Sixteen years after the ‘Contract with America’, the Republican House Minority provided a renewed ‘Pledge to America’, a throwback promise ahead of an expected majority change in the House of Representatives in November. The Pledge, though addressing some real issues, does not do enough to establish the level of trust and comfort that the Minority leadership was hoping to convey. Instead, the Pledge pays homage to the constitution and the Tea Party overtone without affecting enough change to assure the people that a Republican Majority would act any differently from those majorities of years past.
The Pros:
In the opening pledge, the new governing agenda set forth reads like a collaboration of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and a smattering of founding documents. The most promising aspect of this opening statement was the direct focus on the long forgotten tenth amendment – promising that all powers not specifically delegated to the United States by the Constitution will be reserved for the states and the people. This last amendment in the Bill of Rights is the single most important statement in our founding contract – that the power of this government lay with the people. Remembering this is what the 2010 election cycle has become about.
The Pledge goes on to detail a series of plans outlining the new GOP agenda. Their series of plans include the standard Republican talking points of cutting taxes, reining in spending, and shrinking government. The highlights in these plans include a new rule requiring a “citation of constitutional authority” for every bill presented on the floor of the House. It baffles my mind that such a rule is necessary, but in the bloated government environment in which we find ourselves, it is a much needed relief. Further parts of the Pledge echo the promises made in the ’94 Contract, ensuring transparency and openness in government proceedings.
The Cons:
The Pledge fell short of any real agenda changing qualities, often treating the current political symptom while ignoring the underlying ailment. One great example is the heralded spending reduction which promises a savings of a few hundred billion by returning to Bush era spending practices. I say we need to go further back. I say we need to cut more. Why not aim to cut the federal spending by half, proposing true fiscal restraint. In fact, a federal budget of $2 Trillion is more than sufficient when spending, pork, and subsidies are cut back extremely.
The Pledge addressed unfunded liabilities of Social Security, but stopped short of any proposal to restore and fully fund the Social Security account while restricting ANY government access to the account for general or emergency funding.
The Pledge proposed small business tax incentives without any mention of a plan to remove ALL tax loopholes by implementing a fair and uniform Flat Tax system.
The Pledge promises federal enforcement of border and immigration issues, but fails to target US corporations recruiting for workers in Mexico and hiring foreigners without work visas.
There is much good to be read in the 21 pages of the Republican Pledge to America. It sets a tone for discussion and emphasizes that the GOP is in the game, and more than a party of ‘No’. The Pledge is not enough, though, to do what it was intended to do. It is not enough to set a new agenda. It is not enough to distance the GOP from the spending Republicans of the past. It is not enough to make me believe that the GOP is serious about turning the power of the country back over to the people and the states of this union.
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Election Polls, National Pulse
With five and a half weeks remaining before the Constitutional Resurgence, speculation and polling is as active for an off year as I have ever seen - perhaps because defeat after defeat have been dealt to the Democratic White House in a wave of special elections and Primary upheavals. If the Clinton victory in '92 forced the establishments to re-write the book, and the 2000 presidential election caused them to tear a few pages from it, then the 2010 political season is sure to have political scientists wondering how they could have been so wrong on so many levels. How is it, they will wonder, that a country who gave a blank check to a clearly and openly socialist establishment suddenly finds itself so diametrically opposed to the media announced mandate of 2008?
Let's look to the people for answers.
Obama is polling at ~45% with a solid 50% disapproval rating (45% of those, according to Rasmussen "Strongly Disapprove" - compared to 26% who "strongly approve"). The great emancipator from the evils of the Bush and Clinton empires has proven to be what opponents recognized him as during the primary and general elections in 2008. He has proven that he does not and cannot associate or empathize with the American People. He is an ideologue, so blinded by his agenda that he refuses to associate with the people - tending, instead, to lecture and talk at the people. He no longer inspires Hope, but for a small minority... and even for them, hope has begun to fade. The people are beginning to awaken... it seems he is bringing change to America - change toward a constitutional class of leaders, and an educated and active constitutional electorate.
The Tea Party has already mounted their attack against the GOP and sufficiently dealt them a death blow, forcing the leadership to hearken back to the days of '94, when the party promised change in a Contract with America. That contract was breached as soon as the GOP had control, and a new age of pork spending, corruption, and continued abuse of the constitution once again became the norm in DC for both parties. However, the Congress will have a strong delegation of Tea Party officials. The Senate will have an unusually high representation of Tea Party officials. A few constitutionalists will even preside over state houses for the next four years. This places the GOP in a bind. They fought hard for establishment candidates, and come out denouncing Tea Party victors, only to have to lick their wounds publicly the following morning. The GOP could forever be crippled in 2010 if there is a Tea Party fissure, and the conservative block caucuses as a legitimately strong third party - especially because current leadership would abandon ship for a fresh caucus with no excess baggage. If the GOP does not respond correctly, the Republican Party may find themselves an annotation in the pages of history, alongside the Whigs and the Bull Moose parties.
And finally, who will hold the seats of power for the United States come November? Polling tells us that state after state is moving into the 'toss up' region for the US Senate. Long time incumbents, like Russ Feingold (D - WI), are now trailing conservative candidates. Feingold is currently expected to lose his state, polling double digits behind the GOP. Real Clear Politics' election map indicates a 52-48 Democrat margin on November 3rd. I remain skeptical that Boxer (D) in California, Maj. Ldr Reid (D) of Nevada, and Patty Murray (D) of WA can hold on to their narrow margins. At best, the senate will remain in Democrat control by way ONLY of the Biden vote. I predict a 50-50 senate, with as many as eight NEW Tea Party senators, making way for a strong 20-25% party control by hardcore constitutionalist senators. That is enough fresh leadership to make a plan, not for a new contract with America, but to restore America's ORIGINAL contract - the Constitution... and pledge to hold the Congress and the Executive within the bounds set forth by the People.
Let's look to the people for answers.
Obama is polling at ~45% with a solid 50% disapproval rating (45% of those, according to Rasmussen "Strongly Disapprove" - compared to 26% who "strongly approve"). The great emancipator from the evils of the Bush and Clinton empires has proven to be what opponents recognized him as during the primary and general elections in 2008. He has proven that he does not and cannot associate or empathize with the American People. He is an ideologue, so blinded by his agenda that he refuses to associate with the people - tending, instead, to lecture and talk at the people. He no longer inspires Hope, but for a small minority... and even for them, hope has begun to fade. The people are beginning to awaken... it seems he is bringing change to America - change toward a constitutional class of leaders, and an educated and active constitutional electorate.
The Tea Party has already mounted their attack against the GOP and sufficiently dealt them a death blow, forcing the leadership to hearken back to the days of '94, when the party promised change in a Contract with America. That contract was breached as soon as the GOP had control, and a new age of pork spending, corruption, and continued abuse of the constitution once again became the norm in DC for both parties. However, the Congress will have a strong delegation of Tea Party officials. The Senate will have an unusually high representation of Tea Party officials. A few constitutionalists will even preside over state houses for the next four years. This places the GOP in a bind. They fought hard for establishment candidates, and come out denouncing Tea Party victors, only to have to lick their wounds publicly the following morning. The GOP could forever be crippled in 2010 if there is a Tea Party fissure, and the conservative block caucuses as a legitimately strong third party - especially because current leadership would abandon ship for a fresh caucus with no excess baggage. If the GOP does not respond correctly, the Republican Party may find themselves an annotation in the pages of history, alongside the Whigs and the Bull Moose parties.
And finally, who will hold the seats of power for the United States come November? Polling tells us that state after state is moving into the 'toss up' region for the US Senate. Long time incumbents, like Russ Feingold (D - WI), are now trailing conservative candidates. Feingold is currently expected to lose his state, polling double digits behind the GOP. Real Clear Politics' election map indicates a 52-48 Democrat margin on November 3rd. I remain skeptical that Boxer (D) in California, Maj. Ldr Reid (D) of Nevada, and Patty Murray (D) of WA can hold on to their narrow margins. At best, the senate will remain in Democrat control by way ONLY of the Biden vote. I predict a 50-50 senate, with as many as eight NEW Tea Party senators, making way for a strong 20-25% party control by hardcore constitutionalist senators. That is enough fresh leadership to make a plan, not for a new contract with America, but to restore America's ORIGINAL contract - the Constitution... and pledge to hold the Congress and the Executive within the bounds set forth by the People.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Constitution Day - What would you change?
A local conservative radio show in Seattle, the Kirby Wilbur show, posed an interesting question today - Constitution Day - asking "If you had the power to change one aspect of the Constitution with the snap of a finger, what would it be?"
Some great answers arose around the first amendment, stating that perhaps the "establishment clause" should have stayed in Madison's original form, stating that congress shall "establish no National Religion", i.e. the "Church of America" similar to the Church of England, where the King is the head of the church. Of course congress being what it was, they bungled it up and created the current establishment clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" which has been wrongly interpreted to mean that no local/state/federal governments can acknowledge the existence of God. This was a great one.
Another caller suggested the inclusion of term limits on all federal politicians, including Supreme Court Judges. He suggested 8 years, max - two terms of 4 years being elected by the people. I would modify that and say one term of 10 years appointed by the President and approved by Congress to a class... The seats should be "numbered" and the appointment to one class should not disallow appointment to another seat by a different president and congress. There should be a three class rotation, just like the Congress - meaning that a justice could serve no more than 30 total years... Of course the intent of the lifetime appointment was to raise the justices above the political fray - but little good that did... so if they too should be politicised, let us set it to a review!
If I had to nail down some changes, mine would be simple:
1. National Debt, expanding definition of Article VI
2. 10th amendment and secession
Regarding national debt. Article VI addressed the continuation of validity of debts held under the Articles of Confederation. However, Washington's farewell address explicitly covered the negative effects of continual debt and the burden of taxation to that end... and as such, the Constitution should include a balanced budget amendment and a national debt clause in addition to the statements made in Article I section 9:
It should read something like:
I believe that such a clause would eliminate foreign debts, keeping the monetary burden of the United States on the people of the US - making such outrageous socialist policies directly felt by the people, and ensure a small and purposeful government - to maintain peace and prosperity.
Regarding the 10th and secession. There are very specific rules by which the states have to live, stated in Article I section 10:
By these two clauses, so long as a state remains in the Union, they must abide by these rules - but the tenth gives them the right to break from the Union, as they are not prohibited by Article I section 10.
I would make this more clear by specifically granting the right of secession should a state no longer deem the rules governing the Union just, at which time they are returned their full sovereign and independence from the Union without consequence of invasion so long as they remain on peaceful terms with the remaining states of the Union.
What good is a perpetual Union if the states lose their sovereign and their ability to challenge the central government? It is no longer a union of sovereign states, rather a single nation of one government rule - tyrannical in nature - eliminating the fundamental right of Liberty outlined in the Declaration of Independence. Any state and people so inclined to remove themselves from the Union should, in a free society, be allowed to do so. It strengthens a Union if ultimate power is truly retained by the people and the states, as is the intent of the tenth.
The constitution is nearly flawless... it is the corrupt nature of men that have perverted the document or downright ignored it in order to attain power and status or to slowly enslave the people of this nation under the master of an uncontrolled central government... the very things the anti-federalists warned of.
These are my suggestions.
What are yours?
Some great answers arose around the first amendment, stating that perhaps the "establishment clause" should have stayed in Madison's original form, stating that congress shall "establish no National Religion", i.e. the "Church of America" similar to the Church of England, where the King is the head of the church. Of course congress being what it was, they bungled it up and created the current establishment clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" which has been wrongly interpreted to mean that no local/state/federal governments can acknowledge the existence of God. This was a great one.
Another caller suggested the inclusion of term limits on all federal politicians, including Supreme Court Judges. He suggested 8 years, max - two terms of 4 years being elected by the people. I would modify that and say one term of 10 years appointed by the President and approved by Congress to a class... The seats should be "numbered" and the appointment to one class should not disallow appointment to another seat by a different president and congress. There should be a three class rotation, just like the Congress - meaning that a justice could serve no more than 30 total years... Of course the intent of the lifetime appointment was to raise the justices above the political fray - but little good that did... so if they too should be politicised, let us set it to a review!
If I had to nail down some changes, mine would be simple:
1. National Debt, expanding definition of Article VI
2. 10th amendment and secession
Regarding national debt. Article VI addressed the continuation of validity of debts held under the Articles of Confederation. However, Washington's farewell address explicitly covered the negative effects of continual debt and the burden of taxation to that end... and as such, the Constitution should include a balanced budget amendment and a national debt clause in addition to the statements made in Article I section 9:
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
It should read something like:
"Debts incurred by the Congress of the United States shall have terms not exceeding ten years, and shall not be termed in any way so as to entangle the United States in foreign alliances nor dependency. The budget of the Congress shall remain balanced, reducing the burden of taxation necessary to the continued peace and prosperity of these United States.
I believe that such a clause would eliminate foreign debts, keeping the monetary burden of the United States on the people of the US - making such outrageous socialist policies directly felt by the people, and ensure a small and purposeful government - to maintain peace and prosperity.
Regarding the 10th and secession. There are very specific rules by which the states have to live, stated in Article I section 10:
"Section 10 - Powers prohibited of StatesThe tenth amendment further instructs "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of 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."
By these two clauses, so long as a state remains in the Union, they must abide by these rules - but the tenth gives them the right to break from the Union, as they are not prohibited by Article I section 10.
I would make this more clear by specifically granting the right of secession should a state no longer deem the rules governing the Union just, at which time they are returned their full sovereign and independence from the Union without consequence of invasion so long as they remain on peaceful terms with the remaining states of the Union.
What good is a perpetual Union if the states lose their sovereign and their ability to challenge the central government? It is no longer a union of sovereign states, rather a single nation of one government rule - tyrannical in nature - eliminating the fundamental right of Liberty outlined in the Declaration of Independence. Any state and people so inclined to remove themselves from the Union should, in a free society, be allowed to do so. It strengthens a Union if ultimate power is truly retained by the people and the states, as is the intent of the tenth.
The constitution is nearly flawless... it is the corrupt nature of men that have perverted the document or downright ignored it in order to attain power and status or to slowly enslave the people of this nation under the master of an uncontrolled central government... the very things the anti-federalists warned of.
These are my suggestions.
What are yours?
Monday, February 23, 2009
Constitutional Convention Needed to Save the States
In a last ditch effort to stop the mortgaging of our future, to restrict the role of the federal government, and to put an end to the Socialization of "Free and Independent States" (T. Jefferson), the States of the Union and the legislative branches therein must vote to call for a Convention for Amending the Constitution of the United States.
There should be no talk of "flag burning amendments" or "abortion amendments"... what needs to be on the agenda is simple:
If there is not a balanced budget amendment, the "stimulus" pay-outs and redistribution will keep coming...
If this is not stopped, I would recommend the same state legislatures to amend their own state constitutions to include a secession clause - New Hampshire and 25 other states are already considering it:
Chuck Baldwin warns of such a convention, in that NWO Liberals would see this as a chance to erase the Constitution - but what that would do is tip the hands of the Big Government Socialists, and give just cause for regional control and a return to a truer union of Free and Indpendent States...
There should be no talk of "flag burning amendments" or "abortion amendments"... what needs to be on the agenda is simple:
Whereas the Father of this Nation, George Washington, the First President
of these United States declared in his farewell address that the US Government need "avoid likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of
expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts",
Whereas the increased debt of the Federal Government of these United States
violates the oaths of office, which swears to Protect and Defend these United
States, in such that the Federal Government has become too entangled in foreign
debt to ensure Domestic Security,
Whereas it is the role of one generation to secure stability for the next, and not vice-versa,
We move that the Constitution of the United States be amended to include the following text:
"No budget may be approved by any branch of the Federal Government that is
not balanced, no debt may be approved which exceeds a term of thirty years to be
paid in full"
If there is not a balanced budget amendment, the "stimulus" pay-outs and redistribution will keep coming...
If this is not stopped, I would recommend the same state legislatures to amend their own state constitutions to include a secession clause - New Hampshire and 25 other states are already considering it:
Chuck Baldwin warns of such a convention, in that NWO Liberals would see this as a chance to erase the Constitution - but what that would do is tip the hands of the Big Government Socialists, and give just cause for regional control and a return to a truer union of Free and Indpendent States...
Thursday, February 12, 2009
No Time to Celebrate - America Under Seige
Happy Birthday, Mr Lincoln. Though I am not such a fan as other Republicans, your resolution of the Civil War has had a lasting affect on these United States.
However, there is no time to celebrate.
The Economic Stimulus, Lincoln's Birthday, and a Plummeting DJIA are all important in their own rights, however, are acting as distractions to some nasty happenings in the United States.
First is H.R. 45 (Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009). It requires, within the first two years, that all new guns be registered. The bill goes retroactive after two years. Meaning that two years after the passage of the bill, ALL FIREARMS in a citizen's possession must be registered, not just those purchased after the bill passes, and this apparently applies to antique firearms as well. Every five years the firearm owner must go through a complete renewal process for each weapon owned. Failure to comply carries stiff penalties including confiscation of the firearms and jail time (penalties as high as ten years imprisonment in some cases). The bill also authorizes government searches without warrant, the creation of a federal bureaucracy to monitor firearm possession, etc.
**The Bill Prohibits:
1. Transferring a firearm to any person other than a licensee, unless the transfer is processed through a licensed dealer in accordance with national instant criminal background check system requirements, with exceptions;
2. Licensed manufacturer or dealer from failing to comply with reporting and record keeping requirements of this Act;
3. Failing to report the loss or theft of the firearm to the Attorney General within 72 hours;
4. Failing to report to the Attorney General an address change within 60 days;
5. Keeping a loaded firearm, or an unloaded firearm and ammunition for the firearm, knowingly or recklessly disregarding the risk that a child is capable of gaining access, if a child uses the firearm and causes death or serious bodily injury.
**Prescribes criminal penalties for violations of firearms provisions covered by this Act. Directs the Attorney General to:
1. Establish and maintain a firearm injury information clearinghouse;
2. Conduct continuing studies and investigations of firearm-related deaths and injuries; and
3. Collect and maintain current production and sales figures of each licensed manufacturer. Authorizes the Attorney General to certify state firearm licensing or record of sale systems.
The bill is being reworked to attract co-sponsors, but it is the very type of law that Obama would gladly sign - see my previous post on the Heller decision under an Obama Court.
Secondly, The Civil war brewing in Mexico is beginning to spill over into the United States - target Phoenix. Phoenix AZ has become the target of Mexico City style ransom kidnap attacks - the tactic preferred by Mexican drug lords/warlords... drug violence, which is fueling unrest in the Latin American country is now being imported across our failed southern border - and there is nothing being done to stop it. With the drug demand in the United States being the fuel for the fire in Mexico, it is not surprising that the violence associated with the war follow the supply. Is Martial Law on the horizon for the border states?
However, there is no time to celebrate.
The Economic Stimulus, Lincoln's Birthday, and a Plummeting DJIA are all important in their own rights, however, are acting as distractions to some nasty happenings in the United States.
First is H.R. 45 (Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009). It requires, within the first two years, that all new guns be registered. The bill goes retroactive after two years. Meaning that two years after the passage of the bill, ALL FIREARMS in a citizen's possession must be registered, not just those purchased after the bill passes, and this apparently applies to antique firearms as well. Every five years the firearm owner must go through a complete renewal process for each weapon owned. Failure to comply carries stiff penalties including confiscation of the firearms and jail time (penalties as high as ten years imprisonment in some cases). The bill also authorizes government searches without warrant, the creation of a federal bureaucracy to monitor firearm possession, etc.
**The Bill Prohibits:
1. Transferring a firearm to any person other than a licensee, unless the transfer is processed through a licensed dealer in accordance with national instant criminal background check system requirements, with exceptions;
2. Licensed manufacturer or dealer from failing to comply with reporting and record keeping requirements of this Act;
3. Failing to report the loss or theft of the firearm to the Attorney General within 72 hours;
4. Failing to report to the Attorney General an address change within 60 days;
5. Keeping a loaded firearm, or an unloaded firearm and ammunition for the firearm, knowingly or recklessly disregarding the risk that a child is capable of gaining access, if a child uses the firearm and causes death or serious bodily injury.
**Prescribes criminal penalties for violations of firearms provisions covered by this Act. Directs the Attorney General to:
1. Establish and maintain a firearm injury information clearinghouse;
2. Conduct continuing studies and investigations of firearm-related deaths and injuries; and
3. Collect and maintain current production and sales figures of each licensed manufacturer. Authorizes the Attorney General to certify state firearm licensing or record of sale systems.
The bill is being reworked to attract co-sponsors, but it is the very type of law that Obama would gladly sign - see my previous post on the Heller decision under an Obama Court.
Secondly, The Civil war brewing in Mexico is beginning to spill over into the United States - target Phoenix. Phoenix AZ has become the target of Mexico City style ransom kidnap attacks - the tactic preferred by Mexican drug lords/warlords... drug violence, which is fueling unrest in the Latin American country is now being imported across our failed southern border - and there is nothing being done to stop it. With the drug demand in the United States being the fuel for the fire in Mexico, it is not surprising that the violence associated with the war follow the supply. Is Martial Law on the horizon for the border states?
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Obama to McCain: All Your Base Are Belong To Us!
John McCain met with President Elect Barack Obama yesterday in Chicago during Obama's transition. The meeting lasted less than an hour.
The two released a joint statement after the meeting in which they announce "bipartisanship" and the healing that is needed in America - a call that is applauded by the left, but brings into question those of us on the right who remember 8 years of Bush-Bashing hatred dripping from the fangs of the moonbats on the left... Now McCain, the failed "leader" of the Republican Party has secretly met with Obama and surrendered the conservative movement, conservative ideals, and small government ideals in the name of "bipartisanship".
The same ol' McCain - selling the GOP for his own personal sake... McCain/Feingold - an attack on small government 1st amendment rights, born out of the personal finance scandal of McCain... McCain/Kennedy - an attack on American Sovereignty against a massive immigration invasion propelled and funded by Mexico, born out of the left's handbook and embraced by McCain.
This is the reason why I have never liked McCain... he is the embodiment of the RINO - a left of center, left of Bush even, neoconservative - the final nail in the coffin of the beast that grew out of the GOP under the Bush Years... Though my support for him was out of necessity - the lesser of two evils...
I digress...
McCain has surrendered the GOP to Obama. The photo op and joint release was an attempt for McCain to save face - but the conversation was all Obama, and a defeated McCain, for sure.
Obama's message: All Your Base Are Belong To Us!
McCain's response: "Obviously".
Obama followed up with: "You are on the way to destruction - You have no chance to survive Make Your Time... ha ha ha..."
McCain is not our Captain... it is up to us to "take off every Zig"...
Look, McCain - If Obama is "Wrong for America" - if his policies are dangerous for this country, why would you come out and "obviously" support him... why not make a stand for conservative principles and declare that you are going to Fight Obama's radical policy every step of the way - and declare that if you have to, you will be the sole thorn in his side for his ONLY 4 years! Instead, McCain, you cower to him, hoping to gain good graces with an entity that stands to do such damage to this country - more so than his predecessor! This, sir, is why you lost!
Obama's first plan of attack is to override all of Bush's Executive Orders - granted, some are more than worthy of removal... but the lifting of the Offshore Drill Ban by Bush, should it be overruled by Obama, would reverse the trend we have seen in plummeting oil prices - and is the ONLY reason why congress let the congressional ban expire!
Other such executive order reversals and executive orders of his own would indicate that he is claiming a mandate for social policy change - even though the voters overwhelmingly voted down higher taxes and liberal social policy across the board!
Conservatives, in order to fix the problems that Obama is going to cause, and in order to fix the problems that Bush DID cause, we need to dig deep now - take off every zig - and begin a campaign for Conservatism in 2010... We need to send a message to socialist Democrats, as well as socialist RINOs - All OUR base are belong to US!
Tell the new congress, the new senate, and the new (ugh) president that Social Engineering is NOT the role of the Federal Government. Maybe on January 20th we push for a campaign to flood the White House and Capital with millions of copies of the US constitution with the message:
The two released a joint statement after the meeting in which they announce "bipartisanship" and the healing that is needed in America - a call that is applauded by the left, but brings into question those of us on the right who remember 8 years of Bush-Bashing hatred dripping from the fangs of the moonbats on the left... Now McCain, the failed "leader" of the Republican Party has secretly met with Obama and surrendered the conservative movement, conservative ideals, and small government ideals in the name of "bipartisanship".
The same ol' McCain - selling the GOP for his own personal sake... McCain/Feingold - an attack on small government 1st amendment rights, born out of the personal finance scandal of McCain... McCain/Kennedy - an attack on American Sovereignty against a massive immigration invasion propelled and funded by Mexico, born out of the left's handbook and embraced by McCain.
This is the reason why I have never liked McCain... he is the embodiment of the RINO - a left of center, left of Bush even, neoconservative - the final nail in the coffin of the beast that grew out of the GOP under the Bush Years... Though my support for him was out of necessity - the lesser of two evils...
I digress...
McCain has surrendered the GOP to Obama. The photo op and joint release was an attempt for McCain to save face - but the conversation was all Obama, and a defeated McCain, for sure.
Obama's message: All Your Base Are Belong To Us!
McCain's response: "Obviously".
Obama followed up with: "You are on the way to destruction - You have no chance to survive Make Your Time... ha ha ha..."
McCain is not our Captain... it is up to us to "take off every Zig"...
Look, McCain - If Obama is "Wrong for America" - if his policies are dangerous for this country, why would you come out and "obviously" support him... why not make a stand for conservative principles and declare that you are going to Fight Obama's radical policy every step of the way - and declare that if you have to, you will be the sole thorn in his side for his ONLY 4 years! Instead, McCain, you cower to him, hoping to gain good graces with an entity that stands to do such damage to this country - more so than his predecessor! This, sir, is why you lost!
Obama's first plan of attack is to override all of Bush's Executive Orders - granted, some are more than worthy of removal... but the lifting of the Offshore Drill Ban by Bush, should it be overruled by Obama, would reverse the trend we have seen in plummeting oil prices - and is the ONLY reason why congress let the congressional ban expire!
Other such executive order reversals and executive orders of his own would indicate that he is claiming a mandate for social policy change - even though the voters overwhelmingly voted down higher taxes and liberal social policy across the board!
Conservatives, in order to fix the problems that Obama is going to cause, and in order to fix the problems that Bush DID cause, we need to dig deep now - take off every zig - and begin a campaign for Conservatism in 2010... We need to send a message to socialist Democrats, as well as socialist RINOs - All OUR base are belong to US!
Tell the new congress, the new senate, and the new (ugh) president that Social Engineering is NOT the role of the Federal Government. Maybe on January 20th we push for a campaign to flood the White House and Capital with millions of copies of the US constitution with the message:
LEARN IT - LOVE IT - COMPLY WITH IT!
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Shall Not Be Infringed...
Thanks to the DC gun ban, and the lawsuit by a local DC police officer, the Supreme Court is hearing a case on Gun Rights for the first time in 70 years. A circuit court ruling 2-1 decided that the gun ban was unconstitutional, and that individuals had the right to own personal guns for self defense.The issue, which is a staple of the conservative base, revolves around the intent of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States:
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Fox News reports the two sides of the argument being brought before the court. The DC government ‘s first argument is that the amendment applies to the militia (i.e. National Guard and Army) to have guns. Secondly, DC claims that the amendment does not apply to the district, as it is a special federally controlled haven of the government (a strange argument for a government looking for equal representation in congress). Finally, the DC government claims that this is a reasonable ban used in protecting the DC citizens from violence (looks like it has worked! I can’t think of one person that equates DC with Crime!)
The opposition claims, of course, that the 2nd amendment is very specific about guaranteeing an individual the right to keep and bear arms, and that the DC ban is a “draconian infringement” of our rights.
Heller’s lawyers also present its Founders-era evidence by quoting from George Mason, Blackstone and Madison. They also quote lawyer John Adams during his successful defense of British soldiers in the aftermath of the Boston Massacre.This is going to come down to the intent of the amendment. What did the founders intend by placing those 27 words into our constitution? What purpose could those words serve for future generations?
In that trial Adams conceded that “here every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time for their defense, not for offense."
Let’s take a look at the words, and identify with the founders… what experiences had they lived that would move them to include such a statement?
Definition of MILITIA: The term militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency; without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service
The founders had just fought and won a war against the largest army and Navy in the world, with little more than farmers and family men with a want to be free. Had these men not owned their own hunting rifles, or been trained in how to use them, there would be no USA. The militia is a band of ordinary citizens versed in defense.
“A well-regulated militia” refers to the ability to call on the citizens of a country to stand in defense with little training in order to face foes the likes of the British regular army.
“being necessary to the security of a free state” – it is the people of a society which are it’s very defense. The security lies in the necessity of ability to defend… and without this ability, the freedoms so valiantly fought for will be succumbed.
“the right of the people to keep and bear arms” – the two most important words are in this clause: right, and people. “Right” indicates that the words of this amendment are equal to those rights endowed by our creator, as described in the Declaration of Independence, which states that “among which are Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness”… of course the founders were bright enough to say “among which”, which meant that further rights were yet to be defined that were also Divinely Endowed. And the word “People” is equally important. They did not say that it is the right of the government to issue arms, rather the right of the people to keep their own arms outside of a government armory. These would be their personal arms, well known to the individual, and able to sue in times of necessary defense of their personal property… be it from a tyrannical government or in simple defense of their personal property.
“shall not be infringed” – the meaning of this line is self evident… it was stated very clearly and bluntly… “No Trespassing” on our afore mentioned rights.
So according to my most accurate interpretation of the amendment, it would read (in layman’s terms): For the protection of our God Given and Earned Rights, a trained and knowledgeable citizenry is necessary. There is no better way to ensure that the United States will always have a citizenry ready to defend than to ensure that the people are always armed and well versed in their personal firearms. This is a right that a government of, by, and for the people shall never take away.
The court is expected to have a ruling on this case by June. I expect that a court truly in understanding of the intent of the people who founded this country will vote unanimously against any bans on firearms by the government. Unfortunately we have a court full of very liberal activists, willing and waiting to strip the people of their Endowed rights. Luckily we have a slim conservative majority, so we can expect a 5-4 ruling in favor of freedom. And this is exactly why we must not allow Hillary or Obama to select our next judges… the very interpretation of our Liberty is at stake.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
How Free Men Squandered a Free Society
This blog was inspired by a BBC documentary call The Century of the Self
As a modern day conservative, it is expected of you to embrace the modern model of progressive capitalism. The Republican Party is clearly the party of business, and operates under the banner of a "free market society".
In fact, I am currently going through training on the free market system and the fundamentals of the conservative principles, called the Leadership Program of the Rockies. An excellent training course for future leaders, indeed.
However, I find myself observing a conflict with the fundamental founding principles and the concept of modern capitalism. Let me explain...
A free market, in it's simplest form, works when one person has a need and this person is able to freely choose how to fill the need... without government involvement. Where we are with the current form of progressive capitalism, is in an entanglement of government over-regulation of business and industry, and thus an alliance/power-share of government and business. The more government involvement in business, the less of a truly free market society we have.
As well, the founding principles discuss an endowment of natural rights, allowing the pursuit of happiness. Understanding that the original intent of the word "happiness" was property, one has to question why the word was changed to a broader term "happiness" and question if it was because the founders understood that property does not equal happiness. And I would go further to argue that today's society has confused capitalism with gluttony and greed, and as such the economy is crumbling under the hammer of credit and over-consumption. Therefore the pursuit of happiness is being hampered by the exit ramp of over-consumption and over-credit.
This is where the above video comes into play. The video discusses the surge of emotional marketing, and how it started a consumer nation in the US. It is a very interesting video, and to fully understand the state of the nation, and of the world, you should take a moment and watch it.
Now that you understand the original intent of the founding of this society, and understand the new consumer nation that has replaced the free society, you may understand my next argument.
I am surmising that the combination of government over-regulation of the businesses and the consumer crazed populous has created a situation in which we have freely offered up our fundamental freedoms in exchange for goods.
There is a reason that the approval rating of our congress, the freely elected "representatives", is in the 9% - 11% area. The reason is that the citizens of this great nation are being sold "success of the society" by economic and consumer reports. And the leadership of the country uses the same consumer based mindset to sell the people a bad product... themselves.
We have become trained to react to our emotional instincts... and marketing continues to reinforce these emotional responses.
And politicians have learned the same techniques. This is why you hear "vote for me, I can win", instead of "vote for me, I am a man of principles"... And thus we are left with the "lesser of two evils" vote. In doing so, we are continually perpetuating a strengthening ruling class who's ultimate goal is to, by keeping the people subdued with consumerism, change the face of the free society into a government protectorate, government dictatorship that intends to have ultimate control over the world citizenry.
I am not a conspiracy theorist... consider the following source: Video on Globalism.
Ask yourself... how free are you? Is this freedom perceived, or does it exist?
As a conservative, should you support a free market society, or a consumer nation masked as a free market society?
And, does Capitalism have borders? More importantly, SHOULD capitalism have borders? For instance, how free of a market is it if I want to enter the textile industry when all other textiles are produced in nations where free market is a pipe dream (China, Pakistan, Indonesia).
So to answer my heading, Free Men have Squandered a Free Society by submitting to their baser emotional instincts, and have submitted that as long as they have items to consume, and thus appear happy/content, the government can continue to increase in size and reach, reducing our liberties. By keeping the people Fat, Dumb, and "Happy", the leaders have succeeded in squandering our society around us.
As a modern day conservative, it is expected of you to embrace the modern model of progressive capitalism. The Republican Party is clearly the party of business, and operates under the banner of a "free market society".
In fact, I am currently going through training on the free market system and the fundamentals of the conservative principles, called the Leadership Program of the Rockies. An excellent training course for future leaders, indeed.
However, I find myself observing a conflict with the fundamental founding principles and the concept of modern capitalism. Let me explain...
A free market, in it's simplest form, works when one person has a need and this person is able to freely choose how to fill the need... without government involvement. Where we are with the current form of progressive capitalism, is in an entanglement of government over-regulation of business and industry, and thus an alliance/power-share of government and business. The more government involvement in business, the less of a truly free market society we have.
As well, the founding principles discuss an endowment of natural rights, allowing the pursuit of happiness. Understanding that the original intent of the word "happiness" was property, one has to question why the word was changed to a broader term "happiness" and question if it was because the founders understood that property does not equal happiness. And I would go further to argue that today's society has confused capitalism with gluttony and greed, and as such the economy is crumbling under the hammer of credit and over-consumption. Therefore the pursuit of happiness is being hampered by the exit ramp of over-consumption and over-credit.
This is where the above video comes into play. The video discusses the surge of emotional marketing, and how it started a consumer nation in the US. It is a very interesting video, and to fully understand the state of the nation, and of the world, you should take a moment and watch it.
Now that you understand the original intent of the founding of this society, and understand the new consumer nation that has replaced the free society, you may understand my next argument.
I am surmising that the combination of government over-regulation of the businesses and the consumer crazed populous has created a situation in which we have freely offered up our fundamental freedoms in exchange for goods.
There is a reason that the approval rating of our congress, the freely elected "representatives", is in the 9% - 11% area. The reason is that the citizens of this great nation are being sold "success of the society" by economic and consumer reports. And the leadership of the country uses the same consumer based mindset to sell the people a bad product... themselves.
We have become trained to react to our emotional instincts... and marketing continues to reinforce these emotional responses.
And politicians have learned the same techniques. This is why you hear "vote for me, I can win", instead of "vote for me, I am a man of principles"... And thus we are left with the "lesser of two evils" vote. In doing so, we are continually perpetuating a strengthening ruling class who's ultimate goal is to, by keeping the people subdued with consumerism, change the face of the free society into a government protectorate, government dictatorship that intends to have ultimate control over the world citizenry.
I am not a conspiracy theorist... consider the following source: Video on Globalism.
Ask yourself... how free are you? Is this freedom perceived, or does it exist?
As a conservative, should you support a free market society, or a consumer nation masked as a free market society?
And, does Capitalism have borders? More importantly, SHOULD capitalism have borders? For instance, how free of a market is it if I want to enter the textile industry when all other textiles are produced in nations where free market is a pipe dream (China, Pakistan, Indonesia).
So to answer my heading, Free Men have Squandered a Free Society by submitting to their baser emotional instincts, and have submitted that as long as they have items to consume, and thus appear happy/content, the government can continue to increase in size and reach, reducing our liberties. By keeping the people Fat, Dumb, and "Happy", the leaders have succeeded in squandering our society around us.
Friday, June 29, 2007
What is most important to you: Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution?
In an attempt to better understand the way that we citizens view the role of government and the role of a citizen of the United States, I have (over)simplified my analysis into one simple question:
What founding document do you hold nearest to your heart: The Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution of the United States?
As such, I plan to use this same concept/question in my CNN/YouTube video question to the Republican Candidates for the September 23rd debate.
Perhaps I should explain why this question matters to me... and should to you.
One who holds the Constitution closer to his heart puts more of an emphasis on the structure of government, the necessity of government, and the hope that a government can exist as a part of the citizenry. All good things.
One who holds the Declaration of Independence closer to his heart, as a government official, tends to have a fear of the "Overbearing" government, and as such, understands that it is the citizenry who rules the government... not the other way around. Again... good things.
The difference between the two, in my oversimplified analysis, is that a government official who fears the people legislates with a lighter touch than one who envisions that the government, as an entity separate from the citizenry, rules the people.
I, for one, in the spirit of Patrick Henry (give me liberty or give me death) agree that there should be less power in the federal government, and as such, live and die by the D.O.I. - a general "Up Yours" to a government that does not represent the people
Have I oversimplified? If so, let me know... Which document do you hold dearest... and how do you perceive the difference between the two?
What founding document do you hold nearest to your heart: The Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution of the United States?
As such, I plan to use this same concept/question in my CNN/YouTube video question to the Republican Candidates for the September 23rd debate.
Perhaps I should explain why this question matters to me... and should to you.
One who holds the Constitution closer to his heart puts more of an emphasis on the structure of government, the necessity of government, and the hope that a government can exist as a part of the citizenry. All good things.
One who holds the Declaration of Independence closer to his heart, as a government official, tends to have a fear of the "Overbearing" government, and as such, understands that it is the citizenry who rules the government... not the other way around. Again... good things.
The difference between the two, in my oversimplified analysis, is that a government official who fears the people legislates with a lighter touch than one who envisions that the government, as an entity separate from the citizenry, rules the people.
I, for one, in the spirit of Patrick Henry (give me liberty or give me death) agree that there should be less power in the federal government, and as such, live and die by the D.O.I. - a general "Up Yours" to a government that does not represent the people
Have I oversimplified? If so, let me know... Which document do you hold dearest... and how do you perceive the difference between the two?
Friday, June 8, 2007
What is the role of "Government"
It is quite often referred to as a separate entity: "The government is taxing us to death", or "I don't agree with the government". But what ever happened to the "We the People" mentality that formed this great Union? Why is it that the founders, who envisioned an independent nation of free men, are being left to the history books, being replaced by the "common understanding" of the overbearing government.
In fact, this is the very situation that led the founding fathers to cast off the tyranny and form a "more perfect union".
I am not saying that GW is the "king", and we are his minions... what I am saying is that the separation of the people and the government is the danger that leads a state to revolution, as was the case some 231 years ago. The government was SO out of touch with the people, that they cast off the government and decided to govern themselves. We are at a point now where we have to decide: Do we want to govern ourselves, or be governed?
Let's take a look at some historical views of the government, and it's role... perhaps to better understand how we got here...
George Washington, in his farewell address:
The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad, of your safety, of your prosperity, of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that from different causes and from different quarters much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth, as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned, and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.
George Washington so eloquently spoke of the love of freedom, and with the blood of freedom so fresh on the ground, to always remember the freedom from tyranny, and to be jealous with the ability to self govern. He declared that all men should fight for the control of the government, and revere our form of government, as freedom of man is the ultimate goal of life...
James Monroe (5th President) in his inaugural address:
Such, then, is the happy Government under which we live--a Government adequate to every purpose for which the social compact is formed; a Government elective in all its branches, under which every citizen may by his merit obtain the highest trust recognized by the Constitution; which contains within it no cause of discord, none to put at variance one portion of the community with another; a Government which protects every citizen in the full enjoyment of his rights, and is able to protect the nation against injustice from foreign powers.
President Monroe, an anti-Federalist, and one of the fathers of the Republican party, believed that the role of the government was to uphold the constitution - that the rights and liberty of the people should be upheld, that the people should be protected from enemies (foreign and domestic), and that the role of the government should not be separated from the action of the people - thus adhering to a limited form of existence.
Thomas Jefferson's original version of the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created
equal & independent , that from that equal creation they derive rights
inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government shall become destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, & to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles & organising its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety & happiness.
Jefferson was so adamant that the government was only to exist at the consent of the people, and NOT to exist as a purpose to rule.
Now let's look at more modern views of government...
The role of government had been pretty much as intended by the founding fathers... limited involvement into the lives of the citizens, with expected involvement from the citizens into the dealings of the government. It wasn't perfect, as history showed (Civil War, Manifest Destiny, etc). But there was a turning point in our history where the role of government became less "By the People" and more "For the People"...
Franklin D. Roosevelt at a speech in Boston in 1932:
We have two problems: first, to meet the immediate distress; second, to
build up on a basis of permanent employment. As to immediate relief, the first
principle is that this nation, this national government, if you like, owes a
positive duty that no citizen shall be permitted to starve. In addition to
providing emergency relief, the Federal Government should and must provide
temporary work wherever that is possible. You and I know that in the national
forests, on flood prevention, and on the development of waterway projects that
have already been authorized and planned but not yet executed, tens of
thousands, and even hundreds of thousands of our unemployed citizens can be
given at least temporary employment.
Roosevelt enacted his "New Deal" legislation that put the government in the authoritative role that we see it as today. Granted, his ideas were necessary in a way that the the US needed to think and care for it's citizens, but he left the door open to corruption and "overstepping" of government as a separate entity into the affairs of the individual... believing that it is the DUTY of the government to intervene and help whenever it sees fit.
Right up to the politicians of today, this idea of government involvement has grown like a weed:
Hilary Clinton in a comment made May 29th, 2007:
Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies.
2nd Circuit Court of Appeals - a report from Rick Scarborough:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting in New York, just
issued a ruling which would hamstring the FCC's efforts to keep the worst
obscenity off the airwaves, if it's allowed to stand.
So now we are looking at a government that is separated from the people, that does not trust or allow the individuals to determine "fairness", and is refusing to protect the youngest and most vulnerable citizens from the worst form of obscenity.
So I ask you... what IS the role of the government? Do we need the government to give us policies dictating our rights and liberties? Do we support a government that no longer protects the citizens? Does the government represent the will of the people, or does the government rule with (in the words of Thomas Jefferson) an "act of force, and not of right"?
And I ask you this... Are the "media favorite" candidates upholding your belief in the role of government, or are they simply more of the same?
As a citizen of the United States, the greatest nation of free men, what role will you play in repairing the United States? and do you want to live in a country where liberty or government prevails?
God Bless
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)