Our constitution guarantees the right to build the mosque.

But nothing guarantees that Americans must actually do the work. What if the builders couldn’t contract with a General Contractor? What if no materials suppliers sold them materials? What if the unions refused to work on the site?

If there was enough publicity surrounding the contract, no contractor in his right mind would take the job. The demonstations sure to accompany the building would be enough to guarantee that the completion date would never be met and punitive measures related to finishing on time would be impossible to avoid.

What concrete company would have the nerve to risk ever getting another contract? What about steel suppliers? It takes lot of materials to build a 13-story building. If they have to be brought in from the Middle East it’s going to cost a lot. And maybe the dock-workers would refuse to unload it. Then what? What if the trash haulers refused to haul the construction debris away? What if the lunch trucks refused to serve the laborers?

This would be a great opportunity for unions to show that their members are American Patriots and that their patriotism takes precedence over one job. Refuse to work there! Sure there are lots of Americans out of work right now, but just because you’re out of work doesn’t mean you’d be willing to work at something seen as anti-American.

What building inspector is not going to go over that place with a view towards sticking to the letter of the building code?

The entire project could be (already is) cast as anti-American. Who wants to be seen aiding and abetting this sort of in-your-face insult to the victims, the families of the victims, the service men and women who have lost their lives in the War Against Terror or the families of those service-people.

I guess Obama could assign the Corps of Engineers to build it. He is after all the Commander-in-Chief.

But I’m not really sure yet – its complicated. The word is that his version of the obamacare bill is going to allow states to opt out. The little weasel is taking this approach to offset resistance in Nevada so he can get re-elected.

“We’ve spent countless hours over the last few days in consultation with senators who’ve shown a genuine desire to reform the health-care system,” Reid said. “And I believe there’s a strong consensus to move forward in this direction.” The Senate provision would give states the right to opt out of a government plan, though Reid spokesman Jim Manley was unable to provide further details, describing the legislative language as a work in progress that has yet to be scrutinized by the Congressional Budget Office.

Even though the little weasel is doing it for all the wrong reasons, he is opening the door to a big Obama failure and putting this issue smack-dab in the laps of the states – where it belongs in the first place, if it belongs anywhere at all.

In a, surprisingly, clear view into the mind of a liberal writer, a Washing Post article by David Broder is titled “Damaging option for liberals – Harry Reid’s self-serving bow to states’ rights.”

There is an air of desperate improvisation to Sen. Harry Reid’s scheme to pass a “public option” as part of health-care reform but at the same time provide an easy exemption for any state that objects to it. The warning flags ought to be flying for anyone who can count to three — let alone 60. The Democratic majority leader embraced this odd idea in hopes of satisfying two conflicting imperatives. On the one hand, he is under relentless pressure to satisfy the labor-left of his party in Washington, where a government-sponsored insurance plan has become the symbolic prize in the game, and back home in Nevada, where he needs union support to survive a scary election next year.

Now that is one fine example of speaking out of “both sides of ones mouth” isn’t it? It really does smack of desperation.

Broder goes on to pose the questions “Consider the precedent that would be set if a major piece of social legislation were to be passed with a states’ rights provision. Imagine, for example, if Franklin Roosevelt had signed the first Social Security law with the proviso that any states with Republican governors and legislatures could exempt themselves from its coverage.”

Just imagine. States exercising their rights. What an outrageous concept!

The problem, of course, is that even if states opted out, the coverage for the ones that didn’t opt out would be paid for, in part, by the the residents of the states that did opt out.

On the other hand, imagine all the moochers and illegaliens who would move out of the opted out states to the states which didn’t opt out. There’s a benefit to consider. It might even be a big enough benefit to offset the disproportionate taxation. If the moochers and illegaliens moved out, they would take their welfare, healthcare, free housing, etc with them. Those of us left would no longer be burdened with meeting all of their needs. That cost saving might offset the lost taxes. And, without the free healthcare given to the moochers and illegaliens healthcare costs would drop dramatically in the opt-out states making healthcare in those states more affordable. Hmmmm. That sounds like a plan to me.

Go Harry!

Mr. Bailey is an icon for the American success story. And McDonalds is an icon for American business success.

My neighborhood has a mix of poor and middle-class. It is has significant populations of Hispanics African-Americans and Whites, plenty of teen-agers and plenty of retirees, apartments condominiums and homes. There is no shortage of available labor for a business like the McDonald’s in my neighborhood.

I’ve noticed something odd about the McDonald’s in my neighborhood however. And in thinking about it, something insidious comes to mind.

In my experience (I’ve been paying attention for several years now), 100% of the non-customer conversation is in Spanish and 100% of the employees are Latino. The moment the employee stops speaking directly to the customer, they begin speaking Spanish. That is not exactly a huge problem for me, but it is improper language etiquette.

The bigger problem is that it totally eliminates the possibility for success of any non-Spanish-speaking employee. I have noticed once or twice a non-Spanish-speaking African-American or elderly employee there, but they never last long. In an environment where employees are directed and supervised in Spanish, how can a non-Spanish-speaking employee be successful? Why would anyone hire someone they knew, in advance, would not be successful? Why would anyone even apply for a job in an environment which conducts business in a language an employee didn’t understand?

The rhetorical answers to the above questions, of course, are they wouldn’t and they couldn’t.

What that means to me is that the Spanish-speaking workplace environment of my neighborhood McDonald’s precludes employment by non-Spanish-speakers.  And, since most Spanish-speakers are Hispanic, a workplace environment which precludes employment by non-Spanish-speakers is effectively, if not factually, discriminating if favor of Latinos and against non-Latinos.  The practice of Spanish-speaking in the workplace  creates a self-perpetuating environment of employment discrimination.

Where does the FED derive it’s authority to set salaries?

If the authority derives from agreements (made at the time the FED loaned money to them) with the corporations, then yes they have the authority. If the corporations don’t like that, then they shouldn’t have agreed to it and faced the consequences of not getting a loan from the FED. Someone who loans you money has the right to set conditions upon the loan. If you don’t like the conditions, either don’t agree to the conditions or borrow the money elsewhere. Once you agree, you have no standing to complain about what you agreed to.

If the FED has invented its authority that’s another story. They should not.

If Congress has passed legislation giving the FED the authority, that’s wrong too.

But, to me, none of those things are the issue here.

There’s a lot of talk right now about how offended the public is over the outrageous salaries and bonuses of management in some companies.

Publically held corporations are funded by shareholders, bonds and loans. Ultimately the control of the corporations rests in the hands of the shareholders. Any members of the public who are not shareholders should mind their own business and businesses in which they don’t hold shares are not their “business”. If non-shareholders are offended by the way a business is run they can express their dissatisfaction by not buying products from those businesses. if you don’t like the way a business is run, don’t invest in it or don’t buy their products, or don’t do business with them. On the other hand, if you are a shareholder, it is certainly your right to be concerned about the way your company is being run. Speak up. Form, or join, some sort of group whose collective share of the company is significant enough to effect the outcome of elections of Boards of Directors and vote in Directors who will direct the officers of the company in a way which meets your needs. Alternatively, sell your shares and invest your money in a company which operates the way you think it should – or put your money under your mattress.

The problem I have noticed over the 15-20 years is that Directors are hand-picked by CEOs in order to authorize what the CEO wants to do. So shareholders have two major problems, the CEO and the Board. Shareholders can vote out the Board and the Board can control the CEO. But shareholders go along with the company by signing proxies for their votes and then complain when they don’t like the way the company is run or the compensation of its employeees. Quit whining shareholders. You have a say/vote and if you don’t like something don’t give your vote away to management. On one hand you’re telling management to vote for you and on the other hand you’re compaining about what they do with your vote.

All that is to say that if you (shareholders) hadn’t enabled these companies to function immorally, pay themselves obscene salaries/bonuses, fly around the world in private jets, have board meeting in exotic locations and generally live the high life on your money we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Yet, I see and hear both conservatives and liberals, Democrats and Republicans every day demanding that government step on other peoples individual rights.

A current example of the point I’m attempting to make is the move towards the legalization of marijuana. Christians, conservatives and Republicans have their panties in a wad over this issue. Why? Because they don’t like it, that’s why. The fact is the use of marijuana should be an individual decision and interference in an individuals use of it by government is as much a nanny-state tactic as obamacare.

Before you get all wound up, let me go on the record as stating unequivocally that I am not a user of marijuana. I tried it once about ten years ago and it was not for me. However, I have had a few friends over the years who did use it. In some cases, I was in their presence while they were smoking it. I can’t say that I’ve ever seen any effect on them except a “mellowing out.” That is not so say they couldn’t have been dangerous to themselves or others if they were driving or something – I just don’t know. Further to that point, I do use (and have mis-used) alcohol on occasion and have been in the presence of others who have mis-used alcohol on many occasions. They are almost always a danger to themselves and others. Look at the number of deaths associated with drunk driving. How many deaths are you aware of due to pot-smoking. Personally, I am aware of none. In fact I can’t even recall ever hearing about one. I am using the marijuana issue to illustrate the point I’m trying to make.

Back to my point now.

Even MADD doesn’t advocate a ban on alcohol. They advocate for safe driving. I think if they advocated for a ban they would be out of business so to speak. If someone wants to smoke pot and “mellow out” why should it matter to government? If someone wants to sell pot and not pay the taxes on it that’s another story. Do you see the difference? One person sells something which is supposed to be taxed (a proper use of government authority) and should be dealt with accordingly for his violation of the law and another person wants to mellow out and in the process violate no law other than an inappropriate law which violates his personal freedom.

Those same Christians, conservatives and Republicans (including myself) are all wound up about President Obama trying to jam his demented obamacare plan down our throats because, for one thing, it impinges on our right not to have health care by fining those who don’t choose to buy health insurance. There are other considerations, of course, but this one serves for my analogy.

The issue is not obamacare or legalization of marijuana – it is allowing our rights as individuals and citizens of the United States to be diminished. The issue of maintaining our rights as individuals and doing what we choose to do as long as it doesn’t harm others is what is important. We should ALL be able to agree on that.

In fact, lets compare Barack Obama to Robert Mugabe.

From Wikipedia: Mugabe’s government supported the Southern African Development Community’s intervention in the Second Congo War; expropriated thousands of white-owned farms; printed hundreds of trillions of Zimbabwean dollars, causing hyperinflation; and harassed and intimidated such political opponents as the Movement for Democratic Change.
Mugabe has described his critics as “born again colonialists”, and both he and his supporters claim Zimbabwe’s problems are the legacy of imperialism, aggravated by Western economic meddling.

Obama’s government supports ACORN’s intervention in the Mortgage Banking industry, the Internal Revenue Service and HUD. Obama has expropriated major financial, insurance and manufacturing businesses; prints trillions of dollars, which will soon cause hyperinflation; and harasses and intimidates such political opponents as FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck.

Obama regularly denounces his critics, sometimes engages in name-calling, and both he and his supporters claim America’s problems are the legacy of racial prejudice, aggravated by personal and corporate greed.

That is not to say that the melding which occurred over the years of different cultures incorporated in American society has not had a beneficial effect because it has. We would not be what and who we are today without immigrants and the diversity in culture they brought with them. We could not have risen to the heights we have without the contributions and labor of those who came here hoping to live the American Dream or without the labor and culture brought by slaves and indentured servants.

However, thinking about it objectively, “the American Dream” is one developed primarily as a result of English-speaking, Christian, Western Europeans. They made it possible for all those immigrants to emigrate. They made it possible for all those immigrants to function freely, to vote and to achieve. Colonialism changed the world in a positive way. Yes, there are many instances where the indigenous population and culture were trampled along the way. But even with that, colonized countries grew, their economies prospered, their people gained a better standard of living than what they had when the colonists arrived, their children were educated, their lives grew longer, more of their babies lived, they were mostly able to speak and travel freely.

And then colonialists became “bad people”.

The children starving in Zimbabwe today are the children of those who voted for “change” expecting the government to take care of all their needs. The unemployed in Zimbabwe today are the children of those who voted for change. Those rioting in the streets today are the children of those who were dancing in the streets in anticipation of change. The owners of dusty unproductive farms piled high with broken, rusty once-high-tech farm equipment today are the children of those who once worked on productive farms which gave Zimbabwe the title of “breadbasket of Africa”. What wealth still exists there has been “re-distributed” to thieving politicians and their families – not the people who voted for change.

We are moving from a nation of self-reliant, self-starting, ambitious achievers to a nation of mooching “change-wanters” who don’t learn from history that big government never enriches anyone but the politicians and their henchmen. Be careful what you wish for….

I understand Jeff’s frustration with having his ideas used without acknowledgement of them.

A few weeks ago I wrote an article critical of Jeff Bolton’s website blowoutcongress.com. The article appeared on a number of sites. I received quite a few comments. Not all were very well thought out, but they were all civil. Since I’m pretty sure those comments all came from Jeff’s fans I was favorably impressed with my little sample and believe it is a direct reflection of the way Jeff conducts himself on his show. He is a gentleman. I feel comfortable in stretching that a little farther to say that in my opinion, he is having a positive impact on polite debate in Dallas.

The first comment I received was from Cliff Sosamon. I am of the opinion that Cliff is an integral part of blowoutcongress.com. He didn’t say that in his repsonse to my post, but I think I recall Jeff mentioning a “Cliff” in relation to blowoutcongress. Maybe I’m wrong, but I’ve got a feeling… I once wrote to blowoutcongress.com with some suggestions regarding the site and the unsigned response (a tiny bit snotty) I got was quite similar in tone to the response Cliff sent to my article. It’s not important, its just a feeling. I’m always a little bothered when people are secretive.

I responded to all the comments. I was polite and took the effort to explain myself in the hope that those who wrote would clearly understand my position.

Lo and behold. For the last couple weeks Jeff has been talking about a new, related site – rebuildcongress.com. I recall Jeff saying something about the site which made me think it was more along the lines of keeping the good congresspeople and getting rid of the poor performers if the good ones would stipulate that they would support things like term limits. That’s much more in line with something I could support.

There’s this tiny, niggling thing though. The timing of my article, Cliff’s rebuttal and the announcement of rebuildcongress.com leads me to suspect that perhaps – just maybe – my article caused some rethinking, re-evaluation and re-focusing. If that’s true it would have been nice to get an acknowledgement of the value of considered criticism. Just a little “thank you” maybe…

No, the problem is we are showing weakness and those who would take our place as “king of the jungle” don’t merely sense it.  They see it, smell it, taste it and recognize that the opportunity they have waited so long for is palpable in it’s closeness. Now is their time. The opportunity is irresistible.  President Obama has been pushed aside from the position of leader of the free world due to  his rank appeasement of Russia, China, Iran and others.

Putin kicked sand in Obamas face and Obama backed down from the European missile defense system while doublecrossing Poland and Czechoslavakia. For fear of hurting the feelings of the Red Chinese he put off his meeting with the Dalai Lama. To keep up the pretense that we have global influence he allows Iran to get closer every day to acquiring a nuclear bomb. North Korea threatens our allies in the region with nuclear weapons and missile overflights while we give them “stern warnings”. He  convenes meetings with bureaucrats to question the wisdom and experience of his own General in Afghanistan while our servicemen and women are blown to bits.

It’s clear to the world from our Presidents false starts and failures to think about the consequences of his actions that we are adrift and rudderless. And those who are ambitious are acting to ascend to their “destinies” as world leaders because that is the nature of ambition. Couple that with whatever it is in human nature which produces schadenfreude and you can easily see why others are snickering over Obamas fumbled “Hail Mary pass” of an Olympics pitch.

President Obama has behaved like a megalomaniac from his first day in office. That was easy to do riding the wave of popularity which swept him into office. But none of his grandiose plans have come to fruition. He is encountering resistance on all fronts. Yet he carries on pompously declaring this or that and delivering on nothing.

Acting like a hero is not the same as actually being a hero. Heroism requires courage and action.  Those who stand on the sidelines are spectators and wannabes.

Although they get many millions each year from the US Government, unions and charitable organizations, ACORN does everything it canl to avoid paying its own members the minimum wage required by law.  This, while those same employees agitate to extort minimum wages for others.

ACORN actually went to court to fight to pay wages below the legal minimum. ACORN made the same arguments its corporate victims make when arguing aginst higher minimum wages — namely, that paying higher wages would mean the organization would have to make do with fewer employees.

In its Resource Guide for activists, written by David Reynolds of the Wayne State University Labor Studies Center, ACORN casts aside concerns about minimum wage laws resulting in fewer jobs for low-wage workers, scolding

That’s low road thinking, the kind of philosophy that seeks short-term increases in the bottom-line by directly lowering costs and casts high wages, benefits, and other worker protections as obstacles to competition.

But in 1995, ACORN actually went to court in California in an attempt to exempt ACORN from that state’s minimum wage and overtime laws. Why? Well, according to ACORN’s brief in an appeal of the ruling against them…

…the more that ACORN must pay each individual outreach worker–either because of minimum wage or overtime requirements–the fewer outreach workers it will be able to hire.

ACORN also has a history of union-busting, ducking overtime requirements, late paychecks, and general anti-labor practices. In 2003, the National Labor Relations Board made the following findings about the organization:

• ACORN pays its field members $18,000 per year – about 6.65 per hour when you consider they average 54 hours per week.
• Field members are rarely given weekends off.
• Field members are expected to canvas neighborhoods alone, sometimes at night.  Even though many of the neighborhoods are dangerous.
• ACORN is frequently tardy with member paychecks.

The un-mitigated gall of ACORN is truly beyond comprehension and the cow-like stupidity of their followers is an embarrassment to the human race.