I wrote last week about an interesting controversy in the UK involving their gun ban.  I hadn’t heard about it in the local “mid-evil media”, but stumbled across it on the Internet.  It seems there’s another interesting controversy not covered by our “free press” – this time it’s raging “down under”.

Apparently Australian Prime Minister John Howard and his Ministers have lost their patience with local Muslims who want to live under Sharia law.  Quote the Prime Minister:

“Immigrants, not Australians, must adapt.  I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture.  Since the terrorist attacks on Bali, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians.

“However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the ‘politically correct’ crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others.  I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to Australia.  However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand.  This idea of Australia being a multi-cultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity.  And as Australians, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language, and our own lifestyle.  Our culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials, and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom.

“We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language.  Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, learn the language!

“Most Australians believe in God.  This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented.  It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools.  If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.

“We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why.  All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.

“If the Southern Cross offends you, or you don’t like ‘A Fair Go’, then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet.  We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don’t care how you did things where you came from.  By all means keep your culture, but do not force it on others.

“This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this.  But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian Beliefs, or Our Way Of Life, I encourage you to take advantage of one other great Australian freedom ....

“THE RIGHT TO LEAVE!

“If you aren’t happy here then LEAVE.  We didn’t force you to come here.  You asked to be here.  So accept the country YOU accepted.”

Way to go Mate! 

If one of the Republican presidential candidates were to make the same speech substituting “freeborn American” for “Australian”, the eleven-man field would quickly narrow down to one.

As you can imagine, reaction to the PM’s remarks was swift.

The Islamic Council of New South Wales called the comments as “invalid an argument as it is offensive and ignorant.”

The Lebanese Muslims Association said Mr. Howard was “pandering to the Islamaphobia out there by making these comments”.

I find it refreshing that instead of backing down and issuing an apology, Prime Minister Howard stood his ground with the following “clarification”:

“I stand by those comments that there is a small section of the Islamic population in Australia that, because of its remarks about jihad, remarks which indicate an extremist view, that is a problem.

“It is not a problem that we have ever faced with other immigrant communities who become easily absorbed by Australia’s mainstream.

“Australians want people to assimilate.  We want people when they come to Australia to adopt Australians ways.

“We don’t ask them to forget the countries of their birth, we respect all religious points of views and people are entitled to practise (sic) them but there are certainly things that are not part of the Australian mainstream.

Not content to mearly restate his original comments, the Prime Minister then expressed concern about Muslim attitudes to women.

“There is within some sections of the Islamic community an attitude towards women which is out of line with mainstream Australian society.

“It needs to be dealt with by the broader community, including Islamic Australia.

“There is really not much point in pretending it doesn’t exist.”

Rather than “throw him under the bus” – as is so often the case when a politician makes a non-politically-correct comment over here – other members of his government actually supported their Prime Minister.

Treasurer Peter Costello, seen by many as the hands down candidate to succeed Howard as the next PM, didn’t hesitate in his support.  Appearing on National Television, Costello said,

“If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you”.

Education Minister Brendan Nelson was not a “wit” behind, when he told reporters that,

“people who don’t want to be Australians, and who don’t want, to live by Australian values and understand them, well then, they can basically clear off”.

Wouldn’t you just love to hear someone make those comments during the next presidential “debate”?

I was just now glancing through the “The London Daily Telegraph”…

“Hold on there,” you say.  “What’s a freeborn American doing ‘glancing through’ the ‘The London Daily Telegraph’ ”?

Well it’s one of the marvels of the information highway that allows me to read what’s being said on the other side of the “pond”.  And I find it quite fun, actually, to read their manner of writing – it reminds me of the way my English cousins talk.  Sometimes I even laugh out loud in spite of myself.  In addition to the “Telegraph”, some other interesting sites are “The Times of London”, “The Scotsman”, and the “BBC News”.

It seems there’s a bit of a row over there on the tenth anniversary of their gun ban.  One of the first measures taken by the new Labour Government in 1997 was an almost total ban on hand guns.  This was in response, as expressed by Kate Hoey, Labour MP (Member of Parliament) for Vauxhall, to “the horror we all felt back in 1996 when 16 children and a teacher were shot dead at a school in Dunblane by a deranged man with a gun.”

I remember the incident, but wasn’t aware of the subsequent gun ban – I was under the impression that guns were already banned in Briton.  Turns out there had been restrictions on gun ownership, registration, and use, but the new ban was near total.  Brits aren’t even sure if parliament will pass legislative exemptions for the 2012 Olympics as requested by the Governing Body For Olympic Shooting Sport.

So after the 1996 shootings, “politicians reacted in haste to the call for ‘something to be done’ ”.  The new penalties for gun possession carry a minimum sentence of five years (release in normal circumstances after 30 months).  For those aged between 17 and 21, the minimum sentence is three years (release after 18 months).

Overnight, thousands of men and women had to hand in their pistols, and authorities provided “voluntary drop-off centres” to make compliance easier.  (Don’t you just love their quaint spellings?  I had to program my spell checker to accept them!)

After two years, authorities were shocked – SHOCKED – at hints that criminals were ignoring the ban.  Yes it was true!  Statistics showed the use of handguns in crimes rose by 40%.  But never mind, stay the course!

Now after a decade, a new study shows appalling disregard by criminals for the ban!!  The rate of crimes involving handguns has now risen 100% over that of the pre-ban years.

Even more embarrassing, the study said, is the discovery of an inverse “…link between high levels of gun crime and areas where there were still high levels of legal gun possession in London.”

Of the 20 police “areas” with the highest levels of legally held guns, only two had armed crime levels above the average.

(Still-legal guns include the following exceptions to the ban: muzzle-loading “blackpowder” guns, pistols produced before 1917, pistols of historical interest, starting pistols, pistols that are of particular aesthetic interest (such as engraved or “jeweled” guns) and shot pistols for pest control.)

British blogs are a twitter with perplexed Brits.  Solutions include extending the ban to include the above mentioned exceptions, not granting the 2012 Olympics’ request, increasing the number of “voluntary drop-off centres”.  An article in “The Scotsman” assured citizens that “officials [are] working with police on a series of measures to encourage people to report or hand in illegally held weapons.

But the subject of illegal guns is itself a hot topic of discussion.  One woman is quoted as saying, “The kids pass the [illegal] guns around each other as if they were football [soccer] collector cards.  [T]hey are just a status symbol.  And now it seems anyone who wants one can get hold of one.”

After the shooting of an 11 year old boy, one Chief Constable issued the following public statement he hoped would solve the problem. 

“In the past we have often come up against a wall of silence but enough is enough and the shooting of an 11-year-old boy demands that the community should come together.  I would like to appeal to members of the criminal community to examine their consciences.  Members of the criminal fraternity could have the key to this and we would appeal to them to come forward.”

Local Bobbies are still waiting for the onslaught of donations at the local “voluntary drop-off centres”.

After surfing for upwards of an hour I remained dumbfounded that the British were so perplexed.

Just as I was about to abandon the dern Limeys to their own fate, I came across the following posting that demonstrates at least one of them may actually have an intuitive grasp of the obvious – and a sense of humor to boot:

“How is this awful murder possible?  Doesn’t the UK have a gun ban?

“Perhaps the criminals are not obeying the law?  I suppose it would not be the first time criminals have committed crimes.  And does the government believe that the criminals will cheerfully drop off their handguns in a drop box?  Do they really think that will happen?  I hope it is just spin.  Otherwise, we have a case of terminal stupidity.

“So there you are.  Criminals have guns with which to shoot law abiding citizens.  Law abiding citizens have no way to protect themselves.  They can’t count on the police, since the typical criminal does not shoot people with a constable standing by.  So if you are a law abiding Briton, the government expects you to go quietly into the darkness.  Thank God Winston did not live to see this.”

I say old chap.  I think this bloke may be on to something!!!

Quote of the Day

A politician needs the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year.  And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn't happen.—Winston Churchill

The case involved Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act. Five provisions of the act were being challenged as unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade.

1.     “Informed consent” required doctors to provide women with information about health risks and possible complications associates with abortions.

2.     “Spousal notification” required women to give prior notice to their husbands.

3.     “Parent consent” required minors to receive consent from a parent or guardian.

4.     “24 hour waiting period” before obtaining an abortion.

5.     Statistical “reporting requirements” imposed on abortion clinics.

All provisions were found constitutional except the spousal notification rule, which was deemed an undue burden upon the woman.  Alito had joined in a descenting opinion in support of the rule – incurring the wrath of the Democrats 14 years later.

To be sure, NYT didn’t support Alito’s nomination, but as they said at time…

There may be many reasons to oppose Judge Alito’s nomination, but his Casey opinion is not one of them. … Nor is his position contrary to national sentiment: a majority of Americans feel that the husband should be notified about an abortion. 

The Times noted that “…when men and women engage in sexual relations both parties recognize the potential for creating life.  If both parties willingly participate then shouldn’t both have a say in whether to keep a baby that results?”

Of course, the husband may not be the actual biological father.  The Pennsylvania law may have created the embarrassing possibility of a woman having to inform her previously sterilized husband that she was pregnant.  For hundreds of years, common law has held that, lacking compelling evidence to the contrary, the husband is presumed to be the father of his wife’s baby.  But “[t]oday” noted the editorial, “we can know who the real father is, thanks to DNA testing.”

That was back in 2005.  I bring it up now because the Ohio legislature is considering a bill that would give fathers a say in whether their unborn child can be aborted.

The bill would ban women from obtaining an abortion without written consent from the father.  In cases where the identity of the father is unknown, women would have to submit a list of possible fathers.  (How many “possibles” could there be?  In today’s society, I probably don’t want to know!)  The physician would then be required to conduct a paternity test from the provided list and then seek paternal permission to abort.

Claiming not to know the father’s identity is not a viable excuse, according to the proposed legislation.  Simply put: no father means no abortion.

Women who claim rape or incest would be required to present a police report as proof.

State Representative John Adams, arguing if favor of the bill, said, “This is important because there are always two parents and fathers should have a say in the birth or the destruction of that child.  In most cases, when a child is born the father has financial responsibility for that child, so he should have a say.”

Also in favor of the bill is Denise Mackura, director of the Ohio Right to Life Society.  “Pregnancy is a unique human condition and obviously a woman is affected differently than a man.  As a woman, I can sympathize.  However, to completely take rights away from the father is unfair.  Currently [in Ohio], even in a marriage situation, a man has no right to even be informed of an abortion.  But if a woman doesn’t have an abortion, men sure have a lot of responsibility then.  It’s really not fair.”

But fairness isn’t really the issue.  This is about freeborn Americans putting some sanity back in the Constitution.  It’s about reducing the carnage wrought by the unconstitutional Roe decision.  It’s about allowing a father to save the life of his unborn baby. 

It’s may be a drop in the bucket, but it’s about time!

From the early days of the Republic of Texas, “Texicans” prided themselves on being self-reliant.  Nowadays we call ourselves Texans, and we’re proud that the Republic of Texas is now the State of Texas – one of fifty in the greatest country in the history of the world.  We still have a sense of self-reliance – even though some of it has been eroded in the intervening years.

For instance, under “Texas Common Law”, we have had what is referred to as the “castle doctrine”.  Under this doctrine, if a man stumbles upon an intruder in his home, he has the right to stop him with whatever force he deems necessary.

However, there was a time when this common-sense approach to ridding the gene pool of the “bad seed” was taken away.  In 1973, the then-liberal state legislature imposed a “duty to retreat” in the face of a criminal attack.  Foreshowing their response to the 9/11 attacks, state Democrats reversed the long-standing practice of recognizing the right of a person to stand his ground in the face of an attack.

In 1995, freeborn Texan’s right of self-defense was partially restored.  The castle doctrine was reinstituted.  The Texas Legislature “granted” an exception to the duty to retreat before using deadly force in response to an unlawful entry into one’s habitation.  Texans once again had the right to defend their homes… but the duty to retreat still applied to any other location where a lethal attack might occur.

During the recent legislative session, many of us petitioned our legislators for passage of House Bill 284 (Senate Bill 378).  This bill accomplished three things, it:

1.)  Establishes the legal presumption that a criminal who unlawfully and forcefully enters a home, vehicle, place of business, or place of employment is there to cause death or great bodily harm.  The use any manner of force – including deadly force – against said criminal is presumed to be both reasonable and necessary.

2.)  Explicitly states that a person has no duty to retreat if he is attacked in a place where he has a right to be present.  

3.)  Creates immunity to any civil action brought by an injured or killed attacker or his family.

The bill passed by a vote of 133-13, and Governor Rick Perry signed it into law – effective September 1, 2007.

One of the small group of Democrats who voted against the bill was State Representative Borris Miles.  Like many Democrats, Borris thinks the “common man” doesn’t have enough sense to make correct decisions, so politicians must keep him on a tight leash.  But Borris is also hypocritical enough to think he himself is above the restrictions liberal politicians place on the “little people”. 

Here’s where his hypocrisy surfaced.  After the legislative session ended, Borris had time to resume work on a house he is building outside of Houston.  As he was working upstairs, he heard a noise.  Upon investigating, Borris found two men stealing copper wiring in an unfinished room downstairs.

Surprised by his sudden appearance, one of the men threw a pocket knife at him as they both headed toward the door.

Now since this was not his home, the castle doctrine did not apply; the would-be thieves were making their getaway, so Borris wasn’t in imminent danger; and since House Bill 284 – the bill Rep. Miles voted against – has not yet taken effect, Borris had a duty to retreat and let the bad guys return to continue ripping him off.

But Borris didn’t retreat.  After all, he’s a liberal; he’s a Democrat; he’s a State Representative; he shouldn’t have to!

Instead, placing his own property rights above the “human” rights of the thief, Borris pulled out his gun and shot at the bad guys – hitting one in the back of the leg.

When Rep. Borris Miles runs for reelection next year, I hope the good citizens in his Houston, Texas district remember his campaign motto:  “Do as I say, not as I do”!

Reagan reminded us of the significance of Independence Day.

July Fourth is the birthday of our nation.  I believed as a boy, and believe even more today, that it is the birthday of the greatest nation on earth...  In recent years, however, I’ve come to think of that day as more than just the birthday of a nation.  It also commemorates the only true philosophical revolution in all history.  Oh, there have been revolutions before and since ours.  But those revolutions simply exchanged one set of rules for another.  Ours was a revolution that changed the very concept of government.  Let the Fourth of July always be a reminder that here in this land, for the first time, it was decided that man is born with certain God-given rights; that government is only a convenience created and managed by the people, with no powers of its own except those voluntarily granted to it by the people.  We sometimes forget that great truth, and we never should.  Happy Fourth of July.”

– Ronald Reagan

We sometimes forget that prosperity comes from allowing people to pursue their own lives and to take responsibility for their own actions.  We need government to maintain a legal system that respects the civil and property rights of the people, and to defend our borders and national interests. 

Thomas Jefferson once said “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”

Both Jefferson and Reagan knew that in order to restrain government we need an active and involved citizenry.

That citizenry is now being tested whether it has the resolve to keep government bridled, to keep the pressure on the Islamic terrorists – who would kill our people and destroy our liberties – and to support our troops. 

For some, the siren song of “something for nothing”, of financial “security” guaranteed by government from cradle to grave – at the cost of our free agency – or of withdrawing into a cocoon of perceived safety is strong.  But to right-thinking freeborn Americans, the realities of human behavior guide our thinking, our actions, and our votes.  Will we insist that Congress make the Bush tax cuts permanent?  Will we hold them to their promise to secure our national borders?  Will we allow them to withdraw the support our troops need to maintain our freedoms and our way of life?

In the early-morning hours of September 14, 1814, Francis Scott Key expressed the truth that despite its desolation, freemen must occasionally wage war to preserve the peace. 

O, thus be it ever when freemen shall stand,
Between their lov’d homes and the war’s desolation;
Blest with vict’ry and peace, may the heav’n-rescued land
Praise the Pow’r that hath made and preserv’d us as a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

– Francis Scott Key

May God bless our troops, and God bless the United States of America! 
Happy Independence Day!

When I read the book 1984 by George Orwell, 1984 seemed a long way from reality – both the chronological year, and the concept of Big Brother and the “Thought Police”.  I won’t tell you when I first read it – hint: the book was written in 1949 – but many years later, the actual year 1984 did come and innocently went with nary a hint of the Thought Police.

No, they stayed under the radar until 1990, when George H.W. Bush signed into law the “Hate Crimes Statistics Act”.  The act required the Attorney General to gather and publish statistics on crimes based on “hate”.  Although I opposed the bill, it seemed so innocuous at the time and so much else was going on, I didn’t write any letters opposing it.  But in 1994, when Bill Clinton signed the “Violent Crime Control Act”, I hear the thought police panting with anticipation.  This bill allowed judges to increase sentencing for crimes deemed to be motivated by hate.  Federal judges and juries would now be required to read the minds of criminals.

Sidebar

Although I have been increasingly critical of George W. Bush in recent years, during his 2000 presidential campaign I wrote him expressing my full support of his reaction to the James Byrd murder – the black man dragged behind a car in Jasper, Texas.  Mr. Bush was being accused of racism for not supporting hate crime legislation in Texas.  In his response to my letter, he reiterated that “…we don’t need tougher laws.  We need to equally and fairly execute the laws we have.”

After all, two of Byrd’s murderers were sentenced to death and the third to life in prison.  What more could we do to them?  Castration is widely considered to be unconstitutional!

End sidebar

Since 1994, various states have enacted laws mandating enhanced punishment if “hate” is deemed the underlying motive.  These laws ignore the fact that a heterosexual who is beaten and robbed is just as injured as is a homosexual victim.  Or an that 82 year-old man is no more a victim of mugging than the 56-year old woman assaulted by the same criminal.  In my opinion, punishment should be “enhanced” for all victims, not just a protected class of politically correct victims.

Another sidebar

My thanks to Chuck Colson who sent me the following information:

In 2005 (the latest year available), out of 863,000 cases of aggravated assault nationwide, just 177 cases were crimes of bias against homosexuals – far less than even 1 percent.  What justifies longer sentencing for the attackers of these 177 than for the attackers of the 863,000?

End another sidebar

But empowered by the lack of public outrage by freeborn Americans, the thought police didn’t stop there.  Thumbing their collective nose in true Big Brotherhood style, they now want control over not just “hate crimes” but “bad thoughts” as well – and they get to determine what thoughts qualify as bad.

Consider the following:

The French legislature fined two of its members for criticizing the homosexual agenda during debate. 

Or Sweden where a pastor was jailed for 30 days for offending homosexuals after he delivered a sermon on the duty of Christians to “love the person” while not condoning the sin of sexual immorality. 

Or the British couple who were refused a pending adoption because their Christian faith might prejudice them against a possible gay child.

Or the two Australia men prosecuted for holding a seminar to educate Christians on Muslim beliefs.

Or Dr. James Dobson, who has to edit out of his Canadian broadcasts any commentary on homosexuality. 

The list goes on, but before you say “Yes, but that couldn’t happen in America”, don’t forget that Justice Anthony Kennedy and former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor have already cited foreign law and court decisions in their written Supreme Court opinions. 

“But,” you say, “we have the First Amendment.  It would never hold up in court.”

Oh really?  Just last week, the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed a decision won by the City of Oakland, California. 

A group of city employees had been using the city’s e-mail system and bulletin boards to advocate gay rights activities and express their political views on gay rights.  In response, members of the “Good News Employee Association” (GNEA) put out a flyer advertising their group as “a forum for people of Faith to express their views on the contemporary issues of the day, with respect for the Natural Family, Marriage and Family Values.”

Those phrases – “Natural Family” and “Marriage and Family Values” – were deemed by the City of Oakland to be inflammatory and as such tantamount to a hate crime.  They were denied access to either the e-mail system or the bulletin boards used by the gay rights group, and their flyers were confiscated and destroyed.  GNEA was told to cease and desist, while the Gay right advocates were allowed to continue accessing both.

Hopefully, this decision by the 9^th Circuit Court will be appealed.  (This is why Supreme Court appointments are so important.)

In the mean time, two months ago, the House passed H.R. 1592 the “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act”.  It is now in the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

Among other things, the bill authorizes the Attorney General to prosecute violations of state or local hate crime laws at the request of the local officials.  Thus the Federal government could prosecute a Minister in New Jersey for preaching a sermon that may cause a gay member of his congregation “annoyance or alarm”.

“But,” you say, “they wouldn’t do that.  That can’t be the intent of the bill.”

In an attempt to assure this wouldn’t happen, Representative Mike Pence from Indiana authored an amendment protecting the freedom of religion: “Nothing in this section limits the religious freedom of any person or group under the Constitution.” 

The amendment was defeated because that is indeed the intent of the bill.

It can’t happen here?  It’s already started. 

1984 was just a little late in arriving!

“The people” had had enough…

We’ve had amnesty – with the promise that it was to be a one time deal, that the borders would be secure, and that it would stop any further illegal immigration.  We were lied to on all accounts.

Eight months ago, President Bush signed a bill authorizing the construction of a 700 mile border fence.  With less than a mile built, is it any wonder the country is beginning to feel that we were lied to again?

When some of the details of the McCain/Kennedy “compromise” finally leaked out, freeborn Americans across the country – Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike – could smell a rat.  This was confirmed when Harry Reid and company rejected amendment after amendment that reasonable Americans wanted included.  Amendments like the one submitted by my Senator John Cornyn of Texas that would have exempted from amnesty illegals who have been convicted of felonies.

Other provisions in the bill belied the claim that it would be good for the country – provisions like the 24 hour limit that law enforcement would have to run security checks on applicants for the Z-Visas before their records would forever be expunged.  Or the provision that allowed instant legalization of those previously deported.  Or the one that Z-Visa applicants be forgiven unpaid back income and Social Security taxes – try asking for that sweet deal as an American citizen!

This bill that rewarded criminal behavior might be dead, but there are some Senators who still haven’t got the memo.  We all know that nothing is ever final in politics.  Like the “Equal Rights Amendment” that died in 1979 and then again in 1982, but is now once again rising up from the dead, this fight will not just go away.  Ted Kennedy has vowed “We are not giving up!”… fair warning for us all to never give up, never fail to keep watch over those we elect to office, and never turn your backs on Washington D.C.  We must all keep applying the heat that our Senators have been feeling over the last few weeks.

John McCain – another one of the walking dead – not realizing that his presidential aspirations were buried along with the bill, asks “Where’s your plan?”

Well here, Senator, is our plan…

Separate the major provision into discrete stand-alone bills and stand-alone laws.  No more catch-all bills cobbled together in secret.

1.)  Number one priority is national security.  Secure the border.  Build the fence.  Hire more Border Patrol Agents. Track legal emigrants, guests, and visitors.  We can do it, we have the technology!

2.)  Increase workplace compliance.  Strengthen employment verification.  Increase the fines and enforcement of employers hiring illegals.  Follow up – every year the IRS kicks out millions of phony Social Security numbers along with names and employers.  Create a tamper-proof Social Security card and minimum security requirements for state ID/drivers licenses.

3.)  Deport the illegals you find.  End sanctuary.  We withhold federal funds for speed limits, seatbelt compliance, emissions etc. – but when a city comes out in open defiance of national immigration laws and declares itself a “sanctuary city” there are no consequences.

4.)  Eliminate this nonsense of “anchor babies”.  The fourteenth Amendment states that…“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”  Illegal aliens and their babies are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and therefore ought not to be considered automatic citizens.  Congress needs to clarify this outrageous miscarriage and abuse of the constitution.

5.)  Then, and only then, should Congress separately consider and separately debate if and under what circumstances and for what length of time guest workers will be allowed in the country.

Congress ought to borrow a page from the medical profession and its Hippocratic Oath – “Do your country no harm.”  Or in the case of the late McCain/Kennedy Immigration bill, “Don’t make the problem any worse than it is!”

The income tax has made liars out of more Americans than golf.

--Will Rogers

I’ve written two recent pieces on the income tax. In the first, The Ides of April, I talked about some of the problems and the economic harm caused by the current income tax code. In the second, The Tides of Change, I talked about a few of the benefits of a “flat tax”.

Also in the second piece, I noted that we have already had tax reforms wherein the marginal tax rates were reduced, and the tax code was (at least modestly) simplified. However, satisfied with the results, but seemingly bored by the effort, the electorate failed to keep a close watch over Congress.

(The power to provide tax shelters for supporters and lobbyists and to punish political enemies is, after all, the single most important weapon in Congress’s campaign arsenal. What they’re actually doing is granting tax privileges to some at the expense of the rest – all in an effort to be reelected.)

So, almost immediately, lobbyists resumed their lobbying and politicians resumed their politicking until a new, bloated, confusing, and punitive, free-market busting, economy dragging tax code arose like the Phoenix to take its place.

So the question every freeborn American should be asking is, “If the flat tax won’t stay flat, is there a better way?”

I’m glad you asked! There are a growing number of people actively supporting an interesting alternative called the Fair Tax.

Now, close your eyes and envision a world without the IRS!!!

Unlike the Flat Tax, which can be described as a leaner version of our current income tax, the Fair Tax is completely different. In fact it isn’t an income tax at all – it’s a national sales, or “consumption”, tax. It would replace the personal income tax, the alternative minimum tax, capital gains tax, the corporate income tax, Social Security tax, the self employment tax, estate tax, Medicare tax, gasoline tax, and the gift tax. Under the Fair Tax, you are only taxed once, so used goods would be exempt. Neither would you pay taxes on money you put into savings or investments.

The Fair Tax is eminently fairer because everyone consumes goods and services, but under our current tax system – and even under the Flat Tax – not everyone pays income taxes. The IRS estimates that over $350 Billion dollars in revenues are lost annually due to failure to report income (how much income do you think the criminal, drug, and porno industries report to the IRS for instance?). The Fair Tax would also eliminate the ability to escape taxation through the use of loopholes that most freeborn Americans consider to be unfair.

The Fair Tax is designed to be revenue neutral, meaning the federal government would collect the same amount of money as it does now.

Under the Fair Tax, a 23% sales tax would be collected on all goods and services at the retail level. Before you hyperventilate at the thought of a 23% sales tax, remember that you will take home 100% of your paycheck – no federal income tax, no withholding tax, no Social Security tax.

Sidebar

You’re going to hear opponents say that the rate will actually be 30%, so let’s tackle that one now. The difference arises from the method of calculating – “inclusive” or “exclusive”.

Suppose you purchase pair of boots for $130. The boots themselves cost $100 and the tax is $30… so, the $30 is 23.08% of the $130 purchase price.

However, merchants aren’t going display the boots for $130. They will display them at $100… thus the tax of $30 is 30%. So I think it’s a little misleading to call it a 23% tax. However, on their website, they do refer to both 23% and 30%, and explain the difference.

End Sidebar

Under the current system, the price you pay for goods hides string of corporate taxes – along with their costs of compliance – on every purchase you make. With the Fair Tax, these costs will disappear and the base cost of goods will be correspondingly less. Economists estimate these hidden costs average 20%.

Let’s see how all this would work using our boot example. Under our current tax system, these boots cost $100. Eliminating the hidden taxes embedded in the original price, reduces them to $80. Now adding the 30% sales tax brings the new out-the-door cost up to $104 – only $4 more than the cost under the IRS. (Don’t forget, you get your full paycheck to shop with.)

“Well”, you ask, “what about low income families?”

The Fair Tax includes a monthly “prebate” provision that reimburses every registered household for sales tax on items purchased up to the Federal poverty level. Thus, you essentially pay no taxes on the “necessities of living” – so in effect you choose the taxes you pay by deciding what purchases you make.

Conservatives often say that government doesn’t create wealth, but is instead a drag on the economy. Adopting the Fair Tax would eliminate the IRS with its roughly 100,000 employees, along with the tax preparers, accountants, and bean counters required under our current tax system. After a period of adjustment, rather than a drag they will become a boost to the economy as they find jobs in the marketplace.

I’ve only touched on some of the benefits of the Fair tax. Some of our current problems that the Fair Tax would help are Capital Formation, low (or negative) saving rate, job losses overseas, companies moving off shore, unfavorable trade rules, and more. For additional information, two good web sites to check out are www.fairtaxnow.org and www.fairtax.org.

Are there any disadvantages or problems?

Yes, I see several.

1. The types of goods on which states charge sales tax vary from state to state – e.g. books, food, services are exempted in many states. The potential for confusion is great, unless the states change their laws to confirm with the federal consumption tax rules.

2. Although the Fair Tax would abolish the IRS, there would need to be some new bureaucracy to calculate and administer the prebates.

3. Just as they do now with the tax code, politicians would be tempted to tinker with the new Fair Tax code. Is the devil we know any worse than the devil Fair Tax would create?

4. The 16^th Amendment – authorizing the income tax – would have to be appealed or we would eventually end up with both taxes!

5. An additional $4,000+ on a $100,000 home would discourage many potential buyers. Yes, no income tax would level the cost somewhat, but how many young couples would be scared off anyway? Demand for used homes would go up while that for new homes is bound to drop.

6. Many baby boomers and other retirees have paid income taxes all their working lives. They would not look favorably on now having to pay a new federal sales tax.

7. There’ll always be people looking for ways to cheat the system by smuggling, black markets, and ways I haven’t even thought of.

Bills supporting both the Flat tax and the Fair Tax have been introduced in Congress – HR 1040 and HR 25 respectively. Interestingly, the Fair Tax – which would produce the most dramatic change – has 60 cosponsors, while the Flat Tax has only 5. Does this mean there is 12 times the support for the Fair Tax? Hardly!

The howling of the hundreds of thousands whose jobs would be endangered would certainly be heard in Washington. And, threatened with a loss of power themselves, politicians will be listening. These cosponsors know this, and they know it has virtually no chance of passing. (I hope they’re wrong, but at this point I don’t think it has a snowball’s chance!) So they have no qualms about mollifying the folks back home by signing on as cosponsors to a bill they don’t really support because they know it’s not going anywhere.

I’ve touched on both sides, and thrown a wet blanket on the prospects of the Fair Tax ever passing. How do I personally feel? I think it would be great. Even though I am one of those on the downwind leg of our working careers I would support the Fair Tax over the Flat Tax.

But the political reality is that, of the two, the Flat Tax has a better chance of passing. But even that’s not going to be easy. Either one will take a massive grassroots effort. The Flat Tax is something everyone can understand. The Fair Tax takes too much ‘splaining.

Alright… now that you’ve seen the vision, open your eyes and go to work. Which one can you support? The Flat Tax or the Fair Tax? How do your Congressman and Senators feel? Do they know how you feel? If not, why not? If it’s going to take a grassroots effort – and it is – you are part of the roots. The 2008 election season has started early, and there are a lot of presidential candidates looking for voters. There’ll never be a better time to grab their attention and demand their support!!!

It was the worst mass shooting in American history… at least it was on October 16, 1991. 

Dr. Suzanna Hupp, a chiropractor was having lunch with her Mother and Father at Luby’s restaurant in Killeen, Texas.  The gunman (I won’t dignify him by printing his name) had just driven through the windows and started shooting even before his car stopped moving. 

Dr. Hupp’s father turned their table on its side and the three of them crouched on the floor behind it.  The shooter was walking and shooting… not ten feet from her.  She’d hit smaller targets from greater distances before.  She had the table to steady her hand.  She was in a perfect position to stop this madness.  “I reached for my purse on the ground thinking, ‘I’ve got him!  I’ve got this guy!’”

But then she remembered…

Concealed carry was illegal in Texas, and although she had taken her handgun into restaurants before, this time – concerned about loosing her chiropractic license – she left in her car… 150 feet away!

“It was a stupid decision… one that I will regret forever.  I would much rather be sitting in jail with a felony offense on my head and have my parents alive.”

Dr. Hupp escaped with her life.  Her parents didn’t.  And neither did 21 other innocent men, women, and children.

The good citizens on the state of Texas began demanding the right to carry concealed handguns.  And the Texas Legislature agreed.  But then-Governor Anne Richards, who distrusted freeborn Americans to make their own choices, vetoed the legislation… twice.  It is considered one of the main reasons she was defeated for reelection by George W. Bush in 1994.

After the vetoes, Dr. Hupp ran for and won a seat in the Texas House of Representatives.  In the floor debate during the next legislative session, she made the following point: 

“A gun can be used to kill a family, or defend a family.  I’ve lived what gun laws do.  My parents died because of what gun laws do.  I’m the typical soccer mom, and I want the right to protect my family.  What happened to my parents will never happen again with my kids there.”

The Texas Concealed Carry Law was passed and signed into law.

Last Monday, witnesses described the gunman at Virginia Tech as expressionless, calm, but methodical as he shot his victims one by one.  It is the worst mass shooting in American history… at least it was on April 16, 2007.

Interestingly, Virginia already has a law allowing the right to carry a concealed handgun, but Virginia Tech forbids weapons on university property.  A little over a year ago, a bill allowing professors or students over 21 to carry a concealed weapon on college campuses was considered by the state legislature.  It failed, in part, because Virginia Tech administrators lobbied against it.  Ironically, a Virginia Tech spokesman commented that the bill’s defeat “will help parents, students, faculty, and visitors feel safe on our campus.”

I asked Dr. Hupp, who retired just this year as a State Representative if such a law would have prevented these tragedies – these atrocities?

She didn’t hesitate in answering.  “Every single one of these shootings from Killeen in 1991 to Blacksburg in 2007 has occurred in gun-free zones.  The politicians and administrators have created a shopping list for madmen.  Yes it would have been prevented.  In fact, he never would have tried because scumbags like him look for easy targets.”

“I’d like people to think about what happened to me, and try to place themselves in that situation.  “Even if you choose not to have a gun, as the bad guy who ignored all the laws is getting close to you and as he levels that firearm at one of your children, don’t you hope the person next to you has chosen to carry a gun and knows how to use it?”

Years ago, when I was younger than my youngest son is now, I noticed a peculiar thing around tax time.  People were not only happy to get an income tax refund, but bragged about how much they got.  Many actually increased their withholding so as to get a bigger refund at the end of the year!  This “forced savings” came at the “cost” of the lost interest they didn’t earn by allowing the government to use their money all year.

But even worse than that, the withholding of part of their taxes every payday masked the pain of having to write a check to the U.S. Treasury for the full amount of taxes owed.  It’s long been my contention that if every taxpayer in the country had to write a check for their entire tax burden every April 15, the electorate would demand immediate tax cuts, and half the Congress would receive a well deserved boot to their backsides next election!

In my lifetime, there have been three major tax cuts – during the Kennedy, Reagan, and George W. Bush administrations.  Each one has stimulated the economy, reduced unemployment, and increased tax revenues.  Our current economic expansion has recovered from the 9/11 attacks, and survived corporate scandals, ongoing war, Hurricane Katrina, interest rate increases, and the almost doubling of oil prices. 

Fueled by the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, our economy has created 7.5 million new jobs.  Consumers are buying.  The number of Freeborn Americans investing in home ownership, saving accounts, and capital markets is at an all time high.  Business investment has increased for 15 straight quarters. 

Yet, leading up to the recent mid-term elections, Democrats were telling us how bad these tax cuts were for the country.  Some Democratic candidates even ran on a platform of increasing taxes.

But once the democrats actually took control of both houses of Congress, we haven’t heard much talk of increasing taxes.  As in lock-step, even the “mid-evil media” – which vilified the Bush tax cuts almost since he took office in 2001 – has been quiet on the subject.

A new strategy seems to have emerged.  Rather than encure the wrath of voters by increasing taxes, their new budget resolutions – passed by both houses – simply let the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 expire after 2010.  Of course, a lot can happen between now and then, but if the Demos are successful, this will be the biggest tax increase in history.

Using their typical double speak, they are now trying to convince us that allowing tax cuts to expire isn’t the same as raising taxes!  Wrong, absolutely wrong!  If the Demos have their way, the 15 million low-income Americans who have been taken off the tax rolls will again be burdened by taxes.  The average American household will pay an additional $2641 in taxes each year.  If you weren’t paying taxes and suddenly you are, or if your tax rate goes up how is that not a tax increase?

All this begs the question… If the tax cuts were so important to stimulate the economy, why didn’t the Republicans make them permanent when they held both houses of Congress? 

For that matter, why did Bush even have to cut taxes after the Reagan tax cuts had proven so beneficial to the economy of a generation before?

Or, why did Reagan have to cut taxes after the Kennedy tax cuts had proven so beneficial to the economy of a generation before that? 

The answer is that politicians will always be politicians.  They may jump on the band wagon, and with great fan fair for the folks back home, vote for tax cuts.  But when then microphones are off, and the cameras aren’t rolling, and the voters’ attention is diverted, they raise them again.  Even after the Bush tax cuts, America’s top personal tax rate is 25% higher than when Reagan left office!

So what’s the solution? 

I’ll examine some alternatives in my next piece.

But never forget what Thomas Jefferson said over two centuries ago, “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance”. 

If you don’t tell your Congressman and Senators how you feel, how will they know?  If you don’t tell them you’re watching how they vote, how will they know? 

Before computers, I used to write multiple letters to Washington using carbon paper!  Today I can write a personalized letter to both of my congressmen and my Senator in five minutes.  I use e-mail, fax, telephone, and the Post Office.  When was the last time you told your representatives how you feel or remind them that at least one of the folks back home has their eyes on their voting records?

Last November I wrote about the six Imams (read here) who, on a flight from Minneapolis to Phoenix, did all they could – both before and after boarding – to call attention to themselves and mimic the behavior of the 9/11 hijackers.  Passengers were understandably alarmed, crew members were suspicious, and security personnel decided to remove them for questioning.

Not surprisingly, the Imams have just filed a lawsuit against the Minneapolis/St. Paul Airport Commission, US Airways, the flight crew, and several “John Does” (to be named later).  These John Does are the innocent bystanders who alerted the flight crew of the Imams’ behavior.

There has been much speculation on the motives of these “spiritual leaders”.  Were they on a “dry run”?  Were they testing security systems?  Perhaps they were probing authorities’ and passengers’ tolerance of – or reluctance to criticize – anything Islam.  Or maybe they were just going for the money and this lawsuit itself was the goal.

But if their goal was money, why sue the passengers?  Whatever their purpose at the time, they are now clearly trying to intimidate all the rest of the nameless John Does who wish Islam no harm and only want to live their quiet lives and at the end of the day go home to their families.

These Imams are hoping that when other freeborn Americans watch the evening news and see the legal system used to intimidate, punish, and harass airline passengers who dared to stick up for themselves, they’ll have second thoughts if it happens to them and cower back into their seats.

And why not?  It’s worked pretty well for them so far.

Just last week, the London Daily Mail ran a story about schools in England dropping the Holocaust from history classes for fear of “offending” Muslim students by saying something that would conflict with the rabid anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial their Imams preach to them.  It was, after all, “home grown” Muslims who bombed the London subways in 2005.

The British aren’t the only ones who exhibit this “toleration of intolerance”.

From the Madrid bombings in 2004 which altered the outcome of the Spanish elections, to the near anarchy and threats of further violence that convinced other publications not to publish those Danish cartoons in 2005, to riots and killing of an Italian Nun in 2006 which affected Pope Benedict’s apology last year, Muslims have found that the West will tolerate their intolerance again and again.

Yet these radical Islamists themselves are intolerant of those who point out their intolerance.  Filmmaker Theo Van Gogh killed in Holland; high school teacher Robert Redeker living in hiding in France; Dutch Member of Parliament Ayan Hirsi Ali forced to flee to Washington D.C.; and her fellow MP now living under military protection, to name just a few.  In Europe, if you say Islam isn’t a religion of peace, they will try to kill you!  And if you point out the irony in this, they will try to kill you!!

Is it any different in America, where we pride ourselves on our tolerance of the expression of even unpopular ideas?  No, in America people who voice their concerns over Islamic extremism aren’t murdered, bombed, or forced into hiding – yet.  Here, these concerns are called “hate speech” and those expressing them are labeled “Islamophobic”, forced to resign, and sued.

After 9/11, we were told that “Islam teaches peace”.  Muslim leaders were invited to the White House.  President Bush had a photo op with local Imams in a Mosque. 

But if Islam teaches peace, where are the Muslim voices condemning Islamic violence, bombings, threats, and other acts of intolerance?  Where is there condemnation of their intolerance of our tolerant society?

Last year, right here in the Dallas / Fort Worth area of Texas, a local talk show host was concerned about this very thing.  He asked for support from Christians, Jews, and Muslims.  He planned a rally of peace and tolerance.  His goal was to have tens of thousands of Americans telling the world that we support all religions.  We are at war with extremists; we are at war with terrorists; we are NOT at war with Islam.

Many of us pledged to participate:  Baptists, Catholics, Mormons, and Jews; Pastors, Ministers, Rabbis, and Priests. …And one Imam. 

But under the pressure of the “intolerance of tolerance” this lone Imam was quickly forced to withdraw.  The “religion of peace” would not participate in this demonstration of tolerance. 

Local Muslims just accepted this “tolerance of intolerance”, and refused to condemn the “intolerance of tolerance” exhibited by their “religion of peace”.

When will “moderate” Muslims step up and begin denouncing and isolating the fanatics who have “stolen” their religion?

Where were the peaceful Muslims on July 4, 2002, when Egyptian Muslim Hesham Mohamed Hadayet attacked El Al passengers at Los Angeles International Airport, killing three and wounding three others?

Or… on March 3, 2006, when Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar an Iranian-born American citizen confessed to intentionally running down people on the University of North Carolina Cmpus at Chapel Hill with his Jeep Grand Cherokee, claiming “I was aiming to follow in the footsteps of one of my role models, Mohammad Atta”, leader of the 9/11 hijackers?

Or… on July 28, 2006, in another attack by Muslim Naveed Afzal HAQ, on a Jewish Center in Seattle, Washington, killing one woman and injuring several others, telling anyone who would listen “I Hate Israel”?

Or… on Aug 29, 2006, when Muslim Omeed Aziz Popal drove his Honda Pilot SUV onto the sidewalk next to the Jewish Center killing one man and seriously injuring fourteen more – claiming “I’m a terrorist, I don’t care” ?

Or… on Feb 12, 2007 when Muslim Teen, Sulejmen Talovic opened fire on shoppers in a Salt Lake City shopping mall, killing five innocent people?

The local Muslim communities aren’t alone in their silence.  All of these cases were classified as “isolated incidents” by our own government.  Authorities have refused to label them hate crimes!  The “med-evil Media” preferred not to mention the religion of these murderers.

Were they suddenly stricken with some sort of “Sudden Jihad Syndrome” where peace-loving Muslims suddenly have an irresistible urge to kill infidels?  Or were they encouraged by the venom they hear from their leaders and their animosity towards our free society?

If we are to believe that moderate Muslims don’t support terrorists, when will we hear them denounce this violence by radical Muslims and stop harassing peace-loving freeborn Americans?  When will the peaceful Muslims stop their “tolerance of intolerance”? 

The real blasphemy to Islam is the deafening silence we hear from the “religion of peace”, and the unwillingness of the world’s Muslims to speak out against this bloodshed.

Back in the 1990s Allen Greenspan warned Congress about it and pleaded that something be done before it was too late.  Nothing was done.

Before him, back in the 1980s Paul Volker warned Congress about it, and pleaded that something be done before it was too late.  Nothing was done.

Before him, way back in the 1970s, Arthur Burns worried about it, and said something needed to be done before it was too late.  Nothing was done. 

Sidebar

It’s was even recorded on March 16, 1971, on tape number RC 361.  The same Oval Office taping system that eventually forced Richard Nixon from office, documented him complaining to Treasury Secretary John Connally that Arthur Burns was over-stepping his authority.  Ironically, Nixon agreed with Burns that there was a problem and something ought to be done, but our most megalomaniacal president wasn’t about to let an underling comment on areas of policy!  Burns would have to deal with Nixon and Nixon would deal with Congress!!

End Sidebar

After all these warnings over all these years, Ben Bernanke has just warned Congress… that it’s already too late and something should have been done about it… Ten years ago!… Or twenty years ago!… Or thirty years ago!

“It” is Social Security.  And these men were all Chairmen of the Federal Reserve – Bernanke being our current Chairman. 

“Oh, not to worry,” you say.  “Bill Clinton assured us the Social Security ‘lockbox’ is secure.”

Well, Bill Clinton lied... and I don’t mean just about Monica Lewinsky.  He lied about Social Security.  He lied about the lockbox.

How do I know?  That’s easy…there is no lockbox!  Never has been!  The money taken from you went into the general fund – and Congress spent it.  Oh they replaced the money – with Treasury IOUs.

It works this way.  When there was only one retiree for every 16 workers the Social Security system had excess funds and this would have been the time to invest them, creating an actual account for everyone paying money in.  But Congress, being Congress, spent the money, substituting it with “special” Treasury securities – the IOUs.  It’s kind of like paying off your MasterCard with your Visa.

But as the number of retirees per worker increases the excess funds disappear, until in 2040 the system will be broke.

The Congressional Budget Office describes it this way:

“Trust fund holdings, as internal liabilities between government accounts, are not assets of the government.  Nor do they represent money owed to program recipients individually…  A federal trust fund is basically an accounting device that measures the difference between the income designated for a specific program and the expenditures made to its beneficiaries.  The accumulated difference, or balance, often represents a reserve of future ‘spending authority’ for the program, but it is not a reserve of money for making payments.”  [Emphasis mine]

In accounting terms, it’s known as an “unfunded future liability”.  In layman terms, it’s known as “mortgage tomorrow for a benefit today”.  In political terms, it’s called business as usual.

Toward the end of President Bush’s first term, I wrote a piece on the priorities I thought he should address during his second term – Social Security reform being near the top.  In it I said that Bush only had one shot of about six months to push legislation before the mid-evil media started calling him a lame duck and the Demos would feel free to kick sand in his face for the next three and a half years.  I wrote a nice letter to him and enclosed a copy of the piece for his perusal. 

Now I don’t know if he read my letter, however he did follow my advice.  But in typical Bush fashion, he failed to fully develop his reform plan, and he failed to communicate his proposal to either the freeborn American public or to Congress. 

When his vague proposal for private saving accounts had few details, the demos had a field day.  They labeled it a “risky scheme” and that is what it has been known as every since.  Bush then suggested that the investments could be made in guaranteed Treasury bonds, but the media never made that widely known.  A risky scheme is a risky scheme, and this one was DOA. 

Bush made a few more half-hearted attempts to resuscitate it, but it was too late.  He retreated back into the Whitehouse, and wasn’t heard from again for two years when he decided that the war in Iraq was going poorly and announced the “surge”.  Social Security reform was left to the next Republican President.

“Well that’s a helava note,” you say.  “What do we do now?” 

You mean besides electing a Republican president in 2008?  Okay, here is my eight-point plan for young workers.  If you’re an older worker like me, hold on… it’s going to be one heck of a ride!

Congress won’t let Social Security just go away.  But there will be changes.  Either the benefits will be reduced (or increases cut which amounts to the same thing), Social Security taxes – excuse me, contributions – will be increased, retirement age will be extended, or a combination of all three.  One way or another, the level of benefits your government has promised you just won’t be there.

1.)  Keep writing letters to Congress to fix Social Security, but plan your retirement as if they won’t.  Consider your contributions as just another tax – they certainly aren’t an investment.

2.)  Take advantage of any 401(k) plans your employer offers.  If your employer offer matching funds up to a certain amount, make sure you contribute at least that much and more if you can.

3.)  Contribute the max to an IRA or a Roth IRA (I like the Roth if your income’s not over the limit).  But for young workers, who need the deductions, a traditional IRA may be best – the good thing is that you can make that decision each year.

4.)  Take advantage of what Albert Einstein called the most powerful force in the universe – compound interest.  Maximize your contributions to your 401(k) and IRA as early as you can in your working life and let this powerful force build up your retirement nest egg.

5.)  If you change jobs, roll over your 401(k) to maintain its tax-deferred status, and keep it in a separate “rollover IRA” to shield it from any possible future judgments.

6.)  Don’t borrow from your 401(k).  “But if you do” plan how and when you will repay the loan, then do it as soon as possible.

7.)  When deciding on what funds to invest in, remember “safe” funds don’t mean safe from inflation.  The younger you are, the more risk tolerant you should be.  (If inflation is 3% and your investment is getting you 4% that’s not exactly what Einstein had in mind!)

8.)  Write another letter; then keep writing more letters to Congress, to the President, to political candidates to fix Social Security.  Let them know that if they want your vote, they’re going to have to address the problem.  Tell them you want control of your own money – in the form of personal accounts the government can’t touch.  The longer they wait the harder and more painful it will be.