California's Lawmakers Know how to Create Jobs: in Nevada.

America's Founders created a federalist, not a national, system of government. By that I mean they created a system in which the states would be autonomous to create and administer their own set of laws and have sovereignty over their own territory. One of the greatest results of such a system is the competition among the many states. Some states don't seem to know how to compete. Take California, for instance. We have many socialistic and outdated laws that make our state unattractive for businesses. Nevada has recognized this and has taken the effort to highlight just how wrongheaded our laws are. Recently the Nevada Development Authority has been running ads in California with a cartoon of a huge bear on top of a businessman, with the label "California taxes." The ad is designed to show that California's government is strangling business development in the state and that Nevada's business climate is much more hospitable. While California's lawmakers are calling for tax increases on everything, Nevada is advertising that it has no income tax on individual income, corporate income, or inventory tax.

California's lawmakers don't seem to realize that California is a high-cost brand, one which is increasingly being deserted for its low-cost rival next door. If a public company refused to lower its cost--and merely criticized its rival--it would probably lose market share and possibly go out of business. California cannot compete by having lawmakers criticize Nevada's efforts to lure businesses out of Nevada. If California is serious about competing with Nevada, then we must actually start passing laws that are far more similar to Nevada--such as eliminating the income and corporate tax systems. That would be a good start at least.

The 14th Amendment should be interpreted to provide more economic liberties.

George F. Will made an interesting point in a recent column. He stated, " The 14th Amendment's guarantees of equal protection and due process of law should mean that government may interfere with a citizen's economic liberty only to promote important government interests that cannot be advanced through less restrictive means." (emphasis added). What this means is that economic rights would have about the same level of protection that abortion and sodomy have been provided. (Both of which, we assert, we believe are neither founded in the Constitution or the history or customs of the American people. But we digress). Instead, by providing heightened scrutiny over government regulations related to economic rights, this would make it far more difficult for a potential President Obama or President Clinton to impose their harmful, ill-considered economic regulations. They would have to prove that their economic policies were enacted based upon an "important governmental interest," which would be a standard so high that, thankfully, most economic regulations would not be able to meet.

As George F. Will explains, "under today's weak "rational basis" standard, courts validate virtually any abridgement of economic liberty, no matter how tenuous the connection to even a minor public purpose." In other words, under our present jurisprudence, the government can regulate anything, which has resulted in absurdities such as the CAFE fuel economy standards, a ban on the incandescent light bulbs, the low-flush toilets, confiscatory taxes, endangered species legislation aimed at stopping worthless insects, etc.

A columnist asks whether Obama should be judged by his pastor's words.

“Should Mr. Obama be judged because of the acts of his pastor," asks online columnist Harry R. Jackson, Jr.

His answer? "Yes! Pastor Wright’s worldview and his understanding of race, culture, and religion of the bible will in some measure affect how Barak Obama views the world."

Our view is that considering the number of churches that one may attend, the fact that Obama choose this particular racist church speaks volumes about his bad character and willingness to engage in identity politics.

Internet users feel Obama is a liar.

A random search on "Obama's lies" results in 8,900 hits, compared to 1,470 for "McCain's lies." Obviously people on the internet are much more likely to think that Obama is a liar.

Last week Obama made a few lies. Obama said that wealthy people did "not ask" for the tax cuts and "do not need it." Obama is a liar because Americans of all stripes have been demanding tax cuts for a very long time and it is not up to him to decide who is in "need" of a tax cuts. By speaking of needs in this way, he seems to be emulating his fan Karl Marx, who spoke of "to each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Are you a communist, Obama? If not, why do you speak in the language of a hard-core communist?

Obama attends an anti-American church for 20 years. Obama's lies are exposed.

Obama is anti-American and a liar. He claims that he did not know that his pastor used inflammatory rhetoric.

This is a clear lie. It is not possible to believe that his pastor woke up one morning and began delivering these anti-American sermons. It is clear that these views are based upon long standing beliefs that did not arise out of thin air. The American people would never vote for a president who, on his own, decided to attend for a period of 20 years this anti-American church. Of all the churches that exist in America, Obama choose this anti-American church. What does that say about Obama?

Obama is afraid of ordinary citizens; he advances communist ideas, and he cannot deliver on his "post-partisanship" campaign theme.

John McCain's greatest asset includes his ability to take tough questions from ordinary audience members and provide robust access to the media. This is an area where Obama fails. On one occasion when Obama was asked tough questions by an audience, "Obama whined, 'Guys, I mean come on. I just answered, like, eight questions!'" Looks like McCain will do quite well on that front.

Obama's economic ideas are essentially Marxist in nature. Perhaps we can even say that Obama is a communist since he advances communist ideas.

And Obama's claim that he can eliminate partisanship is essentiall delusional in nature, reflecting the thoughts of a snake oil salesman.

Young people should vote for John McCain, not Obama.

It is, of course, depressing to see the enthusiasm among the youth for Obama. Why? Well, mainly because Obama is attracting the youth vote without trying hard. How does Obama get the youth vote? With endless speeches using empty words like 'change' and 'hope.' Well, I don't need that. And Obama's policies are actually anti-youth. Who works? The young, of course. But Obama intends to increase the tax rate of the young while he intends to decrease the taxes of the elderly! How is that pro-youth? That is insanity! Yet, 71-year old John McCain is far more pro-youth in that he wants to allow us to place our Social Security earnings in a private account and he does not want to increase our taxes. Thus, the youth in America should vote for McCain, not Obama.

Islam Must Be Stopped

An interesting speech made to the Dutch Parliament regarding why Islam must be stopped.

Obama's tax plan would destroy California.

If Obama's tax plan were to become law, California voters in the highest marginal income tax rate would pay 64.2% of their next dollar of income earned. Ouch. Talk about an incentive to move to Nevada. (Details: Obama wants to lift the cap on Social Security wages that are subject to tax. That would mean a 15.3% tax on each dollar of income earned. Obama wants to raise the top income tax rate to 39.6%. As a result, this would mean 39.6% + 15.3% + California's top rate of 9.3% = 64.2%. Ouch.

California Democrats Want to Pick your Pocket

California Democrats have a new way of attracting votes: they are advertising, before a general election in November, that they want significantly higher taxes to cover their increased spending.

Without realizing what a moron he is, Senate Leader Don Perata answered in a question about how he would deal with the California budget deficit in a blunt manner: "Raise taxes. That clear enough? Raise taxes."

California voters should remember this when they had to the polls in November.