January 6, 2008
Today's Headlines

Federal Department of Toilets & Light Bulbs
By Chuck Muth
January 6, 2008

How many congressmen does it take to change a light bulb?  400.

That's how many members of Congress recently voted for a bill which will force American consumers to change the 50-cent incandescent light bulbs they're currently using and replace them with expensive new, $3 "energy-efficient" light bulbs.  As Shane Cory of the Libertarian Party sarcastically put it, "If you outlaw light bulbs, then only outlaws will have light bulbs."

The ban, which takes effect in 2014, was included in the 2007 energy bill which 314 members of the United States House of Representatives and 86 members of the United States Senate voted for.

Following the vote, Nevada Sen. Harry Reid said he thought the light bulb ban was an appropriate exercise of federal power.  Interesting company he's keeping.  Because when the bill was originally introduced by Rep. Jane Harman (D-Ca.) last March, CNS News reported that two other countries had already taken similar steps to eradicate inexpensive incandescent light bulbs from the planet: Fidel Castro's Cuba and Hugo Chavez's Venezuela.

Unfortunately, this is nothing new for Congress.  The light bulb ban is simply the latest example of an increasingly intrusive federal government sticking its nose in the day-to-day affairs of the average citizen.

Do you remember the 1992 energy bill, in which Congress banned the 3.5 gallon toilet, mandating that Americans no longer use more than 1.6 gallons per flush?  Of course, per the immutable law of unintended consequences, 1.6 gallons turned out not to be enough to, er, get the job done.  So folks found themselves flushing two and three times per visit, thus using the same amount of water, if not more, than they did before Congress butted into our bathrooms.

Excuse me, but would someone please show me where a federal Department of Toilets and Light Bulbs is authorized in the United States Constitution.

And make no mistake. Congress has no intention of stopping at toilets and light bulbs.  Still under active consideration is a new federal ban on top-loading washing machines, as well as a federal ban on disposable diapers.  Seems some of our elected officials won't be satisfied until we're again washing out our cloth diapers on rocks by a steam in the pitch dark.

The late, great Sen. Barry Goldwater famously declared in the early 1960s he would "not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible." That sentiment has all but disappeared these days in the halls of Congress.

One glaring exception is Arizona Rep. John Shadegg (R-Arizona), a co-founder of the Goldwater Institute, who has proposed the "Enumerated Powers Act" would require that "Each act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement of the Constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that act."  Now there's an idea whose time has come!

Rep. Shadegg has introduced this bill in every Congress since 1995.  And to give you an idea of exactly how far from their strictly limited-government roots the House has drifted since then, Shadegg's original bill in 1995 had 103 co-sponsors.  The same bill this year?  Just 38.

Goodnight, Constitution.  I'll leave a non-incandescent light on for you.

---

Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
                                                                                   - George Washington

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

My suggestion for control and monitoring of terrorist and other aliens in the United States

I would require everyone in the US possess a valid passport with current and proper visa be shown in order to obtain travel, hotel, schooling/training, housing or employment in the United States.

This would require that all adult United States citizens also obtained a passport.  Based on income the issuing cost for the United States passport could be subsidized so lower income Americas could receive rebates on their income tax.  The issuing of new passports could be staggered in the same manner as the on-line credit report system used last year.

When I travel outside the United States I must show my passport to obtain travel, hotel, schooling/training, housing or employment.  The correct and current visa must also be in my passport to verify that I can be employed or receive training in that foreign country.  We should use the same passport system as the rest of the world.

We will not need to build walls at our borders if we use the passport system that is already in place.  Travel and lodging will be impossible to obtain without a current passport.  Training and education at any level would be impossible to obtain.  Employment would also not be possible.  We could give limited access to the passport and visa verification system to airlines, bus companies, Amtrak and employers.  If anyone is currently in the United States illegally they would be forced to leave on their own since it would be impossible for them to receive any services except for health care and food.

I believe the cost for this program would be less than other border control systems proposed.  It would be fair and eliminate any possible of profiling or unfair treatment since everyone in the United States would have to show their passport before obtaining services or employment.

A SIMPLE LESSON IN ECONOMICS

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100.00

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

· The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing
· The fifth would pay $1
· The sixth would pay $3
· The seventh $7
· The eighth $12
· The ninth $18
· The tenth the (richest) would pay $59

So that's what they decided to do.

The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20.  So now the dinner for the ten only cost $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair share”? The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But they subtracted that form everybody's share, then the fifth and the sixth man would each end up being “paid” to eat their meal.

So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each manes bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

· The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings)
· The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings)
· The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%)
· The eighth now paid $9 instead if $12 (25% savings)
· The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings)
· The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings)

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth. “But he got $10!”

“Yeah that's right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. Its unfair that he got ten times more than me!”

“That's true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for half the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction.

Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.

You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

Guns only have two enemies: Rust and Politicians.

The Second Amendment is in place in case they ignore the others.

The American Revolution would never have happened with Gun Control.

Great Question

"Let us, for a moment, take the sex education pushers at their word: If you teach a child how to use a condom, you're promoting safety - not usage. Why, then, doesn't the same logic apply to guns?"

Another One Bites the Dust

"A West Baltimore man shot and killed an unarmed intruder who entered his home late Sunday night through a second floor window, city police said.  Police said the intruder, Howard Augustus Turner, 37, of East Baltimore, was shot by Fu Tan in his home in the 1800 block of W. North Ave. about 11:50 p.m. After being shot in the upper torso, Turner jumped through the window, fell to the ground and ran about 100 feet before collapsing, police said. Turner died shortly after midnight yesterday at Maryland General Hospital.  Police were continuing their investigation and will eventually turn it over to prosecutors to decide whether to press charges, said police spokeswoman Angelique Cook-Hayes."

Gun Hysteria in Illinois

"The Chicago Tribune reports editors of the student newspaper at Illinois's Hinsdale Central High School decided not to publish an issue of the paper rather than comply with an order from principal, Jim Ferguson, to kill 'tabloid style' photo illustrations they had prepared to accompany a story on school violence pegged to the April 20 anniversary of the Columbine mass murder. ... "This comes down to a fundamental issue of student safety,' the principal said. 'School is not a place for guns in any real or imaginary sense." ...

We'd like to know more about this imaginary gun problem:

• How many Americans own imaginary guns?
• How many imaginary people do they kill or injure each year?
• How often are they used for self defense against imaginary criminals?
• If imaginary guns are outlawed, will only outlaws have imaginary guns?"

Five-point plan to help citizens avoid being shot by police.

This plan may not prevent all shootings, but very few will take place when the plan is rigorously adhered to. So, here are the rules:

1. DON'T COMMIT VIOLENT CRIMES. It seems elementary, but this rule is lost on many. They do the crime, get shot, and then wonder how it could possibly happen. They whine that it is so unfair. Well, Slick, violent crime, like jumping in front of moving cars, is just a high-risk occupation, and, in case you missed it, committing violent crime makes police officers think you might not be a good person.

2. If you ignore rule No. 1, and the police confront you, DON'T RUN AWAY FROM THEM. I know it's hard to believe, but that may make them think you're guilty of something. Hiding in bushes or closets makes some cops (mostly older ones) very nervous. They might even foolishly conclude that you're up to no good!

  3. If you disregard rules 1 and 2, and the cops catch up with you anyway and inform you that you are under arrest, DON'T MAKE FAST MOVEMENTS WITH YOUR HANDS. I know it sounds silly, but grabbing a shiny beer can, a dark-colored wallet, or one of those snazzy and real-looking replica guns may make police officers mistakenly believe that you are about to hurt them.

4. If you disregard rules 1, 2, and 3, and manage to get what looks like a deadly weapon into your hands, DON'T POINT IT AT THE COPS. We all know that you're basically a nice person, but that may be lost on the police officers confronting you. In their paranoia, they may even believe they need to protect themselves.

5. If you disregard rules 1, 2, 3, and 4, DON'T BE ASTONISHED IF THE COPS DO NOT INSTANTLY TURN INTO YOUR PERSONAL CONFIDANTE. They may be too preoccupied to realize that you're normally a splendid person and that you're just having a bad day. They may be too preoccupied to see that when you point a weapon at them in a threatening manner, it is just your way of crying out for help. We both know that the whole problem can be traced to the fact that your mother didn't breast feed you, but some police officers are so cynical they just don't see it.

So, there you have it. If you really apply yourself and obey even some of the rules listed above, I bet you'll avoid the vast majority of police
gunfire."

Cheri Lewis
Deputy DA

Los Angeles, California

WAKE UP AMERICA

You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.  Half awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers.  At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.  With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun.  You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it.  In the darkness, you make out two shadows.  One holds something that looks like a crowbar.  When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire.  The blast knocks both thugs to the floor.  One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.

As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.  In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless.  Yours was never registered.  Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died.  They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal possession of a Firearm.  When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry, authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.  "What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.  "Only ten to twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing.  "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven.

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper.  Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys.  Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them.  Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times.  But the next day's headline says it all, "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die."  The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood type pranksters.

As the days wear on, the story takes wings.  The national media picks it up, then the international media.  The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.  Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win.  The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects.  After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.  The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial.  The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted.  When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you.  Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man.  It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.  The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened.  On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England, killed one burglar and wounded a second.  In April 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.

How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire?  It started with the Pistols Act of 1903.  This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons.  And established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license.

The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns.  Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987.  Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw.  When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.  The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions.  The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.

Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland, Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.  For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals.  Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners.  Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns.

The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few side arms still owned by private citizens.  During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self defense came to be seen as vigilantism.  Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun.  Citizens who shot burglars, robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.  Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."  All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences.  Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities.  Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law.  The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten year prison sentences if they didn't comply.  Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.  How did the authorities know who had handguns?  The guns had been registered and licensed.  Kinda like cars.  Sound familiar?

"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."

--Samuel Adams

"Hanoi" Jane one of the "100 Women of the Century"?

Our society has many good points. It has one downside. I am afraid it still makes heroes of so many people whose lives we would not want our children to mimic. Is that not what heroes are about?  ABC has allowed Barbara Walters to honor Jane Fonda in her feature "100 Years of Great Women."   Shame on the Disney Company. ABC and Barbara Walters included "Hanoi" Jane in their televised celebration because their black souls are too hardened and too imbued with an anti-American sentiment to do anything else.   And ultimately, they will all answer for what they have done.  Unfortunately many have forgotten and still countless others have never known how Ms. Fonda betrayed not only the idea of our country but specific men who served and sacrificed during Vietnam. Part of my conviction comes from my service in Vietnam. Here are a few examples of those who suffered her attentions.

Michael Benge was a civilian economic development advisor in Vietnam, and was captured by the North Vietnamese communists in South Vietnam in 1968, and held for over 5 years. He spent 27 months in solitary confinement, one year in a cage in Cambodia, and one year in a "black box" in Hanoi. His North Vietnamese captors deliberately poisoned and murdered a female missionary, a nurse in Ban me Thuot, South Vietnam, whom he buried in the jungle near the Cambodian border. At one time, he weighed approximately 90 lbs. (His normal weight is 170 lbs.) The nurse and Skip were Jane Fonda's "war criminals."

When Jane Fonda was in Hanoi, he was asked by the camp communist political officer if I would be willing to meet with Jane Fonda. He said yes, for he would like to tell her about the real treatment we POWs were receiving, which was far different from the treatment purported by the North Vietnamese, and parroted by Jane Fonda, as "humane and lenient."

Because of this, he spent three days on a rocky floor on his knees with outstretched arms with a large amount of steel placed on his hands, and beaten with a bamboo cane till his arms dipped. He had the opportunity to meet with Jane Fonda for a couple of hours after he was released. He asked her if she would be willing to debate him on TV. She did not answer him.

This does not exemplify someone who should be honored as part of "100 Years of Great Women." Lest we forget..."100 years of great women" should never include a traitor whose hands are covered with the blood of so many patriots. There are few things I have strong visceral reactions to, but Hanoi Jane's participation in blatant treason, is one of them.

The FairTax is a proposal to replace the Federal income tax with a single rate retail sales tax. Taxes would be lower for most people. How much federal tax you pay would be up to you, because you'd only be taxed on what you choose to spend. It would NOT be a Value Added Tax (VAT) -- tax would only be levied on the retail sale. The FairTax is a national retail sales tax on new goods and services at the final point of sale for personal consumption above the poverty level. Used goods are not taxed.

The FairTax is the best choice for all Americans. It will eliminate the complexity and injustice of our current system entirely by repealing the federal income tax and all federal payroll taxes. The FairTax will replace them with a simple 23% federal retail sales tax on new goods and services.