Tag Archives: political

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.

In Response to a Question

I am frequently asked one question that needs a response. In an effort to head off having to write the same thing so many times I thought I would answer it here.
The question? How the **** can I help?
The first thing is to consider how to make use of the obvious anger you have. How? Restrain it. Don’t let it color your discussions with any liberal. Think about this for a minute and imagine this all too common scene: You are talking with a person that does not agree with your views. One thing is apparent. You want to convince that person you are right just as he/she wants to convince you of the sanctity of their position. So you begin to raise your voice in an attempt to get them to listen to you. You just want them to shut up and LISTEN. The trouble is he /she is thinking the same thing so now we have a shouting match where nobody is listening to anybody.
Try listening to their side. They just might reveal the central flaw in their position which you can use to counter their arguments in a sane manner. Get rid of all of the invectives. The name calling the swear words, the insults. These will quickly turn off their hearing and you will accomplish nothing other than make yourself feel less frustrated.
The constitution is not one they will not hear. That they believe is just and old outdated piece of paper that should be scrapped. Law of the land? Not a problem. They simply change it as they see fit.
Socialism can be shown to be a failure in every single case. The U.S.S.R.? Doesn’t exist anymore. Argentina? Where a hamburger cost $28.00 and no one has even $5.00? Were food riots are a daily occurrence? What about England, they say? I have been to England and yes they do have some socialism. Their medical profession for example. Anyone that can afford it leaves the country to be treated for anything worse than a broken bone or a cold. There aren’t enough doctors or nurses to handle the traffic because it has become a second rate profession. When I was over there several years ago, I suffered a bad cut and needed stitches. The wound was bleeding profusely. I waited nine hours to be seen. I was using a handkerchief to stop the flow of blood. It was soon soaked through, but I had nothing else and could not get any help. By the time I was seen the cut was infected, still seeping blood and hurt worse than it had when I came in. I was given a few stitches and some antibiotics. Total time in the room? About ten minutes. At least the anesthetic used to put in the stitches stopped the pain for a while. Yeah, socialism is great. Oh yeah. The taxes. They pay, on average, $85.00 out of every $100.00 they earn to support it and are still going broke. What does that mean in practical terms? It means you work 310.25 days each year to pay other peoples bills and just 54 and ¼ days for yourself.
OK I got off track there for a while, but if they do bring up social programs there are plenty of facts to use in rebuttal. The real point is – use your anger to your advantage and yelling, swearing or not voting against these disastrous liberal policies is not the way to “help”. Learn to bank the fires of your anger and learn to listen. Then unleash that anger in a way that will actually do some good. Not doing anything only makes them stronger. Not voting only makes them stronger.
We use the term RINO to highlight a person that is a republican in name only. Sorry that is not true anymore. The RINO is the republican of these days. The conservative has been left out in the cold.
Today I registered as a member of the Constitution Party. To paraphrase Reagan, I did not leave the republican party. They left me. I can still vote for those of any party that I think have a chance of helping to save this country while having the ability to work towards something better. A Constitutional Republic just like we used to have. That will take a while and I may not live to see it (I am an old guy), but I will go to my grave knowing that I fought the good fight and made a difference. A small one to be sure, but a difference and in a good way.

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.

One Reason Liberty is Dying in America

There was a time in this country when personal liberty was the key to the entire philosophy of the United States of America. That philosophy no longer pertains. I think I have found the major reason for that and I would like you to begin consider the ramifications as well as the cause.

It is reasonable to state that it really began to take hold in this country with Teddy Roosevelt, who told the nation during a July Fourth speech that we should ignore the preamble to the Declaration of Independence the very thing the Fourth of July, Independence Day as it used to be called, was celebrating. He was followed in the presidency by one Woodrow Wilson. Now he went a little further by declaring that the president had a “mandate” by virtue of the fact that he won the election, to be the “Leader and sole representative of the people.” In other words, he believed the President should be acknowledged as the Sovereign of the government. This has reached its ultimate goal in Barack H. Obama, our Sovereign.

OK, that is how it all started. How did we let it happen? Ahh, to paraphrase Shakespeare, there’s the rub.

This country was founded upon the principle of freedom that comes from the acceptance of responsibility. This thought is found in many forms in the founders explanation of the constitution, the Patriot Papers. Just what is this “acceptance of responsibility” that I find so important and why is it important?

The founders truly believed that freedom, while granted by God, would never be easy to maintain. There would be a cost and that cost would be the responsibility to work to keep it. How, you might well ask? It is very simple to put into words and, for some, so difficult to do. You must accept the responsibility for yourself. And and all of your actions. You must never allow others to absolve you of that responsibility. If you want material wealth, go out and earn it. If you want political freedom, fight to protect it even when your neighbor tells you that the government will do all of that for you. They won’t and never can.

The premier promulgator of “progressive philosophy” was a man named John Dewey, 1859-1952. Dr. Dewey published many things from books to scholarly papers espousing his philosophy. He believed that no person was ‘born free’. He had to be made that way and protected in that condition by government. The government must begin this process in a person’s very earliest stages of life with an education system that taught him how to think of government and his/her own position in the scheme of things. The must be taught that it is the government’s responsibility to assure that your “freedoms and equality” are protected. Does your neighbor have more land than you? The government is required to take some of that land and give it to you, his less fortunate (Read lazier) neighbor. The government must create equality since it does not exist in any natural state as the Declaration of Independence so beautifully states. It was his teachings that led to Teddy Roosevelt to tell the American people in an Independence Day, now simply the fourth of July, speech that we should just ignore the preamble to that seminal document of our nation.

Please don’t get the idea that progressive philosophy began with Dr. Dewey. That has been around for a long, long time. It has failed every time it has been tried, from late Rome to England prior to the Magna Carta in 1215. His educational philosophy was formulated while studying for his PhD at Johns Hopkins University, the original progressive University in this country.
So now we have intelligent, but under educated children and University Chancellors both decrying the first amendment and denying its practice on their campuses. We have a federal government attempting to criminalize dissent as in the scientific thought on the bogus climate change agenda of the current administration.

The reason Liberty is dying in America? Because the liberals and the progressives say that it must. For our own protection. I say to them … Please don’t protect me from myself! Please don’t protect me from my natural equality and require me to have your version of equality.

Defining Liberal and Conservative

What IS a Conservative? Or a Liberal?

I am going to share a Couple of dictionary definitions of both Liberal and Conservative. WARNING... This is going to surprise most or you so fasten your seat belts!

Wikipedia:

Conservatism as a political and social philosophy promotes retaining traditional social institutions. A person who follows the philosophies of conservatism is referred to as a traditionalist or conservative. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others, called reactionaries, oppose modernism and seek a return to “the way things were”

Free Dictionary.com

Conservatism, in politics, the desire to maintain, or conserve, the existing order. Conservatives value the wisdom of the past and are generally opposed to widespread reform. Modern political conservatism emerged in the 19th cent. in reaction to the political and social changes associated with the eras of the French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution.

I know not too many surprises there, but wait for it. Wait for it…

Wikipedia:
Liberalism is a political philosophy or world view founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[1] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property.

The term Liberal came into being during the French Revolution. Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among philosophers and economists in the Western world. Liberalism rejected the notions, common at the time, of hereditary, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The 17th century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition.

So you see Thomas Jefferson was a flaming Liberal in his day. All of the founding fathers were and they were so adamant that they were willing to risk their ‘…lives, fortune and honour…’ to set up a new government. They were the traitors of their time, reviled by most nations and their governments. So just this one time I say thank you God for giving us those traitors!

So what happened? Here is what: According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, “In the United States, liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies.”[11] Consequently in the U.S., the ideas of individualism and laissez-faire economics previously associated with classical liberalism, became the basis for the emerging school of libertarian thought.  Today, liberal political parties remain a political force with varying degrees of power and influence on many countries (see Liberalism by country).
So when you here that the ‘Liberal Party’ in England or France wins an election try to remember that is a GOOD thing.

Enough with the back ground. What is today’s Conservative and Liberal. That is tougher to define than you might think. There is a gentleman that frequently posts to a Tea Party Face Book page that would have you believe that if you don’t agree with him and the Liberty Alliance, you’re a liberal. Or at the very least a RINO. The man has never been wrong. Even when called on something his answer is that the other person is a RINO or an out and out Liberal. I know a ‘Liberal’ that believes wholeheartedly the Democrat’s platform, but thinks Obama is a stupid criminal that should be shot after a fair trial and both Pelosi and Reid are just ignorant mouthpieces for that selfsame criminal. So you see it is possible to find areas of agreement with some of the people on the left. 🙂

I guess I am going to have to offer my definition of these two terms for good or ill. Here goes:
A Conservative is a person that believes the Constitution after a Christian God, is the supreme law of this land and should be followed under a strict constructionist discipline, but recognizes that even that amazing document has developed flaws. Flaws not in its basic principles, rather due to the evolution of society. The founding fathers could never for see where children could not, by government fiat, be punished and did not fall under the discretion of their parents. They could never for see such an anomaly as a professional politician, or a tyrannical president with sycophants ruling the Congress they so carefully set up as a separate power.

What is a Liberal, in my view? A Liberal is that person that believes that the Constitution is an old and antiquated document whose time has passed. It is time for the Government to step in and run things. We need the Government to take care of so many things. The raising of our children and oversee their education. Things like that just can’t be left in the hands of educators and, God forbid, the parents. Health care must be mandated whether the simple minded voter wants it or not. The Federal Government must delve into our personal lives in the name of our home land’s security. There can be no privacy. Who knows what plots may be fostered by the people if they continue to function without Government oversight?

Strong Language? Not really. Not if you are truly aware of the situation in this country today. And no, I don’t think I have put words into any liberal’s mouth. That is just the facts, Mam. OK So some of them won’t admit to them in public, but far too many live them.

As usual I have run out of self constraining space for this time. Hope you learned something or at least became involved enough to get angry with me. Or perhaps just nod and smile. Until next we meet.

Elected Official vs Citizen

Elected Official vs Citizen

There is a power struggle in this country and I believe the Conservatives are fighting the wrong battles. Let us look at the primary concern of the Conservative citizen. It can be stated in a simple phrase – Constitutional Freedom. Then there is the primary concern of the elected official. To be re-elected. To remain in power. We conservatives too often forget that in our strategies. One prevailing definition of the liberal philosophy can be concisely stated as “Moochers electing looters to steal from producers”. Now let’s think about the mind set of of the citizen liberals and how it came about. Those of you over forty or so can probably remember a time when the primary concern of everybody was providing for the family. Even beyond the family. We didn’t go around looking for people to help us, we went around looking for people to help. Being forced to take ‘charity’ was something to shame a family. Helping each other out in times of need was not charity. It was part of the ‘you scratch my back I’ll scratch yours’ philosophy.

I know this began to change when Woodrow Wilson was elected in 1938, but it hadn’t taken a firm hold on the most of the people for a couple of generations. By then we had the Roosevelts with the “New Deal” and so on. But the real rapid change came with the federal government intrusion into the local classroom. The beginning of the indoctrination of children into the idea that the government should provide more for the people. And we have the beginning of the welfare state, but more importantly, the start of the welfare mind set in the lazier of our citizens. This soon began to take over the mind set of many more than just the inherently lazy. The people that saw the government largess going to the undeserving decided they wanted in on the deal.

OK How does all of this tie into the elected official? Those stalwarts saw an opportunity to establish personal fortunes and more importantly grab huge amounts of power. They could assure themselves minimum work, high paying jobs for longer periods by taking from all the people and then giving it back to some of them. Obviously taxes and spending had to go up, but so what? We had the strongest, richest economy in the world! Never mind how we got there, surely it could withstand the federal onslaught of a few extra taxes and just a little more inflation. How about a minimum wage? That would help for a while. At least until the cost of goods rose so the country’s employers could recoup the extra burden placed upon them. Didn’t take all that long for that to happen so every few years the liberals ‘boost the economy with a new minimum wage law. Of course the people would only see that they were taking home more income thanks to those marvelous people they had elected. Why, of course they deserved to vote themselves a pay increase!

Now they (those elected officials) knew they were on to something. Shucks, they couldn’t even begin to understand the growing concern of those stupid Republicans who insisted they were not doing the right thing. Why care about the right thing when the elections were what really mattered. Get more power every time you got reelected! Committee chairmanships! Select committees that got the media’s attention thus got them free advertising. Circulation went up and the media moguls saw the bottom line go up when they supported this stupidity. Who cares about the Constitution when money and power are at stake?

And so the great divide began. We had a division of power in the the very houses of government that were supposed to be unified in obeying the Law of the land, The Constitution of the United States. Now we didn’t just have the two party system we had a four or fice or six party system. There were the normal Democrats and Republicans with the conservatives in both and the liberals in both and now the Ultras on both sides that try to take everything to the extreme.

I began this blog with the suggestion that the conservatives were fighting the wrong battles. Now I that have attempted to explain how we got here let’s see if I can find a way back to fundamental freedom and self reliance that made us the richest most powerful country on this woebegone planet. That is, I admit, a tough job. First we have to understand how our freedoms are being usurped.

With the obvious exception of the pathological narcissist tyrant and his self admitted fascist agenda that sits in the Oval Office, the legislature and the Supreme Court have scrupulously avoided violating the Constitution. Don’t get me wrong there has been some creative interpretation of that sacred document, but no violation. Congress, for the most part, seems content to ignore the violent and constant violation of that tyrant I mentioned, but they have not done anything to violate the constitution. They have tried. I will mention the gun control attempts for example, but that didn’t get very far on the national level. So the Constitution seems to hold up, again for the most part. We do need to plug some holes. The welfare clause needs to be tightened up. Just adding a phrase similar to ‘if the states can do it the feds can’t’ would be sufficient. That would end obamacare, etc. Of course we need to educate the people. Now I mean educate, not rant! We have some very good minds in our midst that could suggest how we circumvent the lame stream media with success. Put ’em to use.

We already have a single payor insurance system that the government has been running for years. Ask any vet how he/she likes it. But be prepared for a long listening period. What in the hell would allow anyone that is familiar with that snafu to believe the government could run our entire health care system. BUT … the average citizen is not aware of that boondoggle. So educate them. Don’t rant. Raise he minimum wage? Educate about the inflationary costs of that stupidity. It would help the government collect more taxes from the poor.

There are many areas in which the conservative groups are stubbing their own toes. Don’t believe me? Look at the election results and a host of other indicators. I certainly don’t have all of the answers, but I can read critically and make a real try to understand my fellow man.

I try to keep these blogs around 1000 words because I know the attention span is limited for many in this day and I have now gone over that, so let me write a finis to this one. If I get any feed back indicating the desire for more on this subject I will continue with another post.

 

Electe Official vs Citizen

 

Elected Official vs Citizen

 

There is a power struggle in this country and I believe the Conservatives are fighting the wrong battles. Let us look at the primary concern of the Conservative citizen. It can be stated in a simple phrase – Constitutional Freedom. Then there is the primary concern of the elected official. To be re-elected. To remain in power. We conservatives too often forget that in our strategies. One prevailing definition of the liberal philosophy can be concisely stated as “Moochers electing looters to steal from producers”. Now let’s think about the mind set of of the citizen liberals and how it came about. Those of you over forty or so can probably remember a time when the primary concern of everybody was providing for the family. Even beyond the family. We didn’t go around looking for people to help us, we went around looking for people to help. Being forced to take ‘charity’ was something to shame a family. Helping each other out in times of need was not charity. It was part of the ‘you scratch my back I’ll scratch yours’ philosophy.

I know this began to change when Woodrow Wilson was elected in 1938, but it hadn’t taken a firm hold on the most of the people for a couple of generations. By then we had the Roosevelts with the “New Deal” and so on. But the real rapid change came with the federal government intrusion into the local classroom. The beginning of the indoctrination of children into the idea that the government should provide more for the people. And we have the beginning of the welfare state, but more importantly, the start of the welfare mind set in the lazier of our citizens. This soon began to take over the mind set of many more than just the inherently lazy. The people that saw the government largess going to the undeserving decided they wanted in on the deal.

OK How does all of this tie into the elected official? Those stalwarts saw an opportunity to establish personal fortunes and more importantly grab huge amounts of power. They could assure themselves minimum work, high paying jobs for longer periods by taking from all the people and then giving it back to some of them. Obviously taxes and spending had to go up, but so what? We had the strongest, richest economy in the world! Never mind how we got there, surely it could withstand the federal onslaught of a few extra taxes and just a little more inflation. How about a minimum wage? That would help for a while. At least until the cost of goods rose so the country’s employers could recoup the extra burden placed upon them. Didn’t take all that long for that to happen so every few years the liberals ‘boost the economy with a new minimum wage law. Of course the people would only see that they were taking home more income thanks to those marvelous people they had elected. Why, of course they deserved to vote themselves a pay increase!

Now they (those elected officials) knew they were on to something. Shucks, they couldn’t even begin to understand the growing concern of those stupid Republicans who insisted they were not doing the right thing. Why care about the right thing when the elections were what really mattered. Get more power every time you got reelected! Committee chairmanships! Select committees that got the media’s attention thus got them free advertising. Circulation went up and the media moguls saw the bottom line go up when they supported this stupidity. Who cares about the Constitution when money and power are at stake?

And so the great divide began. We had a division of power in the the very houses of government that were supposed to be unified in obeying the Law of the land, The Constitution of the United States. Now we didn’t just have the two party system we had a four or fice or six party system. There were the normal Democrats and Republicans with the conservatives in both and the liberals in both and now the Ultras on both sides that try to take everything to the extreme.

I began this blog with the suggestion that the conservatives were fighting the wrong battles. Now I that have attempted to explain how we got here let’s see if I can find a way back to fundamental freedom and self reliance that made us the richest most powerful country on this woebegone planet. That is, I admit, a tough job. First we have to understand how our freedoms are being usurped.

With the obvious exception of the pathological narcissist tyrant and his self admitted fascist agenda that sits in the Oval Office, the legislature and the Supreme Court have scrupulously avoided violating the Constitution. Don’t get me wrong there has been some creative interpretation of that sacred document, but no violation. Congress, for the most part, seems content to ignore the violent and constant violation of that tyrant I mentioned, but they have not done anything to violate the constitution. They have tried. I will mention the gun control attempts for example, but that didn’t get very far on the national level. So the Constitution seems to hold up, again for the most part. We do need to plug some holes. The welfare clause needs to be tightened up. Just adding a phrase similar to ‘if the states can do it the feds can’t’ would be sufficient. That would end obamacare, etc. Of course we need to educate the people. Now I mean educate, not rant! We have some very good minds in our midst that could suggest how we circumvent the lame stream media with success. Put ’em to use.

We already have a single payor insurance system that the government has been running for years. Ask any vet how he/she likes it. But be prepared for a long listening period. What in the hell would allow anyone that is familiar with that snafu to believe the government could run our entire health care system. BUT … the average citizen is not aware of that boondoggle. So educate them. Don’t rant. Raise he minimum wage? Educate about the inflationary costs of that stupidity. It would help the government collect more taxes from the poor.

There are many areas in which the conservative groups are stubbing their own toes. Don’t believe me? Look at the election results and a host of other indicators. I certainly don’t have all of the answers, but I can read critically and make a real try to understand my fellow man.

I try to keep these blogs around 1000 words because I know the attention span is limited for many in this day and I have now gone over that, so let me write a finis to this one. If I get any feed back indicating the desire for more on this subject I will continue with another post.

 

 

 

Why I am a strict constructionist

Why I Am A Strict Constructionist

Chapter One

A strict constructionist of the constitution is one that holds the Constitution of the land to be the law. Speaking at the University of Tennessee College of Law, the longest-serving justice currently on the bench SCOTUS Justice Scalia observed, “The Constitution is not a living organism for Pete’s sake, it’s a law. It means what it meant when it was adopted.” Since Article V of that document gives us two ways to amend the constitution, one by the people and one by the congress, congress has used that power many times and some of those time it was to serve their own ends. They have used it as a means to increase their power. And they have couched those moves in popularly acceptable terms. Let’s take a look at one of those power grabs as an example, the 17th amendment. That amendment is:

AMENDMENT XVII Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 3, of the Constitution was modified by the 17th amendment.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

Article I. Section 3, paragraph 1 states 1:  The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof,3  for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

OK that’s it for preamble except to say that it becomes apparent the way this campaign was set up. The congress simply wanted the people at large to popularly vote for their senators. Why wasn’t the Constitution set up this way in the beginning. Trust me the founding fathers were very intelligent and used this as one method of their ‘checks and balances’ government. I asked Barbara Thomas, a very intelligent lady, that has worked with me on projects of a political and semi political nature before, to write an essay for this blog. Her research is valid and her comments are cogent. I offer her comments without edits.

Three branches of government were established, executive, legislative and judicial. All have designated powers to check the powers of the others. Article One of the US Constitution established the legislative branch, or Congress. This branch of government contains the Senate and the House of Representatives. This is the largest and originally the most important branch of government. Here was the first lines of defense against majority tyranny, an overaggressive government and factions, “a number of citizens… who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion or interest adverse to the rights of other citizens or to the permanent and aggregate interest of the community” as defined in Federalist Paper 10 by James Madison. The 17th Amendment completely amended the balance established and intent of the US Constitution.

The nature of man and the laws of nature and of nature’s God were very apparent to our founding fathers and the general public. They knew man could be selfish and self centered, his very nature compelled him to this. They had faith man could be selfless and compassionate, through the exercise of free religion and the study of moral teachings.

A Republic, if we can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin, 1787, after the Constitutional Convention

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton 1887

These two simple statements give us insight into the wisdom and knowledge of human frailties acknowledged by our forefathers.

Every branch of our Republic is a delicate balance between nationalism and federalism. In Congress, The House of Representatives would receive its power from the people (national). The Senate would derive its power from the States as political and coequal societies (federal). In the executive branch, the popular vote every fourth November is nationalism, and the Electoral College is federalism. Even Article V of the US Constitution is a combination of nationalism and federalism.

Our Congress was established to serve a large and growing nation, a delicate balance of power between the states and the people, between federalism and nationalism. Our Founders realizing issues of great magnitude would need to be decided by future generations of states and citizens. A balance of power between the two was necessary.

The House of Representatives is to represent the populace’s interests. The mood of the people is fickle and emotional, human nature dictates and our forefathers knew this. So, it was decided members of the House would serve two-year terms to represent the constantly changing moods of the people. It would be the originators of all revenue raising bills. So, if the peoples’ representatives did not want to raise taxes, they would not be raised, helping to limit the size of government.

The Senate is to represent the interest of the states. The needs of the states are more business driven. The states have short and long term budgets. They have their state constitutions and state mandates to consider. Their goals are budgetary and financially driven, therefore the states would appoint for six-year terms, senators to represent their interests. Most people do not know or remember all of the bad votes a senator can cast in a six-year period. Elected state officials would follow the voting record of senators and would hold them accountable. Senators who vote for legislation that effects the states’ bottom lines could loose their appointment.

This balance of power in the Congress would keep the legislation passed from this branch more focused and less intrusive, since the process would be very slow and arduous, legal issues would be more readily challenged as the Senate fought with the House each to protect their constituents’ interests. The House focused on the mood of the people and individual rights and the Senate on the budgets and long term goals of the states.

Our states are small laboratories in our great republic. Our states are also granted every power not specifically granted to the federal government by our US Constitution, 10th Amendment. Our states are closer and hence more accountable to the citizens. We have many options available to effect change in our state governments, from ‘voting with our feet’ to loving our state so much we effectively change it through elections and legislation. This point is mute to Article One of the US Constitution, but made relevant by the progressive argument that follows.

In 1912, a progressive movement convinced the public to upset the balance in the Congress, by changing the appointment of senators by the state governments into a popularity vote similar to the elections of the representatives in the House. They argued that corrupt state governments would keep the people from being aptly represented in Congress by appointing senators that the people did not like nor actively elect. When in fact, the progressives knew that the delicate balance of power in Congress would collapse with the deletion of the federal check in the Congress. The nationalism would slowly turn our Republic; our US Constitution would slowly begin to fail. They used the emotional public to turn the vision of our forefathers against us. They knew the general populace would be engaged in their day to day lives and they would not follow the state and national issues; they would not have time. The progressive movement convinced humanity we had moved beyond human nature and people could control their base desires and drives so balance in Congress was not necessary. The people could get what they want faster if all of Congress was held to the whims of the people. The people foolishly believed them. This process opened the door for majority tyrannies and factions into our Republic.

Fortunately, our forefathers also gave us the route to change our minds. We can repeal the 17th Amendment and reverse course. It can read as simply as ‘Repeal the 17th Amendment’. No further guidance would be necessary. The next time a senator came to the end of his term, he would either be re-appointed or replaced by his/her state.

Our federal government was designed to be a slow moving almost stagnant governing body. It should not be involved in our day to day lives. The natural checks and balances have been severely diminished by the passage of the 17th Amendment, a majority tyranny has been established while factions have been invading our country. Too many laws have been passed in the last 100 years by the federal government that could not have been imagined by our forefathers, and I feel would not have been passed had the balance of powers in Congress not been changed by the 17th Amendment over 100 years ago.

 

 

 

Obama’s Economic Ideals

Obama’s Economic Ideals

 

 

 

An understanding of political economic systems is important.and necessary to an I formed voter.  There are four of these basic systems:  Communism, Socialism, Nazism and Capitalism.  Let’s take a look at each in turn.

 

Communism as envisioned by Mao Zedong or Mao Tse-tung as we print it here in the US and Joseph Stalin.  Communism is simply a form of government that owns everything and portions out to the people as they see fit to do so. Individual freedom is almost unheard of in these systems.  It inherently derides individual initiative and ambition seeking instead to ‘equalize’ all people and bend them to the will of the governors.  You job is from the government and they can pay you what ever and however they wish.  Your home belongs to the government and they decide how many each structure will hold without consulting the occupants.  No ability to forcefully or passively resist is tolerated

 

Socialism espoused by the Greeks and French and even the English provides for a government that endeavors to use wage earners money in the form of taxes to care for the infirm, elderly and indolent.  Individual freedoms are tolerated until they interfere with the government operation as determined by that government.  All businesses and most of the property is privately owned and pay an enforced tax to support the governments largess. Free speech is usually tolerated; however, the ability to forcefully resist is strictly prohibited.  Extremely strict arms control.  In England not even the police were allowed weapons until late in the twentieth century when they finally woke up to the fact the criminals were armed in spite of the laws.

 

Nazism  as practiced by Adolf Hitler and Barak Obama is an economic system that allows each to own their businesses and homes and maintain their own private property, but uses the power inherent in the government to rigidly control how those businesses and properties are managed and used.  Individual freedoms including the right to speak your mind are strictly limited to those that agree with the government and/or those in power.  No ability to forcefully or passively resist is tolerated.

 

Capitalism as envisioned by Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton et al establishes a government with very little control over the populace and all businesses and property is in the hands of individuals and those businesses with the exception of that property necessary for the operation of the government.  The ability to forcefully resist and speak out is not only allowed but actively encouraged.

 

There are many examples of different comb=nations of these systems.  It is generally agreed that our own country began to embrace socialism with FDR; however, it was a more or less gentle encroachment that broadened with each change in administration until the present day. 

Enter Barak Obama.

 

A little history is required here.  Barak H. Obama, Barry Soretero, or what ever his name is, received his early education in a strict muslim school in a strict muslim country.  ( I will NOT capitalize that word)  He then supposedly received his college education and while pursuing that education enrolled in courses taught by professors who embraced the socialist and in at least two cases the nazi economies.  He attended a church later in life and while in Chicago that was led by a ‘minister’ that railed against the United States and all of its hard won freedoms, calling those freedoms terms like idiotic.  The instructions and teachings this man was exposed to all of his life led him to abhor Communism and particularly the dreaded Capitalism.  He has been diagnosed on three different continents by qualified psychiatrists as suffering from narcissistic personality disorder.

 

Let’s take a moment to define that particular sickness.  The simples and most cogent definition I have found is: “Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder in which the individual is described as being excessively preoccupied with issues of personal adequacy, power, prestige and vanity. This condition affects one percent of the population.  First formulated in 1968, it was historically called megalomania, and is severe egocentrism.“  Basically the person suffering from NPD cannot conceive of themselves being wrong.  In the film To Die For, Nicole Kidman’s character wants to appear on television at all costs, even if this involves murdering her husband.  A psychiatric assessment of her character noted that she “was seen as a prototypical narcissistic person by the raters: on average, she satisfied 8 of 9 criteria for narcissistic personality disorder… had she been evaluated for personality disorders, she would receive a diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder.”

.

It would seem from these factors that convincing BOH that he is leading our country down the path of destruction is not a valid strategy.  He must either be suffered or removed.