I propose -

In the wake of today’s Environmental Protection Agency ruling declaring carbon dioxide and other greenhouses gases a public health threat, I am calling for an immediate ban on breathing – more specifically exhaling.

The average human exhales 1,140 grams of carbon dioxide each day, comparable to a car driving about five kilometers. Multiplied by some 6 billion people, this figures to about 2.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide each year.

Clearly if we hope to save the planet and humanity, we must stem this massive influx of CO2 into the atmosphere.

I will propose the breathing ban take effect immediately upon passage by the legislature. It will remain in effect for approximately 15 minutes.

My family, hand chosen individuals and I will receive an exemption from this legislation due to the necessity of maintaining my brilliance for the further furtherance of humanity.

Citizens may apply for their breathing offset credit through the Department of Breathing Regulation. Automatic government credits will be provided for all citizens taking less then 250,000 breaths per year.

The Department of Breathing Regulation will label any world citizen found circumventing this law without documentation of approved breathing offset credits as a right wing extremist and will summarily shoot them.

Some my oppose this legislation, but I will simply remind my fellow citizens that the science is settled and we must act now to avoid cataclysmic and irreversible consequences.

Have a nice day.

“Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression, come from what source it may.” -Sam Houston

On April 9, Texas Gov. Rick Perry expressed his support for a bipartisan resolution affirming states rights under the 10th Amendment.

Rep. Brandon Creighton authored the resolution.

Perry said that the time has come to rein in an ever growing encroachment of federal power over the states.

"I believe the federal government has become oppressive," Perry said. "I believe its become oppressive in its size, its intervention into the lives of its citizens and it interference with the affairs of our state."

Rep. David Floyd (R-Bardstown), Rep. Adam Koenig (R-Erlanger) and Rep. David Osborne (R-Prospect) introduced a similar resolution in the Kentucky State House in February.

The bill died in committee.

I'm thinking Texas might make for a good place to retire.

Watch Gov. Perry's remarks.

Member of Congress linked to terrorist?

According to a New York Times story, the National Security Agency has overstepped its bounds while conducting surveillance operations.

"Several intelligence officials, as well as lawyers briefed about the matter, said the N.S.A. had been engaged in “overcollection” of domestic communications of Americans. They described the practice as significant and systemic, although one official said it was believed to have been unintentional," the Times said.

I am torn over the N.S.A's use of domestic surveillance. I understand the necessity to gather information, especially in a time of war - and many have forgotten that we ARE engaged in a war. But I also appreciate the potential erosion of liberty and the potential government overreach of power.

But a little tidbit buried deep in the story should cause concern of another kind.

Apparently the N.S.A. sought to wiretap a unnamed congressman during an overseas trip to the Middle East in 2005 or 2006 because this representative was in contact with an "extremist" with possible terrorist ties.

Does it bother anybody out there that a member of the Congress of the United States was possibly communicating with terrorists? The lack of media attention to this little detail astounds me.

Blast them

Bullies, thugs and depots thrive on weakness. They target the vulnerable and count on intimidation to achieve their nefarious goals.

Knowing this, why do so many insist on dealing with criminals from a position of weakness?

The maritime rules outlawing the arming of merchant ships represents this irrational thinking. These wizards of smart theorize that arming the law-abiding merchant marines would simply encourage the pirates to attack with greater force and risk the crews. So instead, we leave these large cargo ships, representing millions of dollars to the potential pirate unarmed, and when they are captured, kowtowed governments immediately reward this lawless behavior by paying off these thugs.

And then we wonder why they keep doing it.

A few heavy automatic weapons and some grenades, along with the advantage of elevation afforded by a cargo ship would easily thwart an attack from a small pirate vessel. And don’t you think these thugs would think twice if they knew they were likely to get blasted instead of welcomed aboard and rewarded with a few million in ransom money?

I honestly can’t fathom the thinking that capitulates to force believing that the bad guy will just leave us alone if we play nice with him. Anybody that has ever dealt with a bully knows that weakness simply invites continued and ever increasing attack.

Some political pundits display the same lack of logic when it comes to international relations. After North Korea’s saber rattling missile launch, President Obama made a speech about disarming and ridding the world of nuclear weapons.

He's kidding right?

I wish we could live in a world without weapons, but that dream will forever remain naive and dangerous.

Liberals fail to understand the reality of evil in the world. They look at every group and every individual with moral equivalence. They can’t fathom that some people may just possess evil motives and that no amount of understanding or negotiation will thwart them. They will continue to operate until somebody stops them.

Disarming nations make them weak and vulnerable and open to attack. A position of strength ensures peace. Disarming law abiding citizens make them weak and vulnerable and gives the lawless an advantage, because by definition, laws outlawing weapons mean nothing to the lawless. Disarming merchant ships makes them weak and vulnerable and invites teenagers with motorboats to hold hostages and wreck havoc on the high seas.

When the good guys - and yes, good guys exist – place themselves in a position of weakness, they simply invite attack, not peace. It’s happened over and over again throughout history.

But some people never learn.

Mike Adams provides some additional thoughts on this subject.

Profundity of the week

"What does 'economic justice' mean, except that you want something that someone else produced, without having to produce anything yourself in return?"

-Thomas Sowell

Big Brother coming at you from your computer

I don't have much sympathy for people downloading copyrighted music illegally. I think it represents part of the ever growing entitlement mentality prevalent in our society. I also understand the recording and software industries desire to protect their intellectual property through enforcement of copyright laws. But giving the government power to snoop around in private citizens computers goes way over the top.

That could happen if an international copyright treaty between the U.S., the European Union and some other countries currently in the works comes to pass.

Scary stuff.

Greed

The left likes to characterize capitalism as greedy. They often point to the famous quote by the fictional character Gordon Gecko in the movie Wall Street as an encapsulation of the capitalist system.

“Greed is good.”

But as WLAP radio host Leland Conway has said on more than one occasion, greed resides in the hearts of people, not in the structure of any economic system. Greed rears its head in government and liberal institutions in the same way it does in the free market.

The liberal mind conjures up images of redistributing wealth in order to make things “fair”. But what is fairness? How much does one take from the haves and give to the have-nots to achieve this notion of fairness?

I don’t think it really has to do with fairness. It comes down to wanting to take possession of what another has. It becomes a source of power, and greed lies at its core.

Liberals decry the “rich” as greedy. Yet these same people want to control what the rich man possesses. They excuse it through the seemingly noble intent of giving it to others, but it represents a form of greed none-the-less. And those who receive the benefit of redistributed wealth? They exemplify greed just the same. They want to take what the rich man owns for themselves.

The liberal wields power over both – in the taking from the one and in making the other dependent on his handouts. The liberal possesses an appetite, a greed if you will - for power. And he stokes the poor man’s greed for the rich man’s possessions to accumulate his own power over both.

How is this any less greedy than the rich man wanting to keep what he already has?

At least the rich man earned it.

Overpaid?

The University of Kentucky hired John Calipari to coach the men's basketball team yesterday, inking him to an 8-year $31.2 million contract.

Many criticize the salary as excessive, especially with state budgets squeezed by the economic downturn.

But David Adams over at Kentucky Progress makes a great point about Calipari's salary.

Quite frankly, I think people in this country spend far too much time worrying about how much money other people make - something that has absolutely no impact on their lives. Citizens should probably worry a little more about how much money the government is taking from them.

It's expensive to die

Under the current tax law, the death tax will drop to zero in 2010 from its current level of 45 percent. The tax dropped from 55 percent to 45 percent last year.

But the Obama administration embedded a provision in the new budget to maintain the tax at its current level.

A footnote on page 127 of the President’s budget reads: “The estate tax is maintained at its 2009 parameters."

So the estate tax rate will continue at 45 percent. There is a $3.5 million exemption level. ($7 million for a couple.)

Many will undoubtedly remain unconcerned about this onerous tax because in their minds, it simply taxes “the rich”.

We like to tax the rich.

But the tax does not merely impact the rich. It also affects small business owners and farmers.

Take the farmer for instance. He may have little cash in the bank, and his lifestyle remains modest. But he has millions tied up in his land and the capital assets required to work a farm. He’s what one might call land rich and cash poor. When he dies, he hopes to pass his farm on to his children, but with the estate tax, the children must pay a 45 percent tax on the farm before they can take possession, putting them in a position where they must sell the land to pay the taxes.

The same thing happens to families with large amounts tied up in businesses. The heirs must sell business assets simply to pay the taxes. These dollars taken out of the private economy represents capital that would have been used to create jobs, products and greater wealth. Instead the government collects it for its own, less economically inefficient purposes.

A Wall Street Journal op-ed piece points out: “What all this means is that the higher the estate tax, the lower the incentive to reinvest in family businesses. Former Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Holtz-Eakin recently used the Summers study as a springboard to compare the economic cost of a 45% estate tax versus a zero rate. He finds that the long-term impact of eliminating the death tax would be to increase small business capital investment by $1.6 trillion. This additional investment would create 1.5 million new jobs.”

The estate tax also represents double taxation. The wealth taxed upon death was previously taxed when it was earned.

But beyond the pragmatic reasons to oppose death tax, their exists a deeper philosophical principal. It basically represents legalized theft from the family of the deceased. It encapsulates the government mentality that all wealth belongs to them, and they get to decide how much we the people get to keep. The excessive tax rates imposed on the “rich” are not designed to raise revenue for necessary government purposes, but as a method of social engineering and wealth redistribution. This concept violates our basic inherent right to property and a nefarious encroachment of individual liberty.