1.  It is unlawful for any person to:

      (a) Take all or part of any tips or gratuities bestowed upon his employees.

      (b) Apply as a credit toward the payment of the statutory minimum hourly wage established by any law of this State any tips or gratuities bestowed upon his employees.

      2.  Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to prevent such employees from entering into an agreement to divide such tips or gratuities among themselves.

Every state has laws that protect working people, and in every state there are those who consider these laws to be inconvenient at best. It is their belief that any law that prevents the employer from being able to take money from those who work for them at a whim is wrong. In plainer language they consider such protections to be “socialist claptrap”, “communist propaganda”, and other assorted descriptions. The fact that such laws exist, are on the books and are enforceable…let’s put it this way, to them it is extremely ill-mannered to even bring them up in conversation.

Terry Graves is one of the board members of the Henderson Chamber of Commerce here in Southern Nevada. I have known him for over 2 years and in all that time, even though I strongly support business and he knows it, he hasn’t forgiven me for introducing AB 357, a bill that would have stopped the violation of the above law.

According to Terry and every other Republican in any position of leadership, any politician who stands against businesses violating employee protection laws is, by definition, an enemy. It is the same mentality union members run into when they refuse to steal from their employer by the various assorted methods their associates have cooked up. It is the same mentality Frank Serpico ran into when he decided to refuse the offered bribe money his fellow cops were taking. It is the reason Sue Lowden, the Nevada State Party Chair said of me, “He’s too honest, we can’t trust him.” The world of politics has become a sewer and the rats are running the system.

Not every politician is dishonest or hypocritical, but damn few aren’t, and it is up to the voter to do the weeding. Unfortunately that requires work and the ability to read. Why do you think politicians talk so loudly about improving education but rarely do anything to do so?

When I stood up and declared my intention to represent all my constituents regardless of their race, age, sex, income or power, I immediately alienated every member of my Assembly Caucus except for two people, Lynn Stewart and Garn Maybe. It should be noted that Garn retired and was replaced by yet another hypocrite NeoCon. The party tried to replace Lynn but lost badly. Sometimes good people actually get a second chance.

Employee protection laws exist because for too long employers considered those people working for them to be little more than just another one of their possessions; beasts of burden at best. Well, the law says different. If you don’t like what the law says, change it through the legislative or initiative process. You do not have the option to simply ignore it…or you shouldn’t have. Two of my fellow Republican scholars agreed with that attitude wholeheartedly, that is until I proposed a law that would have inconvenienced them; immigration reform that would have targeted those employers who knowingly violate America’s immigration laws. It seems they were enjoying the benefits of hiring illegal aliens at a small fraction of the minimum wage and since the people working for them were illegal, they were also profiting by not having to pay taxes, benefits, etc. Isn’t it interesting that folks who call themselves constitutional scholars can so readily violate the constitution when that violation puts cash into their pocket?

The problem is that we as Americans have become so used to our representatives being lying two-faced hypocrites that we don’t know how to handle it when we actually get one that doesn’t fit that mold. The media certainly can’t. They have used the line “We can’t find anything,” meaning scandal, “So they must be hiding something,” and then go to press with the assumption that that individual is guilty before proved innocent. We saw this with the treatment of Sarah Palin. The political parties are very aware of this and will treat those who run for office accordingly. They will decide who may upset those business interests and organizations that donate to the party and work to trash that person’s reputation all for a few more campaign dollars. Whether or not such action is moral or even right is beside the point, its politics.

It shouldn’t be that way, but it is. The sad part is that it has become accepted.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

A lot of people have issued opinions on what the above paragraph actually means. The majority of the opinions, including those psychotic ramblings from the Warren court, have been agenda driven. So, let’s take a look at the words from outside the box. The English language, especially during the late 1700’s was direct and to the point. If you approach a statement written by a personality such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison or John Adams with the assumption that these men were not writing in code, but wishing to make their intention as clear as possible, you are most likely going to wind up exactly where they were.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,”

During the time of the American Revolution, England had a state religion, the Church of England, established by King Henry the 8^th for the sole purpose of allowing the King to divorce and remarry. The writers of our constitution wanted to ensure that Congress could not do what Henry did. They understood that a theocracy and freedom were incompatible concepts.

“or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

They also understood that in order to be truly free, the citizens of this new nation had to be allowed to worship as they saw fit. The Puritans and the Quakers of Pennsylvania were the last to sign off on this concept. They saw groups such as the Anabaptists and the Catholics as heretics and wanted nothing more than to tell them how to pray properly. We have much the same attitude going on today, but it is groups such as People for the American Way, the ACLU, NOW, and other atheistic organizations clamoring to remove that right. To them, all they see is the first half of the sentence. Whether they choose to agree or not, this statement is utterly true, it is not the American way to live without faith. The freedom to worship, or to not worship, as one sees fit, is one of the chief stones in the bedrock of our country’s foundation.

“or abridging the freedom of speech”

This is the big one that every armchair lawyer and their cousin quote, as if it is the only sentence within the amendment. You will notice that the writers of the constitution did not get to this portion until after they dealt with the freedom of religion. Sequence of thought is as important to the English language as is context. Being able to express oneself as a free citizen was important, just not as important as being able to worship without the government looking over your shoulder.

If you look at the letters of John Adams, Franklin, and the other founders, you will see them exercising this freedom with free flowing prose and quite often biting criticism. What you never see is the outrageous lie that today’s media and politicians are fond of using. Freedom of speech does not give us a right to lie. If Madison and his compatriots thought lies were a virtue, lying would have been mentioned. No, what is being said here is that congress cannot write a law that puts barriers in the way of Americans being able to voice their opinion in open and honest debate. When a citizen is sued over expressing an honest opinion or a student is either failed or thrown off a campus for being politically incorrect, those individuals’ rights have been “abridged”. In today’s language, they have been trampled upon. Political correctness is not American in any way shape or form and if the founding fathers were alive today, those who exercise political correctness would probably be tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail.

“or of the press;”

This portion is another sentence that many place over the religion clause, and again, you need to be cognizant of sentence structure. Regardless, the ability to report freely on what is happening, even if such reporting embarrasses the wealthy or the powerful, such reporting can not be constricted by any law. Those media heads that have fired writers and reporters because they have chosen to report the truth have violated this clause of the constitution. This clause does not give the media the right to lie. It is their duty to report the truth and to let the people choose what to believe. Many in today’s media would consider that an undue infringement on their freedoms.

“or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,”

Every 60’s radical, especially William Ayers, knows this clause. They quoted it ad nauseum while fling bottles, rocks, and fecal matter at the police during the Vietnam War era riots. A riot is not a peaceful assembly and therefore, by definition, is removed from the protection of the First Amendment. What the framers of our constitution had in mind was to prevent congress from being able to send troops to a gathering of townsfolk, whether it be in the village square or in a home to break up the meeting.

A meeting of employees in any given company to discuss whether or not they should create or join a union is covered under this right. Sending the boys out late at night to plant a burning cross onto someone’s lawn is not.

“and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

In my state of Nevada, I am ashamed to have been a member of the political party that has worked overtime to eliminate this right from Nevadans. The ability of the people to have a say in the fundamental decisions that affect their lives is, by its placement as the capstone in this amendment, one of the most important rights we have.

The current Assembly Minority Leader Heidi Gansert and the Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio, worked together to craft a bill that greatly restricted the ability of an initiative petition to be approved for placement on the ballot in any given election. They did so under urging from the GOP party leadership because of the growing power of the Democrat party in the state’s two urban areas, Las Vegas and Reno. What was surprising is that the Democrat party leadership went right along with them, forming a Nevada version of the axis of evil.

We are seeing more and more moves in this direction and it is happening all across this nation in both local and national politics. The powerful elite in politics do not want the citizens of this country to have a voice. They care nothing for your wants, needs, desires or rights. What they want is for you to vote for them and to then shut up.

America needs to wake up. If the percentage of already registered voters who actually voted increased by only 25%, we would see a dramatic shift in the political picture of this country. If that percentage doubled, we would probably have begun the process of getting our country back. At the very least, the politicians would begin to listen.

When John McCain first revealed his choice for Vice President, Sarah Palin revitalized a dying campaign. A significant portion of conservatives decided they could finally hold their collective noses and vote for the GOP ticket. Suddenly the republicans were not watching the Obama train disappear over the horizon, they were leaving it in the dust.

So, what happened? Why is Obama out in front yet again? He has done nothing different in his campaign from the beginning. Change is still the only item on his plank. What sort of change? He's not saying and you're a racist if you need any more information. Palin was the only change in the McCain campaign and it was a huge one. The voters did not want someone who had a history of being too cozy with the UN. They did not want someone who had essentially the same circle of friends in his stable as Bush Jr., but they were willing to go with him if he had a running mate with a history of actually representing the middle class...and winning the fight.

Apparently Sarah was too much for McCain's buddies. She has been shoved into the closet with a rag stuffed into her mouth. The old boys club, emphasis on "old", Palin had become almost as much a danger as Obama. The race had become Palin versus Obama. Didn't this Alaskan skirt realize who the presidential candidate was? As clueless as ever, the McCain campaign decided to silence the only weapon in their arsenal.

If Sarah Palin was allowed to take the lead in the campaign, Obama would now be 20 points behind and falling. She had exactly the combination of wit, wisdom and poise that America loves to see in leadership. The problem is, she is not John McCain. She is supposed to be the running mate. She is supposed to be tagging along on McCain's coattails. It is not supposed to be the other way around. Shame on you Mrs. Palin! Get into that closet and shut up.

Well, that is one way to lose an election.

This blog will not repeat the topics covered in these attacks. Let it be said that the spectrum has been broad and offensive. What I find interesting is that if the same style of attack was done by conservatives against a Democrat...we would already have marches in Washington and defamation suits on file. Talking heads on every network other than Fox would be decrying the unfairness of the attack and Fox would be clicking its tongue in sympathy.

Obama did the right thing in immediately saying that family was off limits, but you notice that he has moved on past that now as the slime continues to flow. His tail is covered and he can safely say he stood up for the right thing all the while secretly chuckling at the lefty blogs, saying, “Go get her guys.”

There is no question that Mrs. Palin has more executive than any of the other three candidates. As the Alaskan Governor she has had more access to classified material than Obama, Biden or McCain. Remember, the Alaskan National Guard occupies a number of bases that have a direct line of sight to Siberia. Russian military aircraft often fly over US territory up there. Can any of the three say they have been the commander in chief of any military group? The two Dems haven’t even experienced boot camp.

Imagine the ACLU suit if hypocrisy in political campaigns were made a felony.