rethink the hate mongering about militia organizations.

But now, things are getting even worse for Americans, if that’s possible!

“If you look at the values and the historical record, you will see that the Founding Fathers never intended guns to go unregulated”, says Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. The author of the dissenting decision in the 2008 "D.C. v. Heller" case, Breyer said that James Madison was more concerned that the Constitution may not be ratified than he was about granting individuals the right to bear arms. Therefore Madison included the Second Amendment to appease the states. Since the Founding Fathers did not foresee how time would change individual behavior, government can impose regulations on guns, Breyer contends. "The difficult job in open cases where there is no clear answer is to take those values in this document, which all Americans hold, which do not change, and to apply them to a world that is ever changing," Breyer said.

He suggested that those values and intentions mean that the Second Amendment allows for restrictions on the individual, including an all-out ban on handguns. "We're acting as judges. If we're going to decide everything on the basis of history -- what is the scope of the right to keep and bear arms? Machine guns? Torpedoes? Handguns?" he asked. This from a Justice who probably doesn’t even know we're a Republic, and not a democracy! The founders went to painstaking trouble to detail the framework of the Constitution. They specifically ignored firearms limitations because they wanted “The People” to never lose the ability to oppose a tyrannical government. The founders well knew that they could not foresee what future weapons might become, and if they had wanted to place limits on guns, they would have limited us to flintlock muskets.

Breyer represents the interests of freedom hating socialist control freaks, and he, along with Sotomayor, Kagan, Stevens, Ginsberg, Souter – are all experts at “interpreting” our rights out of existence. His trying to reinterpret what he "thinks" Madison meant is like me trying to interpret a message from the Taliban! Now more than ever in our moralless society, thieves and liberals believe they can help themselves to whatever we own, so we need to be able to protect ourselves. If that day comes, I for one won’t have to wait for the "law" of Justice Breyer to save me, Judge Colt and I can take care of ourselves just fine.

The people should have the ability to purchase arms at least equal to those available to the US military. Sadly, the ammunition for the really nifty toys is so darn expensive...