Assertion: There is no legitimate rationale for continuing to support school systems that do not successfully educate our children. School Vouchers have worked every time and every place they have been tried. When given the opportunity to perform, students and teachers alike have excelled.
Why This Is Important:. We should not force our children to attend sub-par schools, nor should those schools receive federal funding. We should, instead, encourage the use of School Vouchers to allow parents and students to choose a school that offers them the very best chance to succeed.
Constitutional Basis: There is no provision relating to education in the Constitution; it is, therefore, a power reserved to the States. Our position, as always, is that local governments govern best, and therefore should have the final say in all educational matters.
Quote: “Education has for it’s object the formation of character.”
– Herbert Spencer
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
The Right to Work
Assertion: Every person who is legally eligible to work, and who is capable of it, must be allowed to pursue whatever work he or she desires, without encumbrance or interference from any other party or group. There exists an explicit compact between Worker and Employer, and no third party should attempt to interject themselves into this equation. That includes unions, the federal government, or any other agent not directly related to the business between those who seek employment and the private or public concern which seeks to employ him or her.
Why This Is Important: The Declaration of Independence declares, among other things, our unalienable right to the Pursuit of Happiness. While it is important to make the distinction between having a right to pursue happiness and otherwise having a government attempt to supply it to us, it is an undeniable fact that American citizens, that all persons, have a fundamental right to work. Whether or not they have the talent or skill to find work in a particular field, and whether or not such endeavors can provide the level of subsistence or lifestyle that they desire is another story – and completely irrelevant. People have the right to pursue employment without interference in any form, and from any faction.
Constitutional Basis: None, explicitly; however, the spirit of our Constitution does provide for freedom of religion, speech, assembly, gun ownership and the vote. It stands to reason, therefore, that American citizens also have the right to ply their trade or otherwise seek employment wherever and however they see fit.
Quote: “The business of America is business.” – Calvin Coolidge
Why This Is Important: The Declaration of Independence declares, among other things, our unalienable right to the Pursuit of Happiness. While it is important to make the distinction between having a right to pursue happiness and otherwise having a government attempt to supply it to us, it is an undeniable fact that American citizens, that all persons, have a fundamental right to work. Whether or not they have the talent or skill to find work in a particular field, and whether or not such endeavors can provide the level of subsistence or lifestyle that they desire is another story – and completely irrelevant. People have the right to pursue employment without interference in any form, and from any faction.
Constitutional Basis: None, explicitly; however, the spirit of our Constitution does provide for freedom of religion, speech, assembly, gun ownership and the vote. It stands to reason, therefore, that American citizens also have the right to ply their trade or otherwise seek employment wherever and however they see fit.
Quote: “The business of America is business.” – Calvin Coolidge
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Reproductive Freedom
Assertion: Abortion is an issue on which we are sharply divided. It is a difficult and trying ordeal that is also an extraordinarily private matter. We support a woman’s right to choose what to do with her body, but also hope that she gives the matter some very serious consideration long before having to make such a life-altering decision. Abstinence, contraceptives, non-vaginal sex, or delivering the baby and placing it for adoption are all preferrable to terminating a pregnancy. Abortion should remain legal but every effort should be made to reduce the number of abortions performed and partial-birth abortions should be outlawed altogether.
Why This Is Important: Abortion is a legal procedure available to terminate unwanted pregnancies up to 12 weeks in duration. While carrying a fetus to full term will always be the preferred outcome, it is understood that there are certain instances where doing so can have tremendous physical and psychological repercussions, at times jeopardizing the life of the mother. It is vitally important, therefore, that all parties understand that abortion is not a trivial matter nor is it a decision that should be made lightly or without counsel.
Constitutional Basis: There is no constitutional basis for abortion “rights,” although the SCOTUS essentially created one with Roe v. Wade. That being said, there also exists no constitutional right to exert control or authority over the day-to-day lives of American citizens, which includes decisions regarding reproduction.
Quote: “A private sin is not so prejudicial in this world as a public indecency.” – Cervantes
Why This Is Important: Abortion is a legal procedure available to terminate unwanted pregnancies up to 12 weeks in duration. While carrying a fetus to full term will always be the preferred outcome, it is understood that there are certain instances where doing so can have tremendous physical and psychological repercussions, at times jeopardizing the life of the mother. It is vitally important, therefore, that all parties understand that abortion is not a trivial matter nor is it a decision that should be made lightly or without counsel.
Constitutional Basis: There is no constitutional basis for abortion “rights,” although the SCOTUS essentially created one with Roe v. Wade. That being said, there also exists no constitutional right to exert control or authority over the day-to-day lives of American citizens, which includes decisions regarding reproduction.
Quote: “A private sin is not so prejudicial in this world as a public indecency.” – Cervantes
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Religious Freedom
Assertion: While the Federal Government should not favor one religion over another in the form of blatant or oppressive discrimination, neither should it fail to recognize that the United States of America is a Judeo-Christian nation and act accordingly. Indeed, these United States were founded on Judeo-Christian values: Each and every individual state in this Union made it a point to request the favor or blessing of a Creator God in their individual State Constitution. There can be no doubt that the United States of America is a Judeo-Christian nation, and her Government shall make no laws which hinder or abridge the rights of all Americans to freely practice their religion and/or support the laws and traditions thereof. The right of all people to worship as they choose is not a privilege to be bestowed by any King or denied by any Tyrant. It is a Divine Right, granted by our Creator, and American citizens are so endowed with the right to wear or display religious symbols and to participate in individual or group prayers, public or private; so, too, are they allowed to decline participation in any organized religion or religious activity. These and similar rights shall not be abridged by man or government, nor hindered by political-driven sentiment such as political correctness. We believe that school prayer is a good thing; that having the Ten Commandments posted anywhere is a good thing; that having “In God We Trust” on our currency is a good thing; and that having God in our Pledge of Allegiance is a good thing.
Why This Is Important: Only the most belligerent or ignorant would argue that America was not founded on Judeo-Christian values, or that Judeo-Christian values as a whole have not helped to significantly shape and civilize Mankind, usually for the better. From Arts and Letters to Science and Technology, those values have driven us forward, saints and sinners alike, out of the darkness and into the light. You don’t have to be an active participant in any religious organization to reap the rewards of a better, safer and more civil world. If for no other reason, we should uphold and defend every citizen’s right to practice their religion and to worship as they see fit.
Constitutional Basis: The Bill of Rights, Amendment I declares that Congress shall make no law with respect to religion, nor can it prohibit the free exercise thereof.
Quote: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.” – Thomas Jefferson
Why This Is Important: Only the most belligerent or ignorant would argue that America was not founded on Judeo-Christian values, or that Judeo-Christian values as a whole have not helped to significantly shape and civilize Mankind, usually for the better. From Arts and Letters to Science and Technology, those values have driven us forward, saints and sinners alike, out of the darkness and into the light. You don’t have to be an active participant in any religious organization to reap the rewards of a better, safer and more civil world. If for no other reason, we should uphold and defend every citizen’s right to practice their religion and to worship as they see fit.
Constitutional Basis: The Bill of Rights, Amendment I declares that Congress shall make no law with respect to religion, nor can it prohibit the free exercise thereof.
Quote: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.” – Thomas Jefferson
Thursday, March 25, 2010
National Defense
Assertion: America should continue to invest in National Defense until such time as the entire world is free from villainy, tyranny, and those who seek to do us harm. Further, the United States military shall answer to no one except the American people.
Why This Is Important: The entire world is not free from villainy, tyranny, or those who seek to do us harm, and all the talking and hand-holding in the world will not make it thus.
Constitutional Basis: Article I, Section 8 and Article II, Section 2
Quote: “We shall nobly save or meanly lose the last, best hope of earth.”– Abraham Lincoln
Why This Is Important: The entire world is not free from villainy, tyranny, or those who seek to do us harm, and all the talking and hand-holding in the world will not make it thus.
Constitutional Basis: Article I, Section 8 and Article II, Section 2
Quote: “We shall nobly save or meanly lose the last, best hope of earth.”– Abraham Lincoln
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Marriage
Assertion: Marriage is, by definition, the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife.
Why This Is Important: Traditions are important, but perhaps even more so are the fundamentals of basic Reason, Fact, and Logic. We would no sooner call an apple an orange, or declare that one plus one equals bacon, than to say that a marriage is between a woman and a woman, or a man and a man. A thing is not a different thing simply because some wish that it were so. That is not to say that all American citizens in a deeply committed relationship should not have the same basic rights as married couples simply because they are of the same sex; that is discrimination. Same-sex couples should be able to enter into a legally binding partnership of some kind – the actual term and definition is yet be determined – and be granted the same status in the eyes of the law, and hospital administrations, and insurance companies, and every other institution as long as they both shall live.
Constitutional Basis: None, either way, although we would say that we support the “Pursuit of Happiness” in virtually any form; if for some that means a same-sex partnership, or a civil union, it is a personal and private matter, and it is the business of only those who make that choice. The government itself has no business interjecting itself into matters of the heart, one way or another.
Quote: “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet.” – William Shakespeare
Why This Is Important: Traditions are important, but perhaps even more so are the fundamentals of basic Reason, Fact, and Logic. We would no sooner call an apple an orange, or declare that one plus one equals bacon, than to say that a marriage is between a woman and a woman, or a man and a man. A thing is not a different thing simply because some wish that it were so. That is not to say that all American citizens in a deeply committed relationship should not have the same basic rights as married couples simply because they are of the same sex; that is discrimination. Same-sex couples should be able to enter into a legally binding partnership of some kind – the actual term and definition is yet be determined – and be granted the same status in the eyes of the law, and hospital administrations, and insurance companies, and every other institution as long as they both shall live.
Constitutional Basis: None, either way, although we would say that we support the “Pursuit of Happiness” in virtually any form; if for some that means a same-sex partnership, or a civil union, it is a personal and private matter, and it is the business of only those who make that choice. The government itself has no business interjecting itself into matters of the heart, one way or another.
Quote: “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet.” – William Shakespeare
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Judiciary
Assertion: Only judges who follow the letter (if not the spirit or intent) of the Constitution should receive the support of American Patriots, their Congressmen, and their Senators. Those who seek to legislate from the bench should be identified and removed from it.
Why This Is Important: The importance of the Rule of Law and legal precedent cannot be overstated. Further, it is our judgment that the farther we as a Nation stray from the fundamental principles outlined in the Constitution of the United States of America, the more difficult it becomes to save our republic as it was intended. Especially whereas the Supreme Court of the United Sates receives its power from the Constitution, it should and must remain beholden to its core values, particularly as regards the “balance of power” between the three branches of government.
Constitutional Basis: Article III, Section II grants power to the SCOTUS over all cases “arising under this Constitution” and to all citizens in all matters ranging from state to state and from sea to shining sea.
Quote: “Extraordinary conditions do not create or enlarge Constitutional power.” – Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, Schecter v. United States
Why This Is Important: The importance of the Rule of Law and legal precedent cannot be overstated. Further, it is our judgment that the farther we as a Nation stray from the fundamental principles outlined in the Constitution of the United States of America, the more difficult it becomes to save our republic as it was intended. Especially whereas the Supreme Court of the United Sates receives its power from the Constitution, it should and must remain beholden to its core values, particularly as regards the “balance of power” between the three branches of government.
Constitutional Basis: Article III, Section II grants power to the SCOTUS over all cases “arising under this Constitution” and to all citizens in all matters ranging from state to state and from sea to shining sea.
Quote: “Extraordinary conditions do not create or enlarge Constitutional power.” – Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, Schecter v. United States
Friday, March 19, 2010
Income Tax
Assertion: The United States Tax Code should be simplified; taxes should be paid in proportion to income level; and every American citizen should pay taxes. A flat Income Tax should be implemented, or a national sales tax should replace the Income Tax.
Why This Is Important: The current tax code is complex, convoluted, and mind-numbingly long, running to over 1,000 pages. The “progressive” tax scheme currently employed is, in fact, oppressive and unfair. Furthermore, the more progressive it gets, the less effective it is: When you raise taxes on upper-income earners, and lower taxes on the low- and middle-income earners, you will see huge revenue losses from both accounts. The top earners will simply restructure their income to report less of it – think of 401(k)s, IRAs, Keough plans, itemized deductions, lifetime gifts, charitable gifts, trusts, tax free bonds, and all sorts of deferred income compensation plans – while the bottom 75% will pay less in taxes as a result of the reduced rate.
Taxes are a fact of life, and no rational person will complain about paying them as long as they are fair and everyone else is helping to pull the load. However, based on the latest available tax data, from 2005, the richest 1% of Americans pay about 39% of all income taxes collected. If we look at the top 5% of earners, we see that they paid about 60% of all taxes. Overall, the top 10% of taxpayers are responsible for 70% of all tax revenue. On the other hand, the bottom half of all American households account for just 3% of tax revenue, with roughly 122 million Americans -- 44 percent of our population -- having no tax liability whatsoever. This particular demographic group, therefore, “has no skin in the game,” and therefore have no sense of being a contributing member of their society. Instead, their worth as a citizen is devalued and in its place is rooted a sense of entitlement.
Using the U.S. tax code to redistribute wealth among citizens - taking money from one particular group of people for the expressed purpose of redirecting it to another group of people - is wrong; it is immoral, it is unjust, and it is un-American. Saying “We are going to tax cigarettes, and use that money to pay for children’s healthcare,” is but one example of our Congress trying to use the U.S. Tax Code as a means toward socialistic ends. The United States of America was not founded as, nor ever intended be modeled on, a socialist society. Article IV, Section IV of our Constitution avows that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” Those who seek to break that promise should be reminded of that fact at the ballot box.
Constitutional Basis: Amendment XVI gave the Congress broad powers to “lay and collect taxes on income.”
Quote: "How can there possibly be liberty and justice for all, when, in the name of justice, people claim rights to income, food, housing, education, health care, transportation, ad infinitum? We can't. Positive rights to receive such things, absent an obligation to earn them, must violate others' liberty, by taking some of their income without their consent. They are really just wishes, convertible into benefits for some only by employing the government to violate others' rights not to have what is theirs taken." – Gary Galles
Why This Is Important: The current tax code is complex, convoluted, and mind-numbingly long, running to over 1,000 pages. The “progressive” tax scheme currently employed is, in fact, oppressive and unfair. Furthermore, the more progressive it gets, the less effective it is: When you raise taxes on upper-income earners, and lower taxes on the low- and middle-income earners, you will see huge revenue losses from both accounts. The top earners will simply restructure their income to report less of it – think of 401(k)s, IRAs, Keough plans, itemized deductions, lifetime gifts, charitable gifts, trusts, tax free bonds, and all sorts of deferred income compensation plans – while the bottom 75% will pay less in taxes as a result of the reduced rate.
Taxes are a fact of life, and no rational person will complain about paying them as long as they are fair and everyone else is helping to pull the load. However, based on the latest available tax data, from 2005, the richest 1% of Americans pay about 39% of all income taxes collected. If we look at the top 5% of earners, we see that they paid about 60% of all taxes. Overall, the top 10% of taxpayers are responsible for 70% of all tax revenue. On the other hand, the bottom half of all American households account for just 3% of tax revenue, with roughly 122 million Americans -- 44 percent of our population -- having no tax liability whatsoever. This particular demographic group, therefore, “has no skin in the game,” and therefore have no sense of being a contributing member of their society. Instead, their worth as a citizen is devalued and in its place is rooted a sense of entitlement.
Using the U.S. tax code to redistribute wealth among citizens - taking money from one particular group of people for the expressed purpose of redirecting it to another group of people - is wrong; it is immoral, it is unjust, and it is un-American. Saying “We are going to tax cigarettes, and use that money to pay for children’s healthcare,” is but one example of our Congress trying to use the U.S. Tax Code as a means toward socialistic ends. The United States of America was not founded as, nor ever intended be modeled on, a socialist society. Article IV, Section IV of our Constitution avows that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” Those who seek to break that promise should be reminded of that fact at the ballot box.
Constitutional Basis: Amendment XVI gave the Congress broad powers to “lay and collect taxes on income.”
Quote: "How can there possibly be liberty and justice for all, when, in the name of justice, people claim rights to income, food, housing, education, health care, transportation, ad infinitum? We can't. Positive rights to receive such things, absent an obligation to earn them, must violate others' liberty, by taking some of their income without their consent. They are really just wishes, convertible into benefits for some only by employing the government to violate others' rights not to have what is theirs taken." – Gary Galles
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Immigration Policy
Assertion: As long as America remains the “Land of Opportunity” it will be attractive to people from all over the world. However, America can not sustain an influx of illegal immigrants living off the grid, paying no taxes and collecting benefits from Federal and State governments. It isn’t fair to hard-working tax-paying Americans and it isn’t fair to the hundreds of thousands who are going through the proper bureaucratic channels to attain American citizenship. This has nothing whatsoever to do with racism or xenophobia; our borders need to be secured, our immigration laws and processes need to be enforced, and non-citizens here illegally must be deported (without malice; essentially sent to the back of the line).
Why This Is Important: Basic mathematics tells us that we can not continue to support illegal immigrants. The financial drain it puts on our cities and states ultimately results in a higher tax burden on American citizens, taxes which in turn are used to pay for fewer basic services. The immigration demographic also plays a key role in America’s future, as a growing population comprised of hard-working tax-paying citizens, including lawful immigrants fully committed to the American ideal, is vital to our continued prosperity.
Constitutional Basis: Article I, Section 8 provides Congress with the power to establish uniform rules for Naturalization. The 14th Amendment provides the framework for what defines a citizen, chiefly that a person must be born in the U.S. or become a naturalized citizen. The Immigration and Naturalization Act sets forth the particular legal requirements for citizenships.
Quote: “Happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.” – George Washington
Why This Is Important: Basic mathematics tells us that we can not continue to support illegal immigrants. The financial drain it puts on our cities and states ultimately results in a higher tax burden on American citizens, taxes which in turn are used to pay for fewer basic services. The immigration demographic also plays a key role in America’s future, as a growing population comprised of hard-working tax-paying citizens, including lawful immigrants fully committed to the American ideal, is vital to our continued prosperity.
Constitutional Basis: Article I, Section 8 provides Congress with the power to establish uniform rules for Naturalization. The 14th Amendment provides the framework for what defines a citizen, chiefly that a person must be born in the U.S. or become a naturalized citizen. The Immigration and Naturalization Act sets forth the particular legal requirements for citizenships.
Quote: “Happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.” – George Washington
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Health Care
Note: There is extraordinary coverage of the current attempts to nationalize the U.S. healthcare system, yet few have gotten it right, in my view. First, the entire effort is unconstitutional. That should be enough to end the whole discussion - but that has not been the case. It seems our Congress feels that it may simply do whatever it wants to do (such is the hubris in D.C. these days). Secondly, if Congress were really and truly interested in "reforming healthcare," instead of advancing governmental power, they would be working to address the issues that are causing the problems. Alas, that isn't the case - which, when you think about it, is in itself a pretty damning piece of evidence, pointing straight to the heart of their treacherous machinations.
Assertion: American healthcare is among the very best in the world. We are the worldwide leader in medical innovation and advancements, and more people choose to get medical treatment in the U.S. than in any other country in the world. Where we fall short is not in our delivery of healthcare, but in the costs to the consumer. The way to reduce the cost of healthcare is to address the two major issues that keep those costs artificially inflated: Tort Reform and Interstate Insurance regulations.
Why This Is Important: When the costs of doing business increases, the costs incurred are passed along to the consumer. The same is true whether the product is pizza, Hawaiian shirts, or health care. Lawyers have been feeding at the medical malpractice trough for so long, and malpractice insurance has risen so dramatically as a result, that many doctors are leaving the field because they can no longer afford the insurance they need in order to practice. Standardize malpractice awards instead of allowing ambulance-chasing attorneys to try malpractice cases in “plaintiff-friendly” locales where jury awards are completely out-of-touch with reality. Additionally, current law allows the purchase of only those healthcare insurance plans which have been approved by the state in which the buyer resides. This allows de facto monopolies to exist within state boundaries, which results in less competition and higher prices. One of the few powers allotted to Congress is the power to regulate interstate commerce. If they want to do something useful, they should find a way to allow consumers to buy the best insurance coverage that they can afford, regardless of which state is offering it. These are the root causes of the healthcare “crisis,” and if we are to cure the patient we must address the symptoms.
Constitutional Basis: There is no constitutional basis for a nationalized healthcare system. However, Article I, Section 8, does grant to Congress the power to regulate commerce among the states, which means that it has the power to strike down what are essentially regional insurance monopolies. With regard to Tort Reform: Because exorbitant jury awards and legal fees generated by malpractice lawsuits extend, by their very nature, from the states in which the cases are tried to all states and municipalities, and such awards lead directly to increases in the costs of healthcare, we may infer that the cases are an Impost, or Duty, on healthcare itself. As such, they should therefore be regulated as such under Article I, Section 10. Section 8 also says that all Duties, Imposts and Excises “shall be uniform throughout the United States,” which means that seeking sympathetic juries outside of the state in which the harm was done, while good for the lawyers, is detrimental to the General Welfare of the American consumer.
Quote: “We should always presume the disease to be curable, until its own nature prove it otherwise.”– Peter Mere Latham
Assertion: American healthcare is among the very best in the world. We are the worldwide leader in medical innovation and advancements, and more people choose to get medical treatment in the U.S. than in any other country in the world. Where we fall short is not in our delivery of healthcare, but in the costs to the consumer. The way to reduce the cost of healthcare is to address the two major issues that keep those costs artificially inflated: Tort Reform and Interstate Insurance regulations.
Why This Is Important: When the costs of doing business increases, the costs incurred are passed along to the consumer. The same is true whether the product is pizza, Hawaiian shirts, or health care. Lawyers have been feeding at the medical malpractice trough for so long, and malpractice insurance has risen so dramatically as a result, that many doctors are leaving the field because they can no longer afford the insurance they need in order to practice. Standardize malpractice awards instead of allowing ambulance-chasing attorneys to try malpractice cases in “plaintiff-friendly” locales where jury awards are completely out-of-touch with reality. Additionally, current law allows the purchase of only those healthcare insurance plans which have been approved by the state in which the buyer resides. This allows de facto monopolies to exist within state boundaries, which results in less competition and higher prices. One of the few powers allotted to Congress is the power to regulate interstate commerce. If they want to do something useful, they should find a way to allow consumers to buy the best insurance coverage that they can afford, regardless of which state is offering it. These are the root causes of the healthcare “crisis,” and if we are to cure the patient we must address the symptoms.
Constitutional Basis: There is no constitutional basis for a nationalized healthcare system. However, Article I, Section 8, does grant to Congress the power to regulate commerce among the states, which means that it has the power to strike down what are essentially regional insurance monopolies. With regard to Tort Reform: Because exorbitant jury awards and legal fees generated by malpractice lawsuits extend, by their very nature, from the states in which the cases are tried to all states and municipalities, and such awards lead directly to increases in the costs of healthcare, we may infer that the cases are an Impost, or Duty, on healthcare itself. As such, they should therefore be regulated as such under Article I, Section 10. Section 8 also says that all Duties, Imposts and Excises “shall be uniform throughout the United States,” which means that seeking sympathetic juries outside of the state in which the harm was done, while good for the lawyers, is detrimental to the General Welfare of the American consumer.
Quote: “We should always presume the disease to be curable, until its own nature prove it otherwise.”– Peter Mere Latham
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Guns
Assertion: We believe that all of America is a militia, and that the Second Amendment guarantees each citizen the right to gun ownership.
Why This Is Important: The right to own a gun - or a knife, or a baseball bat, or to use any means or method necessary to defend one’s self or one’s family from harm - is self-evident.
Constitutional Basis: Amendment II
Quote: “Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who have not.” – Thomas Jefferson
Why This Is Important: The right to own a gun - or a knife, or a baseball bat, or to use any means or method necessary to defend one’s self or one’s family from harm - is self-evident.
Constitutional Basis: Amendment II
Quote: “Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who have not.” – Thomas Jefferson
Monday, March 15, 2010
Foreign Policy
Assertion: Our foreign policy will follow “The Golden Rule” in so far as we shall treat our neighbors and competitors as they treat us, their neighbors, and their competitors. We will provide support to those who have established or seek to establish free and open societies, and will not provide support to those who seek to stifle liberty. We shall endeavor to maintain global commerce and will act with whatever means are necessary to protect the free and open distribution of key resources to ourselves and our allies. Those who openly antagonize us, and who actively work against us – like those who consistently vote against our national interests in the United Nations – will see a sharp reduction or elimination of all U.S.-based foreign aid, in whatever form such aid may take. We must also actively work to strengthen our political and economic ties with India, the world’s largest democracy, and with whomsoever shares our fundamental commitment to freedom.
Why This Is Important: About three-quarters of those who receive foreign aid from the U.S. vote against our position a majority of the time. Granted, most UN resolutions aren’t really all that important and do not warrant the application of special or extraordinary U.S. pressure to influence the outcome, and we do get support on most of the major issues. However, while it is understood that foreign assistance programs can provide a minor degree of leverage, it should also be acknowledged that it remains largely ineffective as a means of affecting U.S. foreign policy as a whole. As such we should certainly re-examine the hundreds of millions of dollars we spend on foreign assistance against our relationships with each and every recipient of foreign aid.
There is nothing more important than the security of U.S. citizens. As the preeminent democracy on the planet, we must also do what we can to extend freedom and liberty for all of mankind. Prudence has its place, but we must also understand that not acting can prove to be more dangerous than taking decisive action in the first place.
Constitutional Basis: Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the right and power to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,” to define and punish “Offences against the Law of Nations,” to “declare War,” to “raise and support Armies,” to “maintain a Navy,” and to “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.” Article II, Section II says the President “shall be Commander in Chief” and “shall have power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties.”
Quote: “Speak softly, but carry a big stick..” – Theodore Roosevelt
Why This Is Important: About three-quarters of those who receive foreign aid from the U.S. vote against our position a majority of the time. Granted, most UN resolutions aren’t really all that important and do not warrant the application of special or extraordinary U.S. pressure to influence the outcome, and we do get support on most of the major issues. However, while it is understood that foreign assistance programs can provide a minor degree of leverage, it should also be acknowledged that it remains largely ineffective as a means of affecting U.S. foreign policy as a whole. As such we should certainly re-examine the hundreds of millions of dollars we spend on foreign assistance against our relationships with each and every recipient of foreign aid.
There is nothing more important than the security of U.S. citizens. As the preeminent democracy on the planet, we must also do what we can to extend freedom and liberty for all of mankind. Prudence has its place, but we must also understand that not acting can prove to be more dangerous than taking decisive action in the first place.
Constitutional Basis: Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the right and power to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,” to define and punish “Offences against the Law of Nations,” to “declare War,” to “raise and support Armies,” to “maintain a Navy,” and to “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.” Article II, Section II says the President “shall be Commander in Chief” and “shall have power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties.”
Quote: “Speak softly, but carry a big stick..” – Theodore Roosevelt
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Fiscal Responsibility
Assertion: While it is universally understood that credit and debt play an important part in the construction and operation of a vibrant economy, the Government has no constitutional authority to wantonly spend monies from the Treasury on 90% of the programs it currently funds. The truth is, the way the government spends money is completely lacking in any sort of fiduciary responsibility. We must take control of so-called “discretionary spending,” root out fraud, waste and abuse, and do everything we possibly can to achieve some semblance of a balanced and constitution-based budget.
Why This Is Important: As the Federal Government increases spending on a plethora of unconstitutional programs it increases the National debt and destabilizes the National economy, putting America at great risk. Besides the fact that unchecked Congressional spending puts us in economic peril, there is clearly no constitutional mandate for the vast majority of the programs and agencies they fund. The first thing we need to understand is that our government works within the framework of what is called an “annual baseline budget.” This isn’t a terrible thing, in itself, but it does allow our Representatives to assume that every federal program will exist from one year to the next without really looking into the situation. It is further assumed that the funding for these programs will need to be increased each year in order to offset inflation and, naturally, a growing number of enrollees. This lack of oversight means that, year in and year out, we end up funding programs that make little sense, have outlived their usefulness, or are so rife with fraud, waste, and abuse that we would be better served by burning the program funds for heat than chucking it into this black hole of mindless spending.
The Federal Government must be made to manage the National budget much as you and I do with our salaries and the expenses related to running our households, or as businesses do with respect to remaining in business. Why, for example, would the Federal Government spend $1 million for a Lewis and Clark exhibit in Washington state, $14 million in continuing funding for research on the aurora borealis in Alaska, or $1 million to keep the brown tree snake out of Hawaii? Why do we continue to fund the National Weather Service when there are more than 300 private businesses already providing weather forecasting?
Taxpayer money is being spent on a stunning array of government boondoggles and black holes, and we must put an end to the endless, mindless, pointless spending designed to do little more than guarantee the re-election of those who are squandering the resources of the national treasury. We must examine every government department, every government job, and every government subsidy, entitlement program and hand-out, and if it is unconstitutional, or constitutional but doesn’t make sense, we must shut it down.
We are now routinely talking about trillions of dollars when we discuss budgets and deficit spending, and when we talk about cutting a million here, or ten million there, there are those who like to downplay the importance of fiscal responsibility, who like to say "It's just a drop in the bucket." Well, here's a thought that might put things in perspective for those people: You can't convince a raindrop that it is responsible for the flood.
Constitutional Basis: Article I, Section 8 outlines the powers of Congress. Based on the fiduciary responsibilities assigned to the Federal Government, the only bona fide expenditures would, then, strictly involve only those costs incurred in the operation of the Internal Revenue Service, the Commerce Department, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Treasury, the Postal Service, and the Department of Defense.
Quote: "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents...." – James Madison
Why This Is Important: As the Federal Government increases spending on a plethora of unconstitutional programs it increases the National debt and destabilizes the National economy, putting America at great risk. Besides the fact that unchecked Congressional spending puts us in economic peril, there is clearly no constitutional mandate for the vast majority of the programs and agencies they fund. The first thing we need to understand is that our government works within the framework of what is called an “annual baseline budget.” This isn’t a terrible thing, in itself, but it does allow our Representatives to assume that every federal program will exist from one year to the next without really looking into the situation. It is further assumed that the funding for these programs will need to be increased each year in order to offset inflation and, naturally, a growing number of enrollees. This lack of oversight means that, year in and year out, we end up funding programs that make little sense, have outlived their usefulness, or are so rife with fraud, waste, and abuse that we would be better served by burning the program funds for heat than chucking it into this black hole of mindless spending.
The Federal Government must be made to manage the National budget much as you and I do with our salaries and the expenses related to running our households, or as businesses do with respect to remaining in business. Why, for example, would the Federal Government spend $1 million for a Lewis and Clark exhibit in Washington state, $14 million in continuing funding for research on the aurora borealis in Alaska, or $1 million to keep the brown tree snake out of Hawaii? Why do we continue to fund the National Weather Service when there are more than 300 private businesses already providing weather forecasting?
Taxpayer money is being spent on a stunning array of government boondoggles and black holes, and we must put an end to the endless, mindless, pointless spending designed to do little more than guarantee the re-election of those who are squandering the resources of the national treasury. We must examine every government department, every government job, and every government subsidy, entitlement program and hand-out, and if it is unconstitutional, or constitutional but doesn’t make sense, we must shut it down.
We are now routinely talking about trillions of dollars when we discuss budgets and deficit spending, and when we talk about cutting a million here, or ten million there, there are those who like to downplay the importance of fiscal responsibility, who like to say "It's just a drop in the bucket." Well, here's a thought that might put things in perspective for those people: You can't convince a raindrop that it is responsible for the flood.
Constitutional Basis: Article I, Section 8 outlines the powers of Congress. Based on the fiduciary responsibilities assigned to the Federal Government, the only bona fide expenditures would, then, strictly involve only those costs incurred in the operation of the Internal Revenue Service, the Commerce Department, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Treasury, the Postal Service, and the Department of Defense.
Quote: "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents...." – James Madison
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Education
Assertion: It is obvious that Public Education requires serious reform, and we absolutely must take back our education system. Let’s start by insisting on school vouchers so we can send our children to elementary and junior high schools where teachers want to teach and children want to learn. Let’s also get back to basics by instilling the curriculum found in E.D. Hirsch’s “Core Knowledge” curriculum (or something very similar). In high school, let’s identify students whose aptitudes lend themselves to either higher education or to vocational systems and direct their studies accordingly. Not everyone wants or needs to attend a college or university to achieve competence and satisfaction in their preferred field of endeavor, so let’s stop herding everyone down the “college” path and start paying attention to the natural inclinations of our young adults. If we do those things which help them to attain a core competence in their area(s) of interest, all of society will benefit.
We ask a lot of our teachers; it is time that we ask the same of students and parents, as well. If we are serious about educating our young, we must emphasize the importance of it to such a degree that there can be no doubt about it. We must make it understood that, for the young, there is nothing more important than their education and, as such, their participation in any extracurricular activities will be tied directly to their performance in the classroom. If a student does not carry a “C” average, or better, they will not be allowed to participate in sports, join school clubs or school-sponsored activities, get a driver’s license, or be allowed to take a job. It must be very clear that their focus will and must be on getting an education, and that these and other measures will be considered if they do not have the motivation necessary to maintain a “C” average up to and including their graduation from high school.
While we place no small amount of emphasis on parental involvement and student accountability, we also require results from our teachers. Those who achieve positive results should be rewarded, and those who do not ought be fired, retired or retrained for a new line of work.
Why This Is Important: There isn’t a whole lot of meaningful discussion about the world and America’s place in it, but there is one thing we all need to understand: Geopolitically, every single day we are essentially in a fight for our lives, and what is at stake, every single day, are resources: Natural resources, metals, minerals, food, fuel, and fresh water. All of the materials needed to sustain and improve our lives are available – to one extent or another – and are purchased – one way or another – in the global marketplace. It isn’t always a genteel affair. Conflicts, often full-scale wars, have erupted over the pursuit of, or control of, resources. In order to compete we need smart people; we need “human” resources. To not only survive, but to thrive, we need an intelligent and competent population to create, build, innovate and invent.
Constitutional Basis: There is no constitutional guarantee of an education. Individual states define educational policies that are then implemented and funded by individual localities. This is as it should be, for most issues are handled best which are handled locally.
Quote: "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." – Thomas Jefferson
We ask a lot of our teachers; it is time that we ask the same of students and parents, as well. If we are serious about educating our young, we must emphasize the importance of it to such a degree that there can be no doubt about it. We must make it understood that, for the young, there is nothing more important than their education and, as such, their participation in any extracurricular activities will be tied directly to their performance in the classroom. If a student does not carry a “C” average, or better, they will not be allowed to participate in sports, join school clubs or school-sponsored activities, get a driver’s license, or be allowed to take a job. It must be very clear that their focus will and must be on getting an education, and that these and other measures will be considered if they do not have the motivation necessary to maintain a “C” average up to and including their graduation from high school.
While we place no small amount of emphasis on parental involvement and student accountability, we also require results from our teachers. Those who achieve positive results should be rewarded, and those who do not ought be fired, retired or retrained for a new line of work.
Why This Is Important: There isn’t a whole lot of meaningful discussion about the world and America’s place in it, but there is one thing we all need to understand: Geopolitically, every single day we are essentially in a fight for our lives, and what is at stake, every single day, are resources: Natural resources, metals, minerals, food, fuel, and fresh water. All of the materials needed to sustain and improve our lives are available – to one extent or another – and are purchased – one way or another – in the global marketplace. It isn’t always a genteel affair. Conflicts, often full-scale wars, have erupted over the pursuit of, or control of, resources. In order to compete we need smart people; we need “human” resources. To not only survive, but to thrive, we need an intelligent and competent population to create, build, innovate and invent.
Constitutional Basis: There is no constitutional guarantee of an education. Individual states define educational policies that are then implemented and funded by individual localities. This is as it should be, for most issues are handled best which are handled locally.
Quote: "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." – Thomas Jefferson
Friday, March 12, 2010
Constitutional Amendments
Assertion: Instead of Legislating from the Bench, or from the “bully pulpit,” or through popular, media-driven opinion, major changes to the American legal, social, and political landscape should be implemented through Constitutional amendments.
Why This Is Important: The Constitution of the United States of America is the blueprint of our Federal Government and the foundation upon which our Republic was built. It has stood firm for over two hundred years, a shining beacon of self-government that has inspired countless others to freedom and liberty. But it is also more than that: It is the very soul of our Nation, a touchstone for all that we have ever been or ever hope to be. Within that hallowed parchment lay the genesis of our national identity, and any radical or far-reaching changes to the basic American ideals contained therein should and must be approved by the people, not by any single political party or political ideology. Amendments have been passed to guarantee our right to bear arms, to worship as we see fit, to assemble, and to say what we want. Amendments were also used to abolish slavery, and to ensure that all Americans have the right to vote. We even used the 21st Amendment to repeal the 18th Amendment. We have the genius of our Founding Fathers to thank for providing a mechanism through which we can adapt and change when the issue is important enough to warrant it by amending the Constitution. In an age and a time when there are seemingly countless “special” or personal interests, we feel it is vitally important that the number one allegiance should be – should always and without fail be – to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Constitutional Basis: Article V provides the means for proposing and ratifying changes to the U.S. Constitution. Essentially, three fourths of the State legislatures must sign off on any proposed changes to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights further stipulates, in Amendment X, that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Quote: “Let us make democracy work by working through the instruments of democracy.”
– Raymond C. Moley, a law professor, economic advisor and member of FDR’s “Brain Trust.” He later became a critic of Roosevelt’s administration and it’s arbitrary “reforms.”
Why This Is Important: The Constitution of the United States of America is the blueprint of our Federal Government and the foundation upon which our Republic was built. It has stood firm for over two hundred years, a shining beacon of self-government that has inspired countless others to freedom and liberty. But it is also more than that: It is the very soul of our Nation, a touchstone for all that we have ever been or ever hope to be. Within that hallowed parchment lay the genesis of our national identity, and any radical or far-reaching changes to the basic American ideals contained therein should and must be approved by the people, not by any single political party or political ideology. Amendments have been passed to guarantee our right to bear arms, to worship as we see fit, to assemble, and to say what we want. Amendments were also used to abolish slavery, and to ensure that all Americans have the right to vote. We even used the 21st Amendment to repeal the 18th Amendment. We have the genius of our Founding Fathers to thank for providing a mechanism through which we can adapt and change when the issue is important enough to warrant it by amending the Constitution. In an age and a time when there are seemingly countless “special” or personal interests, we feel it is vitally important that the number one allegiance should be – should always and without fail be – to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Constitutional Basis: Article V provides the means for proposing and ratifying changes to the U.S. Constitution. Essentially, three fourths of the State legislatures must sign off on any proposed changes to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights further stipulates, in Amendment X, that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Quote: “Let us make democracy work by working through the instruments of democracy.”
– Raymond C. Moley, a law professor, economic advisor and member of FDR’s “Brain Trust.” He later became a critic of Roosevelt’s administration and it’s arbitrary “reforms.”
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Civil Rights
Assertion: The term “civil rights” is often applied within strictly defined discussions on race, and race relations, but it should in fact apply to all Americans, of every race, creed, color, gender, and ethnicity. “Civil,” after all, refers to the citizenry, to all citizens, and to our interaction with each other. We believe that the true intent of civil rights should, in fact, be construed as a commitment by all Americans to assume an equal share in all of the rights and privileges, as well as the duties and responsibilities implicit in American citizenship; that this equality rightfully translates as an equal opportunity for all Americans; and that granting any sort of favored status to one group, in order to curry favor for, or from, another group, is discrimination against all groups.
As it turns out, while these kinds of governmental policies may have had their time and place, the long-term consequences of such policies have actually served to dampen and diminish the competitive fire within a great many Americans, whether it be the business or organization being told who they can hire or those who are hired but must then wonder if they would have been good enough were it not for government-sanctioned discrimination.
We believe that all Americans are created equal, and that the Federal government has no business setting quotas for any reason, least of all for the expressed purpose of achieving or attempting to achieve a racial or gender balance through discriminatory policies and practices.
Why This Is Important: America is the Land of Opportunity and home of what Lincoln called “the True American system,” whereby any one of us can rise just as high as our abilities and determination will take us. This “American Dream” has driven countless Americans to greatness, and propelled our society to achieve more in 230 years than some civilizations have achieved in 2300 years. We are motivated by the mere opportunity to succeed, and when that opportunity isn’t earned as a matter of simply being an engaged American citizen but rather through Federal intervention, it diminishes both the citizen and the achievement itself.
Constitutional Basis: There is no constitutional basis for racial or gender gerrymandering of any sort. However, our Founders did assert, and great wars have been fought, to confirm that we are all "created equal.” Our government was instituted to secure certain rights, including Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. But note that last part; it is the Pursuit that we are entitled to, not Happiness itself.
Quote: “I have a dream…that one day my children will be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” – Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
As it turns out, while these kinds of governmental policies may have had their time and place, the long-term consequences of such policies have actually served to dampen and diminish the competitive fire within a great many Americans, whether it be the business or organization being told who they can hire or those who are hired but must then wonder if they would have been good enough were it not for government-sanctioned discrimination.
We believe that all Americans are created equal, and that the Federal government has no business setting quotas for any reason, least of all for the expressed purpose of achieving or attempting to achieve a racial or gender balance through discriminatory policies and practices.
Why This Is Important: America is the Land of Opportunity and home of what Lincoln called “the True American system,” whereby any one of us can rise just as high as our abilities and determination will take us. This “American Dream” has driven countless Americans to greatness, and propelled our society to achieve more in 230 years than some civilizations have achieved in 2300 years. We are motivated by the mere opportunity to succeed, and when that opportunity isn’t earned as a matter of simply being an engaged American citizen but rather through Federal intervention, it diminishes both the citizen and the achievement itself.
Constitutional Basis: There is no constitutional basis for racial or gender gerrymandering of any sort. However, our Founders did assert, and great wars have been fought, to confirm that we are all "created equal.” Our government was instituted to secure certain rights, including Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. But note that last part; it is the Pursuit that we are entitled to, not Happiness itself.
Quote: “I have a dream…that one day my children will be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” – Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Freedom from Government
Assertion: There is an axiom in politics that a government is more effective the closer it is to those being governed. We therefore assert that States rights are foremost; that they are paramount to maintaining liberty and justice for the individual Citizen; and that State rights supersede all rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution of the United States of America.
Why This Is Important: In 2009, the U.S. Government increased the Federal Minimum Wage to $7.25 per hour. Why is the Federal Government setting a “minimum wage” to begin with? Why was the President able to fire the CEO of General Motors? How do our members of Congress get away with voting themselves pay increases? Why is their healthcare plan different from yours? Why are their retirement packages so outrageously generous?
Constitutional Basis: Article I, Section 8 outlines the powers of Congress, noting that it is expected to “provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.” Among the powers enumerated are those pertaining to the establishment and collection of Duties, Excises, Tariffs and Taxes; the regulation of Commerce between States and other Nations; Naturalization; the coining of Money; the establishment of Post Offices and Roads; and the responsibility for declaring War and for providing the funds to wage War. These are the only powers granted to Congress. The Bill of Rights, Amendments IX and X, also clearly support the rights of individual States. Amendment IX points out that the powers enumerated in the Constitution should not be interpreted as granting the Federal government abilities “to deny or disparage (rights) retained by the people.” Amendment X clarifies this, fundamentally, by asserting that any powers not delegated to the United States are reserved to the States, or to the people.
Quote: “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” – Thomas Jefferson
Why This Is Important: In 2009, the U.S. Government increased the Federal Minimum Wage to $7.25 per hour. Why is the Federal Government setting a “minimum wage” to begin with? Why was the President able to fire the CEO of General Motors? How do our members of Congress get away with voting themselves pay increases? Why is their healthcare plan different from yours? Why are their retirement packages so outrageously generous?
Constitutional Basis: Article I, Section 8 outlines the powers of Congress, noting that it is expected to “provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.” Among the powers enumerated are those pertaining to the establishment and collection of Duties, Excises, Tariffs and Taxes; the regulation of Commerce between States and other Nations; Naturalization; the coining of Money; the establishment of Post Offices and Roads; and the responsibility for declaring War and for providing the funds to wage War. These are the only powers granted to Congress. The Bill of Rights, Amendments IX and X, also clearly support the rights of individual States. Amendment IX points out that the powers enumerated in the Constitution should not be interpreted as granting the Federal government abilities “to deny or disparage (rights) retained by the people.” Amendment X clarifies this, fundamentally, by asserting that any powers not delegated to the United States are reserved to the States, or to the people.
Quote: “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” – Thomas Jefferson
A New Way Forward
As I said last week, I am posting a platform designed to identify common ground among all Americans. It is my contention that we aren’t all that different; we’ve just been led astray, away from the fundamental principles upon which this great nation was birthed some 235 years ago.
The real impetus for this platform is to identify those principles, and to re-establish an allegiance to America’s core values as expressed in the Constitution of the United States of America. It is broken down into the major issues we must address – and sometimes confront – and I will be the first to say that, although these are in fact my words, I do not necessarily agree 100% with everything that I’ve written. I have tried to be as intellectually honest and open as I could possibly be, while keeping an eye toward what I feel are the essential tenets of our republic.
If you are a subscriber to the “blame America first” credo, or if you have a very limited understanding of the geopolitical realities faced by every nation on Earth (Do I repeat myself?), then you probably won’t fully appreciate the rationale behind many of the positions outlined below. The same thing may be said for "single-issue" voters, for those who stake their entire worldview on just one particular issue tend to be overly devoted to that issue, bordering on the manic, and they tend to have no room for compromise. I personally find this to be an immature and short-sighted approach, but to each his or her own. Having said that, if you can and do accept that America is good and that America strives to do as much good as is possible within certain very strict and very logical boundaries, then perhaps you will come to understand the fundamental assumption at the heart of this endeavor, which is this: I want people of all backgrounds and inclinations to read it and think: “You know? It isn’t perfect, but it does represent many of the very best ideals of America, and overall I can stand with my fellow Americans in support of those ideals.”
Within each “plank” you will find that I have provided an Assertion, which is generally a basic statement (or statements) of fact regarding the principle being presented. The Assertion, in turn, is supported with additional detail in Why This Is Important. Here I have sought, again, to nail down some of the particulars with regard to the basic premise of the Assertion. Where possible, I have sought to discern whether or not a Constitutional Basis exists to support the current state of things. While I am a student of the Constitution, I am no constitutional lawyer; this is my opinion and I welcome the counsel of those who are wiser than I. Finally, I added a Quote. This I did in order to add a little illumination to the subject at hand, and for no other reason than that I wanted to punctuate each plank with some “food for thought.” Speaking of which, here is a quote to kind of get things started:
"The path we will chart is not an easy one. It demands much of those chosen to govern, but also from those who did the choosing. And let there be no mistake about this: We have come to a crossroad, a time of decision and the path we follow turns away from any idea that government and those who serve it are omnipotent. It is a path impossible to follow unless we have faith in the collective wisdom and genius of the people. Along this path government will lead but not rule, listen but not lecture. It is the path of a Creative Society." – Ronald Reagan
The platform will be posted in a more or less alphabetical order, except for the first plank, which I feel sets the tone and is perhaps the most important one.
The real impetus for this platform is to identify those principles, and to re-establish an allegiance to America’s core values as expressed in the Constitution of the United States of America. It is broken down into the major issues we must address – and sometimes confront – and I will be the first to say that, although these are in fact my words, I do not necessarily agree 100% with everything that I’ve written. I have tried to be as intellectually honest and open as I could possibly be, while keeping an eye toward what I feel are the essential tenets of our republic.
If you are a subscriber to the “blame America first” credo, or if you have a very limited understanding of the geopolitical realities faced by every nation on Earth (Do I repeat myself?), then you probably won’t fully appreciate the rationale behind many of the positions outlined below. The same thing may be said for "single-issue" voters, for those who stake their entire worldview on just one particular issue tend to be overly devoted to that issue, bordering on the manic, and they tend to have no room for compromise. I personally find this to be an immature and short-sighted approach, but to each his or her own. Having said that, if you can and do accept that America is good and that America strives to do as much good as is possible within certain very strict and very logical boundaries, then perhaps you will come to understand the fundamental assumption at the heart of this endeavor, which is this: I want people of all backgrounds and inclinations to read it and think: “You know? It isn’t perfect, but it does represent many of the very best ideals of America, and overall I can stand with my fellow Americans in support of those ideals.”
Within each “plank” you will find that I have provided an Assertion, which is generally a basic statement (or statements) of fact regarding the principle being presented. The Assertion, in turn, is supported with additional detail in Why This Is Important. Here I have sought, again, to nail down some of the particulars with regard to the basic premise of the Assertion. Where possible, I have sought to discern whether or not a Constitutional Basis exists to support the current state of things. While I am a student of the Constitution, I am no constitutional lawyer; this is my opinion and I welcome the counsel of those who are wiser than I. Finally, I added a Quote. This I did in order to add a little illumination to the subject at hand, and for no other reason than that I wanted to punctuate each plank with some “food for thought.” Speaking of which, here is a quote to kind of get things started:
"The path we will chart is not an easy one. It demands much of those chosen to govern, but also from those who did the choosing. And let there be no mistake about this: We have come to a crossroad, a time of decision and the path we follow turns away from any idea that government and those who serve it are omnipotent. It is a path impossible to follow unless we have faith in the collective wisdom and genius of the people. Along this path government will lead but not rule, listen but not lecture. It is the path of a Creative Society." – Ronald Reagan
The platform will be posted in a more or less alphabetical order, except for the first plank, which I feel sets the tone and is perhaps the most important one.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Tea for Two
Let’s talk about what’s going on across America. Specifically, let’s talk about what seems to be confusing and confounding the politicians, pundits, and pollsters: The so-called Tea Party Movement. In Washington, D.C., and elsewhere, theories abound: The Tea Partiers are a Republican outfit, organized by FOX News to stir up dissent and to obstruct “the People’s business” of getting nationalized healthcare passed by Congress; or else they are called Tea Baggers (with the inevitable knowing smirk), labeled as a fringe group, a trifle merely to be dismissed by serious political observers. And there are those who are certain that this “rabble” will, like the cry-babies they are imagined to be, eventually fall asleep and become quiet.
I do not believe that any single one of these assumptions is correct, and I think that the so-called “experts” are not only wrong but are missing the point entirely. Not only that, but the movements themselves may be blinded by their own ambitions. There is a solution, but first let’s look at the problem:
In 1994, the Republican Party took Control of Congress after about 40 years in the political wilderness. They held a majority, or at least a plurality, until 2006, when several scandals, near scandals, and allegations of wrongdoing were brought to light. There was the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, Tom Delay was accused of violating campaign finance laws, Duke Cunningham was convicted of bribery, fraud and tax evasion, Mark Foley was accused of soliciting former congressional pages, and Scooter Libby took the fall for supposedly “outing” CIA agent Valerie Plame.
In 2006, the Democratic leadership crowed about the “culture of corruption” that was apparently fostered by the Republican majority in Congress. This drumbeat, amplified in the media echo chamber, led to Democratic victories in the 2006 elections, when Democrats took control of the House and the Senate. The new House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, vowed that the Democrats were going to have the “most open, most honest, and most ethical Congress in history.” What’s happened since then?
Representative William J. Jefferson, a Louisiana Democrat, was suspected by the FBI of bribery. They found $90,000 in his freezer and he was eventually convicted on 11 of 16 corruption charges. In New York, Elliot Spitzer, the Democratic Governor who made his name as a hard-charging, tough-as-nails New York Attorney General, resigned as a result of a prostitution scandal. David Paterson, Spitzer’s successor as Governor of New York, is currently being investigated for witness tampering, bid irregularities and charges that he lied under oath in regard to trying to use his position as Governor to get free World Series tickets from the New York Yankees. The House Ethics Committee is apparently investigating Charlie Rangel on accusations of tax fraud, using Congressional stationery to solicit donations for a public institute to be named after him, the Diageo Rum bailout, and other instances of influence peddling. Rep. Eric Massa, also of New York, is facing allegations of sexual harassment by a male staffer. In Connecticut, Democratic Senator Chris Dodd faced an Ethics Committee inquiry into “sweetheart loans” he received as a “friend of Angelo (Mozilo),” the CEO of Countrywide Financial, which includes what appears to be a staggering discount on a property purchased in Ireland. Similar allegations were leveled against North Dakota Democrat Kent Conrad. In 2008, despite questionable associations with disreputable characters such as Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, William Ayers, and ACORN (just to name a few), and having spent less than 180 days as the junior Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama was elected President of the United States. The Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, apparently tried to sell Obama’s lightly-used Senate seat to the highest bidder. He was impeached and removed from office.
As President, Mr. Obama promised to set a new ethical standard for American politics. He didn’t say that it would be a better or a higher standard, just that it would be a new standard, which quickly became apparent and hasn’t slowed down since he began naming Cabinet nominees from the “Office of the President-Elect.” Timothy Geithner, Tom Daschle, Ron Kirk, Nancy Killefer and Hilda Solis were all tainted by tax problems (during which Republican Rep. Eric Cantor quipped, “it’s easy for [Democrats] to sit here and advocate higher taxes because - you know what? - they don’t pay them.”). In order to push through the President’s plan to nationalize the nation’s healthcare system, in spite of being opposed by a vast majority of Americans, accommodations (read: “bribes”) were made to Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. Mr. Nelson’s $100,000,000 "Cornhusker Kickback" essentially makes the federal government responsible for all future Medicaid costs for all Nebraskans, forever. In Ms. Landrieu’s case, her “Louisiana Purchase” entails what amounts to a $300,000,000 Medicaid “boost” for her state. In both cases, the costs will be covered by the other 48 states.
In other news, former vice-presidential nominee and presidential candidate John Edwards has finally admitted fathering a child with a former campaign employee. The affair took place as Mr. Edwards’ wife battled cancer. As revelations of scientific misconduct surround the whole “man-made global warming” debacle, Al Gore, who used his political cache to cash in on the man-made hysteria, is looking more and more like a snake-oil salesman. And Nancy Pelosi? Well, when she isn’t flying family and friends back and forth between Washington, D.C. and San Francisco, or steering legislation that is favorable to her husband’s interests as a major shareholder in Starkist, she is presumably still working on that whole “most open, most honest, and most ethical Congress in history” thing. I’ll bet she wishes she had said they would “set a new standard” for openness, honesty and ethics, instead.
I could go on all day, but if you want more detail on the real “culture of corruption,” I suggest you read Donkey Con, a 2006 book written by Lynn Vincent and Robert Stacy McCain. In it, the authors point out that "the Democratic Party has a 200-year history of urban corruption, treason and subversion, mob control, alliance with corrupt unions, and aiding and abetting criminals that has no parallel in the GOP.”
True or not – and I happen to know that it is true; the authors back up their assertions with over 600 end notes – it doesn’t really help us to address the essential problem that is inherent in our political system. The truth is, we are talking about human beings, and no one is perfect, right? Mistakes will be made – but how can we minimize them?
I think we may be going about this whole thing the wrong way: Instead of asking or expecting our representatives in Washington to be perfect little angels while surrounded by that special sort of corruption that grows up around special interests, we (The People) must simply take care to ensure that they aren’t exposed to it for very long. That’s right: I’m talking about limiting their time in Washington by taking an anti-incumbent position during every election.
Hear me out.
What if we moved back toward the system of self-government as imagined by the Founding Fathers set forth in the Constitution? What if we sent farmers, plumbers and clerks to represent us instead of lawyers and career politicians? What if we simply took turns, and sent a new representative to Washington every election cycle? What is the upside? What is the downside?
For starters, it would undoubtedly get more Americans engaged in the political process. Today’s elections have devolved to the point where we, as a nation, are more concerned with what a candidate looks like, or well he or she speaks, than the content of their character. It’s become American Idolized. What if there were good, solid, potential candidates on every block?
As for the way Congress operates, have you ever wondered why so many laws are on the books? Do we really need all of that legislation? Perhaps we should also consider limiting the amount of time our representatives actually spend in Washington. Let them meet only in June, July, and August. If they have only 90 days to conduct business, doesn’t it stand to reason that they would have to prioritize, and work on only the most important legislation? The rest of the time they will be in their local office, meeting with their constituents and hearing their concerns.
If we send everyday people to Washington, and for only a short time, a one-time only thing, then we needn’t worry about funding elaborate retirement plans for them. As citizen-legislators, they go, they legislate, and when they are done serving, they come home and return to their job or their career. The same would hold true for their staff. Would a one-term representative, in town for just three months, need a staff of thirty people to get the job done? Think of all the perks that would be reduced or eliminated simply as a matter of their limited time in Washington. Now, imagine the cost savings to the American taxpayer.
Of course, the power of K-Street lobbyists would shrink. Their business model would certainly have to be re-thought. How do you influence someone who has come to Washington on a short-term mission to serve their communities back home? They have no re-election to worry about, no campaign chest to fill. But that can cut both ways, nes pas? Again, this is why we must concern ourselves with character when selecting our representatives.
What would this mean to the National Committees, both Republican and Democratic? Would their power and influence be diminished as well? My guess is that they probably would, and other groups and movements would find a larger voice in the political process. The will of individual communities would probably begin to take precedence over the desires of the current (for all intents and purposes) two-party system.
As I said, I don’t think that the true message that is inherent in the current dissatisfaction being demonstrated by disaffected Americans is being heard. I think that the entrenched political machines are, instead, ignoring the larger Truth of what has been happening. We are talking about bringing some fundamental changes to our system of self-rule and self-government. We are talking about the end of “party lines” and of the one-size-fits-all mentality endemic to the current two-party system. We are talking about the possibility of taking back our government, reforming and reformulating it to reflect the common sense needs of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Next week, I will post a platform to address those needs. It isn’t meant to be an entirely comprehensive, all-inclusive game plan, but merely to serve as a starting point for discussion. It is a Constitution-based "declaration," of sorts, designed to find common ground among Americans who think and believe that we can and should have a far better government than we have. I look forward to reading your comments.
I do not believe that any single one of these assumptions is correct, and I think that the so-called “experts” are not only wrong but are missing the point entirely. Not only that, but the movements themselves may be blinded by their own ambitions. There is a solution, but first let’s look at the problem:
In 1994, the Republican Party took Control of Congress after about 40 years in the political wilderness. They held a majority, or at least a plurality, until 2006, when several scandals, near scandals, and allegations of wrongdoing were brought to light. There was the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, Tom Delay was accused of violating campaign finance laws, Duke Cunningham was convicted of bribery, fraud and tax evasion, Mark Foley was accused of soliciting former congressional pages, and Scooter Libby took the fall for supposedly “outing” CIA agent Valerie Plame.
In 2006, the Democratic leadership crowed about the “culture of corruption” that was apparently fostered by the Republican majority in Congress. This drumbeat, amplified in the media echo chamber, led to Democratic victories in the 2006 elections, when Democrats took control of the House and the Senate. The new House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, vowed that the Democrats were going to have the “most open, most honest, and most ethical Congress in history.” What’s happened since then?
Representative William J. Jefferson, a Louisiana Democrat, was suspected by the FBI of bribery. They found $90,000 in his freezer and he was eventually convicted on 11 of 16 corruption charges. In New York, Elliot Spitzer, the Democratic Governor who made his name as a hard-charging, tough-as-nails New York Attorney General, resigned as a result of a prostitution scandal. David Paterson, Spitzer’s successor as Governor of New York, is currently being investigated for witness tampering, bid irregularities and charges that he lied under oath in regard to trying to use his position as Governor to get free World Series tickets from the New York Yankees. The House Ethics Committee is apparently investigating Charlie Rangel on accusations of tax fraud, using Congressional stationery to solicit donations for a public institute to be named after him, the Diageo Rum bailout, and other instances of influence peddling. Rep. Eric Massa, also of New York, is facing allegations of sexual harassment by a male staffer. In Connecticut, Democratic Senator Chris Dodd faced an Ethics Committee inquiry into “sweetheart loans” he received as a “friend of Angelo (Mozilo),” the CEO of Countrywide Financial, which includes what appears to be a staggering discount on a property purchased in Ireland. Similar allegations were leveled against North Dakota Democrat Kent Conrad. In 2008, despite questionable associations with disreputable characters such as Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, William Ayers, and ACORN (just to name a few), and having spent less than 180 days as the junior Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama was elected President of the United States. The Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, apparently tried to sell Obama’s lightly-used Senate seat to the highest bidder. He was impeached and removed from office.
As President, Mr. Obama promised to set a new ethical standard for American politics. He didn’t say that it would be a better or a higher standard, just that it would be a new standard, which quickly became apparent and hasn’t slowed down since he began naming Cabinet nominees from the “Office of the President-Elect.” Timothy Geithner, Tom Daschle, Ron Kirk, Nancy Killefer and Hilda Solis were all tainted by tax problems (during which Republican Rep. Eric Cantor quipped, “it’s easy for [Democrats] to sit here and advocate higher taxes because - you know what? - they don’t pay them.”). In order to push through the President’s plan to nationalize the nation’s healthcare system, in spite of being opposed by a vast majority of Americans, accommodations (read: “bribes”) were made to Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. Mr. Nelson’s $100,000,000 "Cornhusker Kickback" essentially makes the federal government responsible for all future Medicaid costs for all Nebraskans, forever. In Ms. Landrieu’s case, her “Louisiana Purchase” entails what amounts to a $300,000,000 Medicaid “boost” for her state. In both cases, the costs will be covered by the other 48 states.
In other news, former vice-presidential nominee and presidential candidate John Edwards has finally admitted fathering a child with a former campaign employee. The affair took place as Mr. Edwards’ wife battled cancer. As revelations of scientific misconduct surround the whole “man-made global warming” debacle, Al Gore, who used his political cache to cash in on the man-made hysteria, is looking more and more like a snake-oil salesman. And Nancy Pelosi? Well, when she isn’t flying family and friends back and forth between Washington, D.C. and San Francisco, or steering legislation that is favorable to her husband’s interests as a major shareholder in Starkist, she is presumably still working on that whole “most open, most honest, and most ethical Congress in history” thing. I’ll bet she wishes she had said they would “set a new standard” for openness, honesty and ethics, instead.
I could go on all day, but if you want more detail on the real “culture of corruption,” I suggest you read Donkey Con, a 2006 book written by Lynn Vincent and Robert Stacy McCain. In it, the authors point out that "the Democratic Party has a 200-year history of urban corruption, treason and subversion, mob control, alliance with corrupt unions, and aiding and abetting criminals that has no parallel in the GOP.”
True or not – and I happen to know that it is true; the authors back up their assertions with over 600 end notes – it doesn’t really help us to address the essential problem that is inherent in our political system. The truth is, we are talking about human beings, and no one is perfect, right? Mistakes will be made – but how can we minimize them?
I think we may be going about this whole thing the wrong way: Instead of asking or expecting our representatives in Washington to be perfect little angels while surrounded by that special sort of corruption that grows up around special interests, we (The People) must simply take care to ensure that they aren’t exposed to it for very long. That’s right: I’m talking about limiting their time in Washington by taking an anti-incumbent position during every election.
Hear me out.
What if we moved back toward the system of self-government as imagined by the Founding Fathers set forth in the Constitution? What if we sent farmers, plumbers and clerks to represent us instead of lawyers and career politicians? What if we simply took turns, and sent a new representative to Washington every election cycle? What is the upside? What is the downside?
For starters, it would undoubtedly get more Americans engaged in the political process. Today’s elections have devolved to the point where we, as a nation, are more concerned with what a candidate looks like, or well he or she speaks, than the content of their character. It’s become American Idolized. What if there were good, solid, potential candidates on every block?
As for the way Congress operates, have you ever wondered why so many laws are on the books? Do we really need all of that legislation? Perhaps we should also consider limiting the amount of time our representatives actually spend in Washington. Let them meet only in June, July, and August. If they have only 90 days to conduct business, doesn’t it stand to reason that they would have to prioritize, and work on only the most important legislation? The rest of the time they will be in their local office, meeting with their constituents and hearing their concerns.
If we send everyday people to Washington, and for only a short time, a one-time only thing, then we needn’t worry about funding elaborate retirement plans for them. As citizen-legislators, they go, they legislate, and when they are done serving, they come home and return to their job or their career. The same would hold true for their staff. Would a one-term representative, in town for just three months, need a staff of thirty people to get the job done? Think of all the perks that would be reduced or eliminated simply as a matter of their limited time in Washington. Now, imagine the cost savings to the American taxpayer.
Of course, the power of K-Street lobbyists would shrink. Their business model would certainly have to be re-thought. How do you influence someone who has come to Washington on a short-term mission to serve their communities back home? They have no re-election to worry about, no campaign chest to fill. But that can cut both ways, nes pas? Again, this is why we must concern ourselves with character when selecting our representatives.
What would this mean to the National Committees, both Republican and Democratic? Would their power and influence be diminished as well? My guess is that they probably would, and other groups and movements would find a larger voice in the political process. The will of individual communities would probably begin to take precedence over the desires of the current (for all intents and purposes) two-party system.
As I said, I don’t think that the true message that is inherent in the current dissatisfaction being demonstrated by disaffected Americans is being heard. I think that the entrenched political machines are, instead, ignoring the larger Truth of what has been happening. We are talking about bringing some fundamental changes to our system of self-rule and self-government. We are talking about the end of “party lines” and of the one-size-fits-all mentality endemic to the current two-party system. We are talking about the possibility of taking back our government, reforming and reformulating it to reflect the common sense needs of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Next week, I will post a platform to address those needs. It isn’t meant to be an entirely comprehensive, all-inclusive game plan, but merely to serve as a starting point for discussion. It is a Constitution-based "declaration," of sorts, designed to find common ground among Americans who think and believe that we can and should have a far better government than we have. I look forward to reading your comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)