Operation Northwoods - 49 years later

Joint Chiefs of Staff 1962. Public domain work of US government.

Beginning with the title “Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba”, the Joint Chiefs of Staff set out to produce evidence of a phony attack to justify an invasion of Cuba in 1962. Among the "evidence," shooting down a civilian airliner, burning crops, and carrying out a terrorism campaign throughout Florida and even up to Washingotn DC are considered par for the course, acceptable prey for the beast. In a nation founded "For the people, by the people," a small intelligence elite contemplates killing thousands and blaming it on someone else to kill thousands more and gain influence with the grimmest of sobriety. Even law it seems is worthless to them. In typical bureaucratic fashion, the majority of the concern on the first page is with whose agency will be assigned responsibility for doing it.

Prior to the Freedom of Information Act, both this operation and an experimentation with human mind control known as MKULTRA were totally classified, with no clear timeline for the information to eventually be released. Even with such an act, many executive level documents can remain classified with a proper judicial review. However, in 1976, less then 9 years after the law had come in to effect that revealed these horrifying actions of our government, the "Government in the Sunshine Act" created the following exemptions:

1. Information relating to national defense,
2. Related solely to internal personnel rules and practices,
3. Related to accusing a person of a crime,
4. Related to information where disclosure would constitute a breach of privacy,
5. Related to investigatory records where the information would harm the proceedings,
6. Related to information which would lead to financial speculation or endanger the stability of any financial institution, and
7. Related to the agency's participation in legal proceedings.

That "protects" nearly all documents worth declassifying. As if this wasn't enough, further legislative and other actions have extended exemption 1 (Reagan, executive order 12356), created a new exemption for law enforcement (Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986), increased response time deadlines to act requests (20 days instead of 10, Electronic Freedom of Information Act of 1996) and restricted access to presidential records (Bush, executive order 13223). Later, a ban on foreign requests (Intelligence Authorization Act of 2002), further extending the deadline to 30 days (Open Government Act of 2007), and allowing reclassification of previously declassified work (Obama, executive order 13526) after undesirable requests were added to the bill. Later executive orders revoked some extent of 12356 and 13223, while the OPEN act also required extensive paper trails on redactions or deletions from declassified documents, but the fact that IT CAN BE DONE remains troubling.

Now it is true that some military materials really must be protected, but surely we can find a better, more legally protective phrasing then "Information relating to national defense"! What does that even mean? And why does law enforcement get a free pass, except for the case of harming a judicial proceeding? Wasn't law enforcements protection in clause (5) more then enough without this additional "Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986" thingamajigger? And what, precisely, would "lead to financial speculation or endanger the stability of any financial institution"? Just how much would that cover, when one considers how many actions have an effect on the economy? And why do executive orders get to extend the act, should that not be the responsibility of congress?

The reality is that government will always be up to evil deeds, and the only thing that stands against them is the common people and interested parties. We must learn to "counter ambition with ambition" as James Madison phrased it. Secrecy except when 100% necessary is the best way government can thwart that process, and the best way that government can eventually take all power for itself. Even when it is necessary, it is a tragedy, and still harms our nation.

John F. Kennedy eventually rejected Operation Northwoods, but it was at his desk, ready to sign, and with the stroke of one pen thousands of innocent people would've died to start a pointless war with a nation that did not attack us. Since then, the act that released the information about Northwoods has been curtailed and limited by amendment after amendment from bill after bill and many executive orders. The court system would also be subverted to frame innocent men and women of bombings and murders. In the foulest of all corruptions, government would shatter law.

Northwoods showed once again, along with what Congress has done since, that the only one you can count on to look out for you is you, and that there are no limits to the cruelty and lies of an over-expanded government. There is no reason to believe that a Northwoods could not occur today, and even less reason to believe that man like Obama, unlike Kennedy, would sign it. Indeed, it is even possible that "Fast and Furious" may be part of such an operation, a thought that occurred to me immediately after it happened. Though I am not personally of the opinion that 9/11 was such an operation, and part of my reason for this comes from my own examination of Al Qaidas apparent game plan, it is easy to understand from whence the paranoia came. Truth is, we have much reason to be afraid, and more reason to act to end the tyranny of an oversecretive, overextended, legally subversive government, and to end this tyranny in the most law-abiding, peaceful way possible: at the polls. Just as the British did with HM James of York, so we can do with our own corrupt elites.

Leading the Party - How Romney would be a disaster for the GOP

The Black highlights significant dips in the Generic Congressional Vote relative to the democrats, while the red lines and green lines indicate where Romneys vote has rapidly increased (red) or staggered to gradual decline (green). Screenshots from RCP Polling Averages, Fair Use, with a few basic visual annotations. I apologize for the hazy quality - Blogger could not fully handle the image.

The RCP Polling average, at realclearpolitics.com, averages a whole series of generally accepted polls while discluding major outliers to form a scientific estimation of the actual vote. Mitt Romneys slip in the polls in June corresponded with an improvement in the Generic Congressional Vote. Later, when Perry also appeared to have many of the same problems to Conservatives and, given the evidence above, others, the Congressional Vote slipped once again. In short, Romney, though popular himself, as a standard-bearer for the greater Republican Party is a disaster, and the fruits of this disaster would show itself in (at best) stagnation in the congressional races of 2012 should he be the nominee. At worse, the Republicans could end up not only failing to take the Senate, but losing the House, as their generic congressional ballot is often underperforming the Democrats.

Most reasonable Republicans agree that getting rid of the Reidosi dominated congress is as important as getting rid of Obama. Romney looks presidential, talks soberly (though I wouldn't say well, as that requires that you actually say something), has a nice suit and nice hair, and isn't Obama. Because of this, a lot of people are willing to vote for him for President. But a lot of those people will also see him as the representative of the Republican Party, and will conclude that it is every bit as corrupt, unethical, lukewarm and openly fat cat Wall Street elitist as it was in 2008. They'll still vote for Romney, because he's not Obama and looks like a President regardless of what he does, but they won't vote for Republican candidates outside of Romney. It will also prevent the discussion of ideas that leads to congressional majorities, instead having a presidential race focused entirely on personalities and handing the congressional races directly over to California Environmentalists and Wisconsin Public Sector Unions.

And why would it be any different? Most Americans, outside of the most venom-filled, unthinking and partisan branches of the Republican party, know that George W. Bush is just as responsible for our nations current situation as Barrack Obama. Romney represents the Republican party of Bush. Romney represents Republicans with no principles, who will do anything to get elected, will accept bribes like Ted Stevens, know nothing about Main Street or the physical economy (Romney is, after all, the quintessential Wall Street number cruncher who thinks that the economy is a math equation) and have no trouble trampling on the rights of ordinary Americans or casting all good economic sense to the wind (including what he actually knows) simply to be "popular."

Romney represents the kind of thinking that forces Americans to buy a private good and favors a gradual government takeover of the economy - something which he has not only done, but seems rather proud of. Romney, frankly, should move to the countries that follow his way of thinking, putting everything in the hands of corrupt elites, namely the Sudan, Burundi, Zimbabwe, Chad, the Central African Republic or any number of other African Kleptocracies. Maybe then he would realize why an Ivy-Leagueized America is not a good idea and that public-private collusion is not a virtue.

And should we elect him, just what will he do? Will the man who inspired Obamas entire economics agenda really depart from them substantially? Will he kowtow and get along well with the Democrat Congress that he helped elect? Just what will he do?

Update 10/9/11 - As Mr. Presidents approval ratings continue to drop in the RCP average to their lowest point ever this week, now approaching that crucial 40% mark, it seems that more and more the legitimate interest of the Republican Party needs to be selecting a man who can lead the entire party to victory in all 50 states. Winning the electoral college by more votes is not going to help the Conservatives govern. Winning the electoral college, and then winning the Senate and House by more, will.

What Congress Knew

From the document. Public domain work of the US Congress, "THE SIZE AND FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT AND
ECONOMIC GROWTH", 1998

With all this talk of Keynes, and stimulus, and this supposed "great debate," I wanted to take a moment to look at what Congress actually does know.

"The Size and Functions of Government and Economic Growth" was written by three economists, James Gwartney, Randall Holcombe, and Robert Lawson, all closely tied to Florida State, and presented before the Joint Economic Committee April 1998. Using a great survey of all OECD countries and their trends with regards to time in terms of the size of government and the rate of economic growth, they observed a major decline in the ability of economies to grow quickly as the size of government increased, and a major decline in private reinvestment in the economy.

At the time they also accredited government size with helping prevent major slowdowns and bring stability, though recent economic events put serious doubt on that hypothesis. More though, they also observed that America has not seen any truly great gains in prosperity since the early 60's, with the economy gradually edging down to a mediocre level of growth that can barely keep pace with population and really only improves the well-being of the top 10%. Poverty rates have remained unaltered since 1978.

As part of their introduction, they also propose several mechanisms by which economic growth slows in the face of government: "First, the higher taxes and/or additional borrowing required to finance government expenditures exert a negative effect on the economy. As government takes more and more of the earnings of workers, their incentive to invest, to take risks, and to undertake productivity-enhancing activities, decreases."If people, who aren't business owners, don't purchase cars, how can they go vast distances to work at better jobs that make better use of their time to produce for the economy (and in the end, as a result, are able and willing to pay them more.) If farmers don't purchase tractors, you end up with not enough food.

"Second, as government grows relative to the market sector, diminishing returns will be
confronted." Hoover Dam, good. Solar panels on your roof so you can genertate 3 lightbulbs worth of electricity, not so good.

"Finally, the political process is much less dynamic than the market process." Indeed. Our system was specifically designed by the Founding Fathers to NOT be dynamic. Why? Because something that's dynamic can tear away at your rights and freedoms, whereas something thats not dynamic can at best gnaw at them. A quickly changing society is a society where no one knows precisely where they stand, where people are imprisoned without good cause, and where nothing is sacred. That's why we've set up two houses of congress, a presidency that can block congress and a constitution that limits congress.

But first, they point out that their assessment of the actual size of government expenditures is likely over generous: "If government expenditures were measured in constant purchasing power units or on a per capita basis, the increases in the size of government would be substantially greater than those presented in Exhibit 1." In other words, relative to what the money actually buys, its much higher.

Jim Saxton, chair of the Joint Economics Committee and the one who called for the report, is a blue state Republican from New Jersey. The Northeastern United States have not been characterized by their extreme Republicans, and Jim Saxton was elected from a district of suburban Philadelphia, New Jerseys 3rd, including Cherry Hill, a major "edge city," and Willingboro, one of the original Levittown-style suburbs.

Dr. James Gwartney, Professor of Economics and Policy Studies at Florida State University, "holds the Gus A. Stavros Eminent Scholar Chair at Florida State University, where he directs the Stavros Center for the Advancement of Free Enterprise and Economic Education. He is the coauthor of Economics: Private and Public Choice, (South-Western Press, 2008), a widely used principles of economics text that is now in its 12th edition. He is also the co-author of Common Sense Economics: What Everyone Should Know About Wealth and Prosperity (St. Martin's Press, 2005), a primer on economics and personal finance designed for the interested lay person."Glancing briefly at Amazon.com reviews for both books, I noticed that even his most ardent detractors seemed to admit he had a good grasp of the economics. It is also worth noting that getting 13 editions of a textbook published (and professors do shop around for textbooks even if students do not) is not easy in a world where textbooks are often the main moneymaker for professors.

Dr. Randall Holcombe has written extremely prolifickingly, with twelve books and 100 articles to his name. "His primary areas of research are public finance and the economic analysis of public policy issues."He still teaches at Florida State University, where he is the "DeVoe Moore Professor of Economics."

Dr. Robert Lawson, at Capital University Columbus, Ohio, was also a student of Florida State before coming to teach at Capital. A quick glance at his Curriculum Vitae reveals a man driven by data and studies of what actually happens in real states and nations, and also an open-minded creative thinker who will more then readily drag comic strips in to the classroom.

All three of these professors work together on a regular basis, and you can often find their names on the authorship of the same texts. Although tied together well, their success has been borne out in publications, empirical evidence, and the simple fact that a moderate Republican from New Jersey would be interested in hearing them. In addition, the sheer wealth of information the draw on to reach their conclusions is a credit to them, as any scientific man must admit.

We've Gone Too Far

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Does it sound like a dream? It shouldn't. It's the first 10 amendments of your constitution, the Bill of Rights from the American Constitution, the Federal Constitution, the limits and powers of your supposedly constitutional federal government. When read like this, it's pretty clear what it says, but we never read it like this. We read the amendments by themselves, and thus we don't get it. We don't. We zero on one little piece, and pretend that the rest doesn't exist.

I realized this when I was looking at the Ninth Amendment (the ninth paragraph above) just now. It seemed so vague, so out there, so pecuiliar and unclear, but it talked about an "enumeration," which may not technically be a pronoun, but might as well be. It occurred to me that, while they may have been passed as 10 amendments, it is ONE bill of rights.

And then something else occurred to me. This amendment, this ninth amendment, is a direct response to exactly what the current "health care reform" is trying to do. There are people out there who want you to think that the founding fathers were playing a game of Simon Says, that because they didn't specifically say that you have right not to buy something, that the powers of "regulating commerce" could extend to every walk of your life, that the constitution is naught but a game of trick questions like those on an IQ exam. But the Founding Fathers, here's what they said:

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

That is what you call a rebuttal, a rebuke.

When we cross the line of deciding that we may decide what people buy, not to support something else that they own as in the case of environmental requirements against power plant owners or even accident insurance for car owners, but simply because they, the government, have "the power to regulate commerce," which to them means all your money, property and labor, not any freedom of yours, not any individuality of yours, just the all important interstate commerce. No life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for you, just the Commerce Clause. What will come next? What will come next? Will they order us to spend money at the mall during deflation? Will they order you to buy stocks and bonds when the market tanks to avoid "panic?" Will they force people to buy calculators to make checkout lines run faster? Will they force consumption at failing shops and restaurants? Will they make us burn our money and delete our bank accounts to counter inflation?

And when will it end? What happens when they decide that a baby cannot be born because a genetic defect would hurt the economy through the cost of caring for them?

We've gone too far. We need a new amendment. We need to strike down the commerce clause. Obviously the courts cannot be trusted to understand the intricacies of our own bill of rights, their sacred duty, so we must give them something plainer, something easier, something that they'll get, something that doesn't require the intelligence they appear to lack. Here's an idea:

"In the realm of commerce, the Federal Government may regulate only transportation and only those actively transporting goods or state agencies and for-profit businesses that deal directly with them and in no manner indirect."

This has gone too far. We are about to cross the line to unlimited government power, in the name of money, money, sad worthless money, not life, not happiness, not freedom or even decency, but money.

Mike Castle and how to win as a Republican in a rural Yankee state

Downtown Dover, Delaware, Photo by Tim Keiser, under license c.c.a.s.a 2.0 generic

His list of priorities, as listed on his website, are as follows: "Fighting for Delaware", "Jobs", "Energy Independence", "Good Governance", "Education", "Supporting Our Troops", and "Healthcare", in that order and stated in that fashion with bullet points, and lengthy, folksy, passionate discourses below. His opponents are not listed in any particular order, but instead can be selected from a drop down menu, and include "Economy", "Education", "Energy", "Environment", "Financial Reform", "Health Care", "National Security," and finally, "Offshore Oil Drilling", which last time I checked is not a major revenue source for the state of Delaware - stated profesionally, technically, scholastically, transactionally, and without any reference to the state he seeks to represent.

Now, to be fair, this is not displayed on a separate page, but directly on a menu on home, and if you click the "issues" button up top instead of viewing the drop down menu (which you will see first), it goes to a page with little boxes surrounding each issue and stereotypical pictures of what people would think of when they consider that issue, but in no picture is Delaware clearly seen, and your eyes go all over the page, and every time that the words "Delaware" or "Delawarean" are used, they are in small print, below the more important "Energy", "Economy" and "Education"s that are many times their size. The picture of Coons, gazing seriously with the eyes of a hawk, could just as easily be used in a newspaper advertisement for a law firm.

For some time now, Harry Reid has been asking local Democrat senators, such as Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Ben Nelson (D-NE), to forsake whatever their constituencies might want for the sake of passing progressive national legislation. When they ask about their own voters, he offers earmarks, and money, to essentially bribe whatever constituency he feels needs to be pulled along. [Source] He points to the use of Republican filibusters as a common enemy, and whips all of them together to march lock step lock step in favor of the agenda that the party as a whole has advanced. Coons mentions Delaware only as a part of the larger whole, like: "Delawareans, as well as the entire country, have felt the effects of the current economic climate." Ad libs off of that phrase could capture the entirety of both Coons', Reids and Pelosis platform.

Like Andrew Jackson before him with his decision to evict a peaceful and economically successful native people, the Cherokees, from the state of Georgia without Georgias consent, Coon sees not 50 individual states, but a larger agenda that he (hopefully) sees Delaware benefiting from, but never the main focus of. Castle has not once taken his eyes off of Delaware, and you can see his very website swelling with state pride.

A full profile of the election from the NY Times seems to show very little optimism on the part of democrats in Delaware, with the appointed replacement to Biden not seeking a full term, nor Bidens relatively popular Attorney General of a son, and RCP shows Castle ahead of Coons by double digits. Castle has been Delawares sole house member for 17 years, and is a moderate Republican used to routinely working with Democrats. More importantly, I suspect, is that he is a true Delawarean, while Coons is the executive of Delawares largest, northernmost and urbane county, essentially an extension of Philadelphia, with nothing in common with the remainder of the state, and no real care for it. The democrats, like Pelosi and like Coons, have lost themselves in the dream, and this will hurt them among rural northeastern townspeople, who clearly believe in representatives representing.

Confusion, Clarity and Responsibility

Taken during Heatlhcare Speech. Public Domain, work of Executive Office of the President of the United States employee Lawrence Jackson.

I was talking to a friend over the phone about Mass-Transit today and he just kept on saying, "Expert studies... Expert studies... Expert Studies...." I would ask him questions about the studies and this same refrain would commence again. "I won't debate you." Right, like the kind of Expert Studies that Brain Scientists once used to claim African Americans were too inferior to have equal rights...

There's a problem with the reasoning of trust. Actually, there are several problems:

1) You don't know if the person was actually promoted based on merit.

2) You don't know if the school he was educated at or the circle of friends influencing him has been systematically skewing all who listen to them.

3) You don't know if his intentions are good, and when you give him immense power based on "expertise," you also invite the corruption that comes with power, thus it becomes less likely that his intentions are good. "Perhaps, Maybe, Someday" my friend.

In a democracy, voters are solely responsible for the decision they make at the booth. If an expert cannot back up what their "expert opinion" gives you with reasoning and evidence, we should discard their claims on the grounds that 1) they clearly aren't interested in educating the American people and 2) for all we know, their opinion may be bigoted, biased or corrupt. We are responsible for our decisions, which brings me to another subject.

The democrats wrote a health care bill many hundreds of pages long. Now let me ask you, what voter has time to sort through several hundred pages of revised on a continual basis legal mumbo jumbo? And now, they complain (including Obama[footnote below]) that people have misrepresented what they wrote. They may or may not be true, I don't have time to look at the bill and even if I did I would probably have to read it several times to completely understand it (the Supreme Court perhaps may take two times to understand it) but the fact is, they are the ones who made it too long for the American people to read. Thus they brought these interesting times on to themselves. If they are unwilling to make Washington accessible to the voter who is responsible for it, the voter must hold it against them, or we will have a tyranny of those "in the know." Just like a student who does his homework perfectly but is unable to turn it in must receive a zero from his teacher, regardless of whether the dog ate it or not, for the teacher knows that it would otherwise be in the students best interest to make the homework extra tasty!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnote:

I invite you, my readers, to inspect this piece of evidence yourselves. If you believe I have erred in my use of it (I'm human too believe it or not) feel very free to speak up:

"Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple." Paragraph 4 from top-page 4 of Obama Health Care Speech, New York Times reprinting (page 4 given for ease of reader analysis.)



Revision 3/17/2009:

I have decided to remove one of the two images in this post. It wasn't that good.

Reforming the Congress

It seems to me that every year, in between the two-party pressure to conformity, the seniority system for committee appointments, and the growth in Federal Spending and loose construction of our favorite "living document," the US Constitution, the beliefs of common Americans and local and state governments only decline. The fact that Senators are no longer elected by State Legislatures, but instead by the hodge podge of the population of an entire state, has not helped. Nor has the fact that, despite massive improvements in communications technology that our founders would not have considered practical, we still refuse to enact a national initiative process.

To ratify our reforms to congress, we need only use state legislatures. With 3/4 (38 states) of state houses on board, we could amend the constitution without a single congressmen supporting us.

First, we need to appeal the amendment that made the people of the state elect their Senators. When state legislatures are kept out of national politics, they have no hand in the federal checks and balances, making them helpless against institutions that would earnestly deprive them of their power. With state legislatures in power, the states will once again have a voice in DC.

Second, a national initiative process. With a certain number of signatures collected in a certain amount of time, a bill written by common citizens could appear on the ballot for election by all Americans. To quicken this process, and give federal power to cities and counties, local governments could sign the petition to put an initiative on the ballot by way of their councils, thus signing up all their citizens. They could not affect how they vote on the actual ballot, but they can make them vote to put it on the ballot, making them powerful sounding boards and gaurdians of local interests.

With these two major reforms, the State, the City, and the common citizen could be once again heard in Washington, DC.

Ahn Cao (R - New Orleans)

Image Courtesy of the Office of Congressmen Ed Royce, public domain

There was exactly one Republican congressmen who voted in favor of Obama's healthcare bill. Ahn "Joseph" Cao of Downtown New Orleans, a district more liberal, on average, then Seattle, Washington - populated almost entirely by African Americans and hyper-urbanites who live in 500-square-foot lofts and go to parties all the time. The devil-may-care attitude of his hometown has led at once to a brilliant and sophisticated culture, utter extravagance and excess, and monstrous levels of poverty, crime, general sleaziness, and finally, corruption. He was elected as a pro-business, moderate, no-nonsense, relatively innocent and squeaky clean Vietnamese immigrant Republican against a Democrat who had been caught with 85 grand in his freezer.

His district probably has a lot of people without medical insurance. We know his district is generally very economically liberal, and so his conservative votes on the Stimulus and Cap-and-Trade likely had serious repercussions for him back home. His election was entirely the product of a two-party system and the lack of competition it creates. In short, something had to give.

I know a lot of conservatives are very angry at Mr. Cao, but they should realize that if he does not occasionally throw his constituents a bone - especially one that, from the special interests viewpoint alone, would be so delicious to them - he WILL lose this seat. If he keeps this seat, the GOP may have the opportunity to expand its presence not only in New Orleans, but in Inner City America in general, the kind of frontier expansion that Republicans have not really engaged in for a long, long time. May I remind you that we are not in the majority right now.

Beyond this, it may indeed have been a vote of conscience. Follow this link to see for yourselves. In particular, he used his bargaining power to arrange for an amendment, Stupak-Pitts, that will prevent federally funded plans from covering elective abortion, producing an effective abortion tax. Consider also that this fellow is VERY Vietnamese, and as such probably has a more collectivist view of life then is normal here in America. To him, denying some people medical freedom to protect the vitality of the whole probably (though I will emphasize probably, as I cannot see in to the mans head) does not seem quite so bad, and if he can get an anti-abortion amendment doing it, well that's just twice as good now isn't it?

So no, I do not believe Ahn Cao is a "traitor." Reagan himself said "you only have to vote with your party 80% of the time." I continue to follow his career with special and keen interest and to recognize the unique constraints on his power as a legislator as a result of his district. Like it or not, America is a democracy. Ahn Cao continues to provide a more clear and business friendly and hardwork oriented path for the people of New Orleans and to promote Conservative interests across America through his cooperation from a group of people (the inner-cities) that so far no other Republican has really reached out to. He voted with us on the Stimulus and the Cap-and-Trade, and this is a vote (Downtown New Orleans) we normally wouldn't have.

Encouraging Lawfulness

Clip art courtesy of Open Clip Art Gallery, public domain

On Interstate 405 in Kirkland, Washington, there is a sign by the 8-lane freeway saying "Keep Right Except to Pass." It should be no surprise that ABSOLUTELY NO ONE takes that sign seriously.

I called a friend from Massacheuttsets on his cellphone. He apparently was driving. When I found out this I asked him, "isn't that illegal in your state?" And he casually said, "yeah but it's minor." By the way, this friend wants to be a preacher. That kinda means you should respect the law. (Read Romans 13, and other passages.)

In every state I've known there are so many laws on the roadways that no one (including the cops, by the way) takes all of them seriously. This is bad. I don't like people lane changing without turn signals, especially if they're not going the same speed I am and I end up REAR-ENDING them! Or they don't look to their side and they SIDE-SWIPE me. And I don't like the idea of being a pedestrian and run over and killed by a grumpy driver whose had it for the day and now wasted my life.

I also don't especially like stupid laws. They make you wonder who's running this country. Are they even paid? Where did we hire these people? WHY did we hire these people? Was it their first day? And why shouldn't I trust all the other people who come up with laws and behaviors of their own? I sometimes wonder whether corporate accounting scandals happen because businesses get tired of the Eco-lobby. Reminds me of annoying cashiers who can't count money.

Fact of the matter is, we need law. We need it to protect our property, ourselves, our children, our country against foreign invasion. We also, at times, need it to deal with collective needs, like for commerce and transportation, though here we have to be more careful, as there is always a tremendous cost to making something collective, whether it be month-long hospital waits (Canada's Healthcare System) or putting privatized mass-transit out of business and the tragedy of too many people using something free at once (America's Interstate Freeway). In both cases, legalism and collectivism, there is a cost and a benefit, always, and both must be carefully weighed.

But if we do well with these, and create things that are limited, respectful, uncorrupt, freedom-oriented, and logical, and combine them with strong-enforcement and a sense of justice, we CAN have a lawful nation.Drawn from Indiana DOT Sign by Wikimedia user "Overpush", Public Domain

Cap-And-Trade Roll-Call - Naming the Guilty

In this weeks house roll call vote to push through Cap and Trade, the democrats passed the bill 219-211. But 8 GOP congressmen defected! Now, this is still considerably less then the number of Dems who defected (hence the margin being narrow) but nonetheless, it is clear that some of our conservative friends should have a guilty conscience. If only four of those GOP congresssmen had stuck to their side of the aisle, the vote would have been a tie. Three of these GOP congressmen are from New Jersey.

Well, one truly guilty face is Seattle's own Dave Reichert. Representing the 8th District, and the only Republican congressioanl district West of the Mountians in Washington State, Reichert has long been known to be considerably more environmentalist then is normal for a Republican. In a previous life, he was awarded Sheriff of the Year in 2004 for his exceptional conduct as King County Sheriff, including catching the Green River Killer, but has since held few significant policy stands or achievements.

Another guilty face is Matt Kirk in his district to the north of Chicago. Like Reichert, he too has been known to support environmentalism. His agenda, however, is much more clearly suburban. Both Reichert & Kirk's districts are Obama Republican, meaning that despite a Republican congressman, they voted for Obama in the Presidential election.

Mary Bono Mack's district in Southern California also voted for Obama, but by only 51%, unlike 60% for each of Reichert & Kirk's districts. The district used to be clearly Republican, but in recent years has slid more and more liberal. She is a fiscal-environmentalist conservative who has won simultaneous awards from both Sunline Transit Agency & Americans for Tax Reform.

Our fourth fiend is Mike Castle from Delaware's At-Large district. He's mostly a social conservative anyways, representing a state that is liberal to the bone, a district even more liberal then those previously mentioned.

Chris Smith of New Jersey's 4th has considerably less of an excuse. His district voted a comfortable 52% for McCain in 2008 and 56% for Bush in 2004. He, however, is primarilly a social conservative, being a major figure in the pro-life movement and the author of several antiabortion bills. He has strong ties to ORGANIZED LABOR, and as such can be considered a member of the Christian Left.


Congressman John McHugh represents the 23rd District of New York as a Republican moderate. He recently received several earmarks in a defense appropriation bill that he celebrates on his website...

Representative Lance of New Jersey's 7th votes with his party 88% of the time, making this particular exception somewhat odd. On his website, he justifies this vote with his strong commitment to renewable energy. Overall, however, he has very little policy information (total: 10 long sentences, though 4 on the environment) on his website (circa 06-27-09) and so one finds his sincerity of intent questionable. His district is obviosly very gerrimandered, like an ameoba on his district map, and has not had a Democrat representative since 1980. Its' median income is 75 grand.

Lastly, Representative Frank LoBiondo of New Jerseys 2nd (includes Atlantic City) voted in support of this bill. LoBiondo is a member of Newt Gingrich's freshmen class, having taken his seat in the 1994 congressional sweep after a failed 1992 run. He is a member of the moderate "Republican Main Street Partnership." Unlike Lance, his policy stands are very detailed, almost too detailed, and his "news" section on his website holds very candid and angry stands on almost every detail of Economic, Energy, Defense, Veterans, and legislation related to local beaches.

Ahn Cao, interestingly, did not vote for it, despite being a moderate republican from an obscenely liberal district (Downtown New Orleans, voted 85% for Barack Obama, 65% African American). He also did not vote for the stimulus, and, according to Orange Juice, may be facing a recall attempt as a result. This immigrant came to America as the son of a former South Vietnamese army officer, attended law school after almost becoming a Catholic Priest, and built his own law firm in New Orleans.


CONCLUSION

Of the 8 who did vote for Cap and Trade, Smith, Bono Mack, Lance, and McHugh would probably have been the easiest to persuade. Reichert is a maybe, as is Kirk. The other two could not have been persuaded, as one district was too liberal.