The Americans with No Abilities Act.

This was first printed on Moonbattery.com see the original here.

Here's a surprise: Snopes.com says the Americans With No Abilities Act isn't on the level:

WASHINGTON , DC — Congress is considering sweeping legislation which will provide new benefits for many Americans. The Americans With No Abilities Act (AWNAA) is being hailed as a major legislative goal by advocates of the millions of Americans who lack any real skills or ambition.

"Roughly 50 percent of Americans do not possess the competence and drive necessary to carve out a meaningful role for themselves in society," said California Senator Barbara Boxer. "We can no longer stand by and allow People of Inability to be ridiculed and passed over. With this legislation, employers will no longer be able to grant special favors to a small group of workers, simply because they have some idea of what they are doing."

In a Capitol Hill press conference, House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pointed to the success of the U.S. Postal Service, which has a long-standing policy of providing opportunity without regard to performance. Approximately 74 percent of postal employees lack any job skills, making this agency the single largest U.S. employer of Persons of Inability. … At the state government level, the Department of Motor Vehicles also has a great record of hiring Persons of Inability (63%).

Under the Americans With No Abilities Act, more than 25 million "middle man" positions will be created, with important-sounding titles but little real responsibility, thus providing an illusory sense of purpose and performance.

Mandatory non-performance-based raises and promotions will be given, to guarantee upward mobility for even the most unremarkable employees. The legislation provides substantial tax breaks to corporations that promote a significant number of Persons of Inability into middle-management positions, and gives a tax credit to small and medium-sized businesses that agree to hire one clueless worker for every two talented hires.

Finally, the AWNA Act contains tough new measures to make it more difficult to discriminate against the Non-abled — banning, for example, discriminatory interview questions such as "Do you have any skills or experience which relate to this job?"

"As a Non-abled person, I can't be expected to keep up with people who have something going for them," said Mary Lou Gertz, who lost her position as a lug-nut twister at the GM plant in Flint , Michigan , due to her lack of any discernible job skills. "This new law should really help people like me." With the passage of this bill, Gertz and millions of other untalented citizens will finally see a light at the end of the tunnel.

Said Senator Ted Kennedy: "As a Senator With No Abilities, I believe the same privileges that elected officials enjoy ought to be extended to every American with no abilities. It is our duty as lawmakers to provide each and every American citizen, regardless of his or her adequacy, with some sort of space to take up in this great nation."

How crestfallen persons of inability must be to learn this invitation to Hope was a hoax. But it looks like the AWNA Act won't be needed anyway. After the government has finished nationalizing the banking and automotive industries, and then moves on to healthcare, there will be vast sectors of the economy run like the post office, the DMV, and public schools, where ability is irrelevant.

What's at stake

Beginning at 6:00 am tomorrow morning, we once again make our grand migration to the polling places in a process that we as Americans have come to take for granted. Another Presidential election, another Senate seat, another Congressional seat and here we are again, with the same old song and dance. Ladies and Gentlemen, I tell you that this is more important than just the same old routine. There are things at stake that can greatly impact our lives.

Let us begin in the 6th congressional district, right here in the Baton Rouge area. Don "Cash in on you" has been making the same lofty promises and statements that he made a few months ago when he promised to be a "conservative Democrat". That's all well and good, but his record shows that he has been every bit as liberal as we feared. He's voted against offshore drilling. He's been the deciding vote to allow cogress to adjourn without addressing the energy crisis. He's voted time and again for government programs and tax increases. Worst of all, he's been one of the driving forces behind the card check program, a law that would strip American workers of the right to a secret ballot when voting on unionization and union matters. Let's top all of this with the fact that he has endorsed Barack Hussein Obama.

In the Senate races, we have Mary Laveau , er, I mean Landrieu, who has trumpeted herself on WJBO this very evening as a centrist. A hard worker that gets things done to er, for, Louisiana. Still, in twelve years in the United States Senate, she has performed as, not a centrist, but a liberal. Granted, her official liberal rating as of 2007 was only 53.2%, still her up-to-date voting records show that she has voted on party lines with Barack Obama 81% of the time. She is a proponant of Hate Crimes legislation, marking offenses as more severe based on race creed and faith. She favors human cloning. All of this added to the fact that she is on the list of the top twenty most corrupt members of Congress published by CREW, in fact, she comes in just behind William Jefferson and his cold hard cash. For a full report on the bribery acceptance allegation against our dear Senator, try this link. Oh, and by the way, she has endorsed and was endorsed by, Barack Huussein Obama.

Now we come to the meat of my point. The Presidential race. Senator Obama has proposed a number of items that are a real threat to our way of life. Let's just lay out a few facts. I cannot take credit for this chart. It was created by a gentleman named Aaron Robichaux. He and his wife run a lawn care and landscaping business here in Louisiana. He took the time to do the math, and the research to tell us just who Barack Obama and John McCain are:

ISSUE			JOHN McCAIN	OBAMA
Favors new drilling offshore US			Yes	No
Will appoint judges who interpret the law not make it			Yes	No
Served in the US Armed Forces			Yes	No
Amount of time served in the US Senate			22 YEARS	173 DAYS
Will institute a socialized national health care plan			No	Yes
Supports abortion throughout the pregnancy			No	Yes
Would pull troops out of Iraq immediately			No	Yes
Supports gun ownership rights			Yes	No
Supports homosexual marriage			No	Yes
Proposed programs will mean a huge tax increase			No	Yes
Voted against making English the official language			No	Yes
Voted to give Social Security benefits to illegals			No	Yes
CAPITAL GAINS TAX
McCAIN	0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples). McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax.
OBAMA	28% on profit from ALL home sales. How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home sale will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on income from their homes as part of their retirement income.
DIVIDEND TAX
McCAIN	15% (no change)
OBAMA	39.6% How will this affect you? If you have money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama becomes president. The experts predict that 'Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market, yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.'
INCOME TAX
McCAIN (No changes)		Income Tax Single, 30K $ 4,500 Single, 50K $12,500 Single, 75K $18,750 Married, 60K $ 9,000 Married, 75K $18,750 Married, 125K $31,250
OBAMA (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts)		Single, 30K $ 8,400 Single, 50K $14,000 Single, 75K $23,250 Married, 60K $16,800 Married, 75K $21,000 Married, 125K $38,750 Under Obama, your taxes could almost double!
INHERITANCE TAX
McCAIN	- 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax)
OBAMA	Restore the inheritance tax Many families lost businesses, farms, ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will lose them to these taxes.
NEW TAXES PROPOSED BY OBAMA
New government taxes proposed on homes more than 2,400 square feet. New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already) New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity) New taxes on retirement accounts, and last but not least.... New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!!

All of these things are frightening. We should bear in mind as we go to the polls that a vote for any of the three of these individuals is permission for them to implement this kind of "change". Higher taxes, more government programs, that's change we can believe in. Personally, I believe I'll be voting McCain, Kennedy, Cassidy.

Who was that masked man?

"There is not a truth existing which I fear or would wish unknown to the whole world." -Thomas Jefferson

When it comes to the subject of Barrack Hussein Obama, the media is somewhat mum on some very important issues. November 4th is less than two weeks away, and I find myself appalled at some of the things that America is not being told about one of our presidential candidates. I would think that part of the job of the news media would be to fully, and I mean fully, vetting our candidates. Instead, it falls to those of us who dig through the news to find the information that is left behind, to do the job. There are some truly troubling associations in Senator Obama's life that are being glossed over. Names you've heard, but have not been told much about. It's time to change that, after all, change is what the Obama campaign is all about, right?

I heard a joke told the other day. "How are Barrack Obama and Osama Bin Laden alike? They both have friends that attacked the pentagon." I couldn't even bring myself to laugh, because it is not a laughing matter. Barrack Obama served on the board of the Woods Foundation, with William Ayers. Their relationship was described as "friendly" by a member of the Obama campaign. Who is William Ayers, you ask? He was a member, along with his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, of the "weather underground", a group that is responsible for attacks, not just on the pentagon, but also on New York Police Headquarters. He is a domestic terrorist. William Ayers is the forerunner of Timothy McVeigh.

I know that this is a bold statement, but let us look at Mr. Ayers own words. ''I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ''I feel we didn't do enough.''. Now for a nauseating bit of irony, the article is from the New York Times dated September 11, 2001. It was a statement made by Ayers to promote his book Fugitive days. Can you imagine reading those words moments before the airplane attacks? Does it not make you ill? It should! The actions of Ayers and Dohrn are no less reprehensible, and Obama is "friendly" with this man! In fact, according to the politico, Obama started his political career with a pilgrimage to Ayers home in Chicago.

For nearly twenty years, Obama was a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ. His pastor was the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a man noted for his "Afro-centric theology". Rev. Wright was famously quoted after the September 11th attacks saying, "no, no, no! Not God Bless America, God Damn America! That's in the Bible! For killing innocent people!" He also stated that "America's chickens were coming home to roost!" What sort of message is that from the pulpit of a church! Does that glorify God? Most decidedly not! Neither does this "Black Values System" which, you will not, comes directly from Trinity United's own web site.

What about ACORN? The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Barrack Obama's executive experience comes from being a "Community Organizer." He worked closely with ACORN. In fact, according to the Pittsburg Tribune-Review's Dateline DC column of January 14, 2007, "Since he graduated from law school, Obama's work with ACORN and the Midwest Academy has ranged from training and fundraising, to legal representation and promoting their work.” This is the same Barrack Obama that said last week that he never worked with ACORN, and also the same Barrack Obama whose campaign donated over $800,000.00 to ACORN during the primary season. Might I take this moment to point out that ACORN is under federal investigation for voter fraud during a scandal which has shown the entire offensive line for the Dallas Cowboys to be registered to vote both in Dallas and in Las Vegas, and one Mr. Mickey Mouse registered in Orlando?

I once believed that Obama was an empty suit that was being used by these people and organizations to push their agenda because of his charisma. More disturbing to me is the finding recently by National Review that these ideals truly belong to Obama, and he sought out THESE people and organizations to get his ideals off of the ground. A terrorist, a racist under the guise of a minister, and an organized fraud machine? Not to mention a slum lord like Tony Rezko. These are people that advance Obama's ideals? Ideals like "I'm glad we bombed those places, we didn't do enough" (Ayers), "God Damn America. The US of KKK A" (Wright). Are these Obama's ideals? We'll never know, because those who have a responsibility to illuminate us on such things are keeping quiet on his ideas. Who is the man behind the message of Hope and Change? Don't look too deeply. After all, that's the same message that got a man named Adolf Hitler elected chancellor of Germany.

 

The Audacity of Hype

A co-worker of mine pointed out this article from Moonbettery.com that contains some frightening information about the Obama campaign. It's not enough that his supporters will believe anything he says, and it's not enough that the media has thrown everything they have behind him, but now he want law enforcement to regulate what is said about him. What will he do if he actually gets elected?!

Obama - Biden

Ladies and gentlemen, the announcement has been made. Your great saviour, Barack (Middle name omitted for the sake of political correctness) Obama has chosen his running mate. At 2:00pm our time. He will announce Delaware Senator Joseph Biden as his partner on the Democratic Ticket. Really? Really, Barack? Joe Biden? Really?

Let’s take a look at some of the things that Senator Biden has said in the past, starting with this statement prior to one of the Presidential debates earlier this year. When asked if Barack Obama was ready to be President, Senator Biden said “I think he can be ready, but not yet. The White House is not the place for on the job training.” He then followed that up at the debate when asked about his quote by saying, “I stand by my statement.” Well Mr. Biden, do you stand by it now, or has the political wind changed to the point that you’ve grasped at a once in a lifetime opportunity? Let’s be frank here. Senator Obama is bad enough about his politically expedient answers. Do we really need his running mate to continue with the same theme?

Maybe Obama just wanted people to add some foreign policy sense to the ticket. Okay, how about this gem by Senator Biden. “I support immediate financial assistance to the newly elected Palestinian president. Now, I don't know what those numbers will be, and I don't know how it's going to be framed.” It’s bad enough that he’s itching to send American dollars overseas, but the newly elected Palestinian president was a member of the terrorist organization Hamas. Hamas! Senator Biden wanted to fund this man with American money? How does THAT benefit national security? What kind of message does it send to our long time ally, Israel? How do you think the American people would react if they thought you were trying to use their tax dollars to prop up a terrorist? That’s exactly what you were doing!

The Vice Presidential nomination is usually used to help balance out a presidential ticket. Has this pick done so? Well, according to National Journal's rankingsno. Obama was rated as having the most liberal voting record in the Senate, and Biden came it at number three. Only Rhode Island Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse was in between them. With this ticket, and a Democratic controlled congress, America would lean so far to the left that it would tip over into Socialism., and that’s not exaggeration. Take a look at the programs and taxes proposed by the Saviour Obama, and you’ll see redistribution of wealth, class envy, and government handouts. This is not the direction that America needs, and it is most certainly NOT change we can believe in. no. Obama was rated as having the most liberal voting record in the Senate, and Biden came it at number three. Only Rhode Island Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse was in between them. With this ticket, and a Democratic controlled congress, America would lean so far to the left that it would tip over into Socialism., and that’s not exaggeration. Take a look at the programs and taxes proposed by the Saviour Obama, and you’ll see redistribution of wealth, class envy, and government handouts. This is not the direction that America needs, and it is most certainly NOT change we can believe in.

Mary and Mary's friend Ken...

I wrote recently about our dear Senator Marie Laveau, er, Mary Landrieu, and her friend Sen. Salazar. Senator Laveau could have cast the deciding vote in comittee that lead to the extraction of crude oil from oil shale in Colorado. That said, this gentleman, Sen. Salazar, persuaded her to adhere to party lines and vote it down. This is his position on price at the pump, versus drilling.

Ken Salazar on Offshore drilling

Thanks again, Mary. You've served us well...or not.

Breakfast with Senator Cassidy

On Saturday, July 19th, I had the chance to sit down with State Senator William Cassidy, candidate for Congress in the 6th congressional district. The Senator and I talked over the issues at Louie's near LSU.

Louisiana Conservative: First of all, Good Morning, Senator. I’m glad we got this opportunity to sit down and talk. We’re all looking forward to watching you make this run for Congress. I just have a few questions that are on the minds of a lot of people, starting right off with one of the big “hot button issues” of the day, and that’s energy. On both sides of the aisle there are a lot of questions being asked. Some support drilling off the coast, in ANWR and anywhere that we can produce more oil, while others hesitate to drill, preferring different means. What do you think about this issue?

Senator William Cassidy: We should expand drilling. We should open up areas that are currently closed. The idea that we can encourage some states by revenue sharing is a good idea. Another thing, we also know that we can now drill in environmentally sensitive areas without the same risk of pollution that once existed. After Katrina, the losses that occurred from oil spillage were not from the rigs, it was from storage tanks floating up, it was from old infrastructure that leaked. We’re talking about new areas; we’re talking about newer infrastructure that further minimizes the risk. In a way, that benefits Louisiana. We know that in Louisiana we’re going to supply a lot of those off-shore oil drilling platforms. Our core competency includes building boats for off-shore oil, building rigs, Louisiana people to do the work and to teach others to work on the rigs. So, not only is it good for our country, it’s good for our state.

LC: One of the other areas that people are feeling the energy crunch is in the price of electricity. Another dividing issue here is nuclear energy. Where do you stand on that?

WC: Isn’t it ironic that nuclear energy has become the green energy? No carbon footprints. That’s the interesting thing about it. So, the reality is the regulatory problem with building a nuclear plant is such that it’s not feasible. We’ve got to improve the regulatory environment so that we’re able to build nuclear without pricing it out. We need to invest in it. France? Eighty percent of their electricity comes from nuclear energy. They ship electricity to the surrounding countries. They’ve clearly made a tremendous impact on the consumption of fossil fuels. We should encourage that.

LC: Being a physician yourself, these next two questions, you would seem uniquely qualified to answer. Where, in your opinion, does life begin?

WC: In utero. I’m pro-life. Life begins in utero. In some ways we acknowledge that in our laws, and in some ways we don’t. Clearly this is a problem that society has to work on, and it’s going to be hard; but, I’m an optimistic person and I’m optimistic that even people who are pro-choice say they want to limit abortion, and that shows we’ve won the moral argument. Everyone agrees that it’s not a good thing, now it’s just “how do we stop it.”

LC: The second question is that of our health care system. You hear a great deal about nationalizing the health care system. Is this really a good idea?

WC:I work for a government run health care system. I’ve been doing it for twenty years. It gives me an opportunity to serve people who are uninsured. Having said that, most of the people I treat are uninsured. People vote with their feet and move to the private sector. The private sector has been able to respond more quickly and to meet patient needs more effectively. I am strongly in favor of maintaining a privately run health care system.

LC:Some of the folks that I have talked to are particularly concerned that Congress will not renew the tax cuts that President Bush put into place. Do you feel that they should be made permanent?

WC:The power to tax is the power to destroy. If you raise taxes, you decrease productivity. That’s the bottom line. It’s always fool’s gold. You think that if you raise taxes, you’ll increase government revenue and reduce government deficits. No one likes government deficits. The fact is, though, that you reduce productivity and tax receipts are going to go down. John F. Kennedy put it best, “Times of recession are times that you decrease taxes.” George H.W. Bush did it wrong. Just as we were coming out of a recession, he increased taxes. When he did so, we deepened our recession and he lost his Presidency. So history as a guide, we should not increase those tax rates.

LC:With the reduction of taxes comes the question of spending. If we reduce the rate of tax money coming in, should we not also reduce the amount of money going out?

WC:Absolutely. Earmarks get a lot of attention. It’s kind of like going backpacking with the scouts. My son is a scout. They say, “If you watch the ounces, the pounds take care of themselves.” So with earmarks, it’s a substantial amount of money, but people say it’s a small percentage of the budget. If you’re so conscious that “this is an earmark and we don’t have the money. We have to watch that penny.” If you watch the pennies, the dollars take care of themselves. Or in the federal government you might say, if you watch the millions, the billions will be taken care of. So, we need to be so conscious about it. Not just the earmarks, but the new entitlements, etcetera. If we can’t pay for it, we shouldn’t do it.

LC:Talk radio is very near and dear to my heart, because it’s so close to what I do here. I hear a great deal on talk radio about the “fairness” doctrine. How do you feel about it?

WC:Well the fairness doctrine is obviously a return to a time when the regulated airwaves had to have equal time for different candidates. Clearly that didn’t prevent newscasters from expressing their personal opinion in subtle ways, or presenting a particular candidate in a positive or negative fashion. The fact is, with the diversity of media we have now, the fairness doctrine seems like an old legal doctrine that doesn’t need to apply to the radio waves, or the print media, or the internet. My gosh, if you can’t be on the internet now with your particular viewpoint, then you don’t have any sense of how to use technology.

LC:I just have one more major question for you, and it has been a major issue for several years. Things in Iraq seem to be starting to ease up. How do you feel about what’s going on there, and how it has been handled?

WC:Wow. It’s interesting. The Democrats have been saying that the surge wouldn’t work. The surge clearly has worked. Now they’re saying we were wrong on that, but we’ll be right on the next step. Whatever your feelings about the beginning of the war, the fact is; we’re in there now, and the surge worked. Also, I saw in the paper this morning that President Bush is announcing a plan for ultimate troop withdrawal. We’ve done that while stabilizing the country and theoretically bringing its oil supply back online for the short term future. If we’re successful, what will emerge is a country that is a bulwark against terrorism. So, our troops should be home as soon as possible, but not a day too soon. The surge has worked, and to say that we’ll have the troops home in six months no matter what is a foolish policy.

LC:Senator, I really appreciate you time today, it has been an honor and a privilege.

WC:Thanks, I enjoyed it.

The One-Eyed Jack.

I don't know about you, but I've always enjoyed a good game of cards. I remember, as a child, playing cards with my cousins, we liked to use a lot of wild cards when we played. Our favorite was to use the one-eyed Jacks. There's something mysterious about the Jack of Spades and the Jack of Hearts. They showed the world one aspect, but what were they hiding on the other side? It occurs to me that we've a pair of one-eyed jacks representing our area even now in Washington. Both Congressman Don Cazayoux, affectionately know on Louisiana Conservative as "Coullion", and Senator Marie Laveau, I'm sorry, I meant Mary Landrieu, are showing us one face, but what are they hiding? They both have been talking a good game about energy independence. They both verbally advocate drilling and refining our own oil here in the United States. They both talk about doing what is best for Louisiana and standing up to party leadership. Is that what they are really doing?

Let's examine first the record of Congressman "Cash-in-on-you". We talked before the election about his claims of fiscal conservatism. We talked about his record in Baton Rouge stating otherwise. We also mentioned that he would never be able to stand up to the overwhelming force of his own party. His record shows that he as not. Out of the first 100 votes he cast in the House, his voting record shows that he has walked in steady, lock-step rhythm with Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic party. This "Blue dog" Democrat was quickly brought to heel. In a conversation that I had with his office, they assured me that he was in favor of drilling, and refining, here in the United States. They said that he would lead the fight to drill here in American, to open up ANWR and the OCS. When the chance came for him to lead, he marched right up to Pelosi and made sure he got the last word. Tragically, it was "Yes Ma'am."

What about Senator Laveau? The New Orleans voodoo queen of the Senate had her chance to shine as well. According to Washington insiders, she was offered an opportunity to cast the deciding vote that would have expanded domestic energy exploration by lifting the moratorium on oil shale development. Landireu, a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, instead voted no according to the Rocky Mountain News at the request of the committee chairman, Democratic Senator Ken Salazar. In her own words she said this: "Sen. Salazar asked me to vote no. I did so at his request."

Let's look at the impact these two could have had on Louisiana. Here in the state, we have sixteen of the nation's oil refineries, including Exxon Mobil's Baton Rouge refinery and Placcid refinery in Port Allen. These sixteen refineries process an average of 2,945,800 barrells of oil per day according to Wikipedia. Oil is a major portion of the Louisiana economy,and the lifeblood of Baton Rouge. If you do not believe me, just ask any of the friends and neighbors that you have that work for Exxon or Placcid. They'll tell you how important it is to their job. What would these additional oil revenue do for the economy of our area? What about for our state? How nice would it be to pay less at the pump? These things aren't happening right now thanks to the care and devotion of our national Democratic Party.

This is just one issue. One that can be resolved this November by making a change in who we send to Washington. Ladies and Gentlemen, we are on the verge of some great things in this state, and we have a chance to spread that momentum into our nation's captial. Let's get "Cash-in-on-you" and Senator Laveau out of our nightmares, and out of our Congress. Let's discard the one-eyed jacks.

What's Not to Love?

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

Two hundred thirty two years ago, these words were adopted by the Continental Congress, declaring boldly, not just our independence, but the rights of all mankind. The United States of America, from its inception, has been innovative and bold. There was greatness in the words written by Thomas Jefferson so long ago. That greatness has carried on in the history of this country. The freedom guaranteed by that founding document has been defended by an unbroken line of heroes that have stood on the battlefields of America, Europe, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and all over the world.

Our leaders have stood before the world as statesmen that changed the world, declaring the values and ideals of this American nation. It was these United States that demonstrated that a people oppressed can rise up and defeat an empire. It was these United States that showed Imperial Japan that sleeping giants can awaken. It was these United States that stood before the Third Reich and proved that evil would not be tolerated in the world. We have stood strong in the face of evil, liberated those under the thumb of dictators, commanded an “evil empire” to “tear down this wall” and seen the blessed light of liberty glowing brightly as the wall came tumbling down.

What is it about America that leads us to such greatness? I have always believed that it is not merely the rights and freedoms that we have founded our nation on, but the acknowledgement from whence they came. The “blessings of liberty” are in fact God given. God bless America is not merely a slogan, but a citation of source. We are one nation under God. As a people, we lose sight of that fact, or, more honestly, we ignore that fact at times. Still, the truth of it cannot be underestimated. Our first President, George Washington, so truthfully stated, “It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.”

It is not only the source of our blessings that makes us great, but the source of the government’s mandate. The very foundation upon which our Constitution was built, “We the people.” What makes America great, quite simply is, Americans. Take a look around you today, as we celebrate. That great struggling mass of individuals forms the tightly woven fabric of our nation. Some of them have fought and bled for us on foreign soil. Some have stayed home and shouldered their own burdens, but all have contributed something into our great nation. Let us never forget that we all have a duty to make this system work.

America is still the greatest country in the world. No matter what some would tell you, this country is as strong as the base of a pillar, upon which is lain the world. Though some would gaze at us in loathing, jealousy or spite, our greatness is undeniable. Let each American voice, today raise up the virtues of this great land of ours, and LET FREEDOM RING!

Not to be Crude...

When I was younger, I found myself with a problem. It was a problem that faces all of us at one time or another, “I need money. “ I was completely dependant on my parents for income. Obviously, I needed money, so I had to find a way to increase my revenue stream.

Immediately, I asked my parents to increase the flow of money. That would obviously increase my income, don’t you think? Oddly enough, they were reluctant to do so, citing budgetary concerns, and my stewardship of what I’d been given. This gave me no solution to my problem, so I had to try another tactic.

I decided that I could solve my problem via conservation. This helped a bit, but in truth it did not lower my need, (read, demand), for additional revenue. Furthermore, even though I was using less money, every penny I was using came from my parents, meaning that I was, none the less, dependant on them for income.

A heartwarming tale, you say, but what does that have to do with the price of oil in Persia? Funny that should you ask that question. For several months now, our politicians have been preaching that we need to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has been my experience that the only way to decrease your dependence on a source of something is to produce it independently. In other words, we need to get our own oil.

Since the Reagan administration, the Republican Party has been fighting to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR, commonly pronounced “Anwar”) for drilling. This site is capable of producing roughly one million barrels of oil per day, roughly five percent of America’s daily usage. This is one site that is capable of a five percent reduction in our dependency on foreign crude. That said, Senator Charles Schumer, (D - New York) called this a mere “drop in the bucket”. A week later, he stated that a million barrels of Saudi oil per day would go a long way toward easing gas prices. Senator Schumer apparently feels that American oil is not as good at reducing our dependence on foreign oil as Saudi oil. This makes no end of sense, don’t you think?

There was a major discovery of oil in North Dakota in recent months resulting in a find that could be larger than that of ANWR. Suffice it to say that between Alaska, North Dakota, Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and the Gulf of Mexico, there is enough Oil in the United States to not only reduce, but eliminate our dependency on foreign oil. We can easily be self sufficient, but we need Congress to stop selling out to the radical left, and open these sites for drilling. Over six hundred sixty thousand people have signed a petition to drill for oil within our borders, but that is not enough. There is a major groundswell that Congress cannot ignore coming, but we need to join in the fight. I ask you to join me and sign.

Tell Congress that we want our own oil. Ring Congressman Cazayoux’s phone off of the hook. The same with Senator Landrieu, and Congressman Melancon, and every other man or woman that we have elected to represent us. Shout from the highest mountaintops that we must drill now, drill here, and pay less.

People Vs. Sawyer

All Rise. Court of Public Opinion is now in session, the Honorable John Q. Public presiding. Thank you, Bailiff. In the matter of People vs. Sawyer these are my findings.
Mr. Sawyer, you are accused of breaking the 11th commandment, "Thou shalt not attack another Republican", by lashing out at one of your opponents, excoriating him for aligning himself with former Louisiana State Representative David Duke. For this, the public seems to have weighed you in the balance and found you wanting. You lost ground to Mr. Jenkins after your attack. Licking your wounds from such a crushing defeat, you tried it again. Sort of a “perhaps you didn’t hear me right” tactic. This would imply, Mr. Sawyer that your learning curve leaves a little something to be desired. Shall we examine where you went wrong?
Louis E. “Woody” Jenkins has a long standing reputation as a man of integrity. He is a veteran of the Louisiana Legislature known for sponsoring some of the most positive acts in the history of Louisiana and more to the point, benefiting the people of the sixth congressional district for which you are running. He is well respected and well liked in the district. You, I have no doubt, are aware of this and also aware of the good that Woody Jenkins has done, particularly since your former employer, Congressman Baker, counts Mr. Jenkins among his close friends. Congressman Baker, to his credit, has declined to endorse either his close friend, or his former co-worker, citing the potential conflict of interest. I seriously doubt that you are winning any points with Congressman Baker over this fight.
Perhaps, instead, we will look at the claim itself. You have claimed that Woody Jenkins paid $82,000.00 to David Duke, and was then fined by the FEC for the event. A convincing statement, however, in my research, I have completely failed to find a single shred of evidence to support this claim. Now I’ve lived in the 6th district for my entire life. I’ve heard many stories and read many articles involving Mr. Jenkins. This one, I have to admit, has eluded me. With that in mind, I did exactly what your ad suggests. I "Googled" Woody Jenkins and David Duke. I found only one entry that did not refer directly to your add. It was the first entry. An article from an organization founded by Senator Hillary Clinton called “Media Matters for America”. This is the same organization that started the fiasco over Commentator Rush Limbaugh and his statement that a convicted imposter soldier was a “Phony Soldier”. As in that case, this was a ginned up story intended to make conservatives look bad, specifically playing to the stereotype that Republicans are racist. Nice one, Mr. Sawyer. Thanks for successfully making your own party look bad.
Finally, lets examine this. Louis E. Jenkins has received the endorsement of several prominent conservatives including Club for Growth, Dr. James Dobson
, and the East Baton Rouge Parish Republican Party. These credible sources trust Woody Jenkins, and for that matter, so do I. I’ll be adding my own endorsement, humble though it is, to that list. Court is adjourned.

Ignoring it won't make it better

Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure that ignoring a problem is not the best way to improve it, right? Sure, there's the "don't pick at it, it'll leave a scar" school of thought, and I can understand that, but to ignore something that is so vital to this country simply because it puts you in an awkward political position is unconscionable. Now I have your attention, yes?
Let's put all of the cards on the table. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 is a U.S. Federal law prescribing procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of "foreign intelligence information" between or among "foreign powers" on territory under United States control. This included electronic surveillance, physical searches, pen registers and trap/trace devices for foreign intelligence purposes and access to certain business records for the same foreign intelligence purposes. The act created a court which meets in secret, and approves or denies requests for search warrants. Only the number of warrants applied for, issued and denied, is reported. In 1980 (the first full year after its inception), it approved 322 warrants. This number has steadily grown to 2224 warrants in 2006. Only 5 warrants have been rejected since the court first met in 1979. In 2001, this act was amended to include terrorism on behalf of groups that are not specifically backed by a foreign government as part of the US Patriot act.
At midnight on February 16th, 2008, the FISA provisions of the patriot act expired. Why? After the renewal of this program was passed by the Senate, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi decided that she would adjourn the house session without addressing this critical piece of legislation. It seemed politically expedient for Congresswoman Pelosi to let the safety of this nation suffer because she did not want to explain to her party why the Patriot Act passed again. Petty, isn't it? She would sacrifice information that we could desperately need because she knew she would lose. This provision has been a success, and the FISA courts have done their jobs admirably. Still, the Democrats characterize this as "Warrant-less" wire taps, and an invasion of the privacy of the American citizens. Somehow, though, every instance where a wire tap has been placed, it has been within the limits of probable cause and specific to incoming international calls. The federal government is not looking to crash a PTA meeting here. This is not about what Sally is doing down the street. This is an attempt to stop international terrorists from HURTING MORE PEOPLE!
One of the biggest reasons that we were blindsided by the events of September 11, 2001 is because our intelligence agencies were handcuffed by the Clinton administration. They were not allowed to share information. If we then take away their ability to collect the data that protects us, then WHAT DO WE KEEP THEM AROUND FOR?!
Madam Pelosi, if you want to play Russian roulette with your own safety, then fine, but you have compromised the safety of this entire nation. The Constitution of this great nation states that the federal government has a responsibility to "provide for the common defense." How does this action meet that responsibility? The Patriot Act of 2001 was not a violation of our first amendment rights; it was designed to protect them. If you want to get up in arms about the first amendment, great! Repeal the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act. I can at least site a Supreme Court case that states it is unconstitutional. All you can truly argue is, "I don't wanna."

When Heroism Is Not Enough

On February 9th, the voters of Louisiana will go to the polls to decide who will be the nominees for the office of President of the United States of America. By this time, the field has narrowed down to just a few candidates, and the Republican roster has been reduced to four men. Realistically, only two now have the delegates to make a realistic push for the nomination, those two being Senator John McCain of Arizona, and former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney. I am not writing this column to endorse a candidate. The candidate that you choose is entirely up to you. In truth, I have been trying very hard to NOT write this article, because it is in some ways, a condemnation of a man for whom I have a great deal of respect.
John McCain is a war hero. He is a veteran, and a former P.O.W. John McCain’s body has been ravaged because of his devotion to duty as a soldier. Because of the time he spent in the “Hanoi Hilton” he cannot raise his arms higher than his chest. His hands do not function well. He requires assistance just to get dressed. John McCain has made sacrifices that I will never be able to relate to, but heroism and sacrifice are not enough. There are several reasons why I cannot vote for John McCain in the primary.
Let us begin with that issue which is most important to me, integrity. Senator McCain was roundly criticized this week for making a false statement regarding Governor Romney, his chief opposition. He stated that Governor Romney supported timetables for mandatory withdrawals of our troops in Iraq. Not only is this not true, but he did so, claiming that this made Governor Romney no different than the Clintons. That is an interesting claim, considering how closely Senator McCain’s positions on so many issues mirror that of the Democratic Party.
It was John McCain, along with Senator Ted Kennedy who offered the amnesty bill disguised as “immigration reform.” The American people rose up and squashed the attempt to pass a program that offered resident visas to border jumpers without securing those same borders. The program allowed illegal immigrants, and let me stress the word illegal, to bypass a majority of the red tape and get on the fast track to citizenship. This while people who have followed the rules and tried to gain citizenship through proper channels had to sit back and watch the illegals move to the front of the line. Not exactly an exercise in fairness.
Senator McCain also reached across the aisle to Senator Russ Feingold and together, they assembled the “campaign finance reform” act. The most far reaching assault of political free speech since the 1976 Buckley vs. Valeo decision put an end to these kinds of roadblocks by ruling that spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech. Senator McCain swore an oath to defend and protect the constitution, then in one fell swoop, began to tear it down.
Perhaps we should look to the “patient’s bill of rights.” Senator McCain, along with Senator Kennedy and Senator John Edwards gifted the trial lawyers of America with the biggest boon since the tobacco settlement. If you’re still not convinced, perhaps you should look to the blow he dealt to the pharmaceutical industry and its research and development with his plan for the reimportation of drugs.
There is also this against him. John McCain has been fighting the economic battles of the Democratic Party as well. He opposed the tax cuts that President Bush proposed in 2001, why? “I’m not going to do tax cuts for the rich.” Senator McCain, I received that tax cut in 2001, am I rich? Anyone who knows me knows that I am not. In fact, at the time, I was barely making above minimum wage. Tax cuts for the rich? Isn’t that class warfare rhetoric? Have we started pitting rich against poor, black against white, man against woman? These are not the statements of a conservative. In fact, none of this constitutes the actions of a conservative.
To be honest, Senator McCain has done his dead level best to impede the progress of the conservative movement since he joined the Senate. The most glaring example of this that I can give is his efforts to stop the confirmation of conservative judges between 2000 and 2004. Yes, a Republican Senator, in a Republican controlled Senate sided with the Democrats to extend the filibuster of judicial nominees. The filibuster rule was never meant to apply to judicial nominations; in fact the Senate has no constitutional authority to use filibuster in such a fashion. The loophole in the rule was going to be closed by the Senate Republicans until John McCain rode in with his "Gang of fourteen". That’s right. Seven “moderate” Republicans and Seven Democrats that blocked the rule change and allowed the Democrats to continue to block those judicial appointments that might support the constitution as it was written rather than as they’d like it interpreted.
I cannot vote for such a man as the nominee in my party. Should it come down to a choice between him, and Obama or Clinton, well he’s still the better choice than either of them, but it would be the equivalent of asking me if I’d rather be shot in the chest or in the head. I’m sorry, Senator McCain, that you’ve suffered so much for this country. Heroism is just not enough to redeem your record.

the Winds of Change

Louisiana is changing. That is certainly no surprise to anyone. In fact, the very geography of our fair state was changed in 2005, when Hurricanes Katrina and Rita struck. Sadly, it took these natural disasters, and a few rather unfortunate events, to change the political process in the “Sportsman’s Paradise.” This is the state that elected Edwin W. Edwards to four terms as Governor. This is the place where precincts have been known to have 105% voter turnout for Senatorial elections. This is the place where, if you hoped to get a government contract, your handshake was just a way to slip cash into someone’s pocket. Ethics laws have been treated as mere suggestions. No Longer, for Louisiana has elected and inaugurated a reform candidate that actually went to work, drum roll if you will, REFORMING.
Change is being felt in Louisiana’s Congressional delegation as well. The decline in population means that we will be losing a congressional district. On top of that, we have lost, and continue to lose, legislative leaders. Let us not forget that one of our most senior Representatives, Billy Tauzin, retired in 2005. To compound this, Governor Jindal stepped out of a Congressional seat to enter the Governor’s mansion. Add to that, the fact that the seat in the Sixth district will be vacated by Congressman Baker, and suddenly, Louisiana’s congressional district has just lost three influential voices in the last three years.
So, you see, some of the changes we’ve seen are refreshing and some, not so much. Still, Louisiana has been shifting more and more to the right with every major event. The people are beginning to realize that the Democratic Party, that once had a stranglehold on the state, is not championing our causes after all. People are fed up with a Government that over-promises and under-delivers. They are asking, why we budget continuing programs with one-time funds. They’re asking why our tax rates are so high. They want to know why the government is paying contractors that are not delivering on their work. When all is said and done, Louisiana is waking up to the fact that tax and spend isn’t the answer, that corruption isn’t required to run a state, and that FEMA can’t fix these problems either. “Great”, you say, “but what does that have to do with me?” Simply put, we have a chance to keep change moving in the right direction. We need to fill Congressman Baker’s seat with another conservative that will fight for the issues that are important to us, such as lowering taxes, securing borders, cutting spending, limiting bureaucracy and protecting our rights. Senator Landrieu is up for re-election this November as well. She is a hold over from the old guard. A tax and spend liberal to the bone. Scandal and corruption have reared their head in her tenure as well, and the cleanup must continue. It is time for Louisiana to move forward, and gain respect in a nation that views us as a corrupt backwater that is not worth considering. Let us pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps, and make a difference in the way we go about our business.

Death of a Concept?

I'm sorry, Mr. Gingrich, did I hear you correctly? Did you say that Reaganism is dead? I do apologize, sir, but I must respectfully disagree. Reaganism is not just the idyllic political concept that was born during my childhood years. It was not merely the ideas and methods of Ronald Reagan. In truth, Reaganism is merely a euphemism for conservatism. Nothing more, nothing less.
If you mean to tell me that conservatism is dead, then, my friend, you have strayed far afield from the Congressman from Georgia that I once admired for his convictions and beliefs. I remember the "contract with America." I recall the days when this great nation moved to put republicans in the majority in the houses of Congress. It was not because you were republicans that you were put in office, but because you were conservatives. In fact, I put it to you that the heart of this nation is still conservative. Shall we examine the truth of it?
Ask the average man on the street and he will tell you that he is overtaxed. Surprised? Probably not. Still, this is true, and conservative economics will tell you that he is most likely correct. Tax revenue was raised after Congress, under the direction of President Bush, slashed the income tax code in such a way that the majority of Americans received a second refund from the internal revenue service of three hundred dollars at a minimum. Lower taxes mean more private-sector spending, which in turn leads to more tax revenue. Businesses have the need and the means to hire more employees, unemployment falls, and therefore more income taxes are collected.
A wise man once said that the most frightening words in the English language are, and I quote, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." There is a great deal of truth in this as well. The federal government has grown far too large. Most regular folks would, if asked, say that they'd like the government to have a smaller role in their daily lives. Who wants a government that meddles in the affairs of its citizenry? The answer, you will find, is NOT its citizens. The government exists to organize the affairs of the country, not to decide what its citizens eat, drink, drive, spend, save, think or do. This country could do with fewer government programs, don't you think?
In fact, with fewer things to spend my tax dollars on and more of them coming in (thanks to those tax cuts), we ought to have no problem finding money to, oh, say, supply our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan? Secure our revolving door borders? Allow the free market system to repair our broken medical insurance business by getting government out rather than having government take over? Just a few suggestions. That's all.
I think you'll find that the average American supports the men and women of our military, regardless of their feelings of the war in Iraq. So many times I have seen and received e-mails and video links to patriotic sites. People believe in this country. Patriotism is still alive and well. In fact, Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, just today, reminded us that the world at large still has a "healthy respect" for the United States of America.
All of these things are conservative concepts, Mr. Gingrich. All of them. Conservatism cannot die. It is not dependent on the moods and whims of this nation. Conservatism does not check with the polls to see which way the wind is blowing. Conservatism, much like integrity, right and wrong, does not depend on CNN to carry its story. It does not need the New York Times to print its agenda in bold face. It needn't be concerned with changing with the times. Conservatism is bedrock. It is a foundation for beliefs, not beliefs themselves. It is a why, not a what. It was the parchment that the "contract with America" was written on, rather than the pen you used to write it. You once understood that. Perhaps it is that Newt Gingrich, rather than Reaganism, that has died.