Did you hear about the Colorado students who walked out of class, demanding that a "new" version of the Pledge of Allegiance be allowed for them, omitting the phrase "One nation under God"?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298336,00.html

Now, really, is there anybody out there who really buys into this cockamamie line about the "separation of Church and State?" Does the phrase exist? Yes, of course. Is it in the Constitution? No. Is it a principle the nation is founded on? Yes. Is it misrepresented?

Absolutely!

The phrase "separation of Church and State" was included in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in 1802 mentioning a "wall of separation" between Church and State.

Now, ask yourself: Are we now run in this nation by "letters?" Does a letter from a man whose name doesn't even appear on the Constitution now carry enough weight that it shall be considered on the same level and of the same importance as the Constitution itself?

Hardly.

Thomas Jefferson was a patriot and a founder of this nation, but he was not a framer of the Constitution of the United States. He was not even in the country when the Constitutional Convention took place, representing the United States in France as our Ambassador to our oldest ally.

Further, since when did the President of the United States have such far-reaching powers as to declare--not in Executive Order, but in personal correspondence--the powers of the Constitution? Remember that under the Articles of Confederation there was not Executive Branch, and at the Constitutional Convention, great measures were taken to prevent the Chief Executive and the Executive Branch from usurping powers reserved to the Congress and the States.

So how is it that a man who didn't even write the Constitution, in an office that didn't even warrant the power, writing a personal letter, suddenly, supposedly, pen the words that became Law?

Simple: The "supreme Court" said so! Over 150 years of Constitutional Law and Precedent out the window in favor of a phrase penned in a personal letter. That sounds about right for the Judiciary.

And now today we see that everybody in this nation is a great political philosopher and "knower of all things." And we have teenagers who cannot even express themselves with proper grammar and spelling telling us--regurgitating the words of others equally uninformed, more likely!--that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional, and demanding that Congressional Acts in the form of Federal Statutory Law be overturned because they choose not to say a commonly established pledge that contains the phrase, "One Nation under God."

Geniuses, every one!

Tell me, great Socrates and mighty Aristotle--do they still teach the Constitution of the United States in high schools? Does the State of Colorado still teach the Declaration of Independence in history or political science class? Let us review...

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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." From the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States.

Following from the Declaration of Independence.

"Laws of Nature and Nature's God"

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

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions..."

Check the capitalization. Ignore the words, for just a moment, and check the capitalization, for crying out loud!

The "supreme Court" is referred to in the Constitution with a lower-case 's' every time it is mentioned. Yet the "Supreme Judge of the world" is referred to with upper-case 'S.'

Interesting.

"Creator" with upper-case 'C.'

"Nature's God!" I mean--there's the BIG 'G' word itself! Right there in the Declaration of Independence! How much more obvious does it need to be?? Obviously, pretty obvious. So they stated it as such: "endowed by their Creator."

How about creation vs. evolution? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created"! Created!! Right there in the Declaration of Independence!

Yet what is the tired old phrase used in the "separation of church and state" conversation?

"The United States wasn't founded on principles of Christian religion, it was founded on the separation of church and state; it was founded on Grecco-Roman Republican ideals; it was founded on the concept of individual rights." Blah, blah, blah!

More Jefferson for you: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Now that sounds downright theological, you know what I mean? Do you know what scripture I am referring to?

Now, I hate to quote the Bible in such instances, mainly because I don't feel it is necessary, and despite the point that I am making in this blog, I find it inappropriate. But I simply must in this case do so to compare the supposedly secular comment from Jefferson ("separation of church and state") with this comment above ("Governments are instituted among Men").

From Romans 13:1-3 (NIV), the Apostle Paul writes, "(1) Everyone must submit himself to the goverening authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebellinig against what God has instituted."

See my point? It is interesting that one would take the idea of "separation of church and state," gleaned from a personal letter as meaning that there is no place for any expression of religion in public places or life when that same individual's writing, in the Declaration of Independence so closely mirrors the very Bible itself!

Those driving this issue state that there is no place for religious expression in government of on public facilities, quoting Jefferson's letter and "supreme Court" precedent. Yet Jefferson's own writing in the Declaration of Independence confirms that "Creation" and the existence of "God" are themselves "self-evident! And his philosophy mirrors Christian theology that states that it is "God" Himself who "establishes...governments."

These high school philosophers in training can't even intelligibly lecture one on the Electoral College, but they think that they know something about "church and state." Hmph.

And the "supreme Court" can't intelligibly respect the 1st or the 10th amendment, yet they think they can impose a personal letter's phrase upon the nation and the People.

The Judiciary should be turned out, and these children should be also--expel them all! Send the Justices off to retirement and the children off to suspension, to be followed by intensive legal training in matters of Constitutional Law, which states that the Federal Government has no jurisdiction in matters of religion, that the States are reserved to take up the matter in any way they see fit, and Colorado State Law, which undoubtedly states that teenage morons (aka students) enrolled in public schools are expected to be in class during their scheduled sessions, and truancy is punishable by appropriate administrative action.

Geez, I applied to the University of Colorado Law School for the fall of 2005--I could have been in Boulder while this was happening! Wouldn't that be fun?

Did you know that every State save Connecticut present at the Constitutional Convention sent at least one delegate in his 30's and two sent twenty-somethings?  I find it interesting that a nation founded by such vociforous youngsters as James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Elbridge Gerry (does the term 'Gerry-mandering' ring a bell?) has come to be ruled by a group of 60+.  Just a thought.

Alexander Hamilton was not born in the States.  Somewhere in the Caribbean, though which island escapes me at the moment.  So he was ineligible to be President, otherwise surely this very well-educated, intelligent signatory of the Constitution would surely have been President in his lifetime.

Hamilton co-authored the Federalist Papers with Madison and John Jay as a written defense of the new Constitution in an attempt to persuade the States to ratify this document and found a new government, which remains our government today.

I have by no means read nor become familiar with all of these writings yet, but Federalist #1 by Hamilton stands out as a favorite of mine.  I would like to discuss two points of this very important historical document, the second of which builds upon the first.

Hamilton does a magnificent job of eloquently developing his points in paragraphs three and four, ending each with his main point in each case in the final sentence(s).

Paragraph three discusses those whose voices rise in opposition to the new Constitution from across the entire 13 States.  Perhaps the most ardent, and loudest of these, though Hamilton does not mention him or any other by name, comes from none other than Patrick Henry of Virginia, he of the famous Revolution-era phrase, "Give me Liberty, or give me death."

"Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question."

Now, admittedly, in this era of 'Sesame Street,' attention spans, which has produced hit television shows such as 'Friends,' and 'Seinfeld,' Hamilton's writing is a bit more difficult to comprehend on first reading.  But I believe on review that you will find his points to be very profound and even strikingly relevant in today's political environment.

Many traits including ambition and party opposition drive individuals to take a position on matters even today.  Take abortion, for example, and consider the stance of the two major parties.  Or consider the events in Jena, Louisiana of late and the motives of the Reverands Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton in participating in these events.

Even in Hamilton's day, there were great men like George Mason, Henry, and James Monroe on the side of rejecting the Constitution and the calling of a second Constitutional Convention, an action deplorable to the likes of Hamilton and Madison among others, including George Washington.  The men who opposed ratification did not oppose the new government, but they had serious concerns regarding the Constitution, including a glaringly obvious lack of a Bill of Rights.  Most notably, their concern lie in the protection of individual rights such as freedom of religion, speech, and the press, and <are you ready for this one??> States' Rights!

It cannot be blamed on such great men that they would desire to have a government set up immediately that was founded with these principles a part of the Constitution, where the proponents of ratification favored allowing the newly-elected Congress to amend the Constitution, a far easier task than the calling of a new Convention.

These are just some of the reasons that Hamilton takes a conciliatory tone in Federalist #1, alluding to the honorable intentions these men in opposition had in their position, rather than blasting them personally, ratcheting up the political rhetoric of the time, and potentially harming the ratification effort.

Hamilton ends paragraph 3 with an amazing statement of reality which recognizes that those in favor of ratification cannot force their opponents to relent their ideals and join forces with the supporters of the Constitution.  "For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution. "

However, his second point, enunciated in paragraph 4, takes a slightly different perspective.  Hamilton points out that opponents of ratification had already begun making the arguments, and predicted accurately that they would continue, that those in favor of one national government were in favor of a tyrannical despotism.  Those in opposition, he predicted accurately, would make the point that "an over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good."

What Hamilton meant was that opponents would, "by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives," seek to push their personal agendas at the expense of the people!

Now, a note in modern times.  We never see this played out today, do we, in issues such as gay marriage, abortion, or taxpayer-supported, nationally-socialized healthcare insurance, do we??  Take note in modern times of that which Hamilton ended paragraph 4 with over 200 years ago!  And take note of those who fall on the wrong side of the Constitution on these issues today.

Hamilton goes on to discuss the use of public opinion on the part of opponents of ratification.  They sought in their arguments to cause the People to distrust this new government through their love for Liberty, while Hamilton points out that in order to secure that Liberty, a government must be put in place to secure and to protect it, which requires the faith and trust in that government that opponents wished to stifle among the People.

He goes on to warn about the intentions of opponents, "and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants."

Hamilton is much more eloquent in his letters than the medium of blog allows me to be.  Were I to simply reproduce the entire contents of Federalist #1, you wouldn't want to read it, and I would quite possibly be in violatiton of copyright law.  On the other hand, Yale's Law School has given me permission to reproduce content from their Avalon web site in electronic form, I just have to provide proper credit which I readily provide below in the form of a link to the Federalist Papers web site.  Please read this and other materials that they have on this site.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed.htm

Now, so as to apply that which we have learned today from the writings of yesterday to today's political climate, allow me to ask the following questions:

Which Party is even today paying an "obsequious court to the people" lurking behind the "specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people?"

Which Party today employs, "By the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives," seek to push their personal agendas at the expense of the people?

Which Party today seeks not to rule through the "People's Branch," the Legislative Branch--the Congress--instead seeking to push their agenda through the unelected branch, the Judiciary?

It is interesting to note my high school senior English teacher's statement, which I refer to often in this world, that "times change--people don't."  The opposition is seeking to bribe and cajole the "People" with all manner of benefits to them.  Socialized retirement for the old and infirm, socialized housing and welfare for the poor, and now socialized healthcare insurance and income redistribution for all!

Beware the tax man, who gives with one hand but takes double with the other.  History screams out to us across the pages of time to take note.  We are not engaging in any act that is new under the sun.  And if we ignore fact and history, then before we realize it, all that we have will be taken from us.

We must question what the Democratic Party desires to gain by giving so much to so many to gain their support, their trust, and their votes.  We hold them as "Demagogues" today--how long before they show themselves to be the "Tyrants" that they truly are?

So now we are seeing this gimmic organized by Univision of the Presidential candidates being asked questions in Spanish, being translated into English, being allowed to only answer in English, and then being re-translated back into Spanish for the viewing audience.

Is anybody really taking this seriously??? I mean, come on.

First, by pandering to Spanish-only or Spanish-first speakers, both the candidates and the geniuses at Univision are saying, "We don't really take the Illegal Alien situation seriously." After all, if a viewer is an English speaking citizen, then they can watch on ABC. They don't need Univision. And if the viewer is a Spanish-only viewer, one of two things must be said at this time:

1.) If you are a citizen, then according to the requirements that you were supposed to meet when you raised your right hand, you should not be a citizen. You should speak English.

2.) If you are not a citizen, then get out. You don't belong, you're most likely here illegally, and therefore you have no rights. None!! Do you understand that?? None. Nada. Hasta la Vista, Bay-be!

I can't even point out in high spirits that this debate involved Democratic candidates because the Republ-ocrats are about to do the same thing. Just a joke.

Oh, and another thing: Is anybody counting how many debates this makes? I mean, is this a reality show or something? WTF??? Has our entire electoral, representative system been thrown out? We now have to watch 8 debates per Party before the first of the year of the actual election???

And that's just for Primary season, folks, which we all know and realize will be over and done with before it even begins. The major Party candidates will be decided by March 1st, and I won't have even gone to the polls yet.

And then the real fun begins, because then we get to see New Mexico Governor Pete Richardson and Texas Congressman Ron Paul launch 3rd Party campaigns and the entire process goes to the poop pot!

I've kind of let my hair down on this one, just like the rest of the system. May God help all of us make it through this one!

Gotta love replies!  Thank you very much for the (right now!) few of you who have found me and taken the time to comment.

From Buzz:  "States' Rights is an Antiquated Notion

During colonial times and through the era of the war between the states, the concept had some merit, as means of communication and transportation made the distances between even neighboring states vast and daunting.  Separated by such distances and largely populated by people of like demographics, beliefs and thoughts, each state was, in essence, a separate, sovereign nation state with its own agenda.
In the 21st century, when communication is instantaneous and travel between any points in the country is almost immediate, nationwide conformity in laws is a concept whose time has come.
Of course, those laws have to recognize that individual rights reign supreme throughout the land and that no crme exists without the four necessary components of crime: 1) perpetrator, 2) victim, 3) demonstrable harm and/or loss, and 40 (an) act(s) of force and/or fraud."

From jjones 29:  "Agree silvertrombone (corrected:  silvertrombone is all lower case!)

I shared many of the same thoughts and quotes in my post!

http://savetheparty.townhall.com/g/a4e104ef-3add-4b49-aa23-c1425ab734c9 "

Thank you both for posting replies!  And I'm never against a shameless plug for someone who agrees with me!

First, Buzz, I make no assumptions about your education, intelligence, or political belief system.  However, from what you posted, you really need to go back and look at a couple of things:

1.) The Constitution of the United States of America, for one.  It is not the United States Constitution.  If you are listing Colonial era and War Between the States stuff to me, you get the difference.

The States wrote the thing.

The States ratified the thing.

The States have amended the thing many times since.  If you don't think the States run this show (or at least  should according to Article 5 and the 10th Amendment), you have a lot of re-reading to do.  Should have paid more attention in high school civics class.

2.) I highly recommend the Madison Notes, the very detailed transcripts taken by future President and "Father of the Constitution" James Madison of the deliberations of the delegates of the States to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia.  It is interesting to see the Constitution come together day by day, passing first from the Articles of Confederation to the finished product that we still today call our Constitution.

3.) The Articles of Confederation.  Entertaining read.  Terrible system.

4.) I could be snotty and say go read the "Little Red Book," since that is what one national government would quickly devolve into, but we don't need to go that far.

Simple fact:  The States run this show.  At least in theory.  For you to say "States' Rights is Antiquated"  is many things, but factual it is not.

I love how you mention "Individual Rights" at the same time you blast "States' Rights."  At least you use the correct punctuation (States' with apostrophe signifying plural possessive).  Who exactly do you think will protect "Individual Rights?"  The Supreme Court?

Hmph.  You don't know history very well, either, I see.  Check out how many times the Judiciary has screwed things up.  You mentioned the war between the states (as opposed to the incorrectly titled term 'Civil War'--good for you, again!).  So why don't you explain to the kiddies at home about Dred Scott v. San(d)ford.  The Supreme Court couldn't even spell it right--why should we have expected them to get it right?

Talk about how, despite Dred being completely wrong, the ensuing war, the disastrous period of Reconstruction, three Constitutional Amendments, and the Civil Rights Act of 1878 (I didn't know about that one until doing research on that era!), the Supreme Court still mucked things up in Plessy v. Ferguson.

Yeah, yeah, Brown took care of that--60 years later!

Take a look at the rest of my blogs if you haven't done so already, and don't try to tell me about the necessity of one set of national laws--nobody in Washington or in their right mind believes that.  Not Sen. Hillary Clinton, not Sen. Barack Obama, not Mitt Romney, not Rudy Giuliani.

If these guys won't make that argument, who do you think you are to be doing so?  Please provide more of an argument than, "It's time for something else."

Great.  Then amend the Constitution.  That's how to get rid of States' Rights.  But beware, brother, when you start talking about repealing one of the Bill of Rights.  Talk about a slippery slope!

Amend it.

Repeal it.

Follow it.

But don't continue to ignore the Constitution of the United States of America.

Time to go back to history class, boys and girls, and the Internet sits at your full disposal!

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/debates/debcont.htm

Did you hear? The new hot-butt(on) topic of humor this week is the Iowa County Judge who decided to overturn State Law banning gay marriage.

Sorry for the bit of washroom blow dryer humor there. Get it? "Press Butt(on)," but the 'on' is scratched out? Check out the hand blow dryer in any restroom. Maybe that's what Senator Craig was doing??

Anyways, a little bit of trivia, and if anyone is familiar with Iowa State Law and can inform us, please chime in. But my take on the Judiciary is that a lower level of the Judiciary is not able to overturn a higher level of Statutory Law, nor Judicial Precedent, for that matter.

This is an issue that warrants further discussion later, but for now, allow us to stick to my topic of choice, the Presidential candidates and their remarks on the topic.

Ironically, despite my earlier bashing of Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) on other States' Rights matters, the junior Senator from New York is the most clearly correct person on this topic, stating she favors civil unions "with full equality of benefits." But she said the question of same-sex marriage should be left up to the states. (AP)

Here, here--except for the civil unions part. Sorry, social conservative!

While Sen. Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama, nearly identical in their views on the topic, will differ from me in their support for civil unions, we are spot-on on the same page as far as States' Rights are concerned.

At least on this issue!

Now, I've made long-winded mention of Sen. Obama's and Sen. Clinton's Socialistic tendencies on the topic of income re-distribution, and their stances on taxpayer-funded, Socialized Healthcare Insurance is legendary. Not to mention other historical Democratic stalwart Socialistic issues that have performed so flawlessly as Socialized Housing, Socialized Welfare, et al. And we will discuss Social Security at length, I am sure.

But I must give credit when credit is due, and Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama are on the right side, forgive that intended pun which would offend many on both sides of the political aisle! Now if only we could hear Republicans speaking out on the correct side of the Constitution.

That's right, I am calling out and calling on Republicans to take on the correct side of this issue. To say that a national Statute or Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage is grossly inappropriate and, actually, unconstitutional itself.

Again, the 10th Amendment. "The powers not (I'll have this memorized one of these days!) delegated to the United States (meaning the Federal Government) by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively (meaning each for itself), or to the people."

Now, that last little phrase is one that I would expect to hear Liberals, Socialists, and Democrats bring up instead of some of the rhetoric that we hear them extol: "Or to the people."

Enter Sen. Clinton again, on the Ellen DeGeneres show, ironically. (Is she even still on the air?) "The states have always determined age of marriage, other conditions and over time we've gotten rid a lot of discrimination that used to exist in marriage laws," she said. "That's now happening. People are making decisions. Civil unions, marriage. They're deciding in the states and I think that's the appropriate place for that to be."

Well-stated. Again, except for the civil union stuff. But I fully support the rights of each State to decide for itself if it wants gay marriage banned, civil unions recognized, etc.

My state, for example, even went so far in 2004 as to state that gay marriages recognized elsewhere would not be recognized in Texas.

Fantastic! That is our right.

Now, what about "or to the people," you ask? Sen. Clinton? "The States have always determined age of marriage," etc. Key in on the word 'States.'

Sen. Clinton's remarks could easily have been in regards to murder and the death penalty, vehicular or corporate or banking laws, or a whole slew of other topics, and this general theme would be correct, because the Constitution says so!!

Trump card laid down. End of discussion.

Now, the same Associated Press article that I am quoting also went on to discuss States' Rights inconsistencies, at least on the Republican side of things.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney "is willing to generally leave it to states to decide how to set up health care coverage plans, he said it shouldn't be left to states to decide same-sex marriage issues."

Interestingly enough, writer Amy Lorentzen either didn't think to turn the question around on the Democrats, or she was relying on quotes to questions others asked since she wasn't actually present in 8 places at one time. And apparently, nobody was asking Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama why they felt it was the Federal Government's business to delve into Socialized Healthcare Insurance but not gay marriage.

I guess that these candidates, Republican and Democrat alike, feel it is their prerogative to pick and choose which topics the 10th Amendment does and does not apply to.

When last I checked, the 10th Amendment mentions the Constitution. And it mentions the States. And, logically, when a State does not choose to Legislate an item, it, by default, automatically falls to the individual, also according to the 10th Amendment.

But nowhere in the 10th Amendment is there mention of the President, and therefore, candidates for the Presidency, having either the power or the responsibility for any of the issues listed herein.

In review, for Republicans that means no Federal oversight (including Judicial!) in gay marriage. For Democrats, the list is long and distinguished, but for matters pertaining to this blog, they include Socialized Healthcare Insurance, just about any other Federal Social program, including individual retirement accounts, also known as Social Security, and the Federal Judiciary's whippin' post issue of abortion, which once was, and always should have been, a States' Rights issue.

Wouldn't you like to see Amy Lorentzen asking that question of candidates?

Leave it to the States. Do you guys start to see why this is such a big issue for both Parties??

Let me tell you guys about something that I'm up to that is gaining some very big fans! I have been commuting on Interstate 35 East between Dallas and Denton, TX for the better part of 20 years.

First, it was going from the suburbs to various school events, mostly marching band stuff. Then it was to Denton and the University of North Texas for my undergrad degree. Then I moved to Denton and began commuting to Dallas for work. So I've gone both ways at both times of day...morning and evening, north and south.

A bit of history you probably don't know and definitely don't care about! I-35 E between Dallas and Denton is also State Highway 77. Prior to the construction of the Eisenhower System of Freeways in the 1950's, State Highways dominated non-local roadway traffic. Unfortunately, State Highways were not built to move traffic, but to pave roads! Here's what that means.

In Texas, for example, most of our original State Highways went directly through the County Square. Not a good idea! Here is the center of commerce and politics and law and order for the entire county, and it is also the center of road travel, too. Not too bad if you are going from the sticks (country) into town or from one County Seat to the next.

But imagine if you are traveling from Denton through Dallas and Austin on down to San Antonio. Impossible! You have no fewer than 4 of these County Squares to go through.

Imagine Austin traffic during rush hour!

Or imagine taking your local freeway and plopping a Wal Mart Supercenter and the County Jail down in the median side-by-side.

Paints an ugly picture, huh?

Well, fast-forward to the Eisenhower Freeway plan. Our modern freeways, in theory, only constrain the driver to stop when they need gasoline. You can travel from Shreveport to Dallas to San Antonio to Houston to New Orleans and back to Shreveport, and theoretically, the only times you would have to exit would be to take the ramp from I-20 to I-35 to I-10 to I-55, and to exit for gas.

Well, fast-forward again to the 21st Century. The Eisenhower plan did not take into account the growth in Interstate commerce dependent on this system of freeways, nor did it take into account the rise of the automobile as a commuter vehicle. Well, now we have these two problems, and we have to deal with them!

Well, that's exactly what I'm doing!

I-35 E from Denton to Dallas is actually very indicative of several other freeways in the Dallas-Ft Worth region, and others state-wide, and in other national metropolitan regions. So the problems are pretty well universal, and so are the solutions.

And they won't cost an arm and a leg, either! Now, re-designing a freeway and re-building it are pricey, but what I am proposing deals with very little new pavement, by comparison.

For example, my plan involving the approximately 35 miles from just north of downtown Dallas to Denton calls for only one new entrance ramp being built.

That's it! Oh, and a whole bunch of new concrete barricades. You know, the kind that separates construction lanes from traffic lanes? Lot's of those.

The plan is very simple, really, and has been verified as very observant and extremely accurate. And I suspect based on those assessments that it actually will be as good and effective as I am billing it to be.

The basic premisee is this: That freeway traffic should be treated as paramount, even if at the expense of crossing streets, side streets, and service/access roads. On my alpha stretch of freeway, there is a recurring problem present known as the "Diamond" formation.

Now, when I heard diamond formation, I thought baseball and wedding rings. No such luck.

A diamond formation in freeway terms refers to the presence of an entrance ramp to the freeway and an exit ramp to the service road, in that order, between each major crossing street.

The problem is this: That traffic is getting over into the right lane to exit the freeway at the same time that the entering traffic is introduced to the right lane. This causes massive back-up in the right lane which causes additional back-up in the other lanes.

Try this in your communte tomorrow morning--see if you can find even one instance of this in your morning commute tomorrow. Inbound or outbound--same problem!

As it has been explained to me, access to anwhere from anywhere seemed to be the goal of this design. Unfortunately, somebody didn't carry out to the extreme levels of traffic that we have today their model used to justify such an inferior design.

My proposal for I-35 E is simple. I am proposing that selective entrance ramps and exit ramps be closed and blocked off. In the case of closed entrance ramps, traffic will be re-directed to the next entrance ramp. For exit ramps, they will simply be re-directed to the previous exit ramp.

The reason for this order is simple: This forces traffic off the freeway before introducing new traffic to the freeway. Simple idea, right? Freeway? Free-flow of traffic on the way to its destination?

The idea is so simple that it is missed by millions of drivers every day. Think about it. You have the same back-up at the same place nearly every day, but it is a different car each day, and almost always within 100 feet of the same place each day, right? Same on your freeway as mine!

But we choose to shoot the birdie, talk to our fellow drivers, and quite frequently shout obsceneties at them as if it were their fault that some engineer in 1956 designed a freeway that is complely outdated now. Hmm.

Well, be of good cheer! For somebody is doing something about the situation!

I am in contact with the Texas Governor's office, the Executive Director's office of the Texas Department of Transportation, the local government coalition, and even my Congressman, whom I will be meeting with next week. The local government group's traffic division is very impressed with my suggestions, and I anticipate additional meetings between TXDOT, the locals, and myself in coming weeks.

I am also contacting the Department of Transportation in another state regarding a metropolitan area that ranks in the 10 largest in the nation and has a reputation as one of the worst in traffic delays in the nation! I hope to discuss applicability of my plans to their local freeways.

That's where the Congressman comes in. And if things progress, don't be surprised to hear about yours truly on the nightly news testifying before the Transportation Committees of the Congress of the United States.

And if that happens, don't be surprised to see drastic reductions to your commute time and traffic delays PDQ after that.

Well, except for the whole bureacracy thing. Still have to cut through that, huh?

Best wishes to us all. And if you catch me in line at Starbucks, feel free to offer to pay for my Grande Caramel Macchiato. I'll let you, and even say, "Thank you!"

When was the last time you heard economic figures released from the government? Friday? Monday? Last week? Last month?

The United States Department of Labor, the Commerce Department, the Treasury Department and a whole slew of other University, Wall Street and government release figures on a monthly and quarterly basis measuring the key, and not so key, measures that each is charged with monitoring. This information impacts interest rates, the stock market, yes, even the price of tea in China!

But what time period did that information cover? I mean, if the information that you heard reported was released on Monday, was it for the month of July 2007, the previous full month?

Most likely no.

Most information released by the government covered a period several months in the past, and some is final information even more distant into the past.

For example, it is not uncommon to hear economic news released to the national media on any particular day in the third quarter (July, August, September) that covers 1st quarter (January, February, March) of that year or even the 4th quarter (October, November, December) of the previous year. And final economic figures often take much longer to be, well, finalized.

Remember the dot.com bubble bursting? The company that I worked for in early 2000 was experiencing a very nice spring sales season. We manufactured and retailed wooden playsets for children's back yards. Well, our busy season was usually from March through June. That year January and February were really good months and March through June were fabulous. But the rest of the year was terrible!

It turns out that in 2002, after I had started my MBA program, economic data was released that showed that the economy had taken a downturn in exactly March of 2000. Remembering back to our great spring and the rest of 2000 being awful, I completely agreed with that assessment, even though it was more than two years after the fact!

This is actually not a blog that has to do with the economy. It has to do with global warming and the governmental bureacracy's tendency towards slow reporting when compared with yesterday's news that Friday, August 17, 2007 was "a(n) historic day."

You see, on September 21, 2005, sea ice in the Arctic Ocean covered 2.05 million square miles of the ocean's surface and yesterday that amount had receded to 2.02 millionn square miles, a new record low.

A couple of things first. One, the difference between "2.05 million" and "2.02 million" is 30,000--as in 30,000 square miles. Roughly equivalent to the State of Maine.

Now, this might not be of great concern to most of you, but I am rather concerned that at this rate of one Maine every two years we might lose one Texas by approximately the year 2024. Sea ice. North Pole. Texas. See my cause for concern??

But while history was being made on the global war against global warming, an even more startling occurence took place.

The government reported such a startling and alarming event...on the very day that it happened!

Now, say what you will about pre-existing agendas altering the manner and speed with which information was observed, analyzed, reported and such. I think that the National Snow and Ice Data Center is onto something here and should be commended!

You think that I make this up: National Snow and Ice Data Center! See for yourselves:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070818/ap_on_sc/low_ice

You can't buy comedy relief like this, folks.

I have to say that it is amazing that someone would make such a big deal about such a relatively small chunk of ice. Here is what I mean.

We know that over the last 10,000 or so years that the earth has warmed from a state of what was then known as the Ice Age to the balmy conditions that we now enjoy. Poor Northern California--they've only been able to start surfing in the last 50 centuries or so!

Just think, if the Mormons are right and Jesus hopped over to the New World before gliding off to Heaven on a cloud, he could have stopped by Santa Cruz and caught a wave first. Might have been kind of hard dodging all the sea ice, but the Bible tells us that he passed through a wall when He appeared to the Disciples in the upper room, so me thinks an iceberg wouldn't be that big of a deal!

So 12,000 years ago, big glaciers stretching down into North America and Europe.

Today, we just lost Maine, folks.

Does this news really surprise anybody in the listening audience??

Recap: The earth's atmosphere has been warming for 100 centuries. The Arctic ice shelf is shrinking. And Friends just took one of Seinfeld's nights in the re-runs.

WHO CARES!?!?

But the government finally learned how to disseminate information in a timely manner. This, I believe, is worthy news and worthy of conversation.