Tag Archives: Conservative

Paul Ryan is NOT a RINO. I am.

You read that title correctly. Paul Ryan is NOT a RINO. Neither is McConnell. Nope, Sessions isn’t either. But it would appear that I am.
How can I say things like that with a straight face and be deadly serious? Just consider the facts.
Most of the republican members of congress were considered RINOs. The Republican party officially supports them. They have become the republican party. For some reason they decided to leave me behind, to completely ignore me and my kind.
We have become pariahs.
In today’s world, the right wing, patriotic, constitution loving American is being left out of the political process and without a voice. We have become the true Republicans In Name Only.
Since I do not enjoy not having a voice in the affairs of my country, I decided to do something about that. But what can a person do. I can not take on the sins of the Democrats and most other parties out there don’t seem to have much of a voice. Only thing to do is more research.
Let’s see. There is the Green party. Definitely not for me. Appears to be an off shoot of the democrats and their goals are really unreasonable. How about the Libertarians. Again, not to my liking. They are the next thing to anarchy. And, particularly here in West Virginia, they used subterfuge, and out right dishonesty to obtain their goals. Their ‘guiding light’, one Chris Anders, uses an auto dialer to spread his message (Hate those things with a passion) and frequently spreads misinformation, if not outright untruths. Case in point: He told anyone that would listen the the Jefferson County Commissioners voted themselves a pay raise. They didn’t, That came out of the state capital. There is one other point about Mr. Anders that disturbs me. He lives in Virginia! He does not live in WEST Virginia yet he is spearheading a move to take control of the Jefferson county republican party.
Then there is the fact that they are avowed isolationists wanting no involvement in world affairs. I have a friend that tells me that I am just too forthright. OK, the term he means is blunt. I guess I am at times, but I am not a politician. There are times when being blunt is necessary.
Oh well. Keep looking.
How about the Constitution party? Good name, but do they mean it. Have they got a chance of ever winning anything? Probably not this election cycle, but they are the third largest political party in this country. Do they mean it? I read their platform. They seem to be dedicated to returning this country to the constitutional republic the democrats have spent the last 50 years doing everything in their power to destroy. They make no bones about their belief that this country should be run by the president. Period. Separation of powers is to them a fallacy. And old idea that we should just ignore.
Not my cup of tea. I actually like the constitution.
Hmm bit of a rant there, but every word the truth. Back to the Constitution party.
They are on the ballot in 25 states this cycle, which is a huge improvement or the last one. They have achieved major party status in Wyoming . Their donations have more than doubled in the last few months and just keep growing. There is a large contingent of Cruz supporters that have joined and other disillusioned republicans are joining up every day. I can easily envision them being a major force in the next election cycle. Why? Because they listen. Because they are sincere in wanting to return us. Because this country is looking for some honesty in Politics! It is my belief that this party offers just that and wouldn’t that confuse the politicians of today! Because conservatives all over this country are fed up with a republican party that refuses to adhere to their conservative roots and instead just want the power and money that currently goes with an elected office in D.C.
Personally, I am fed up with being a RINO. I do believe that explains why I am now a registered member of the Constitution party of the United States.

Conservative Dilemma

The Conservative Dilemma

Many years ago I was faced with a very real dilemma. This dilemma involved my personal and very closely held principles on the one hand and my moral obligations on the other. It was the first time I had ever faced such a situation. Normally these two were one and the same. Not this time.
You see I was at that age when young men face the call to go into the military. My personal principles said, and very strongly, that I should keep myself as safe as possible. I should not deliberately place myself in harms way. I was meant to live and live a happy healthy life with all of my faculties and limbs. Joining the military would put all of that at serious risk.
Countering that was the moral obligation to serve the nation that fostered that safety and the freedoms that country gave me just because I was lucky enough to be born in America. At that time I was only peripherally aware of the struggle that brought about that nation. I had been taught a very real history of this nation. I had learned of the founding fathers who had pledged their lives, fortunes and their “Sacred Honor” to bring it about. I knew that most had lost the first two while keeping their “Sacred Honor”. But all of that was learned from books so I could pass the tests they gave me to write. It wasn’t all that real to me. Oh, I was raised in a family that held all of it dear. They were, what is now viewed as the old fashioned republicans. The fought the liberalization of their country. The were vocal in their angst regarding the liberal movement away from the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. But again it was a nebulousity. Something of only philosophical importance to my young and know it all mind. Suddenly I was being forced to make all of it real. I did not realize it at the time, but I was making a decision about how I was going to live my life. Was I to be just another person that accepted what others were willing to give me or would I be a person that defended others and fought to keep the American dream alive. Not that I ever thought about it like that at the time.
Well I made that decision after some time. I swore the oath and wore the uniform. For the first time I put others ahead of myself. My moral obligation had won out over my personal principles and as a result, that obligation became my highest held personal principle. The two were now one. Now, here I am, almost half a century later faced with a similar choice, but one that is just as important.
I fought the good fight. I vehemently opposed the Trump nomination run. I desperately wanted a constitutional conservative to make that run and God willing, win the white house. Trump was a very poor choice for that. Now I am faced with the dilemma of either lending my vote to this man I don’t really trust of of ceding the presidency to a woman I KNOW hates all that the constitution stands for. She is both a liar and a criminal and quite possibly a traitor in the very legal sense of that word. There are other choices on the ballot. The Libertarians have a good man the Constitution Party has a man that holds many of my beliefs. I can happily live with either in the oval office. The simple fact is that neither stands even the slightest chance of winning. The libertarians have never gotten beyond the one per cent vote level and the Constitution Party in a complete unknown to the voters. The only thing they can do is take votes away from the Republican and give the election to the Constitution and freedom destroying Liberals.
It comes down to this: I don’t like Trump. He is not a conservative, but he does espouse SOME conservative principles and he does appear genuine in hi desire to keep America from becoming an Islamic state. He does appear to be a man that will do his best to enforce the laws of our country, for the most part. Hillary, on the other hand scares the living Hell out of me. For so many reasons.
Again, the dilemma. Principles or moral obligation​? Again, I am forced to choose my moral obligation to keep the traitor out of the White House. I will vote for Trump and put my principles aside for the good of the country.

What Is a Conservative?

The first task we face when discussing Conservatism is the definition of terms. What defines a conservative? It seems this definition is rapidly changing with time. Way back when Reagan was a democrat, conservatism was defined as the strict adherence to the words and ideals of the constitution. The liberal was one who believed in the constitution, but felt that it should be interpreted to fit the modern cultural values.
The democrats (liberals from here on) have taken the stance that the constitution is just an old document with a lot of meaningless words. The tenth amendment, for one instance, should never be a blockade to giving the people all the free stuff they want. The second amendment does really say that citizens have a right to their guns. Well, maybe a musket or two. They hold these truths to be self evident, that bigger government is better government. That the government’s purpose is to perpetuate their power and to serve the interests of big business.
So what does being “conservative” mean? That word has a lot of definitions these days. If you are a Libertarian, it means very small government as it does to most traditional conservatives, but it also means isolationism. They believe we should not be involved anywhere in the world except here at home.
To the mainstream Republican it appears to mean if you are a registered Republican you are, by definition, conservative regardless of what government you have or vote for. Government sponsored health care is OK even though it is in violation of both the commerce clause in the constitution and the tenth Amendment. It has come to mean that government sponsored abortion is OK in some few special cases. As I write this, the Republican presumptive nominee for president believes that a person’s self determination of gender is paramount, regardless of what God has given them and the rest of us must conform to that minuscule minority’s beliefs. The liberals seem to feel that the founders oft stated belief in God and the freedom of religion actually means the freedom From religion and the rest of us should just keep our religious beliefs to ourselves. God help the idiot that actually speaks in public about freedom >b>of religion.
Our founding fathers wrote some immortal words in the Declaration of Independence:“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” They went on to codify that in the constitution they wrote in 1779.On one particular Fourth of July, the day we celebrate the signing of this Declaration of Independence, Theodore Roosevelt made a speech from the White house saying that in order to understand that declaration, we should eliminate those words. Just ignore them. This is the liberal stance.
I will discuss only one of those “self evident truths,” Liberty. Liberty is defined by Merriam-Webster as “1 : the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice.”I offer a quote from Hillsdale College professor, Ronald J. Pestritto “In the early 20th century, a new political theory—known as Progressivism—rose to prominence in America. This theory held that the principles of the American Founding, expressed most eloquently and concisely in the Declaration of Independence, were irrelevant to modern life. Progressives taught that stringent restrictions on government power were no longer necessary to protect liberty, since human nature and science had advanced greatly during the 19th century. Progressives did not believe that individuals are endowed with inalienable rights by the Creator; rather, they believed that rights are determined by social expediency and bestowed by the government. In conjunction with this new theory of rights, Progressivism holds that government must be able to adapt to ever-changing historical circumstances.”
To tea party members, for the most part, the term conservative means adherence to the Constitution as well the Declaration and keeping the federal government out of our lives and businesses. That means, among many other things, the tenth amendment, the second amendment both mean exactly what they say.
The above paragraph uses the comma phrase ‘for the most part’ when discussing the tea party philosophy. There was a time when that caveat would not have been necessary. Today, however, the Tea Party is an idea that has spawned many tea party offshoots with little or no bond to that original intent. Notice I use Caps to discuss the original Tea Party. That will be my method of delineating those groups actually affiliated and adherents to the original Tea Party national organization. That concept has become multiply fractured
Conservative is defined in so many ways today it is impossible to define except in terms of a person’s own ideology. My definition holds for me. That definition is simple. The constitution is the supreme law of the land and any who seek to destroy it are, by definition, criminals.
Next Week I will discuss the foundation of and evolution of Liberalism.

What is a Conservative?

What Is a Conservative?

The first task we face when discussing Conservatism is the definition of terms. What defines a conservative? It seems this definition is rapidly changing with time. Way back when Reagan was a democrat, conservatism was defined as the strict adherence to the words and ideals of the constitution. The liberal was one who believed in the constitution, but felt that it should be interpreted to fit the modern cultural values.

The democrats (liberals from here on) have taken the stance that the constitution is just an old document with a lot of meaningless words. The tenth amendment, for one instance, should never be a blockade to giving the people all the free stuff they want. The second amendment does really say that citizens have a right to their guns. Well, maybe a musket or two. They hold these truths to be self evident, that bigger government is better government. That the government’s purpose is to perpetuate their power and to serve the interests of big business.

So what does being “conservative” mean? That word has a lot of definitions these days. If you are a Libertarian, it means very small government as it does to most traditional conservatives, but it also means isolationism. They believe we should not be involved anywhere in the world except here at home.

To the mainstream Republican it appears to mean if you are a registered Republican you are, by definition, conservative regardless of what government you have or vote for. Government sponsored health care is OK even though it is in violation of both the commerce clause in the constitution and the tenth Amendment. It has come to mean that government sponsored abortion is OK in some few special cases. As I write this, the Republican presumptive nominee for president believes that a person’s self determination of gender is paramount, regardless of what God has given them and the rest of us must conform to that minuscule minority’s beliefs.The liberals seem to feel that the founders oft stated belief in God and the freedom of religion actually means the freedom From religion and the rest of us should just keep our religious beliefs to ourselves. God help the idiot that actually speaks in public about freedom >b>of religion.

Our founding fathers wrote some immortal words in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” I will discuss only one of those “self evident truths,” Liberty. Liberty is defined by Merriam-Webster as “1 : the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice.” They went on to codify that in the constitution they wrote in 1779.

To tea party members, for the most part, it means adherence to the constitution and keeping the federal government out of our lives and businesses. That means, among many other things, the tenth amendment, the second amendment both mean exactly what they say.

The above paragraph uses the comma phrase ‘for the most part’ when discussing the tea party philosophy. There was a time when that caveat would not have been necessary. Today, however, the Tea Party is an idea that has spawned many tea party offshoots with little or no bond to that original intent. Notice I use Caps to discuss the original Tea Party. That will be my method of delineating those groups actually affiliated and adherents to the original Tea Party national organization. That concept has become multiple fractured

Conservative is defined in so many ways today it is impossible to define except in terms of a person’s own ideology. My definition holds for me. That definition is simple. The constitution is the supreme law of the land and any who seek to destroy it are, by definition, criminals.

Why?

Why?

I had an interesting question asked of me by a friend last night. Why am I so adamantly and passionately supporting Cruz and equally adamantly and passionately opposed to Trump and his political sister, Hillary?
A great part of the answer revolves around the country I grew up in. You see I grew up in a country that respected the rights of others. Where the phrase “my rights end at the start of your nose,” actually meant something. A country that respected the right of a person to run his or her own business and if he/she put in place a policy that I didn’t agree with, it as my right not to patronize him and urge others to do the same.
The country I grew up in had no tolerance for a supreme court that ignored the constitution and wrote their own laws. The constitution was the SUPREME law of the land, not groups of unelected bureaucrats and Judges that made it up as they went along. My country thought that the Declaration of Independence was almost sacred. When it said – “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR …” it meant something. I meant that this was a country founded on the rights of the individual as granted by God, not men.
I have lost my country. A country whose uniform I proudly wore and to whom I swore the oath to defend the constitution and my country against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Nobody, including me, has ever said “that’s OK, Rick, you don’t have to hold to that oath anymore. Just forget it.”
Now I find that there is an election that has many people running that honestly believe that Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States are just old pieces of paper that need to be forgotten and ignored. That the reasons this country was founded on individual liberty and a trust in God is no longer pertinent to our lives and certainly not something our government should have any concern for. Mr. Trump has said the following and though I may paraphrase the concepts are identical:
1> I don’t think I have ever asked God for forgiveness. I trust in my own judgment about right and wrong.
2> If a man thinks he is a woman he should be allowed to be in the bathroom our wives and daughter’s use.
3> I don’t need to follow the rules. The rules aren’t always things I agree with.
4> Wrote an entire book about how to con people and then uses those tactics while campaigning to be MY president.
5> Promotes violence within his own organization and among his followers.
Promises that if he is not the nominee there will be riots in the streets across our land.
6> Cannot tolerate any form of disagreement.
7> Is afraid to meet his opponent in a head to head debate even when openly challenged to do so.
8> Believes the rules should be changed to fit his own personal definition of “fair” even though some of those rules have been in place long before he decided to run and all have been in place before this campaign began.
9> When asked about the Convention of States project he reportedly replied “What’s that?”

There is one person in this race that has a lifelong history of standing for the constitution and the people of this land. He has openly opposed those who would and do denigrate the supreme law of this country. He even had that constitution memorized before he graduated form high school. He has stood on the floor of he senate and correctly identified the leader of the senate of lying and took heat for it! He has proposed bill after bill that would curb the power of the very body he was elected to in the face of those who forgot their promises the second they were sworn into office.
He has repeatedly stated that he wants to give me my country back to me.
I ask you – How can I not support him?

Should Islam be Considered a Religion in America?

This is a question being pondered by many in our country today. The subject logically begins with the definition of the word religion. Then, if it should not be called a religion, why and how come into immediate play?
How does one define the word religion? Merriam Webster says this: “: the belief in a god or in a group of gods : an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods.“ That might be a little simplistic for our purposes. That definition allows any group, large or small, to declare that they are following a religion for for any sensical or nonsensical reason. Even the constitution or at least the patriot papers and the founding fathers put limits on religion and its practices. Using religion to justify human sacrifice and you still face the death penalty. Using religion to start riots used to be considered against the law though you have to wonder these days.
Let us then, look at a definition that the founding fathers might have had in mind when they wrote the first amendment granting that “Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, …” (pardon the aside here, but notice that it is very specific in saying that Congress, shall pass no law establishing a religion. Doesn’t say a word about praying at a football game or before a government body conducts business.) That definition might well be considered in today’s world, as well as yesterdays, as one which accepts the precepts of the Judeo-Christian ethic. In other words the respecting of life. Human life most of all. The phrase ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ comes to mind. Though it is not in the Christian or Jewish holy scripture nor any religion’s defining document it is perceived as the fundamental law of ethical life.
Ethical. An interesting word. Also the word ethos fits here. Ethical is defined as ‘involving or expressing moral approval or disapproval conforming to accepted standards of conduct ‘ and ethos as ‘the distinguishing character, sentiment, moral nature, or guiding beliefs of a person, group, or institution.’ Somehow the philosophy of the so called Islamic faith just doesn’t seem to fit well.
I have trouble believing that they would find a “religion” that allows the killing of a woman for being raped or a person refusing to accept another religion, or made fun of your gods image as acceptable religious behavior.
Most, if not all, religions, with the exception of Islam, believe that life is sacred. Particularly human life. There are religions that take that reverence much further than we Christians do. The Hindus believe that even cows are sacred. The Shintu religion go so far as to actually have marriage ceremonies for rocks. They tie them together with ropes to signify that bond. Many religions ban the eating of meat. The point here is that all religions accept the fact that HUMAN life is sacred. It is not to be taken from anyone lightly. The first problem we face in this discussion therefore is the one of definition in the legal sense. I propose that a valid starting point would be: “Religion shall be defined by the United States of America as that purported religious believe(s) that holds life, particularly Human life, is a sacred thing and will not be taken without due process under American law. No other law of any nation or entity shall be entertained.” That should be easily understood by even those nine unelected people in black robes in D.C.
The next point is the how.
That one is easier said than done. Congress could and, indeed should, pass a law to this effect, but those nine unelected robed figures might strike it down. There is another sure way to do it. You need either congress to call a convention of the states and have 38 of them vote in favor of the amendment OR have 34 of the state legislatures call one with the 38 yea votes following. It then would become the undisputed law of this land. Enough said.
Comments of all kinds welcome and encouraged.

Coming Backlash

I believe there is a backlash building, in this country, a double backlash. The LGBT crowd has won the right to marry over the objection of the Christian majority in our nation. The ‘right’ was handed to them by a supreme court (no caps for them today.) that has left behind the constitutional function of that branch of government. The LGBTs are marching, the White House light up with he rainbow pride thingy, and the liberal press are all smiles.

So where are the conservatives in all of this? Fuming. There are a growing number of social media posts by churches, lawyers, politicians on both sides of the aisle, even foreign governments bashing both gays and supremes. Even Senator Cruz, a litigator before the supreme court and former clerk along with Chief Justice Roberts for Chief Justis Renquist, has stated that they violated the constitution with that ruling. I think that the LGBT crowd may have stirred up a hornets nest. I hope so. Most people in this country were tolerant of them. Most took the attitude – If they stay in their bedroom, I’ll stay in mine’. Now they have crossed a very serious line. They have gone against the clear dictates of the Christian Bible and thus gotten, not only the man and woman in the street against them, but most of the churches. It is just possible that they will end up being more of society’s pariahs than ever. I even have the hope that if either Cruz or someone that actually knows and cares about the constitution , is elected the decision will be revisited.

Now let’s look at the supremes. It was the intent of the founding fathers that the Supreme Court be the weakest branch of government. Both Hamilton and Madison were afraid of giving them too much power. According to surviving notes from delegates and the Federalist, the court was to be the final appellate court for civil disputes. Imagine that! (Those old fogies that wrote our constitution proven right again!) They were never intended to decide constitutional issues. The founders knew that that power would let them dictate to the other two branches. That was supposed to be left to the people. There certainly was never, by word or intent, the power to actually change the actual words of what came out of congress to suit their whims! There was even a discussion about having term limits for the supremes, but Madison assured the delegates that the justices wouldn’t live long enough to be a problem. You must remember the that a person over sixty was living on borrowed time back then. That has changed with the improvement in medical care. The youngest is Elena Kagan at a mere 55 years with John Roberts coming next with a gentle 60 years under his belt. The oldest on the bench is Ruth Bader Ginsburg at 82. The average age being 69+ with six of them over the age of 65 and four over 70.

The recent attention these acts of lawlessness have gotten and the response that is growing among the people has sparked some hope in my poor despondent heart. We need to fan the flames of our discontent.

One of the results of that “Week from Hell”, as one talking head put it, is the increased discussion of an amendment to the constitution to limit, in one way or another, the terms of the supremes. Even senators and representative on both the state and federal level are talking their brand of limitation via the Article V route. This is the route I suggest has become mandatory on the people of this country. As senator Cruz has also pointed out, this will have to come from the people via the Article V convention. It will never come from the congress no matter who we put in the white house. If such an amendment is carefully worded we will not only limit the time we have to put up with each, but define what they are actually allowed to do! I hope that their overreach has begun to topple both them and their overweening power.

I for one sincerely hope the ground swell of indignation over the lawlessness of both the administration and SCOTUS continues to build, but we need to keep pushing. The general public has shown an amazing propensity for attention deficit.

Conservative vs Liberal Values

Notice that the title does not refer to ‘Republican vs Democrat’. I find that there are many republicans that fit more into the liberal scheme of government and even some democrats that find comfort in the conservative view on many issues. Then there are the so called ‘moderates’. I find most of those are simply people that don’t know where they stand or are liberal on one issue and conservative on another .
Let us discuss the voter ID an election fraud issue for a moment. That election fraud exists is not up for debate. It is a proven fact and involves both of the two main parties. True, the most egregious cases seem to be on the liberal front porch, For confirmation of that just look at Pa, Mich., CA, FL, etc. in the last election.
How do we correct this situation? It seems tome to be quite simple. First a totally bi-partisan commission that thoroughly tests and vets voting machines. These test would be run immediately prior to any company being allowed to ship their machines to any voting district. This would be done on a a totally random basis with the machines selected for the tests chosen by an independent auditing agency not affiliated with any government agency or political organization. And it would be done an a minimum of 33% of those machines. Second would be Voter ID!
The liberals would have you believe that this would disenfranchise many of the minority and poor. I agree. It would prevent many minority voters that are not citizens from voting. That would be a good thing. The poor? This one I don’t understand. I am among the poorest in this nation. I am a registered voter and help many other people register to vote and obtain official picture IDs. There is no problem there that I can see. It will also prevent the deceased, the ones who have moved out of a particular district from having their votes input by less than scrupulous people and voters that vote more than once for any candidate(s). Obtaining a birth certificate is simply a matter of paying a very small fee to the state of your birth and having one mailed to you. This would also assure us that people running for office are citizens. The constitution grants us the right to vote with only two qualifying factors: You must be of a stated legal age and YOU MUST BE A CITIZEN. Now what is wrong with proving that you fulfil both of those requirements? You are already required to prove that you are of legal age, by the way.
Liberals are espousing the philosophy that the federal government has the right to know everything about you and to regulate your lives down to the smallest detail contrary to our “Supreme Law of the Land” also known as the Constitution of the United States and its amendments. Liberals consider this document as a guideline at best and simply an outdated piece of paper with some fancy words written down for some unknown reason.
Conservatives hold that document as almost sacred and necessary to the ideals and purposes of this nation. The stated purpose of the constitution is stated, in plain language needing no interpretation, in the preamble to that instrument of laws. It states: “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.”
That’s it folks. It basically permits the Federal government to protect us from each other and foreign intervention. Everything else is left to the states and the people. The will to power by those in the federal government was even recognized and a way to provide restraints on those elected and unelected officials of our Government in Article V. Both the government and We The People can amend the constitution whenever the cultural paradigm changes from the time of writing and ratification of the constitution. They recognized that there would be unforeseen cultural changes that might require the constitution to be brought up to date and plug any holes to insure the basic rights are in danger as they are today.
Liberals don’t think that way. Conservatives do.
Liberals believe they have the right and the power to tell you how to run your lives regardless of the actual wording of the constitution. They believe that if they, the politicians, don’t like the way you are running your own business they have the right to step in and mandate how you will run your business. The case in point here is the obvious one of a business refusing service to anyone they so choose. It is their money and their livelihood at stake. If they make bad decisions they will not be in business long. It is called free enterprise and it was the prime mover in making this a once great nation. You have the right to refuse to serve anyone with blond hair, if you are stupid enough to do that. Should a request for service violate your sense of moral or religious or cultural beliefs you have the right to say no. I have the right to shop some place else. Free enterprise.
Liberals don’t think that way. Conservatives do.
Next time I will take on the so called “Fair Tax” bill that is circulating.
Please like and or comment. I have had my say, now it is your turn to become involved and engaged.

A Little Common Sense

For the first time I will be posting the same commentaries to two of my own Blogs.

I am going to answer a recurring and spurious objection to the Article V convention and attempt to explain the necessity.

The objection usually points out that the federal government doesn’t follow the constitution now, why should they follow it after the convention? The misconception here is that we believe we can stop Obama. We don’t. I doubt that anyone can at this point when you consider the RINO support he is seeing. The whole point of the Article V is prevent future Obamas. How, you ask?

The answer to that is actually simple. We remove the factors that make it possible in the way the wording of the constitution currently exists. The answer lies in bringing the wording into the modern cultural paradigm as opposed to the one in which the founders worked. You see the founders could not envision that “politics” would become a path to immense wealth and power. Hamilton alludes to this in his Patriot Papers. They knew from their experience that people would seek election out of a sense of duty, fulfill that duty and go back to their private lives and more profitable jobs. They saw no need for term limits and probably never even considered such a measure. In their world it simply wasn’t necessary.

Today, in our culture, we have politicians winning elections based almost solely on their ability to raise money and/or from ineligible voters. Most, if not all spend many times the annual salary of the position they seek. Oh, it isn’t their money they spend. Heavens no. The money comes from special interest groups that have an agenda that may or may not be similar to what the people actually want. But then who cares about what the people want. It makes it impossible for the honest, hard working person to win an election. They just can’t afford to run. So we have the professional, career politician representing a few of the people. They can and do say anything they think you want to hear to get your vote knowing that they can ‘change their minds’ once in office and that the incumbent is the highly favored one in any race to election. I know. I know. That isn’t always true. On very rare occasions the people get mad and vote out incumbents.

Now we come to the crux of the amendment drive. Term limits. Voter ID. Limited government. Fiscal responsibility. Term limits would rid us of those self same professional politicians. If you aren’t able to make a career out of being a politician you move on to something a little more useful. And here I am talking not just of the elected ones, but the appointed ones also. Like the Supreme Court. Put in office by a bunch of self serving professional politicians For Life? Sorry, in todays world that just doesn’t make any sense.

The Constitution makes it plain that voters must be citizens it just doesn’t provide for making the voter prove that they are, in fact, citizens. It not only wasn’t necessary when the document was written. It was unnecessary. If you lived here in those days you were a citizen. If you were a black or a native or a woman you could not vote. We finally made some changes via the amendment process that changed that part. However back in the founders day there were no driver’s licenses or birth certificates or even government issued ID cards.

We have all heard the horror stories about voter fraud, Most recently in the presidential election of 2012. The main stream media would not even discuss the fact that there were entire counties across the nation that had no opposition parties that voted. Every single voter cast their ballot for B.O.H. 100% Now that is not only improbable, it is flat out impossible. Then you have politicians like Harry Reid. He has gone into election day behind in the poles for all but for his first election and goes on to win by a substantial margin. It is speculated that he receives more votes from dead people than live ones! I have no way of confirming that, but it wouldn’t surprise me. Democrats would have you believe that voter IDs would be discriminatory. It would disenfranchise many people. I spend a lot of my time each election cycle registering voters. That concept is just plain phony. There are dozes of ways to make sure every one that is a citizen and wants to vote are able to do so. But then if you invoke the law about only citizens voting you lose all of the illegal immigrants and the dead and the multiple voter from voting so in that area it certainly is discriminatory.

Fiscal responsibility is another bugaboo. We now have a national debt that consumes forty eight percent of the national income from our taxes just to pay the interest. Then there is social security. The money that the working stiff pays into that fund doesn’t go to pay for social security. It is ‘borrowed’ by congress and the loan has never been paid. This one is NOT an entitlement, folks. I was told when very young that my payment of that particular tax would guarantee me a certain amount of income upon reaching a certain age. In other words my money would be returned at least in part. Because of that borrowing the social Security Administration has to then borrow from other countries to make good on their word. That means we have to pay more interest on the new loan. A vicious circle. This one a simple balanced budget amendment may not be equal to solving.

Last and far from least is limiting government. The Preamble to the Constitution makes it quite plain that the federal government is actually quite limited. “ … establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity …” They are empowered to regulate actions between states, but not within any state border. Things like interstate commerce. That word interstate means between states. If a state can handle it the feds can’t. A little tweak to the welfare clause of the Constitution would eliminate things like denying mining permits and Obamacare to name only two. A cultural updating, not a rewrite. In simple language, if a state can do it, the feds can’t.

The Federal government is limited to providing for the establishment of the judicial system, provide the military for common defense, promote the general welfare and above all secure the liberty of the people.

I have reached my self imposed 1000 word limit. More next time. If you read it please comment.

A Look at Political Conservatives

A Look at Political Conservatism
My Father was a staunch Republican way back when that meant he and members of that party were conservatives. Whenever you spoke about a political conservative your audience knew you were talking about a Republican. The two words were interchangeable. He once defined conservative to me as someone that was against change. As he put it “What was good enough for my father is good enough for me.”

OK that was then. What about now? Today. I call myself a conservative; does that mean I am anti change? Yes, it does. I am very much against the government changing my country from one of individual responsibility, capitalism, personal liberty and so forth. Yet, here I am working hard to amend the constitution. Isn’t that change? Not really. Let me explain before you blow your top.

You see I want to amend the constitution to PREVENT change. All of those years ago when those eminent scholars got together and hammered out that truly great instrument we call our constitution they had a vision, but that vision was based on the culture they knew. The one they had lived in all of their collective lives. And each one was a die hard liberal! (Sometimes being a liberal can be a good thing. Seldom, I grant you, but sometimes.) They wanted change! They wanted to change from a government with a king that could decide what freedoms to grant and which to keep for the elite. And he did. Those flaming liberals wanted and end to that. They wanted to change everything about government! They wanted and wrote a constitution which granted the rights they saw as ordained by God, not men. Yeah, back then it really meant men. Women were not even considered to be in the mix. Remember that culture I mentioned?

Then the country and, indeed, the world slowly and over time changed. One day the state of Wyoming actually had the temerity to grant the vote to women, of all things. Who’da thunk it! Women making decisions just like they actually had brains! Turns out they did and do have every bit as good brain power as any man. Then along came the notion that the phrase “…all men are created equal…” became a recognized fact. Even if your skin happened to be a different color. WOW! What a concept. The culture changed.

It is well known that the Federalist Papers shows the thinking of the founders that those elected to the seats of government would not want that job for long. It would be, at best, a temporary job. Who would actually want to make a career out of sitting in a room with a bunch of guys talking about something as dry as the creation of law. How the culture has changed.

Today we see a man that was a Community Organizer with a barley living wage, just able to afford a house, switch his “profession” to politics and become a multi millionaire. He recently bought a house in California that had multimillion dollar price tag. No sweat. We even have elected officials bragging about the number of years they have fed at the public trough! The founding fathers must be turning over in their graves.

That defining document states in the very first article that the power to enact laws shall rest solely with the legislature. Today that self same legislature has delegated and abrogated that grave responsibility to “regulatory agencies”. So much so that one talking head states that the regulatory agencies have passed over 21000 ‘regulations in the past year alone, each with the force of law. Congress, meanwhile, passed far fewer actual laws than that.

Getting back to the founding fathers and the government they tried to establish, one that worked so well for so long, established a system of checks and balances within the federal government which had strictly limited powers, and that worked in the culture of the day. Not so today. Today the Supreme Court, appointed for life, remember, obtain their jobs by promising, behind closed doors, to follow the political ideology of the person that nominates them. FOR LIFE! Congressmen and congresswomen tell their constituents whatever they want to hear just to get the job. No one is the least surprised when it turns out they lied. That is politics. Take a look at Shelly Moore Capito of West Virginia. Didn’t take her long to turn her back on those that elected her. Damn! She hasn’t even officially been sworn is as a senator yet! She still sits in her seat in the house! Oh, Well, don’t get me started down that road.

I, a conservative do not want to change the constitution. I do want to amend it so that it reflects the culture of today. Yes, I want term limits for ALL federal government officials. Even the Supreme Court. Enough of the professional politician. Let’s force the feds to balance the federal budget. Let us alter the wording of the welfare clause of the constitution to reflect today’s culture. Maybe even take a look at repealing an existing amendment like the 17th. There are a few. What about voter IDs? Racist? Give me a break! The only thing close to racist is the prevention of non-citizen and the dead from voting. Yeah, I guess I am racist at that. I honestly believe you must be a living citizen of this country to vote. I don’t care if your skin is green as long as you are in fact alive, a citizen and can prove both.

If an Article V convention can get 38 states to agree on just one or two of these types of amendments, we just might get the country of our fathers back.

I really am proud of being a conservative.