Feds Want to Control Drivers' License Age

The Federal Government would control drivers' license standards nationwide if  the  Safe Teen and Novice Driver Uniform Protection Act or STANDUP supported by Maryland Congressman Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat, would pass. The compelling issue is that auto accidents are the number one killer of teenagers. Tim Bishop, a New York democrat, sponsors the bill.

Should that sound so shocking?  I a person has grown beyond the infant illness stage and hasn't gotten old enough for the wear and tear of life and the aging process to set in, of course the highest cause of death is going to be behavior induced. Other causes of teen death are drug and substance abuse, urban violence, and engaging in jackass stunts.

The law sets standards for teen licensing including cell phone use, how many passengers a teen can transport, and other standards.

So how is it that the states are failing at this operation where the feds would set standards forcing states to comply or lose their federal highway funds?

Okay, North and South Dakota allow full drivers' licenses at age 14 after a child has driven with an adult on a learner's permit for six months. Three other states allow licensing before age 16. 43 states allow licenses at age 16.

Maryland, New York, and New Jersey have some of the toughest laws in the country. Gee, aren't these the same states that keep coming up as having some of the worst and rudest drivers?

The bottom line is if the feds take control of this process, there will be costs the be dealt with both on the Federal and State level. Then one wonders what precedence does this set for more Federal power grabs.This is another example of the nanny state on steroids.

First, if the law were enacted, the Federal government would need additional personnel, perhaps a new STANDUP or some other ridiculously named department to monitor and assess state compliance. States then would have to hire personnel to document compliance and provide the federal government with all necessary documentation.

They say they're doing it to say teen lives.  Well, it might do just that. If there are fewer teens on the road, logic says the number of deaths would too, but is that an argument that nanny needs to coddle children even longer?

Logic would say the penalties of inexperience would simply move on to older drivers. Drivers 18 and older have far more requirements making driving a necessity.

Onc cannot help but see the irony that the generation who didn't trust anyone over 30 becoming obsessed with youth while still children cannot deal with their own aging in so many affectatious ways including injecting toxins into their faces to avoid wrinkles, undergoing all kinds of plastic surgery, and other even more bizarre behaviors then turn around and attempt to keep the offspring they spawned children for as long as possible. One of the first things the baby boomers did upon gaining political influence was return the drinking age to 21. It's okay for an 18 year old to take a bullet for his country, be sued in adult court, sign legally binding contracts,and even buy a house, but cannot buy a beer. Now Nanny might find ways to creep into adulthood for driving privileges.

Meanwhile, do Bishop and Van Hollen drive or hit us up for limo drivers? Regardless, they are horribly  distracted, but given the agenda these northeastern tax, spend and pass more regulations northeast liberals follow, the more distracted and out of the way of acting upon the high priority issues, the better. Let's just hope the majority of the house wants no part of this nonsense.




.

Hold on to Your Squirt Guns: There's Trouble in Paradise

Behold the evil squirt gun -- according to island legend, it holds strange evil powers that no child shall touch.

Consider this pending legislation in Hawaii:

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF HAWAII:
SECTION 1. Chapter 709, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended by adding a new section to be appropriately designated and to read as follows:
Ҥ709- Sale of toy guns to minors prohibited. (1) It shall be unlawful to sell, attempt to sell, or offer for sale a toy gun to a minor under eighteen years of age; provided that it shall be an affirmative defense to any prosecution that the:
(a) Purchaser falsely represented the purchaser‘s age by producing a driver’s license bearing a photograph of the licensee, a state identification card, or similar card purporting to be a valid identification card indicating that the purchaser was eighteen years of age or older;
(b) Appearance of the purchaser was such that an ordinary prudent person would believe the purchaser to be eighteen years of age or older; and
(c) Sale was made in good faith relying upon the indicators of age in paragraphs (a) and (b).
(2) Any person who violates this section shall be subject to a fine of not more than $2,000, imprisonment of not more than ninety days, or both.”
SECTION 2. This Act does not affect rights and duties that matured, penalties that were incurred, and proceedings that were begun before its effective date.

So it’s come to this, the elite Nanny State is making its application of political correctness such an exercise in pure behavioral fascism, they seek to outlaw toys guns subjecting those who violate the law to fines of $2,000 or up to 90 days (as in THREE months) in jail. For starters, do not Hawaiian Police, Prosecutors, and Courts have better things to do with their time?
Attempting to get to the underlying psychology of this nonsense is fascinating. Are they so frustrated that they cannot get to the real deal, real guns for adults because of a dirty little thing called the 2nd amendment? Their obsession with guns as being some kind of evil fetish is extreme neurosis at best and seems at least intellectually psychotic.
Isn’t it funny that violent youths was not perceived as a major social problems when toy guns including cap guns were staples in every little boy’s toy chest. Of course these days why do kids need toy guns when they can wipe out entire planets or even galaxies in video games.

As it stands right now, this measure is only a proposal, but that something so totally absurd could even surface in the halls of the Hawaiian legislature is insane enough. That elected officials have such casual indifference to setting meaningful priorities for their agenda and would even spend one moment of time on such nonsense shows ideological extremism and gross incompetence.
Let’s hope that our tropical paradise state is fully aware of the insanity that grips their legislature and that this insanity will be tossed out to the obscurity it deserves. Voters should take note of any and all officials supporting this measure and respond accordingly when the next election is held. This kind of absurd nonsense, Nanny state extremism, insane intrusion into private affairs, and total contempt for limited government and individual liberty, couldn’t be more obvious and must be countered with full force.

REFERENCE: http://nation.foxnews.com/culture/2011/02/07/hawaii-banning-toy-guns


.

Nanny State Nonsense at London University

Big Brother and the Nanny State versus enterprising pleasure seeking…

Right-Minded Fellow generally prefers to discuss substantive issues on higher education, but some are a rather interesting reflection on the state of western culture as this posting will be. A British student has been fined by his university for creating a match-making website for love connections between library patrons. There’s nothing particularly novel about his creation given the rise of the on-line social networking phenomenon. How many people don’t subscribe to Facebook as one example?

The site, FitFinder, became an instant sensation spreading from university to university during study time for final exams. Gee, wouldn’t students love the chance to blow off a little steam with a token mindless distraction during that stressful period?

In its first month, 30 universities were involved, but quickly some irate disenchants became quite vocal as some participants posted rather vulgar entries and taunts. University College London, through its office for the dean of pastoral care, a quaint British term for dean of students, fined the site’s founder, Richard Martell a student at the school for “bringing the college into disrepute."

Fearing reprisals that could interfere with his graduation, Martell suspended his site. He paid the 300 pound ($435) fine, the maximum penalty the university could assess. Almost immediately, more than 6,000 individuals signed a petition in support of Mr. Martell.

In addressing his situation, Martell noted, "I pulled it down on my own accord because I wanted to comply with them, but now it has worked against them and has angered people. This has almost brought them more into disrepute than I did in the first place."

While the United Kingdom does not have the guarantees of the First Amendment on freedom of speech and press, some aspects of British culture is every bit as permissive as what can be found in the United States. However, when it comes to a domineering nanny state and insane application of various principles of political correctness, perhaps the Brits are more sickly than the States.

Regardless, the onset of the 21st century finds western culture permeated with narcissism, hedonism, and slick mass media manipulation. A match-making service that gets a little bit tawdry is hardly alarming. Call it distasteful, call it naughty, call it obscene, the actions of the London University seem petty and stoically reactionary. Such moralistic knee-jerk behavior does not serve to hold up the mirror to a decadent society where it seems that instant gratification is the ultimate goal.

This episode so clearly illustrates both polarities of the kind of values and culture that illustrates the deterioration of constructive values. On one level, political correctness, the true realization of what George Orwell described as “newspeak” in his ominous novel, 1984, attempts to destroy the free expression of language limiting all dialogue into narrowly defined boundaries which must conform to the progressive elitists’ standards or be guilty of hate speech, sexism, racism, or some kind of exploitation aimed against their sacred victim groups and ideals. The other polarity is pure unrestrained vulgarity and self-glorification of the “me” generation oriented pop culture.

The fate of FitFinder is but one illustration where two ugly trends in modern culture come into conflict revealing what a completely morally bankrupt and intellectually shallow culture we live in. In terms of the crass opportunism that runs unchecked in the cesspool of a thoroughly decadent culture, Richard Martell’s little creation is but a mild example of other enterprises that push the boundaries of sensibility further and further out of shape.

New Jersey Principal Demands Parents Forbid Online Socializing

Time marches on and the hands of time have no reverse setting. There is an increasingly more aggressive and imposing climate among society’s elites to legislate private behavior. This is the third article this week where we address another aspect of the nanny state. The culprit this time is public education. The issue is a New Jersey middle school principal is imploring to have parents forbid their children from social networking and text messaging.

Principal Anthony Orsini, Benjamin Franklin Middle School, in Ridgewood, New Jersey sent out an email on Wednesday asking parents to help get all the school’s students off social networking sites and to get them to stay off text messaging.

He wrote:

"Please do the following: sit down with your child (and they are just children still) and tell them that they are not allowed to be a member of any social networking site. Today! "Let them know that you will at some point every week be checking their text messages online! You have the ability to do this through your cell phone provider. "Let them know that you will be installing Parental Control Software so you can tell every place they have visited online, and everything they have instant messaged or written to a friend. Don't install it behind their back, but install it!"

"It is time for every single member of the BF Community to take a stand! There is absolutely no reason for any middle school student to be a part of a social networking site!"Let me repeat that - there is absolutely, positively no reason for any middle school student to be a part of a social networking site! None."

Beneath the shroud of being the assertive strong leader what surely is a part of it is fearing the repercussion of possible events which could happen at his school. There have been a few alarming reports of Facebook postings being used to bully students and spread gossip including the case of a girl driven to her own suicide.

There is no question the use of computers opens kids up to all kinds of new possibilities both good and bad. From the first chat rooms widely used in the 1990’s, there have been situations where kids have been lured into bad situations. However, do we see any coverage of the good?

Maybe we just take that for granted, but kids have so many more options to talk to other kids who share their interests and experiences. Kids who’d otherwise be lonely have many new possibilities.

Parents do take on a huge responsibility when they allow their children to use computers. It’s not a toy where kids can just be given the machine and away they go. Every parent must have a firm conversation with his or her kids and establish what their kids can and can’t use their computers for and what on-line behavior is forbidden. Additionally, parental control software should be setup that monitors their kids’ activities and shuts off access to off limit sites. Additionally, kids should not have computers in their bedrooms. The computers they use should be in a common area in the house with no expectation of privacy that mom and dad could be looking over their shoulders at any time.

The approach should be more one of guidance and less one of being punitive. Kids will not be happy either way but if they understand where their parents are coming from it won’t be as bad. Why not print out where the kids have visited on line and discuss it with the kids?

“I see you’ve been out on the Ravens site a lot this week. What do you think of their draft picks?” “Oh Fox News, I didn’t know you were following the news. Tell me, what did you learn out there?” Taking such an approach takes the threatening aspects out of it, and besides a well-informed adult could see trends or interests and maybe make some suggestions where they might find some more interesting stuff that’s perfectly acceptable.

Humans are social animals. Kids are especially social. In a world where parents are less likely to want kids to travel from one neighborhood to the next unsupervised, kids might now find their community on line. Encouraging the proper etiquette of social networking is all part of the learning and growing process. Likewise, parents should establish guidelines on what time kids can use their computers. Kids need to get outside, exercise, play around outside, and not become couch potatoes.

What does not work and is absolutely regressive is outright prohibition. It’s all too easy and way too ignorant to slam the door on things that might cause isolated trouble and some inconveniences. Principal Orsini is way over the line. Hopefully, members of the community will actively challenge him.

More Big Brother or Nanny State Garbage: California Town Is a Few Fries Short of a Happy Meal

Okay, kids are too fat these days. That's for sure, but come on now. San Jose, California has just outlawed toys and trinkets in happy meals. The law prohibits any toys or any other freebies with high calorie, high fat meals aimed at kids.

x

Will somebody please tell these nanny-do-gooders to mind their own freakin' business! This "we need a law" for everything that's not quite right with society is pure insanity. Moderation is the key. Responsible parents would not serve their kids Mickey-D goodies numerous times a week.

x

Alas, her greatness, Michelle Obama herself, is in charge of a campaign to reduce child obesity. While that is a cause worthy of publicizing, there is no way responsible parenting can be legislated. Kids need more physical activity, more variety in their diets, and better life lessons on how to take care of themselves. Didn't we recently hear of a school that not only serves only "healthy" food, but kids who have processed meats, white bread, any kind of sweats, and anything else the food Nazis don't like would have their lunches confiscated. In the last few weeks, Coke, Pepsi, and Dr. Pepper have joined forces to produce a television ad that they are volentarily no longer providing anything but low calorie beverages in school vending machines. Therefore, after basketball or football practice, Bubba can't even buy a Coke.

x

THIS IS INSANITY. Learning how to make good decisions is the lesson to be learned. Banning stuff doesn't work. Haven't we noticed the more government gets involved with our personal lives, family affairs, and how to raise children, the more social problems and dysfunctional idiots plague our society?

x

If you're lucky enough to live where you can still get the most horrible of all wicked high fat, high sugar foods, Krispy Kreme, you'd better grab one of those tasty donuts while you still can. Soon they'll figure out some way to legislate them out of existence.

New York Legislator Seeks to Ban Salt in New York Restaurants

Gee does this idiotic nonsense apply to those big soft pretzels the street vendors sell?

This is the kind of stuff that can make a mild-mannered person hate the government. Legislation has been introduced in the New York State Legislature that would make using salt in the preparation of food in restaurants ILLEGAL. The bill, introduced by Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, Democrat, Brooklyn, A. 10129, stipulates:

"No owner or operator of a restaurant in this state shall use salt in any form in the preparation of any food for consumption by customers of such restaurant, including food prepared to be consumed on the premises of such restaurant or off of such premises,"

If this isn’t the “nanny state” run amuck, what is it?

While this writer sure would like to leap over the lunch counter at Burger King, Wendy’s, or McDonalds and slap around the fries boy for the liberal amount of salt, perhaps enough to make Lake Superior an inland sea, judicious use of salt is necessary for many recipes to be enjoyed to their fullest.

Do we really need the government to micromanage our every decision? This is invasive government out of control, but is this not the logical consequence of what we might expect with government controlled health care? The government’s rationale could be that in order to reduce their costs they could outlaw certain behaviors that statistically would show to raise costs – in this case that excessive salt consumption raises the risk of hypertension. Surely, sugar could be the next target?

Perhaps it is reasonable for chain restaurants that have the capacity to have their food properly assayed could provide nutritional information in their menus; however, such legislation could be grossly unfair to small, often single establishment, restaurants, such as the fine selection of dining venues in Baltimore’s or New York’s “Little Italy.”

Hopefully more rational heads will prevail when this measure comes up for a vote in the New York legislature. Still, just the thought that an elected representative could have the sheer audacity to introduce such an obscene and onerous bill is absolutely terrifying and testimony of the total lack of respect some politicians have for the public they serve. Their attitude is clearly the public is too stupid too look out for themselves and make proper decisions. The state must intercede to protect these pitiful little dumdums.

Text of Bill A 10129:
http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=A10129&Summary=Y&Text=Y

More background from New York media, WNYW-TV.

http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/local_news/new_york_state/chefs-call-proposed-new-york-salt-ban-absurd-20100310-akd

Sizing Up the Health Care Debate: OBAMA CARE MUST DIE!!!

The Health Care Debate

America, we must deal with a basic reality. Once we render our freedom and turn something over to the government to run, we will never regain that freedom. Government programs do not operate to achieve excellence or innovation, they respond to apparent crises and political influence. Grasping the big picture or the human element gets lost in the never ending maze of regulations and policy considerations.

The Democratic Party and some special interests groups are attempting to scare us into believing our health care system is in deep trouble and only the power of the Federal government can save it. One would have to be totally unplugged from the news to not be aware of much of what they propose to do to “solve” the problem. There’s no getting around the hard reality that these measures would represent the greatest transfer of private responsibility to the government in the history of our republic, and it would mark the greatest undertaking, the most expensive, the most far-reaching, of any responsibility the national government has assumed since the formation of our republic over two hundred years ago.

When looked at in totality, no where in the world is better health care delivered than in the United States. More people benefit in more significant ways than some of the countries those beating the health care “reform” drum look to as models for how to change our system. Unquestionably, the United States leads the world in all major advances in medicine. Whether we consider advances in treating cancer or developing advanced medical technologies such as Magnetic Resonating (MRI) devices, all of these remarkable breakthroughs come from research hospitals and industries in the United States. Institutions like Johns Hopkins, the Mayo Clinic, and the Cleveland Institute among many others lead the world in medical innovation in overcoming horrible diseases and conditions and providing new techniques to improve care. Many forms of cancer are easily treated and regular citizens get on with their lives as a matter of routine here in the United States but in advanced countries like Great Britain, the treatments are deemed too expensive thus making significant treatments unavailable to the population. Important tests like MRI’s capable of identifying so many medical needs are routine in the US. In many metropolitan areas, just about every community has facilities with such equipment providing almost on demand service for such tests. Elsewhere, such tests are either denied or the waiting list goes on for weeks or months because providing the resources to provide MRI’s never are adequately budgeted. Thousands of injured people are rescued every year, treated, and survive horrible injuries that highly trained EMT’s and shock trauma teams save as routine every hour every day. Care reaches the victim at lightening fast speed and the injured are quickly flown to the appropriate trauma center capable of working in rapid precision delivering life saving support.

The United States does have some significant problems to overcome, but the public must not be mislead by emotionally laden appeals to their fears to justify measures that could destroy our advanced capabilities. They’ll trot out statistics comparing our system to some of the socialized nations that never adequately reflect the variables that render those statistics misleading. Given the size of our country and some social problems that don’t exist in more homogeneous smaller countries, our medical system deals with health needs that don’t exist elsewhere. That we have over 300 million citizens of varied backgrounds and needs, how could the government possibly devise a one size fits all approach.

Our country faces issues that must be addressed.

First, too many citizens lack health care coverage. The cost of health insurance is too expensive for small businesses and many self-employed citizens to afford. Extending that insurance on to entire families is even more prohibitive. Additionally, citizens with preexisting medical conditions which would draw from health insurance policies making them unprofitable to issue are written out of obtaining policies or have stipulations that any treatment that stems from their established ailment cannot be covered. Given how many medical needs interact, that can be the license to deny all kinds of care.

From World War II forward, American citizens have looked to their employers as their providers for health insurance. As long as a person maintains employment with the same company, care continues; however, in the late 1900’s and the beginning of the new century, more and more people change jobs frequently and maintaining continuity of benefits is difficult.

The cost of typical health care insurance, coverage that most citizens find most satisfactory is escalating in cost at alarming rates putting severe strain on employers to continue to provide. Generally, the smaller the business, the higher the cost. Workers are so accustomed to health care being a basic part of their terms of employment, they don’t see the continued coverage of their health benefits as increases in their overall compensation, they never grasp just what’s at stake. If an employee makes typical middle class wages from $40 to $75 thousand a year, his health insurance could easily cost more than $300 a month an additional $3,600 a year as part of what the employer pays to sustain his position. While workers expect to see their salaries increase as their experience and expertise grows through the years, much of that potential salary is gobbled up by rising health insurance costs, a factor transparent to employees who are not keenly aware of the challenges their employers face.

For individuals and families lacking insurance, the cost of paying for health care is out of reach leaving only trips to the local hospital emergency room as their means of obtaining care. Such events clog emergency delivery centers making it increasingly difficult for them to respond to the real emergencies, but they are mandated by law to treat all who enter. The hospitals and clinics then absorb the cost of such visits as they will never be able to be compensated for such events.

Current statistics indicate about 30% of the population is either not insured or severely under insured. Does addressing that need justify destroying the methods of coverage enjoyed by the vast majority of the population?

The government has failed miserably considering how perhaps special assigned risks pools can be established to provide health care for citizens labeled with “preexisting conditions.” For the number of potential people affected, this is a problem that can be easily resolved.

Many approaches should be considered for those who cannot afford health insurance. If society believes that providing health insurance should be an employer responsibility, the barriers that make health care so prohibitively expensive to small businesses that lack the buying power to obtain the kind of care larger employers provide can be overcome. One consideration would allow small businesses to join associations or coops where they could join other small businesses pooling their resources and being able to buy insurance on behalf of the association’s buying power not that of the individual company’s. Business models for such services already exist in enterprises like credit unions.

The roll of government then can be reduced to what is typically its roll to begin with, providing care for those who fall outside the regular system – the government “safety net” approach. However, for the government to succeed at this, we must examine where they do provide health care outside the privileged ranks of government employees and elected officials and see how poorly they currently handle their tasks. Medicare and Medicaid are in a state of crisis. Mismanagement, unrealistic funding allocation, bureaucratic regulation where administrative decisions interfere with doctors’ judgments, and inability to properly define and defend against fraud have rendered these systems in severe danger. The implication is clear to all of us. If the government is failing miserably to adequately manage Medicare and Medicaid, how can they possibly take on the responsibility of the entire population? This consideration alone should torpedo any government run universal health plan.

Current laws and practices create barriers to providing quality affordable health care. Health insurance is issued on a state by state basis. If an insurer in Pennsylvania can provide a better benefit for a Maryland citizen, why shouldn’t the person from Maryland be able to buy from the Pennsylvania insurer? Once such regulations applied to the banking industry, but banking is now an interstate business.

Portability is another key issue. If a person is provided an adequate insurance option, why can’t a person stay with that insurer as he or she changes jobs?

Over the years since employer provided health care has become the norm and paying for health care has become too expensive for people to afford on their own, a web of confusion and inefficiencies have grown into a choking maze of confusion that needs to be attacked and eliminated, but how and by whom?

The Federal government can reduce regulations that inhibit providing quality health care. They can also provide support and stimulation to motivate innovation while providing oversight against fraudulent practices. They cannot run the system.

The current approach is not sustainable without some help, but the Federal government is not the answer and pushing it off to the states to resolve is not the answer either though states can do much more to work together to solve problems.

First, the objectives of health insurance and the scope of coverage need to be redefined. Consumers have come to expect that their health insurance should pretty much cover ALL their health needs where they can pay for $10 doctor visits and $5 prescriptions. Looking at what a person might realistically expect to pay for car or home repairs, might it not be reasonable to expect that a middle class family should pay for some of their health care?

Considering how much is spent on a person’s health care, cannot this same amount of funding be reallocated to provide the best possible outcomes? Can insurance be designed to provide absolutely full coverage for the most catastrophic outcomes and maintain treatment as long as needed so that the real devastation of lacking health coverage is eliminated? Would it be realistic to expect that average wage earners should be expected to pay for some routine expenses up to a certain cap before insurance coverage kicks in?
There is no question that prescription drug costs are artificially high given what patents and other special interest considerations the industry has been granted by congress. Look at how Wal-Mart can provide prescriptions for generic drugs at very affordable prices? If routine prescriptions were no more than $10 a month, would it not be reasonable to expect patients to buy their own medication?

Health care savings accounts are another option that have never been adequately explored and current methods have some rather unattractive strings attached. If individuals could have a small amount of each paycheck diverted into such an account that could offset routine medical expenses and cover some minor emergencies, would that not be a huge benefit. Such accounts would earn interest and be tax deductible. However, the current provision that all funds not used in a given year are forfeited turns many potential savers into not considering them as an option.

The goal should be to make insurance more of a total assurance to run deeper and longer rather than running broader. So much of health insurance goes to routine expenses that perhaps most wage earners could easily budget for.

Another benefit of having patients more directly paying for their health care is many more eyes monitoring the cost of care. A more consumer driven health care market would have to compete with others and work to become more cost effective operations.

These are just a few suggestions of things that can work to help provide more affordable and accountable health care. The Federal Government is not the answer. Let’s work forcefully to keep the government from more intrusion into our daily lives and stimulate the discussion on how we can obtain better health care while our great hospitals, clinics, industries, and universities continue to lead the world in medical advancements.

It's None of the Government's Business: Mandatory Vacation Law

Here's an article from Politico, Florida Democrat, Representative Alan Grayson standing in front of Disney world announced he will introduce the Paid Vacation act taht would require companies of more than 100 employees to offer one week vacation for both full and PART TIME employees after a year on the job. Then after three years, they'd be required to provide two weeks vacation. Companies with with 50-100 employees would have to provide one week after three years of employment.

The article: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22794.html

Here's another example of government exerting more and more control over the private sector through an unfunded mandate at a time when many companies are struggling.

What they fail to accept is that where a person works is a choice. If someone doesn't like the terms of employment, there are other jobs out there. This might be a tough time to go job hunting, but that's reality.

Perhaps the motive is to perhaps imagine having more potential customers to max out their credit cards for a pilgrimage to the Magic Kingdom or other attractions in his district.

While many joke that the current crop of Democrats are pointing us in the direction of government French style, they require 30 days paid vacation. Ooo-lah-lah.

We certainly believe it is in the employer's interest to look out for his employees and grant reasonable vacations, but that decision should be made by the employer not the governor.

So what happens if businesses cut wages to fund the loss of manpower or hiring help from a temp agency? Would the other shoe drop and employers be told, you can't do that!

Remember, many small business owners are going to be paying more taxes under the Obama plan which will stress resources and cost jobs to begin with.

Don't use the "S" word -- as in socialism or the liberal press will give you a good scolding!

America Must Succeed: Obama MUST Fail!!!

One can never be certain just how low the Democratic party’s political operation will stoop or what inane tactics they will employ to distract the public from the real issues and where the socialist wannabes are taking our country. However, between Barack Obama’s sweet talking lies leading the most radical assault on the fundamental policies and beliefs that provide for economic success and national security ever seen and the leadership on Capitol Hill exhibited by the harshly partisan iron fisted left wing extremism of House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi and the corrupt, self-serving, highly negative thinking character serving as Senate Majority leader, Harry Reid, never has the radical extreme of the Democratic party been so boldly empowered.

While Pelosi’s and Reid’s agenda spell disaster, their impact is slight compared to the power a committed radical groomed by self-proclaimed communists like William Ayers and devisive race baiters like Jeremiah Wright groomed for politics by the most corrupt political system in the United States, the Illinois Chicago Democratic machine. Yes, patriotic traditionalists and conservatives saw Obama for what he represents and could easily predict his radical leanings, who would have thought he would have gone for virtually every far left agenda item so quickly when the national economy is struggling so severely. Being the sophist and master of slick sales jobs and smoothing talking language of deception, most of these have been spun into being justified as economic necessities when in fact they will put a permanent larger drain on the economy by having the Federal government take on more day-to-day responsibilities that belong in the private sector or in the hands of state and local governments.

To ask the Democrats to defend their major policy initiatives right now is demanding defense of the indefensible and at least at an intuitive level the Democrats get it. If their attempts to cram socialist solution down our throats as their response to the nation’s current economic conditions were fully exposed and they were willing to give time for the public to see the details of their stimulus package and budget, even rather misinformed voters would be outraged.

Things are not going smoothly as the Obama White House works to secure its grip on power having one nominee after another failing to come out clean in examining such things as their tax records. For those who are intent on demanding those who have earnings to sacrifice that these shameless manipulative corrupt hypocrites have no problem bending rules and avoiding their duties as prominent citizens involved in government. Who besides Linda Chavez who would have been a brilliant cabinet secretary was forced to withdraw from consideration for President George W. Bush’s cabinet though many of his nominees were slandered, abused, and taunted when facing confirmation hearings in the Senate? Bill Clinton had problems with Kimber Woods and Zoie Baird for Attorney General on a nanny issue. Nanny issues don’t seem to matter for the Obama administration. His nominees with dark clouds over them are involved in tax payment issues or worse. Still some of them, most notably his Secretary of the Treasury, slip right through. They would have been crucified in the last administration. Still, would it be an exaggeration to say the number of nominees withdrawn exceeds the total of all Presidents since World War II?

Anyone wanting a true assessment of confidence in the Obama administration’s performance and game plan need only consult the Dow Jones stock index for a report card on those most intimately involved with the economy’s perception of how they feel the Obama economic policies will work. The Obama administration is failing miserably to instill any confidence at all as the market has gone into free fall since our ‘pseudo-savior’ was elected in November. The stock market was struggling to hold its own until the likelihood of an Obama presidency became a legitimate fear. Since that time, it has lost half its value going into free fall since election day in November.

The Democrats’ approach to the economy is counter-intuitive. The best economic stimulus is to provide all citizens with as much disposable funds as possible while giving those with sufficient wealth to start and stimulate businesses as much control over their money as possible so they will invest in starting new businesses, providing investment capital to those businesses trying to get off the ground, and to expand and strengthen existing businesses. The more money in the private sector to accomplish this, the more likely the economy will overcome its losses and grow successfully. The two most tangible things the national government can do to help this is cut taxes and streamline excessive regulation. For what little money the stimulus has put back in the peoples’ pockets, the huge increase in government spending on special interest paybacks and ineffective and inefficient social programs. What was supposed to lean primarily on infrastructure has come out of the legislative process looking very different. The end result is an unprecedented run up of the Federal deficit that dwarfs all debts previously entered into by the Federal government. The Democrats’ counter that they are only continuing that which the Bush administration began is blatantly dishonest when they boast of how the last Democratic President (not mentioned – and a Republican congress0 had balanced the budget. While the Bush administration deserves serious criticism for ramping up Federal spending that does not tell the story. 9/11 and Islamic terrorism does. The battle rages on to secure Afghanistan from being a staging ground for El Qaeda serviced by the Taliban. A brutal dictator who overran a strategic ally with rich oil reserves destined to Western interests was still acting in belligerent ways in 2002 firing upon American and British jets patrolling the “no fly zone” established to keep Iraq from attacking minority populations within its borders and moving onward to harm its neighbors. Winning military campaigns aren’t cheap.

What could directly destroy the ability to generate new business opportunities than raising corporate taxes and capital gains. The more a company pays to comply with a myriad of regulations and document compliance and the higher its tax burden, the less capital is left to hire workers and to grow the business and enhance its product availability and quality.

While talking down the terrorist threat as best witnessed by Homeland Security’s Secretary Janet Napolitano’s introductory address focusing on hurricanes and disaster relief with no remarks on our real security threats, illegal immigration and world terrorism and appointing a political figure, Leon Panetta, as CIA director, instead of talking about a strong sense of resolve to protect the republic from terrorist attack, the focus is directed toward criticizing the assertive measures of the previous administration. Clearly Barack Obama and his left wing idealists don’t believe what the radicals of the Muslim world have made so painfully clear, they are at war against our way of life.

One of the positive economic developments of the last quarter of the 20th century through the Bush administration has been developing a more constructive, less confrontational approach toward employer/employee relationships as trade unions outside the public sector have diminished tremendously. Employees are more actively involved in working with management in many industries determining the future of their companies and the products they produce. Obama and the Democrats see the management/worker relationship as inherently confrontational requiring institutional and government support to secure the workers’ welfare. The goal is huge growth of the rank-in-file of union member is the goal as unions provide the most loyal and consistent support of the far left of the Democratic party. Union pacs and the money they raise support Democrats in every election. The reward the Democrats offer is abolishing a most fundamental democratic principle of a secret ballot for employees to vote whether they chose union representation. The card check provision allows union reps to hand deliver and collect ballots from workers allowing room for time honored union practices of bullying and intimidation to obtain the desired result.

Rather than seeking to carefully consider the future of health care and determine the best way to provide quality health care to the public at large, Barack Obama with his leaders on Capitol Hill, measures to set in place the beginning of socialized medicine is being put in place through the bailout and budget process avoiding the opportunity to sweat the details and get the kind of national debate started that will help rescue our medical system from chaos and collapse as the baby boomer generation is entering into old age.

Massive funding is being dumped upon education not to help give parents more remedies to escape from failing public schools but instead to fund the primary goals of the teachers’ unions and other liberal special interest concerns. Though Barack Obama’s Secretary of Education seemed to hint that vouchers designed to rescue pupils from failing inner city schools were okay, Obama’s close Senate ally, Dick Durbin, has led the effort to end a highly successful program of $7,500 a year vouchers to send students to private and parochial schools. Given the cost per pupil established for the failing DC public schools exceeds $13,000 a student, that’s a bargain, not to mention the long term payoff of having kids learn at a high level, a feat virtually impossible in a dreadful school system.

Vice President Joe Biden warned that there would be hostile forces who’d attempt to test the strength of Obama’s presidency before he was elected, while the big disaster hasn’t happened yet, there are events going on that have to be measures to test how much the military doubting President responds. Last week, Communist China sent boats out into international waters to harass U.S. Naval ships in the area. Meanwhile, North Korea has been pushing ahead with attempts to launch a strategic missile capable of reaching the west coast while putting their military on full alert. Iran launched what is supposed to be its first satellite. One can only imagine what welcoming present radical Islam is preparing to greet our shameful President.

The worldly crew and press speculated that an Obama presidency would restore damaged relationships with European leaders who were tired of what the elite called the “Cowboy diplomacy” of the Bush administration. They’d find Obama to be more sympathetic to their viewpoints and less intrusive.

On one score, one would think the socialists in Europe would rejoice how rapidly Obama is attempting to push through socialist programs on every level in the United States. Privately, they must be shaking in their boots he might compromise American military superiority, every European democracy’s security blanket as they have the might of the American military to defend them leaving their economies free to pursue other priorities.
Through the best and worst of times, no ally has been more openly supportive of the United States than the United Kingdom. Former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, was seen as a perfect buddy for Bill Clinton, but stood arm in arm with George W. Bush when forceful action was required in the middle east. It would only seem natural that the first major head of state to visit the White House after Obama’s inauguration would be British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown.

The Brown visit couldn’t have turned out to be a more vicious embarrassment for the Obama regime. In one event after another, Obama showed no regard for traditional protocol, no visit to Camp David, no state dinner, not a single one of the ceremonies that shows the world how much the United States treasures and respects British support. Even the appearance to the world press where the two leaders stand side by side behind podiums with each leader’s shield was overlooked apparently leaving Mr. Brown feeling quite jilted. Adding insult to injury, it’s tradition to exchange gifts when new leaders take power. Gordon Brown offered an artifact rich in British history, a pen holder set made from wood from the anti-slave ship, HMS Gannet. The Obama gift, 25 DVD’s supposedly representing American movie classics which the London Guardian labeled as about as exciting as “a pair of socks.” One more thing, American DVD’s don’t play on British DVD players thanks to encryption standards. US DVD’s use NTSC coding. British discs require PAL coding. Nothing like a thoughtless gift totally useless to create a first impression with an ally Obama might be glad to have on his side sooner than he could ever realize. The White House response was that the President was a little weary from being so preoccupied with the economy.

Too preoccupied with the Economy!?!? Be real. If that’s the case why is the President trying to stiff arm through every imaginable agenda item on the radical left’s wish list with special attention to empower the labor unions who along with groups like MoveOn.org and other domestic intellectual terrorist groups provide the Democrats a never ending source of funds with explicit demands for payoffs in return.

After 50 days, it’s not to early to pass judgment on the Obama administration as one of the worst failures in the history of the American Presidency given the huge amount of money, now we’re talking about trillions, as in 12 digits to the right of the first comma, in spending for tattoo removal, pig stench studies, Frisbee golf, and earmarks and pork galore while attacking the people and institutions best prepared to rescue a struggling economy.

How can responsible citizens work to stand in the way of the Obama administration and the corrupt, self-serving arrogant Democratic representatives on Capitol Hill? It won’t be easy as the traditional media and White House enjoy a close relationship where the White House chief of staff worked with political hatchet men currently posing as commentators on CNN to create the Rush Limbaugh uproar and how various Republicans react to his statements condemning the Obama administration bluntly asserting he wants the Obama administration to fail. The other part of it was his reasoning, because he wants America to succeed.

When considering what we’ve discussed in this column, how can we not hope that Obama fails miserably? For Obama to succeed with his policies and programs, our country from Pennsylvania Avenue to Rodeo Drive with hundreds of Main Streets north to south east to west will have to deal with the damage for decades. In fifty days, we’ve seen that any notion of Obama being a “pragmatist” or “centrist” is way off. He is the radical his associations with Ayers and Wright suggested he would be. His dreadful handling of his responsibilities and high number of failed nominations shows his absolute lack of experience in any meaningful management position. Lyndon Johnson lead us into the most divisive episode in American history since the Civil War, sending tens of thousands of young Americans to be slaughtered in Vietnam while building the welfare state in the name of “the Great Society.” Jimmy Carter proved to be a total incompetent absolutely unprepared for the responsibilities of the most powerful office in the world emboldening radical Islam leading to the successful radical take over in Iran and seizure of the US embassy holding American hostages for 444 days until the morning Ronald Reagan was inaugurated.

Barack Obama represents the worst of Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter many times over. On top of that, he makes Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton look like “swear to tell the truth” Boy Scouts when Obama’s very existence as President is built on lies much less the garbage that comes out of his mouth.

America, it’s okay to want Obama to fail. It’s not just okay, it’s something we must do if in our heart we want America, our people, our friends and neighbors to prosper. Our freedom is at stake. Taking more money from any American in the form of taxes reduces freedom for that person and restricts freedom in many other ways that aren’t at first obvious to see. The specter of a charismatic demagogue who can get an audience worked into a frenzy shouting slogans in response should remind those of us who know world history of where we’d think American society could never go.

To hear Obama justify his decisions, he does not cite history or any kind of detailed factual analysis. Instead he offers, “It’s always been my opinion….,” “I’ve always thought…..” “I’ve said many times…..” In Obama’s mind, if he says it, “it” must be so. The gullible Obama-maniacs drunk on emotion hoping for “change you can believe in” and false senses of “hope” have swallowed the Kool-Aid.

They must fail. They must fail. They must fail!!!

Bad Barbie!!!

Hey kids, look who's ready for spring break!

American legend, the Barbie doll, turns 50 on March 9th marking the success of one of the best known iconic products ever. However, not everybody is celebrating. Democratic Delegate, Jeff Eldridge, has proposed a law to ban the sale of Mattel’s famous product and similar creations in West Virginia.

Once again, is this not the Nanny state, the grotesque imposition of government run amuck?

Sure, the Barbie doll phenomenon is a little on the tacky side promoting crass materialism and imagine how freakish a woman approaching Barbie’s body dimensions would be, like those waifish Paris fashion models maybe, the ones that look like they have some kind of chronic eating disorder under all the fancy clothes, hair and makeup.

Give the American people and three generations of little girls credit for being smarter than the government. There will always be freaks who attach themselves to media images and that obsession leads to them living an insane life. Can you say Octomom?

Despite all the legions of nasty jokes ridiculing the intelligence of the West Virginia population be assured that folks in the Mountain State will have nothing to do with this absurd proposal. It died for lack of a second.

$55 to Call 911: Texas Community's Shameful Cruel Penny Pinching

Here’s an outrageous situation where greedy government and attempts to reach in its citizens’ wallets has gone completely out of control. The city of Castle Hills, Texas voted that each resident is allowed one 911 call a year but would charge residents a fee in this San Antonio suburb of FIFTY FIVE DOLLARS for their “First Responder’s Fee.” The city only budgeted a miserly $215,000 for their EMS services for the year. Unless their whole population consists of young, healthy, morally pure citizens who can somehow live under a magic dome where even the wicked mother nature can’t cause a problem or two, this budget is absurd leading to the greater absurdity, charging a stiff fee for EMERGENCY services.

Supposedly, this fee does not apply if the caller is reporting an active fire or requesting police help. So does this mean residents can call all they want to complain about their neighbors playing music too loud or “Eeks, we smell smoke!” likewise complaining about FIRE the aroma of a neighbor’s backyard barbeque? Meanwhile, what about citizens with chronic conditions, the elderly with serious health problems likely on a fixed income? A city spokesman said they could, of course, possibly be reimbursed by their health insurance. Oh really? What about people who haven’t reached Medicare age and have no insurance? Do they take VISA or MasterCard? Are residents supposed to have fifty five dollars in exact change handy should the unfortunate befall them a second time?

911 abuse is a serious problem in almost every district in the country where people elevate to emergency status silly things like ratting on neighbors who might not comply with city ordinances on how their garbage is supposed to be put curbside or that someone’s dog poopied in the wrong place. Medical emergencies are no laughing matter. While some will point out stories of calling ambulances for minor situation that do not require emergency attention sadly emergency rooms are the only point of entry for many poor and under insured citizens entrée into the medical system. It is the emergency responders’ duty to take all citizen requests seriously. Corrective measures can be taken against the abusers after the fact and perhaps more severe penalties need to be considered for those who abuse the system.

No matter how one looks at it, the struggles many municipalities are having funding necessary public services or considering how the 911 service is abused, the approach enacted by Castle Hills, Texas isn’t just wrong, it’s downright mean and immoral. Their ridiculous decision must be reversed NOW.

The first course of what the Obama Presidency joining forces with the Harry Reid/Nancy Pelosi congress has been served and the long term economic and social structure of the United States of America is at stake.

Gone is the campaign happy talk of hope and change you can believe in replaced with threats of catastrophe and doom. In a measure full of fat and lots of sweets for the traditional Democratic special interests groups, what’s severely lacking is anything of substance that will truly help stimulate the economy. In less than one month of the Obama Presidency, American society has been transformed more substantially moving toward a caretaker state than the total of the entire Great Society of Lyndon Johnson essentially undoing all the reforms achieved by Ronald Reagan’s visionary approach toward expanding the economy through expanding free enterprise opportunity and a strong national defense and gains achieved in the early stages of the house and senate turning to Republican rule under the “Contract with America.”

Here’s the epitome of the classic Obama supporter in full overdose mode on the Obama stimulant. This is from the President’s trip to conduct a so-called “town hall” meeting to push his dopey legislation last week. This is NOT a skit from Saturday Nite Live. It is real.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AO3kHC61I88

Doesn’t that punk make you glad you’re not a Democrat? And what flavor Kool Aid was he gulping?

The welfare reforms achieved by a Republican congress and Bill Clinton’s approval have all but been eliminated. Substantial funds are going to social welfare and reengineering programs consisting of a laundry list of social causes and pet projects that have long been the stereotyped image of the loose spending nanny state. Aid has even been targeted to the film making industry in Hollywood. How is that for undisguised rewards for blind loyalty as the celebrity crowd not only paid generously during the last eight years to discredit the Bush Administration through slander and misinformation through their mouthpieces like MoveOn.org and DailyKOS, but also went head over heels in their support for the Obama campaign like a love struck teenager high on sniffing glue, Diet Pepsi, and pop rocks?

That a measure with so many funding provisions with such a high price tag would be rushed through as quickly as it was with no time to be published for public reaction defines what it means to “pull a fast one.” In providing the final draft of the bill after clearing house and senate conferees, the Democratic leadership would not even provide the bill in electronic form to allow for easier research and searching for details. The Obama/Pelosi/Reid Socialization Act of 2009, weighed in over 1,000 pages. In the amount of time between finally being approved and presented for vote, no legislator could possibly have read the whole measure much less delegated it to staff and had ample time to confer and follow up on concerns over specific provisions. “The Devil is in the details” couldn’t be more appropriate as given the far reaching impact of where this spending is directed will surely result in “hell to pay” in the future both in terms of the actual cost of paying for the obligations it creates but also in expansion of the size and roll of government which permanently alters the ratio of money between the public and private sector. The private sector creates capital while the public sector squanders it. Further, as in any measure where public funds go to bailout or stimulate private sector entities, substantial requirements, the proverbial strings attached, divert private sector activity from productivity to documentation of compliance that government regulations are being adequately implemented.


Even for the sake of discussion, the pork barrel provisions in the government stimulus, we should say narcotic, bill are far too numerous to even begin to articulate but some of them are such powerful illustrations of the abuse and arrogance of power. The government nationalized passenger rail service in the 1970’s when it created Amtrak which constantly loses money while reducing the quality and level of its service. Harry Reid represents Nevada. Pork for the big pig supreme, construction of a high speed railroad from Los Angeles to Las Vegas is one massive Federal program in the bill creating an umbilical cord making the huge palaces of excess for the entertainment industry interconnected. At a time when California is struggling economically, this provides a one-way ticket for California money to be spent in Nevada on glitter and gambling.

The supreme arrogance of power is astonishing beyond anything seen in American politics. The shift to the extreme left is also especially disturbing as it reveals the true nature of the so-called “Blue Dog” Democrats who ran on a sense of fiscal conservatism mocking the big spending habits of the GOP during its majority rule. As shameful as those GOP excises were, they are but chump change compared to what the Obama Abolition of Free Enterprise as We Know it Disguised as a Stimulus program offers.

Going into the efforts that resulted in this bill, Obama was portraying himself as a consensus builder looking for a bipartisan seemingly centrist approach to attempting to breathe life into a dormant economy but the real Obama, the sweat talker who addresses the public in carefully measured surely focus group confirmed language, condemns the bill’s opponents and Republicans sounding like an angry Negro, and revealing through and through here’s a guy who never worked in the Senate long enough to properly understand how spending measures can snowball out of control and the content of the bill he so eagerly embrace likewise upholds his reputation of having been the most liberal member of the Senate from 2006-2008. Be nervous whenever Obama tries to sound African-American, as it’s all a put on for a fellow who never was immersed in an environment where such speaking habits could be learned until much later in life after his Ivy League education. It’s all an act to try to shake off his image as an ivory tower elitist.

Though the connection might not be immediately seen, it is not ironic from the big picture point-of-view that while the Obama-Pelosi-Reid Stimulus-Should-Be-Called-Narcotic Act of 2009, the Obama Administration is moving functions of managing the census from the Commerce department to the White House making the census count a much more political and less administrative activity. While attempting to cast a bi-partisan veneer on his administration by nominating Republican New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg after their golden boy nominee, Bill Richardson, former cabinet official in the Clinton administration, was forced to withdraw as a Federal corruption probe was inching ever closer to the sitting governor’s fat neck, the clear intent was that Gregg be Secretary in name only, vanity window dressing for an administration with other plans. The real agenda was political in moving the census to White House control. Is it any wonder Gregg withdrew his nomination? Gregg also voted against the Stimulus/Narcotic Bill.

Why is the census so crucial? Representing far more than just gathering data on where the United States population resides, these figures are used to determine representation in the House and the dispersal of targeted Federal Funds based on identified populations documented by the census count. Since the census does not represent a hard count of actual citizens and employs sampling and other statistical techniques, the methodology and how it is employed can be manipulated to create predetermined desires for certain outcomes. Besides that, political decisions determine who is and is not counted as shown by the last census. In North Carolina with its huge military population, its military bases were established as the residence for soldiers whether stationed there or overseas. In Utah with its substantial Mormon population, thousands of Mormons were serving overseas to fulfill their missionary commitments. They were not counted. North Carolina gained a congressional seat. Utah would have gained a seat had their overseas population been tallied. Further decisions can be made to help award population in certain parts of certain states where politically friendly governors can supervise redrawing congressional districts favorable to the party in power.

Politically drawn congressional districts are nothing new to the Mid-Atantic. There is the famous Interstate 85 corridor where a North Carolina congressional district was essentially the width of that Interstate highway to connect two predominately African-American population centers, one in the Raleigh-Durham area, the other in Charlotte, to create what would be a sure Black seat in congress. Meanwhile in Maryland, traditionally, its 1st, 2nd, and 6th congressional districts have trended Republican. Western Maryland and the Eastern Shore are primarily rural and small town populations strongly Republican. The 2nd district represented wealthy suburbs and exoburbs in Baltimore and Harford counties, strong conservative territory. Under the corrupt and incompetent leadership of Parris Glendenning, Governor of Maryland in 2000, the Maryland congressional map was radically manipulated to dilute the strong conservative populations for the West (5th district) and Eastern Shore (1st district) while rearranging districts surrounding Baltimore to ensure strong Democratic representation. Now the 6th district extends from western Maryland all along the northern boundary to the Susquehanna River dipping into the Baltimore suburbs along the York Road and Reisterstown Road corridors, both major arteries around which suburban population centers grow.


The 2nd district was pushed deeper into the industrial and more impoverished east side of Baltimore County. The 3rd district, one of two which took in much of Baltimore City begins in the Annapolis area, then twists and bends northward through Baltimore taking parts of the York and Reisterstown Road communities. A slice of the 1st district cuts east/west across Baltimore County crossing York Road into Owings Mills and Reisterstown. The Second District, now follows the western shore of the Chesapeake crosses the Patapsco River to take in Northern Anne Arundel County and South Baltimore while having another meandering strip through the north suburbs crossing the York Road and Reisterstown Road corridors snaking around to comprise about 1/3 of Baltimore County’s western boundary with Carroll County including the community of Randallstown. Maryland’s 3rd District snakes its way from Annapolis to Reisterstown at one point only being the width of Northern Parkway in Baltimore City to connect Parkville with Towson two adjoining suburbs which have a huge wedge cut between for Paris only knows what. Finally, the firmly minority district representing most of Baltimore City, the 7th District now extends far west of Baltimore including Catonsville, a very conservative traditional community, Columbia, and the largely semi-rural parts of western Howard County, largely white middle to upper middle class. Given the Afro-centric politics of minority districts, Catonsville and western Howard County have essentially no representation of their interests in Congress.

The absurdity, one can travel up York Road within a few blocks of Cockeysville and travel through three districts, only a small part of the 2nd district which once represented this community in total passes through while most of this large bedroom community is split between Western Maryland and the Eastern Shore. Travel south on York Road to the county seat of Towson, another District, the 3rd then back into the 2nd and then moving into the 7th only three blocks into Baltimore City.

The effect of Maryland’s redistricting is two fold. First, regions with similar needs and concerns are sliced up so that the real purpose of what the House of Representatives was supposed to serve to represent the people has instead been converted to one of political opportunism. Baltimore’s two most populated surrounding counties effectively have no clear voice in Congress. Harford County, one of Maryland’s fastest growing districts has no local representation. Effectively divided into thirds, the top third is lumped in with Western Maryland, the middle third is set with the Eastern Shore, and the southern third which includes substantial military population is lumped in with the industrial region of Baltimore County.

The second effect was to give the Democratic party a death grip on Republican congressional representation in Maryland. Most of the Democratic strength in Maryland resides primarily within the Beltways of Baltimore and Washington and the corridor between the two cities. Now only Western Maryland’s district which takes on the northern populations of Baltimore and Harford counties, likewise Republican strongholds, remains intact. The Eastern Shore could be a toss up but has been diluted by carefully adding strong Democratic areas on the western shore of the bay. In the last election, a Republican from the western shore ran against a Democrat from the other side of the bay and lost. The second district once represented the northern suburbs of Baltimore, most of Baltimore County and most of Harford County. This area was Republican, though a little more moderate than the strongly conservative west and Eastern Shore. Drive from the Baltimore City line ten miles north through the county seat of Towson and one would pass through four congressional districts, but once north of Towson along York Road, the main drag, at the outer end of the suburban sprawl rests Cockeysville, where in less than a mile, what’s left of its old district, one that represents the eastern shore, and one that represents western Maryland. This is all within one zip code, one elementary school district, just a handful of stop lights!!! As such, Maryland was a state with three strong Republican districts and a 4th district that belonged to a Rhino (Republican in Name Only). Now Maryland has only one strong Republican district and another that can easily be reduced to a toss up which turned Democratic in the last election. An honest mapping that reflects easily defined geographic areas with populations with similar interests and concerns would make Maryland a state with three certain Republican seats and four Democratic seats with one area that could possibly be designed to go either way, is so obvious. An honest application of census data would only involve moving boundaries a little bit one way or another based on balancing out the population. What was never intended is the farce cynically created by crass political opportunism that is the Maryland map today.

There can be little doubt that the kind of political use of the census is exactly what the Obama administration intends by moving the Census lead to the White House. Remember, Barack Obama is a product of the Richard Daley machine of Chicago politics one of the most corrupt and manipulative political enterprises in the country. The state of Illinois has long been famous for its manipulated districts. Maryland is in many respects a little Illinois. Outside of Chicago, Illinois is a largely conservative, heartland state. Maryland is much more like old Virginia the further one gets away from the Beltway regions. Speaking of Virginia, with a governor who is a close Obama ally and the rapid growth of the Washington suburbs, Virginia is a state that has been strongly Republican until recently that could easily be manipulated to create some new strongly Democratic regions. One can only imagine an I-95 corridor connecting the Alexandria region with Richmond or how the I-64 corridor could be used for political purposes to link Hampton/Newport News with Richmond. Hopefully, we’re not giving the scoundrels any ideas by mentioning this.

What’s the big deal can easily be summarized, the future makeup of the United States House of Representatives. This is the prize that has Obama’s eyes in his politicizing of the Census.

Take the worst of the Lyndon Johnson years and add the worst of the Jimmy Carter years, multiplied then add some hardy scoops of the Richard Daley Machine and the recipe for Obama politics is complete. With Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco treat and man-in-need-of-strong-enema, Harry Reid leading congress the recipe for disaster beyond belief is coming to a boil. The first big serving has been tossed on America’s plate, and that’s just the appetizer.

More on "The Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008"

We recently reported on an issue raised by former Assistant Secretary for Post Secondary Education, Diane Auer Jones found in The Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 (HR 4137). All institutions of higher education that provide student housing must now report students who are vacant from their dorm space for 24 hours or more as missing. We decided to take a look at this legislation for more outrages. First, this measure was buried deep in Section 488. However, the total measure consists of 431 pages of gobblety-goop micromanaging virtually all aspect of higher education other than explicity addressing cirriculum or tenure.

This shameful prime example of legislative excess was established simply to provide federal support for helping low and moderate income students attend college but in doing so tramples on virtually every square foot of every college campus.

What struck us as most concerning about this law is the depth and range Federal regulation extends its grasp upon how colleges and universities conduct their business simply as the strings attached for the schools accepting students who receive Federal loans or other measures of Federal funding.

Read all about it if you have too much time on your hands or have a real fetish for reading about government abuse. Do you think any of our elected "leaders" read this whole measure. Here it is courtesy of govtrack.us.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-4137

These provisions are unbelievably specific in some instances and require tremendous resources to impliment, monitor, assure compliance, and report upon. As such, the overhead to the schools is enormous from having adequate legal counsel either on staff or contracted to interpret the legislation and make sure the school is compliant in every aspect. On top of that, the manpower and resource requirements to manage these requirements is substantial. On top of that, just by the size of the task load imposed by this law, so much administrative and leadership time is devoted to simply following this ridiculous work of bureaucratic interference run wild instead of focusing on the key issues that all schools should be devoted to promoting: quality education and a good learning environment for students; expert, timely, creative, and far-reaching research for the benefit of society, business and industry; and recruiting, developing, and retaining the best, most challenging faculty possible.

Is it any wonder that college costs have gone up so dramtically in the past 30 years far beyond the rate of inflation by multiple factors? Likewise, is it also not surprising that the college environment is being overtaken by personnel on all levels who have no problem with a big government approach to all aspects of the human condition. Is it any coincidence that college faculties have become the bastion of extreme left politics conservatives or those with traditional values need not apply.

American leadership has had quality higher education as one of its key foundations where our institutions of higher education were sought by the best and brightest around the world for their studies. Today, the product is increasingly being compromised, losing its sense of mission, and beginning to lose its lead over what is provided in other countries.

Our colleges and universities must be the best the world has to offer in providing expertise in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics while continuing to provide an outstanding liberal arts education where schooling is not so much as learning the right answers for some master exam but asking the right questions about life in the real world.

Sadly, our great institutions are being reduced to essentially vocational traning facillities where every "i" is dotted and "t" crossed with fervent political correctness blindly complying with the multitude of overregulation by the Federal Government.

Nationally Respected Educational Reform Spokesperson Identifies Nanny State Extremism in the Name of Higher Education

The Honorable Diane Auer Jones, President/CEO, The Washington Campus; former Assistant Secretary for Post Secondary, Department of Education

The insane onslaught of the Nanny state continues out of control. Here’s an example of the over-reach of the Federal Government thanks to the clowns on Capitol Hill that not only represents an outrageous waste of money and resources, but it also intrudes into areas that the government has no business invading. As this story unfolds, the “nanny” concept couldn’t be more appropriate. Why this outrage hasn’t made it to the talk show circuit or been covered in the media is alarming.

Former Post Secondary Chief for the Bush Administration from August 2007 to May 2008, Diane Auer Jones reports of this outrage in her article in “Minding the Campus” where in passing The Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, educational institutions which receive federal student aid assistance must track all residential students who are “missing” from their residence for 24 hours. Ms. Jones does such a brilliant job exposing this issue, we need explain it no further. Please read this. It is not only outrageous for what it is but for the thinking it represents and just how far the nanny nonsense extends under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry (I need a laxative) Reid.

http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2009/01/missing_the_point_about_missin.html

Does Ms. Jones say it all as it pertains to this issue? We will be on the look out for and report other examples of this kind of insanity which illustrates what life in Obama-Nation will be like if these fools continue such outrageous intrusion into citizens’ private lives and through the unfunded mandate cost society millions by forcing them to pay for unnecessary and insane programs.

Diane Auer Jones is possibly the nation’s leading authority on the state of post-secondary education today. She resigned her post in as Assistant Secretary of Education for Post Secondary in reaction to how the Department sought to “vocationalize” liberal arts programs essentially reducing the function of a college education to simple vocational training. She has spoken out assertively about the escalating cost of higher education and inequities in the admissions process. Ms. Jones was also a major proponent of The American Competitiveness Initiative while serving as a senior White House policy advisor. She is also a tremendous spokesperson for an expanded roll for community colleges and alternative education options.

Ms. Jones recently was a featured speaker at the annual conference for the National Association of Scholars. Her address was to address what she learned serving as Assistant Secretary with the Bush Administration and what lessons she learned should the incoming administration consider. Her address amounts to a brilliant state-of-the-state of the post secondary experience and a blistering indictment of its short-comings.

Here’s a link to her remarks:
http://www.nas.org/Diane_A.cfm

A much longer presentation, here is Diane Auer Jones in one of her last presentations as Assistant Secretary addressing the College Savings Foundation on the runaway escalation of the cost of post-secondary education and the problems students and families face trying to finance a traditional four year degree.

http://blip.tv/file/981599

This is a long presentation and her remarks begin after a brief introduction, but her insights are very disturbing for families with potential college students.

We applaud Diane Auer Jones’ efforts to bring much needed attention to the many challenges that are threatening the quality of a college education and the financial burders one faces trying to achieve such an education. Be familiar with her name. She is rapidly becoming the voice of the future of quality post secondary schooling.