Americans consistently forget that our country is the safest in the world, with the best schools and the best place to achieve success. Achieving success means hard work and doing things right, from struggling through high school and college, to obeying our laws, to a lifetime of working hard at a miserable job. We’ve also forgotten that English is a prerequisite to success in America.
Mexicans are the only people who haven’t abided by the national custom to learn English. It’s extraordinarily arrogant on their part to think that Americans and immigrants from Asia, Africa, and Europe should learn to speak Spanish to accommodate them. A constitutional amendment requiring all Americans to speak English is a priority.
The amendment would mandate that all government correspondence be in English from driver’s license tests to the voting booth to every product label. All taxpayer-funded classes would be in English, and parents who fail to teach their children English would pay for their own private school or send the children back to their home country to be educated.
English would also be a prerequisite for citizenship, and an English proficiency test would be part of the citizenship process. Immigrants who can’t speak English will never assimilate into American culture and never understand American values.
Another clause of the amendment would ban Ebonics—parents of black children should be forced to teach their children proper English. Teaching Ebonics is incredibly detrimental to the child’s educational future. Ebonics and Spanish have more to do with low-test scores and poor school results than any other thing.
On a national talk show, a teacher advocated a multi-language country, encouraging all Americans to learn several languages. He spoke Spanish, to accommodate his Mexican students, and Vietnamese, aligning himself with two of the worst run countries in the world. In Dallas, the school district is trying to force their principals to learn Spanish to accommodate illegal Mexican immigrants. In the suburbs, white males are studying Mandarin, figuring that trade with China will continue, and that anyone speaking Mandarin will have job opportunities. Who has chosen poverty? Who has chosen success?
National Identification Card - # 2
The Department of Homeland Security asked for an additional 12 billion dollars to identify illegal immigrants. That’s ludicrous; it’s wasted money that will not solve any problems. The National Identification Card is covered in chapter four. It’s obvious that Congress does not intend to establish a national form of identification. A constitutional amendment is necessary, making it mandatory that all Americans have an identification card, including foreigners living in this country illegally. The government has a right and the need to know certain things to run a country efficiently. The card should contain the sex, race, religion, and religious sect, the country where the person was born, and where their ancestors are from—all the touchy stuff, which people get a little squeamish about, but is necessary for any government to function.
The amendment should include the loss of work permits and/or citizenship for anyone who comes to America and lies about their race, religion, or country of origin. It should also include the loss of citizenship for any children born here while living under false pretenses. Twenty years ago race, and religion were unimportant—it simply didn’t matter. But today these questions are becoming more important. Arrogantly, Muslims have made it their mission in life to make religion an important denominator in American society.
One self-supporting national department would issue birth certificates, driver’s licenses, passports, and death certificates, along with DBA, business licenses, marriage licenses and professional certificates. The national data bank would include fingerprints, DNA, and family medical history.
Anyone without a national ID number could not attend any school, get a job, receive treatment in the General Hospital System, drive a car, or vote. The police would have the right to arrest and jail anyone without an ID card until their identity is determined. Anyone using a forged or phony ID would be automatically sentenced to five years in prison. Anyone using a forged or phony ID for financial gain would get twenty-five years in prison. Americans would have the option of carrying a card with them or having a chip implanted that could be read by a scanner.
A clause in the amendment would force cities, counties, and states to hand over the responsibility for birth certificates, driver’s licenses, death certificates, and other state and county records to the federal government. One centralized federal agency will save the taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. Ironically, a constitutional amendment is needed to force the federal and state government to perform a basic government chore.
Basic criteria to vote—a high school diploma and picture identification card - # 3
An amendment is needed to put some teeth back into our voting laws. We the people have a right to demand certain levels of achievement from every citizen. The first step to achieve success in America is getting through high school; it should also be the basic criteria for voting. People without a diploma would need a ten-year work history before they can vote—proof that they are responsible taxpaying citizens. People shouldn’t get a trophy for showing up. People should get a trophy for real achievement. In this case, the achievement is a high school degree or work history. The trophy is the authority to vote.
A second criterion would be a picture ID, preferably a National Identification Card or a driver’s license or state-supplied ID. Apparently, some people in Washington are against having a picture ID as a criterion for voting. But the American electoral process should not be open to fraud of any kind. It’s one vote per person, and that’s how it should be.
Voter registration would be banned. The Department of Identification, Licenses, and Records would maintain the roll of those eligible to vote, and the National ID card would be used as access to the voting area.
When people are against having something as simple as a picture ID at a polling place, something is wrong. If nothing changes, Americans should expect more voter fraud, and cries of fraud. Without change, that could be our future—just another useless, Third World election.
Voting would be in English, American taxpayers shouldn’t have to fund voting booths or ballots in any other language. We are English speaking. We shouldn’t have to concede to Russians, Arabs, or any other language.
A third clause outlawing divided loyalty would be added. There are too many people defining themselves as X Americans. People whose loyalty belongs to other countries shouldn’t have the right to vote in America. Mexicans should vote in America’s elections or Mexico’s elections, not both. Divided loyalty for any country is a death sentence.
Another clause would mandate security cameras at the polling place. Every single voting area should have security monitors; American’s shouldn’t have to listen to Republicans or Democrats claiming election fraud or fixed elections. Every voter should have their picture and fingerprints taken before they enter the voting booth. This will solve claims of fraud and fixed elections.
Not too long ago there was a push to give felons the right to vote. It was quickly voted down, but this amendment would also prohibit felons from voting. These men and women are the worst of the worst. In no way, shape, or form should felons be allowed to have a vote in how this country is run.
A picture ID, a high school diploma, English, obeying our laws, fraud-free elections, and ending divided loyalties are just minimum rules for any country. Americans have the right to demand minimal criteria.
Buying back Congress - # 4
As covered in chapter five, the way we elect national representatives is appalling. Members of the House of Representatives stay on the campaign trail and are constantly raising money to win back their jobs. The president has to take into consideration the wealthy men and women who financed his campaign with every decision he makes. A small deviation may not hurt, but any large deviation and the money dries up, along with his reelection campaign. Raising the salary for the president and congressional representatives is needed to make them financially independent. Making their income tax-free allows them to stop worrying about paying taxes and finding a tax break.
Electing the president for one six-year term and members of the House of Representatives for two six-year terms and limiting both houses to two six-year terms will take a constitutional amendment, but it would bring back some sanity to Washington.
We the people have a right and a need to buy back Congress. Survey after survey shows that most people have no faith in Congress or the President. Buying them back is one way to achieve honest and moral national leadership, or at least, the increased perception of honest and moral leadership.
Included in the amendment would be a mandatory life sentence and the loss of all assets for any congressional representative taking a bribe. The amount of corruption in America is sickening and in some cases embarrassing. One Congressman has apparently sold out for five hundred thousand dollars. In the world of business and international relations that amounts to chump change—it’s embarrassing.
Balanced Budget - # 5
At any time, Congress could balance the budget by across the board budget cuts, cutting waste and nonfunctional programs—cleaning house, so to speak—and increasing taxes by a few percentage points. Their refusal to balance the budget doesn’t make sense, unless their wealthy patrons are benefiting from the extra money in circulation and have continued to encourage Congress and the President to keep borrowing. A constitutional amendment is needed to balance the budget.
The 9 trillion borrowed dollars is gone and multimillionaires and billionaires have it. Getting it back may take a hundred years or more. Don’t believe it? In 2006, the news media were trumpeting the 8.6 million millionaires in America. Collectively, they have a minimum 8.6 trillion dollars, nearly the exact amount of the national debt. Of course, the wealthy have more, much more, than a million dollars each.
Besides the federal budget, city, school, and county bonds have dominated city and state governments. It’s time to stop all the borrowing until local governments can get a handle on their spending—state and local governments owe nearly 2 trillion dollars or 7 thousand dollars for every single man, woman, and child. That is extraordinarily scary. A moratorium should be called until the bonds are paid, and a cap of no more than three thousand dollars debt per resident—divided equally by state, county, and school—should be put into law.
The economy is considered by most to be healthy, even robust, but there is nothing healthy about the national debt. America has borrowed the wealth of their grandchildren. It’s time to fix this.
Flexible fueled hybrids and renewable energy - # 6
Since the first oil crisis in the 1970s, the federal government has done little about oil and embarrassingly little about global warming. In terms of world leadership, we’re last in cutting greenhouse emissions—and number one in pollution production. Maybe that’s what the President and Congress mean when they say we’re world leaders.
A constitutional amendment is needed to force the government to develop renewable energy resources ending our dependence on oil. Car manufacturers would be forced to build flexible fueled electric cars and eventually electric cars and trucks. We can’t trade the burning of gasoline for the burning of coal, oil, or nuclear energy. In conjunction with flexible fueled electric cars, we need to install solar panels on our homes—trading gasoline for solar energy. This amendment would grant solar easements allowing the government to place solar panels on our roofs. State and local government would authorize nonprofit, chartered companies to build the panels at a reasonable cost.
Oil companies, auto companies, wealthy investors, and Wall Street brokers will not be interested in flexible fueled cars. Nor will they be interested in government-owned companies building solar arrays on our homes. Trillions of dollars in profit would be lost. Americans can choose poverty or we can choose a functional middle class and citizenship.
If the federal government had made a commitment to renewable energy in the 1970s, we would be paying three dollars a barrel for oil and four dollars a gallon for gas. Just like in Europe, the cost of gas would be mostly tax. America and the world would be a safer place. The Middle East would be less violent and much more likely to avoid war. They would have been forced to develop in a much different way, with a more diverse industrial base—the money to import massive amounts of consumer goods would have had to be earned, not pumped from the ground. A three-dollar barrel of oil means the Middle East wouldn’t have massive amounts of American dollars to spend on terrorist activity around the globe.
The only way America will have a decent energy policy is if the American middle class pushes a constitutional amendment through the states. The President and Congress spend half of their time posturing (lying to the American people) about renewable energy and greenhouse gas cuts and the other half giving big oil, nuclear, and coal, massive tax subsidies. This amendment should ban all subsidies for oil, coal, and nuclear energy and force the government to adopt renewable energy.
President Bush’s budget included 2 billion dollars for renewable energy research and 100 billion dollars for the war in Iraq. If the government had taken care of its business during the past 25 years, there would not have been a war in Iraq. Instead, incompetent government and incredible oil greed has made America even more dependent on imported oil. The federal government and big oil have traded the lives of young American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan for profit. That is uncontrolled greed.
Government-owned chartered companies and road construction - # 7
As outlined in chapter five, an amendment is needed to force the federal government to transfer various government agencies into government-owned for-profit, chartered corporations, including the Social Security program.
The corporation would be owned by the federal government, and would be pay-as-you-go, including retirement benefits. Employees would be employees of the corporation, not the federal government.
The amendment would also force states to build their own roads. A chartered company would purchase construction equipment, new and used. Design and purchasing departments would be set up. Statewide purchasing for steel, cement, and beams would be instituted.
Road construction in America costs so much that our ability to pay is in jeopardy, just as America’s transportation infrastructure is falling apart. Its uncontrolled greed at its worst—as much as fifty percent of the money spent on roads in America is profit. It’s not the construction workers who are getting rich; in fact, the price for construction workers has dropped substantially during the past twenty-five years. It’s the wealthy and their massive appetite for money.
Banning toll roads - # 8
In the Dallas/Fort Worth area, it costs an extra three or four dollars for some of us to get to work, because cities, counties, and state governments can’t figure out how to build roads. Toll roads are popping up everywhere, but tolls are the most abusive form of taxation that exists.
The wealthy in Texas are extraordinarily pro-toll road—drooling over the clink of every coin. Their companies can charge higher prices to build roads and then tax the middle class on their way to work to pay for them. The CEO of one company said that toll roads worked only in countries with stable governments. If destabilizing the government will get rid of toll roads, it might happen in Texas—people are that angry. We are already being heavily taxed for roads; adding a toll is an insult. A constitutional amendment is needed to ban all toll roads. Roads are not profit centers; a toll road is cruel and inhuman taxation.
Nationalizing the Electric Grid - # 9
Utility companies are making massive profits. As the price of oil goes up on Wall Street, the price of coal or nuclear-generated electricity goes up, too. Utility company CEOs and other senior management make hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses while investors are making massive profits. At the same time, America’s electrical grid is being run into the ground—utility companies have set America on a path of self-destruction. Basic maintenance has been delayed and system improvements aren’t being done. The electrical grid needs to be nationalized and run by a government-owned charter company. Professionals would be hired to run the company—not political appointees.
Regulated capitalism works, unregulated capitalism can be fatal. Federal and state governments have allowed the deterioration of America’s electrical grid system almost to the breaking point. Like the interstate highway system, maintenance and upgrades haven’t been done. When utility companies have sucked the last energy dollar out, they’ll stick the taxpayer with repairs on the grid. It’s time to nationalize the grid and hire competent men to run it.
Fixing the Post Office - # 10
The Post Office keeps jacking up the price of a first class stamp, in part to subsidize the cost of delivering advertisements, and in part, because of the archaic ways that it does business. The Post Office should end Saturday mail in all metropolitan areas—mail service should be reduced to five possibly four days per week. For every postal route, the Post Office pays a day of overtime or has to hire extra employees to deliver Saturday’s mail. The extra day’s mail service may cause fifty percent of the mail delivery problems. Besides ending Saturday mail service, Monday’s mail would be skipped, too. The only exception would be Christmas; employees would deliver seven days a week, depending on volume during the holiday season. Most people and businesses don’t need or want six days of service. We want a cheaper stamp and better service, not more service. It’s an archaic service that the Post Office persists in providing that should have ended when the telephone, fax machine, or internet was invented.
In rural areas, mail service should be reduced to three days per week—Monday, Wednesday, and Friday or Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. This would save the Post Office nearly fifty percent of the fuel that it uses. Besides saving massive amounts of money, the shorter delivery week would allow the Post Office to concentrate on its overnight and package delivery service.
The post office will never be able to reduce the number of delivery days. A small number of people would be e-mailing their Congressman, text messaging their Congressman, faxing their Congressman, all in an effort to prove that three-day or four-day mail service won’t work, and that they need six full days of junk mail. Since the federal government will not fix this, we the people need to fix it.
Reducing waste and setting standards - # 11
Computers come with cheap keyboards, mouses, cords, and that little short telephone cord that we all throw away. Cell phones come with a little black charger. In fact, various electrical products come with that little black charger. Every television comes with a cheap remote.
But the last computer this writer purchased, the keyboard, mouse, and telephone cord all went out with trash. Those little, black, battery chargers fill one big drawer after another, while no one can remember what electronic gadget they came with. Every product comes with electrical cords; people end up with a big drawer full until they clean house. It’s no wonder there is a copper shortage, we’ve got all the copper stored in our houses.
Every product, especially electronic products, comes with an installation guide, user’s guide, product information manuals, parts lists, and advertisements—all of which could be downloaded as a PDF file from the internet, saving trees, oil, printing costs, and reducing solid waste. User’s guides and manuals should be banned from every product. Printing the manual for a new television probably runs a few cents in China. Worldwide, a television manufacturer might sell ten million units per year—the total printing costs three hundred thousand dollars. That money could be better spent developing better guides and other customer service. Spending it on a manual that will end up in the trash doesn’t make sense. America can reduce waste and save export dollars at the same time—most of the fancy packages and manuals are printed in other countries.
Every product comes with too much packaging. Men’s business shirts, for example, come from the factory with cardboard inserts, tissue paper, plastic, and a dozen pins, all stuff that is waiting to be buried, along with billions of pounds of other trash.
A waste reduction and standardization committee is needed, with the absolute authority to limit waste, packaging, and trash. Computers shouldn’t come with all the extra cords and keyboards. Battery chargers and remote controls should be standardized and sold separately. Shirts should come with a tag on the pocket or sleeve, saving trees, oil, and reducing solid waste. No one would miss a thing; products don’t need massive amounts of packaging.
A few years ago, Dawn dish detergent came with a cap that limited the amount of detergent that could be squeezed out. But the new bottle cap has a wide-open tip that allows overuse of the product—great for the manufacturer, bad for the planet. Some brands of Korean hair shampoo come with a pump that delivers a small amount of shampoo—the exact amount needed for people with short hair. American shampoo bottles come with a wide-open cap allowing overuse of the product. It’s good for the American shampoo manufacturer, great for Wall Street, but bad for the consumer and bad for the planet—its profit and greed over people and the environment.
Dinner plates, cups, bowls, and glasses should have a set size. All of the current plates and bowls are too big and big dinnerware has added to the weight and health problems in America. There’s not a kid in America that needs to eat candy cereal in a super-sized bowl or try to eat a plate of spaghetti on a 14-inch plate. Over-eating in America is a big problem, and oversized dinnerware is part of the problem.
Food manufacturers have manipulated the size of the product to meet their sales goals. No one needs a twenty-ounce Coke. In the fifties and early sixties Coke and Pepsi came in 8 or 12 ounce bottles. Today, it’s 16 or 20 ounces. (No one should wonder why people are so fat.) Single serving products, Coke, Pepsi, candy, and chips come in big, dollar-sized, packages. All of them are too large for one person to eat—but the consumer will not stop eating or drinking until it’s gone. The size of single serving products should be set by the government and set with America’s health needs as its only concern. Coke and Pepsi should be forced to return to the eight or twelve ounce size. It’s bad for Pepsi and Coke, bad for Wall Street, and bad for the wealthy, but good for the American consumer and the health care budget.
On the other extreme, coffee came in one-pound cans, today the can is 12 or 13 ounces, possibly 11 ounces depending on the brand and the greed. Too many products come in big packages with very little product. It’s massive manipulation of consumer products by wealthy multinationals companies—it’s all about profit and greed. Fancy Ivy Leaguers in 10 thousand dollar suits on the business channel call it maximizing business profits. Others call it screwing the consumer and the planet. Capitalism works, but America needs regulated capitalism. American laws have been manipulated, loopholes added—Congress and the President have failed to regulate anything.
We the people didn’t blow it, American companies have. We need a constitutional amendment that gives a waste and standardization committee the absolute authority to set package size and the amount of packaging in each product to reduce waste in American. This would be bad for Wall Street, bad for the multinationals, bad for the wealthy. But great for the American consumer and the planet that we live on.
Ending legal and illegal immigration until the federal debt is paid and the budget is balanced - # 12
America needs a break from the relentless immigration of uneducated people from other countries. It’s time to find out if we can adjust to the people already here and function at the same high level of civilization. The federal government is borrowing our grandchildren’s money to fund programs for education, health care, rent subsidies, and numerous other benefits that foreigners manage to obtain. Some estimates are as high as two hundred billion dollars a year and as much as five hundred billion dollars per year in the future. Until the budget is balanced and the national debt is paid off, the United States should maintain a zero immigration policy, and future immigration should be tied to the budget and the debt.
While the motives of countries sending people to America are suspect, the motives of the wealthy in America aren’t. They have used the borrowing power of the federal government and the relentless exploitation of illegal immigrants to build massive fortunes. A correlation exists between illegal immigration, the economy, and the federal deficit. Like a balloon filled with air, America has expanded to the breaking point—the economy has become dependent on massive illegal immigration and huge federal borrowing.
A constitutional amendment is needed, forcing not only a balanced budget, but also a zero immigration policy until the budget deficit is zero, and the national debt, including internal borrowing, is paid off.
American citizenship—marriage, anchor babies, adoption, and political asylum - # 13
The cheapest thing in the world is American citizenship. Break American immigration laws and your kids are rewarded with citizenship. Be lucky enough to get a work visa, and any children born during your stay will be American citizens. Gaining American citizenship by marriage, anchor babies, adoption, and political asylum would all be banned.
Couples from abroad, lucky enough to legally come to America, have real incentives to become American citizens, to divorce, and for both to take a new spouse from their village or hometown. In some cases, there are large financial incentives, a dowry, to marry a man or woman and bring them to America. In fact, marriage is the largest and easiest way to legally come to America, but this is sexual servitude. An amendment is needed to discontinue marriage as a tool for citizenship.
This writer knows a Chinese male on his third Chinese wife. It’s not exactly a scam. After his first divorce, he went back to China, married a young Chinese girl, and brought her back to the United States. Ten years later, she was an American citizen, fluent in English, and divorced. He found a third wife in China. For the sake of their family, young girls put themselves into the sexual servitude of a man for ten years. It’s good for the man, good for the girl, good for China and bad for America. If a Vietnamese or Chinese wants to marry a boy or girl from their home village, they should stay in the village. It’s the same for American men who pick out a new Russian, Filipino, or East European wife. Obtaining American citizenship by marriage is an immoral, unholy way to become a citizen.
Fifty years ago, people had little mobility, a trip anywhere was an adventure, and a trip around the world was only for the wealthy. In today’s world, mobility is taken for granted. In a mobile world, the law granting American citizens to children born to foreigners is obsolete. Mexican women rush across our border to have their children in America so the child will be an American citizen—that should be illegal. Children of illegal immigrants who have broken our laws should not be rewarded with citizenship. The so-called anchor baby is the worst concepts for citizenship. It forces people to have children quickly, on the off-chance that they will get to stay in America—that is an immoral reason to have children.
Even worse are the illegal immigrants who seem to think that the more children born in America, the better their chances of staying in America. It’s an irrational reason to have children—citizenship and financial gain. A change in the Constitution is needed; children born in America to foreigners should not be American citizens.
American couples drive past tens of thousands of American children that need a home and a loving adult, to the airport, where they fly to Asia or Africa to adopt a child and lavish massive amounts of money on a school or orphanage just so they don’t have to deal with the paperwork. American children in need of a good home aren’t being adopted because people think they were born to alcoholics or drug addicts. Hollywood girls should stop for a minute and think how thousands of unwanted American children feel as they parade their new child around on our televisions. Foreign adoptions should be banned until no child in America goes without a family. We need to take care of our own children and then worry about children in other countries.
Political asylum is the worst reason to become an America resident. A country kicks out a person when they cause too many problems or become too radical. Then they come to America and cause the same problems. Saudi Arabia, for example, kicked out thousands of radical Imams in the 1980s. They sought political asylum in various countries and are causing as many problems in their adopted country as they did in their home country. Many of the radical Imams are in the United States, England, Afghanistan, Thailand, and the Philippines—all five countries have one thing in common: active terrorist cells. The concept of political asylum should be banned. The United States has too many problems without having to deal with the problem that foreigners seeking political asylum can bring to this country.
Secure Borders—the Border Patrol - # 14
By definition, a country without a secure border is no longer a country. The responsibility of any government is to maintain fixed borders, keeping a country’s language and culture intact. The open border policy of the United States is forcing diversity and causing the country to lose its identity as a white, Christian, English-speaking country.
Mexican-Americans and others want an open border with Mexico and by default, Central and South America—Mexico doesn’t protect its southern border. But the United States (300 million people) can’t survive with Latin Americans (600 million people) crossing our border. Open borders means somewhere between fifty to a hundred million people moving to this country. Most migrants are products of large families without education or job training—the United States shouldn’t have to pay for Latin America’s poor school system, substandard health care and its high birth rate. Mexican and Latin American immigration can destroy this country and, quite possibly, lead us into civil war.
The government needs to secure the border, stopping illegal immigration. Besides the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines, we also have the Coast Guard under the Department of Homeland Security to protect our coast. We need a sixth branch of the armed services—The Border Patrol. The Border Patrol would protect our borders, stopping illegal immigration, drug smuggling, and border violence. It would free up the immigration services to track down illegal immigrants and send them home.
The Border Patrol would be similar to the other branches of service, and would allow members of the five branches of the service to transfer to the Border Patrol when their enlistment ends. It would be mandatory that all Border Patrol service personal have a minimum two-year enlistment in other branches of the service.
A new border fence is going up, while the price of wire cutters has tripled along the Mexican border. A fence will not keep anyone out. If they can’t cut it down, they’ll blow holes in it, or a couple of bulldozers will be stolen in Texas, and they’ll bulldoze it down. The only way to secure the border is with armed guards, and it may take fifty thousand new guards to do the job. The only way America can afford enough armed guards is to deploy a new branch of the military service.
Banning Middle Eastern, Afghani, and Pakistani Muslims from the United States - # 15
As long as Middle Eastern governments, schools, and Imams teach hatred of America, Americans have the right and the absolute moral obligation to their children to ban Muslims from this country. They hate us. Their goal is not to live as Americans, but to destroy us. The federal government has allowed radical Imams to operate with impunity, recruiting supporters, terrorists, and potential suicide bombers from our prisons and inner cities. When Americans protest, we’re called racists or worse.
Thirty years from now, there will be forty to fifty million Middle Eastern Muslims living in numerous enclaves, causing massive problems. Banning Middle Eastern Muslim immigrants will save our grandchildren massive amounts of money, lives, and misery.
It’s true that not all Muslims hate us, but it’s fair to say that the majority of the Middle Eastern Muslim population hates America and Americans. The liberal American media doing surveys in predominately Muslim countries are bombarded with anti-American sentiment—they hate our culture, lifestyle, and religion. With seven million Muslims currently living in the United States, it means millions of people hate America and Americans—enough people to provide ample, so called, homegrown terrorists. They hate our country, culture, and religion—a deep-seated hatred that is taught in their homes, schools, and mosques.
It’s time to stop the insanity in America. Muslims living legally in America should lose their green cards, and be sent home. Illegal immigrants should be identified and sent home. It’s not racist—it’s prudent. We don’t have to allow people who hate us to enter our country. Americans aren’t racists; we are the infidels that Muslims talk about in the same sentence with killing and martyrs. By sending them home, Muslims would be warned—teaching hate is no longer acceptable.
Its not just Muslims, Russians have made the trip to America, too. But Vladimir Putin sounds like an old Cold War president. If he wants to turn back the clock, returning to the Cold War, we should ban Russians, too. With all the Iranians, Pakistanis, and Russians living in America, sometimes you’ve got to wonder who has more troops stationed in America—our government or their governments. It’s only natural to think that some unfriendly governments would send soldiers to America.
China should dominate a guest worker program - # 16
The government’s proposed guest worker program has become the Mexican guest worker program as if Mexicans are already running the country. But Mexicans haven’t been good guests. They don’t want to learn or speak English, their kids aren’t motivated to study in school, and their crime rate is the highest in the country. All the while, they demand free food, health care, and housing. By any definition of good, they are not good guests.
After the budget is balanced and the national debt is paid off, we may need a guest worker program. Since we already know what Mexicans bring to the table, and since tens of millions are already here, other countries should be allowed to dominate the guest worker program.
The Chinese should be given high priority. The Chinese won’t try to outbreed us. They have superb educational values and are tough on crime. They will learn English if that is a requirement of a guest worker. In fact, since the wealthy and the federal government seem intent on giving away our country, we should give it away to a country and people that will be an asset to our grandchildren, not a hindrance. A hundred million Chinese living in America would unite China and America in the same way England and the United States have been united. As an equal and ally, China has a lot to offer, much more than any other country in Asia, Latin America, or the Middle East. If we have to let another culture dominate us, the Chinese may be the most compatible with Americans values.
Private Retirement Account (PRA)—banning government and private programs and replacing them with a PRA - # 17
Retirement costs have been transferred to future workers while CEOs and management take massive bonuses up front. Federal, state, and local governments are being overwhelmed by expensive retirement programs. School districts are struggling with teacher’s retirement and health care costs. Some companies, with high retirement and medical insurance costs—GM, Ford, and Chrysler—are trying to compensate, by sending jobs overseas, while American automotive technology is being jeopardized. We have to fix our retirement system or face massive economic problems—including inflation, bankruptcy, and poverty. In addition, a Constitutional Amendment is needed to apply a permanent fix to the program.
As outlined in chapter six, current private and government retirement programs (except Social Security) would be banned. All private and government retirement programs would be limited to Social Security and a Private Retirement Account (PRA,) a pay as you go system—this is simple, effective, and fair. Government and civilian retirement programs would be identical. Government workers would have incentives for balanced budgets and efficient management, just like the real world. Cops on the beat, teachers in troubled schools, and combat soldiers putting their lives on the line would receive retirement bonuses.
Government and businesses would have a set amount of time to buy out current retirement programs, and the money would be transferred to employees PRAs tax-free. Private Retirement Accounts would have strict guidelines for investments, and the account would be protected from bankruptcy, creditors, divorce, and the court system, but not fraud.
Separating Social Security from the Federal Government - # 18
As outlined in chapter six, Social Security would be separated from the federal government and operated as a government-owned chartered company—Social Security should not be subjected to politics. Since 1983, when former Sen. Daniel Moynihan, D-N.Y., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee’s subcommittee on Social Security and Family Planning, and Sen. Bob Dole, R-Kan., rescued Social Security by increasing the Social Security tax, the trust fund has operated at a surplus. The surplus has been used by Congress and the President to fund the federal government’s general fund. If the surplus had been invested as outlined in chapter six, the program would not be in financial trouble. It will do no good to increase Social Security taxes—again—unless the federal government is forbidden to spend the surplus. Getting the Social Security Trust Fund away from the politicians in Washington D.C. is one of the most important tasks in America. A Constitutional Amendment is needed to protect American workers’ financial interest in Social Security.
Cutting Social Security benefits for the wealthy - # 19
It’s insane to increase taxes or borrow heavily to fund Social Security benefits for people who don’t need it. Benefits should be cut for those lucky enough to have a secure retirement future. A dirty deal, you think. People have earned massive retirement benefits without paying a penny in tax. At the same time, the tax rate has been lower because the government has borrowed massive amounts of money. None of these people would be so well off, if they had paid their fair share of taxes. Americans need to get the country back on a solid footing. Cutting Social Security benefits for the well off is a solid start.
Military disability, widow’s pension, and disability insurance - # 20
As troops come back from Iraq and Afghanistan, some are heading into a lifetime of disability—post-traumatic stress disorder. With encouragement and treatment, most people diagnosed with post-traumatic stress can work through the pain and suffering, and become taxpaying members of society. The problem is that military disability insurance is so lucrative that most soldiers and Marines want it. Once into the program, a soldier can’t afford to get out—the VA disability insurance program has become as disabling as post-traumatic stress disorder. Recipients of VA disability income sit at home drinking until their marriage and family fall apart—divorce, alcoholism, and isolation follow. Soldiers diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder should have their disability cut in half, and be forced to attend school until they earn a degree in a viable occupation. The program should be flexible requiring people to attend school, job training, and allowing them to work without risking permanent loss of benefits.
No one on a VA disability, Social Security widow’s pension, or disability insurance would be allowed to use alcohol or illegal drugs. Disability paychecks can ruin people’s lives—widowed or disabled people quit school or their job and sit at home drinking. Recipients should be forced to take monthly drug and alcohol tests and individuals testing positive would be removed from the program. The taxpayer shouldn’t be funding a drug or alcoholic addiction.
Congress won’t or can’t fix the disability program, afraid of the political fallout. But this is true with all the touchy-feely stuff that needs fixing in America. Congress and the federal government go out of their way to avoid things that might have a little political fall-out. The massive accumulation of small problems has become a drain on America.
Social Security cut in half for out of country recipients - # 21
Social Security is for America and Americans. Social Security works because it adds to the overall health of our economy. But when people leave the country to retire, their Social Security benefits become a drain on the economy. The outright transfer of the American dollar to other countries without any goods or other compensation is one of America’s biggest problems. Foreigners, who have never assimilated into America’s culture, head back to their homeland with barely a thank you, at the American taxpayer’s expense. Even worst, are the Americans who are looking for cheaper retirement alternatives in other countries. When a million people retire in other countries, it’s a small problem; when twenty-five million people retire in other countries, it will be devastating.
A constitutional amendment is needed to cut Social Security benefits in half for people living outside of the United States. The amendment would also end payments of Disability Insurance, Widower’s benefits, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), or the guaranteed loan program for anyone living outside our country. A penalty would be included in the amendment for anyone who cheats—the mandatory loss of all benefits.
Americans have a basic right to protect their financial interests. The program was never intended for Mexicans, Russians, Vietnamese, or anybody from a foreign country. For those that think this is racist: here’s the deal, Americans started Social Security when there weren’t any Vietnamese-Americans, Mexican-Americans, or any other hyphenated Americans. In the 1930s, when the program was started, no one retired in any other country. Now, it’s as if everyone wants to retire in any country, but America.
A person’s race, culture, or country of origin doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter if someone is from Germany, Russia, England, Vietnam, or Mexico. Social Security is a program for elderly Americans, who don’t have an income and who can’t work. It’s for America and Americans. It’s our program, and it should help our country, not any other country. Americans have the right and a moral obligation to protect their financial interests. No one can take that away, regardless of his or her race, religion, or ethnicity. Our government has forgotten that.
Death certificates - # 22
An amendment would make it mandatory that all recipients of Social Security benefits physically report to the Department of Identification, Licensing, and Records each year on their birthdays. It would be mandatory for the department to take digital fingerprints, photos, and a DNA sample—a refusal or in the event that the recipient doesn’t show up, his or her benefits would be stopped.
A Vietnamese man, for example, does everything right, after working hard his entire life, he earns his retirement, and then heads back to Vietnam—no one would blame him, it’s cheaper to live there. His Social Security check would be automatically deposited in an American bank and the bank would forward it to the Communist Bank of Ho Chi Minh City. He buys a nice house, hires a woman to help around the house and then has a heart attack and dies—or worse, is killed. The woman continues to cash his Social Security check and no one at the Social Security Administration has a clue. The chance of someone in Vietnam saying anything is slim. Why kill the golden goose—the extra cash is good for their economy. Is this going on? Absolutely. Is Social Security checking? Hopefully.
Natural deaths in America have been hidden from the authorities so a spouse or caretaker can continue to claim the benefits. People have been killed by caretakers for their Social Security benefits. No one should be surprised if this happens in other countries. A law making it mandatory that all recipients of Social Security report once a year is needed. This amendment will make it safer for all Social Security recipients and save massive amounts of money.
Electronic Social Security checks - # 23
A few years ago, the federal government stopped mailing out welfare and Social Security checks. Instead, all checks were electronic, saving the government tens of millions of dollars. People complained. The people who complained were mostly the poor who didn’t have a bank account—the same people who constantly “lose” their checks or have them “stolen.” The procedure was changed and the government still sends written checks. A constitutional amendment would force government transactions to be electronic payments and discontinue paper check writing.
A second part of the amendment would force banks to have a limited non-checking account for the poor. The account would be limited to two automatic electronic payments—the rent or mortgage payment and car payment and four ATM withdrawals per month, or it would be tied to a cash card account—no checks would be accepted on the account. The bank would be allowed to charge the recipient three dollars per month and Social Security would pay another three dollars for each account.
It would be mandatory that banks and retail outlets get a digital fingerprint and photo every time money is withdrawn from the account. The fingerprint and photo would be stored on the bank’s computer, not the retailers, and Social Security would have access to the account data—eliminating most claims of fraud.
Banning government employees from joining unions, striking, or work slowdowns—firing workers - # 24
Government employees, judges, teachers, postal workers, and employees of government–owned companies would be banned from joining a union, striking, or participating in a work slowdown. Over the past twenty-five years, government workers have used and abused the taxpayers as if we have no rights whatsoever. It’s time for the taxpayers to put a little reality back into the government employment process.
Government workers, who join a union, participate in a strike or work slowdown would be fired and banned from working any government job or contract jobs. All Government agencies and departments supported by taxes would have the right to lay off excess workers, fire workers, and manage their work force in an appropriate and sustainable manner. Government workers would be allowed one in-house appeal, but would not be allowed to use the court system to retain their jobs.
The American taxpayer has rights, too. Part of the wastefulness in government is the ungodly number of government employees who aren’t working and/or doing their jobs. This amendment would bring some sanity back to the government work force. Government workers have had their day. The taxpayers need a day, too.
An amendment ending Medicare and Medicaid and establishing a General Hospital System - # 25
Medicare and Medicaid don’t work. The programs are expensive, filled with fraud, the paperwork is horrendous, and too many people are excluded. It’s time to put the elderly and the poor on notice, the taxpayers have rights, too. We shouldn’t fund unlimited health care for a few while we can’t afford our own health care. A constitutional amendment is needed to dissolve the Medicare and Medicaid programs. As outlined in chapter eight, a General Hospital System would be developed. Every American would have a choice, pay for private health care, or use the General Hospital System.
The federal, state, and local governments would build or purchase centralized trauma centers that would offer free emergency room care to all Americans. The General Hospital System would include trauma care, clinics, and hospitals along with specialized hospitals to serve not only the poor and the elderly, but the middle class as well. Private hospitals would no longer be allowed to operate emergency rooms and they would be allowed to send away patients seeking treatment. The hospitals would be protected from lawsuits when they did.
A clause in the amendment would force individuals to pay for their own private medical insurance. Federal, state, and local governments, corporations, labor unions, and private companies would no longer be allowed to pay for anyone’s medical insurance or any cost associated with medical insurance or care. Massive amounts of fraud and unneeded treatment has pushed up the cost of health care, nearly sinking the economy. Private, third party insurance doesn’t work. When a person pays, they want the cheapest and the best. When a third party pays, they only want the best and in many cases, people assume that means the most expensive.
An amendment legalizing euthanasia—mercy killings - # 26
Surveys have shown most people want a chance at the easy way out—legal euthanasia. This is a case where arrogantly stupid politicians, doctors, and clergy think they know better than the average man in the street. When people have a debilitating incurable condition, they should have the right to make the decision to terminate their life. This isn’t conservative or liberal; it’s what the man in the street wants.
There is no slippery slope. Whenever legalizing euthanasia is discussed, a person in a wheelchair is always shouting about his or her rights and the slippery slope. People are not going to be wheeled off kicking and screaming. It would be a rational decision, made by a rational person with a fatal and incurable cancer or disease, and regulated by rational doctors.
Pulling the plug is a medical decision. It should be up to the doctors with input from the family, but the family should not have the final voice.When brain death occurs, the plug should be pulled. When the physical body dies, when the there is no hope, the plug and feeding tubes should be pulled.
It’s not a medical miracle—God hasn’t intervened. When a person takes a bullet, has a heart attack, or is hurt in an accident. The emergency room staff induces a coma; they stop the bleeding, and insert a breathing tube—the breathing machine/respirator takes over. Then the doctors sit back and figure out what’s wrong. X-rays, labs test, EKG, and EEG are done. After a thorough evaluation, the decision is made for drug treatment, surgery, or in some cases, termination of life support. Doctor’s induce a coma and start life support for every person that needs it—the doctors don’t want a patient kicking and screaming in the ER room. All patients are dealt with in the same way and most families make the decision to terminate life support if the doctor discovers massive injuries.
In the modern American hospital, hundreds of thousands of people could be kept on life support or with a feeding tube for years if that was the law of the land. Most people and most coma patients want the plug pulled. Most families make the hard decision. In fact, the court system has consistently ruled in favor of the vast majority of Americans who do—pulling the plug is the law of the land. Since most of us want a death with dignity, this amendment would include a clause forcing people that want to live in a vegetative state to put a “right to vegetate” clause in their wills. Instead of forcing the majority of Americans to put the right to die clause in their wills, the law would be flip-flopped.
The “right to vegetate” clause would include, “I want my body to be put through the dehumanizing nature of coma care. I want my spouse, parents, siblings, and friends to forgo their lives and moan at my bedside for as long as it takes. I want my insurance company and/or the government to provide massive amounts of care while thousands of people can’t afford any care.”
In high profile, pull-the-plug cases, this writer can’t help, but wonder if the coma patient is really that awful of a person. Do coma patients really want their families to give up their lives to visit a shell in a hospital bed? Do coma patients really want to use up hundreds of thousands of health care dollars when tens of millions of people can’t afford health care? Do coma patients want strangers doing the most intimate comma care?
Even worse, apparently some coma patients may have some awareness of their situation. It has to be the worst-case nightmare to be aware of one’s surroundings without the ability to communicate—trapped inside a dead body—it would seem that death would be a welcomed event.
Mandatory negotiation to obtain the lowest possible prescription drug prices - # 27
It should not take a constitutional amendment to force the government to negotiate drug prices. The new Medicare drug program is bad for the taxpayer and the elderly. It’s good for drug companies and a perfect example of uncontrolled greed at its worst. The federal government’s persistent screwing of the American taxpayer is remarkable. This alone, above any other thing in America, shows that the Congress and the President have sold out to the highest bidder.The amendment would mandate that the General Hospital System negotiate for the lowest priced drugs available.
The Mantle Amendment - # 28
The ethics of doctors are questionable, especially when it comes to transplants. Mickey Mantle was an alcoholic. He knew it, and we knew it. Yet when his liver gave out, he was rushed into transplant surgery. In a news conference before the surgery, the doctor was asked about cancer. He said that if cancer was found that the transplant wouldn’t take place and that he would sew the patient back up, and—tell the patient to kiss his ass goodbye. (My words not his.)
Mantle was rushed into surgery, the transplant took place, and during the recovery phase, he was given anticancer drugs. The doctor stated that this was a precaution, but that is nearly unheard of in transplants cases. I believe that the doctor found cancer and continued with the transplant. As we know, shortly after the surgery, Mantle died. People drink or snoot their way to death’s door, then want a new liver or kidney so they can continue on their way.
A constitutional amendment is needed to bar drug addicts, alcoholics, and felons from being transplant recipients. They should be ruled out as transplant patients, and doctors should be protected from lawsuits from patients who are denied access to the system.
We the people need to say no. We tell people don’t smoke, don’t drink, don’t use drugs, and to obey our laws. In fact, the federal government spends massive amounts of our tax dollars trying to keep people from using alcohol and drugs. When that doesn’t work, we spend more money on rehab clinics—that doesn’t work either. Alcoholics and addicts spend a lifetime of not listening and after partying to the very end, they end up on the transplant list, where they want us to spend even more of our money on their health care. That is immoral and unacceptable. A society has to have some basic rules, this is one of them, let’s draw the line. Please.
Fixing our welfare system with a guaranteed loan program - # 29
One welfare program after another has been added to the welfare system. Gaps have been closed, opened, and closed again. There are too many small, underfunded programs and most are completely ineffective. Junking the welfare system and replacing it with one guaranteed loan program would ensure every individual help when they need it and give every child access to higher education, while limiting the amount of money one person or one family can use. Along with the General Hospital System, subsidized mortgage program, and federally run food banks, Americans would be guaranteed ample food, housing, and health care.
Head Start for Parents - # 30
The lack of parenting skills in this country is atrocious. Kids are lost before they reach kindergarten. Parenting classes, a Head Start for parents, would be instituted for all parents. A basic biological right is having children, to reproduce and pass on one’s genes. People have trashed that right and are having children without any means to feed or house them and failing to teach and pass on basic survival tools. Responsible adults get the house, job, and life first and then have kids, while irresponsible adults have the kid first and then need help getting the house, job, and life.
Parents need to be taught how to teach their children, how to cook and clean—how to be a responsible parent and adult. The current Head Start program takes away the responsibility from the parents; the program would be canceled, and funds from Head Start would be used to fund this program. An amendment is needed to force mandatory parenting classes. Our laws and the court system allow intervention only after massive neglect or tragedy. It’s time to intervene before a child is neglected or abused.
Parental responsibility and family confinement in state-run reform schools - # 31
Irresponsible people have throwaway kids with the intention of having the taxpayer assume responsibility and expense for their offspring. American taxpayers have been stuck with the expense of food, housing, and health care for millions of children. When the free stuff doesn’t work, we have foster care. Foster care is expensive and nearly overwhelmed by the number of children in the program. It should be replaced with state-run parenting reform schools where the mother and child would be incarcerated together. Locking up children may seem to be counterproductive, but children need a responsible, sober mother, three meals day, a decent school, and a warm bed—that’s all.
In America, parents who neglect their children get a free walk. Their children are taken away, placed in foster care and the mother and/or father continues using drugs or alcohol while the taxpayer is paying for their children. Foster care has become childcare for drug addicts. A few parents are sent off to jail while the children go to foster care, but the majority of parents are free to continue their chosen lifestyle.
A drug-free reform school for mother and child is needed where activities are severely curtailed, and the mother assumes parenting responsibility under supervision for her children. The mother would work or attend school, job training, and parenting classes while the children would continue with their schoolwork—all in a structured setting. The family would remain institutionalized until the children are eighteen and develop work skills or until a committee and judge determines that the family is functional. No drugs, alcohol, tobacco, or pregnancies would be allowed and severe penalties would be enforced for anyone using drugs—including long prison sentences for women who fail to care for children while incarcerated in a parenting reform school.
A few women have no business having children. There are women with three or four kids in foster care at taxpayers’ expensive while the mother and father continue a life of drugs, prostitution, and other petty crimes. These people are the first to demand their rights, but taxpayers have rights, too. That’s been forgotten in America.
This is a unique concept: curtailing the activity of irresponsible women with children. But children need a clean home and responsible mother. Having a child is an adult responsibility; it’s time that people took that responsibility seriously. The taxpayers have the right to assure all children that they have a responsible, sober parent, a clean, orderly home, and decent schools.
Fathers would not be included in the parenting reform school. They would be forced to work, and pay child support while living at the county jail or spend the time in prison—their choice. There would be no conjugal visits or any physical interaction with their children. Fatherhood is not a joke. It’s a real responsibility, and it’s time that men took that responsibility seriously.
Banning pregnant girls/women from public schools - # 32
Pregnant girls/women have no business in high school regardless of their age. Some high school girls have two or three kids, free of charge—barely lifting a finger to get the whole job done. It’s time to treat pregnant girls like adults. It’s assumed that staying in school is the most important step, but only because the girl and the government are planning to use the taxpayer’s money—it’s queen for nine months.
The first step for all responsible adults having a child is to make sure they have enough money. Pregnant girls need to work and make money. A pregnant high school woman—she’s not a girl anymore—along with the father, should be expelled from school and forced to work—just like responsible adults. This is what’s wrong with America; teenagers get massive amounts of free goods when they are knocked up. Pregnant teenagers aren’t punished, they don’t work, and they assume no responsibility for themselves or the child—just a pat on the head by adults as if they accomplished a majestic feat. Pregnant teenagers need to be treated like adults, they need to work.
Their paycheck wouldn’t go for fun things—the money would go for doctor and hospital bills, just like an adult. After delivery, the girl would be forced to work, keep a clean house, and perform all the duties of a mother or she would be incarcerated in a reform school. The boy would continue to work just as a responsible adult works. Both would be expected to attend parenting classes and night school to get a high school diploma.
The current system reward the irresponsible—in this case, the pregnant girl is rewarded with free medical, counseling, transportation, money, and food. At the same time, the government penalizes the taxpayer—we pay as if we have no rights.
Many of these girls have children and continue to party at the taxpayer’s expense—most without a care in the world. With decent laws, the number of pregnant high school girls would be small. Forced to be adults, they would take precautions, and put motherhood off until they really are adults.
Fifty years ago, we didn’t have massive welfare programs, and we didn’t have massive problems. A sixteen-year-old pregnant girl was forced to marry the father, and both were forced to work. We need to step back and look at what we’re doing. In America, the welfare handout has become the problem—the government has assumed the responsibility for too many people.
School video cameras and the right to refuse service to unruly children - # 33
The “No Child Left Behind” program and slogan is the problem. One or two kids are allowed to agitate a class, until no one is learning and schools can do little about it. Schools need the right to send unruly children home, first with a written warning and a three-day suspension, followed by a month suspension and finally permanent expulsion from the statewide public school system. Schools would have video monitoring in every classroom—pictorial proof of the bad behavior. Parents, but not media would have access to the video—unless a Judge releases it.
Schools are expected to provide for the educational, financial, emotional, and psychological needs of every child—when the school fails, they are charged with racism or worse. The parents who raise the perfect little monster and the children who have no respect for anything or anyone must share the blame. But parents blame the school, the teacher, or the system. They use race, culture, or individuality as an excuse. They never blame themselves or their child. The focus of the educational system should be getting the majority of students through school, not 100 percent of the children. Unruly children need to be left behind. The threat of permanent expulsion should be given to public schools to be used when children are so unruly that they can’t be taught. Losing a few kids is more logical than losing classrooms of kids.
Increasing cost for children - # 34
In the news, a reporter was publicizing the glorious attributes of a couple in Arkansas with seventeen kids. The reporter acted as if the couple had accomplished some magnificent feat. In Utah, a man had seven wives and thirty kids. In Georgia, a man with several wives had dozens of kids. Some, but not all, of these families are welfare kings and queens. Fifty years ago, big families were the norm, couples had five or more kids, but fifty years ago, there wasn’t a massive welfare system.
Most middle class Americans, and especially white middle class couple, can’t afford a large family—with the high price of health care, schools, and food. American families limit the number of children they have for a practical reason—they can’t afford a large family. For the lucky few that can afford it, they should have to pay for the extra children. It’s cruel and inhuman to tax one couple, who can’t afford a large family, to pay for another couple’s large family. That is just plain morally wrong and it’s unacceptable.
Mexicans and inner city black Americans simply refuse to pay, using the county hospital and welfare services to fund their families—forcing others to pay. The middle class is being taxed to pay for families that they can’t afford—when they complain, they are accused of racism. But having a large family is not a sustainable lifestyle in any country—not just America. If large families in Mexico, South America, Africa, or Asia were living better than large families in America, than the charge of racism might stick, but large families everywhere are living in poverty—a large family is a choice, it’s not racism.
A constitutional amendment is needed forcing parents to pay for a large number of children. The present tax laws, like the child tax credit, encourage people to have children for the tax advantages; exactly the opposite of the way it should be—parents with children should not receive special tax relief. They should be taxed for a large number of children.
In the 1960s, black Americans made up six percent of the population. Forty-seven years later, they make up eleven percent of the population. One of the reasons black families have not prospered as much as white families in America—they’ve had to cope with nearly double the number of children—that is a choice, not racism. The Mexican population in America is growing even faster, partly due to illegal immigration, but partly due to large families. Many Americans think that Mexicans will become the dominant race and culture within the next fifty years because of their large families. But large families will take its toll on Mexicans, especially their financial, educational, and health status. It will also take a heavy toll on the middle class as they are taxed to help.
Race, culture, and religion do not matter. Having a large family is a choice, and people who choose a large family should pay for their excesses. A constitutional amendment is needed to force families to pay for a large number of children. This is not China’s one-child policy, but it will work for America and Americans. The third and succeeding children would cost more. After two kids, there would be a hundred dollar per month tax per child—twelve hundred dollars per year. A family with six kids would pay $400 per month. Income from the child tax would go to the General Hospital System until the child reaches age five and then to the school district. If a parent failed to pay, the money would be taken from the sixty thousand dollar guaranteed income of the parent. If the fund has already been used up, it would be taken from the child’s guaranteed income, reducing the child’s future options—in both cases the money would be paid back.
Having two children worked for the middle class American family. Having two children worked for the Japanese, Russian, and European communities. China simply refused to be poor with their one-child policy. Everywhere that people limit family size, their life is better—by any measurement, including education, health, and housing.
If the Arkansas couple’s 17 children make it through college and, hopefully, they will, it’ll cost American taxpayers, 1.6 million dollars. In Utah, the taxpayers cost for thirty children—food, health care, and education—could run 2.8 million or more. The taxpayer has the right to ask for and receive compensation from couples with a large number of children.
People from other countries who have a green card would pay the child tax or be sent home. Americans value small families; its part of our culture and it works for us. If others value large families, they should live in a country where the cultural values are the same as theirs. Of course, the truth and problem is that every country with uncontrolled population growth, Mexico, Venezuela and others, has substandard schools, housing, and health care—that can happen in America as well.
Corporal punishment for children - # 35
Children can stop worrying about their worst nightmare; it lives in the pages of this book. Children in America have gotten a free ride for far too long. We punish them either too lightly or too harshly. Corporal punishment, also known as whipping their butt, should be brought back as part of the criminal justice system.
A couple of high school boys in the Dallas area spiked the food at a school function with some marijuana. It wasn’t the first time or the last, and dozens of movies have people spiking the punch. But here in Dallas, the federal government got involved, and felony charges were added as if the boys had committed the crime of the century. The boys need to be punished, but jail is absurd—to ruin the lives of wayward boys is unreasonable—but probation and community service isn’t enough. The middle ground is three lashes of the Singapore cane. A nice solid whipping is quick, to the point, and cost-effective—Americans need to say no and really mean no.
Singapore is one of the most crime-free countries in the world; a good caning keeps their kids in line. Adults in Singapore simply do not tolerate massive disobedience as Americans have, and their country and their people are better for it.
Vandalism is one of society’s most difficult crimes. Vandals are not necessarily bad or evil; they’re wayward kids, who need to be slapped back into line. A good caning for vandals would do more good than paying restitution or sending the kids to jail or any other tough-love punishment. Vandals should be bent over with bare butts and get ten hard swings of the cane—quick, harsh punishment will do more to stop vandalism than any other punishment. If a kid knows he or she will get ten lashes with the Singapore cane—the fear of punishment will make him stop and think. In today’s legal environment, most kids think they’ll never be punished and most kids are right.
In California, a legislator has proposed a law banning the spanking of children. Apparently, parents would be arrested, fined, or sent to jail—actually, it would be one more useless law that the government can’t enforce. But Los Angeles has forty thousand gang members. The state of California might have as many as a hundred thousand gang members or wanna-be gang members; most of them are kids under eighteen. We let children do whatever they want, without discipline and far too many end up dead or in jail. What on God’s green earth is this legislator thinking? We need to put parents back in charge, not give children even more power. Government officials in America are out of touch with reality. If anything, we need a law forcing parents to spank their kids. It worked when baby boomers were children, it’ll work for today’s kids, too.
Legalizing drugs and increased penalties for real criminals - # 36
As outlined in chapter thirteen, we need to legalize drugs. More lives have been ruined by our response to drugs than the drugs themselves. A constitutional amendment is needed to legalize the sale of marijuana, and it should be sold in the same manner as alcohol and tobacco. All other drugs would be sold in controlled, government-owned drug stores. Included in the amendment would be drug warehouses where the hopelessly addicted drug users and/or alcoholics could waste away.
A bunch of people sitting around smoking pot is not hurting America. Heroin addicts aren’t jeopardizing America or our future. No one would say that the eight million men and women addicted to alcohol are jeopardizing the future. Even with their assorted problems, most alcoholics are hard-working Americans. The majority of people smoking pot or addicted to heroin are hard-working Americans—exactly like the majority of alcoholics. The federal government needs to stop pursuing drug addicts and start pursuing real criminals.
Prostitution needs to be legalized as well. Get the hookers off the street and into brothels. License them and use the fee for STD testing and treatment. A regulated sex industry is the only way to keep women from other countries from coming to America to work as hookers, and it’s the only way to stop the exploitation of child prostitutes.
Advertising sin should be constitutionally banned. Drugs and prostitution, along with tobacco, alcohol, and gambling, would be banned from television, radio, newspapers, magazines, billboards, exterior signs, and the internet. Americans are bombarded with advertisements for all forms of sins, and then people wonder why we have so many problems with alcohol, tobacco, and gambling. No ads would be allowed and no phony ads like the ones that we occasionally see on television offering help to the hopelessly addicted. No golf or tennis tournaments named after a cigarette or other banned items.
After drugs and prostitution are legalized and tightly controlled, Congress and state legislative bodies can look at real crime. White-collar criminals steal the lives of large groups of people by bringing down banks and businesses—the penalty needs to be tripled. Especially in cases like Enron where there is massive wrongdoing. Instead of twenty-four years in prison, these men should receive life in prison without parole and the loss of one hundred percent of their assets.
Identity theft should be punished by a minimum of ten years in jail. For massive, organized, identity theft, the penalty should be life in prison without parole. People who sell our financial data should be hammered by our laws, too. People sell us out for chump-change and then think they haven’t committed a crime. Anyone selling information used in a felony identity theft should be tried along with the thieves.
Organized shoplifting has become a major problem. It’s changing the way stores display merchandise and costing the consumer billions of dollars. It’s not the wayward teenager or the occasional housewife that’s causing the problem. Organized gangs are traveling around the country, stealing massive amounts of merchandise. Shoplifting is an interstate crime with merchandise being stolen in one state and sold in others. It should be a federal felony and long-term sentences handed out for professional shoplifters.
MS-13 amendment—Anti-gang amendment and reducing communications - # 37
Instead of pursuing individual gang members, a constitutional amendment is needed allowing the judicial system to convict an entire gang as an organized criminal group with equal blame to each member. Basic criteria would be set. For example, if a gang commits more than nine felonies, three each in different types of crime, selling drugs, assault, and robbery, the gang would be adjudicated an organized criminal gang and all members could be arrested and incarcerated. The justice system wouldn’t have to prove each member killed, robbed, or sold drugs. The prosecuting attorney would only have to prove that an individual was part of a convicted gang. Individual members would get life without parole. American justice borders on silly, the police know who the gang members are, and they who the real bad guys are. But they are limited by laws that never foresaw massive organized criminal gangs. This law would allow the government to arrest the entire gang and incarcerate them for life.
MS-13 is a violent gang from Central America operating in dozens of states and committing numerous violent crimes—it is well-organized, street smart, and extremely violent. Arrest, convict and sentence one member to jail and ten men are ready to assume his place in the organization. Members of MS-13 should be picked up, convicted as members of a violent organized gang, and sent to jail.
Some Chapters of the Hell’s Angels motorcycle gang have gone too far. They’ve lost the mystique that once endeared them to many in America and have become a violent outlaw gang. It would be adjudicated an organized criminal gang, and the leaders would be picked up and jailed. Without leadership, the gang would dissolve quickly. If Nazi groups or white hate groups are killing people, robbing banks, and selling drugs, they would be picked up, too. Most so-called white hate groups aren’t committing crimes—do not confuse misguided conservatism with criminal gangs.
Inner-city gangs, criminal hate groups and terrorist organizations would all be treated the same. Prove that a group is committing multiple crimes, adjudicate them an organized criminal gang, and send them to jail. Al-Qaeda is an international, organized, criminal gang committing murder in dozens of countries. We shouldn’t have to try every single person in the gang or wait until each member commits a crime or are caught planning a crime. Al-Qaeda is a despicable gang, and membership alone should be enough for life in prison.
Members of all organized criminal gangs would be held incommunicado—all communication reduced to zero. There should be no phone, internet, or other electronic communication privileges, no letter-writing privileges, and no person-to-person contact with anyone, other than one supervised visit with their mother or spouse per month. All communication with mother or spouse, attorneys, and guards would be monitored. We should not allow people to run criminal gangs or terrorist networks from our prisons. These people have given up their right to function in a civilized society.
Constitutional Amendment mandating lifetime parole and/or probation for foreign criminals - # 38
People come to America some legally others illegally and then commit a crime. They’re arrested, tried, and sentenced to prison. When their sentence is up, they are deported to their home country, then they come right back to America. It would be mandatory that all District Attorneys try foreign criminals under special, lifetime parole or probationary circumstances. After their release from prison and after they are deported, if they ever come back to the United States, their parole would be violated and they would be sent right back to jail for life—no more crimes, no more trials, just back to jail. It’s inexcusable; foreigners are making a mockery of American borders, American laws, and American justice system. We are sick of it and are sick of the government treating foreign criminals as if they were saints. A Constitutional Amendment would mandate lifetime parole and/or probation for all foreign criminals.
The jury sets the time in prison and the government doubles it - # 39
Juries have a constitutional right to sentence people to prison. When a jury sends a man to prison for ten years, they mean ten years. The government has taken away the jury’s rights by reducing an individual’s sentence by fifty percent or more. An amendment is needed to allow the jury to set the time spent in prison. A criminal would be sentenced to x number of years by the jury and the judicial system would automatically double the time. For each good day spent in prison, the prison system would reduce the sentence by one day. For example, if the jury sentenced a robber to ten years in prison, the prison system would automatically double the sentence to twenty years. For each good day in prison, one day would be knocked off his twenty-year sentence. The model prisoner would get out in ten years, but the bad individual would spend an extra ten years in prison. Jeff Skilling was sentenced to 24 years, the jury meant 24 years, but he’ll be out in less than 10 years. That’s wrong. An amendment is needed to return the sentencing power to American juries.
Appalling crime amendment - # 40
Maybe twenty years ago in San Antonio, Texas, a man poisoned a treasured great oak tree, one of those trees, so old and so big that dozens of kids have to hold hands to circle the tree. (I know it’s bizarre, but I’m still angry with this guy after all these years.) The jury gave him the maximum sentence of seven years in prison. But Texas didn’t have a law on the books that really worked for this guy. The jury would have given him a longer sentence, maybe life without parole—he certainly deserved it.
In Texas, road barriers and copper telephone wires are being stolen from our streets and easements. People are stealing material from our libraries, defacing art, and other crimes that are appalling in nature. Yet we don’t have any laws on the books to cover them. Most end up with short sentences, the penalty for stealing a hundred dollars worth of copper wire is only a few years in jail, probably only a few months. Copper thieves are costing Texans and insurance companies, a huge amount of money, and the Texas legislators haven’t done one thing about it.
A constitutional amendment is needed to allow district attorneys to identify certain crimes as appalling crimes. By law, he could ask for mandatory punishment from ten years to life without parole. This covers crimes for which society hasn’t developed sufficient criminal statutes, and it gives district attorneys leeway to try people who commit these crimes.
Person of trust - # 41
A person of trust is someone who’s been trusted with financial information, medical records, or allowed into our lives and homes out of sheer necessity. An example of a person of trust is the people who search our luggage before we get on a plane. Insurance, bank, and medical clerks are people we trust. Mail carriers, deliverymen, pest control technicians, and plumbers are people who are allowed into our lives for a specific reason and are people we trust.
We place our trust in people, and when they violate that trust there is little penalty. Soldiers headed to Iraq had their digital cameras and I-pods stolen by a group of men trusted to search their luggage before it was put on a plane—this is an appalling crime. But the penalty for stealing a few I-pods is barely a year in jail. There is no penalty for the plumber that steals twenty bucks or the pest control technician that walks off with a camera. A nurse sells our medical records or a government employee sells our information and there is little punishment. Petty crime pays. Judges practically pat petty thieves on the back as they walk away free—most spend little or no time in jail.
A constitutional amendment is needed allowing government and businesses to identify people of trust in their employment, when people violate the trust that we’ve placed in them, even though their crimes are insignificantly small, they need to be hammered—a minimum of ten years in prison. This may seem to be overly tough on crime, but the problem is that we incarcerate a person smoking pot who’s not harming anyone, and let two-bit petty thieves go. Petty thieves are the real problem; people are losing faith in society and their trust in their fellow man.
Ending lawsuits against the government, government-owned facilities and schools - # 42
Massive lawsuit abuse has sucked America’s treasure dry and the end is nowhere in sight. A constitutional amendment is needed granting the government, prisons, public hospitals, and schools immunity from lawsuits, and preventing the federal, state, and local governments from paying out any form of compensation. The amendment would include a clause that government employees, police officers, and teachers would be immune from punitive damages for any wrongdoing including high profile sex scandals. If a government employee, teacher, or police officer commits a crime, he or she should go to jail, not be sued. The taxpayer shouldn’t have to pay for the wrongdoing of government employees.
Lawsuits have become a never-ending drain on money set aside for education, prisons, and health care, while the taxpayer has become the scapegoat. Government immunity from lawsuits is high on the list of things we need to fix. Attorneys and judges won’t police themselves. The President and Congress haven’t provided any leadership. The middle class needs to force legal reform on the government and legal professions. An amendment is needed to end lawsuits and lawsuit abuse against the government.
The limited right to sue, including class action lawsuits - # 43
Professional victims are making a living suing. They’re slipping in every state and store in America—staged automobile accidents, false claims in medical lawsuits, and product liability lawsuits have become a quick and easy payday—professional victims have never seen a frivolous lawsuit they didn’t want to join.
One man can sue a hundred businesses, losing every one, and it will cost him nothing, while a business can spend tens of thousands of dollars on attorney’s fees. Every dollar spent on legal fees is passed on to the taxpayer/consumer who pays a higher price for every product and service in America. Even worse is that too many frivolous lawsuits are quickly settled because it’s cheaper than paying the attorney and risking a huge jury settlement. A limit to the number of times a person can sue is needed to reduce abusive lawsuits. Two lawsuits in a lifetime are enough.
Class action lawsuits have forced businesses to transfer vast amounts of business overseas to reduce their exposure and limit their expense. Stopping globalization and saving jobs means fixing things that are broke, and that means fixing our legal system. American businesses aren’t the enemy. We don’t need to take them to the cleaners every time they make a mistake. Class action lawsuits should be limited—one or two per person.
Limited right to attorneys - # 44
Criminals in America commit numerous crimes and never pay a penny in attorney’s fees or court costs. The right to an attorney in the Constitution has been misinterpreted by judges to mean that the taxpayers always pay. A constitutional amendment is needed to limit free legal services for criminals. The taxpayers’ liability should be limited to paying for one free attorney per individual, a one-time chance for free legal services—at a reasonable state-approved cost for felony crimes. The only exception would be capital murder where the defendant would continue to get his free ride.
Individuals would have the right to accept or reject an attorney when he’s arrested for a felony crime. If caught red-handed, he could skip the attorney, the trial, and make his best deal with the district attorney. If he’s innocent, he may want to have a government-supplied attorney and fight in court.
In addition to the one time use of an attorney, defendants would be held liable for the court costs and their incarceration. Inheritance, windfall capital gains, or lottery winnings should be used to pay off the court and prison bill before the money goes to the individual. Crime should come with a penalty.
A third section of this amendment would stop the government from paying for the attorney of any foreigner, including illegal Mexican aliens who commit crimes in America. To have foreigners break our laws by coming to this country illegally and commit a second crime is inexcusable. The taxpayers already have the burden of keeping them locked up. Sticking the taxpayer with a bill for an attorney is unreasonable—it’s cruel and inhuman taxations.
Restricting the number of appeals and lawsuits from prisons - # 45
One estimate is that fifty percent of all federal lawsuits originate from American prisons. Allowing less than one percent of the population to file fifty percent of the lawsuits doesn’t make sense. Part of the problem is prisoners’ filing numerous appeals and part of it is prisoners complaining. Jailhouse attorneys file lawsuits complaining about the food, guards, conditions, building, and well, anything and everything. Prisoners’ complaints should be handled by an in-house prison arbitration board, not the federal court system.
A committee of guards and prisoners would take prisoners’ complaints, prioritize them and deal with them. The arbitration board would be open to the media, to add fairness. This amendment could save the taxpayer billions of dollars from the constant abuse of the American court system. We didn’t blow it, prisoners did. They have abused the judicial system simply because they can. Federal judges have consistently discriminated against the taxpayer, never once standing up for the taxpayers’ rights, concerning themselves only with the absolute rights of each individual.
Moratorium on race and sex-based lawsuits - # 46
Businesses in America have been deluged with sex-based and/or race-based lawsuits. First, blacks were suing, then women, and then Mexicans. Now, the same companies are discriminating against white males; it’s their turn to start suing. But the majority of restaurants, companies, churches, and organizations in America have people working, eating, or attending from a dozen different races and cultures. Yet we continue to see race or sex-based lawsuits.
In 1950, many organizations were dominated by white males, but that domination is gone. In modern America, more organizations discriminate against white males than any other sex or race. There are women chambers of commerce, black chambers of commerce, Mexican chambers of commerce, all discriminating against white males. Successful women and minorities are doing the same thing successful white males did in the fifties and sixties. They build organizations to promote their sex or race. That is understandable. It’s a basic biological survival tactic. White males would never take away the right of other races, or cultures to promote their race or sex. Yet when white males do it, they are sued and condemned. The American judicial system is hypocrisy in progress.
The persistent sex and race-based attack on America’s government and business has gone too far. Many of these lawsuits have become nothing more than attempts to extort money from individuals and businesses. Sex and race-based lawsuits need to be given a rest. It’s no longer about correcting a wrong; it’s all about greed and the dollar.
Banning the homeless - # 47
Advocates for the homeless have filled our heads with the poor homeless person who lost their job and their family due to some unforeseen tragedy. That’s crap. Most of the homeless are addicts or alcoholics, who have alienated their friends and families to the point that they no longer have any support. A recent article on LA’s skid row, a world-class resort for the homeless, pointed out that the police were able to arrest 600 drug dealers in a weekend sweep. That is all we need to know about the majority of the homeless.
Many of the homeless have some sort of income. Some families pay to keep them away from their home and family, or the government is paying a partial disability, or they have some type of scam income. Nearly all of their money goes for drugs or alcohol while food and housing is paid by charities and the taxpayer.
A constitutional amendment is needed to ban people from living on the street. Judges would assign them to jail, mental hospitals, a rehab clinic (once) or a drug warehouse. If everything fails, a prison sentence would be mandatory. We’re sick of the problem, we’re sick of the lies, we’re sick of the drugs and booze, we’re sick of petty crime, and the constant harassment. The homeless are a thorn in America’s side. It’s time to pluck it out.
Yes, there are homeless people who need help. But the majority of homeless men and women have chosen to be homeless. They’re no longer trying and are using their limited resources on drugs and alcohol while demanding free services from the taxpayer. Identifying and helping those who are trying and are unfortunate enough to lose their home or apartment and need temporary help can be difficult. By dealing harshly with the chronically homeless individuals, it will be easier to identify and help the truly needy.
Go to hell amendment. Ending client confidentiality - # 48
We the people didn’t blow it. Priests blew it. Attorneys, bankers, and accountants blew it. A priest seduces an altar boy, another priest becomes suspicious, and the first priest runs to confess, begging God’s forgiveness. The second priest becomes bound by church canon and protected by law not to disclose the sexual abuse, effectively shutting the door on an informant and potential witness. Priest/sinner, attorney/client, doctor/patient, accountant/client, and therapist/patient confidentiality needs to end at sexual abuse and felony crimes including tax evasion.
Professional standards committees have given a green light to many professionals to keep quiet when they are aware of a crime. In some cases there is professional participation in crime—tax evasion, bank fraud, stock fraud. Client confidentiality has become an excuse not a standard. When priests, attorneys, accountants, and psychiatrists become aware of a major crime, they should be bound by law to report it to the authorities or become a co-conspirator with mandatory prison sentences attached.
If this means Catholics committing crimes will go to hell without forgiveness, so be it. Churches, banks, accounting firms, and law firms should be the pillars of our society and above reproach. This amendment, which would limit legal and religious protection, especially under the first amendment, but it would go a long way toward taking the sleaze out of our society.
Conspiracy to defraud includes attorneys, bankers, accountants, and consultants - # 49
In Dallas, two wealthy old men with billions in assets are being investigated for tax fraud. Apparently, they used phony offshore bank accounts to launder money and escape their federal income taxes. These two men should be pillars of Dallas society. Instead, they are just petty thieves, worse than any low-life criminal holding up a convenience store for pocket change.
A constitutional amendment is needed to mandate long prison sentences and the loss of 100 percent of the individual’s assets for massive tax fraud. Wealthy men are cheating on their taxes while the government borrows huge sums of money, and America’s middle class is swamped with federal, state, and local taxes. They’ve put their greed ahead of their country’s future, and by default, their future.
Included in the amendment would be a clause holding these men’s attorneys, consultants, bankers, and accountants equally and fully criminally responsible. Everyone involved should be tried together and all held accountable. Tax shelters are designed by attorneys and accountants working in America‘s largest banks, law and accounting firms—massive tax departments do tax planning for the wealthy. When a tax plan/dodge goes bad—the professionals get a free ride, usually fines and other trivial punishment. But the professionals should go to jail—real and severe criminal penalties should be in place including jail and the loss of personal assets.
It’s not only tax fraud, its stock fraud, corruption in business and government contracts. For example, Enron’s Kenneth Lay, and Jeff Skilling couldn’t do what they did without attorneys, bankers, accountants, and consultants. These professionals should have been held equally responsible under the law with real prison sentences. The accountants at Arthur Andersen picked up their potted plants and moved right down the street. The day after the firm closed, it was business as usual. Bankers got off better than the accounting firm. Professionals shouldn’t be able to commit a crime and then claim, “He told me to do it.” It’s a conspiracy to defraud and the professionals are equal culprits. This amendment would make the accountants, bankers, and attorneys equal defendants in tax fraud and other criminal schemes.
Cashless society, radio chips, and the sales tax amendment - # 50
Modernization has been delayed and nearly stopped. It’s cheaper to import cheap labor than spend the capital to develop a modern banking and retail system. An amendment is needed to force the government to do away with cash, and institute a nationwide cash card system. Retailers would put 3-cent radio frequency chips in every product, and the consumer would pay for the chips. When the cash card is instituted, a federal 5 percent sales tax would be adopted, and the money would be used to relieve the tax burden on small and mid-sized companies.
Labor costs would drop by 50 percent or more and retail prices would fall. America would go from a labor shortage to a labor surplus as computers do the routine jobs. Every American would save time and energy, shopping would be quicker, easier, and more pleasant.
Small retailers are forced to pay outrageous amounts of money for electronic transactions—as much and sometimes more than 3 percent of sales price, while big-volume companies pay less. The retail playing field would be leveled. With a federal sales tax, American-produced goods and foreign-produced goods would be taxed equally. American businessmen would have an advantage.
Crime would be reduced; bank robbery would drop to zero. Not one single bank, store, or gas station would have any money to steal. Criminals would find it harder to sell stolen goods and use their illegally gained profits—an electronic trail would be left that could be easily followed.
Cash would be confiscated by the government, including currency from other countries—the Euro, peso, or pound would not become a default currency. Retailers would be banned from accepting cash or checks and paychecks would be by electronic means. For every cash card transaction, retailers would click off digital fingerprints and picture, reducing fraud and saving the police time and energy.
The line-up against a cashless society is long, and it includes banks, credit card companies, and a host of others that keep the cash flowing in America. A cash card system would be good for the middle class and government, but bad for banks and the wealthy. Unless the middle class demand change, there won’t be any change.
Flat Tax - # 51
With a balanced budget, cash cards, and a national sales tax, the government could set a flat tax rate of 25 percent. As outlined, the first 24 thousand would be taxed at 12.5 percent—all retirement—the next 76 thousand would be taxed at 25 percent—half to retirement. All income over one hundred thousand would be taxed at the same 25 percent rate. Interest income, dividends, inheritance, capital gains, and windfall profits would also be taxed at the same 25 percent rate.
No deduction would be allowed and each person would pay the same 25 percent of their income. The turning of the screws on the wealthy would end. They would pay the same percentage as every American. At a 25 percent rate there would be no massive tax fraud—cheaters would be punished with mandatory jail time and loss of assets—the greater the assets, the greater the penalty. Because the rate would be fixed, the government would collect taxes by automatic bank transfer on a monthly basis.
Advocates for the poor want the wealthy to pay, but pumping up the tax rate, increases the desire to cheat. This amendment would level the playing field. The poor shouldn’t have the right to take money from the rich. The middle class shouldn’t be paying a higher tax rate than the wealthy. A flat tax amendment brings fairness to our tax laws.
Research studies would include funding information - # 52
A writer for the New York Times proclaimed “The results are in; drinking moderate amounts of alcohol is good for you.” Every few months a new study shows that drinking moderate amounts of alcohol is good. The media dutifully relays the message to the American public—a shot a day keeps the doctor away. That is crap. Alcohol causes massive problems in American society. Only an idiot would think that it’s good to drink.
The alcohol industry pays for all these studies. A professor at a university gets a grant from an arm of the alcohol industry. The professor knows who’s funding the study. He knows that to keep the grant money flowing, he needs positive results from his study. He designs a study that results in a positive outcome on alcohol because a negative study would cause the grant money to stop flowing. He also knows he would miss fully paid free vacations to Vegas, the Caribbean, or Europe, and massive freebees at conferences and speaking engagements—all paid by the alcohol industry.
It’s not just alcohol. A study on peanut butter found that it’s bad for you. A second study a few months later found it’s good for you. The second study was probably funded by the peanut industry and probably done by a university in a state that grows peanuts.
Many of the research studies in America are just plain crap. Here’s another example: coffee has antioxidants, maybe as much as green tea. Drinking three or four cups of coffee per day may actually be beneficial, not harmful. Coffee research studies in America slant toward the negative aspects of coffee, rather than the positives. While green tea research is directed towards the benefits of green tea, not the negative. Why the difference? Green tea costs more than coffee. Twenty tea bags that make twenty cups of tea cost two dollars, while a two-dollar “retail pound” of coffee will make sixty cups or more. Coffee drinkers have to put up with all the negative research on coffee, while listening to all the advertisements pointing toward expensive alternatives—it’s massive manipulation of the American marketplace.
A constitutional amendment is needed to force all studies to include the funding source and whom the funding source represents. Media outlets would be forced to report the funding source along with the study’s results.
A new study, funded by the alcohol industry, found that drinking one alcoholic drink a day is good for you. That loses quite a bit of its punch—compared to the current way we report studies: A new study found that drinking one alcoholic drink per day is good for you.
No tax relief for companies and stadiums - # 53
A multibillionaire in Dallas got a property tax cut when his company moved from one building in downtown Dallas to another. The reason for the tax relief: an out-of-town company moving to Dallas would have gotten the same tax break. Big companies and wealthy individuals are getting tax breaks while the little guy is being hammered. Property taxes in Dallas are high and keep getting higher while multimillionaires and billionaires are given a free walk.
In Dallas, American-Airlines-Center, home of the Mavericks and the Stars, got a huge tax-subsidized grant—it was funded by an increase in the tax on rental cars. All we heard about is how out-of-towners would be paying the tax, but the people who rent cars are the working class of Dallas. A fender-bender, a stolen car, or needed repairs, and we have to rent a car to get back and forth to work. The majority of people renting cars can’t afford a ticket to a basketball game. In effect, the working class is subsidizing the ticket price for the upper middle class who never have to rent a car.
A constitutional amendment is needed to end tax relief for private businesses, sports arenas, and multinational companies. The pillars of American society have blackmailed our local government into providing tax relief. They’ve used money as a weapon to scare and intimidate weak city officials who are in awe of their status. This amendment would level the playing field. There would be no tax relief for any individual or company. Cities and states should be looking for ways to decrease taxes for everyone, instead of giving the wealthy a tax break. Fairness has become a lost concept in America as the wealthy consistently bail on their responsibility.
Banning the N-word - # 54
Black Americans would like to see the N-word banned, women want to ban the B-word but an equally despicable word is the R-word used almost exclusively to disparage white males. Many Black Americans will condemn this book and call the author a racist for banning Ebonics, but Ebonics is the most destructive force in black education—80 percent of white America and 60 percent of black America would vote to ban Ebonics. Does that make us all racists? Absolutely not.
In Africa, hopefully, China will encourage the one-child family, turning Africans into modern day consumers—75 percent of white Americans who limit their families will agree with this. Yet Black Americans will denounce this writer as racist, and those who agree as racist. Are we all racist? Absolutely not.
Social Security should be cut for the wealthy and for anyone living outside of America. Mexicans will agree with cutting 100 percent of the entitlement for wealthy white Americans, but they will call me a racist for cutting half of the entitlement for people living outside of America. Am I a racist? Absolutely not.
Muslims will be screaming racial profiling and racism because I would simply send them home. How can we allow foreigners, with an enormous desire to kill us, to come to our country and allow them to teach and recruit hate? Muslims are hiding behind the R-word while they plot to kill us.
In America, agree with liberal Americans, Black Americans, Muslims, or Mexicans and you are a moral, ethical, and honorable individual. Disagree and you are a racist. It’s time to ban the N-word, the B-word and the equally despicable R-word.
America is not a world leader or a superpower. Only a few people believe we are, and almost all of them live in Washington D.C. We should ban the word superpower from the vocabulary of any person employed by the federal government, including the President.
Queen Elizabeth alluded to the old melting pot crap. Europe is culturally diversified—for the last five centuries, white people from Europe have come to America and melted right into this society. We are of the same race and faith—Christianity—and have very similar cultures and values; once English was adopted, cultural differences dropped away quickly. Mexicans, Asians, and Muslims are bringing alien religions, values, and cultures to America. Even when they adopt English, there is no big melting of the races. The melting pot theory isn’t working and politicians shouldn’t pretend that America is some great melting pot. “Melting Pot” should be banned along with N, R, B, and S word.
Racial profiling should also be banned as a legal concept. It’s absolutely the most bizarre thing to rear its ugly head. After the Oklahoma City bombing, all we heard about was right-wing paramilitary groups. The federal government sent agents to penetrate and spy on white groups. The media blasted white males day after day. Not one single white male claimed racial profiling.
In rural America, cops are battling Meth, but they’re not running to the inner city to arrest black males. They are arresting white males; that’s who’s causing the problems. Not one white male has claimed racial profiling.
Cops battling crack cocaine aren’t running to the suburbs. They are battling crack in the inner city, and mainly black males; that’s who’s causing the problem. But all we hear about is racial profiling. On 9/11, Muslims commit the hate crime of the century, and we hear about racial profiling. Mexicans are pouring across our border and we hear about racial profiling. No one in America should be allowed to hide behind his or her race. An amendment is needed to ban the concept of racial profiling. Police need to go after the bad guys, regardless of his or her race.
A portion of this amendment would force the government to report crime correctly. If a black male from Africa or Brazil commits a crime, his crime is stuck in with Black Americans. If an Asian or Hispanic commits a crime, his crime is stuck in with white Americans. Government officials, police, and media consistently vilify American males by adding the crime committed by others to our crime rate. The Virginia Tech massacre is a good example. The 32 murders committed by a South Korean will be added in with crimes committed by American white males—that is despicable.
Even more despicable, when the identity of the Virginia Tech hate killer became known, a white female reporter on CNN said, “Usually white males commit this type of crime,” but that is not true. CNN only likes to cover crime committed by white males. This CNN reporter has forgotten about the Wisconsin hunter massacre, the Utah Mall massacre, the Irving, Texas carwash massacre, the New Orleans random violence massacre, and the unnamed massacre near Brownsville, Texas where seven people were shot in the back of the head. In fact, since the Columbine school massacre, the majority of multiple killings in the United States have been by minorities.
Even more despicable, after the Virginia Tech massacre, the American media couldn’t get enough psychiatrists on the tube to explain why this precious minority committed such a violent hate crime. If the Virginia Tech hate killer were white, we would hear about sociopaths, psychopaths, and hatred of women and minorities. But because he was a precious minority, we hear about mental health problems in American minority communities—it was American liberal media’s desperate attempt to justify this hate crime.
Foreigners are committing crimes in America, and then the same foreigners talk about the high crime rate in America. Liberals and Mexicans shout racism whenever white males complain about the high crime rate of illegal immigrants. But we don’t know what the true crime rate is because the government is forbidden to tally the true numbers. We’re tired of the government and liberals hiding the crime rate of foreigners, and we’re tired of foreigner’s hiding behind their status as a minority. An amendment is needed forcing the government to report crime according to race, gender, legal status, and country of origin. The media should be forced to report crime correctly, not according to their political beliefs. All we ask for is the truth.
Banning the N-word, B-word, and R-word makes sense and it would take a constitutional amendment. Racial profiling is a bizarre concept allowing people to hide behind their race and it should be banned as well. Reporting the true crime rate of various groups is all about reporting the truth.
No profit on insurance settlements after a disaster - # 55
A few years ago, a hurricane came ashore close to Miami. Insurance companies, FEMA, and others rushed in with insurance payments and aid as they always do. In the aftermath of the hurricane, people were having pools built in their backyards. An aerial picture before and after the hurricane showed thousands of new pools built with our insurance and tax dollars. A constitutional amendment is needed to end the profiteering from insurance, government aid, and charities after a disaster. When people need help, Americans are willing to help, but people shouldn’t be allowed to abuse that help. Profiteering after a disaster would be banned with real penalties attached.
Limited insurance settlements in hurricanes forcing people to be more responsible - # 56
A law limiting disaster payouts and settlements after hurricanes, forest fires, and floods is needed. People want to live in a forest, on a lake or river and along the coast—especially Florida. They should live there at their own risk.
There should be no compensation for cars parked within twenty miles of the coast during a category five hurricane and no compensation for cars parked within ten miles of the coast for any other hurricane. Home furnishings including clothing, pictures, and knickknacks should be limited to thirty thousand dollars per house and fifteen thousand dollars per apartment or rental unit. Every home, apartment, and business should have a ten-by-ten water and windproof room to store personal property during a hurricane. Insurance companies and government programs should pay for the replacement of a building or house and nothing more.
Utility companies should be forced to bury power lines, telephone, and cable lines—all of Florida should be under a mandatory order to bury power lines. Electrical transfer stations and switching stations close to the gulf should be ten feet above ground, with thick cement walls protecting it—in a hurricane no one should be without power.
The taxpayer, by way of FEMA or other government programs, and private insurance companies shouldn’t be responsible for repair after repair because people and businesses won’t build things right or protect their properties. Storms and hurricanes shouldn’t be an excuse to buy a new car, pool, or add on to the house.
No compensation for victims of disasters or terrorist attacks - # 57
One of the biggest mistakes ever made by the federal government was made after 9/11, when they provided compensation for people affected by the attack. People equally affected by the attack are the families of our young soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. But of course, they will receive no compensation.
When Washington, New York, and San Francisco are hit with a nuclear or dirty bomb, there will be expectations of compensation. People victimized by Hurricane Katrina are asking to be compensated, and if we compensate them, the government would have to compensate future victims of all disasters.
The government should not be put into a position to compensate anyone for anything. A constitutional amendment is needed to ban the federal, state, and local governments from compensating people after a war, terrorist attacks, disasters (especially hurricanes), nuclear plant meltdown, or riots.
This writer and others believe that the West Nile virus was a biological attack on the United States. A New York newspaper reported the possibility, but on the same day the paper ran the article, the CIA said that it wasn’t an attack—apparently, people believed the CIA, the first time in a long time that has happened. The CIA’s denial was so quick, that it wasn’t possible for anyone to check anything. There were no DNA tests done on the virus that might have uncovered its true origin.
If the federal government found absolute proof in Iraq that the West Nile virus was a biological attack, they would keep the information quiet. Why? Because victims of the West Nile virus would be standing in line for free health care and compensation—that could be a massive amount of money.
Even worse, if New York is hit with a dirty bomb, millions of people will have their hands out. People in Texas, making sixty thousand dollars a year, will be paying taxes to compensate people in New York making two hundred thousand a year. The government’s role in a disaster or attack should be limited to restoring a city or area. There should be no compensation for people injured in an attack, or their survivors.
Emergency planning, the responsibility of city and state—dismantling New Orleans - # 58
There is a small minority—at least one—who believes the federal government did a great job during and after Hurricane Katrina. They stumbled here and there, but were able to pick themselves up and get the job done.
After cursing out the federal government on television, the mayor of New Orleans has been adamant that the federal government was at fault for the lack of planning before and after the hurricane. The responsibility of planning and developing emergency services rests with the city and state government. If cities want the federal government to handle planning and development of emergency services, we should get rid of city government. Taxpayers shouldn’t pay for or be burdened with a city government that constantly defers to the federal government for basic responsibility.
The real failure during Hurricane Katrina was with the city and state government. New Orleans lacked decent building codes and emergency plans, along with misspent tax money over the past twenty-five years. An amendment is needed forcing each city and state to do their emergency planning. They need to prepare for their next big disaster—earthquakes, hurricanes, or flooding. People in the Midwest shouldn’t be spending tax money getting ready for hurricanes or earthquakes and people in California shouldn’t be spending money on hurricanes. Cities like New Orleans that face duel threats should be dismantled.
If global warming is a fact, New Orleans is no longer located in a reasonable spot on the planet. After the next disaster, the city should be abandoned and the land returned to nature—most Americans understand this. If we voted, 70 percent of the vote would be against New Orleans. For political reasons, the federal government will continue to spend billions of dollars to rebuild a city forty feet below sea level—that is an unreasonable and irresponsible use of American’s tax dollars.
Ending home consolidation loans, negative amortization, and adjustable rate mortgages - # 59
Adjustable rate mortgages, consolidation loans, and borrowing against retirement accounts are good for big banks, financial institutions and the wealthy, but it’s bad for individuals and a disaster for the taxpayer. As the real estate market goes bad, the taxpayer will be picking up a good share of the tab. There are nearly five million adjustable rate mortgages and millions of homes with consolidation loans, many of these loans are upside down just as the market turns lower.
A constitutional amendment is needed to ban all adjustable rate mortgages, negative amortization loans, subprime loans, and consolidation loans. Adding closing costs into the principal balance would also be banned. Equity loans and second mortgages would all be banned. The purchase of a home is the most important purchase that the average American makes. The government needs to protect people from themselves and from ruthless loan officers and sales representatives. Individuals have three assets: retirement, home, and saving accounts—including cash, stocks, and bonds. Many Americans will risk everything to get ahead, and too many times, they lose. Fancy home loans put one third of a family’s assets in jeopardy. It’s time the government brought some sanity back into the financial market.
In 1980, the interest rate was 10 percent. In 2006 the rate was hovering around five percent, a twenty-six year low. Yet in 2006, people were still buying adjustable rate mortgages. What do they expect, a four percent rate? A five percent interest rate is near the bottom, the chance of the rate going higher is extremely high, the chance that the interest rate will go lower is extremely low. But slick loan officers sell people a package of goods—an adjustable rate. It’s creating wealth, for the loan officer, the finance company, and bank, while leaving the borrower in financial jeopardy. Even worse, subprime, and other extreme loans have left the entire real estate market in jeopardy. Banning these loans will not affect the economy, but it will limit the wealth of the wealthy.
Consolidation loans would be banned. People spend until they owe thirty thousand or more on credit cards, then consolidate their debt with a second mortgage or new home loan. A few years later, they owe thirty thousand dollars on their credit cards, plus the second mortgage—including four or five thousand dollars of rolled-in closing costs—consolidation loans make good candidates for foreclosure or bankruptcy.
Home loans should be limited to thirty years or less, and the government’s recommended term of a loan should be twenty-five years. Loan officers have sold forty-year notes and some fifty-year notes, but there is no financial reason for anyone to take out a loan longer than thirty years.
HUD just announced a new program for subprime mortgages, a forty-year term. That is ludicrous. A $100,000, thirty-year, subprime loan at 8 percent has a principal and interest payment of $733 dollars. The same loan for forty years has a payment of 695 dollars—a savings of 38 dollars per month. The cognitive dissonance produced by a forty-year loan is more detrimental than the 8 percent note rate—people paying on a forty-year 8 percent note are better off renting. The average homeowner hopes to pay off his home before age sixty-five. A forty-year term means most of these homeowners are looking at age seventy or beyond. A section of this amendment would limit loans to thirty-year terms and force government programs to lower the term to twenty-five years. A thirty-year, 6 percent note has a principal and interest of $600 per month. A twenty-five-year note with the same rate and principal has P & I payments of $645—45 dollars more. If HUD were interested in Americans creating wealth, they would reduce the term of home loans to twenty-five-years. Thirty and forty-year notes are good for the bank, but bad for the consumer and bad for the American real estate market.
Interest-only home loans would also be banned. Reverse mortgages, which are a ruthless way to obtain senior citizens assets, should be banned, too. Reverse mortgages may sound good, but they make no sense for anyone other than the wealthy.
A second part of the amendment would ban borrowing against retirement accounts. The government’s IRA account is a good program, but as these types of accounts grew in value, wealthy individuals, banks, and financial companies got Congress to let people borrow against the account. The reason: they wanted access to that money. As long as it stayed in a safe retirement account, the wealthy couldn’t get it. As soon as an individual borrowed money against it, that money is up for grabs. Retirement accounts are for retirement, not for a fancy new necklace, home, or car.
Banning tenure - # 60
Tenure is granting a teacher or professor a permanent, secure appointment, and it should be banned from American schools, universities, and colleges. By granting tenure to professors who no longer teach or provide the school with adequate compensation, universities have built up too much dead wood. In some schools, graduate students have taken on the primary teaching role, and they’re pushed out the door when they earn their degrees. The old college adage has been “publish or perish.” A new motto should be adopted, “teach or hit the road.” Banning tenure from American schools would allow school presidents to improve the quality of American education and send thousands of anti-American socialists packing.
Congressional approval of troop movements - # 61
Presidents Kennedy and Johnson were able to send troops to Vietnam without direct congressional approval. President Bush sent troops to Afghanistan and Iraq without direct congressional approval. An amendment forcing Congress to vote and approve troop movements has become necessary. This writer believes that Congress never would have sent troops to Iraq, if they had to approve the troop movement. Anytime more than ten thousand troops are sent as a group, Congress should give its approval.
None of the above - # 62
Okay, if you’re thinking, none of the above amendments, you’re probably one of the top 0.1 percent of the American population who have been accumulating massive amounts of wealth in our current system or one of the millions of anti-America Americans. But if you’re a member of the middle class and sick of the Democrat’s agenda, following the 2006 election, you probably wish that none of the above was on the ballot. That is what this amendment is proposing.
After the 2006 election, Democrats were posturing about, with their chests stuck out, thinking they have some sort of new political mandate. But the vote was more about kicking the Republicans out than electing Democrats. At the bottom of every ballot, there should be a spot where voters can register their disgust with politicians by checking none of the above—a spot where the voter can say, none of these sons of bitches. First, the voter would vote for whomever he found less objectionable and then register his disgust with a check mark on none of the above. That would be cool.
None of the above - # 63
None of the above. Really? Governors should read the Constitution. Illegal immigration and border security are two of America’s most pressing problems. Several governors and a few cities are taking a go-alone approach, but that will not work. Small isolated attempts at stemming the massive tide of illegal immigration will not work. I encourage them to read the Constitution.
Preamble: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Article I, Section 10: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Anyone that thinks unlimited, uncontrolled, illegal immigration, the massive smuggling of illegal goods including drugs, and the risk of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons being smuggled into America is good for our liberty and the future of America has gone off the deep end. It may be good for the wealthy, good for multinational corporations, but bad for Americans. It’s an uncontrolled invasion by people from a hundred different countries. America and Americans are in imminent danger.
The governors of the United States not only have the right to form a national border patrol and secure our borders, but in light of the federal government’s refusal to secure our borders, it is their Constitutional duty to stem the flow of illegal immigration.