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 We have many socialistic and outdated laws that make our state unattractive for businesses.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.

In praise of oil companies, and a strong condemnation of government-employed teachers.

I'm rather tired of the annual ritual where politicians grant awards to a particular teacher "of the year." I am not sure why teachers deserve any greater respect than other professionals within society. For one, I personally think (without irony) that oil company executives are in greater need of praise than government-employed teachers. For one thing, oil company executives do the impossible everyday. Oil company executives search throughout the world, sometimes in inhospitable and dangerous locations (think Venezuela, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the Sudan), to find oil, drill for it, and move it halfway around the world back to the United States. From there, their companies refine the oil, comply with complicated and contradictory environmental and tax-regulated regimes, and yet provide a product for which they take a measly 9% profit on their efforts, which is actually less than that which the government earns from taxing just the purchase of the gas (nevermind the corporate income tax). Further, the purchase of gas is also relatively easy and can be deemed a huge success: customers can use their ATM or credit cards or cash -- 24-hours a day. No matter what the circumstances--whether during the heat of a war, or boiling words from Iran--the oil is there, available for customers to purchase it. That's a success in my book. ExxonMobil, in particular, deserves praise for the record profits generated last term. Why? Well, the beneficiaries -- the owners of Exxon Mobil, represent many everyday individuals--mom and pop stockholders, pension funds--including those which fund the retirement of the run of the mill incompetent teacher.

The other great virtue of oil companies is that there greatness is here for everyone to see right now. There is never any discussion that all that is needed is "more money" in order for a gas station to be fully operational. They are all operational right now -- in all 50-states. Gas companies do not beg for more money. They charge and compete with one another, and customers compete for the lowest price. Also, if one happens to choose not to use an automobile (and there are people like that in some cities)--they don't have to pay for Exxon Mobil to stay in business, and they won't be asked to.

A COMPARISON: the parasitic government-run (so-called "public") school: force instead of voluntarism.

Government-run schools fail in literally every city in America. From Detroit, Baltimore, New York, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Los Angeles, Miami, Dallas, Denver and Houston, the dropout rate is above 50%! The dropout rate is another way of saying the failure rate. Yet, despite how poor these government-run schools operate, there are always more calls for more funds. Many senior citizens who have homes have to rent out part of their home to strangers -- just so that they can pay the property tax to pay for failing, government-run schools. Thus, in contrast to the oil companies, even if you do not have children, you still have to pay tax dollars to fund failing schools -- even if the students are not citizens or even legally within the United States! Yet, at the same time, every year, politicians always select teachers to "praise" for their remarkable teaching ability. But shouldn't that be standard? We take for granted that every gas station works properly. It would be similar to praise a few gas stations that barely worked -- by giving them an honor -- with more than 50% of them were failing. Can you imagine a politician awarding a particular gas station as one that "barely worked" -- but at least, it is doing "its job" remarkably "well"--at least, in contrast to the others? Hard to imagine, but that's exactly what we do with teachers.

Rather than being a noble profession, teachers are parasitic individuals who must use the resources of the most productive members of society. That is because in order to earn a salary, they must receive tax dollars from the productive class (the taxpayers) in order to work in the unproductive, parasitic sector, which is failing by overwhelming margins (above a 50% failure rate). No private business has anything close to a remarkable 50% failure rate. Pharmaceutical companies would be sued for having an even 1% failure rate.

The time has come in which the government-run schools should be abolished, unleashing the private sector to teach and inform the next generation.

President Clinton argues for an "economic slowdown."

Democrats do want to lower the standard of living among average Americans. Recently, former President Clinton has argued for an "economic slowdown" to fight so-called man-made global warming, which many climatologists have announced is a hoax. Unfortunately, the real truth is that Democrats want to lower the standard of living of average Americans so that Democrats will have greater control to dictate the lives of millions of Americans.

What message are the Democrats sending to our enemies?

“The Democrat Party is telling we-the-people that it will continue to force the U.S. out of Iraq and, presumably, the Middle East as a whole. It is also telling al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations: ‘We’ve got your back, guys, and if we can seize all three branches of government—we’ll give you Iraq and you’ll be home free!”’ —Sher Zieve

Democrats Engage in Treason and Adopt Terrorist Bill of Rights

Democrats in Congress have decided to take sides in the war against terrorism.

The only problem is that Democrats have decided to take the side of the terrorists.

The House of Representatives voted to outlaw a highly effective interrogation technique known as waterboarding. Congress basically said that even if this technique can save millions of American lives by bringing about highly relevant and useful knowledge of the enemy's plans, it is still outlawed. That is an outrage. I do not care at all about the rights of terrorists, and I am outraged that Congress has spent even one minute on creating a Terrorist Bill of Rights.

Personally, I have no opposition to torturing terrorists if there is even merely a theoretical possibility that this will extract useful information. We live in a dangerous world in which terrorists are attacking Western (and even non-Western) capitals across the globe. To take one of the most useful tools out of the glove box and announce this to our enemies is nothing sort of treason.

Democrats Propose Tax Hike to Mug Americans

Once again the Democrats have shown that they hate middle-Americans. Socialist Democrat Charlie Rangel wants to impose super-sized taxes on the American people, with the intention of causing a recession. Why do Democrats want a recession? Mainly because many of them have the mistaken view that the American people would then be dependent upon government for all of their needs.

There are many ways in which Democrats are proposing to re-create the Great Depression. For one thing, Charlie Rangel's tax increase plan will certainly cause a recession. However, to ensure that there really is a Great Depression, the Democrats are trying to attach legislation to make energy cost vastly higher sums of money in the name of fighting the non-existent threat of man-made "global warming."

Whenever a Democrat speaks, it's best to hold onto your wallet, because they are greater thieves than a common mugger.