A New Low in Legislation Marketing

We've been seeing more and more ads garnered to gather support or opposition to not just politicians, but for individual pieces of legislation.  I'm pretty hard to offend so most of these ads, even the most blatantly misleading, pretty much roll off my back, but I just saw one that has even me angry and disgusted with these marketing ploys.

The commercial starts out with a soldier awarded the purple heart in Iraq talking about what the soldiers are facing.  He then goes into a description of a specific ammunition designed to pierce military armour and that it was designed in Iran.  Next he begins talking about oil and that our dependence on foreign oil sends money to Iran to design and manufacture this ammunition and design others just as deadly.  Had this then gone in to an add for alternative energy sources I would have been fine with it, but instead of being about research for new sources of fuel, it went in to why we need the cap and trade legislation.

I was sitting alone in my own home and yet felt compelled to yell at the tv, "that's disgusting" though there was nobody to hear.  The idea of trying to drum up support for a bill -- which has already been attempted in England and was shown to actually increase carbon emissions and raise costs -- by stating that a vote against the bill is a vote to kill our soldiers is absolutely horrifying.

Can this be described as anything but disgusting?  So those who object to the liberal policies are cooks, racists, nut jobs, violent, stupid and now want to murder our soldiers?  Oh hell no.

Unfortunately I didn't catch who put out the ad because I have old eyes, but whoever they are they should be ashamed of themselves.

Why Cap and Trade is Counterproductive

No matter how much we talk about how cap and trade legislation would raise cost of electricity, there are still those who believe it is necessary in order to reduce emissions of green house gases.  The problem is that it will NOT reduce that for very clear, economic and logical reasons.

In order to reduce carbon emissions a company will need to invest in research and development in order to find a better, cleaner way of doing what they already do.  If you really want climate change legislation, the companies should be encouraged to do just that.  But is this what cap and trade will do?  Of course not.

The companies that emit the most green house gases will be required to either pay heavy fines or buy credits from companies who emit low emissions.  Either way, this not only increases their opperating costs; costs which will have to be passed on to the customer in order to stay in business, but it also removes any available funds from research and development.  In other words, we actually prevent them from creating the very innovation we say we need them to make.

If we need our companies to innovate and find cleaner ways of doing things, instead of punishing them for not already having it, why wouldn't we give then incentives to get it done?  Give tax breaks for any funds invested in clean technology and reward the reductions in emissions instead of levying heavy fines which would prevent the innovation.  Why don't we do that? Oh, wait, I know, it's because that would prevent the government from playing favorites within the private sector.  The current cap and trade is nothing but a way for the pet industries of the government to rape the other industries.  I'm very confident this is will happen because this legislation has already been tried in Europe and actually caused emissions to go up.

Instead of repeated the failed policies of Europe, why don't we try something that might actually work.  Incentivize verses punishment.  A novel concept I know, but it just might work.

He's A Chicago Guy

He's A Chicago Guy

(To the tune of The Night Chicago Died)

As we’re watching the decline

Of the worth of the dollar bill

A fix he’s yet to find

And I’ll bet he never will

On and on and on he drones

Hearing no voice but his own

Unemployment he ignorers

While on the Congress floor

We’re hearing Harry cry

With the agenda we all must comply

Give the President just what he wants

Or Rahm Emanuel will bludgeon us

Glory be

We’re hearing Nancy cry

Sacrifice your seat to please this guy

Forget about what the people want

We’ve got to get our agenda done

Yes indeed

Now the Hill is under the thumb

Of a plain Chicago thug

And capitalisms grave

They’ve already dug

As with health care, cap and trade

They try to spend our wealth away

And if you dare to disagree

You’re declared the enemy

We’re hearing Harry cry

With the agenda we all must comply

Give the President just what he wants

Or Rham Emmanuel will bludgeon us

Glory be

We’re hearing Nancy cry

Sacrifice your seat to please this guy

Forget about what the people want

We’ve got to get our agenda done

Yes indeed

When the American people called

To halt our country’s fall

They’re concerns were waved away

Just increasing their dismay

He’s a Chicago guy

Barack O-ba-ma-ma-ma-ma-ma

He’s a Chicago guy

Economic justice spread the wealth

You have a right to a home and health

Glory Be

He’s a Chicago guy

Barack O-ba-ma-ma-ma-ma-ma

He’s a Chicago guy

He’s gonna do what he’s gonna do

So better prepare ‘cuz we’re getting screwed

Yes Indeed

I really wish I had the technical capability and knowledge to record this and make a video to post on youtube.  Too bad I'm eletronically challenged.

Plethora of Paradoxical Policies

My head has been spinning with all of the potential legislation coming out of Washington so I'm trying to get everything straight.  Here's my understanding of what's going on.

Health care - medical costs and premium costs are so high that people can't afford insurance and Medicare will be bankrupt.  The legislation does nothing to address the medical costs impacting Medicare while simultaneously cutting funding and expanding membership.  This will actually increase the cost of premiums and accelerate the date at which Medicare will bankrupt the country. 
Paradox

Climate Change - We must cut carbon emissions so heavy fines will be levied on those companies that emit CO2.  The legislation will raise the cost of energy so we use less.  People will be unable to afford their energy bill so will not be able to heat or cool their homes.  They'll end up receiving medical care for hypothermia or heat stroke which will drive up the cost of health care.  They could use a fireplace to heat their home but logging permits have been cut back so there will be no wood to use as heat.  The same legislation in Europe has been ineffectual at best and increased CO2 emmissions at worst.
Paradox

The private sector companies are losing money and can't pay their bills.  As a result they are laying people off, closing their doors and freezing wages.  The federal government is losing money and diving deeper into debt but has created new positions within the white house, voted to create additional departments and given raises to all of their employees.  While the private sector shrinks while the government expands.  Paradox.

The House passes legislation which will enable the Federal Government to break up companies they view as harmful to the economy while Congress pursues legislation that is harmful to the ecnomy.  Will they break themselves up?  Paradox.

The people are very concerned about the unemployment situation and request actions which will stimulate job creation.  The government spent $787 billion on pet projects which created no jobs.  Then they held a summitt with unions and community organizers whose suggestion was to pass another bill just like the first one that didn't work.  Employers beg for assistance which will open access to credit or allow them to keep more of their money.  Meanwhile congress is still pushing the health care and climate change legislations which will add costs to employers without generating any cash flow for them.  Paradox.

I know I've missed a lot of things and please let me know if I have any of this wrong.  Even listing it this way I'm not sure what the justification for any of this is.

The Party of Hell No!

Maybe it's just me, but I would love to see some passionate opposition to what the Demoratic leadership is attempting to do to our country.  The people are passionate so why aren't the Republican leaders?

Instead of trying to overcome the label of "party of no" slapped on the Republicans, why don't they embrace it and add some passion to it?  Wouldn't it be fun to have some leaders coming out and saying with passion and conviction, "We're not the party of no, we're the party of Hell no, not on my watch!"

Hell no to a deficit so crippling we're in danger of losing our credit rating.
Hell no to wasteful spending that serves nobody but the politicians
Hell no to crippling legislation for a problem that may not even exist
Hell no to unprecedented growth of the federal government
Hell no to a transfer of power from the Legislative to Executive branch in direct violation of our Constitutional principles.
Hell no to civil rights for terrorists
Hell no to a new entitlement program which will cripple the American economy
Hell no to putting climate change and health care above job creation

If asked about why Republicans don't have new ideas, they should simply respond, "Are you kidding, we've got our hands full just trying to keep the Constitution from going through the shredder."

Wouldn't it be lovely?

He's Remaking America All Right

Obama has used the phrase "remaking America" in several of his speeches and it always gave me pause.  We as a nation do not need to be remade.  Restored perhaps, but not remade.  I couldn't help but wonder what he meant by this.  Now I know.

Our government was set up so that the majority of the power over domestic policy lies with the legislative branch.  What our founding fathers absolutely did not want was a single person in charge of everything.  A voted monarche as the case may be.  They created the balance of power to ensure that the bulk of that power was in the hands of many, and with a check and balance system.  So what is Obama remaking us into? 

With the appointment of Czar upon Czar Obama created positions of power not answerable to Congress and not voted on by the people.  This was an unprecedented growth in power of the executive branch but not anything to get our knickers in a twist over, right?  Well my knickers are officially twisted.  With the EPA now giving themselves the authority to regulate green house gases if Congress does not, imposing onerous requirements on businesses all to fix....nothing and in spite of the will of the people, we saw another huge power grab by the executive branch of the government.  Hot on the heels of that announcement we have Obama working behind the scenes to institute his plans for universal healthcare without a vote on the actual plan by Congress.  He and his cronies plan to go in through the back door by moving the responsibility for the Social Security Act from the Legislative Branch to the Executive Branch.

This administrations answer to get what he wants in spite of the will of the people is to move control over the issue from the legislative to the executive branch thereby defiling our founding principle to have the power in the hands of many and NOT the hands of one.

Consider that the Executive Branch was such up with so little power in the first drafting of a Constitution - The Articles of Confederation - that the branch didn't even exist.  Now that branch is snatching power from other branches with a disgusting disregard and disrespect for our entire form of government.

The ""Yes We Can" Slogan has now been revealed to translate into "Yes I can and if you don't like it I'll find a way around you."

Months ago, as a joke, I wrote a blog about Obama appointing himself King.  It doesn't seem like such a joke now.

Congress Regulates TP Usage

I initially wrote this six months ago but with the way things are going I thought it would be fun to resurrect it.

In the new green environment of Congress and the Obama Administration, legislation is being passed to control how we use products that impact the planet. When the Cap and Trade was proposed, Republican Roy Blunt said, "Taxes on air my ass!" This gave the Democratic leadership in congress what they believe is a brilliant idea.

"Americans use too much toilet paper," said Harry Reid. "They don't consider how these big wads of paper clog up our sewer systems and put strain on our water treatment systems. They also don't consider how many trees have to be cut down in order to wipe their asses. This selfish lack of consideration for our environment is partially responsible for the global warming / climate change crisis."

New regulations are being put on the toilet paper industry so that 2 ply toilet paper will be banned, and biodegradability will be more important than softness. It has also been proposed to put a per sheet tax on the toilet paper to ensure that Americans are not using more than they need. Questions arose on how to manage this in public restrooms and the suggestion was made to install automatic, coin operated dispensers. These will not be installed in the Capital building or in any other restroom utilized by Government officials and their staff. However, Lindsey Graham (R) offered an alternative stating that we use the numerous copies of the stimulus package as a toilet paper alternative. He said, "all that bill was good for was wiping our asses anyway."

The toilet paper industry is just the first in many publicly owned companies that the Congress will now attempt to design products for. They have decided that they can't get us to buy what they want us to so they will ensure that any undesirable products are no longer created. Enjoy that 2 ply soft toilet paper while you can. If Congress didn't chap your ass before, the certainly will soon.

No New Ideas

Over and over and over again we hear the Democrats reciting their standard lines that Repbulicans have no new ideas, that they are repeating the failed policies of the past, blah, blah, blah.  But what new ideas do the Democrats have?  None.  They don't have a single idea that hasn't already been tried - and failed - in Europe.

Universal healthcare is a bankruptcy inducing mess in every country where it has been tried.  It leads to long wait times, rationing and higher taxes.  Sure, these programs work great as long as you're healthy, it's when you get sick and actually need the program that it really fails you.

Cap & Trade was tried in England actually resulted in an increase in carbon emissions, and tons of corruption within the program.  It has failed utterly and yet we are wanting to repeat that failure.

Why won't Congress actually copy actions that have actually been proven to work?  Like lowering taxes, especially corporate taxes.

So the new Democrat campaign slogan should be, "We won't repeat the failed Republican policies.  We'll repeat the failed European ones instead."

Enough With The Freaking Green Jobs Already

I was working away today with the television playing as background noise when I heard Obama at his meeting in Allentown, PA.  After cleaning up the blood from banging my head against a brick wall in anger and frustration, I went back to work; all the time my mind churning over the ridiculous statements that were made before I muted the TV in order to save both my head and the brick wall it was banging against.

He of course took the opportunity to herald what a great job he's doing with the economy now since the unemployment rate is back down to only 10%.  Oh praise the Messiah for his great work.  Then he talked about his job summit and what they are doing to increase jobs. 

First we had our shovel ready project pork filled stimulus bill and endless chants of how it will create green jobs.  Then we had the crap and trade discussions and how they were going to create green jobs.  Then came the cash for clunkers fiasco so we could drive greener cars, and now the jobs bill is focused on what?  You guessed it, green jobs.

It is becoming increasingly evident to me that if you don't work in construction or an industry related to replacing bad energy hogging products with shiny new green ones, then the President doesn't give a rat's ass if you're out of work.  His answer has repeatedly been to give government money to certain industries in order to create jobs in that industry.  But what about the rest of us?  What about the millions that are out of work and aren't in his pet industries?  Well, we're pretty much screwed.

I work for a large company that already does it's best to be a "green" company.  We went paperless years ago, we limit travel and hold meetings over the phone.  Nearly half of the workforce uses a home office so we don't drive our gas guzzling, air polluting cars in to work every day.  But are we benefiting in any way from any of the job creating actions this administration has forsaken taken?  Nope, not a bit.

I'm in the insurance industry (oh the shame and horror) and we supply a service to other companies.  As those companies lay off their employees we have less work to do and so need fewer employees ourself.  In an effort to save jobs, the company this year elected to not give raises and keep the people in the hopes of riding this wave out safely.  Right now the best case scenario is that the same thing will happen in 2010.  The worst case is that layoffs will be made. 

What the President refuses to acknowledge is that all the businesses that offer services or products unrelated to his precious climate change agenda are scared to death of what is coming down the pike.  They're afraid of the immense taxes and fines that will slapped on them through healthcare legislation, cap and trade, card check and a myriad of other abominable policies that this leftist Congress will attempt to pass.  As a result, they aren't hiring until they know what the situation is going to be.

The only acknowledgement I heard of this was that "Employers don't like uncertainty so we need to get healthcare passed as soon as possible."  The sheer short sighted stupidity of this comment had me floored.  So we want to let our employers know that they're definitely going bankrupt instead of just facing the looming possibility.  I can see the jobs boom now.

Out of one side of his mouth Obama says that the government can't create jobs, and out of the other side of his mouth comes the statement that the government will give certain industries money to create jobs.  That aint how it works bucko.

Wouldn't it be nice if he stopped focusing on creating green jobs and started focusing on creating REAL jobs?  I know, there I go chasing windmills and building those sand castles in the sky again.

The Arrogance of Power

I've been trying to read the cap and trade bill, but it is so large that when I tried to pull it up it crashed my computer. That alone tells me that it is not a good piece of legislation. But I finally did find the text of an early version, this one only 936 pages long. Therefore, it is missing all of the additions used to buy the votes of the dissenting Congressmen, many of which accepted that bribe.

So why is the bill so long? Is it because it sets the goals for reductions of carbon emissions and the creation of alternative clean energy? No, it's because it attempts to lay out exactly how this is to be achieved. Congress, in their immutable arrogance, has decided that they are the only people who know how to make this happen. Not the engineers. Not the scientists. Not those who have been researching and experimenting for years. But a bunch of lawyers, most of which have never had a job in the private sector.

It would be one thing if the legislation set goals for reduction of emissions and a deadline to achieve them, and then stated a company would be fined if they don't meet them, but instead it levies a heavy tax on them based on where they are now. The belief being that the heavy taxes will incentivize them to reduce their emissions. But the problem is, that these companies will not have the capital to expend on research and innovation for their energy usage, because they are sending that money to the federal government. So the method by which Congress hopes to achieve their goal, will actually serve to defeat their goal. And is the money collected from these taxes going to fund energy research? Maybe some of it. But a lot of it will go to fund the new government agencies and organizations set up to administer this convoluted new plan.

As I read more and more of the bill, one thing became quite clear. The bill sets up organizations to determine further regulations. In nearly every section is an area dedicated to researching what additional regulations will be required. This bill, like so many that have come out of Congress in the last 50 years, is a power grab. They are setting up more government agencies with unelected authority to slap the American people and American companies with more regulations.

They even have a section in this bill to use the American taxpayer dollars to explore carbon emissions in other countries, and they give themselves the right to tell those other countries what to do. This one has me scratching my head just a bit.

So when it comes right down to it, Waxman-Markey is not an energy bill, it is legislation to set up government agencies to explore regulation. Again, believing that only the federal government can determine what needs to be done and how.

If the only true wisdom is knowing that you don't know everything, then our Congress is sadly lacking in wisdom.

Think I'm kidding? Think I'm exaggerating? Think I'm just being angry, bitchy and confrontational? Then please read the bill yourself. I encourage you to do so. We must be informed on what Congress is doing in order to hold them accountable. Our form of government cannot work if we the people abdicate our power over our elected officials.

There's Hypocrisy, And Then There's Hypocrisy

Governor Sanford angered so many people because of the hypocrisy of what he did. Preaching family values while simultaneously committing adultery, outraging the masses over his hypocritical behavior. He had passed no laws based on family values that cost the tax payers any money, and yet the hypocrisy of his actions was enough to bring him down.

But why is the hypocrisy of an affair the only hypocrisy important enough to end a political career? What about all of the other hypocrisy that's out there in the political arena? And there's a lot of it to be had. Why is that hypocritical behavior immune from punishment, or even admonishment? Why do we only appear to care about one kind of hypocrisy?

How about preaching fiscal responsibility while spending money faster than Paris Hilton on crack? Oh, wait a minute, a bunch of people did lose their jobs over that one.

Let's try this one then. How about screaming about deficit spending and how it is ruining the country, and then quadrupling the deficit? Isn't that hypocrisy? And isn't that hypocrisy going unpunished? In fact, aren't we applauding that behavior while asking them to spend even more?

Here's another one. How about preaching for transparency in politics while simultaneously holding a town hall meeting with staged attendees and pre-screened questions. Isn't that hypocrisy? But that one's OK too I guess.

Next we have preaching bi-partisanship and an end to business as usual, while at the same time blaming the opposing party for everything that's wrong and refusing to include them in any discussions. Hypocrisy? You decide.

Then there's decrying the salary of others while simultaneously voting themselves a raise. Not to mention promoting a cap on salaries, while charging an arm and a leg for their own speaking engagements. Hypocrisy?

This ones my favorite, passing a huge bill that will cost Americans thousands of dollars each in order to reduce CO2 emissions, then climbing in their private jet for a little jaunt home. I won't even ask if this is hypocrisy because if you can't see that one you simply don't want to. Al Gore getting paid millions for his speaking engagements on global warming, but getting to those speeches in his private jet. Hypocrisy!

Try this one. Condemning credit card companies for increasing your interest rate, while working to increase your taxes. Hypocrisy? Maybe.

And of course, how could I forget, preaching tolerance of others and then screaming insults at anybody who disagrees with you. Hypocrisy? Oh yeah, you betcha.

These are the hypocritical actions that have popped into my head. So why is a sexual driven hypocrisy more egregious that the rest of them? And what other hypocrisy do you see? I'd love to know your favorite hypocrisy pet peeve.

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics

I'm a statistical process control analyst for my day job. This means that I deal with statistics every day and I know what they can tell you and what you can MAKE them tell you. The trouble with statistics is that it's pretty easy to manipulate your data to tell you what you want to hear instead of the truth. This appears to be what has happened with CO2 and climate change.

I can hear the outrage already from some, but the theory (yes, it's only a theory) that CO2 emissions has caused global warming isn't supported by the unmanipulated data. The main theory around the CO2 levels causing global warming comes from the work of G.S. Callendar and C.D. Keeling who based their work on historic arctic ice core readings. The problem is that they didn't use all of the data. They used only the low readings over the years and discarded the high ones. In essence, they manipulated their data.

I decided to do some research on this and found a wonderful site with lots of excellent, though technical, information in an article written by Dr Tim Ball in the Canada Free Press. Much of what I'm going to share with you comes from that article.

Here is what is called a scatter plot. It's a very simple tool we geeks use to see what's going on. In this scatter plot, the historical CO2 levels from the ice core readings are logged. All of them. The circled dots are the ones that were selected for use by creators of the CO2 emissions theory on global warming. Notice anything a little wonky? Only the low readings were used. By throwing out the high readings they can make the statistics say whatever they want. And the world swallowed it hook, line and sinker. And think about this, if the historical CO2 levels we base our theories on are wrong, then what they put in the climate model is wrong, and all of the dire predictions that model gave us are, you guessed it, wrong.

But let's not stop here. One of my favorite graphs in the analysis is that as the CO2 levels rise so does the temperate. But what they don't tell you while looking at all the lines and dots on the graph, is that the temperate actually rises BEFORE the CO2 levels. It just keeps getting curiouser and curiouser. This looks more like a temperature increase is causing higher CO2 levels than the currently accepted theory of the opposite.

Here's the bottom line, statistics are only as good as the data used to calculate them. And the data is only as good as the people obtaining it. The data collection, and therefore the data, used to determine that CO2 is causing global warming (or climate change as it's now known) has been called into serious question, but are we taking another look at the data as we should? Nope. Instead we're working to pass expensive legislation to impact the CO2 levels that real data shows is not our problem.

Could global warming be accelerated by man? Yes, it is a possibility. But the data, the real data, all the data, shows that CO2 is not what's causing it. By focusing on a theory that has been disproved, we may be missing the real issue. We're acting like bad cops who ignore exculpatory evidence and work to convict the wrong man while letting the real criminal go free. Of course, man may also have little to no impact on global warming at all. Who'd have thunk it.

For more information, please read Dr Ball's article here. http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2008/12/10/exposing-the-global-warming-myth-co2-levels/

The Corleone Congress

Are the Godfather movies being used as training material in our Legislature? I can't help but wonder considering that they appear to be using classic mafia tactics in order to get what they want. The whole "I do you a favor, you do me a favor" has been going on for decades, but now we've moved in to flat out extortion.

The cap and trade bill is extortion made legal by congress. Plain and simple. You want to stay in business, you gotta pay. They don't like what you're doing, you gotta pay. Businesses will be able to "buy" carbon credits. They're paying for protection pure and simple. So don't be surprised if the guy selling you those credits does so while wearing a very nice blue pin strip suit and a fedora.

Taking this one step further, the press appears to be filling the enforcer role for our mafia government. Speak out, try to change things, you're going to get hit hard, fast and brutally by the enforcer press corp. In effect, you're gonna get whacked. It will just be your honor and integrity getting murdered.

"The Families" of course have power struggles of their own. Battling back and forth for control over the extortion they're all implementing. Appearing as friends but secretly working to undermine the other behind their backs. Power and control is the big driver. Individual power. Of course in this case "The Families" are the political parties. And even they have their internal issues. It's not unusual for one family member to take out another Michael Corleone style.

No matter what Obama or members of Congress are saying, or how they're saying it, it can usually be translated into "I'm gonna make you an offer you can't refuse."

Michael Jackson Vs Cap and Trade

The single largest tax increase in history passed the house today but does anybody know or care. Nope. And why is that? Because Michael Jackson is dead.

Jacko was all over the news today while the bill that will increase taxes on all Americans, put our companies at a disadvantage against the rest of the world, increase the utility costs for everyone and opens the door to government control of all industries falls into the background.

Why is this you may ask. Because more Americans care about the death of Michael Jackson than about what is going on in their own legislature.

Don't get me wrong here. I believe we lost a great talent. Michael Jackson had a profound impact on pop music and dance, but couldn't coverage of his death played second fiddle to the near government takeover of all American industry?

What is really sad is that the people who didn't care today will be wondering what the hell happened when they can't pay their utility bill next winter. And then they'll be crying how could this happen.

I am pretty much disgusted with everything tonight. I'm ticked at the news, I'm ticked at the American people, I'm mad as hell at the House of Representatives and the only people I'm not angry with are the bloggers that were fighting so hard to make people care.

So America, come December I reserve the right to say "I told you so."

Are "We The People" Really Represented?

One of the main reasons behind the American Revolution was the British Parliament levying taxes on the colonies without any representation from us. The colonists had no say, no input, in the taxes that were slapped on them. And those taxes were ridiculous and extreme. But are we now repeating history?

With Congress attempting to sneak through legislation on the biggest tax hike in American history, (the Waxman -Markey bill, aka cap and trade) I have to ask if we're really represented. The critical question here is why they were so secretive about it. The answer is very easy on that one. It's because they knew that the American people would pitch the mother of all hissy fits if they knew what the bill was really about. Our congress, those men and women who are supposed to represent us, whose representation is critical to our government running the way it was designed, are attempting to pass legislation that they KNOW the American people don't want. So if we have these types of taxes forced on us by people who know we'd object, are we actually represented? My answer is no.

Were it not for some member's of the press, a very few of them, and the blogosphere, the American people would have been totally unaware of this massive tax bill coming up for a vote today. Our so called representatives were using the focus on the health care plan as a major diversion to sneak something by us. Were we living in the same time as our founding fathers and not in the digital information age, our reps would have succeeded in voting in an enormous tax with no input from the people. They still may succeed in passing the bill, but at least some people have had input now. But no where near enough of us.

Have we now become what so many fought and died to free us from? We're definitely headed in that direction. England levied egregious taxation on the colonies in order to pad the coffers of England. Using the money from the colonists to serve England while doing nothing for the colonists. Our current Congress is levying egregious taxation on the American people in order to pad their own pockets. They take money from the majority to serve the special interests and do nothing for the majority. They sell themselves to the highest bidder and screw the rest of us with no compunction what so ever. Ronald Reagan said - Politics is the second oldest profession, and bears a striking resemblance to the first. Ain't that the truth!

If, as we have seen, our representative are selling their votes to the highest bidder, doesn't that leave those of us without access to the auction unrepresented? I believe so. Many may argue this point and say that we still have our vote and we can vote these old reps out of office and put new ones in. But experience has shown that we're just trading one old whore for a slightly newer model. The Democrats wasted our money for 40 years so we voted them out and gave Republicans control of the congress. This worked for a short amount of time, and then they wasted our money as well. So we voted them out and the 111th congress, the bright new shiny one, has spent more of our money on useless programs in the shortest amount of time than any other Congress in history. So where is the representation in that? How can we say we are represented when we have no option for our vote who will actually perform the will of the people?

The very sad part of this whole situation is that the American people bear the brunt of the responsibility for their current situation. How many of us have no idea what is going on? We are busy with our jobs and our families and our day to day lives and we have trusted our politicians to act responsibly. That is not a trust they have earned nor a trust they deserve, and yet it is a trust we continue to give. Although some of the apathy is a result of the people knowing we are just trading one whore for another so why bother. Where then, I ask, are the people rising up to run against the whores? Where are the representatives that we need? Many, I fear, are afraid of the full body cavity search that the press would subject them to.

So where does that leave us, the not so silent majority? Out in the cold. And this will be a literal truth if Waxman-Markey passes because it will be too damned expensive to heat your house. Thomas Jefferson once said, "All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression." We have gone from a fear that the majority will violate the rights of the minority, to the minority violating the rights of the majority.

I close this blog with one last comparison. This from the Declaration of Independence; "In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury." And now think of how our President and member's of our Congress reacted to the tea party protests. Although the American people have protested the spending of our leaders, we have been mocked and dismissed by our leaders as they arrogantly continue the behavior we so strongly objected to.

Need I really say more?