Tag Archives: Constitution

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.

Advertisements

Just What is a Convention of States​?

There has been a lot of talk these last few years regarding a Convention of States. Many people have no idea what it is nor how it came to be about., so let’s talk about it. Let’s see if we can dispel the mists of ignorance surrounding this issue and discover the What, the Why and the How.
What is a Convention of States (COS) and how did it come into being?
The “Father of the Bill of Rights, one George Mason, a member of the Constitutional Convention, was the man that insisted that the mechanism for this right to amend the constitution be incorporated into the Constitution. He wrote Article V of that document and after much debate and some minor alteration, it was included in the final draft. Article V provides for the amending of the Constitution in two ways: 1. Congress can call for a convention to amend the constitution and this has been done several times including during the very first session of the American Congress: 2. the people, through their state legislatures, have the same right. The states may call for a convention to amend the constitution because Mason believed that the federal government would never act to curb its own power. It turns out he was both a fortuneteller and he was right.
Mason was also the instigator of the bill of rights movement. He had insisted that the brand new Constitution needed amending to include a Bill of Rights to protect the citizens.
James Madison obliged by writing those ten amendments we call our Bil of Rights. The senate called the convention during its very first session, as Article V specifies, and 75 % or more of the states ratified those ten to give us our codified rights. But, as is said, I digress.
Please note that there is no provision anywhere in the Constitution to call a CONSTITUTIONAL convention and none has been called since the one in 1787. That includes the one currently under discussion. It is called as a convention to amend not re-write.
How then, do the states go about calling for a COS? Here we get just a tad complicated. A convention of states requires that 2/3rds of the states make the call. In other words, of our 50 states 34 of them must agree to call a convention or it will not happen. Period. If they do agree to call a convention into being, the U.S. senate MUST set a time and place for the convention to be held. Note. The senate has no choice in the matter and they may not intervene nor interfere with the convention and they must set that time and place in a timely manner. The president nor any governor has any say what so ever. Not veto power here. There is only one small catch in this process. Every state must present the petition for a convention in exactly the same way with exactly the same wording. IF and when such a convention is called and any amendments are formulated and passed by that group there is one more major hurdle to be overcome before the amendments are actually added to the law of this land. The legislatures of ¾ or thirty eight of the states must ratify each one. The Founders of our nation endeavored to insure that any such a major undertaking be the actual will of the vast majority of the people. The current call for a convention of states could become the only one ever to take advantage of George Mason’s brain child so just what is its stated purpose? The convention the originators of this convention call intend that it be tightly focused on three compelling issues before our nation. Those three are:
1. To limit the power and authority of the federal government
2. To place fiscal restraints on the federal government
3. To limit the terms of government officials.
What do those actually imean? Could the convention call for an amendment that would require women to register for the draft? No. That would expand government power, not limit it. Keep in mind that any amendment proposed that does not follow the three intentions are not allowed and the states that have already passed this resolution have also enacted laws that would make even the attempt to do so a criminal act as well as the recall of the delegate (more properly called a Commissioner) and his/her replacement. OK how about limiting the authority of the regulatory agencies such as the IRS, the Department of Education and the Environment Protection agency, among so many more. The constitution clearly states in the very first line that Congress shall make all laws, yet that self same body has abrogated that responsibility to people that never have to answer to the people. These agencies have become the makers of their own laws , the enforcers of those laws and the executioners of those unconstitutional laws.
Number two is essentially intended to limit the ability to spend us into the poor house as so many liberal thinkers seem to demand and is actually happening this very minute. This could be done in a few ways such as enforcing a balanced budget and/or limiting increased spending. Perhaps putting a absolute cap on the amount of debt allowed by tying it to well defined percentage of the GNP. Better minds than mine will figure all of the details.
The third goal is a bold statement to return the federal government to the people by eliminating the career politician. Those people that spend more of their time getting re-elected than they do on fulfilling the promises they made and making sure any laws they pass are in strict accordance with the constitution. This is intended to place term limits on those nine unelected people in black robes so we can have some sanity in the judiciary. The constitutional limitation “upon good behavior” is not working because those professional politicians will not and do not use that to remove judges that go against the very wording in the constitution. In today’s world they even change the wording of any law they choose to make it fit what they, those nine unelected judges, desire. Note the ruling on the Affordable Care Act, commonly called Obamacare.
What are the arguments against? No one seems to disagree with the aims set forth, but they do have concerns and objections. Among them is the fear that the convention will become a constitutional convention, a so called con con. This one is fallacious on the face of it if you actually know the rules set up and the manner that the prevention of that very thing has been addressed. There are rules in place and more being studied that would make this impossible. Think about it. Just the fact that 38 states have to ratify each amendment makes this one so unlikely as to be ludicrous. Then there are the criminal penalties any commissioner would face just for advancing the idea. You might even want to consider the thought processes of people attending such an event. These people are , by definition, patriots. Then there are the “It would be a runaway convention! There would be amendments proposed that would be outside the stated scope ”. These same facts are there to prevent that one.
Yes, I believe that this country is in trouble and that the ONLY way we can fix it is to call this convention. I even go so far as to state that those who oppose it are one of two types: they are either liberals who want to see much more government control of our lives or they are ignorant of the fail safes both inherent and incorporated.

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?

The Day They Raped the Blind Lady

 

Justice is portrayed in stone on the front of the Supreme Court Building in our nation’s capital as a female with a blindfold and a scale in one hand and a sword in the other. The blindfold symbolizes objectivity and stoicism, the scales represent empiricism and enlightenment values, and, the sword appeals to enforcement and restraint. These ideals can be differently represented based on the permutations of tokens that comprise the statue. For example, some have created critiques of U.S. justice by changing the specific token that represents the ideal that corresponds with it, by making a figure of Justitia with her blindfold “slipping” to allow a watchful eye for the other, non-Stoic, means to prudent decision making that might exist in deliberations of jurisprudence.

A few days ago the institution that is supposed to represent these lofty ideals decided to rape all she stands for rather than follow the supreme law of this nation. It began with two of the Justices refusing to recuse themselves as required by law. Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Elena Kagan both made their position on same sex marriage very clear by personally performing these marriages. The law requires that when a judge in a case has formed an opinion or there is reason to believe they have done so prior to the hearing of evidence they must stand aside and allow other judges to decide the case. They did not do so and voted as we knew from their history that they would vote.

Next came the blatant ignoring of the constitution in several areas. Probably the most significant of these would be the 10th amendment which specifically forbids the federal government from doing anything the states can do for themselves. In this case, it is the states via the individual counties and cities in those states, that issue marriage licenses based on the will of the people in those jurisdictions. In some cases this may be the requirement of a blood test while in others it may be the blood relation of the supplicants and in several of these United States the denial may be based on the fact that the petitioners for said license are of the same sex. It is clear that the constitution permits the states these rights.

Their are those who believe with great sincerity that such marriages are contrary to the bible and that alone is sufficient reason for said denial. Yep, they have the right to do that also under the 1rst amendment.

Then there is the case Obamacare. The law as written, states that those states that did not create their own Obamacare plan would not receive any subsidies. This was not a problem for this court. They simple decided that they had legislative powers contrary to Article I section I of the Constitution which states in plain language that the only body that may create laws for this nation is the congress. This made no difference to the Roberts Court. They just rewrote the law.

There are more constitutional issues, but why belabor an obvious point. Might be time to install term limits on all of D.C.!

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.

Exploring the Opposition to COS

(Convention of States)

There is growing opposition to the Convention of States project all across this land of ours. This project is one which deserves serious consideration as it has the potential to recreate the ‘Land of the Free” that has been eroded so severely in recent years. It is not a change, it is a buttress that plugs some rather large holes the original founders with all their genius simply could not foresee. So why the increasing opposition?

In the state of West Virginia passage of the resolution calling for an Article V convention was all but assured when it just fell apart. Senator Trump the Chair of the Judiciary committee in the senate that was the final step to having it presented to the floor for debate was one of the sponsors of the resolution. Then he suddenly decided to vote against it. Thus it failed in the senate after passing the house with a super majority.

I spoke with Senator Trump this morning on this issue. I identified myself as a blogger and asked the question concerning his reversal on the Article V. He told me that he became concerned with some of the things he had been told by the opponents and wanted further study of the issues involved. He also informed me that the passage of the Balanced Budget Amendment bill was a factor. He Informed me that he has received a large packet of information from Barbara Thomas, the current state director of the project for Convention of States and I sent him some other items. He stated that he was willing to be convinced. He even said that he did have some concerns about the federal overreach and ways to put an end to them. I was left with the definite impression that the issue will be revisited in the next session. I also got the impression that he is a concerned citizen and senator that has an open mind.

I would like to explore some of the reasons legislators have expressed to me in private conversations. As the state director of this organization, it was my job to get to know many of the legislators in our state. I took my volunteer job very seriously and was able to establish some good relationships. One of the concerns was the scope of the proposed convention. Even with the conscientious consideration given to that scope and the limiting of said scope it was felt to be too broad. The “runaway convention” kept showing up despite several factors that belied that possibility. I decided to look deeper. I learned, after the fact, that some legislators feared that amendments might come back to haunt them as state legislators. Term limits for one example.

Then there arose a suspicion that the national organization had a hidden agenda. This also might well be spurious, to be honest. What would any “hidden agenda” have to do with this project? The entire process is controlled by the state legislators. Once the resolution is presented to Congress, the national organization would have no say what-so-ever In the process. However, I had more than one legislator point to the somewhat Orwellian practices of that organization. They knew that the organization had taken over each states facebook pages to the point of refusing the state organization from even posting to that page. There is no law which even hints that private organizations must follow laws expressly intended for government. The 10th amendment. for instance does not and should not apply to private corporations. They must be allowed to operate in their own best interest, one thing the Article V convention seeks to reinforce.

Allow me to elaborate. When I resigned, I informed several legislators of my intention and that it was for reasons of health only. I attempted to keep them informed of our intention for a smooth transfer of that responsibility. Our state organization held conference calls each week to discuss our strategy and in one of those calls we discussed the person that would take the reigns. I personally asked our state Coalitions Director if she wanted the job and she said she didn’t think she would be the best choice and reiterated that during one of those calls for the entire team. One well qualified gentleman volunteered and was accepted by acclimation of the team. I asked him to apply and assumed it was a done deal. Then National stepped in and simply appointed the lady that didn’t want it. They went further and appointed a man that has proven to be extremely ineffective in the past. This man is an avowed republican that is not trusted even by the state party, according to a couple of county chairmen of my acquaintance and this is a non-partisan issue. This man was made the state legislative liaison supplanting the one we had who had become quite effective. He had not officially applied for that position, to my knowledge, any more than the new state director. This was seen as the national organization, that has no knowledge of our state’s body politic, declaring that “Big Brother knows best.” Some legislators felt this was ample reason for not trusting that organization. No, it doesn’t make sense to me, but that was and, perhaps, still is the perception.

Of course we must consider the strictly political opposition. Liberals simply don’t want the interference with their socialist ideals any such Article V convention would present. I must inform you that we had some Democrats support and even co-sponsor the resolution, but I am not sure they fit the mold of the modern day ‘liberal’.

Next is the passage of the resolution for a Balanced Budget Amendment Article V Convention by the legislature. This was a primary source of supporters in both houses which may well cost the COS project supporters in the next legislative session. We are in desperate need of a well thought out, effective educational plan and campaign for our legislators and the people of our state. This is something I have been developing for about a year now and am going to attempt to implement it in the near future with a few savvy acquaintances.

I am a staunch supporter and believer in the the crying need for a significant Article V convention; however, I fear that if there isn’t more recognition of each state’s Body Politic by both the national organization and their respective state organizations it will not happen soon.

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.

Why I Believe in the Convention of States and Limited Government

People often ask me why I am so passionate about returning this country to a strict construction way of running the government. Well, I’ll tell you. We are breeding a race of takers. We are raising children that believe the government’s purpose is to take care of them, regardless of the cost. Shucks, they don’t even consider the cost. A very large part of that cost is our freedom. Freedom from tyranny. Freedom to think and act as we each deem best. Freedom to be positive that our vote is counted in every election and that there are no illegitimate votes cast. The freedom to express an opinion or condem the government on our cell phones without fear of reprisals. That only United States citizens elect the people in our government. Live ones. This takes a limited government. President Ronald Reagan said it best, “I hope we have once again reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited.”

Our government picks and chooses the laws they want to enforce. A great case in point might be Eric Holder, the erstwhile Attorney General, while speaking to a NAACP forum stated that “… requiring voter IDs would disenfranchise American minorities.” I’ve never understood that argument. The only people I know of that can’t get an identification showing they are citizens are people that are not citizens. I have assisted many infirm and minority people obtain an ID that shows they are citizens. It’s not difficult. Takes about an hour here. Even the laws of our states require people to have picture IDs and be able to produce them for officers of the law, upon request. So what minorities are affected? The Illegals and those with work or student visas? Perhaps,but then who cares except corrupt politicians.

We have professional politicians. It is a career path. It is a path to wealth. I know of one politician that began as a community organizer then went into politics and recently purchased a multi-million dollar home. Harry Reid is so intent to continue his career that I, personally, am of the opinion he violates the laws of the land every election. He has entered the final day of each of his elections to the senate several points behind in the polls and comes out the winner by a substantial margin. I have often wished I had the power to examine the voter roles and the number of registered votes that have been deceased for years or moved out of state long before the polls opened. But that is just my opinion. Well, mine a few others. Quite a few, actually. Requiring voter IDs seems more and more a great idea.

Now understand that this is not currently a Constitutional issue, but Eric Holder believes that it is a holy cause whereas the Constitution is just a piece of ancient writing. The Second Amendment doesn’t need to be enforced by his office. As a matter of public record it is something he believes should be ignored by the government and all manner of infringements should be imposed by the liberal government he serves. So voter IDs are wrong and the states have no power to enact their requirement, even though the tenth amendment, among others, clearly gives them the right to enact those laws in their own state. BUT, the Constitution is should not be enforced. Yeah, I want to limit his power and every other politician that thinks they way he does. I honestly believe that our once great nation can only strive to be the shining example of personal liberty and individual responsibility by plugging the holes in our constitution that our current culture see fit to exploit.

Would you believe that there is no such thing as a “separation of church and state” in the constitution? None. The only statement made is in the first amendment, part of the “Bill of Rights” no less, is this one: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…” The emphasis I mine obviously. Saying a prayer at a high school football game is not “establishing a religion” Having the ten commandments on a public building in not enacting a law.

The very first article of the that great document, The Constitution of the United States of America, specifically grant the Houses of Congress the sole power to enact laws, yet the government has seen fit to give that power to its ‘regulatory agencies’. The EPA has usurped the power of the states by denying the coal industry new permits and setup regulations that will close hundreds of power generating stations in our country. They haven’t given any plan for replacing that power. It is very possible with todays technology, to limit and even eliminate the so called green house emissions if that is their goal. That alone would save thousands of jobs.

The IRS was formed to collect taxes. Suddenly that ‘regulatory agency’ has the power to target groups in any manner they choose and to create laws that have the power to imprison people for a diverse set of circumstances. The law to enact the collections of taxes and form the IRS is a few pages in length. The regulations that agency has created in response is many THOUSANDS of pages. One pundit said that stacked one on the other those individual pieces of paper making up those unenacted laws stands higher than he does. Not even the agents of the IRS have any idea what is in them. I once asked one of their agents for an opinion on my taxes and was given very specific instructions on how to handle my problem so I would not be in violation. I called every day for four days and asked the same question worded the same way (I wrote out a script) and received four different opinions, each citing specific regulations. I got audited.
I am a believer in limited government.

We can all cite examples of the federal government using the power of the purse to intimidate state governments to enact laws the legislators would rather not have on the books and the people of those states really don’t agree. But, when the federal government says it will deny money for roads or other infrastructure projects, what are the poor states to do. The knuckle under and it has become so common that I don’t they even consider the situation twice. This is a sneaky way to ‘get around’ the tenth amendment.

I’ve said it before. I am in favour of LIMITED government and power to the people.