Illegal Immigration — My Solution

A couple of days ago, I got into a Facebook discussion with someone about illegal immigration.  We found ourselves on opposite sides of a debate.  The person asked for my solution.  I offered my thoughts, to which he responded, and I counter-responded.  I have blended this debate into what I hope is a comprehensive summary of my views.  By the way, he began the discussion by specifically asking for a constitutional solution.

My solution is entirely constitutional – I would never consider any other response to this problem – and it is so simple I don't know why it isn't obvious to everyone.  All immigrants – which include my father, who emigrated from the Netherlands in the early 1950s, and my mother's parents, who immigrated in the 1910s – came to the USA for a better life.  Mostly, that means better economic opportunities.  If we deny illegal immigrants the benefits of the American dream, I think you'll see an exodus across the Rio Grande the like of which has not been seen since Moses led the Israelites across the Red Sea.

That's the grand sweep, here are the details:

(1) The federal government has the authority to deny the States permission to give a driver license to an illegal alien. The feds can also deny the states and any business the privilege of to accepting any IDs for foreign nationals other than a US-issued green card. In short, deny illegals any form of ID.

(2) Require proof of citizenship or legal residency (a) for a driver license or other state-issued ID, (b) when registering children for school (incl. colleges), (c) when applying for a job or unemployment or welfare benefits.  In short, install E-Verify as a system (run by the States or a private foundation owned and operated by the States – not by the feds!).

Response: Where is this authority in the Constitution? Where does the federal government have any power to regulate state drivers' licenses or intrastate commerce or education?

I do not believe the federal government can regulate state driver licenses, education, or anything else. They can regulate foreigners – what foreigners do, what documents foreign nationals use, anything! Everything a foreign national does with respect to federal, state or local governments is, by definition, a foreign relations or diplomatic function and, therefore, under the authority of the federal government — review Holmes v. Jennison 14 Pet (39 US) 540 (1840) for details.  Such a law could be very short:

"No person who is not a citizen of these United States shall use any document for identification purposes except (a) a passport issued by a government recognized by the government of these United States that bears a valid visa issued by the Department of State or (b) a resident alien identification card (commonly known as a 'green card') issued by the Department of State."

No visa?  No green card?  No way!

(3) Build the damn fence. Put a brigade of soldiers or marines on the border. If a Mexican Army unit crosses the border, blow them to hell.

Response: Do you want to keep good hardworking people out of this country?
 
If they want to start their American experience by breaking our laws, yes! (Why is this so hard to understand?)

(4) The whole "anchor-baby" concept is a lie foisted on us by one footnote written by one liberal Supreme Court justice, William J. Brennan, in 1982.  [Ann Coulter has a brilliant, definitive article on this.]  When a child is born, the hospital or attending gives them a certificate of live birth on the spot.  When the citizen parent presents him/herself at the County Clerk with that COLB and proof of parental citizenship, the Clerk then issues a Certificate of Birth and Citizenship.

[There was no response, so I assume we are in agreement on this point.  By the way, I understand this is an added hassle for the parents.  Don't blame me; blame the illegal aliens – if it wasn't for them, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. It's their fault!]

(5) When a business is found to be employing illegals, that business gets shut down for 1 day for each illegal that worked during any given pay period. In other words, if you're on a two-week pay cycle and employ 7 illegals for 1 day, you're out of business for a week – shop, office, sales force, website, everything.  Businesses employ illegals because they cost less money, so, we raise the price.

Response: Why do businesses need to enforce the law?

Businesses do not need to enforce the law; they do need to comply with the law, and the law says you cannot employ a person who is not a US citizen or a legal resident alien with a work visa.

(6) When state or municipal officials violate federal law by creating sanctuary cities, yank their federal funding and arrest the officials for conspiracy to violate federal law.

Response: Interesting, but I disagree.

You agree then, that cities and states should choose which federal laws they obey?  Should I conclude that you think the constitutionally-mandated oath to support the Constitution be made voluntary? You think the Founders wrote the "supremacy clause" of the Constitution as a joke?

(7) When an illegal is caught committing a crime, take ID (including DNA) then deport them. When they return, deport them.  When they return again, lock them up for life.  Three strikes and you're not out, you're in! (And no pampering! Lifers don't need taxpayer-funded college degrees or big-screen HDTVs.)

Response: "Caught" committing a crime or convicted?

I'll give you half of this one: IDed when caught, deported when convicted.

Final thoughts:

Harsh?  Hardly.  I want every illegal alien to be looking over their shoulder every single day.  It's what American citizens are paying their government to do.  If illegals think that the USA isn't a better place than their homelands, they won't come.

Response: I would rather welcome my brothers and sisters into this country with open arms so they can have a better life. Our current policies that limit those coming into our country are ridiculous.

No, they are not ridiculous.  The USA is a sovereign nation – we have the right to admit or refuse to admit anyone, at any time, for any reason.  Uncontrolled immigration would mean a flood of immigrants looking for their piece of American dream.  I don't blame them for wanting to come here, I blame the bureaucrats.  The system is sound, it's based on good principles but, like so much of government, it is regulated and run by people, and a lot of those people really are the stereotypical government employee we have all come to know and hate.

By the way, for expressing these opinions, I was labeled a Fascist.  I was accused of wanting a police state.  I was accused of supporting the PATRIOT Act and other, similar things.  I respond by noting that there are two sides to this debate.  I also note, with deep sadness, that so many people, even many who claim to be conservative, have come down on the side of the illegal aliens and against the citizens of these United States.

Thanks for listening, tune in next week for another rant.

Church and State

In our continuing occasional series of presenting talking points, we note that the new leaders of Libya have declared Shari'a to be the law of the new Libya (which we predict will be scarcely better – and very possibly far worse than – the old Libya).  It brings to mind the ongoing debate over religion and politics in the United States.
 

Some people, liberals mostly, keep proclaiming (very loudly and often obnoxiously) "separation of Church and state" as if that phrase was the sum total of Constitutional law on the subject, a total which cannot be argued or refuted and ought not even be discussed.  In fact, as most of you well know, this phrase – frequently repeated and, with equal frequency, misunderstood – is not found in the US Constitution.  It was a private opinion put forth by Thomas Jefferson, expressed to certain members of the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, written shortly after becoming president:

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

In sharp contrast, the 1st Article of Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof .  .  ." That means Congress is prohibited from: (1) Passing a law declaring any specific church or sect or belief system to be the official state church or sect or belief system of the United States.  (2) Congress cannot pass laws prohibiting religious belief or practice – with the obvious exception of those acts which are declared to be dangerous to the public safety.
 

So, when confronted with those who adamantly declare that the Founders were atheists or enemies of churches or some other nonsense, here are a few thoughts, from the Founders and other worthies, to puncture their overinflated self-images.  One should start, of course, with Jefferson's own words, as expressed in a letter to Benjamin Rush, written a few months after the Danbury letter:

My views .  .  .  are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, an very different from the anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions.  To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus Himself.  I am a Christian in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others .  .  .

Benjamin Franklin (1706-90):

Whoever shall introduce into public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world.

Franklin, by the way, is known to have contributed to the construction of almost every church in Philadelphia during his later lifetime.

George Washington (1732-99):

In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own; nor those of my fellow citizens at large, less than either.  [1st Inaugural Address, 1789.]

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.  In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens.  [Farewell Address, 1796, emphasis added.]

John Adams (1735-1826):

Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.

Patrick Henry (1736-99):

It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here. [Emphasis added.]

James Madison, Jr.  (1751-1836):

We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it.  We have staked the future of all of our political institutions . . . upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.

John Jay (1745-1829):

Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers. 

Noah Webster (1758-1843):

In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed . . . No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.  [American Dictionary of the English Language, 1832]

The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all of our civil constitutions and laws . . . All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.  [History of the United States, 1832]

Senator Mark Hatfield (R-OR) (1922-2011):

For the Christian man to reason that God does not want him involved in politics because there are too many evil men in government is as insensitive as for a Christian doctor to turn his back on an epidemic because there are too many germs there.

And, if you really want to screw with their little minds, you should reference two opinions of the United States Supreme Court:

David Josiah Brewer, Associate Justice (1837–1910):

If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth.  Among other matters note the following: The form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, "In the name of God, amen;" the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business,   and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing everywhere under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe.  These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.  [Writing for the Court in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 US 457 (1892), emphasis added.]

Warren Burger, 15th Chief Justice (1907-95):

The concept of a "wall" of separation between church and state is a useful metaphor but is not an accurate description of the practical aspects of the relationship that in fact exists.   The Constitution does not require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any.   Anything less would require the "callous indifference," (Zorach v. Clauson, 343 US 306,314 [1952]), that was never intended by the Establishment Clause.  .  .  .  Our history is pervaded by official acknowledgment of the role of religion in American life, and equally pervasive is evidence of accommodation of all faiths and all forms of religious expression and hostility toward none.  [Writing for the Court in Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 US 668 (1984) , emphasis added.]

Thanks for listening, tune in next week for another rant.

The Bank of North Dakota – An Idea for the Other 49?

I first heard about the Bank of North Dakota (BND) about a month ago.  It was called 'the only state-owned bank in the USA.'  That intrigued me, and I decided to look into it.  What I saw impressed me enough that I am sharing it, with a question to state lawmakers:  Is this something that could profit your state?

Bear in mind, North Dakota is not exactly like North Carolina or Utah or anywhere else (not even South Dakota).  As Mother Jones says, "To be sure, it (BND) owes some of its unusual success to North Dakota’s well-insulated economy, which is heavy on agricultural staples and light on housing speculation."  Very true, and we recognize that what plays in Bismarck probably won't play in Boston.  But Boston asked the question anyway and so have many others from Washington to Florida.

So, what is it and why is it so great?

What is it?

Media outlets like the Huffington Post and Newsweek/The Daily Beast frequently call it "socialist," however, a study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston found, "BND is perceived as conservative and well managed."

BND's founder, A. C. Townley, was a member of the Socialist Party and headed a short-lived movement called the National Non-Partisan League (NPL), a farmers' organization.  North Dakota Farmers were having a lot of trouble getting credit at a reasonable cost back in the teens, so this grassroots movement stepped up to the challenge, got political control of North Dakota and founded BND in 1919.  (They had other agenda items, but the movement didn't last long enough to get most of them rolling.)

The State of North Dakota deposits all the taxes and fees it collects into BND; these collections form its capital base.  BND actually pays the state treasurer interest on those deposits.  (Other state governments deposit their collections in private banks, which also pay interest to the State.)  Those deposits are used to pay the State's expenses and loan money to farmers, students (before that was outlawed by the Obama administration) and local businesses, mostly through partnering with private banks.

Eric Hardmeyer, current BND president, told the Huffington Post, "[W]e have specifically designed programs to spur certain elements of the economy.  Whether it’s agriculture or economic development programs that are deemed necessary in the state or energy, which now seems to be a huge play in the state.  And education – we do a lot of student loan financing.  So that’s our model.  We have a specific mission that was given to us when we were created 90 years ago and it guides us throughout our history."

That mission was designated, in part, to avoid competing directly with private banks.  Hardmeyer continues, "[W]e understand that we walk a fine line between competing and partnering with the private sector . . . So most of the lending that we do is participatory in nature.  [A loan is] originated by a local bank and we come in and participate in [fund a part of] the loan and use some of our programs to share risk . . . [we also] provide services to banks, whether it’s check clearing, liquidity, or bond accounting safekeeping."

Some have termed this "a banker's bank," meaning a bank that services other banks – 104, all in-state – instead of individuals and companies.  (BND does have a few private accounts – about 2% of total deposits.)  There are about 20 such banks nationwide.

Why is it so great?

BND works.  BND currently has $4 billion in assets, with $2.8 billion in loans outstanding.  BND has been consistently profitable – $62 million in profits in 2010.

A portion of profits have always gone to the state's general fund, lowering the tax burden to taxpayers.  Since 2000, those profit returns have totaled over one-half-billion dollars.  That's hundreds of millions in taxes and fees that North Dakotans didn't have to pay.  By the way, 2010 is the seventh straight year the bank set a record for profits earned, up from $13 million in 1990.

 
You might have noticed most of the quotes in this post are from liberal news sources – Mother Jones, Huffington Post, Newsweek/The Daily Beast and Political Affairs.  I heartily recommend reading the source articles at the links appended.  You'll see the many references to a "socialist bank."  These liberal media outlets flaunt BND's success as if it was a success for socialism.  (I may have to add this to my post liberal hypocrisy.)

I laugh because BND isn't a socialist success, it is a conservative, free market success.  Marxist rag Political Affairs admits, "North Dakota citizens are a fairly conservative and didn't do any subprime lending.  Nor was there a powerful incentive to get into the derivatives markets and put on swaps and callers and caps and credit default swaps.  Their philosophy was 'if we don't understand it, we're not going to jump into it.' Thus they avoided those pitfalls."

That is a conservative business model and it has resulted, among other things, in a 1.46% return on assets (ROA) in 2010 – 0.61% is the national average.  In 2006, BND earned a 1.99% ROA, compared to a 1.00% national median.  No bailout money went to BND, while trillions were given to Wall Street to prop up their failed economic strategies.

BND has also piloted a local, private ownership program. The New Rules Project writes, "Part of BND's mission is to expand local ownership of banks and increase their capitalization.  To this end, the bank has a bank stock loan program, which provides loans to finance the purchase of bank stock by North Dakota residents."  Local government can open accounts with BND, but the bank actually discourages this practice, recommending towns use local banks instead, and "facilitates this by providing local banks with letters of credit for public funds.  In other states, banks must meet fairly onerous collateral requirements in order to accept public deposits, which can make taking public funds more costly than it's worth.  But in North Dakota, those collateral requirements are waived by a letter of credit from BND."

Socialists draw power to themselves; conservative capitalists realize that competition is healthy for businesses and customers.  This, too, has benefits:  Over the last decade, North Dakota community banks averaged more than quadruple the lending to small businesses than the national average.  Yes, politics could skew BND off its conservative path, but BND publishes quarterly and yearly reports, meaning the people can actually see what the Bank is doing and can take it out on the politicians if they don't like what they see.  How long have we been arguing about an audit of the Federal Reserve Bank?

The Bottom Line:
I'm not suggesting that the Bank of North Dakota model is the solution for America's economic problems, but it might be a part of the solution for your State.  BND's activities over the last nine decades demonstrate that a publicly-owned bank that does business with local banks and businesses through a solid, conservative business model has clear benefits to the state.

Thanks for listening, tune in next week for another rant.

For more info, visit:

Bank of North Dakota	Washington Public Bank Project
Mother Jones	Huffington Post
InForum	The Daily Beast
Political Affairs	Dissident Voice
New Rules Project	Federal Reserve Bank of Boston
IPS News	Great Plains Examiner

What Makes A Good Elected Official?

"What makes a good elected representative?  Really, I want well-thought-out answers, what is it that makes a good elected official?"

Almost year ago, a Facebook friend posted this query.  After some consideration, I posted a few, brief thoughts.  I now expand on those thoughts.

The short answer is statesmanship instead of politics.

What, exactly, is statesmanship?  Well, it may be one of those concepts that fits under the "I know it when I see it" umbrella, even though most people find it impossible to define with precision.  It has been called something entirely retrospective, meaning you are named a statesman after your death, by acclamation of others.  I won't go that far, but I will say it isn't a title you start out having; it is an honor you earn – over the long haul – by actions which improve the quality of life in your community.  If you're interested in having "statesman" on your tombstone, I propose that the following character traits (in no particular order) will certainly move you in the right direction (pun intended).

1) Faith

I look at faith as the certain knowledge or firm belief that there is Something in this universe greater than oneself.  Even an atheist can have faith. S/he can believe in "mankind" or "humanity," meaning, at least, the inherent goodness of people and in the value of community.  Robert Heinlein, dean of science fiction writers and consistent criticizer of religion, once said, "By cultivating the beautiful, we scatter the seeds of heavenly flowers as, by doing good, we cultivate those that belong to humanity."  I think he is poetically saying that when we do good, we encourage good in others, and all goodness is a benefit for us all, whether it touches us directly or indirectly.

I do not require that individual officeholders believe in God.  If they do, I want one whose public record matches their religious beliefs – hypocrisy is an unattractive political attribute.  If they do not, I demand that they recognize that most Americans are Christian, that the religious have equal right to express and support their positions and that our religious beliefs cannot be separated from our political and social beliefs, nor should they be.  Our faith is the rules by which we deal with our God; our politics are the rules by which we deal with our community.  The two cannot be effectively separated.

2) Integrity

Also called ethics, integrity is a set of core principles that s/he will never violate.  (These are, by the way, almost always faith-based values.)  It is almost cliché to say, "Every man has his price," and totally false.  Most people cannot be bought.  Political success is short term, reputation is forever.  "A coward dies a thousand deaths... a soldier dies but once," wrote Shakespeare in Julius Caesar.  Not physical death, of course, but death of character – piece by piece, slowly, unnoticeably, over the course of years.

Are you afraid to be defeated in your bid for re-election two or four or six years down the road?  If so, if your priority is to keep your job, you will do what it takes to keep your job, regardless of what it might do to your constituents.  If you care about the people you represent, you will do what is best for the people and to hell with the consequences!

3) Honesty

Honesty is the application of integrity to relationships and dealings with others.  In an episode of the TV police drama NCIS, the coroner (Dr. Mallard, played by David McCallum) is studying for a psychology exam.  To the question, "What is the difference between ethics and honesty?" he replies, "An ethical man knows it's wrong to cheat on his wife, an honest man doesn't do it."

I add Phoenix' Rules for Re-election, #1: "Every office-holder seeking re-election should be considered unworthy until proven worthy."  Look at the record, but don't expect that you will support every measure that office-holder supported – because you won't – simply ask if the actions concur with the rhetoric?  Case in point:  A certain US senator has consistently claimed to support a balanced budget while consistently voting for trillions of dollars in deficit spending and increased debt ceilings.  "How do you tell that a politician is lying? Their lips are moving," is an old joke, but it's still around because there is considerable truth to it. 

4) Patriotism

I define patriotism as a certain knowledge of or firm belief in American exceptionalism, in the principles of the US Constitution & America's manifest destiny, and a willingness (one might also say a fearlessness) to die or kill to preserve, protect & defend this Republic and its way of life.

Is America the greatest nation on Earth?  I am certain that it is.  Now, in saying that, I acknowledge certain facts:  Englishmen don't sing "Rule Britannia" because they like the tune.  Even the most ardent Communists called Russia the Rodina, which I believe translates roughly to Holy Mother Russia.  Mexicans love Mexico, Greeks love Greece, Monegasques love Monaco, and I think they should.  However – and this is the point – stack up all the accomplishments of those countries, or any country, against the accomplishments of America and Americans, and we win!  Our Constitution, our scientific advancements, our economic accomplishments, our literary attainments, our artistic expressions, our 43 changes of executive leadership (39 of them accomplished without violence), dozens of changes in legislative majority, and so on, are unmatched in human history.  Despite all the tragedies, felonies and idiocies of the last two and a half years, patriots refuse to believe that America's best days are behind us.

5) Conservatism

The understanding that government never does it as well as the private sector; that nothing any government does for its jurisdiction will cover every case in that jurisdiction; and that individuals can be trusted to choose their own pursuit of happiness.

In short, treat other adults like adults.

6) Charity

How often have you heard, when someone has really screwed up, "I was only trying to help"?  The fact is, that most who are "trying to help," if I may put it so, don't.  Many times, they make it worse.  One great example is a suggestion of Rep. David Crockett, which I relate in his own words:

"Mr. Speaker, I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased Naval Officer and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living...as any man in this House of Representatives.  But we must not permit our respect for the dead, or our sympathy for the part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living.

"I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity.  Every member of this body knows that we do not.  We have the right as individuals to give away as much of our own money as we please, to charity, but as members of congress, we have no right to appropriate even one dollar of the public money for such a purpose. ... Every man in this House of Representatives knows that this is not a 'debt.'  We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money upon the pretense that it is a payment of a debt.  We have not the semblance of constitutional authority to appropriate it as a charity.

"Mr. Speaker ... I am the poorest man on this floor.  I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of congress will do the same, it will amount to more money (for the lady) than the bill proposes."

No member of the House took up the suggestion, but the event stands as a perfect example of real charity – when you give away your money, instead of someone else's.

7) Wisdom

Like integrity and honesty, wisdom is a knowledge of truth combined with experience, both good and bad.  As Star Trek's Admiral James T. Kirk (played by William Shatner) once observed, "We learn by doing."  Ben Franklin humorously noted that "Experience keeps a dear school, but only a fool learns in no other."  It is almost cliché to say, "I have learned more from my failures than from my successes."

The Founders set age limits on elected federal officials because they wanted a little life experience under those public officials' belts when they arrived at the federal city.  Today's conservatives point repeatedly to the experiments in socialism that run consistently through American history, from the Pilgrims to the utopian communities of the 19th Century to the progressive agendas of 20th Century Democrats and what do we find?  Failure – consistent, unaltering, total and complete failure – and yet, the liberals keep making the same mistakes over and over again.

On the flipside, the tea party movement looks at the so-called conservatives of the last two decades and says, "Wait just a second, Bucko!" (I was there, that is a direct quote.)  "Just because you say you're a conservative is no longer good enough. We are actually going to pay attention to what you do. And, if we don't like it, you will hear from us."  In 2010, lots of senators and representatives, governors and state legislatures got the message.

That message was, in the immortal words of Donald Trump, "You're fired!"

8) Vision

This term is actually misleading, everybody has a vision of the future, but we only call him/her a "visionary" if s/he puts forward a plan we like.  In that vein, it has been said that a politician looks no farther than the next election, but a statesman looks no closer than the next generation.  Not precisely true, but it does seem that politics cares more for the next election than for the next generation – since that next generation is not yet old enough to vote.

Current politicians have a vision for the future.  Unfortunately, every projection and measurement is telling them that this vision will pass on to the next generation a massive public debt, growth-crippling regulations and ever-increasing social turmoil.  In spite of these warnings, all of Washington's actions seem intent on increasing, rather than decreasing, these disasters.  Every four years some megaphone-toting moron claims to have a new vision for America – his or her presidential platform.  Most of these turn out to be the same old, tired rhetoric we've been hearing for 50 or 100 years.

We don't need a new vision for America, we need public officeholders who understand that the Founders' vision is still the best vision that anyone has come up with for America and who understand that vision sufficiently that they can implement it in the 21st Century.

Thanks for listening, tune in next week for another rant.