How to avoid sacrificing liberty for security

A couple of days ago, I participated in a Tallahassee area forum for undecided voters. My friend Catherine, who works tirelessly and without any compensation on many constitutional and liberty issues, set up the event. The idea was to have campaign representatives of the four Republican presidential contenders speak for 5 minutes FOR their candidate, then someone would speak for 5 minutes AGAINST their candidate. Each would then be given 2 minutes for rebuttal, and then the remaining time would be for questions from the audience.

Two things stood out to me, and one leads to the other- the first one was a gentleman in the audience during the question and answer portion stated that the anti- Ron Paul person (whom I know and he does not support Dr. Paul) had convinced him to consider Ron Paul based on Dr. Paul's record as articulated. The second was the polling- a poll was done by secret ballot before and after the event. Mr. Gingrich (whose representative could not answer a question with a yes or no or even stay on point) and Mr. Romney stayed the same. Mr. Santorum picked up 10 percent. Ron Paul picked up 100 percent, and ended up in second place- behind Mr. Gingrich! Mr. Santorum took third, and Mr. Romney was a very distant last.

Today I clicked a link that gave an unbiased look at how the four men stood on immigration. Consider the following:

Mandate E-Verify: Only Ron Paul is "bad" on this issue. President Obama is good for "first steps".

All Republicans want to secure the border, so this is moot.

End birthright citizenship- i.e. "anchor babies" that are born here to illegal immigrants? Dr. Paul received a "good", while the other three Republicans were "unhelpful".

This one is most telling as to who supports an expanded federal government: Punish business violators- Dr. Paul goes beyond "bad" to "abysmal".

By their scoring, Dr. Paul gets a D-, so he is between Mr. Gingrich with a D and Mr. Obama with an F-.

I have to wonder how they would score our Constitution on these matters? I'm sure Dr. Paul's opposition to E-Verify sunk him for this group, as they look to the federal government for an "easy button" for illegal immigration regardless of the consequences for the rights of the citizens and businesses of the USA- numbers any politician should have as a primary concern. Government mandated health insurance? Terrible idea, unconstitutional! Government approved employment in the private sector? It's the only way to fix illegal immigration!

It's a beauty, isn't it? It was owned by a little old lady that never drove it…

One experience you get when you sit in a subcommittee room waiting for the bill you are going to speak about is the ability to listen to other bills being presented. Recently, I had the experience of hearing HB 1207 presented. It's called autonomous vehicle technology. What's an autonomous vehicle? Well first of all, don't tell the Secretary of Homeland Security- autonomy is frowned upon there. An autonomous vehicle is one that can drive itself. I've written elsewhere on this site about "smart" cars for dumb drivers with things such as automatic braking and lane control. I'm old school to the point that if I want to get a sandwich, I'll pull into a restaurant to do so- I won't (as the cruise control urban legend goes) get up from behind the wheel and go make one. Apparently the day is not too far away where this could take place, but I'm still not sure where the benefit lies.

If you want one point of view on these, read this 2010 article on the Discovery News site. The title is "Driverless Cars Could Save Lives". So we have yet another "safety" issue- if you'd like to read about another "safety" issue, look at some of my thoughts about red light cameras here.

As a "car guy" and an American, the following statement flat out bothers me:

"In the future it will be forbidden for safety reasons for people to drive cars," predicted Raul Rojas, professor at Berlin's Free University (FU). "The cars of today are the horses of yesterday."

I suppose it is even worse that this particular article came from the same place as the Nazi Party. Military aviation enthusiasts will likewise note the acronym for the car- Made In Germany or MIG, which was the main type of Communist fighter used from Korea onwards.

At the subcommittee hearing, a local lawyer for Google, who is the main force behind this idea, testified about the car and concept. I happened to see him while I was in another legislator's office later in the day, and had to ask about the idea of a driverless car. I told him of my law enforcement background, and asked if the car was doing 6 MPH over the speed limit, who would get the ticket? He said it would not be possible for the car to exceed the speed limit.

Being a thinker, I wondered what about if one of the lights were out in the car, also a violation? What if the speed limit had changed due to construction? Anyone that has a modern GPS will realize the speed limits displayed on them are not always up to date. Then there is inclement weather, such as fog.There are any number of statutory issues when you take the human driver out of the equation yet still have a motor vehicle moving on a roadway.

How about this: The "Spirit of Berlin," another self-driving car developed by researchers at Berlin Free University, can be controlled using an iPhone app.

I'll paraphrase the usual "app for that" line by saying There's a hack for that. Or the venerable blue screen of death. My phone gets contrary from time to time and won't reliably connect via Bluetooth. I think when these types of cars hit the road, hackers will invariably try to take over a few just to see if they can.

Fortunately, all the Florida bill will do is allow for testing.

This as with most of what the government seems to be doing these days is a liberty issue. If we lose the ability to travel as we please, which our vehicles allow, then we've lost essential liberty. Please read the Ben Franklin-derived quote at the top of this page about liberty and security. I'll close by making an English-German hybrid of the university acronym: FU- how about Freedom Über alles? Freedom above all!

I don't agree with much of what my state Representative, Michelle Vasilinda, does. It's been said politics makes strange bedfellows, and that's certainly the case for her death penalty repeal bill, which is one of a few areas where I disagree with my favorite presidential candidate, Ron Paul, who also opposes the death penalty. Having looked at the records of both, I suspect this is about the only common ground they have.

This posting will look at another of the bills she has filed for 2012, the "Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement". What this boils down to is taxing Internet (or mail order) purchases. While this measure has the support of many in the business community, I want to shed some light on why it is actually double taxation, and how this bill will adversely affect some people like me.

My hobby for most of my adult life has been collecting automobiles, and of late, motorcycles. My oldest car is now nearly 50 years old, and the model went out of production on 1969. My favorite motorcycle is now 31 years old. Add to this many of the vehicle projects I build are an E Pluribus Unum type of thing- out of many, one. Before Cash for Clunkers drove auto parts prices much higher, I used to take junkyard late-model engines out of wrecked Chevy or GMC trucks and put them into foreign cars. If you've ever shopped at a local auto parts store such as Advance Auto, you'll know the first thing they ask is what is the year & model of the car you're working on. If I tell them my Toyota has a 2003 Chevy truck motor in it, they can't find the part I need. For that reason, many years ago I started using mail order and later the Internet to buy my parts. This holds true to this day. As another example, I can't go to a local store and buy a speedometer drive for a 32 year old bike. I can easily find it online, though. In some circumstances, I may buy from a Florida vendor, so I'm paying sales tax on top of the online tax.

Enough about the details of why the Internet is a valuable resource. On to the taxes. Internet access is already taxed in Florida depending on how you go online, as it is usually packaged with another service. What this means is you pay a tax to go online. You may see this in your monthly bill, or the service provider may not break it down separately. It's usually considered a telecommunication tax, and can be found here. If you use cable or a cellular modem to go online (this includes smart phones), the tax rate is 9.17 percent plus local taxes. If you go online via satellite, it is 13.17 percent, over double the base rate for Florida's 6 percent sales tax- which is usually 7 percent or more in most counties due to local options. Still on dial-up? Florida didn't forget about you. That phone line is taxed at anywhere from 2.37 to 9.17 percent depending on the location. Oh, and plus local taxes- and in this case, plus the federal universal service fee. Cha-ching.

Some great reading on the subject is here from the James Madison Institute circa 2005. On of the best points there is that this type of tax is indeed taxation without representation- the out-of-state business collects and remits the money, but they have no say in the governing authority to which it is remitted.

In Mark 12:17, Jesus said "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." In my opinion, Caesar, or Mrs. Vasilinda in this case, is asking for too much.

One of my favorite people* spoke using analogies a couple thousand years ago, and it was an effective means of communication that I've tried to use on occasion. This topic is dear to me since most people I know are aware I'm a gearhead with a garage full of vehicle projects. Those that know me a little better know I'm a Chevy fan, so this is a troubling analogy for me to use.

In the upcoming presidential election, we are faced with one of four candidates. This posting will focus on two of them, mainly due to several recent people that espouse limited government stating their support for Newt Gingrich. The other candidate will be Ron Paul.

For the vehicle end of this, both cars will get you where you're going, and serve the same function in that respect.

First, there is the red Camaro. It sure looks good, and it takes you back to great memories of the Camaro you had in high school or maybe as a young adult. Once you start "looking under the hood" though, you'll find out it came to be due to a taxpayer bailout of GM.

Then there is the blue Mustang. Even Chevy guys like me have to admit Ford did a great styling job on it. Is it perfect? No. The engine bay is too small, the engine is smaller than the Camaro, and it doesn't offer the 6-speed manual transmission the Camaro does unless you step up to a really expensive model. But it was made via a free market with no taxpayer bailout.

See the USA in your Chevrolet- Now in a Big Government Way

Applying this analogy to the two candidates, many people have fond memories of the conservative vs. liberal battle of the mid 90's when President Clinton was in office and Mr. Gingrich was Speaker of the House (1995-1999). Some good things happened back then so far as limited government such as welfare reform (entitlements that comprise a great deal of tax dollars) and the first balanced budget in a number of years. In the time since then, though, consider the following:

• He was not voted out of office in 1999. He resigned under pressure from other Republicans.
• In 2003, he was a big supporter of President Bush's prescription drug plan, which added over $17 trillion to Medicare's unfunded liability.
• In 2008 he wrote a book called "Real Change". In it, he endorsed the concept of the government compelling people to buy health insurance. This actually dates back to 1993 for him, when on Meet the Press he said: "I am for people, individuals — exactly like automobile insurance — individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance.” In 2005 in a NPR interview, he said "“Our goal has to be for 100 percent of the country to be in the insurance system,” he said. “So that means finding ways through tax credits and through vouchers so that every American can buy insurance, including, I think, a requirement that if you’re above a certain level of income, you have to either have insurance or post a bond.” In my experience as a lawman, the only people that posted bonds were those accused of committing crimes.
• In 2008, he appeared with Nancy Pelosi in this ad in support of taking action to address "climate change"

Back to vehicles for a moment, it is because of things such as this that we must run a corrosive substance called Ethanol in our vehicles. The federal government has dictated it thanks to politicians like Mr. Gingrich. Incidentally, in 2009 his lobbying firm was paid over $300,000 to support Ethanol subsidies.

Even before his term as Speaker, his vote to create the Department of Education in 1979 was one of only a handful needed to do so. Prior to that, he served as a regional director for the Nelson Rockefeller presidential campaign. Mr. Rockefeller was a supporter of an expanded federal government. When Mr. Gingrich initially ran for Congress initially in 1974 and 1976, he did so on a far-left environmental platform. He "reinvented" himself for 1978 as an anti-tax fiscal conservative, and finally won election.

Ford- A Better Idea

As noted, Ron Paul is not a perfect candidate- there never has been one since the person I mentioned in the first paragraph, and He was not a politician. The main concern is his positions as to foreign policy. One thing that is consistently overlooked here is the amount of money (foreign aid) we give to unfriendly nations, notably those unfriendly to Israel. If you'd like a dollar amount courtesy of the federal government, simply go here:

ForeignAssistance.gov

You may be surprised to see we gave North Korea $25 million in 2007- do you remember who was President then? How about a foreign policy that gives no money until our own fiscal house is in order? We can rethink giving money to foreign nations at that point. I've said repeatedly that if we go under due to the albatross of national debt, our foreign policy is of zero significance. I have no problem with securing the USA and maintaining a very strong defense, while not sacrificing the body parts of our young people in constant wars or having bases "defending" wealthy nations.

Logical thought process?

In closing, my logical brain suffers a short circuit when I try to reconcile someone that stands for limited constitutional government, fiscal responsibility, and free markets (these are the main Tea Party principles for many groups) supporting Newt Gingrich. The people that I have seen supporting Mr. Gingrich to a person oppose President Obama's mandated health insurance plan. How can they blindly support someone that wants the exact same thing? To use a final automotive analogy, the clutch is slipping somewhere here. Ron Paul is the only candidate that consistently has stood for these values- even when they were not in the mainstream.

* For those that do not realize it, I'm speaking about Jesus Christ, and encourage those that do not know him to check him out as you would any candidate. You'll find he has no "baggage" other than dying on a cross to save us. Finding a good bible-teaching church has helped me greatly in my life, and it would be selfish not to share this information.

Recently I received the Southern New Hampshire 9.12 group's detailed positions (click for latest version) of the several Republican presidential candidates. It was a great piece of information, and they put a lot of work into it.

Here is a copy of the file I downloaded on January 15, 2012. I understand they are updating it to remove Mr. Huntsman and to add information on the National Defense Authorization Act and SOPA/PIPA (Internet censorship).

Presidential Candidate Positions

I'm on the road at a church conference this week, but last night I performed a scoring analysis of these positions as best I could. I compared the top 4 candidates as indicated by recent polls and voting results. This has been reduced to a PDF format document:

Scoring: Undecided 01 17 12 All

Please review this information and feel free to pass it along. The co-founder of the 9.12 group has asked we distribute his document as widely as possible to illustrate where the candidates actually stand on issues. Please take some time to read this, as we vote here in Florida very soon. Please also pray for our nation.

Back in the 60's and 70's, this term generally referred to the government. As history repeats itself again, it once again refers to the government we have. I'll cite a couple of examples here.

If you think things like REAL ID for driver's licenses and E-Verify for employment are great ideas to combat terrorism and illegal immigration, then you're likely an establishment Republican. Perhaps the first question you ask a candidate is their party affiliation, not where they stand on something like states rights. You see the need to "make us safer" through the force of government. It's OK to expand the federal government to accomplish these goals.

If you think things like mandated health insurance is a great idea to combat the lack of health insurance for people in the USA, then you're likely an establishment Democrat. Perhaps the first question you ask a candidate is their party affiliation, not where they stand on something like states rights. You see the need to "ensure the welfare" of the individual (not the nation) through the force of government. It's OK to expand the federal government to accomplish these goals.

What all of these federal programs and laws have in common is that they are unconstitutional at the federal level. See Article 1 Section 8 (A1 S8) of the Constitution as well as the 10th Amendment. Specifically, states- and only states- have the power to decide what if any process will be used to determine if a driver's license is needed or what the procedure will be to get one. E-Verify is a federal program to verify employment eligibility. It is not an immigration or naturalization function as authorized to Congress under A1 S8. The federal government cannot legally operate a pass/fail system to obtain employment in the non-federal sector, and this is what E-Verify does. Finally, the federal mandate of the purchase of health insurance is not authorized under A1 S8 and the federal government being allowed to force you to buy anything is unconstitutional as well as being a really bad idea. Suppose you were compelled to buy a certain brand of vehicle (due to government bailouts for the automaker)?

Not surprising at all then is that in recent election news, Mitt Romney is considered by many as the only path to Republican victory in 2012 against President Obama. President Obama will see no viable primary contender from the Democrats.

As I have observed here in the past, we must look at where we've been to see where we are going. What did the establishment of the 60's and 70's give us? A few things include:

• Increasing federal regulations on things such as automobiles.
• The federal departments of education, environmental protection, and energy.

As for the first one, thousands of people die on our highways each year. We will never build a "safe" automobile if you define safety as the inability to be injured or killed while operating it. Somewhere in the 90's we reached a good point between anti-lock brakes and airbags.

As for the others, ask how well our education system is doing? Ditto the environment, and the price of a gallon of gas- which is no longer 100% gasoline, since nearly all gas sold is 10% ethanol, a highly corrosive substance that does more harm than good.

In the 60's and 70's, many of those opposed to the establishment were considered hippies or outside the mainstream of society. One person in the 70's that was opposed to the establishment was no hippie, and is considered by fewer and fewer to be outside the mainstream of society for what he says. That person is Ron Paul.

Dr. Paul has a plan for fiscal responsibility (real cuts to the bloated federal budget), limiting the federal government to it's constitutional limits (which will help to maintain fiscal responsibility) , and supports free markets. In a free market, the federal government does not make you buy anything. In a constitutionally-limited government, the government does not make you obtain federal identification or seek their blessing just to get a job. In a federal government that employs fiscal responsibility the need for an income tax would eventually go away. Unlike the other two, Dr. Paul also has a record of not acting outside of the Constitution. Mr. Obama did so when he signed the federal mandate into law, and Mr. Romney will do so (at least as of today, check again tomorrow after the new poll comes out) based upon his actions as an elected official.

If you dislike Ron Paul's stance on some issues such as drug laws, since his position is that it is a state issue, then you should equally dislike Mitt Romney's stance on mandatory health insurance. Mitt Romney used the power of Governor to force the people of Massachusetts to buy health insurance. What's the big difference here? Ron Paul would not make you purchase drugs, even if it was legal. Mitt Romney (and Barack Obama) would make you purchase health insurance.

Incidentally, if you've never read anything I've written, please understand I still do not support illegal immigration. E-Verify and REAL ID do not do anything but cause more headaches for those that try to comply with the law, while those that do not go about their business underground or by stealing a "clean" identity (maybe yours!). We would be far better off verifying tax dollar expenditures to those receiving them (i.e. Medicaid) than to try and force everyone to prove their citizenship in a blanket style such as with REAL ID and E-Verify.

We have a choice to make. Here in Florida it will be very soon. Do we want "four more years" of either Mr. Obama or the similar Mitt Romney or do we want to elect someone that will do what he says and follow the Constitution thus restoring our country to its former greatness? Without a successful and prosperous domestic policy, foreign policy is of diminished concern.

In under a month, Florida Republican voters will decide who they wish to send up against President Obama. The "conventional wisdom" as reflected by most media outlets says it will be either Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney. The point of this post will be to research these two in a few areas based upon  their past actions, and then to contrast these actions with the actions of Mr. Obama and the U.S. Constitution. I made use of the Southern New Hampshire 912 candidate matrix (click for PDF) in obtaining some of this information. It is an excellent means of contrasting the choices for 2012.

Mitt Romney
Republican voters often comment Mr. Romney is the only candidate that can beat Mr. Obama, and his business and government executive (Governor of Massachusetts) background make for a winning combination.

Let's look at this experience based upon the above criteria:
1. Mr. Romney supported the Massachusetts Climate Protection Plan in 2004 (click for PDF). You need to read no further than the cover page- the letter states that he is not even sure if climate change is happening, or how it is caused.

2. In 2006, he did an "about-face" on the state's clean air policy, as detailed here. The opinion of several quoted in the article was that he did so to help in his 2008 Presidential campaign. A friend of mine calls this "party above principle".

3. He is opposed to fundamental second-amendment rights. A piece contrasting his pro-gun control and then anti-gun control as well as more about-faces on issues is here. It can be summed up that Mr. Romney is indeed an experienced politician, and will change his position on an issue if it appears to be politically expedient.

His views are not in alignment with the U.S. Constitution, and are indeed similar to those of Mr. Obama. I'll close with a reference to "RomneyCare", a Massachusetts predecessor to "ObamaCare", i.e. mandated health insurance. While an argument can be made for this at a state level, it is indeed an expansion of government that a majority of voters in the USA tend to oppose.

Newt Gingrich

I am amazed that anyone wanting a leader that will follow the Constitution would even consider Mr. Gingrich, but a number of people seem to support him. Here is why I say I'm amazed:

1. While he is revered by many as being a conservative that will support and defend the Constitution, in 1979 he voted to create the unconstitutional federal Dept. of Education. This bill passed by only 6 votes. If you do not consider this a big deal, look at the budget for this behemoth agency- during a recession, it has gone from $56 billion in 2006 to $69.9 billion in 2011- about a 25% increase. While his website attempts to justify this vote by saying it was just supposed to be a small agency with limited powers, circa 2009, Mr. Gingrich toured with Al Sharpton in an effort to increase the federal government's role in education. Mr. Obama is pushing the "Race To The Top" program, which is a Trojan horse method of Washington controlling local education. That's the way business has always been done by D.C.

2. While in Congress circa 1994, Mr. Gingrich voted for the Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, or GATT. This bill undermined Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, which gives the power to regulate trade with foreign nations to Congress, not a global authority.

3. More recently, Mr. Gingrich has been seen with former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in support of "climate change" (click for YouTube video).

More information on Mr. Gingrich can be found here. In summary, he has voted against the Constitution on more than one occasion. He agrees with Mr. Obama on education being a federal issue as well as on "climate change".

Summary

So if we can articulate where each of these candidates has stood on issues, we can predict where they will stand on them in the future, which should be of great concern to us. We've seen that each of them is weak on Constitutional adherence, and has been a proponent of expanding the government's role in our lives. In several respects, they not only do not differ from Mr. Obama, they in fact agree with him.

I liken candidates or politicians that say one thing to get elected then fail to stand firm on these promises to be akin to a saboteur that disguises themselves as something they are not to gain access to someplace they normally could not. As an extreme example, if you are standing guard duty at an army base and you see someone approaching with a bomb around their waist, you have a good idea that they mean to do you harm. If you see someone wearing the uniform of a Major, you will likely allow them in. If they in turn detonate a bomb once in, they have betrayed the trust you bestowed upon them. The point being, at least you know where the first person stood, and could take action as needed.

In my opinion, neither Mitt Romney nor Newt Gingrich will abide by our Constitution, and they will not work to limit the size and scope of the federal government.

Solution

As the saying goes, it is often easy to complain, but sometimes difficult to offer a solution. Fortunately, this is not one of those times.

Ron Paul has a record of supporting and defending the Constitution as a member of Congress. His votes and positions have not always been popular, but they have been within the rules. He is very consistent. I'll admit I did not know much about Dr. Paul in 2008 when I voted for John McCain, which is why I left the Republican party soon after (I've been back since 2010). After becoming politically involved in things, and seeing how Republicans were destroying liberty at a rapid pace here in Florida, I looked into Dr. Paul. I really liked what I saw and heard- I listened to him when he came to speak at Florida State University. I don't agree with everything he says. As one example (and I've gotten into debates over this), I support Ron Paul, but I don't want to legalize drugs. Following the Constitution, this is a decision that must be made by each state- and Dr. Paul recognizes this. If 50% +1 of the voters want to do so, then that will be the law. If I disagree, it's up to me and those that agree to write legislation and get it passed- kind of like the battles we're fighting with REAL ID and Red Light Cameras. As a related point, had Congress voted with Dr. Paul on the former, we'd have no battle to fight here.

Supporting Ron Paul is not just over a single issue such as climate change (which he has spoken about here), although his position consistently has been from the point of following our Constitution. In this case, he supports ending subsidies- a common-sense means of reducing government spending and allowing the free market to work. If you're interested in his positions on federal education, many can be found here.

Finally, the 800 pound gorilla- Ron Paul's foreign policy. It seems like the knee-jerk reaction is in so many words "I like Ron Paul EXCEPT for his foreign policy." I recently challenged my neighbor to contrast the foreign policy of Ron Paul with that of President Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations- entangling alliances with none." As a logical thinker, I realize that we must indeed get our own house in order before we can begin to think about other nations- if America fails from within, then foreign policy is of little consequence. In the meantime, a strong defense is necessary, something Dr. Paul recognizes and supports.

A commonly known truism is that there are many paths for a bill to take for it to fail. There is only one path for it to become a law. In the past couple of weeks, we are seeing opposition for two of our bills from people that claim to be supporters of liberty. I spend a lot of time countering opponents of liberty on these issues, so it confuses me when I have to do so with people I thought were on the side of liberty and Constitutional rule of law.

REAL ID, HB 109

Why won't he hear this bill?

This bill is stalled in the Transportation and Highway Safety subcommittee. The Chair, Rep. Brad Drake, depicted above, has thus far declined to move it forward. His is the first committee of three the bill must go through. Having met with a majority of the members of this committee, I have no doubt this bill would pass easily. Rep. Drake is concerned that since 80% of Floridians are already in the system and the courts would overturn any such legislation we would be wasting our time with the bill. All of his concerns have been addressed, and many Floridians have either called or written to Rep. Drake to ask him to just hear the bill. I'll point out that Florida's (along with 26 other states) suit against the similarly unconstitutional federal health insurance law is now headed to the Supreme Court, so that was certainly not a waste of time. Defending our liberty and sovereignty can never be a waste of time. Just like with mandated federal health insurance, many other states oppose REAL ID, and 19 have done something about it.

As to his concerns, the DHSMV Executive Director Julie Jones said only 5 million Floridians are in the system, so with over 12 million drivers (plus an unknown number of ID card holders), this is well under half. As I pointed out to Rep. Drake my kids and grandkids are not in there. He's been given relevant case law from the Supreme Court that shows our bill would be entirely defensible and Constitutional, as well as other legal, practical, and even biblical references on this issue.

As I've noted elsewhere, Rep. Drake campaigned on a pro-liberty and smaller government platform. From his current campaign website's "Brad on the Issues" page- these are the first two items:

These are my basic beliefs that guide me as a State Representative:

» The government should be least intrusive in our lives.

» We the people should hold more personal freedoms.

In an editorial dated October 19, 2011, the NW Florida Daily News was critical of Rep. Drake for his firing squad death penalty bill:

He also shrugged off criticism. “When somebody laughs at me and says, ‘You’re wasting your time,’ then it just makes me want to do it even more.”

Why won't he hear this bill in his subcommittee?

Motorist Rights Restoration Act (MRRA), HB 343

Yesterday and today I found a number of comments from people that oppose red light cameras that the MRRA is a "Trojan Horse" bill that will authorize speed cameras, and to oppose it. I've had to take the time to explain that speed cameras (and any other type of infraction) are already authorized under Florida law thanks to the 2010 camera law (HB 325 of 2010). See s. 316.0083, the devices are not prohibited. You will not find the word "camera" in that law, just the term "Traffic infraction detector". What a law does not prohibit is just as important as what it allows. The MRRA specifies that any unattended speed measuring device must be tested as specified in Florida law- and the referenced law mandates testing speed measuring devices every 6 months. Currently, red light cameras (or any other use of an infraction detector) have no requirement for accuracy testing. The MRRA adds this requirement.

The fact is that the camera ban bill died in 2011. It would likely do so again in 2012- one has not even been introduced. Instead of wasting time fighting that battle again, I thought it better to address the shortcomings of the existing law- which is what MRRA does, and these shortcomings were recognized by several pro-camera legislators last session. It does NOT authorize speed cameras- they are already authorized. If one had taken perhaps 5 minutes to read the 5 page (with summary) bill, they would have discovered this fact.

Here's what it says about speed:

(summary)

providing for testing of certain unattended devices used to enforce traffic laws; providing that such devices used to enforce speed limit laws are also subject to specified provisions;

(bill text)

(b) Any traffic infraction detector or other unattended device used to enforce the unlawful speed laws of this state is also subject to s. 316.1905.

How do you get the bill authorizing speed cameras out of that? To break it down further, s. 316.1905 is the law that requires police to have their radars and lasers tested for accuracy every 6 months. Some red light cameras can already measure speed- and there is zero regulation on them.

By the way, HB 343 is also on the table for Rep. Drake's subcommittee. Will he give it a hearing?

So we're fighting the battle on both sides here, people that say they support liberty and smaller government as well as those that wish to ban red light cameras. I made the observation that this is like us fighting England in WW2 before we fought the Germans. How do you think that one would have turned out? I'll give you a hint- we'd have had REAL ID a lot sooner and red light cameras would be the least of our worries.
 

Corn: it's not just for dinner anymore- except for your engine

In the past few months I've been focused on Liberty issues- things like unconstitutional driver's license laws and working to restore the rights of motorists in Florida. This past week, I learned of some new legislation that will be a great benefit to all of us that use an internal combustion engine. As I told the Senators in a hearing, my concern was not so much that of a Liberty lobbyist, but more as one that collects and restores cars and motorcycles. Not to worry, there's a Liberty tie-in, so keep reading.

Back when you could still buy an honest-to-goodness made in the USA (not Canada) muscle car, you could go to your local gas station and put some high-octane leaded fuel in it. I recall Sunoco having like 6 different numerical grades of gas. Around this same time came the 1970's, Richard Nixon, the oil crisis, unleaded gas, Jimmy Carter, Newt Gingrich, and a heap of alphabet agencies like the EPA (1970) and DOE. Take your pick- that acronym is good for both the Departments of Education (1979) and Energy (1977). Mr. Nixon gave us the EPA and Mr. Carter gets the credit for the other two, with an assist from Mr. Gingrich for the Dept. of Education.

What this has led to several decades later is the EPA compelling the states to pass legislation that will allegedly help the environment. Sound familiar? It should, since Homeland Security did this with REAL ID. As with most federal legislation that lacks constitutionality, this one has given us unintended consequences. In 2008, the Florida Legislature passed a law that mandated most gasoline would have a 10% Ethanol content- there were exceptions for boats, motorcycles, and some other off-road type vehicles. This was done to comply with federal coercion, oops, legislation since it was believed Ethanol would allow for better use of our natural resources and a cleaner environment.

Here's the problem: It can't, it hasn't, and it won't. Yes, it burns cleaner, but you have to burn a lot more of it to go as far as you could on gasoline. Then there are the side-effects.

Ethanol is commonly extracted from corn. It's a form of alcohol, and is a sugar-rich product. The main issues with it involve corrosiveness and that it does not produce the energy of gasoline. Blending the two merely dilutes the gasoline. The unburned Ethanol remains in the combustion chamber (sugar does not burn), which causes the engine to operate less efficiently. There are specific racing applications using Ethanol, but these types of vehicles are not practical for street use. Back to the problems:

• Due to the lower energy content, a 10% mix of Ethanol in real-world applications show a reduction in fuel economy of about 10%. Keep the acronym CAFE in mind, and I'll get back to it later. Ethanol has been mixed to be as much as 85% of the fuel- this product is called E-85 and can be used in "flex fuel" vehicles. Most gas sold in Florida is E-10, or 10% Ethanol.
• Ethanol does not like many metals, notably aluminum. Many components like carburetors and cylinder heads are cast from aluminum to save weight. Saving weight gives better fuel economy. Still wondering about CAFE? Hint: It's not about food. Oh, and those "flex fuel" vehicles? They nave to have expensive stainless steel fuel lines and systems to combat the super-corrosiveness of the E-85.

While passing some time at Wal-Mart tonight (married men will understand the code here), I was reading a motorcycle magazine. An article caught my eye. The author, a motorcycle mechanic, was talking about a bike he looked at. It was a 2002 Kawasaki with just a few thousand miles. This would usually command a great price, but when he opened the gas cap, he saw it had corroded away due to Ethanol sitting in the tank, and the tank was also damaged beyond repair. Neither of those parts were still available, so unless used parts could be found, the whole bike was ruined. That was a less than 10 year old bike. My favorite bike that I ride is now 30 years old, and I despise running corrosive Ethanol blend fuel in it. You have to run an additive to overcome the effects of the Ethanol. I've lined the tanks of the other bikes I've rebuilt to help with this issue. I could share many other examples of damage done to fuel systems and engines, but I won't fill up this post doing so. Suffice it to say Ethanol is bad news.

So what does CAFE mean? It's the Corporate Average Fuel Economy mandated by the federal government upon car makers. What it means is they have to sell cheap (or not so cheap: Volt/Prius) small crappy cars that get really good gas mileage so they can sell other cars & trucks that most people actually want to buy. If the government deems a vehicle is a "gas guzzler" it slaps a huge tax on it. A few years back, had I bought a 6.1 liter SRT Challenger instead of the 5.7 liter R/T model, I would have had another $1700 added to the price due solely to this law. So now on one hand, we have the government mandating that cars get better gas mileage, and on the other mandating a fuel that reduces gas mileage and destroys engines. How exactly does one stay in business making cars? Attentive citizens will know the answer to that one- except for Ford, our domestic automakers were bailed out by the taxpayer a couple of years ago. Excessive federal regulations have played a part in this situation. I've written about this here on another page.

Is there a light at the end of this tunnel? Maybe just a glimmer. It's H 4013 by Rep. Matt Gaetz and S 238 by Sen. Greg Evers. Frequent readers will recognize the latter name as the sponsor of our driver's license bill in the Florida Senate this year. Sen. Evers has a good grasp on the Liberty issue, specifically the 10th Amendment.

What these bills will do is to give gas retailers the freedom to sell unblended gasoline or Ethanol blended gas. Estimates were that pure gas would cost between 10 and 20 cents more per gallon. The benefit of course is that you go farther on each gallon, and your fuel is not eating away the internal parts of your engine and fuel system.

What can you do? Like any good bill, get behind it and ask your legislator to support it. They have to hear from you. These two are in the committee process, and I'm pleased to report S 238 passed it's first committee hearing virtually unopposed- only one Senator voted against it. I was able to testify at that hearing along with several of my friends. It was interesting to note the main concern from the Senators was the same one I've heard about REAL ID: It's federal law, so we have to do it. In my testimony, I explained that unless it was covered under Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, it was an unconstitutional federal law, and we DID NOT have to do it. Under the 10th Amendment, we as a state have the authority to regulate our gasoline, just as we have the authority to issue our driver's licenses. This concept is neither Democrat nor Republican, and it appears many in the Legislature here and in other state legislatures are awakening to this fact- several of the yes votes that day were from Democrats.

Think of these bills as fuel at a gas station for Liberty: I say fill 'er up!

As children, this is a phrase we might hear on the playground after someone takes our favorite toy. As adults, it's unfortunately a phrase we do not hear often in governments regarding tax dollars. That's why I'm very pleased to write about something I saw take place this week in Jefferson County.

In the normal course of a County Commissioner meeting, people will approach the podium for any number of things. I've been there myself for a driver's license law resolution presentation. On several occasions, it is someone from the government asking for money- the Commissioners control much of the spending in a county. When I saw our Property Appraiser Angela Gray approach the podium with a folder, based on my experience I was reasonably certain it was not to ask for money.

As it turns out, she was not asking for money, she was giving it back. She gave the Commissioners a check for over $16,000. Everyone in the room applauded.

Since I was unsure as to the source of the money, I inquired during the citizen comments portion and learned it was excess budget money.

This struck home with me, since in my former career with the State of Florida  I've seen on several occasions how money is spent at the end of the budget year for things that are not absolutely vital. The conventional wisdom here is that if you don't spend it, you'll get less next year.

Angela Gray is an example of how our government should operate. I say this also based on personal experience with a valuation issue we had several years ago. Having lived in the southern portion of the state for most of my life, I was used to dealing with underlings when it came to local government. You never got to see the actual elected person. This is not the case with Mrs. Gray. We made an appointment and were speaking directly to her in less than 5 minutes after walking in the door. She listened to us (this alone is invaluable) and then resolved the issue within a couple of weeks.

Think what would happen if we had people of this mindset running all of our agencies. Would we have a $14+ trillion deficit? I suspect we would not. This is an example of how our government ought to operate.