Last Sunday I listened in church as the Priest spoke about the concept of natural law. It’s a topic that I find very fascinating and while I’m comfortable being an amateur historian at times, I’m not so comfortable with being an amateur theologian (that’s where you get into trouble with bad kool-aid and I don’t want to go there). With that caveat, the gist, as I understood it, of the sermon was that natural laws come from God and they trump man-made customs or artificial laws. In addition, natural laws often require little effort to follow or understand. For example, “thou shall not kill” doesn’t take any practice at all before you can begin to respect it.  Likewise it doesn’t take any effort at all to understand the morality behind it. Real natural laws just inherently make sense to everyone.

Outside of the church, the relevance of natural law to our everyday lives is that the country we live in was founded on the premise of natural law. While our founders came from a variety of religious backgrounds, they understood the simplicity and power of natural law. Also, contrary to popular belief, they were not concerned with creating a government without God – they just didn’t want the government to tell you which God or which beliefs system you had to have, but that’s a topic for a different day. With that in mind, it’s not so strange to consider that the founding of our country has its roots in the same concept that I heard during Mass last weekend.

Circling back to natural law and just how it is imbedded in our founding, consider the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are the Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

To say that we have “self-evident” and “unalienable” Rights is directly tied to the notion that there are certain, natural laws that any living person understands. Rights and laws are just flip sides of the same coin. You can have a Right to life or a law not to kill – they both get to the same thing. You don’t need to be a lawyer, a rocket scientist, or even a politician to understand natural law. You know that killing someone indiscriminately is just plain wrong. I also suspect you know that every person has a right to their life. That’s the beauty of natural law.

Unfortunately today we too often are distracted by claims that we have a “right” to almost anything a special interest group can think up. Their hope is that by given “right status” to their cause it we will be more inclined to accept it – because it’s a “right”. That’s not how it works though. Our Rights begin and end with natural law. We enumerate some specific Rights, like the Right to bear arms for example, but that is directly related to your God-given Right to life and the necessity to protect your life and your family’s life. Other Rights we’ve enumerated in the Constitution like freedom of speech and assembly tie back to the individual securing their liberty from a tyrannical government. All true Rights flow back from very simple and natural concepts – life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

That’s not to say there aren’t other good things we can do for one another as a society but they aren’t automatically Rights. The “right” to healthcare has been thrown about a lot recently. I believe there is a moral imperative to provide basic health care to everyone. Medicine and healthcare in our society has advanced to the point where that is possible although our current system is far from perfect – again, another topic for another day. The point here is that the goal of providing humanitarian healthcare is far different than declaring a “right” to universal, single payer health insurance. Unlike natural law or God-given Rights, one person’s “right” to health insurance immediately begins to trample on another person’s Rights. Someone has to pay for that “right” to healthcare and that means taking from one person and giving to another – that’s not liberty, its socialism.

Not to be outdone by the insane spending in Washington, the City of Middleton is getting into the act with TIGER (Transportation Improvements Generating Economic Recovery). This is part of an effort to create a regional transportation hub. The critical piece of this is that the hub is designed to cater to non-existent commuter rail service which isn’t a done deal in Madison.

On top of whether or not Madison will eventually have an unaffordable and underused commuter rail, even the City of Middleton hasn’t fully thought through how they’ll finance their TIGER hub. The grant their applying for is only to cover the “upfront” costs of the hub. How many times do we need to start projects we have no long term strategy for funding? One guess who will pay for this when they find they don’t have the money. The taxpayers. If we also have an RTA (“Regional” Transit Authority for one county) then they will also probably find a way for all of Dane County’s residents to pay for it.

For the record, beyond the Middleton City Council (who vote 7-1 on this proposal), folks signing on to support this project are U.S. Senators Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold; U.S. Representative Tammy Baldwin; State Senator Jon Erpenbach and State Representative Sondy Pope-Roberts. Again, we see the Democrats lining up on both the State and Federal level to find ways to spend money we don’t have. Remember it’s our money they’re spending on these boondoggles.

Is it really too much ask that we take care of present business, present debt, before jumping into expensive, new projects we have no money and no plan for? At least one voice of reason doesn’t think so. Jon DiPiazza (Dist. 3, Middleton) expressed similar concerns about the long term expenses of this project and a preference for paying existing debt. Kudos to DiPiazza for standing up for the taxpayers and common sense.

Finally! The UW has figured out how to get a handle on binge and underage drinking. This last week they decided that they will shun alcohol advertising and put an end to binge drinking on campus. The loss in advertising will amount to $425,000 per year to the athletic program but they’re “taking one for the team” per the Chancellor. Frankly, I don’t what that means in the big picture, the budget for the UW Athletic Department is outside my realm of expertise but it sounds like a lot of money to me.

What bothers me about this announcement is that it’s just another example of how the liberal elite in Madison are emphasizing action over results. I find it hard to believe that this action will result in any appreciable difference in the amount of alcohol consumption by students. It’s purely a political play by the University to look good.

Unfortunately to disagree with this policy I will probably be painted as somehow supporting alcohol abuse by students or others. On the contrary, I wholeheartedly agree that we should have stronger drunk driving laws (hearing about someone getting arrested for their umpteenth DWI is ridiculous). Likewise, I don’t condone binge or underage drinking but the UW’s actions here are clearly all about the show.

So NOW saving and creating jobs will be the Democrats’ top priority?  Really, we really mean it this time.  Now it’s time to get serious.  I guess they’re just figuring out that saving and creating jobs in the state would be a good thing.  Why wasn’t it a priority just a short while ago when they were patting themselves on the back about the wonderful budget they passed?  It would seem creating jobs this year truly hasn’t been that big of a priority but now that 2010 elections are on the horizon, well now it’s time to get serious.

So on to the details for dealing with their “top priority”.  Well maybe “details” is a bit strong.  They’re going to make it easier to make wind farms and pave the way for “alternative energy”.  Perhaps anybody who has lost a job will be able to go out and pitch up their own windmill?  If not windmills, then solar farms maybe?  If this weren’t such a serious issue it would be laughable.  We’ll just have to wait and see how all this really fits their “top priority”. 

Unfortunately for us, all of their plans to create jobs must first destroy a greater number of jobs.  I don’t know how that works exactly but it seems to be a Democrat rule or something.  They destroy one hundred jobs and put out press release about the ten new ones they made; destroy one thousand and publicize five new jobs studying global warming.  It’s that fuzzy math again.

I realize that it may sound harsh to accuse the President or Representative Baldwin of lying about healthcare reform.  Supporters say that no one has a crystal ball and when they say if you you’re your current coverage you can keep it, they really, really, really mean it.  However, multiple news sources and people who have actually read the legislation in the House right now say that statement isn’t “entirely true” or “not literally true” and that's just the liberal, friendly media.  When something is not true, I consider it a lie.  Is that overly harsh?  For any parent with a three year old, I think they’d see it the same way. 

 According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the act of lying is:

1: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive

2: to create a false or misleading impression

Isn’t what the President and Tammy are doing is creating a “false or misleading impression” on their plans for healthcare?  To be fair to the President, he technically has never shared any details of “his” healthcare reform, the only plan we can judge right now is the plan in the House.  However, it is completely fair to judge Tammy on that content of that bill and with that bill it is completely false to be making the claims she and her colleagues are making.  In my book then it’s absolutely fair to say Tammy is lying about healthcare.

On occasion I will check out CNN for a different perspective.  Usually I don’t find much that I would want to comment on or it’s just not that surprising what their take is on an issue.  However I recently read an article called “Rumors influencing health care debate” and, even expecting CNN’s slant, I was still shocked by what I read.  There was no attempt to even appear balanced in the reporting and the use of a “CNN Truth Squad” to question the honesty of health care reform critics was particularly appalling.  Yes, they have a truth squad.  That sounds scary all by itself.  Not willing to trust the “CNN Truth Squad” I downloaded a copy of the plan and read the applicable sections for myself (you can simply Google “HR 3200” to find it or read it here.

The very first claim they “debunk” is that the current House plan forces people to let the government have access to their bank accounts.  In fact, pages 58 and 59 of the bill specifically address real-time electronic handling of a variety of financial-related aspects of the health care plan.  Specifically it says “the real-time (or near real-time) determination of an individual’s financial responsibility at the point of service” (emphasis added).  In reading these pages I frankly admit they could mean a lot of things and certainly could be interpreted that they can require access to your individual finances to determine what you can pay.  It also could mean something more akin to the electronic insurance checks that already routinely occur today.  The problem is that the language is just written so vaguely that it really could mean just about anything and it’s fair to question just where will a bureaucrat take this vaguely worded language in the future – into your own bank account doesn’t sound so farfetched to me.

The next thing they “debunk” is the “death panel” claim.  While it’s true that a politician would be insane to write legislation that uses the term “death panel”, there is a “Health Benefits Advisory Committee” that will be created to determine what benefits are appropriate.  This is on page 30.  Ultimately this panel will be setting standards of care and coverage in the government plan (and remember the goal is single payer so this is what they want for all of us).  Based on individuals the President has appointed to other roles and their publicly stated views on rationing and taking a person’s age and future contributions to society into account when determining the level of care they receive, is it so hard to envision this committee determining that additional costs just aren’t justified for grandma?

Even our local liberal newspaper, the Isthmus is jumping on the lies being spread.  In an article just posted just today they point out that Tammy’s claim (and the President has said this too for what seems like a million times) that you can keep your current coverage if you like it is “not entirely true”.  That’s a polite way to say they are lying.  They even quote the New York Times to back this up!   Although the New York Times says the statement "may not be literally true".  No wonder the President has changed his tune to you’ll “more than likely” be able to keep it – Tammy must have missed that memo.    

I could go on (after all, the bill is over 1,000 pages long) but the point is that CNN is clearly aligning itself as a propaganda machine for one political viewpoint over another.  It’s events like this that scare me even more than the government proposing to take over our healthcare.  If, after open and honest debate that is what the American people really want then so be it.  However when our media begins to repeat lies and propaganda vilifying honest Americans who disagree with the plan – that reminds me more of the propaganda machines in the old Soviet Union than the United States of America. 

I've held off on commenting on Governor Doyle's announcement he won't run again.  After all there has been plenty of coverage and while I'm glad to see him go, I don't have much more to add than has already been said.  However, after hearing some of the things being said today on the radio I felt the need to comment.

What I've heard and read from members up and down the Democrat party is praise for Doyle's performance as Governor and his many years of public service.  I do recognize the contribution and sacrifices he may have made in many years of public service - that is certainly an accomplishment.  Let's not confuse longevity for achievement though.  In between praise for Doyle I also listened to news reports of more companies either closing or potentially closing their doors here in Wisconsin a sobering reminder of the crisis we're in.  Democrats and Doyle would like us to believe this is just due to their "bad luck" of being in office during a poor economy. 

At some point the man (and party) in charge needs to take responsibility for the situation.  This is not just the bad luck of a poor economy affecting Wisconsin but the repeated vilification of business finally taking its toll.  This is culmination of years of Democrat policies that brought us to this point, to this crisis.  This year's state budget was just the final straw for many businesses that are now cracking under the pressure of combined reporting, increased minimum wages, and increased regulation.  Like the CEO or Board of Directors in a failing company, the folks in charge reap the benefits when things go well and need to take the heat when things go poorly.  To gloss over the facts and act like the job of running our state has been well done is just more politics at usual and politics at their worst.

In the Mt Horeb Mail this week they're reporting that the school budget has increased for this coming school year.  I don't have an opinion on whether this increase was completely necessary or not - I don't have that much information on what was included at this time.  However, we do know that this, combined with the state budget, will mean an increase of $12.00 per $100,000 per year in property taxes.  In other words, due to cuts in the stat budget our local taxes will be rising again. 

Remember a short while back when our state representatives were patting themselves on the back for making all those "hard decisions" on the state budget?  One of those hard decisions was to cut state aid to our schools and instead fund a bunch of pork to reward the members who voted for that travesty.  This doesn't qualify as a hard decision in my book.  A truly hard decision would be to place our children and our schools as a top priority and instead cut the pork.  In other words, make a real stand on the priorities for our state instead of politics as usual.  On the other hand, it looks like the towns, schools, and ultimately us as the taxpayers are going to have to continue to mark true hard choices as a consequence.

Here’s an interesting article from the Capital Times.  As much as they promote liberal Democrat policies for the rest of us in the state of Wisconsin, apparently they don’t like it so much when the same people they’ve supported deny them access to what should be public information. 

While I applaud them for recognizing Governor Doyle’s poor record on transparency and for recognizing that it’s the Republicans leading the charge on opening these records to the public, they just couldn’t resist a cheap shot.  In what otherwise struck me as an honest, balanced editorial on problems in the Doyle Administration there just had to be one paragraph blasting Republicans.  According to the Capital Times, Republicans “have little interest in open or honest government. After all, these are the same people who defended former Vice President Dick Cheney's secrecy and abuses of power.”

First of all, it’s intellectually dishonest to paint all members of any party with the same brush.  To claim Republicans have little interest in honest government is weak and unfounded.  If I were in Kindergarten my response might be “I know you are but what am I?”  Politicians in both parties have had problems in the past and I suspect there will be members of both parties that have problems in the future.  Remind me again where and when all the wrangling on the current state budget was happening?  It was in the darkness of night, behind closed doors, controlled by the Democrats.   The target of this article in fact is a Democrat so given those two situations I suppose it would be fair to say that Democrats have little interest in open and honest government? 

Secondly, to compare Doyle’s antics in Wisconsin to the former Vice President is comparing apples to oranges.  They’re not in the same league.  The Vice President's handlling of national security and other critically important policies is just not like remembering to file your travel receipts in a timely manner (or at all).  The attempted comparison smacks of the Madison City Council’s repeated attempts to impeach the President and stop the war in Iraq.  It’s just silly.

To borrow a phrase, the Capital Times may be hypocrites but when they’re investigating Doyle’s abuses they’re useful hypocrites.

Last Saturday a local man was cited for disorderly conduct for openly carrying a handgun on State Street.  The story has made the rounds on local talk radio and news in recent days and it looks as if this will be challenged in court.

I believe it’s good that a concerned citizen saw a man with a gun and called the police.  Imagine if this had turned into some sort of shooting and either no one had called in or the police had not responded.  We’d all be asking “where were the police?” At the end of the day I think there is no way around the police being called to investigate or look into situations like this.  However, the police’s response to charge the man with disorderly conduct though wasn’t appropriate in my opinion. 

It’s ridiculous to charge a man with disorderly conduct for simply openly carrying a gun in a holster.  By all accounts he has no criminal record, legally owned the gun in question, and was doing nothing else to provoke anyone.  According to the police the basis for this charge was simply that some people were “disturbed” that he was carrying a gun.  If the police can detain someone for simply doing something that someone else finds disturbing then where do we draw the line?  If big dogs disturb me, can I call the police and have them charge the guy walking his dog around my neighborhood?  If certain dress or styles disturb me, will the police come and drive that person home to change their clothes for me?  Yes this particular situation involved a gun but the bottom line is that no law was broken.

Our own Attorney General recently wrote an opinion stating that open carry was well within our legal rights in the State of Wisconsin.  In the absence of brandishing the weapon or disturbing people in some other way, carrying a holstered gun is completely legal in his opinion and he’s the top law enforcement officer in the state.  Hopefully this will continue in the courts and we’ll get to the truth of the matter.