WWJD?

A few days ago, while discussing the merits of extending unemployment benefits with Hardball host Chris Matthews, congressman Jim McDermott may have gotten a little carried away. He just had to invoke little baby Jesus while attempting to justify giving the unemployed 99 weeks worth of benefits.

His statement upset opinion program host Bill O'Reilly, who went on to say in his column that while "Every fair-minded person should support government safety nets for people who need assistance through no fault of their own...guys like McDermott don’t make distinctions like that." O'Reilly argues that not making such a distinction creates a nanny-state that is hard on the economy and ultimately self-destructive. He goes on to say, "being a Christian, I know that while Jesus promoted charity at the highest level, he was not self-destructive."

A good argument? Yes. And he obviously struck a nerve as the left-wing side of the media is up in arms about it. Even funny-man turned anchorman Stephen Colbert got a bit upset.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Jesus Is a Liberal Democrat
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog</a> March to Keep Fear Alive

So what's the big deal here? Congressman McDermott was absolutely right in inferring that a true Christian, especially in this time of "baby Jesus in the cradle and all this stuff", would happily help the less fortunate. Colbert is absolutely right in his assertion that Christ would have us help anybody, without first judging them to find out if they "deserve" your help. And Bill O'Reilly is correct in his claim that excessive government income-intervention can lead to a self-destruction economic death spiral.

What I find so interesting in all of this is that O'Reilly and Colbert both miss the real point. All their arguments seem to be based upon the assumption that the federal government is the entity that should be taking care of the less fortunate. In O'Reilly's defense, he did say that Christ helped those who help themselves, but he still assumes that the government is what should provide that help.

Conservatives know that government is the worst entity to provide such "help". Government is not a charity. Government is the entity that society creates in order to protect itself from foreign threats, provide some infrastructure, and to create order to protect us from the crazies out there, period. Large, centralized government is inefficient, wasteful, corruptible, and slow. President Obama proved this point perfectly when he claimed that he would take the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste, fraud, and abuse out of Medicare and put it into Obama-care (as if an even larger medical entitlement program would have less waste than it's smaller cousin). The entity that does charity work the best is...wait for it...CHARITY.

Additionally, having moneys forcefully taxed then given to others is not charitable, let alone Christ-like, it's social justice, or in other words, income redistribution. Somebody once told me that if a guy on the street demanded that you give him your money it'd be robbery, but if that same thug petitioned Washington to pass a law requiring your money, it'd just be called a tax. Don't get me wrong, taxes are necessary to fund the government, but when the government takes your money and gives it to somebody else, it's not really government anymore. It's government committing highway robbery in order to pose as a charity. As Maggie Thatcher would say, that would only work until the government runs out of your money.

Back to Jim McDermott. He, as do many liberals, infers that the Christian thing to do would be to pay your taxes happily because some of your taxed income might help the needy and that it is just as Christ-like to support the government's extending, and extending, and extending of so-called "benefits". While Christ did say to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, I don't think he'd say your soul is better off in regards to its salvation just because some of Caesar's money may go to help the poor. Why? Because that money is taken from you at the threat of going to prison. You must give that money away. If you don't believe me, just try to be a bit less charitable to the IRS for a year or two.

Really, what's so charitable about being forced to give up part of your income? True charitable giving is about taking money that you have no real obligation to give to anybody and willfully giving it to those who need it more than you. That, not paying your taxes, is Christ-like.

It's evident to conservatives that charitable giving is given freely from the heart, not taken at the threat of imprisonment, and that we should all give to the needy willingly, without pretense or judgment. However, it's also evident to conservatives that the government can't afford to finance the day to day lives of millions of Americans and expect to remain financially solvent for long. So how do we help the poor while maintaining a financially viable country? Simple. Do all we can to make government as lean as possible and leave the charitable giving to those who do it best....charities.

Deficit Busters!!

At 9:53 pm Mountain Standard Time on 18 Dec 2010, the US deficit was at $13,872,370,279,521 or 94% of GDP, the highest ratio of debt to GDP since shortly after WWII. In other words, the United States almost owes dollar for dollar as much as the entire country produces in a year. That's insane. So insane, in fact, that the president of the Council on Foreign Relations has stated that the debt is a national security threat. If it helps to bring such an enormous number to perspective, realize that each and every citizen of the united states would have to fork over $44,614 or each TAXPAYER would have to shell out $125,559 to wipe it clean.

Now, that number is not quite as horrific as it sounds. The debt held by the public, which excludes debt owned by government accounts (debt the government owes itself), is "only" at approximately $9,000,000,000,000, or about 63% of GDP.

So why is the deficit such a big deal? Benjamin Graham wrote in The Intelligent Investor (a great book by the way) that he feels it is unwise to invest in a company that has a debt load of over 50%. In other words, if a company has $5 million in assets, but owes $3.15 million to its creditors, Benjamin Graham would likely turn his nose up to it. China, the United State's largest "investor", has made grumblings to this effect. It's possible that they're beginning to feel that the US is "over-leveraged" and may not be a good investment. Not a good thing.

Some argue that the US shouldn't worry about it's current deficit as it only has to pay the interest payment to its debt holders. The current T-bond yield is about 3%, so in essence, these guys claim that as long as the US can afford to pay $416 billion (and growing) each year in interest on its loans, we can continue to get loans. That's akin to somebody saying it's fine to keep racking up their credit card debt because they can afford the minimum payment. That's all well and good until your creditor changes the rate (something China has threatened to do), or until you don't make as much money as you expected for some reason.

Regardless of what degree of threat you think our deficit poses to our national solvency, it is a problem that needs to be addressed. Earlier this year, President Obama had a budget deficit reduction committee created with the sole purpose of finding ways to reduce our country's soaring deficit. They brainstormed and think-tanked their socks off and came up with a handful of solutions.

The primary fixes are as follows:

1. Collapse today’s five income tax rates (10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, and 35%) into three brackets (12%, 22% and 28%).

2. Eliminate itemized deductions

3. Tax capital gains at ordinary income rates

4. Eliminate and simplify a bunch of tax credits (mortgage, charitable giving, etc)

5. Gradually eliminate the exclusion for health coverage premiums

6. Change the corporate tax bracket to 28%

7. Increase the federal gas tax by 15 cents a gallon.

8. Raise the age at which Americans can get Social Security benefits to 69 by 2075.

9. Require the president to propose annual limits on war spending.

10. Gradually reduce the government’s civilian work force by 10 percent

11. Freeze pay for federal workers and members of Congress for three years

12. Eliminate all congressional earmarks

13. Change Medicare physician payment formula to reward quality instead of quantity

14. Cut congressional and White House budgets by 15%

There was a lot of fuss about the commission's results immediately after the report was released, but, as is always so apparent, our politicians are more worried about being re-elected that actually solving a budget crisis, so instead of addressing said crisis by instituting some of the commission's suggestions, they again extended unemployment benefits. Speaking of budgets, let's remember that our government doesn't even have one right now. Another political move by the democrats as that causes the republicans to spearhead the effort and be the bad guy who cuts spending, thereby enabling democrats to return to congress on campaigns that shout, "Republicans want grandma to eat catfood!" All at the expense of our national solvency.

Sorry, got sidetracked.

Anyway, as I was saying, I'm sorely disappointed in a government that, when it gets reminded of it's infrugality (somebody tell Webster I just made up a word!), instead of looking itself in the mirror and admitting it's a spending addict, it runs off and spends some more.

So, in my own passive aggressive form of protest, I propose my own deficit cutting measures:

1. Flat tax. 22% tax on everybody. If you're on welfare, you get 22% of your welfare check taken back by Uncle Sam. I'm serious. Right now nearly half of Americans (including me thanks to a myriad of deductions) pay ZERO federal income tax. That's sick. Everybody needs some skin in the game. That way, next time we decide to give people in Atlanta a heat bill subsidy to fight a 50 degree cold front, we might think twice.

2. Eliminate nearly all tax deductions and definitely all credits. The IRS should never owe you money come April. I want to say no deductions at all, but I am tempted to believe that we can allow charitable contributions to be tax deductible (thanks a lot Dad).

3. Eliminate the capital gains tax. That's a tax on money that's already been taxed. I'll refer you to Nate here.

4. Set the corporate tax rate at 22%. A flat tax is a flat tax.

5. Change the social security eligibility age to 70 by 2020. In 2012 its 66; in 2014 it's 67 and so on. Frankly, I think we should phase it out entirely or at least return it to what it was initially (assistance to the elderly needy and widows).

6. Reduce the federal workforce by 15%. That's just over a 5% reduction of the size the federal workforce was in 2009.

7. Freeze pay for all federal workers and congress for 5 years then allow the maximum of an inflation matching increase each year thereafter.

8. Eliminate all earmarks. That should have been done ages ago.

9. Cut the federal budget by 15%. Not impossible.

10. Repeal the health care bill. The bill is bringing with it immense federal spending that will only further inflate the deficit. Once the bill is repealed, we can start over with real health care reform. The last bill only changed how we paid for health care and who paid for it rather than actually making health care more affordable.

I'm sure there are many additional things we can do to balance the budget and reduce the deficit.

While both my suggestions and those of the actual committee could be seen as "drastic", real action is necessary. I have serious doubts that anything genuine will be done. As we've already seen, it's more likely that we'll only see some token efforts and the can will keep getting kicked down the road. So, hopefully, we can get somebody who has real power to get this ball rolling. Somebody tell John Boehner, "YES WE CAN get the deficit under control."

Individual Mandate Say What!!!

Today Virginia Federal Judge Henry Hudson deemed the individual mandate of the health care law known as "Obama-care" to be unconstitutional. While other Federal Judges have ruled in favor of the mandate, a ruling in opposition to the mandate is likely to take the case to the supreme court.

While I don't pretend to be a constitutional attorney, I agree with the judge's conclusion that the mandate is unconstitutional. While congress does have the authority to regulate commerce, as the judge said, it does not have the authority to force you to create it. This judge basically said today that when a person purchases a good or service, that congress can regulate it, i.e, tax it, control the size and scope of the purchase, regulate how the transaction occurs, et cetera; but congress does NOT have the authority to create that purchase (force you to initiate it).

Spot on.

Constitutionality aside, there are some serious problems with the mandate. Simply legislating human behavior won't change that behavior.

Supporters of the bill say that forcing people to purchase health care is "ok" because it is (1) for their own good and (2) reduces the financial impact of the uninsured on the general tax base. If these guidelines justify the forcing of individuals to purchase health care, then why not anything else if it does the same?

For example.......

Purchasing life insurance could satisfy the above criteria. If everybody bought life insurance, then the number of single parents on taxpayer funded welfare would likely be lower and it's obviously good for the individuals who are separated from loved ones prematurely. So why not force everybody to buy life insurance?

Criminals break into homes and assault and kill people all too often. Pursuing, trying, convicting, and incarcerating these individuals is done at massive taxpayer expense. Homeowners would clearly be better off if they were able to defend themselves, so why not require everybody to purchase a firearm and ammunition? Additionally, as a tool is no good to the untrained, we should also force everybody to go to a personal protection firearm school as well. Imagine the taxpayer dollars, not to mention the taxpayers, that would be saved.

Taxpayers spend billions of dollars subsidizing public transportation. It would be much cheaper if we simply built a bunch of private toll roads and required everybody to purchase a car and to drive the tollroads. When the roads get jammed, we'll just widen existing roads and build new ones. Sounds great.

Many people retire poor. It's a shame that some people are forced to eat catfood in their latter years. Wouldn't it be great if we forced everybody to buy into a government controlled retirement fund? That way people would be able to retire knowing that at least they can eat. Oh, wait, that's social security....[retro turntable screeching] ...REMIX!!!!..... Times have changed and inflation has gone up so far that social security alone is clearly not enough to retire. Perhaps we should force everybody to purchase a privately owned retirement account as well so they can once again retire with confidence.

Finally, food stamps, WIC, and other food subsidies cost the taxpayer billions. If these people would just buy their own d@mn food things would be much better for everybody, right? So why don't we just pass legislation forcing people to buy 3 meals a day worth of food?

These examples are ridiculous, I know. However, I chose them for a reason. Many of the rebuttals that show how ludicrous those ideas are also show the insanity of the health care law.

Requiring people to buy life insurance won't solve poverty caused by providers passing away. Some people won't buy adequate coverage.

Requiring people to purchase a firearm goes against the morals of many. For example, a neighbor of mine would rather die than lift a finger in self defense. Many people have religious or personal objections to the requirement.

If everybody drove to work we'd have to build more roads. Expensive. In the meantime, the roads we do have would get worn out and would be incredibly crowded. Crowding and quality would become an issue.

Simply requiring people to buy food won't solve the problem. Some people can't afford it.

Social security was intended, initially, to provide for those who could not afford their own retirement. Widows, the poor, etc. Unfortunately, the program was expanded, and expanded, and expanded. Now it's barely viable. But making people buy another retirement account won't solve people retiring poor. Once again, some simply can't afford it. Additionally, some will just do the minimum then rely on the existing failsafe for their livelihood anyway.

So why is the health care mandate a bad idea? A few reasons: Some won't buy enough coverage anyway, many object to it, crowding and quality of care can become an issue, some people simply can't afford it, and...oh yeah...some people can't afford it, and, as a result, will instead do the bare minimum then rely on existing failsafes (Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP) for their livelihood anyway.

Monkey Wants More Highway Money!!

I thought this little vid was too good not to pass on. It demonstrates quite well how our representatives blatantly divert funds to pay for pet projects.

While I'm all for watching monkeys on crack, I'm not completely convinced that it should be done on the taxpayers dime.

Loonyville

Welcome to Loonyville. It's a place where ones imagination rules. Reality just won't do when you can replace it with what wish was reality.

In Loonyville, appeasing and ignoring your enemies will make them go away instead of just encouraging them.

In Loonyville, holding tax cuts for the poor and middle class hostage as a means to soak the rich is a great idea.

In Loonyville, paying people not to work helps the economy.

In Loonyville, people upset with health care are much more likely to set off truck bombs than radical Islamists.

In Loonyville, telling your enemy the date you plan to stop fighting him won't embolden him.

In Loonyville, banning guns will make bad guys stop using them.

In Loonyville, tax cheats write the tax code and run the treasury.

In Loonyville, a state university can hold a Dreidel spinning event, but a German Christmas Holiday Market can no longer display the word "Christmas" on its sign.

In Loonyville, publicly "condemning" the man who published thousands of classified documents is a proportionate response.

And the list goes on.

As ridiculous a place as Loonyville seems, we can all call it home.

I am a veteran

I'm by no means a poet, but felt it appropriate to write something on this day. Happy Veterans' Day.

I am a veteran.
Loved ones I’ve forsaken,
Toiled in unknown lands,
For people still unmet.

My conscience lost in foreign land,
My blood was spilt in Vietnam,
My sweat on the hot sand.
Tears I shed on Normandy.

That blood and sweat, my tears,
My conscience sacrificed.
These tokens I have given up,
As payment for my debt.

I am a veteran.
Babykiller I’ve been named.
Warmonger, and worse.
Yet none regret war more than I.

Defense for helpless have I provided,
Communism, Fascism overthrown.
Some millions I have liberated,
And freedom procured.

I am a veteran.
Your thank you likely I’ll accept,
Though secretly despise.
Recognition I do not seek.

My creed is simple to recite:
For God, for country I give my might,
In defense of liberty
And for the man serving next to me.

My actions you may not understand,
Nor my motives, nor intentions.
Yet squander not the inheritance I have bought,
As it was purchased at heaven’s gate.

A few suggestions

I've had a lot on my mind lately, so I decided to compress my thoughts into a few suggestions. Enjoy (or not).

Declare War on Political Correctness

Political Correctness is, frankly, ridiculous. When PC gets out of hand, it begins to border on denial. The NPR / Juan Williams controversy is a prime example of this. NPR hastily fired Juan because he said that seeing Muslims in full "muslim garb" while on a plane made him nervous. NPR just couldn't stand having an employee that was crazy enough to say something so offensive. In my humble opinion, NPR is denying what is likely the gut reaction of the majority of Americans in a post 9/11 world. Be honest with yourself. If, while you're sitting on a crowded plane, you notice the guy sitting next to you is wearing man-jams, wouldn't you, in a world where Muslims flew planes into the world trade center and pentagon, then attempted to blow up more planes with a shoe-bomb and an underwear bomb, feel at least a fleeting sense of nervousness? I dare say that if you answer no, you are probably in denial. Now be honest again, would political correctness cause you to hesitate to tell someone if you felt nervous?

Define the Enemy

Speaking of PC-caused denial, when are we going to sober up and define who our enemy is in the War on Terror Man Caused Disasters? Art of War rule #1 - Know your enemy. There isn't just a minute handful of crazy guys hiding deep in caves on the Afghanistan / Pakistan border who want to hurt us. Instead, there exists an enormous movement that is contorting the second largest religion on the globe in a concerted effort to destroy the entire western world. Entire nations (Iran, Syria, Sudan) have basically used Islamic dogma as a means of declaring war on everybody who doesn't identify with them.

Yet still, government officials are afraid to admit that we are at war with Islamic terror. The great Michael Bloomberg was more willing to suggest that the time square bomber was a crazy tea partier who was upset with health care than to say what we all knew in our collective gut - he was another Islamo-terrorist nut-job. Since 9/11, over 100 people have been killed or wounded in the name of Allah in dozens of incidents on US soil. And let's not forget that Islamic extremists were trying to kill the "Kafir" long before 9/11. Fact is, we really don't have to declare war on radical Islam, it has already declared war on us.

Man up or get out

Until politicians and, frankly, the American people genuinely get behind their troops in Afghanistan, Iraq and other locations across the globe we are simply sending people across the ocean to die for an unclear cause. I will be the first to say that the war, at least in Afghanistan, is winnable. We just haven't shown the intestinal fortitude that victory requires.

Capitalism is Not Evil

Capitalism has enabled some of the greatest leaps in the standard of living of the human race. In capitalists' search for evil profits, terrible inventions like the telephone, light bulb, automobile, television, home computer, iPod, iPhone, and iPad were created. I now refer you to Bill Whittle (thanks, Nate).

Illegal Immigration IS a Problem

Over a quarter of inmates in federal prisons are illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants are stealing jobs, abusing "benefits", smuggling drugs, and committing crimes. It strikes close to home when an illegal alien drug dealer kills a sheriffs deputy, or when illegals murder a rancher who frequently assisted illegal immigrants. The laws are already in place, can we please start enforcing them?

Balance the Budget

Both Democrats and Republicans have managed only to grow the federal budget. For all their talk of balancing the budget, republicans have actually grown it more than democrats from LBJ to date. Let's quit the rhetoric and start looking for ways to actually balance and, more importantly, reduce the budget.

Entitlements are not the Responsibility of the Federal Government

I'm tired of people saying entitlement programs are constitutional because they "promote the general welfare". The Constitution, that pesky founding document that specifically limits the powers of the federal government, was created with the intent of limiting the powers of the federal government because...wait for it...limiting the power of the federal government is one of the best ways to "promote the general welfare". It does not give the federal government the right to pass whatever entitlement program it wants because the founding fathers knew that the individual can take care of its own welfare vastly better than a governing entity can. It says nothing about "welfare programs". Instead, it says (in an amendment) that anything not expressly enumerated in the constitution is left to the discretion of the states.

That said, it is my belief that programs such as Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, etc are, in fact, unconstitutional. They aren't benefits, they're financial assistance. Financial stability is the responsibility of first and foremost oneself. If the individual fails, then assistance should be rendered by family, friends, church, and charity. Then local and state government (if that entity provides for it).

The Right to Bear Arms is Crucial to Freedom

Government should fear the governed. I mean that in the sense that a government should always know that it governs at the express consent of the governed. That is impossible unless the people actually have the ability to take that power back. This aspect of the second amendment could be compared to a nuclear deterrent. It's a drastic measure reserved only for an extreme circumstance. Express consent is truly manifested at the ballot box. However, our founders manifested near prophetic ability when they wrote the second amendment. History starkly shows that when a government makes the transformation to dictatorship, one of the first steps is the disarming of the governed.

Voting is a Right. Informed Voting is a Sacred Responsibility

Do I really have to say anything more?

America IS exceptional

Don't apologize for what you perceive to be shortcomings of the greatest nation on earth. I don't care if some think it's arrogant to say that America is exceptional. It is exceptional. Perceived arrogance doesn't change that fact. America is the exceptional result of an exceptional idea, realized by exceptional men, preserved by exceptional resolve.

Is Cap and Trade Really Dead?

Earlier this year, Nancy Pelosi and congress continued its lemming-like descent over the approval rating cliff when the House passed H.R. 2454, more commonly known as Cap and Trade. The Senate, however, was unable to pass its own resolution, and the legislation was stopped. For now.

Cap and Trade would arguably be the largest tax hike in American history. Such a law would dramatically raise utility costs, substantially lower the gross domestic product of our nation, and cause drastic job loss. Even President Obama, in a rare moment of honesty (these usually occur when he’s speaking to liberals like those at the San Francisco Chronicle), admitted that under his cap and trade plan, utility rates would “NECESSARILY skyrocket”. Take a look at this video to hear the man in his own words. It is argued that, due to its devastating effect on the economy, the plan would usher in a permanent recession. That’s right a permanent recession….as in forever.

Cap and Trade is a stepping stone for the special interests on its road to get the government to tax and regulate the “dirty energy” sector while subsidizing the green jobs sector. Green energy, as ambitious and altruistic as it sounds, is an economy killer (just look at Spain). It is far too expensive at this point to be economically feasible. But that’s not important to some.

Thankfully, Cap and Trade (let’s call it Cap and Tax, as that’s what it really is) failed in the senate. The bill was incredibly partisan. Save the Lindsey Grahams of the world, it had virtually no republican support and absolutely no conservative support. Republicans, in fact, offered several “failsafe” amendments that would scale the legislation back if unemployment got too high or if utility rates or gas got too expensive. All of these amendments were brutally shot down. As public outcry rose to a new high, the senate saw that they were holding a green gun to their head. The bill, thankfully, didn’t pass.

That doesn’t mean that Cap and Tax is dead. Congress continued its freefall through this year and is about to meet its maker this November. Unfortunately, a senator or congressman who is voted out still has over two months of office left. This Lame Duck Session can be compared to a bunch of high schoolers, about to graduate, who are smitten with senioritis. They trash the school, leaving a massive mess on their departure that the freshmen and sophomores, and the rest of the nation in our case, have to deal with once they’re gone. Some have expressed concern that a modified Cap and Tax bill may be rammed through in such a session. Substantial lame duck legislation hasn't happened in nearly 30 years and some feel that a bill as contentious as this is unlikely to pass in such a session; however, I’m not ready to put such a low blow past a congress that rammed through Obamacare. We’ll just have to wait it out and see.

However, a lame duck passage of Cap and Tax is not the only method to ram this economy killer down our throats. In a way, the EPA is actually more dangerous than congress. The EPA is boring. Pages of legislation being blathered on about in conference rooms by lawyers and environmentalist zealots is not the stuff to which our American Idol loving citizens pay attention. Additionally, there is little room for reprehension against the EPA. Any move to deregulate the EPA is seen as an attack on our earth mother. And as James Cameron recently showed, liberal Americans take attacks on Eywa seriously. Unfortunately, regulations have the same job killing effect as legislation. In effect, it’s the same laws, just passed by different people, and without the infuriating fanfare of a Nancy Pelosi figure strutting around with her gavel.

The EPA has already been maneuvering behind the scenes to effectually pass cap and trade legislation in a way that the majority of Americans wouldn’t even notice…that is, won't notice until their utility rates begin to necessarily skyrocket. In 2009, the EPA found CO2 to be a threat to human health, and in 2007 congress asserted that CO2 is a pollutant covered under the Clean Air Act, giving the EPA the right to effectually regulate the same air you exhale. Though the EPA has not yet actually written significant regulation on CO2, (likely due to the hot nature of the issue), it has begun its attack on the American economy from another flank. Coal.

The attack on coal ash originates from special interest groups like the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, CACA, and EarthJustice, who are pushing for stricter regulation on coal ash. This pressure intensified after the Tennessee Valley Authority Kinston Plant spill of 2008. This spill was the biggest coal ash release in American history. In this event, a 1960’s era sludge pond’s dike failed, releasing enormous amounts of fly ash into the Emory River.

In response to pressure from environmentalist groups, the EPA decided to reevaluate its position on the standards of disposal of coal combustion products (CCPs). This is odd to me considering that the EPA already evaluated its standards in 2000 due to similar pressure from the special interests and gave a final regulatory decision on the matter. So much for it being final. Perhaps by final they meant “until a more liberal administration takes the reigns”.

All the same, the EPA did what it does and came up with three proposals for the regulation of CCPs. The first proposal is to regulate them under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). This proposal would put the EPA in charge of the planning, implementation of, and execution of methods of handling CCPs from their generation to final disposal (the EPA report actually reads “cradle to grave…requirements”). The regulation also classifies the material as “Hazardous Waste”. This is especially disconcerting as the EPA has tested CCPs before and found that they do not qualify as "toxic" or "hazardous" under the EPAs Toxic Characteristics Leaching Protocol. The EPA would also require that all current landfill sites where CCPs are disposed would have a composite liner to prevent groundwater seepage.

A second proposal would be to leave CCPs under the provisions of Subtitle D of the RCRA. This provision would require the retrofitting of landfill sites with composite liners just as Subtitle C. It would also place virtually all the same regulations concerning disposal of CCPs as are provisioned under Subtitle C. The difference between the two Subtitles is that’s where the regulation ends. The EPA would not have the power to regulate the material from cradle to grave, but just its grave. Nor would the material be classified as hazardous.

The third suggestion is to classify CCPs as Subtitle D “prime”. This is the same as Subtitle D except it does not require the retrofitting of old landfills, but applies just to new landfill sites. Since mismanaged old sites is the problem here, then we can just count Subtitle D “Prime” out now.

I bet you can’t guess which determination Earthjustice and Greenpeace want. Don’t worry, I’ll tell you. Subtitle C. They’re just dying to see coal classified as a hazardous material.

Now, as the TVA spill and other, smaller incidents have shown, CCPs can be harmful to humans and the environment if improperly manged. That is because specific elements like silver, arsenic, and lead can be found mixed in with coal. When the coal is burned to create electricity, the actual coal almost completely incinerates, leaving ash and the trace elements. Since the trace elements do not burn away, these elements get concentrated in the ash (a pound of coal ash has more lead in it than a pound of raw coal). Therefore, it is feasible that toxins could be found in CCPS with concentrations that are somewhat hazardous. Depending on from where it is mined and what elements are in the raw coal, some coal ash might have higher levels than others, but the we must remember that the EPA has tested coal ash for toxicity using its Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure before and was unable to find levels of toxins high enough to justify the label of hazardous material. We must also realize that in the TVA incident over a BILLION gallons of slurry was released into the river. It takes tremendous amounts of seepage before "toxicity" is manifested. In short, “could be harmful in some cases” is not the same as “hazardous”.

The EPA in its 2000 Final Regulatory Decision also decided not to classify CCPs as hazardous waste in part because the disposal of the ash is already covered by the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. That’s because if the coal ash is contaminated, the only way it can harm people or the environment is if its dust is breathed in or if the contaminants leach into groundwater. The EPA felt at the time that if such circumstances were found, it would already have enough authority to step in and therefore didn’t need the “hazardous waste” label stamped on coal ash.

At this point I would like to point out that coal ash is not bad. Actually, CCPs are hugely beneficial. In fact, they’re eco-friendly. Here’s why:

CCPs can be used in a myriad of building materials. They can be used in concrete, waste and soil stabilizers, road base, asphalt, snow and ice traction materials, roofing, grout, wallboard, and more. By recycling CCPs, virgin materials like portland cement or gypsum do not have to be mined for the uses I mentioned. Less mining substantially reduces greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, if CCPs were 100% utilized instead of simply landfilled, it would be the equivalent of takin 25% of all of the world’s cars off the roads. Also, products used with recycled CCPs often cost less than products manufactured from all virgin materials. That's savings in your and my wallet at the hardware store. Additionally, building products that use CCPs are often stronger than those made with other materials. Concrete made with fly ash (a type of CCP) instead of portland cement is stronger and lasts longer than conventional concrete, thereby adding the extra benefit of not replacing the sidewalk or road you built with it as often. In 2005, CCPs contributed $25.9 billion in environmental and economic savings. The figure is even higher now, and we still only reuse about 40% of CCPs.

You would think the EPA would be pushing for increased CCP recycling. Well, it was...until recently. The EPA used to operate a program called the Coal Combustion Product Partnership (C2P2). However, after this reevaluation of CCP disposal began, it disbanded the program. If you go to the C2P2 website, instead of the original site, you get a bunch of mumbo jumbo that reads:

EPA has suspended active participation in the Coal Combustion Products Partnership program while we are taking and assessing comment on the beneficial use of coal combustion residuals (CCR) through the CCR proposed rulemaking. While the Agency continues to support safe and protective beneficial reuse of coal combustion residues, the C2P2 program webpages have been removed while the program is being re-evaluated.

It takes near hacker abilities to find the archived version of the website. However, I never fail to deliver, so I found the archived site after some diligence. It’s interesting that on the C2P2 website it says (or said) that “Beneficially using CCPs can generate significant environmental, economic, and performance benefits.” Additionally, concerning recycling of CCPs, the EPA has stated, “We have not identified any other beneficial uses that are likely to present significant risks to human health or the environment.” It has also stated, “…beneficial use of [CCPs]…provide significant environmental benefits, including the reduction of [greenhouse gas] emissions.” So the EPA has disbanded a program that “generate[s] significant environmental, economic, and performance benefits”? Interesting.

It’s important to remember that the current CCP debate is about the methods of their disposal. So disbanding a program that promotes the beneficial reuse of CCPs instead of landfilling CCPs seems counterproductive to the stated agenda of the EPA. Like I said, it’s interesting. Also, even though it is important to understand what the potential risks of the coal ash are, I must reiterate that such potential risks are well known and are not the subject of the debate.

The debate is relative to how best to handle the waste. The incidents that led to the intensification of this issue are relative to disposal methods, not due to an underestimation of the actual substance's characteristics.

Let’s return to proposed classifications. Under Subtitle C the material would be labeled “hazardous” even though it is not. What do you think the stigma would be against ready-mix concrete that has so-called “hazardous” materials in it? Would anybody want to buy drywall with “toxic ash” in it? Do you think it’s possible that competitors of the CCP recycling industry might try to use a Subtitle C disposal ruling against the industry? Guess what, they already are. Additionally, wouldn't a drop in recycled CCPs consequently induce an increase in CCPs found in landfills? Isn't reducing the amount of CCPs in landfills the goal here? Additionally, the EPA stated that Subtitle C would take two to five or more years to implement and would cost about $17 Million more per state to implement than the Subtitle D classification.

In summary, subtitle D has the same disposal standards as subtitle C (remember it’s the practices and standards of disposal that are the debate here), would cost less, would be implemented sooner, and would not be classified as “hazardous waste”.

If the EPA gets its Subtitle C ruling it likely will:

1. Inflict unnecessary costs on states and utility companies that will translate to higher taxes and/or cuts in other services and higher utility rates. This new revenue will be used to subsidize the “green jobs” movement.

2. Discourage the use of products that are proven to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

3. Actually diminish the strength and durability of concrete and other building products used.

4. Increase the amount of coal ash that ends up in landfill.

When you look at the facts, it seems like it’s a no brainer. Subtitle D is by far the wiser classification.

So, why exactly is the EPA reaching for a subtitle C ruling?

1. It allows EPA involvement in EVERY aspect of CCPs from generation to disposal, not just disposal as covered by subtitle D. Remember, the EPA actually uses the terminology “Cradle to Grave”.

2. It would potentially generate a revenue stream to the government through fees and regulations

3. Dare I suggest that the label “Hazardous Waste” would be a psychological victory in the propaganda war against coal and for green energy?

I don't usually ask for people's support or action on an issue. But this issue is important and warrants some action. If you can, do what you can to raise awareness. The EPA needs to be reigned in. Also, as far as CCP recycling is concerned, I suggest you familiarize yourself with groups like Citizens for Recycling First. They are attending the EPA hearings and are keeping a close eye on the issue. Pass the information on. Just because congress isn't passing laws like Cap and Tax now doesn't mean that we've stopped them for good.

My references are in the first comment.

Goggles

We've all heard of beer goggles, marriage goggles, jail goggles, etc. I thought we could have a little experiment in some other types of goggles, so I created a little game. I tried to see what it would be like to see the world through the different "goggles" out there.

Type a topic in one of the boxes below and search to see how the issue is seen through that pair of goggles. Some of the results are pretty interesting.

Conservatives:

Liberals:

Environmentalists:

Feminists:

It doesn't always work, I know, but sometimes you find a gem. For example, I searched "clothes" and got banana skin underwear as one of the results.

What are some of your favorite results?

Evil Insurance Companies

The other day a friend of mine posted this story on facebook.

I find the way that some proponents of the health care bill use insurance companies as a straw man to be a bit interesting.

For example, in the article that I linked to earlier, a young man got sick, eventually used up his 2 million dollar cap and was denied future coverage, then died. An unfortunate story for sure, but my question is not regarding the tragedy his situation, but the way it and stories like it are used as an argument for the health care reform bill. In this case, it wasn't the insurance companies fault that the young man died, it was nobody's fault. The family had coverage up to 2 million dollars, but use up all that funding before treatment was successful. Getting angry at the insurance company for stopping payments once you've maxed your benefit is akin to being angry at the life insurance company because it only paid out the $100,000 your spouse signed up for even though you still have bills. It just isn't valid. Unfortunate, but invalid.

Insurance companies in general should not be demonized for what they do. If anything they should be applauded. For example, my family of four has high deductible health insurance that costs us around $500 / month. My employer pays the first $190, so I pay just over $300 / month. In a worst case scenario, my family would be obligated to pay the first $5,000 and then 20% of all remaining bills each year until we have paid $11,000 each year until our lifetime cap of $5,000,000 was reached. In a hypothetical situation where somebody contracted an illness that gave us bills totaling $50,000 / year (not that far-fetched), we would pay around $4,000 in premiums and another $11,000 in bills each year in exchange for $39,000 / year of payments by the insurance company. I don't think I'll even make $50,000 this year, so the possibility of finding that much money laying around each year is slim.

Insurance companies provide a means for people to pay for emergency expenses that they otherwise couldn't afford. It's a transfer of risk. Without an insurance company, many of us would be unable to afford some of the treatments /medications that we need. However, in order for a premium to be established, a maximum payout needs to be established as well. The higher the maximum payout, the higher the premium. An unlimited payout (as the reform bill requires) would require much higher premiums. We can't have our cake and eat it, too.

Other stories that attack insurance companies talk about individuals who are already sick and can't get affordable coverage. It is an unfortunate truth that if you are already sick, then nobody will insure you at the same rate as a healthy guy. The Oracle of Omaha once said that he would insure anybody no matter the risk so long as they were willing to pay a high enough premium. As I said earlier, insurance is a transferral of risk. If the risk is more definite (you're already sick), then you'll end up paying more. The point of insuring oneself is to purchase it before you need it.

The fact of the matter is that the insurance companies are being used as a straw man to get people emotional over the "crisis" at hand. If proponents of the legislation can get enough people angry at insurance companies with their pathos-based rhetoric, then they might get enough people stirred up to do something. Many pathos-based arguments require an antagonist. If we remember, it wasn't insurance companies who were the bad guy first. It was the evil doctors who would cut off your leg or take your tonsils out because it paid better. But since that line didn't poll too well, it's the insurance companies that are out to get you now. Pathos works well over the short term, but not as well over the long term. That may be why we see President Obama running around right now trying to drum up support for legislation that has already passed. He got people riled up enough about it feel justified about the bill's passage, but finds his support waning.

By defending the insurance companies in general, I am in no way defending all of their practices. Though I believe that as a whole the health insurance industry should be applauded, there are some practices that occur that disturb me. Ask any capitalist and they'll tell you that some regulation is necessary. That said, here are some things that I believe need to be addressed with insurance companies. Dropping people as soon as they get sick is one aspect that must be addressed. Another would be hiking rates as soon as a person gets sick. At the minimum, an insurance company should keep your rate as it is until the your term is up (usually annually).

That said, here are some things I would propose if I were to sponsor a health care reform bill (yes I know some are already suggested):

Allow insurance companies to offer their services across state lines:

One of the ways to reduce cost would be to allow more competitors in a single marketplace. Simply letting the free market do what it does best would help to reduce cost.

Increase tax credits for medical expenses:

Allowing individuals to reclaim a larger portion of their medical expenses in the form of tax credits would reduce the felt cost.

Increase the maximum contribution limit for HSA accounts and broaden their approved uses:

HSA accounts are tax deductible savings accounts that accompany a high deductible insurance program. It's not the account as much as the high deductible plan that it accompanies that is a great solution; however, increasing the maximum annual contribution limit would make them more desirable. The current health care reform restricts the use of the account. Restricting their use is only a gimmick to limit tax deductions.

Educate about prepay options:

Too few are aware of the options that are available to them through prepaid medical expenses and high deductible health insurance plans. Prepaying for anticipated medical expenses can save consumers quite a bit of money.

Educate about HDHPs:

High deductible health insurance plans enable consumers to obtain health insurance at a lower premium. This is done by requiring the consumer to pay for more of his initial medical expenses out of pocket. This simple plan can help to reduce the direct cost of health care

to the consumer

by dissuading consumers from going to the doctor for every little case of the sniffles. Directly paying for more medical expenses also helps the cost of care self-reduce because consumers who pay for more upfront will shop clinics and hospitals until they find one that charges less. (Capitalism at work)

TORT reform:

The amount of preventative medicine that a doctor performs because he is either afraid of a lawsuit or his liability insurance requires it has a wearing cost on health care. I'm not a fan of caps on payouts for lawsuits (how can you put a dollar figure on pain and suffering). But I am a fan of loser pays. Just knowing you'll pay the legal bills for yourself and the guy you're suing if your lawsuit doesn't stick will reduce the number of frivolous suits.

Expand who qualifies for group plans:

Allow families, churches, and other organizations to form organizations that can apply for group coverage just like a business can. That way losing your job doesn't mean losing your health insurance.

State safety nets:

States should also be encouraged to research and experiment with "safety nets" for those who are high-risk / un-insurable. If a few states each experiment with different methods, perhaps we can find some workable solutions without too much negative impact to the nation as a whole from the experiments that didn't work as well.

Many things, in addition to what I mentioned above, are low(er) cost ideas that can be implemented to reduce the cost of health care. As smart as I think I am, I'm sure that the ideas on my list are not solely my invention. I'm also certain that the proponents of the health care bill know that the options I mentioned above would help reduce the cost of health care. So why aren't they enacting them?

I can only think of one reason. The designers of the health care bill don't want to make health care more affordable. At least, that's not their first priority. They want to be in charge of health care. The current bill is quite simply a tool to drive insurance companies out of business and will act as a funnel to government run health care. A bill that does nothing to actually reduce the cost of health care while requiring an insurance company to insure the un-insurable, insure everybody to an infinite sum, and pay for care without obligation from the consumer while providing "oversight" of premium increases says wrecking ball to me.

What is wealthy?

What does it mean to be wealthy? Obama seems to think that a guy who makes over $250,000 is wealthy. Obviously, if I made $250,000/year I'd be wealthier than I am now, but would I be "wealthy"? I say not necessarily. Here's why:

Who are the people who earn over $250,000/year? I don't know the exact number, but quite a large number of these are small business owners. Most of these guys either own their business through a sole proprietorship or an LLC. Both of these are pass-through entities. In other words, they're legal fiction. Every penny of the $250,000 in net profit that Joe's Muffin Shack makes is considered a penny that Joe made. The fact that Washington ignores and wants us to overlook is that if Joe is smart, he'll not pay himself the full quarter mil his business "made".

I sell building materials to a network of dealers. These guys are almost all self-made men and small business owners. They also are scared of having their taxes increased. Why? Because if my customer wants to stay in business, he'll reinvest every red cent he can back into his business. These guys don't have a guaranteed paycheck. So when they have a good year they'll upgrade their equipment, invest in advertising, purchase some materials, or simply hang on to that money for when a bad year comes along.

A business is a constantly moving and changing thing, just because a business may have $250,000 or more in profits (dirty word) on the last day of a given fiscal year does not mean that it won't be in the red in a couple of months. In a business, every penny counts.

So when our politicians say only the richest in America will see a tax increase when it allows some Bush tax cuts to expire, what I hear is that many business owners will have less money to reinvest in their businesses and will, therefore, tighten their budgets. A business with a tighter budget will either cut wages, lay people off, reduce hours, raise prices, hesitate to hire new employees, or worst of all, simply close shop.

Granted, a small tax increase won't result in mass closures, but when the government says it needs the money, I can't help but wonder if it really needs Joe's Muffin Shack's money more than Joe does.

Perhaps our government should focus more on increasing its own budgetary IQ and on trying to work within its existing revenues instead of trying to find ways to increase revenue to itself in order to compensate for its budgetary incompetence. After all, it's [growing] the economy, stupid, not growing revenues to the government that will pull us out of this recession.

Lest We Forget

It was 7:50 AM. I remember stepping out of my Health and Wellness distance ed class like it was going to be any other day. I didn't make it a step before my friend Kendall came rushing up to me. "Somebody flew a plane into the Twin Towers!" He screamed at me, face flush with panic. I really had no idea what he had just said. I heard the words, but the meaning just didn't register.

"The World Trade Center, New York! Did you hear me?!" he shouted. It finally clicked. "What kind of plane?" I asked. He ignored my question and just shouted, "Come on!"

We went to our first period classroom where there was a TV and simply stared. We got there just in time to watch the first tower fall. I remember a distinct sinking feeling in my gut. I realized what this meant for me. My friend Jarom and I had enlisted in the Army just 34 days earlier. I remember thinking to myself, "Here we go." I was young, but not stupid. I knew that this day marked the beginning of something big for our nation. For the remainder of the day I just moved from classroom to classroom and watched replay after replay of the terrible events of that morning.

I remember listening to news broadcasts about the heroism of the passengers on Flight 93. I would like to think that I would have been one of those brave souls who rushed the cockpit if I had been on board. What an act of heroism. An entire group of passengers that gave their lives willingly to prevent the intended attack. I have no doubt that once they had spoken on their cell phones with their families that they knew they were going to die that day. But that didn't take away their ability to do something.

I remember the images of firefighters rushing into the towers that day while thousands of people were running away. These men took no thought for their safety that day. They did what they knew they had to do. The men and women that these heroes pulled out of the buildings will forever hold their memory close to their hearts. I'm sure that these men, if they knew what was about to happen, would only rush into those buildings even faster in an attempt to get out more survivors.

Heroism under fire is how I choose to describe the events of that day. It was the day we all reached deep within ourselves and realized that we had a higher purpose than to simply live within our shells. It was the day that we were forced to acknowledge the genuine reality of the threat that extremism presented us. It was the day that we all decided to do something about it.

After 9/11, military recruiting soared. Thousands of young men and women decided to act. They knew they would be putting their lives in real danger, but they knew they had to do something. Men and women all over our country grew closer together. For a while, we felt more like a unified nation than we ever had or likely ever will.

Unfortunately, those feelings fade. And, worse yet, I hear people say they wish they could just forget. I too occasionally wish I could just will the memory of that day from my memory, but we can't, and must not. The day we forget is the day we dishonor all the heroes who gave their lives to save so many on that fateful day. The moment we forget is the moment we dishonor all the men and women who have forsaken loved ones to toil in sweat and blood in a land they don't know to defend our liberties from a terrible foe. When we forget, we forget who we are. And we forget what monsters man can become.

In the summer of 2008 I was privileged enough to spend a few hours in the Asymmetric Warfare Group's office in Jalalabad, Afghanistan. You will never meet a group of more focused, more patriotic men than these. On the front wall of their office, just above the monitors and message boards is written in enormous lettering:

Today is September 12, 2001.

I hope we can live every day like it is September 12, 2001.

Mosques, Qu'rans, and Teflon Men

The debate over the ground zero mosque and the controversy with the idiot who decided to make 9/11 the unofficial "National Burn a Qu'ran Day" has brought some tensions and formerly suppressed issues to our nation's attention. We are caught in a debate concerning the proper way to handle relations with a religion that has a militant and radical offshoot that is conducting all out war against us.

Personally, I believe that the debate will be good for us in the long run. It is important for us to actually confront the social issues before us and find a way to deal with them rather than ignore them and let them fester. The issue I see forming is that many politicians, particularly those on the far left, tend to see these issues as a hassle and just want them to go away.

The ground zero mosque has shown some of the true colors of many of the citizens of this nation. From the man on the street to the men on the hill, just about everybody has made their opinion known on the issue (including this guy). The problem is that many politicians won't actually confront the real issue. David Axelrod and Michael Bloomberg are particularly good (or bad) at this.

While giving a speech about the ground zero mosque, Bloomberg said, "The simple fact is, this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship, and the government has no right whatsoever to deny that right. And if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution." (http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2010/08/bloomberg-stands-up-for-mosque.html)

David Axelrod also made a similar statement without actually saying anything when he encouraged President Obama to defend the mosque when he was speaking to middle eastern leaders. Concerning President Obama's remarks, Axelrod said, “It makes me uncomfortable when government starts deciding which religions can build and which can't. It makes me uncomfortable when we stigmatize a particular faith. That's not what America is all about.” (http://hamptonroads.com/2010/08/obamas-mosque-moment-frustrates-dems)

Now the contrast:

Yesterday, Michael Bloomberg said, "I happen to think that it is distasteful...But the First Amendment protects everybody, and you can't say that we're going to apply the First Amendment to only those cases where we are in agreement." He then added, "If you want to be able to say what you want to say when the time comes that you want to say it, you have to defend others no matter how much you disagree with them." (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20015823-503544.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody)

Axelrod told CNN reporters, "The reverend may have the right to do what he's doing but it's not right. It's not consistent with our values ... I hope that his conscience and his good sense will take hold." (http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/sep/08/081504/fla-minister-quran-burning-still-planned/)

Did you see the contrast? I wasn't sure at first, so I had to do some poking around to be sure I saw what I thought I did. Have you figured it out yet? If so, congratulations. If not, I'll lay it out for you:

In both cases, the guys rush to assert the constitutional right of the party in question. Imam Rauf does have a right to build his community center. Rev. Jones also would be acting within his rights if he did burn the Qu'ran. All okay so far.

Here's the problem - When it's a crazy white Christian guy, the left has no problem saying it's wrong. They say it's his right to burn the Qu'ran, but it's innapropriate or "distasteful' or "not consistent with our values". But when an Imam wants to build a mosque a stone's throw from where radical Muslims slaughtered nearly 3,000 Americans, they simply assert his right to do so. No statement on the wisdom of the decision. Nothing.

Common sense conservatives (I would like to consider myself as such) have been saying this all along. As I said earlier concerning the mosque, "I feel it's a slap in the face to the citizens of New York and to Americans in general....It's just plain bad form...However, from a legal / political standpoint, I don't see a problem with it." (http://conservative-conversation.blogspot.com/2010/08/mosque-at-ground-zero.html)

Axelrod and Bloomberg focus on the right of the Imam instead of focusing on the issue of its wisdom. Well, here's a news flash: Every third grader and his dog knows Imam Rauf has a right to build his community center. That's not the issue. The issue is whether it's a smart and proper move.

Yet they refuse to take a moral stand on the mosque issue. So why are Axelrod and Bloomberg willing to take a stand against the book burning reverend but won't give an opinion on the mosque? As I see it, there are three possible reasons.

1 - They don't want to offend their base and lose votes for themselves or their bosses.

Liberals are by nature underdogs. They're always seeking an "oppressed minority" to pit against the "machine". Perhaps they just can't resist rooting for the poor Muslim who just wants a community center while bashing the stupid Christian.

2 - They equivocate law with values, and therefore really have no value system of their own.

When we forget what is right and only focus on rights, we have forgotten ourselves. Living strictly by the letter of the law is dangerous, as the law is indiscriminate and sees not intention or wisdom. In other words, just because it's legal doesn't make it good. If we equivocate legal with right, then we are no longer good at heart.

3 - They're cowards who are afraid of offending any Muslim.

This may be the most dangerous option. When we refuse to identify a threat as such and confront and deal with it, then it is only a matter of time before we expose ourselves to that danger. I fear that Bloomberg and Axelrod's policy is to skirt around the mosque issue as a way of avoiding the possibility of offending some radical offshoot of Islam. That is simply ignoring a problem and kicking the can down the road for somebody else to deal with. Clinton did that. We all remember how that worked out.

So which is it guys? Are you trying to pit Americans against each other in order to win votes, valueless, or cowards? I tend to think you're a bit of all three.

Mosque at ground zero

For the last few days I've been collecting my thoughts on the issue of building a mosque near ground zero. My position on the issue has been consistent, but I've been trying to find a good way to lay it out. So here goes:

I do oppose the building of a mosque that close to ground zero. I feel it's a slap in the face to the citizens of New York and to Americans in general. I'm offended at the thought that an Imam would think that a mosque that close to where some radical Muslims slew 3,000 people would be a good idea. It's just plain bad form.

However, from a legal / political standpoint, I don't see a problem with it........WHAT!? No problem with a mosque at ground zero? I can hear some people screaming at their computer screens, "What's wrong with you!? You un-American explicative! How dare you bend to the terrorists will!! How can you claim to be a conservative and say you support this crap!"

Before you decide to never speak to me again or resolve to set my house on fire, allow me to explain myself.

I have a pretty strong libertarian streak. What that means, in the simplest of terms, is I don't support the attitude that says, "I like this, so the government should make everybody do that." And conversely, and especially relative to the case of this mosque, I oppose the view that says, "This offends me, so it should be illegal." I don't turn to the government to solve all my problems. Nor do I want government to force my will on others. The fact that Islamic extremists killed people nearby does not mean that we should outlaw the construction of a mosque in the vicinity of the site. Hitler was Roman Catholic. So a cathedral in Auschwitz should be outlawed as well, right?

Asking the city, state, or federal government to do or stop something just because you do or don't like it is called political activism. It's the political equivalent of demanding that all businesses have special rooms for breastfeeding mothers or that schools serve a vegetarian selection with school lunch.

"But building a mosque there will only create more terrorists!"

Many claim that allowing a mosque near ground zero is conceding victory to the terrorists who masterminded the 9/11 plot and will result in increased terrorist recruiting. For one thing, the Islamic faith didn't attack us on 9/11. An Islamic extremist terrorist cell did. "Muslim" does not equal "Islamic extremist terrorist". In geometric terms, squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. The argument that a mosque will just be a terrorist recruiting tool is irrational and, honestly, Islamophobic. In my time fighting Islamic extremists in Afghanistan, I learned two things. First, Muslims are people too (okay, I already knew that, but it seems that some have forgotten it). But above that, most Muslims want peace and quiet just as much as Christians, Jews, Agnostics, Atheists, Hindus, and Sikhs want it. Second, Islamic extremists hate you - period. It doesn't matter if you try to appease them, ignore them, or kill them. They'll still hate you.

Extremism is just that - extreme. It's illogical and stupid. If you do what an extremist demands, then you are a pushover and must be killed. If you ignore him, you are stupid and must be killed. If you oppose him, you are an enemy and must be killed. If you join him, you are less than pure and must be killed. All your decisions end in your death being required. Any argument stating that choice x, y, or z will result in less or more terrorism is null. So, if we can't base our decision on how the terrorist will react, perhaps we should base it on what our own constitution and laws dictate.

Last time I checked, we live in a country that upholds the freedom of religion. That means you can subscribe to any religion and worship, who, what, and where you want as long as your acts don't infringe on the safety or freedom of others. Building a mosque near ground zero does not infringe on the safety or freedom of anybody. It's rude and offensive, but feelings aren't protected by the constitution.

"But Glenn Beck said that this guy has ties to Hamas!"

From what I can tell, this guy knows a guy who donated to a group that's affiliated with Hamas. Where I come from (America), that's circumstantial evidence and is invalid. I'm pretty sure I probably know a guy or two that donated to a group that's affiliated with some questionable organization, too. Should I be investigated?

"He and the sources of his funding should at least be investigated!"

If we investigate him, then it's only fair that sources of funding for all religious buildings in the U.S. be investigated as well. Additionally, investigating the sources of his funding would require due process, which requires reasonable suspicion. "He knows a guy who donated to a group that's affiliated with a terrorist group" is not reasonable suspicion.

"But you said you oppose the mosque. Then you defended it. You're a hypocrite!"

I do oppose the mosque on principle. But principle does not equal law. Nor should it.

"If you really oppose the mosque, then you'll at least tell me how to stop them from building it!"

Okay. Here's how. You protest. The same amendment that protects this Imam's right to have a mosque protects your right to freedom of expression. You boycott the companies supplying the mosque's building materials. You boycott the construction companies. You do some research and let any company that does any work on that mosque know that you will ensure that it's current and prospective customers know that it helped build the mosque at ground zero. You get up and go stand in front of the building and protest. You cancel your membership to any organization that supports the mosque, etc, etc, etc. And the day there is real evidence that this Imam is actually recruiting, supporting, or training terrorists, you demand that he be investigated.

"But that's hard!"

So was gaining our independence from England and creating a republic that defends individual freedoms. Including religious freedom.