The Smoke Break

You want some brie with that whine?

Where’s The Love?

By

As if the world were overflowing with so much love it was getting in someone’s way, those who wish to force their views all the way into the bedrooms of everyone else have proposed this stunning little amendment to the Constitution:

JOINT RESOLUTION [H.J.RES.37.IH]

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

`Article–

`Section 1.  Marriage in the United States shall consist only of a legal union of one man and one woman.

`Section 2.  No court of the United States or of any State shall have jurisdiction to determine whether this Constitution or the constitution of any State requires that the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon any union other than a legal union between one man and one woman.

`Section 3.  No State shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State concerning a union between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage, or as having the legal incidents of marriage, under the laws of such other State.’.

Sponsor: Rep Lungren, Daniel E.

COSPONSORS (34)
Rep Akin, W. Todd [MO-2] – 3/4/2009
Rep Bachus, Spencer [AL-6] – 3/4/2009
Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6] – 3/4/2009
Rep Bilirakis, Gus M. [FL-9] – 3/4/2009
Rep Blackburn, Marsha [TN-7] – 3/4/2009
Rep Brady, Kevin [TX-8] – 3/4/2009
Rep Broun, Paul C. [GA-10] – 3/4/2009
Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5] – 3/4/2009
Rep Cantor, Eric [VA-7] – 3/4/2009
Rep Chaffetz, Jason [UT-3] – 3/4/2009
Rep Coffman, Mike [CO-6] – 3/4/2009
Rep Forbes, J. Randy [VA-4] – 3/4/2009
Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-2] – 3/4/2009
Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] – 3/4/2009
Rep Harper, Gregg [MS-3] – 3/4/2009
Rep Hoekstra, Peter [MI-2] – 3/4/2009
Rep Jordan, Jim [OH-4] – 3/4/2009
Rep Luetkemeyer, Blaine [MO-9] – 3/4/2009
Rep Marchant, Kenny [TX-24] – 3/4/2009
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. [MI-11] – 3/4/2009
Rep Mica, John L. [FL-7] – 3/4/2009
Rep Miller, Jeff [FL-1] – 3/4/2009
Rep Moran, Jerry [KS-1] – 3/4/2009
Rep Neugebauer, Randy [TX-19] – 3/4/2009
Rep Pence, Mike [IN-6] – 3/4/2009
Rep Pitts, Joseph R. [PA-16] – 3/4/2009
Rep Radanovich, George [CA-19] – 3/4/2009
Rep Rogers, Harold [KY-5] – 3/4/2009
Rep Rogers, Mike D. [AL-3] – 3/4/2009
Rep Shuster, Bill [PA-9] – 3/4/2009
Rep Smith, Lamar [TX-21] – 3/4/2009
Rep Souder, Mark E. [IN-3] – 3/4/2009
Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. [GA-3] – 3/4/2009
Rep Wittman, Robert J. [VA-1] – 3/4/2009

Personally, I think it is nonsense.  Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, which was widely-disseminated and read during its time, stated that, “As the Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion….”  President John Adams and his Secretary of State Timothy Pickering approved it, and it was then ratified by the Senate without objection.  Though the whole article was dropped (probably because it was no longer deemed critical to soothe Muslim fears), it’s original inclusion and distribution gives us insight into the thoughts of the Founding Fathers 6 years after adopting the Bill of Rights.

Neither Christians nor the members of any religion have the right to usurp our First Amendment rights.  They may, within the confines of their beliefs, choose to honor marital unions however they wish and even choose to deny them to some, but it is not the government’s role to define marriage on their behalf.  This amendment would create a law respecting an establishment of religion in the most literal sense.  You can’t tell me that the literal and figurative meanings of the word “establishment” went unnoticed by minds wise enough to have created this beloved country.  Unlike most of those in government today, the Founding Fathers understood the meaning of words and used them with the utmost care.

Welcome To Chicago Politics – Congress Reintroduces Card Check Legislation

By

Today, the Senate held an alleged hearing about the “Employee Free Choice Act”, better termed the “card check”.  The result?  A pretty press release stating that, “Leading members of the U.S. Senate and House today introduced legislation that would help enable workers to bargain for better wages, benefits, and working conditions by restoring their rights to form unions.”  If you watch the hearing, it is obvious that it was designed merely to be able to say a hearing was held.  There no true dialogue; the minds of the committee were made up well before they entered the hearing room.

Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) blasted the Senate for this waste of taxpayer money, saying “Card Check is all about giving a gift to labor bosses at the expense of both the economy and the middle class.”  The end result of inserting yet more government bureaucracy into business will signal the death knell for thousands of businesses and thousands of jobs. 

There are 2 bills currently in Congress to protect secret ballot voting for union representation:

  • Secret Ballot Protection Act of 2009 (Placed on Calendar in Senate) [S.478.PCS]
  • Secret Ballot Protection Act (Introduced in House) [H.R.1176.IH]

This bill was introduced (in opposition) on March 5, 2009:

  • National Labor Relations Modernization Act:  To amend the National Labor Relations Act to require employers to provide labor organizations with equal access to employees prior to an election regarding representation, to prevent delays in initial collective bargaining, and to strengthen enforcement against intimidation of employees by employers. (Introduced in House)  [H.R.1355]

As of this writing, the text of the newly-proposed legislation in support of the Employee Free Choice Act is not yet available.  But in searching for it, I found that there is an interesting little request for a Constitutional amendment from Representative Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. sitting with the House Judiciary committee:

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States respecting the right to full employment and balanced growth. (Introduced in House) [H.J.RES.35.IH]

Article–

 `Section 1. Every person has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work, and to protection against unemployment.

 `Section 2. Every person, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

 `Section 3. Every person who works has the right to just and favorable remuneration ensuring for themselves and their family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

 `Section 4. Every person who works has the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of their interests.

 `Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation.’.

 

Entitlement, anyone?  This needs a hard, fast smack-down, too.

Daddy! Mommy! He’s Looking At Me!

By

In yet another demonstration of that change for which the world has been waiting, the Obama administration continues on its quest for enemies at whom they can kick sand, looking for all the world like a rather grotesque and very long-in-the-tooth group of enfant terribles.  I guess they figure that if they can fling enough of…anything…in the air, it will distract us from seeing they’ve resoundingly succeeded in rising above their level of incompetence.

With an attention span more often seen in very small children, the ineffective flailings against Rush Limbaugh are now being set aside in favor of what they see as perhaps as softer target:  House Minority Whip Eric Cantor.  In what is little more than a fluffy campaign piece in the Washington Post opinion section last week, President Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe, fulfills his job responsibilities by calling him the “new Republican quarterback” . 

The non-profit, Americans United for Change, (an organization that counts labor unions and liberal groups such as Moveon.org among its PAC coalition), is bankrolling television commercials against saying “no” to the administration’s spendthrift ways.  Of course, such action begs the question:  are these ads considered charitable, educational, or recreational*? 

Oh, wait.  They promote social welfare.

 

 

 

 

* – 501(c)(4)  Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.

Backdooring The EFCA (Card Checks) Continues

By

A good discussion about the tactics that may be used to “replace” the EFCA can be read here.

The scary bottom line of what Democrats want you to see as their willingness to compromise on this hideously rights-eroding matter is that whether or not people are or are not allowed to properly vote for unionization (meaning vote by secret ballots instead of by public humiliation), when union contract terms are in negotiation, it will become very, very easy to call for “binding arbitration”.  And who’re they gonna call?  None of than those shining knights in government.  The very same government that owes very big favors to the unions that shoved Barack Obama into the spotlight.  And such call for conflict-of-interest “arbitration” can be done after only 90 days of – shall we use the President’s favorite word here? – dialogue between the union and the employer.

The Senate intends to hold sessions – starting tomorrow – to discuss the EFCA, though they are being cagey and not going to mention it by name; instead they have given it the dubiously grandious title of:  “Rebuilding Economic Security:  Empowering Workers to Restore the Middle Class”.  And in deference to their claims of bipartisanship and fairness, they will have one person testifying at the hearing (out of 7 or 8, depending on your source) against the EFCA. 

I don’t know about you, but I’m getting very, very tired of this government telling me what to do.  If I want to join a unionized company, I will.  If I don’t, I won’t.  It’s really that simple.  I believe that to force unionization on an employer is, in many instances, flat-out wrong.  It is not only wrong but unethical and immoral to do so when the workers would prefer no union but are put in the position of trying to take a stand against the big-money bullying and humiliation tactics used by the well-funded union organizers.

 Kinda like what the Demon-crats are trying to do with this issue.

What Democrats Don’t Want You To Know: “I Wanted Bush To Fail”

By

What goes around comes around.

First posted at Third Base Politics, today Hotair and Patterico both posted a 2006 Fox News poll in which 51% of Democrats said they wanted to see then-President Bush fail.

Yes, indeed.  Democrats were asked a simple question, “Regardless how you voted in the presidential election, would you say you want President Bush to succeed or not?”

Their answer?

“I want him to fail.”

Oh.  My.  God. 

[ Cue in sounds of great weeping and wailing, show video clip of hands being wrung and teeth gnashing ]

I ask you, is this patriotic?  How could you say you wanted your president to FAIL?  This is, in Demon-crat-speak, OUTRAGEOUS!  It has “no place in the public discourse”!  It “politicizes” the efforts of “millions of hard working Americans”! 

Indeed.

All I can say to them now is that if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen ’cause your goose is being cooked.

Why Do You Give?

By

Americans are a most generous people.  We don’t rely on our government to tell us to help one another; instead, when we hear about someone with a genuine problem we band together to give them what we can. 

But apparently those who wish to continue to create a division between what they perceive as the “haves” and the “have-nots” are pressing for a change to the way charitable foundations operate.  The National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP), a research and advocacy group, is going to release a report offering “benchmarks to assess foundation performance.”  In it, they will advise that charitable foundations “provide at least 50 percent of grant dollars to benefit lower-income communities, communities of color, and other marginalized groups, broadly defined.”

This is being pushed, pressured, if you will, by an organization call The Greenlining Institute of San Franciso.  An advocacy group for African American, Asian American, and Latino communities and groups, it has a noble mission of encouraging “people of color” to participate positively in their communities and businesses.  They speak of helping people “determine their own destinies”, yet began criticizing charitable foundations 2 years ago and tried to force California to pass legislation “mandating that foundations report to the public the percentage of their dollars given to “minority-led” organizations and the percentage of their boards and staffs made up by racial and ethnic minorities.”  I can’t help but think this rather smacks of biting the hand that feeds you.

The bottom line is that the government now apparently thinks it ought to mandate how the generosity of individual Americans will be distributed.

I don’t know about you, but I give to those causes in which I personally believe.  I’m pretty sure that same focus, if you will, is why non-profits and foundations are created in the first place – in order to offer help in a specific area of personal interest.  To have the government tell charities how to use their donations sounds a lot like another hard-left towards socialism.  And we all know just how well the government takes care of those who need the most help.

I’m sorry, but the government just does not belong in the private sector.  It does not have the right to tell charities – groups of generous individuals giving their time and after-tax dollars – how to do the work they wish to do in their communities.  Sure, the government grants organizations their non-profit status, however, if an organization is playing by the tax-exempt rules (and there are plenty of them, including Sarbannes-Oxley), there should be no further discussion.

To attempt to turn American generosity into just another form of governmental handouts is wrong.  Seriously wrong.

Let’s Move On

By

Apparently it’s too hard to “revisit” the Omnibus bill and cut earmarks from it so the President just wants to move on, claiming he’ll handle them differently next year.  Easier to blame the previous administration, even though the President was supposed to be working in the Senate at the time so is therefore a part of creating this monumental disaster of a budget.

Must be hell to have to live with such a short attention span.  Though when we’re talking about 1,133 pages of bill and 1,845 pages of bill explanations and we’re in such a “crisis”, I guess it’s more important to be seen as doing something – anything – instead of doing what is right.  Or even doing your job.

Now there’s a fine example of accountability and fiscal responsibility for ya.

The ” Ted Kennedy Memorial Health Care Bill”

By

You know, I’m having a really hard time with this one.  Senator Ted Kennedy, that “lion of the Senate”, has brain cancer.  I realize that Rush Limbaugh simply meant that it could be a long time before the President gets his way with national “health care reform”, but even in jest, the idea sticks in my craw.  Sad, yes.  Tragic, yes.  But you know, I have no more than generic sympathy for his situation because, frankly, I find it a rather fitting payback. 

What?  He’s done so much for the “little people”!  He’s an icon, a Kennedy, for gosh’s sakes!

Well, because he’s a Kennedy, Senator Teddy quite literally got away with murder.

It’s strange how quickly we forget the real “little people”, particularly when we’re standing there with our hands out, isn’t it?  I’m not so sure that the family of Mary Jo Kopechne has forgotten her needless, tragic end in the waters off Chappaquiddick Island.  Nothing about that fatal night in July 1969 makes sense, even with 40 years of hindsight. 

Facts:  Ted Kennedy was driving, Mary Jo Kopechne was the only passenger.  They left a party at Lawrence Cottage, ostensibly to get Mary Jo back to her hotel in Edgartown.  He headed in the opposite direction of Edgartown and with sudden (“violent”) braking locking the wheels at approximately 34 mph and approximately 17′ from Dike Bridge, the car skidded on the uneven dirt road, bounced off Dike Bridge, and landed upside down in the water of Poucha Pond.

Ted Kennedy returned to the party.   He told no one but a cousin and a friend, both lawyers, and the three of them returned to the scene of the accident.  When they failed to get Mary Jo out of the car, they left.  Because the ferry off the island had shut down for the night, Ted Kennedy swam back to Edgartown and his hotel (across almost 500′ of channel with currents only safely navigated by the strongest of swimmers).  He did not report the accident until the next morning, after he was notified the police had already found Mary Jo’s body in his car.

Many questions surrounded the investigation, including why Kennedy was driving so fast on an uneven, unlit road.  No explanation was ever given for how only Kennedy, at 6’2″, could get out through one of the open or smashed-in windows (all the car doors were locked), but little 5’2″ Mary Jo could not.  Nor was it ever explained why she could not have been pulled out by the three men when they returned that same night.  And last, but not least, there was no explanation for why Kennedy did not immediately seek help from any of four nearby houses, all of which were occupied the night of the accident, and at least three of which had left lights on; one plainly visible from Dike Bridge.  Even the island’s fire station, only 150 yards from the cottage where Senator Kennedy was partying, could have been reached from Dike Bridge on foot in 1/2 hour.

According to John Farrer, the diver who pulled Mary Jo’s lifeless, stiff body from Ted Kennedy’s Oldsmobile the following day, “There was a great possibility that we could have saved Mary Jo’s life. There would have been an airlock in the car – there always is in such submersions – that would have kept her alive. If we had been called, I would have reached the scene in 45 minutes. I say 45 minutes because it was dark. ( The daylight recovery had taken 30 minutes ). The lack of light might have caused a delay of 15 minutes.”  This is also based on the position in which she was found inside the car, “If she had been dead or unconscious, she would have been prone, sinking to the bottom or floating on top. She definitely was holding herself in a position to avail herself of the last remaining air that had to be trapped in the car.” 

That is the “legacy” Senator Ted Kennedy created the night he went, driving on an expired license, to party (six married men sans wives and six single women) on Chappaquiddick Island.  A murdered young woman and enough spin and “clout” to have walked away from manslaughter charges.

To name even a bridge after him would be a travesty.

Sorry, It’s Not Good Enough

By

“Good” is the mortal enemy of “great.”

So says Jim Collins, author of “GOOD TO GREAT: Why Some Companies Make the Leap … And Others Don’t”. And I happen to agree with him.

While certainly none of us are superheroes and able to consistently leap tall buildings in a single bound, at the end of the day can you honestly say that when you decided to do something, you gave it your all?  Or did you make the choice to do just enough to get by?  Or less?

Unfortunately, “good enough”, that one-size-fits-all garden-variety mediocrity seems to have entrenched itself in our society.  It runs the gamut from children think getting a “C” is good enough (when they are capable of doing better) to workers putting in their 8 hours and not a moment more, even if that means they walk out on a crisis (which I have, unfortunately, personally witnessed; and I mean before the Obama administration took office).

I don’t get it.  That wasn’t how I was raised and while, sure, there are plenty of things I no longer care if I do well (like cooking, since I “eat to live” instead of “living to eat”), when it comes to my real job – whether corporate, volunteer, or avocation – I continually strive to not only give it my very best but to also try to do better every day.  I don’t really expect to beat out all the competition all the time, but when I lay down my head I’m satisfied that my striving has at least resulted in personal growth.

I’ve learned to give up chasing the dreams of others for which I am not suited and instead to follow those that are truly fulfilling to me, as an individual.  Therefore, my success is not measured by the amount of money I make, it is not measured by the type of home in which I live, nor am I defined by my job title.  I know what I know and, much more importantly, I now know how much I don’t know.  And I no longer try to fake it just so someone else will have a higher opinion of who they think I am.

So it is with sad interest that I watch our government go about its business.  Allowing the misguided, the incapable, and the downright incompetent a place at a table at which they have no business and allowing things like pieces of paper or, now, even skin color to create some hateful class divide that separates the “knows” and the “don’t knows”, that separates the “rich” from the “middle class” from the “deserving poor”.

Frankly, I don’t see people as pieces of paper, nor do I see them defined by their color.  What I do see, however, are stupid people.  And I find it offensive that there are those who would force me to look at the world on those terms.  That there are those who would measure my self-worth by such useless definitions and to then find me lacking.

Sorry, big O., I’m not stupid.  I really don’t mean to make you feel feel insecure, but I’m quite sure that my IQ is far higher than yours.  And I’m quite sure that I have far better manners than you do, as witnessed by your glaringly rude treatment of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.  But the difference is that I don’t hold your ignorance against you.  Nor do I think any less or any more of you because your race is different than mine.  When you peel away everything, humans are simply humans and though I find most of what comes out of your mouth to range from abhorrent to horrifying, because I am an American, I will defend to the death your right to state your opinion.  And I will defend your right to look like a fool.

But because I am an American, I will also fight to the death to retain the right to state my opinion.  And I will fight to put you back down to the level of incompetance at which you, and others like you, really belong.  Because to serve the American people is a privilege.   And because your “good” is the mortal enemy of the greatness upon which this country was founded.

Equality & The Pursuit Of Happiness

By

Equality.  It’s another one of those words that everyone claims to understand, yet few can define.

If you look it up in the dictionary, it means “of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another” or “free from extremes”.    The Founding Fathers correctly stated in the Declaration of Independence that, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

All men are, indeed, created equal.  The same potential for greatness or infamy exists at the moment of every human birth.  Every one of them then, by definition, may begin from the same starting point.  And then each have the inalienable right to live, to live in freedom, and in that free life to pursue happiness.

Please note for the record that they did not state everyone is entitled to HAVE happiness.  Our Founding Fathers were wise enough to understand that happiness is – more importantly – only a byproduct of pursuing it. 

All of this means that our government owes us very, very little.  It exists to serve to preserve for us, the country as a whole, our freedoms and our opportunity to use those freedoms to pursue happiness.  It owes us a military presence, yes.  That preserves us from enemies without.  It owes us the abolition of slavery, voting rights for women, desegregation, even freedom of choice, yes.  Those preserve us from enemies within and preserve our freedom to then pursue happiness.

But having equal opportunity is never a guarantee of equal results.  Hitler dreamed of a pure, homogenous race yet he failed – miserably (thank you) – because people are inherently individuals and therefore different.  Those differences are why all the human horses may get an equal start out of the gate yet only one will win any given race.  And even within the losers will be found a wide disparity of achievement.

People are fond of saying that America has lost her “moral compass”.  And I don’t necessarily disagree with them.  But what I know for sure, as did our Founding Fathers, is that the fix will never be found through attempting to legislate morality or through government bailouts or handouts or government stimulus.  Only when the power of the individual to choose and to choose freely – and to bear the consequences of their choices whether for better or for worse – is unleashed and is supported wholeheartedly by the government can the sum total of the individuals pursuing happiness bring about the prosperity and the magnanimity for which the American people are so well known.

In a keynote speech at a sales conference, business author Jim Collins once stated that, “Greatness is not a function of your circumstance.  Greatness is a function, first and foremost, of your choices.  And discipline.”  This premise was, indeed, how this country came to exist.  America is built of a hundred-million “rags to riches” stories and even today Lady Liberty still beckons, despite her dimming light.  The inherent equality of opportunity remains a guiding dream yet if we stop teaching our children that opportunity isn’t enough but must be accompanied by right choices and discipline, and we continue to expect the government to step in and make good on all our own, individual bad choices, we stand to lose that dream.  This is why the endless handouts, bailouts, buyouts, and stimulating budgets coming from the President and his new administration are all overt and dangerous, and why they threaten to tear that dream to pieces.

 To understand this is to be able to stand up and say, “I hope he fails.”