Friday, February 29, 2008
William F. Buckley, Jr. RIP
My prayers and sympathy go out to Bill's family, friends and the staff at National Review. He will be greatly missed. Our loss is Heaven's gain. Now at least God has someone to talk with!! Just kidding, I think Bill would love that. (wry grin!)
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
It's None of Your Business!
What is the primary purpose of a private U.S. business?
- Provide jobs and benefits for people
- Make the best product possible
- Generate a profit for the owners
- Collect taxes for the government
- Boost the country's economy
- Provide products/services for customers
What is the one best answer?
Comrade Chairperson Hillary's Healthcare Highwaymen
Knock, knock, knock.
Shuffling noises inside, door opens.
Mr. Workerbee, “Hi, can I help you?”
Agent #1, “Good morning and greetings from your federal government wealthy contributor.”
Mr. W., “Well, I don’t know about the wealthy part. I work for Home Depot, my wife is a school teacher and we have four children. And why are you wearing sidearms?”
Agent #2, “Pay no attention to the guns, they are for your protection citizen. Now trust me, you are wealthy. We are here to collect your contribution for your neighbor’s hip replacement. Mrs. Hap E. Retiree down the street is tired of maneuvering her government-supplied Hoveround power chair around the Cripple Creek casinos and would like a new hip. Could you please get your checkbook.”
Mr. W., “Wait a minute. Why should I pay for her hip replacement? I have four hungry kids to feed. If I contribute to her surgery that’s less milk that I can buy for my family.”
Agent #1, “No problem. When we talk to her we will collect voluntary federal milk program contribution. But I am troubled by your lack of compassion for fellow American.”
Mr. W., “Why can’t she buy private health insurance to cover these things? People who want to participate pay premiums and in return they get benefits. If you don’t want to pay you don’t have to, and you don’t get the benefits either. You take care of your own health needs. It’s a voluntary choice.”
Agent #2, “Sir, you try our patience. If Mrs. Retiree had to pay premiums herself she would have less money to double-down on split 10’s. You have no respect for our venerable senior citizens.”
Mr. W., “Where does the constitutional authority for this program come from?”
Agent #1, “Um, er it comes from the, um new healthcare amendment.”
Mr. W., “I don’t recall hearing of any such amendment.”
Agent #2, “It’s the Smith & Wesson Amendment. You ask too many questions. Now write the check or we go talk to your employer.”
Sounds of hurried scribbling of pen on paper with sound of cold steel locking and loading in background.
Agent #1, (smiling broadly) “Your government and neighbor thank you for your compassionate voluntary contribution. Now please get to work. I will be needing colonoscopy soon.”
Door slams.
Shuffling noises inside, door opens.
Mr. Workerbee, “Hi, can I help you?”
Agent #1, “Good morning and greetings from your federal government wealthy contributor.”
Mr. W., “Well, I don’t know about the wealthy part. I work for Home Depot, my wife is a school teacher and we have four children. And why are you wearing sidearms?”
Agent #2, “Pay no attention to the guns, they are for your protection citizen. Now trust me, you are wealthy. We are here to collect your contribution for your neighbor’s hip replacement. Mrs. Hap E. Retiree down the street is tired of maneuvering her government-supplied Hoveround power chair around the Cripple Creek casinos and would like a new hip. Could you please get your checkbook.”
Mr. W., “Wait a minute. Why should I pay for her hip replacement? I have four hungry kids to feed. If I contribute to her surgery that’s less milk that I can buy for my family.”
Agent #1, “No problem. When we talk to her we will collect voluntary federal milk program contribution. But I am troubled by your lack of compassion for fellow American.”
Mr. W., “Why can’t she buy private health insurance to cover these things? People who want to participate pay premiums and in return they get benefits. If you don’t want to pay you don’t have to, and you don’t get the benefits either. You take care of your own health needs. It’s a voluntary choice.”
Agent #2, “Sir, you try our patience. If Mrs. Retiree had to pay premiums herself she would have less money to double-down on split 10’s. You have no respect for our venerable senior citizens.”
Mr. W., “Where does the constitutional authority for this program come from?”
Agent #1, “Um, er it comes from the, um new healthcare amendment.”
Mr. W., “I don’t recall hearing of any such amendment.”
Agent #2, “It’s the Smith & Wesson Amendment. You ask too many questions. Now write the check or we go talk to your employer.”
Sounds of hurried scribbling of pen on paper with sound of cold steel locking and loading in background.
Agent #1, (smiling broadly) “Your government and neighbor thank you for your compassionate voluntary contribution. Now please get to work. I will be needing colonoscopy soon.”
Door slams.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Government, Mend Thyself?
How do ‘We the People’ rein in the runaway federal government? My how things have changed in just over 200 years. What started as a compromise between thirteen fledgling colonies to provide a few functions that they felt could be accomplished more efficiently collectively rather than individually, has become a monstrous doomsday machine, devouring everything and everyone in its path. It has its long bony finger in just about every pot in the country. As the old saw goes, a government that has the power to give you anything you want also has the power to take everything you have. And don’t think it’s not trying. From your money to your kids to your freedoms, nothing is safe from its reach. In the midst of this why are so many people so complacent?
Undoubtedly the sad state of education over the last 50 years, whether accidental or intentional has led to a pervasive misunderstanding of our nation’s history and governmental structure. While the progression of our founding started with settlements which became colonies which became states which begat the federal government, many people don’t really understand this. I think that there is a belief amongst too many that the states are merely subunits and extensions of the federal government. Nothing could be further from the truth. The states created the federal government to serve them. In fact, the states had to have individual state constitutions before they could draft a federal constitution. The federal government is actually subservient to the states. Well, at least it was originally intended to be that way. That is why U.S. Senators were originally elected by the states, not the people. The President is actually the President of the United States of America, not the people directly. This explains the existence of the Electoral College. The people elect their respective states’ slate of Presidential Electors who meet and select the President. They usually vote the wishes of the people of their state, but are not bound to and on occasion have not. The President, and originally the Senate represented the states, not the people of the country at-large. Truth be told, the election of the President should be a relatively minor event. Given the President’s relatively minor role in the day-to-day running of the federal government, the things that really impact the average citizen’s life on a daily basis; I am amazed at how much time, money and attention is focused on that one election. It’s the state elections that should really be the battleground since the states wield most of the power in the country. After state elections the election of federal Representatives should occupy more of the people’s interest. After all, the House of Representatives was designed to be the People’s House. That is why tax and spending bills must originate there. It is the people’s balance to the states’ representation.
A strict reading of the Constitution and Bill of Rights is a sobering and eye-opening experience. You can’t read those documents and fail to come to the conclusion that probably 80% or more of the meddling of the federal government is simply unauthorized and furthermore expressly prohibited. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments are the most ignored tenets of the lot, while the Fourteenth is one of the most misinterpreted and misapplied. The Founding Fathers had a strong fear of powerful centralized government, a la King George (no, not Washington). Thus, these amendments stipulate that powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people. Today it seems that the federal government has the position that it holds all power and grants some limited power at times to the states, and none to the people. And the band played The World Turned Upside Down. For example, look at the metastatic bastardization of the infamous Interstate Commerce Clause. This innocuous little passage has been twisted so as to give cover to the Feds to regulate virtually anything and everything on a whim. The Founders realized that every future situation could not be addressed at the time of the writing of the Constitution so methods of amending it were written into the document. That process has been utilized 26 times since ratification. Sadly, the various branches of the federal government have taken it upon themselves to simply ignore these established legal procedures and in effect ‘amend’ the Constitution anytime following its edicts becomes obstructive to their agendas. The recent Kelo Supreme Court decision granting eminent domain authority for private rather than public use is perhaps the most egregious example of adverse illegal ‘constitutional amendment’ in memory. The protection of private property was a central motivation for the establishment of our nation and the Constitution. I sincerely believe that the five justices who voted in favor of Kelo committed an impeachable offense and rightly should have been impeached and removed from the bench.
So what are we suffering masses to do? Well, I see several possible responses.
The simplest and by default the current state of affairs is to do nothing and tolerate whatever abuse we are handed. This is the response of ignorance and apathy. By taking this course of inaction we will have effectively repealed our Constitution and become a nation ruled by the whim of the government. All of our rights and protections will be null and void for all practical purposes. The federal government will be free to take whatever it wants at any time and to regulate any and every aspect of our lives. This would usher in creeping socialization of many aspects of our lives and ever-increasing taxes and regulations. Productivity will invariably falter and businesses will begin to move off-shore and overseas, with resultant loss of jobs and shrinking tax base. As more and more illegal aliens pour across our non-existent borders, the strain on social services and the shrinking tax base will be disastrous for the economy. The preeminence of the United States on the world stage will decline to no more than the level of the decrepit European socialist states, producing little and providing no incentive to its citizens to achieve more than long vacations and short work weeks.
Another solution that is widely discussed by those actually concerned about our current course is that of trying to recruit and elect better politicians to national office. On the surface it sounds promising but history does not bode well for this fix. We have been doing just this for over 200 years and I believe that the situation is growing worse at an ever-accelerating pace. Even if we can somehow get ‘better’ people to Washington, most of them are devoured by the inside-the-beltway culture and overrun by the perpetual bureaucracy within a short time. This is one argument against term limits. That process does not address the underlying problem of bureaucratic indoctrination. While bad politicians may be thrown out, good ones are given the boot as well. Then, nothing protects newly elected replacements from being quickly corrupted. On first blush I believe that the idea of somehow getter ‘better’ people to Washington is, by itself a very dubious proposition. Keeping them ‘better’ for any period of time in that D.C. cesspool is virtually impossible. The dirty little secret is that so much of our federal government has become entrenched as self-fulfilling bureaucratic behemoths. These agencies and programs have lives of their own that exist for decades as administrations, political parties and legislators come and go. They are not affected by the prevailing political tilt of the day. They are not changed by the politicians, but rather they shape and mold the politicians to suit their ongoing needs. The bureaucrats that run these agencies and programs control huge budgets and will be in their positions long after the President and Congress change hands. They wield great influence over the legislators. By convincing the legislators to perpetuate the bureaucratic status quo, theses bureaucrats provide the illusion of great power and influence via the power of the purse to the egotistical legislators. Furthermore, legislators themselves soon become focused on their own political survival and obtaining territorial power rather than doing what is right for the country and the people that they ostensibly represent. They are unlikely to pass reform that refocuses the federal government on its rather limited constitutional responsibility and turn power (and money) back to the states and the people. Human nature being what it is they are much more inclined to seek to broaden their power and influence, not limit it. Why would they voluntarily relegate themselves to the political sideline and give the States the limelight?
So what legal recourse do ‘We the People’ have over the various branches of the federal government to hold them accountable to the Constitution? They have demonstrated repeatedly that the concept of the balance of power between the three branches has broken down. It has become an unholy triumvirate. Each enables the others so that they will in turn be enabled. With a wink and a nod they turn a blind eye to the abuses of one branch, knowing full well that branch will do the same for them. In this way, each is assured of being able to ram through its unconstitutional agenda unencumbered by any fear of checks and balances. When the police will not police the police, what are we to do? If we sue one of the branches of government for its perceived illegal activity, the case will ultimately wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court, one of the parties to the scam. How can we get justice? The fix is in. What are the penalties for a branch of the federal government violating the Constitution? It is the supreme law of the land, right? Can and would the states step up to the plate and take action? But what action? Some have put forth the idea that county sheriffs evict federal agencies from offices and buildings within their respective counties. We could defund the federal government by withholding federal income tax payments. This would be a gargantuan undertaking given that approximately 95% of income taxes are withheld from paychecks. The cooperation of businesses big and small across the country would be required and probably very difficult to secure. How about a Constitutional Convention to draft amendments to provide enforcement power and real legal sanctions against unconstitutional activity by any of the three federal branches? Do the States have the chutzpah to pull that off?
Could an armed rebellion against the federal government ever occur again here? Texas retains the right to actually legally secede from the United States and factions there have discussed that possibility. How seriously and widespread is anyone’s guess. For historical reference the opening passages of the Declaration of Independence lay out the reasons for the Colonies forceful separation from Great Britain. Similar justifications would certainly be required to convince the world and our citizens of the necessity for such drastic action, following long suffering and other peaceful attempts to redress grievances. While I am not advocating a violent overthrow of our federal government, history teaches that this is a common end to governments gone awry, even to this day. What this nation would look like after such a conflagration and depending upon what faction prevails would be anybody’s guess. The outcome would probably have a lot to do with which side the military allies, which is why many of these coup d’etats are led by generals and result in military dictatorial governments. The interesting twist in this instance is that no new Constitution would need to be drafted. The current constitution would simply be enforced and the government reconstituted according to its specific dictates. In essence, a return to normalcy. A return to the federal government that we used to have and should have. Simply put a civil war to ‘throw the bums out.’ Hopefully, we would get getter bums. We might need a few correctly enacted Constitutional Amendments to avert future similar diversions. One I can think of is William F. Buckley, Jr’s., ‘there are no penumbras or emanations.’
“Is anybody there? Does anybody care? Does anybody see what I see?”
Undoubtedly the sad state of education over the last 50 years, whether accidental or intentional has led to a pervasive misunderstanding of our nation’s history and governmental structure. While the progression of our founding started with settlements which became colonies which became states which begat the federal government, many people don’t really understand this. I think that there is a belief amongst too many that the states are merely subunits and extensions of the federal government. Nothing could be further from the truth. The states created the federal government to serve them. In fact, the states had to have individual state constitutions before they could draft a federal constitution. The federal government is actually subservient to the states. Well, at least it was originally intended to be that way. That is why U.S. Senators were originally elected by the states, not the people. The President is actually the President of the United States of America, not the people directly. This explains the existence of the Electoral College. The people elect their respective states’ slate of Presidential Electors who meet and select the President. They usually vote the wishes of the people of their state, but are not bound to and on occasion have not. The President, and originally the Senate represented the states, not the people of the country at-large. Truth be told, the election of the President should be a relatively minor event. Given the President’s relatively minor role in the day-to-day running of the federal government, the things that really impact the average citizen’s life on a daily basis; I am amazed at how much time, money and attention is focused on that one election. It’s the state elections that should really be the battleground since the states wield most of the power in the country. After state elections the election of federal Representatives should occupy more of the people’s interest. After all, the House of Representatives was designed to be the People’s House. That is why tax and spending bills must originate there. It is the people’s balance to the states’ representation.
A strict reading of the Constitution and Bill of Rights is a sobering and eye-opening experience. You can’t read those documents and fail to come to the conclusion that probably 80% or more of the meddling of the federal government is simply unauthorized and furthermore expressly prohibited. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments are the most ignored tenets of the lot, while the Fourteenth is one of the most misinterpreted and misapplied. The Founding Fathers had a strong fear of powerful centralized government, a la King George (no, not Washington). Thus, these amendments stipulate that powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people. Today it seems that the federal government has the position that it holds all power and grants some limited power at times to the states, and none to the people. And the band played The World Turned Upside Down. For example, look at the metastatic bastardization of the infamous Interstate Commerce Clause. This innocuous little passage has been twisted so as to give cover to the Feds to regulate virtually anything and everything on a whim. The Founders realized that every future situation could not be addressed at the time of the writing of the Constitution so methods of amending it were written into the document. That process has been utilized 26 times since ratification. Sadly, the various branches of the federal government have taken it upon themselves to simply ignore these established legal procedures and in effect ‘amend’ the Constitution anytime following its edicts becomes obstructive to their agendas. The recent Kelo Supreme Court decision granting eminent domain authority for private rather than public use is perhaps the most egregious example of adverse illegal ‘constitutional amendment’ in memory. The protection of private property was a central motivation for the establishment of our nation and the Constitution. I sincerely believe that the five justices who voted in favor of Kelo committed an impeachable offense and rightly should have been impeached and removed from the bench.
So what are we suffering masses to do? Well, I see several possible responses.
The simplest and by default the current state of affairs is to do nothing and tolerate whatever abuse we are handed. This is the response of ignorance and apathy. By taking this course of inaction we will have effectively repealed our Constitution and become a nation ruled by the whim of the government. All of our rights and protections will be null and void for all practical purposes. The federal government will be free to take whatever it wants at any time and to regulate any and every aspect of our lives. This would usher in creeping socialization of many aspects of our lives and ever-increasing taxes and regulations. Productivity will invariably falter and businesses will begin to move off-shore and overseas, with resultant loss of jobs and shrinking tax base. As more and more illegal aliens pour across our non-existent borders, the strain on social services and the shrinking tax base will be disastrous for the economy. The preeminence of the United States on the world stage will decline to no more than the level of the decrepit European socialist states, producing little and providing no incentive to its citizens to achieve more than long vacations and short work weeks.
Another solution that is widely discussed by those actually concerned about our current course is that of trying to recruit and elect better politicians to national office. On the surface it sounds promising but history does not bode well for this fix. We have been doing just this for over 200 years and I believe that the situation is growing worse at an ever-accelerating pace. Even if we can somehow get ‘better’ people to Washington, most of them are devoured by the inside-the-beltway culture and overrun by the perpetual bureaucracy within a short time. This is one argument against term limits. That process does not address the underlying problem of bureaucratic indoctrination. While bad politicians may be thrown out, good ones are given the boot as well. Then, nothing protects newly elected replacements from being quickly corrupted. On first blush I believe that the idea of somehow getter ‘better’ people to Washington is, by itself a very dubious proposition. Keeping them ‘better’ for any period of time in that D.C. cesspool is virtually impossible. The dirty little secret is that so much of our federal government has become entrenched as self-fulfilling bureaucratic behemoths. These agencies and programs have lives of their own that exist for decades as administrations, political parties and legislators come and go. They are not affected by the prevailing political tilt of the day. They are not changed by the politicians, but rather they shape and mold the politicians to suit their ongoing needs. The bureaucrats that run these agencies and programs control huge budgets and will be in their positions long after the President and Congress change hands. They wield great influence over the legislators. By convincing the legislators to perpetuate the bureaucratic status quo, theses bureaucrats provide the illusion of great power and influence via the power of the purse to the egotistical legislators. Furthermore, legislators themselves soon become focused on their own political survival and obtaining territorial power rather than doing what is right for the country and the people that they ostensibly represent. They are unlikely to pass reform that refocuses the federal government on its rather limited constitutional responsibility and turn power (and money) back to the states and the people. Human nature being what it is they are much more inclined to seek to broaden their power and influence, not limit it. Why would they voluntarily relegate themselves to the political sideline and give the States the limelight?
So what legal recourse do ‘We the People’ have over the various branches of the federal government to hold them accountable to the Constitution? They have demonstrated repeatedly that the concept of the balance of power between the three branches has broken down. It has become an unholy triumvirate. Each enables the others so that they will in turn be enabled. With a wink and a nod they turn a blind eye to the abuses of one branch, knowing full well that branch will do the same for them. In this way, each is assured of being able to ram through its unconstitutional agenda unencumbered by any fear of checks and balances. When the police will not police the police, what are we to do? If we sue one of the branches of government for its perceived illegal activity, the case will ultimately wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court, one of the parties to the scam. How can we get justice? The fix is in. What are the penalties for a branch of the federal government violating the Constitution? It is the supreme law of the land, right? Can and would the states step up to the plate and take action? But what action? Some have put forth the idea that county sheriffs evict federal agencies from offices and buildings within their respective counties. We could defund the federal government by withholding federal income tax payments. This would be a gargantuan undertaking given that approximately 95% of income taxes are withheld from paychecks. The cooperation of businesses big and small across the country would be required and probably very difficult to secure. How about a Constitutional Convention to draft amendments to provide enforcement power and real legal sanctions against unconstitutional activity by any of the three federal branches? Do the States have the chutzpah to pull that off?
Could an armed rebellion against the federal government ever occur again here? Texas retains the right to actually legally secede from the United States and factions there have discussed that possibility. How seriously and widespread is anyone’s guess. For historical reference the opening passages of the Declaration of Independence lay out the reasons for the Colonies forceful separation from Great Britain. Similar justifications would certainly be required to convince the world and our citizens of the necessity for such drastic action, following long suffering and other peaceful attempts to redress grievances. While I am not advocating a violent overthrow of our federal government, history teaches that this is a common end to governments gone awry, even to this day. What this nation would look like after such a conflagration and depending upon what faction prevails would be anybody’s guess. The outcome would probably have a lot to do with which side the military allies, which is why many of these coup d’etats are led by generals and result in military dictatorial governments. The interesting twist in this instance is that no new Constitution would need to be drafted. The current constitution would simply be enforced and the government reconstituted according to its specific dictates. In essence, a return to normalcy. A return to the federal government that we used to have and should have. Simply put a civil war to ‘throw the bums out.’ Hopefully, we would get getter bums. We might need a few correctly enacted Constitutional Amendments to avert future similar diversions. One I can think of is William F. Buckley, Jr’s., ‘there are no penumbras or emanations.’
“Is anybody there? Does anybody care? Does anybody see what I see?”
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Dear, I Think We're Lost...
The federal government has wandered so far off of the Constitutional reservation that I don't think they could find it with a Tom-Tom.
Senator Salazar, Esq. to the Rescue!?
Greetings Senator (Ken) Salazar, D-Colorado;
Thank you for responding to my question about federal healthcare programs. Out of all of the people I contacted you are the only one to take time to write back. My question went to the root of the constitutional authority for the federal government to implement, run or oversee such programs, whether ‘mandatory’ (such as Medicare) or voluntary. From your letter it seems that you look to the Preamble to empower the federal government in these programs.
“Congress has the right to provide for the general welfare of the people whom they serve and it is clear that the general welfare of children lacking health care coverage is significantly and negatively affected.” -Senator Ken Salazar, January 17, 2008
Is that what they teach in law school classes on constitutional law in Michigan? That the Preamble empowers Congress? Under that theory there would need be no additional substance to the Constitution. The Preamble would empower Congress to do anything it wants relative to the ‘general welfare.’ How convenient. But there is much more to the Constitution than the Preamble. Why so? Perhaps because most (nay, all) constitutional scholars maintain that the Preamble is merely a statement of purpose, an explanation of why the constitution is being offered. It is a prelude to the actual empowering language that is to follow. It authorizes and empowers not a wit. Congress’ powers reside and are limited to Article 2, Section 8.
Pre-am-ble: noun: an introductory statement (as to a contract); especially: the introductory part of a constitution or statute that usually states the reasons for and intent of the law. Note: While preambles do not state law and therefore are not judicially enforceable, they are used to determine legislative intent when interpreting statutes. –Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law
So, upon perusal of Article 2, Section 8 I am still at a loss to find any empowering language for federal healthcare programs. Can you possibly further instruct?
Don't Argue with One Who Commands Lightening
Anything done by man, can be undone by man. Only things done by God cannot be undone by man. And nothing done by God can be undone by man.
Kooks Unite!
Does anyone else out there get the feeling that politicians think it is serious business to endlessly debate the fine points of some silly, insignificant legislation, but raising a question of the constitutionality of some government action or program is laughed off as quaint and irrelevant? They tend to relegate people who ask such questions to the fringes of the process, labelling them as unwashed hicks, historical daydreamers or frank kooks. In fact, many of these people are serious intellectual heavyweights. And the question of keeping the federal governement within the constitutional guardrails is of supreme importance. After all, the constitution is the supreme law of the land, is it not? It is the document which really does define what the federal government can and cannot do. Many serious people believe that much, if not most of what the feds engage in is in fact unconstitutional. Such discussions, however get in the way of activist politicians and judges advancing their personal agendas. So the agreed upon ruse is to just pretend that the constitution really does not exist, it really does not mean what it says and, you know it's really intended only for a long-gone era, not the present modern day. It's interesting to study as history, but no one of any real substance takes it seriously these days. Besides, only we elevated and enlightened members of the political intelligentsia can interpret the mysterious and deep hidden inner meanings of the constitution and find penumbras and emanations that mere mortals can never see. Those people who run around waving it their faces are just goofballs from fly-over country. Ignore them and they will go back to hunting and attending church, harmless and pointless activities. With politicians in collusion with judges on the scam there is no threat that the federal juggernaut will be reigned in. I hear the Founders calling from their graves for justice!
Friday, February 08, 2008
Tradition!
I feel a bit like Tevye in 'Fiddler on the Roof' vis a vis the Republican party and the conservative movement. One by one his core traditional values were stripped from him. Finally near the end of the play he cries 'enough!' and will not accept any further erosion of those values. I believe that it is time for the true conservatives to draw a line in the sand and refuse to cross it. Since 1988 we have been told by the Republican establishment that if we will just hold our noses and help them get their candidates elected (because you know this is the best we're going to get right now), then they will advance some of our causes. Year after year we go along and hold up our end of the bargain only to be shafted every time when it comes time to really do something conservative. George W. Bush squandered the time that he had both houses of Congress. Oh, we get a little lip service from time-to-time, but we never saw any real movement on true tax reform, abortion, illegal immigration or reform of Social Security and Medicare; just to name a few. Why should we keep up this farce? The emperor has no clothes! Our nation has wandered so far off of the Constitutional reservation that I don't think we could find it with a Tom-Tom. I believe that it is time for conservatives to let the Republican party fall flat on its face without them and then either form a third party or come in and reconstruct the Republican party on the foundation of true conservatism.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Who's Your Daddy?
We make way too big of a fuss over electing a President. You would think that we are selecting a King. Or Queen. No, that would still be a King. Well nevertheless you get the point. How is it that we have come to expect our President to be our daddy, big brother, grandfather, uncle, mother, soldier, statesman, preacher, doctor, teacher, banker and all around best friend? The President's constitutional role is actually rather limited, as is that of the entire federal government really. More akin to a city manager than a potentate. Yes, he should inspire us to greatness and represent the country on the world stage; but not have a plan and a program for every single aspect of our lives. He runs the military, negotiates treaties and enforces the federal laws. He can propose budgets, but taxing and spending bills actually originate in the House. Have you grilled your Congressman on all of the various federal programs and spending priorities to the extent that you have the Presidential candidates? I doubt it. The President really represents the interests of the states, not the people. The Congress represents the people in Washington. His power to affect our daily lives is not that great. Bureaucrats have more power to make us miserable or happy in our everyday lives than the President ever will. And we don't even know who they are. This process has become a farce; nothing more than high comedy. We need to refocus on the right priorities. That would begin with teaching and understanding the Constitution.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
McCain=McNasty=Perot=NUTS!
Hey Juan, when you have all of these squirrels around you admit it, you are a NUT! I must agree with Limbaugh and Dobson, I cannot and will not support McCain. If McCain or Obama or Clinton are going to make a mess of the country I would rather have a Democrat to blame it on. Reagan rose from Carter's ashes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
