American Federalist Blog

Our Condolences to the People of Norway

2011-07-26T16:29:00.005-05:00

The writers of the American Federalist Blog, inactive on this blog though we currently are, would like to extend our deepest sympathies to the people of Norway. Such a tragedy affects us all and we will keep you in our prayers.

You have reminded us of how precious life is and renewed our determination to make every moment of ours count. In the coming days and months, we wish you comfort and strength. May this tragedy bring you closer to one another that you may draw strength and comfort from each other. Finally, may the Lord turn to good that which was intended for evil.

"And that is what evil does: forces us all down dark pathways we otherwise would not have trod." ~Dennis L. McKeirnan in The Dark Tide

"And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the LORD, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding." ~ Job 28:28

Health care as an unalienable right?

2010-02-11T13:03:00.008-06:00

Senator Tom Harkin(D-Iowa) recently said:”What this bill does is, we finally take that step, as our leader said earlier, we take that step from health care as a privilege, to health care as an unalienable right of every single, American citizen.”

For the first time in American history, citizens will be forced to buy a consumer related product with no possible way to opt-out. Simply put, if you breathe then you pay.

And that’s not all, this bill contains the framework for a regulatory panel that will set the price that doctors may charge for various procedures, as well as deciding who may access those procedures.

Investor’s Business Daily conducted a poll of health care providers asking them what they will do if Congress passes the kind of health care overhaul that is currently under consideration. And the results were devastating. 45 percent said they would consider quitting or retiring early.
And, why shouldn’t they?

If an individual truly has an unalienable right to healthcare, this implies that the authority of that citizen can compel any health care provider to fulfill that right. But the right to life does not compel another citizen to use their talents to the benefit of others without reimbursement. And neither do any other rights that we may be said to have by the virtue of their origin-our Creator.

For a member of the United States Congress to put forth the notion that doctors, by virtue of their choice of vocation, may be forced to provide services according to the arbitrary whims of a governmental regulatory panel, and that such compulsion is not only consistent with the dictates of our Constitution, but an inalienable right of that doctor’s fellow citizens is outrageous and terribly erroneous.

Let’s remember that the 13th amendment clearly states: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”The fact that our founders recognized that our rights are derived from our Creator is critical to understanding the authority behind those rights, as it sets the bar for who may remove those rights from us.

But as the founding fathers made clear, these rights did not originate with our government, but with our Creator and so our government cannot take them away.
So, in saying that the government will be providing an “unalienable right” to health care, Mr. Harkin is claiming the authority of Almighty God for the United States Congress. He is also setting the stage for the removal of all of the other unalienable rights that we, as American citizens claim as the gift of our Creator.

In addition to the clearly blasphemous nature of such a claim, every citizen in America should be made uneasy by the implication that some in Congress are trying to position themselves with a god-like power over our lives. And that is what this health care legislation is all about.

Belanne Pibal, the founder of Irate, Tireless Minority, is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.

Charity Begins At Home

2010-01-29T16:40:00.003-06:00

Part of our current problem in addressing the healthcare legislation is that Americans are a generous people. We like to help each other. We all recognize that sometimes unexpected circumstances can hit the best of us with a mountain of debt and no obvious way out. We want to live by the golden rule – “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” – because, by and large, we believe that if we help someone else today, someone else will be better able to help us tomorrow. That is an admirable thing. Many times it is the truth as well.(That whole pay it forward deal plays very well into the American ethos.) The problem comes when we try to apply that ethos through the government rather than as individuals and private organizations. Individuals and some private organizations have a Christian mandate to help people and provide charity. Governments have a mandate to govern.
When the government gives charity, it creates no reciprocal obligation in the heart of those who receive that charity. It fosters an attitude that, not only is one a total failure at life who must be grudgingly rescued by his or her betters, but that one is entitled, by the inability to succeed at life, to that charity and need not pay it forward by word or deed. However, if your neighbor or church steps up and pays your mortgage for a hard month, or buys groceries or Christmas presents for a family that can’t afford them, that creates a thankful heart(usually) and a reciprocal obligation to give back to that neighbor or community group in some way.
Perhaps the fact that there is no way to give back to the government is the culprit. Instead of a feeling of thankfulness, the recipient is left with a sense of frustration and failure. With a neighbor or a neighborhood church, there are opportunities to help and return the favor. Taking on supervision of the Sunday school classes, shoveling the helpful neighbor’s walk in the winter or even sharing some fresh baking or inviting them to dinner. This creates a feeling of fulfillment and self sufficiency. It gives the recipient of that charity the opportunity to demonstrate to that church or neighbor that they are someone who was worthy of such charity. That they understand the obligations of a community to care for each other.
This is one of the reasons that government entitlements and charity are a failure and degrading to the overall character of the nation. How does government charity provide a picture of community support, self respect, cheerful giving and true charity when our children see their parents grumbling over the taxes that are taken from us to provide such charity? What message does it send when they see the recipients of government charity grumbling at how it should be better or how it didn’t really meet their needs? What message does it send to the children who are supported by such largesse? How does that encourage our children to continue our tradition of generosity? When our children see that those who are providing this charity (the taxpayers) are made the poorer by it and involuntarily at that.
Voluntary charity is a blessing for both the provider and the recipient. Involuntary charity is not charity, it is wealth redistribution. We the People need to recognize that, while government may be a fine vessel for the governing of a people, it is not a fit vessel for works of charity.
Belanne Pibal is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.

How Both Parties Lost The People

2010-01-07T11:38:00.002-06:00

The founders of this country were possessed of the revolutionary notion that the supreme power of our government resides in the people. The Declaration of Independence stated “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”. Our Constitution, the very document that outlines the principles by which this nation is to be governed begins:”We the People”, indicating that the Constitution itself is a statement made by the”consent of the governed”.

The recent race for New York’s 23rd district as well as the recent Rasmussen poll showing that TEA Party candidates would be more likely to win than republican candidates, are demonstrations that the people are beginning to reclaim that power from the political party establishments, by whom it has been usurped. That’s right, usurped, by the established political parties. Here’s a short explanation of how we have come to the current state of the GOP and the Democratic party:

A group of Americans have similar values. They decide to pool their resources to find and financially support the candidacy of legislators who share those values and, as time goes by, the group expands and gets more and more resources donated to them by other like minded Americans for the purpose of supporting candidates who share their core values. This support does not come with strings attached (other than maybe attendance and speeches at a few group functions for the sake of courtesy and information sharing). It doesn’t need to attach strings, because the basic premise is that the candidate will be a person of strong moral fiber who shares the core values of the group and will vote according to those values, regardless of how the group thinks the legislator should vote.

Eventually, someone who doesn’t care a bit about the core values decides that the power of that organization is attractive and the group now has a problem.

At some point these “privateers” get control (because such people like power, they will take positions of responsibility within the group to obtain that power). And then they begin to suggest that it is inefficient to support candidates who “cannot” win and that the resources of the group are best spent on candidates who can win. They then also argue that the financial and personal resources of the group can, or should, be used as a goad to coerce the candidate to vote as the group desires once he/she has been elected.

Here’s the tricky bit.

At some point, “candidates who can win” turns into “candidates who can win, regardless of whether their core values align with those of the group.” There is a concurrent rise in the belief that the candidate’s values do not have to match those of the group, because the group wields the re-election resources as a whip to ensure that the candidate votes the way they are told.

This is the point at which the organization has usurped the power of “We the People”. For whatever reason, the political parties and their supporters have not viewed this as an ethical breach, although, it is nothing more or less than the purchase of legislative votes-votes that belong to We the People, not to either party. Candidates who accept such aid are, by definition, people lacking in strength of character, because they have agreed, outright or by implication, to sell their votes in exchange for the support of a political party. This is where we find ourselves now.

The GOP and the Democratic Party have turned that corner and are no longer representing the Americans who started them or their core values. Core values are completely irrelevant to these groups and that’s why they no longer have or deserve the support of the folks who want candidates with those core values. If these parties do not change, so that they once again represent the core values of their base, so that they are not in the position of purchasing the legislative votes of those candidates who have been elected with their “support”, they will cease to exist as Americans step up to their individual responsibility to elect people of character who share their core values. If candidates do not show the strength of character demanded by the duties of governing a free people, they will find themselves unemployed.

May the American people make our founders proud by reclaiming our supreme authority over our government.

Belanne Pibal is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.

Guilt Through Television

2009-12-23T11:44:00.007-06:00

As though it wasn’t enough to have the government increasing our debt exponentially and taking over whole sectors of the economy, now Americans will also be assaulted with guilt through their televisions. It’s not enough for this administration that Americans will be paying for their excesses for generations to come, we must also volunteer to spread their propaganda. Hollywood has acquiesced to requests from the government to include promotion for the “iParticipate” program. This is not just accepting advertising for that propaganda machine, but the actual inclusion of encouragement to participate written right into the scripts of weekly or even daily television shows for the week of Oct. 19th-25th. The sites you may be directed to are run by the Entertainment Industry Foundation (iParticipate.org), the AARP (Create the Good.com) and the government itself (serve.gov).

While Americans are among the most generous of people with our time and our money, apparently we are not volunteering for the “right” things. Here are just a few of the opportunities available at the sites that will be touting this propaganda during the week of Oct. 19th-25th.

There is the opportunity to “refute the lies” about Mr. Obama’s proposed healthcare plan through participation in a volunteer opportunity labeled “How to Spread the truth about Healthcare Reform” complete with a propaganda video showing bloggers and radio talk show hosts as a sneering masked woman named Miss Information. They want these volunteers to become unpaid trolls on blogs, talk radio and websites that oppose the administration’s healthcare agenda.

Planned Parenthood wants volunteers to push their political agenda in the upcoming healthcare legislation. Namely that the government should provide for elective medical procedures on the taxpayers dime.

The Secular Student Alliance, on serve.gov, wants help to support and spread atheism and secular thinking among schoolchildren. Why should parents burden themselves with providing a religious education when the government can find volunteers to do it for them? Perhaps the folks at serve.gov forgot the 1st amendment? ”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” While this isn’t establishing a law, only a volunteer opportunity, why should these religions be promoted at taxpayer expense? (Atheism requires faith in the notion that there is no God, thus it is a religion.)

Serve.gov is also looking for executive level volunteers who consider Iraqis to be “fully human” (Americans everywhere should find the implications of that phraseology insulting.)for an opportunity labeled “Provide Policy Guidance to correct Iraq Policy”. Apparently all that spending did not include money to keep our top brass informed on foreign policy and military matters and volunteers are needed to correct that deficiency. (See bottom of article for the text included on that page.)

Then there is the opportunity to become a “Global Warming Ambassador” This nifty little deal is sponsored by the National Wildlife Federation, a strong supporter of Cap and Trade legislation. You too can tell folks that they should want to pay more for the energy supplies they need to survive because disputed and manipulated data on global temperatures has resulted in scientifically questionable conclusions.

Not all of the volunteer opportunities are manipulative propaganda, but Americans may want to ask themselves why there are any. The pressure to insert this administration’s propaganda into television programming and volunteer sites is a truly outrageous abuse of government power. One might ask who is paying the salaries of those who researched and wrote these volunteer opportunities as well as who is funding serve.gov. The unfortunate answer is almost certainly that the money for this is coming from the American taxpayer. The government is supposed to maintain our freedoms, not tell us what to do with them and certainly not to dictate to us how to use our free time. Americans are quite able to find volunteer and political advocacy opportunities, if that’s how they choose to use their free time, without being manipulated into serving a government agenda under the guise of volunteerism or service.

Belanne Pibal is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.

Author's note: All of the links originally included in this article have been adjusted, one assumes as the result of a reasonably competent government web-site manager, so that, instead of going to the specific pages mentioned, they all go to the serve.gov start page. For this reason, I have not included those links in the re-posting of this article. I saved the webpage to my computer for the most egregious of those links as I anticipated that such would be the case. I have included the text of that page here.

Here is the relevant text of that page:"

Provide Policy Guidance to correct Iraq Policy
Posted By: The Project to Stabilize Iraq

Description: Explain to the President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, National Security Advisor, Special Envoy, CENTCOM Commander and Ambassador the foundations of Arab society, the values of Arab people, how and why the current approach is injuring US national security, and what should be done instead. Most of the effort of this project will be aimed at getting face time with the identified individuals. Only about 45 minutes per briefing will be required to conduct actual explanations. Assume 15 hours of prep for each briefing.

Dates: Now/Anytime

Days: Daily

Location: Washington, DC See Map

Tasks for Volunteers: Mandatory: must have executive level experience developing and providing policy analysis and advice concerning international relations with the Arab world. Mandatory: must respect the people, culture and values of Iraqis. Must consider Iraqis fully human. Desired: Relevant Academic and publishing credentials

Learn More: Email this address Stabilize_Iraq@yahoo.com

Available to: Men/Women

Details: Are attendees paid? No
Disability friendly No

Type: Education"

I felt compelled to include this, because I don't want folks to assume that I am lying when the link takes them to a portal page rather than the actual "volunteer opportunity".

Taxation with Manipulation

2009-12-10T16:15:00.003-06:00

Why is the United States tax code so complicated? One might think that our elected representatives could manage the chore of taxing people with a few relatively simple and easily understood words. Instead Americans are subject to thousands of pages of ever changing regulations. What possible use are all those regulations?

There have been several calls in the recent past for simplification of the tax system in America. They seem to have boiled down to two options: the fair tax and the flat tax. The fair tax (HR 25,/S 296) is a sales tax. It is paid once, at the point of purchase. The flat tax is a system whereby everyone is taxed the same percentage of their income. The rich would pay more because they make more. Both plans contain provisions by which those below the poverty level would receive a refund. There are a number of concerns with both of these plans, mostly regarding changes to the status quo and how those changes will affect the nation.

Will America see either one of these proposals come to a vote, much less enactment? It’s doubtful for a number of reasons. One of those reasons is that the tax code is being used to influence the behavior of American citizens. The tax code is used as both the carrot and the stick. It rewards “good” behavior and it is used to punish “bad” behavior. The definition of “good” and “bad” is often dependent upon whomever is in power at the time. How much would a beer or a pack of cigarettes cost you without the “sin tax”? Would you really donate as much to that charity if it wasn’t the end of a year in which you needed another tax write-off? How about installing those new, energy efficient windows-they ones approved for the tax break?

Another reason the tax system hasn’t been simplified is because the current tax system isn’t just being used as a way to collect revenue for the government and influence behavior. It is a sword of Damocles hanging over the head of every American citizen. It is one of the largest and most effective law enforcement tools the government has. How can individual Americans scrutinize the thousands of pages of tax code that are changed and amended every single year to be sure they have done everything as they should? What American does not feel the least bit of trepidation when the time comes to sign their tax returns certifying that “to the best of my knowledge and belief, they are true, correct, and complete”?

Is this really an appropriate use of the tax system? Do the words ”to promote the general welfare” grant authority to the government for this kind of social engineering, experimentation and tyrannical oversight of our personal finances? Common sense and the most cursory of readings of our founder’s writings indicate otherwise. And yet, should any of the current healthcare proposals be passed, Americans will all be making healthcare choices determined by the fact that we will all be subject to being “taxed” for not obtaining “government approved healthcare.” We may even go to jail for non-compliance. Not to promote the general welfare, but to implement the policies of a president and administration who believe that the fruits of our labor should be “redistributed” according to their values, not ours.

Belanne Pibal is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.

Congress Will Not Listen On Health Care

2009-10-26T15:16:00.004-05:00

It seems that our legislators, despite the thousands who showed up at their town halls to protest such measures, despite the tens of thousands attending other TEA Parties across the nation all year and despite the millions attending various 9/12 rallies, still do not understand the message the American people are sending. The American people want government to resume it’s proper, Constitutional role. For a good example, let’s look at the current healthcare debate.

Our legislators continue to insist that “something must be done” to control healthcare costs and that “something” must involve at least a partial government takeover of our healthcare system. Many of them profess alarm at the anger and opposition they are seeing, but refuse to believe that American citizens are rejecting the entire notion of government run healthcare. They often suggest that those who oppose their legislative attempts to take control of the healthcare system are lacking in compassion. Many of them have referred to large segments of the American population in derogatory terms. It is time for them to wake up.

This debate is not just about healthcare, it is about the foundational principles of this republic. The issue is whether or not we, as individuals, have the right to control our own lives and property and to make our own decisions about our healthcare. Doctors are professionals, providing a service that many times costs more than it should because of a system already filled with intrusive, overbearing, needless, bureaucratic, governmental interference. If our legislators are truly interested in lowering healthcare costs, perhaps they should consider deregulation and tort reform. Perhaps they should allow interstate competition for health insurance companies. In other words, they could consider getting the government out of the way and letting the free market work.

For anyone, least of all our elected officials, to suggest that those who oppose government run healthcare are lacking in compassion, when the question before us as a nation has little or nothing to do with compassion for one’s fellow man, is outrageous. Americans donate more of their time and money to charitable and service efforts than the people of any other nation. As was noted in the Seattle Times in a 2007 article: “Americans give twice as much as the next-most-charitable country, according to a November 2006 comparison by the Charities Aid Foundation. In philanthropic giving as a percentage of gross domestic product, the United States ranked first at 1.7 percent. Britain was next at 0.73 percent, while France, with a 0.14 percent rate, trailed such countries as South Africa, Singapore, Turkey and Germany”. Notice that the USA gave more than twice as much as the 2nd place nation.

Government run programs are not known for compassion. Witness Oregon’s response to Barbara Wagener, a woman suffering with lung cancer. The state health plan refused to pay for her cancer drugs, but offered to pay for palliative care, including drugs she could use to commit suicide.

The government is known for corruption and fiscal irresponsibility. The American people are known for compassion and charity.

Listen carefully legislators. Americans as a whole are a compassionate and giving people and we do not want government run healthcare. Americans want the freedom to make our own choices, even if that means we occasionally fail to make good choices. It is not the government’s job to control the choices we make with our freedom, it is the government’s job to make sure we have the freedom to make those choices. The current administration and Congress seem disturbingly unwilling to grant that point, and that is why millions are gathering to peacefully protest the actions of this administration and this Congress.

Belanne Pibal is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.

“A Republic - If You Can Keep It”

2009-10-14T21:30:00.002-05:00

Those were the words of Benjamin Franklin upon being asked what kind of government the new nation had after the vote was taken to approve the Constitution. Yet, there is very little mention in the mainstream media these days about our republic. Schools for decades have taught that the USA is a democracy so maybe the media and so many of the adults who believe the same thing can be forgiven. However, it is imperative that Americans, as a nation know the difference between a democracy and a republic if we wish to keep our republic.
In a democracy, the majority rules. The majority can vote each other out of house, home and freedom. The majority can vote in sharia law if they want. In a democracy, individuals have very little recourse if they want to go against the will of the majority. That’s one of the reasons our founding fathers declined to make this nation into a democracy. In the words of James Madison, “Democracies have been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.”
How many times have Americans been bombarded by the notion of spreading freedom and democracy to other nations? In reality, we can only spread one, because freedom is incompatible with democracy. You can have one or the other, but not both. If we could spread the American form of government abroad, that would be spreading freedom, but democracy?, no.
So what is a republic? If democracy is so unstable and violent, what is a republic and why is it more desirable than a democracy? The Oxford American dictionary defines a republic as ” A country in which the supreme power is held by the people or their elected representatives or by an elected or nominated president.” That may sound the same as a democracy, but it is not.
In the case of America, it means that the people have approved a Constitution to define the powers of the government. This is one of the reasons why many Americans are upset about the president’s speech to our children. The president is elected to serve America, not to turn our youngest Americans into government servants. In the debate to approve the Constitution in Pennsylvania, one of the delegates, Mr. Wilson stated that the supreme power of the uniquely American form of government resides in the people.
“The truth is, that, in our governments, the supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power remains in the people. As our constitutions are superior to our legislatures, so the people are superior to our constitutions. Indeed, the superiority, in this last instance, is much greater; for the people possess over our constitutions control in act, as well as right.
The consequence is, that the people may change the constitutions whenever and however they please. This is a right of which no positive institution can ever deprive them.”
In a republic, we each have a personal responsibility to oversee and correct the government when it infringes on individual rights. In America, we are to do that by electing people of good character to office - regardless of their party affiliation. And “We the People” retain the right to change those legislators and even the Constitution itself. The supreme power of our government resides with the people, but not in such a way that the majority can run roughshod over the rights of the individual. That is the essential difference between a democracy and a republic. The question before Americans now is still “Can we keep it?”
Belanne Pibal is a Liberty Features Syndicated Writer.

An Unclean Bill of Health

2009-10-10T10:29:00.005-05:00

I have been submitting columns and op/ed pieces to Liberty Features Syndicate for a few months now, between other duties. I thought sharing those articles here might be a good way to keep this blog working rather than leaving it to posterity. Mr. Morris has no objection and I haven't heard from Mr. Tams and Mr. Schrag on the matter yet. So, without further ado, here is the first column. It was published by LFS on August 25th. My title for this piece was "Liar,Liar, Pants on Fire!", and my original opening a bit more...aggressive -a little too aggressive for the editor, which is why it was published under it's current title. I regard working with an editor as a new learning experience.

With the current proposed health care bill, it is hard to believe how much politicians think they can dupe Americans. After having looked over the proposed bill — HR 3200 — it is a wonder that these people can look straight into a camera and tell such bold faced lies about what is and is not in this bill without regard to the real affect it will have on every American.
And just for the record, the government has no money but that which it receives from taxes. It doesn’t matter if you call it a fee or a separate fund or a fine, the bottom line is: it’s a tax. A tax, by the pertinent definition in the Oxford American Dictionary, is: “a sum of money to be paid by people or business firms to a government, to be used for public purposes.”
So, those in support of this plan can play with semantics all they like, but the American people know where the money is coming from and they don’t want their money used to pay for abortions-period. This bill will result in taxpayer funded abortions.
There are lies about keeping your current doctors and insurance. This Congress must think the population is deficient in math skills and common sense. The fines (taxes) on people and employers for not participating in the government’s plan are prohibitive. Most businesses will simply run the numbers, discover the fee (tax) is cheaper and viola those private plans, the ones people can keep if they like them, will be no more.
There are lies about health care rationing. Has anyone besides whoever wrote them actually read those sections of the bill? The part that outlines how it will be determined whether or not someone is eligible for healthcare and if so, what kind, how much, by what doctor and at what facility? Their solution will be the cost effective means health care rationing. There’s no nicer way to say it. For this program to be affordable, there must be rationing.
There are lies by omission.
Those things that are not being mentioned, such as the fact that all Americans will be required to have their medical histories in a government database whether they want to or not. There is a disturbing lack of comment on the proposed national healthcare card which all Americans will be required to have. A card which will give the government access to our bank accounts as well as our medical histories.
There is also a lack of comment on the fact that there will be no way to dispute the withdrawal of whatever fees the government decides we owe for those services. Does anyone think that, having given the government free access to their finances, such access will not be abused? Please note, this card will be required for everyone, not just those in the government plan.
Then there is the biggest lie of all; that Congress has the authority to take over the nation’s healthcare industry in this manner. This proposal goes far beyond the enumerated powers of Congress in the U.S. Constitution. The states could implement this type of program on their own, as Mass. and Maine have already done, but Congress has no authority to impose this type of legislation on the country as a whole.
Belanne Pibal is a guest contributing writer for Liberty Features Syndicate.

Happy Mother's Day

2009-05-09T21:48:00.002-05:00

“Making the decision to have a child is momentous. It is to decide forever to have your heart go walking around outside your body.” --Elizabeth Stone

Happy Mother's Day to all who have taken that risk.

Madison, WI Tax Day Tea Party Part 3

2009-04-27T16:14:00.009-05:00

The next speaker was a 17 year old homeschooled student, Melika Willoughby.(My apologies to anyone whose name I may have misspelled.) Miss Willoughby asked that the government stop spending her future. She commented that when she was born her share of the national debt was $7100.00, but noted that it will soon quintuple. She said "It is time for We the People to once again take the helm of government." I found it refreshing (and reassuring)that she commented on the sacrifices of our founding fathers and indicated that such sacrifices will need to be made again. She ended with the words "God Bless America".

Sean Duffey, the District Attorney of Ashland County, opened by quoting Mr. Adams' statement that "Facts are stubborn things." He went on to say that we were here because our elected representatives "didn't read the bill." (I regard this as a scathing commentary on our elected representatives. What, after all, is their job, if not to read and understand every piece of legislation upon which they are voting?) He said "The American people are the engine of prosperity, not the government". He called us to remember our duty as citizens and quoted Mr. Reagan with regard to keeping the faith in our times.

Our host, Mr. Block, then thanked the Capitol Police for their assistance and relayed their reasonable request that we remove any sticks from our signs before taking them into the capitol building before introducing Mr. Pat Synder from WSAU Radio.

Mr. Synder requested that, in order to reduce our carbon footprint, we should all hold our breath for 60 seconds. (One might think he knew the EPA would be categorizing carbon dioxide as harmful in a few short weeks.) He then compared the number of tax preparers in our country to the number of doctors and used that comparison to highlight the issue we were there to protest. He remarked that legislators who provide entitlement programs are like those who provide crack cocaine for addicts, with the addicts being those people who benefit from the entitlements. While Mr. Snyder was entertaining and correct, I and the folks near me took exception when his comments about Mr. Obey extended to a statement that we should be thankful that we weren't married to him. One of the gentlemen near me said "We don't need to make that kind of statement to make our point-We're better than that" as his neighbors called out "cheap shot, cheap shot". I include this, not to chastise Mr. Snyder, but rather to point out the character of the crowd and I hope Mr. Snyder sees it as such. I enjoyed the rest of his speech and found his observations on the lack of diversity in politics, education and the media to be relevant and necessary. If no one is willing to point out the 500 pound gorilla in the room, how can it's presence, not to mention the danger it presents, be effectively addressed? He ended his remarks by saying:"We've got to take a stand, we've got to teach our kids, we've got to be mentors." and instructing the crowd to go to fightbackwisconsin.com.

Mr. Block then introduced the very young(24)mayor of LaCrosse. Mr. Matt Harter. His speech was short and to the point. He challenged the crowd to get involved, stay involved and take back our communities.

The next speaker was Pastor David King. Mr. Block commented that he had had a request for footage of a democrat speaking at a tax day tea party and Mr. King kindly agreed to be that democrat. He started out by remarking that he tells his congregation "We are born to raze hell". He went on to say that he had a habit of ticking people off. Now, I have been known to stir the pot a bit myself,(because if you don't stir the pot, the people on the bottom get burned and the folks on the top lose something to evaporation and become a thin scum over everything), but I have to say that in my case, he succeeded. I found his rhetoric, while entertaining, to be disrespectful and somewhat offensive, considering that many people had brought their children. His points were well made, but not what I expected from a pastor.

He suggested that the capitol police should be administering a drug test to the governor and the legislature. He suggested that we need a legislature watch web-site(I think there are several sites already performing that function.)to keep an eye on what they are doing, then said "we all know what our governor is doing-Put the pipe down!" He continued with his humorous drug analogies and went into a different analogy of what we, as taxpayers were getting from our government. He said "We got a taste of gettin s*****d without gettin kissed" He used this to say the legislature should at least make sure we got a little something out of the outrageous spending package that was approved. (In my opinion, we should be insisting that we be married before we get kissed or anything else. Call me a prude if you like-I'm good with that. Why buy the cow after all?) I'm sure this analogy could work on several levels, but I'm not going there. I'm appalled that such a statement was made to a crowd with entire families attending.

It made the point but it illustrated something else. Pastor King had commented earlier about some people being disenfranchised in order to preserve a building, or put up another building(my apologies-I can only write so fast and missed that bit). He said that "any time someone says a building is more important than the people in it, they need to go." His point was that government money should be spent on programs for people, not buildings. This is illustrative of the difference between liberals and conservatives. As a conservative, I believe that I have a duty to help those less fortunate than myself. Liberals tend to believe that the government has a duty to help those who have problems helping themselves.

Now I am not saying Mr. King is a liberal(just a democrat). He clearly believes in personally helping others as is witnessed by his work with the Milwaukee God Squad. But if we really want to get fiscal control of our government, we are going to have to bite the bullet and get rid of entitlement programs at all levels. Charity needs to be handled at the individual level through the private sector. If hurricane Katrina showed us nothing else, it showed us that the private sector is far more efficient and reliable than the government at administering charitable efforts. The funding of entitlement programs is going to sink us if we don't get this point.

The job of the government is to govern, not to engage in charity. Governing involves securing our borders, maintaining a standing army, administering a system of laws, and yes, collecting taxes to maintain infrastructure and pay and properly equip that standing army and etc. Different levels of government have different responsibilities under the Constitution, but charity is not one of them. In the words of James Madison, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger upon an article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Perhaps the words of Congressman Davy Crockett would be better: “We have rights, as individuals, to give as much of our own money as we please to charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of public money.” Then there is President Franklin Pierce who said: “I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve such spending] would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.”

Unless we, like Miss Willoughby, recognize that sacrifice is necessary, we cannot regain control of our government. The Tea Party movement is a good place to start, but let us now set our foundational principles in stone and resolve to wean ourselves from government handouts as our first and foremost duty to ourselves and our nation. Let us make arrangements to take care of our own and those who have no families to care for them. Then let us firmly and gently remove those entitlement programs which should never have been undertaken by our government.

Orville Seymour was the next speaker. He was representing a group called Citizens for Responsible Government. His people were the ones asking for help to circulate a petition to recall Governor Doyle. You can find more information at www.recalldoyle.com.

the last speaker. Vicki McKenna was introduced as "The rock star of radio." She chastised the MSM for not doing their job, the legislature for hastily convening committee meetings to allow some legislators to avoid meeting with their constituents after she was done speaking,and commented on Governor Doyle's part in the loss of Thomas Industries and Johnson Controls. You can see part of her speech here.

Madison, WI Tax Day Tea Party Part 2

2009-04-21T17:56:00.005-05:00

Julaine Appling, president of Wisconsin Family Action, continued the message of the day by calling on legislators to back off and recognize that strong families are the heart of the economy and the nation. Her message, that the current spending is taxation without representation because those who will have to pay it off have not yet been born, was very well received by the crowd. She continued by telling legislators: 'Your job is to govern this state, not to gouge it's families'. She remarked on the difficulty of leaving our families anything except staggering, horrendous debt. She also called on the crowd to work to replace all of our elected officials.

This was a fairly common theme and one to which I must take exception. There is good reason to get rid of many of those who are currently sitting in our congress as well as our state legislatures, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. These folks have made the decisions they have, often in response to input from those who want the things they think such legislation will bring about and in absence of any input from those of us who believe in personal responsibility, self determination and limited government. Instead of throwing them out, I think we should examine their records, decide who is truly representing the best interests of their constituents and our country and throw the rest out. In addition, I think we need to show some support for those who are trying to do the right thing by sending them feedback and opinions. It's a lot easier for an elected official to stand up and do the right thing if they know they are not alone. Yes, get involved, but do more than complain.

Mayor Dave Ross from Superior asked "I wonder where the tax raisers rally will be? He went on to say "The incumbent I beat said he was driving down taxes by raising them 13%...We now have a plan to get to zero debt for our municipality." This was greeted with much approval. I have to say, that when I mentioned this speech to someone later, they said: "Well that sounds good, but has their crime rate gone up? What services did they let go? Are their streets clean? These are all good questions, but they miss the point. The point is that if we cannot afford to pay for services, we shouldn't buy them. There were huge crowds lining Pennsylvania Ave. for Mr. Reagan's funeral. There were only a few bits of litter after that crowd had cleared. After Mr. Obama's inauguration, the placed looked like a a garbage dump. What's the difference? I would submit to us all that the difference is the difference between the attitude that says "I should pick up after my self and leave the place cleaner than I found it" and the one that says "Someone else will pick it up for me-that's why I pay taxes." And that's what this movement is about-picking up after ourselves and being good stewards of our government and our country for our children and generations yet to be born.

Mr. Ross finished by asking "How much of our money does the government want? All of it!...They have forgotten that they are our servants." One hopes they have been reminded and will continue to be reminded in days to come.

Madison, WI Tax Day Tea Party Part 1

2009-04-17T23:27:00.003-05:00

I joined the largest crowd to protest on the state capitol steps since the Vietnam war protests in the 60's on the 15th. Despite the media spin for other locations we had a well mannered crowd of approximately 8,200 in Madison.

Mr. Mark Block, head of the Wisconsin chapter of Americans For Prosperity was the organizer although he jokingly said he must not be a very good one or he would have ordered more buses to shuttle people from the parking area at the Alliant Energy Center to the capitol square. He did have 12 speakers and representatives(I am assuming AFP local chapter heads) from 72 counties in WI who had helped to get the word out about the event.

The first speaker was Congressman Paul Ryan who challenged the MSM's assertion that this wasn't a grass roots movement. Among the gems in his speech were these:" They (the political and media elite in this country) want you to pay up and shut up; Your patriotic duty is to pay taxes because the government is smarter than you are; America is an exceptional nation....and we want to keep it that way; We don't want to become a European nation, we want to maintain it an American nation." He then mentioned that this budget doubles our national debt in 5 years and triples it in 10, but that such spending is not necessary. He urged the crowd that if you believe in the principles that built this country- freedom, self-determination and liberty- then join us.

Then (to a bit of heckling) the Reince Priebus, the state chairman of Wisconsin's GOP had the microphone. He said "If we've learned anything over the past 4 months, it's that elections matter." The crowd heartily agreed. (There were a number of people who said they truly regretted having voted for Mr. Obama.) Mr. Priebus went on to say that "Big government stops here, big government stops today." While the crowd approved of the sentiment, they were skeptical of the GOP's ability to restrain themselves should they once again gain the majority.

The next speaker was Jerry Bader of WTAQ-Green Bay. He commented on Mr. Krugman's statement about the tea parties- that "They’re AstroTurf (fake grass roots) events, manufactured by the usual suspects."
In response, Mr. Bader said "This is the most reality Madison has seen in more than 100 years." (He's right, I grew up in Madison and have been known to refer to my hometown as "Universityland surrounded by la-la land".) He told the crowd that our greatest freedom is to have the chance to try and fail. If you've bought too much house, you're going to fail and that's the way it should be. He said Great success often comes from great risk. The implication is that without the opportunity to take great risks, we are shortchanging our opportunities to find great success as well. He encouraged the crowd to take risks and do more. Get involved and stay involved.
I'll add bits from the rest of the speakers as I have time this week.

Blogger Conference Call

2009-03-26T22:20:00.004-05:00

I have posted this on my own blog and am re-posting it here so that I can glean the opinions of a wider audience (should those who follow this blog choose to share their opinions).
On March 16th, I received an e-mail from the House Republican Conference. It said that they are reaching out to blogs who do not currently receive their Congressional updates and videos.
They also extend invitations to exclusive blogger conference calls with House members on hot topics being discussed in Washington. I participated in my first such conference call with Reps. King, McCotter and McMorris Rodgers on the 25th.
Some of the topics addressed were the strategy of the current administration, the debt, increases in spending, entitlement spending, AIG, and etc.
To hear the call click here. This call lasted about 30 minutes. Mr. McCotter's remarks starting at 27 minutes, 45 seconds are refreshing.
"Our truths are self-evident, not relative"

I'm not quite sure why I was invited to participate in these calls as I am not a republican, but rather a conservative.
Let me know what you think. Is this sort of conference call valuable?
If so, and I decide to continue to participate and post on them, Would you prefer that I write a transcript of the call, post a link to the call itself, as I've done here, or just excerpt bits that I find relevant?

National-Federal Structure as explicated in the Federalist Papers

2009-02-23T13:08:00.007-06:00

As with any other book I've read and/or studied where I'm drawn to particular chapters or paragraphs and sentences, or phrases within particular chapters or paragraphs, over and over again for one reason or another, so it is with the Federalist Papers which is divided into 85 individual essays, many of which in their individual capacities are actually part of larger bodies of essays explaining the same topic as distinct from all others. For example Federalist nos. 30-36 are all devoted to explaining the general power of taxation as enumerated in the Constitution.

Other of the Federalist Papers take on a different characteristic; they are, insofar as they can be separated from the whole body of the Federalist essays, stand-alone essays. Such, I think, is Federalist #39 which explains our National-Federal Structure as the founders originally designed it. In fact, I think it was in studying Federalist #39 that I first began to use the phrase "Our National-Federal Structure," but that's beside the point. The point here being that I do not use this phrase without evidence or authority. Our government was originally designed to take on both national and federal characteristics as per the founders themselves, and as explicated specifically in Federalist #39.

But of course many of the federal characteristics of our original compact have since been eroded, and/or altogether abolished during the course of the 140+ years since the closing of the Civil War. Our government has since assumed, by degrees, a much larger role than originally anticipated by the founding generation, and thus has taken on more of the national characteristic at the expense of federalism. And, yes, going even beyond what was originally intended by the framers of the fourteenth amendment.

Nonetheless Federalist #39 has always been one of my particular favorites among the Federalist essays because it explains the National-Federal Structure of our government as the founders originally designed it. Read therein where we've gone astray as concerns the proper balance of the national and the federal characteristics of our Republic. But do not stop at reading it once, as this simply will not do.

Further Federalism

2009-02-22T11:32:00.004-06:00

My friend Mr. Morris posted a great video in the prior post - please scroll down and watch. I've long been simultaneously exhausted and thankful that there are a lot of people who look at the events of the world and ask "what do we do now?"

Thankful, because at least people are dissatisfied with the direction of the country; weary because of the enormous work it will take to return to our first principles. But, return we must, or fail, and take our place in history along with the other failures of men and government.

I have recently put up a couple of posts on related topics, one on the Tenth Amendment and one on good-old fashioned local action.

In time, I think our premise here will be borne out: that we're suffering from imbalance and excess, and that the only remedy for that is a renaissance in self-government through a gradual but relentless application of balanced government. There's plenty on that topic on this blog, for that matter.

I intend to be rather busy between now and April 7th, but hope to be able to post here more frequently than I have been. As always, I look forward to your comments, Dear Readers.

Our National-Federal Structure

2009-02-21T01:40:00.004-06:00

The phrase "our National-Federal structure" is one I've used countless times in discussions on our form of government at this blog and elsewhere across the internet, in private conversations and debates, and so forth and so on. And it occurs to me, having just watched a good You Tube video on the very subject (although I don't think anyone has ever mentioned it) that some might get the impression from the position of the words as I've always written and spoken them, that I consider the national aspect of our structure of government to be more important than the federal aspect of same. Let me assure you, if this is your impression, that nothing could be further from the truth. The only reason I express the phrase in this order with the word national preceding the word federal is because it simply sounds better than "Our Federal-National Structure." The most important thing to keep in mind, of course, is that our governmental structure is not one or the other, but both federal and national, and preferably in that order.

The You Tube video-lecture posted below is the fifth of a larger series of lectures on the constitution. I don't know whether the series is yet complete, and I don't know at this point how many lectures are contained in the existing series. You can investigate that for yourselves if that is your desire. This particular lecture, however, is custom made for posting at this site as you shall soon see. Our friend Mike Tams should take a particular liking to it methinks. Without further ado ...

Stimulus Excuses

2009-02-19T14:34:00.005-06:00

Having written to Senator Kohl about the (then) upcoming stimulus package vote, I was not surprised to receive a reply from him. He voted for the stimulus package. I am posting this here because there are residents of other states who are no doubt receiving similar correspondence form their legislators regarding their votes on this matter.

Among other gems in his excuse missive were these:

"Consumer confidence is at or near an all time low." Perhaps that's because the average consumer is aware that it is impossible to spend one's way out of debt.
"The average Wisconsin family would receive a $900 tax cut this year from the legislation." Perhaps the good Senator would like to tell us how much this package is going to cost each average WI family to pay it back too? Essentially you are saying that you, in your wisdom, have exchanged $900.00 this year for untold thousands to be paid back by our children and grandchildren. I would have preferred magic beans.
"I support the economic recovery package, but I do have reservations. The price tag on this bill is enormous, and I understand the opposition to this legislation by those who feel it costs too much money. To address these concerns, the Senate voted to reduce the cost of the legislation by over $100 billion through cuts in education, modernization of federal buildings, health information technology, and other areas." Well, wasn't that nice of you, a whole 100 billion. Is that sort of like when retail stores raise all their prices 30% a few months before Christmas and then declare a 20% off sale after Thanksgiving? I fail to see the savings.
"I supported this compromise to help keep spending under control " The 100 billion dollar reduction in a bill that is egregiously beyond the bounds of common sense is not really a compromise. It looks more like a way to allow those legislators such as yourself a way to make yourselves still have an appearance of respectability. It failed.
"This plan is not perfect, but it is a bold and responsible action " This plan is so far from responsible that you should be required to spend remedial vocabulary building time with your dictionary sir. If you had a child attending college who, with his first credit card, had amassed $100,000.00 in debt and he told you he was going to get another card that would let him spend $1,000,000,000.00 to get him out of that financial prison, would you call that responsible?

Senator Kohl, I appreciate that your response was polite. In my opinion, you and your fellow democrats have betrayed not only your home state constituents, but the nation in voting to pass this monstrosity. I think you have taken this action more out of concern for partisan politics than for the good of the country as a whole. I think each and every one of you should be recalled and replaced with people who know the difference between party and nation.

Where Will You Go?

2009-01-29T14:45:00.006-06:00

I have been hearing many disturbing things after the election of our new administration. I have had sensible people, people of long acquaintance, who seemed steady and unshakable, confide their plans to leave the country "when it gets too bad." I read on the blog-o-sphere of theories that we are headed for a civil war, because the election and subsequent actions of our new administration have cast the differences between liberals and conservatives into a stark and unpleasant new light. I have read and seen on the news (little though I watch it these days) that Americans are buying record numbers of guns in anticipation of civil unrest and worse.

To those who plan to leave, I must ask:"Where do you plan to go?" In what country will you have more freedoms than you can claim in America? There is no other country where you will not be as or more oppressed than whatever you see shaping up here. It behooves you to stay and join the rest of us in fighting for our country. God willing, it will not come to armed battles between Americans, and it should not, if we get busy now and demand good character in our politicians.

Let us show discernment in our choices. When our politicians demonstrate poor character, let us bestir ourselves and recall them immediately. Let us demand good behavior in our judges and remove them when they stray from it. Let us demand a return to fiscal sanity and recall any representatives who do not provide it.

We, among the population of the world, have the God given and Constitutionally affirmed right to do these things. If America falls, where will you hide from the darkness of oppression that is sure to overtake the rest of the world? It is not our place to bend before the rest of the world. It is our place to demonstrate the rightness of our cause and our ability to maintain our form of government as responsible, free men and women and to require the rest of the world to come up to our standards.

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." Samuel Adams

For those who will stay and fight for our American experiment, I have for you this excellent speech. The available remnant of our Congress had gathered at York, in 1777, after several setbacks to question whether there was any hope of success. There seemed no hope, everything seemed to be going against us. Samuel Adams stood and addressed the group with these words:

"If we despond, public confidence is destroyed, the people will no longer yield their support to a hopeless contest, and American liberty is no more. Through the darkness which shrouds our prospects the ark of safety is visible. Despondency becomes not the dignity of our cause, nor the character of those who are it's supporters.

Let us awaken then, and evince a different spirit, - a spirit that shall inspire the people with confidence in themselves and in us, - a spirit that will encourage them to persevere in this glorious struggle, until their rights and liberties shall be established on a rock.

We have proclaimed to the world our determination "to die freemen, rather than to live as slaves." We have appealed to Heaven for the justice of our cause, and in Heaven we have placed our trust.

Numerous have been the manifestations of God's providence in sustaining us.

In the gloomy period of of adversity, we have had "our cloud by day and pillar of fire by night." We have been reduced to distress, and the arm of Omnipotence has raised us up.

Let us still rely in humble confidence on Him who is mighty to save. Good tidings will soon arrive. We shall never be abandoned by Heaven while we act worthy of its aid and protection."~ from "Samuel Adams A Life" by Ira Stoll.

That last line is worth repeating because it is true. "We shall never be abandoned by Heaven while we act worthy of its aid and protection." Let us act worthy of Heaven's aid and protection and we will reclaim our country.

"When the centurion heard that, he went and told the chief captain, saying, Take heed what thou doest: for this man is a Roman.
Then the chief captain came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea.
And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born.
Then straightway they departed from him which should have examined him: and the chief captain also was afraid, after he knew that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him." ~Acts 22:26-29

What Minnesota's missing

2009-01-06T14:02:00.001-06:00

The Minnesota legislature has declared Mr. Franken to be the winner. The Wall Street Journal
documents a severely mismanaged recount. Both of these miss the real issue.

A man of character wouldn't accept the seat under such conditions. A man of character would refuse to accept the seat until the ballots were counted in a way that accords with his own principles of honesty and high moral standards.

Character counts and Mr. Franken is clearly not a man of character if he is willing to accept the seat under such a cloud.

On Bailouts

2008-12-30T20:58:00.003-06:00

I wrote a post over at the Institute for Balanced Government entitled On Balance and Bailouts that I wanted to share here; while this used to be the main place for such topics, I'm going to post on balanced government mostly in that space.

I've been posting at Red County on local government issues (we have this Governor... where to begin?) and started posting on a personal site to communicate with local voters on my run for Township Trustee. An exciting time, for sure, but if anyone has seen something I've lost called "free time" I would appreciate you a) tackling it and pinning it to the ground and b) calling me as soon as possible to let me know you've found it.

Merry Christmas

2008-12-22T19:10:00.005-06:00

I take great delight in wishing others a Merry Christmas. It is an exercise of two of my most cherished Constitutional rights. The right to free speech and the right to worship as I please.

It is also a demonstration of why offensive speech is not the same as speech that causes someone harm. There is no right to go through life unoffended. Indeed it would be impossible for me or anyone to know exactly which things would be emotionally sensitive territory to a given individual. I think civilized people can be expected to recognize that wishing someone Merry Christmas is an act of celebratory sharing and behave accordingly.

So, in this season of vandalized nativity scenes, lawsuit threats over religious displays on government property, and the attempted revival of the "Fairness" doctrine, I am truly grateful to be able to wish you all a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year.

Giving Thanks

2008-11-26T23:13:00.004-06:00

What a time to be alive. We have before us the opportunity to engage in the animating contest for freedom, to show that we love liberty greater than wealth and that we will fight for it.

To have lived in such a time as this, I am thankful. May I use the gifts that have been bestowed upon me by my creator in his service first, last and always and may you, dear reader, do the same.

Happy Thanksgiving

When Journalists Attack

2008-10-01T12:51:00.004-05:00

The people of this country (present company excluded, of course, Dear Reader) find innumerable issues that cry out for federal legislation, and yet we're still subjected to journalists and their half-baked ideas? I for one would propose legislation that requires journalists - the "professional" ones, you know - to take a simple quiz to qualify for certain subject matter.

Comes now the formidable economic giant, Bob Herbert. Never heard of him? He's a writer for the NYT. Began his career as a reporter. Got a degree in journalism. Worked his whole life in the reporting business. No word on his bio about his econ coursework. I'd link to his bio... except the enterprising among you can find it, and I'm not inclined to grant that paper an inbound link. Anyway, here's his, um, analysis of the causes of the financial mess we're in:

These were the reckless clowns who led us into the foolish multitrillion-dollar debacle in Iraq and who crafted tax policies that enormously benefited millionaires and billionaires while at the same time ran up staggering amounts of government debt. This is the crowd that contributed mightily to the greatest disparities in wealth in the U.S. since the gilded age.

This was the crowd that cut the cords of corporate and financial regulations and in myriad other ways gleefully hacked away at the best interests of the United States.

And I suppose that this is the standard operating procedure of the Left: repeat something often enough that people will think it is true. But it's not.

As has been detailed elsewhere, one of the causes of this so-called crisis goes back to 1977 with the passing of the Community Reinvestment Act. While I am certain that the CRA had good intentions and may have even done actual good, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Banks and lenders had to make loans that otherwise didn't meet their credit standards; I spent time in the financial sector and can attest to this firsthand. When you make loans to unqualified people because of a non-credit incentive (or: stick), you're going to make bad loans. One ought not be surprised that defaults happen.

One also ought to wonder about journalists writing on topics with which they are unfamiliar; or worse, that they are incapable of understanding. Indeed, if John McCain is a "conservative, small government, anti-regulation, free-market zealot" does that make someone who shares the ideas of Mr. Bob Herbert a liberal, big-government, pro-regulation, socialist zealot?

Where have we been?

2008-08-25T13:40:00.005-05:00

My apologies to regular readers of this blog. I am afraid that Mr. Tams, Mr. Morris and myself have been occupied with off-line life and our own individual blogs. (Mine is here. Mr. Tams hasn't had the time add a link to it on this page as yet.)

I have recently attended the movie I.O.U.S.A. and encourage others to go to the Peter Peterson Foundation site and check out the state of the union's finances.

Other than that, I am heading into a busy time and will probably post more on my own blog than here. Mr. Tams, Mr. Schrag and Mr. Webster will do as they will. I'll thank you for stopping by IrateTirelessMinority if you have the opportunity and Thank you for being a reader here.

Personal Responsibility

2008-06-24T20:58:00.005-05:00

I was reading a discussion on Gates of Vienna. It came to a point where the question was asked about where we should draw the line between government interference and personal privacy.

It occurred to me that this is not the first time I have heard this question asked and I suspect that it won't be the last. The discussion had to do with censorship. The question was along these lines: If someone is creating ""art" that encourages despicable behavior, is it the government's place to censor that art?

It seems to me that one of the crucial points for this experiment we call the United States of America is a dependence on the populace to exercise a high degree of personal responsibility. Each citizen is expected to respect the fact that their freedom ends where the exercise of it harms their neighbor. The law is unable to enforce personal responsibility in all areas, therefore, it is the sphere of the individual to do so in all areas not addressed specifically by the law.

I believe it is the place of each and every citizen to engage in individual censorship of such "art" by being openly critical of the subject matter and refusing to view it. It is even, in my opinion, the duty of the individual artist to censor him/herself. (Unfashionable as that view may be today.) If you know that someone looking at your art may be strengthened in their wish to do harm to another, keep it to yourself.

If we are unwilling to exercise personal responsibility, there is no rule of law that can protect us from ourselves.

Founding Wisdom: Jefferson

2008-04-19T08:56:00.003-05:00

This post is originally taken from the Institute for Balanced Government and reposted here in its entirety.

In a letter to Justice William Johnson dated June 12, 1823, Thomas Jefferson wrote (source: Jefferson, Writings; Library of America, p. 1476):

"I believe the States can best govern our home concerns, and the General Government our foreign ones. I wish, therefore, to see maintained that wholesome distribution of powers established by the constitution for the limitation of both; and never to see all offices transferred to Washington, where, further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought and sold as at the market."

It is difficult to both dispute the vision of Jefferson and argue that what we have today with respect to the administration of the people's business is either proper or effective. Indeed, as Jefferson foresaw, the poorest administration of government is the one whereby the domestic matters which belong to the people are spirited away to a distant sphere of responsibility. This breeds distrust, apathy and contempt among the people for their own government.

As the Founders themselves told us time and again, it is this concept of the division of powers among the spheres - balanced government - which accounts for much of the genius of our system. Certainly, the separation of power among the branches of government is important, yet this mechanism wasn't entirely new among governments in the 18th century. And of course the specific mechanisms created (especially balancing the representation scheme between the House and the Senate) also display the mark of genius, or at least thoughtful study and consideration.

Despite the often bitter partisanship between Jefferson and Hamilton and the then-Republicans and the Federalists in general, we can see from this example that there were concepts that were universally accepted and weren't subject to partisan disagreement. The concept of Balanced Government is just such an idea.

Conservablogs

2008-03-31T21:09:00.002-05:00

My friend and colleague Eric runs this excellent site, which I've had in the blogroll for a while now. If you haven't checked it out yet, go to this link, a short promotional piece that Eric was kind enough to put up, and be sure to hop around all over the site. It's quite good, and for busy people it's nice to have many writers all in one place.

Victim Culture

2008-03-30T22:02:00.003-05:00

I could write from now until the end of time on the idiocy that the American left and their minions in the media are responsible for, not the least of which is this mentality that people are not capable, resourceful and sentient beings, but helpless, stupid victims deserving of our sympathy; or, at least, our money.

Comes now this story from the AP, headlined "Katrina victims may have to repay money." (emphasis mine)

Those poor souls who died in the storm were victims. The survivors, don't forget, are also victims. I've got to excerpt a pretty big part of the article, but hang in there.

NEW ORLEANS - Imagine that your home was reduced to mold and wood framing by Hurricane Katrina. Desperate for money to rebuild, you engage in a frustrating bureaucratic process, and after months of living in a government-provided trailer tainted with formaldehyde you finally win a federal grant.

Then a collector calls with the staggering news that you have to pay back thousands of dollars.

Thousands of Katrina victims may be in that situation.

A private contractor under investigation for the compensation it received to run the Road Home grant program for Katrina victims says that in the rush to deliver aid to homeowners in need some people got too much. Now it wants to hire a separate company to collect millions in grant overpayments.

The contractor, ICF International of Fairfax, Va., revealed the extent of the overpayments when it issued a March 11 request for bids from companies willing to handle "approximately 1,000 to 5,000 cases that will necessitate collection effort."

The bid invitation said: "The average amount to be collected is estimated to be approximately $35,000, but in some cases may be as high as $100,000 to $150,000."

The biggest grant amount allowed by the Road Home program is $150,000, so ICF believes it paid some recipients the maximum when they should not have received a penny. If ICF's highest estimate of 5,000 collection cases — overpaid by an average of $35,000 — proves to be true, that means applicants will have to pay back a total of $175 million.

One-third of qualified applicants for Road Home help had yet to receive any rebuilding check as of this past week. The program, which has come to symbolize the lurching Katrina recovery effort, is financed by $11 billion in federal funds.

ICF spokeswoman Gentry Brann said in an e-mail Friday that the overpayments are the inevitable result of the Road Home grant being recalculated to account for insurance money and government aid given to Katrina victims.

Got that? Skip the melodrama in the beginning and read the fourth paragraph again: this is money that people received that didn't belong to them and that they weren't entitled to. If the bank transfers $1 million into your account wrongfully and you spend it, guess what? You still have to find a way to pay it back.

And then it gets worse, if you didn't think that was a possibility. Some folks got the maximum - $150,000 - who weren't entitled to a penny. In all, $175 million, quite possibly, that needs to be repaid. Funded how, again? Oh, yeah, $11 billion in federal funds.

Let's pause for a minute and reflect on that. $11 billion to rebuild New Orleans (and parts of the Gulf Coast), and we're coming up on, what, three years this summer? The Chicago fire of 1871 burned down nearly the entire city between October 8-10, 1871. By 1873, the city had rebuilt, surprisingly with no federal disaster aid. Fortunes were made (and lost) in those two years, but that's how free markets work. Steel beam construction was a slightly important innovation out of the rebuilding effort, and Chicago grew up stronger and better than it had been before the fire.

I've said it before regarding Katrina: there was indeed a failure of government in getting people out and responding to the storm. But the failure wasn't that of the federal government. It wasn't really even the failure of the state. No, it was the failure of the self, and the absence of self-government; and the continued dismal state of the region is further indictment that a dependent people are as sad a condition as exists.

How has this country lost the can-do spirit of men like Andrew Higgins? And New Orleans, of all places: shouldn't you look to his example?

SamSphere Chicago

2008-03-30T08:43:00.004-05:00

This weekend my employer hosted a blogger conference in Chicago, which was by all accounts a big success (still going on right now). I am grateful that I got a chance to discuss my project with the attendees.

And I got to meet some cool people. Here's the links to their blogs:

MaineWebReport - Lance, it was good to meet you. I, too, have found people on the internet who are wrong; together let us set them right.

mtpolitics - Craig, God willing, one day I'll be moving out to your part of the country; the further away from Detroit the better.

Louisiana Conservative - Jeff, it was good talking with you (twice) and my apologies for the nanny-statism of Illinois that had you outdoors both times; while I'm sure it is nicer in LA, what we had Saturday isn't that bad for weather this time of year.

American Princess Blog - EMZ, see my comment above to Craig. A colleague of mine calls Mexico "the Michigan of the south" and while Illinois is no conservative paradise, you'll think you're in heaven if you decide to make the move.

IL GOP Network - my second chance to meet Mark Johnson, who has piqued my curiosity about blog talk radio and youtube channels (I'll be off to surf that later).

The Voice for Liberty in Wichita - nice meeting you, Bob, and talking philosophy, I always enjoy those discussions and appreciate you humoring me while I gabbed.

Oklahoma Political News Service - (and NLB) Chris, it was good to meet you and get your take on what's going on in Misery, er, Missouri. I've got to get you hooked up with my blog mate TM, who's an Okie.

I am both certain and worried that I'm forgetting a few people, but I haven't had coffee yet and the old brain is working slowly this morning. My apologies to those attendees I am blanking on right now, and thank you to all of them for attending. Thanks to my colleagues and friends who were there as well.

What's up with the AFB?

2008-03-25T20:51:00.003-05:00

Given my lack of activity on the American Federalist Blog this month, I figure a little explanation is necessary.

I've started getting involved in the Republican Liberty Caucus, and the Illinois chapter. Follow that link and you'll see my first post on their wordpress-hosted website. I'll probably post there on Illinois and the GOP as those ideas come to me. The folks that write in this space have talked about the RLC before, and we're not 100% in agreement with them; which is OK, I think, because I sure as all-get-up am not in agreement with the GOP itself. I do think that the RLC might be a good organization for balanced government types like myself. Their people at least would have a better than average understanding of the Constitution and our founding. Where we diverge on policy issues, well, I'll make it my mission to help them see the beauty of balanced government and that where we disagree, I'm right and they're wrong. (I joke...)

I've also been working on my own not-for-profit. Behold, The Institute for Balanced Government. I'm not anywhere near where I want to be with it, but it is time consuming and I'm content to have small incremental changes and successes, because it is, to my way of thinking, a marathon and not a sprint; and I trust y'all won't judge me too harshly if I disclaim that it's still in beta stage. I will probably take some of the best posts on balanced government from this blog and dress them up for the Institute's blog. A consequence of this is that I'll probably be doing more posting on the topic there than here.

All of which leads me to my last point: I'm tired, people! And, unfortunately, less sleep makes for less reading and fresh ideas to post on. Bear with me if the posting comes less frequently (and check out those other links because I might be posting elsewhere), and thanks for being some of the greatest Liberty-loving readers an American Federalist could ask for!

Judgepedia!

2008-03-25T20:37:00.004-05:00

Shameless self-promotion follows:

Judgepedia has been my work and enjoyment for the past couple of months, and the site is up and live. If you know what wikipedia is, then you'll understand that it's just like wikipedia, except concerning everything about judges and the judiciary. And it's awesome, despite its "beta" look and level of completion thus far.

We had our first press release today, and we'll probably get a lot of traffic on it (there happens to be a pretty crucial Supreme Court race in Wisconsin). The site is important for a couple of reasons, but the main one is to cast light on an area of government that isn't well understood by the average voter (and many, many judges are elected).

Know something about a judge in your state? We're on the lookout for contributors, so sign up and have at it. And feel free to contact me with questions on how to edit a page if you're interested (short answer: like blogging, once you spend a couple of days playing around, it will be like second nature).

New National Motto

2008-03-23T21:19:00.003-05:00

"Lead us not into temptation, and deliver us from ourselves."

I've written a little here on the topic of economics. Pity that it comes up as often as it does in this context: in 2008 in the United States of America, we've reached a point where people can't be responsible for their own irresponsibility, and it is the duty of "the government" to protect them from themselves and businesses alike. Today's hobgoblin isn't the mortgage "crisis", but the pay-day lenders.

Here's a typical story:

Janet Hudson, 40, ran into pay day loans when she and her fiance broke up, leaving her with a young son and a $1,000 monthly mortgage payment. Short on cash, she took out three small pay day loans online totaling $900 but fell behind with her payments. Soon her monthly interest and fees totaled $800.

"It almost equaled my mortgage and I wasn't even touching the principal of the loans," said Hudson, who works as an administrative assistant.

After falling behind on her mortgage, Hudson asked Rochester, New York-based nonprofit Empire Justice Center for help. A lawyer at Empire, Rebecca Case-Grammatico, advised her to stop paying off the pay day loans because the loans were unsecured debt.

"For months after that the pay day lenders left me voice mails threatening to have me thrown in jail, take everything I owned and destroy my credit rating," Hudson said. After several months, the pay day lenders offered to reach a settlement.

But Hudson was already so far behind on her mortgage that she had to sell her home April 2007 to avoid foreclosure.

"Thanks to the (New York state) ban on pay day loans we've been spared large scale problems, but Internet loans have still cost people their homes," Case-Grammatico said.

Emphasis most definitely mine. Here's the thing: don't take out the loan if you can't pay it back. She "ran into" the loans? Sounds like an accident, doesn't it? I know people are struggling; I'm not without a heart and it's unfortunate. But when we stop expecting adults to act like adults, we're doing people an enormous, and painfully unnecessary disservice.

Side note: you think that the lawyer working for the agency in question, she with the dual/hyphenated last name, might be a leftist?

What's my solution to these crises? It's called self-government, about the only government that should be involved in the regulation of mortgage lending and pay-day loans.

Pope Baptizes Muslim

2008-03-22T22:43:00.002-05:00

The Easter Vigil - a beautiful service that I have been to at my Parish on more than one occasion - was newsworthy this evening with the news that the Pope baptized a "controversial" Muslim convert. Read the whole thing here.

Controversial, of course, because of his criticism of Islam. And now, as if he wasn't a marked man to begin with, he'll have the death threats coming from all directions. For this is the command of their prophet, that conversion is punishable by death. (H/T: Jihad Watch)

Now, if we could only get people to drop the PC references to what we're up against, we might make some progress.

Happy Easter

2008-03-21T22:42:00.003-05:00

In case I get carried away with my schedule tomorrow and don't get a chance to say it Sunday, happy Easter to all of our friends.

I'm a big believer, on another note, that there's a time and place for everything, and there are tides in the affairs of men, to borrow a phrase. I've been away from the blog for quite some time now, and hope to get a chance to blog about a couple of things this weekend. Some of it will be your garden-variety postings, of which I've been brewing a couple of ideas. I also have a couple of plugs to make, so we'll hopefully get to those too.

I've enjoyed my time away, and God willing will have some more activity starting this weekend.

California Ruling

2008-03-13T17:12:00.006-05:00

I have been looking at the filed brief of the California Court case that "outlaws" homeschooling. See it here. It's very interesting.
One of the first things that stands out, to me, is this statement:

"However, California courts have held that under provisions in the
Education Code, parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children."

I wasn't aware that California's educational code was capable of defining the limits of the rights of individuals outlined in The U.S. Constitution. But then the U.S. Constitution doesn't specifically address parental rights, nor does it include provision for the public instruction of children. Perhaps, having recognized from Mr. Blackwell's writings the uniqueness at that point in history of having one's children actually counted as one's own rather than the property of the king or government, they could not conceive of a time when a free citizenry would willingly part with that right. Perhaps they considered it so basic as to not require specific inclusion among our "unalienable rights". (No, I will not address in this post the fact that wives and servants were also considered property under those laws as that has been addressed by our current system of laws already.) Perhaps, our founders thought, as do I, that since children used to be considered the property of the state or ruler, but were no longer considered so under the English common law at the time of the Revolutionary War, they should therefore fall under the category of personal property. Property of the parents, not the state.

Or, perhaps this statement is referring to California's state constitution.( A constitution, which, as far as I could see, contained no prohibition against homeschooling.)

The first section of California's Constitution states:

"SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy."

It could be argued that homeschooling is a way of protecting and caring for one's property and therefore the right to homeschool should be protected under the U.S. Constitution's 14th amendment. (I grant you, however that I am not a lawyer, and this brings up sticky questions like "How can my child be a citizen as well as property?". I don't know the answer to that question, but I think we need to be about the business of finding out or amending our Constitution to assure us of our parental rights, soon. )

The ruling quotes Turner v. People of the State of California (1954) 347 U.S. 972 [98 L.Ed. 1112, 74 S.Ct. 785]., upon which much of this ruling is based, with this:

” Turner also held that the subject former statutes were neither arbitrary nor
unreasonable when they required that teachers in private full-time day schools only be “persons capable of teaching” and did not have to hold a valid teaching credential for the grade being taught, but did require that a home tutor hold such a credential. The court observed that whereas it is unreasonably difficult and expensive for a state to supervise parents who instruct children in their homes, supervising teachers in organized private schools is less difficult and expensive. (Turner, supra, 121 Cal.App.2d Supp. at p. 867.)"

Does this mean that the reasoning behind forcing a homeschooling parent in California to hold teaching credentials stems wholly from the argument that it is less convenient and more expensive for the state if they don't? It further states that a teacher in a public school does not have to have teaching credentials, but must only be a person capable of teaching. (Once again I am forced to recognize that the path to destruction often begins with convenience.)
This seems to be saying that the state of California is insisting that homeschooled children must have access to better(i.e. certified) teachers than public school children. It seems that in the state of California I must be better educated to teach my own child at no cost to the state than to teach someone else's children for a salary. But wait! There's more to this exercise in absurdity. The case goes on to say:

"The court stated California’s
legislative scheme makes no such exemption to attendance in a public school. (Turner,
supra, 121 Cal.App.2d Supp. at p. 868-869; accord Shinn, supra, 195 Cal.App.2d, at
p. 694, where the court stated that “[h]ome education, regardless of its worth, is not the legal equivalent of attendance in school in the absence of instruction by qualified private tutors.”)"

So, if a parent is not a "qualified private tutor", they are not capable of administering the legal equivalent (please note, it says legal equivalent, not educational equivalent or even qualitative equivalent.) of attendance in a public school system whose teachers are not required to hold teaching credentials? . Does this make sense to anyone else? Legal equivalent. Is this what our society has come to? The quality of a child's education is dependent upon the convenience of the state "regardless of it's worth"? I find this very odd, especially in view of the fact California's state Constitution has been amended (Article 1 section 7)in regard to busing school children to different districts(I think)to say:

"In amending this subdivision, the Legislature and people of the State of California find and declare that this amendment is necessary to serve compelling public interests, including those of making the most effective use of the limited financial resources now and prospectively available to support public education, maximizing the educational opportunities and protecting the health and safety of all public school pupils, enhancing the ability of parents to participate in the educational process, preserving harmony and tranquility in this State and its public schools, preventing the waste of scarce fuel resources, and protecting the environment."

Wouldn't homeschooling serve the "compelling public interest" in these ways far more effectively than public schools?

There is more, but let me add one last note. In the article posted at the San Francisco Chronicle's web-site, there is a comment that just about sums up this case for me. It is an appalling comment from Leslie Heimov, executive director of the Children's Law Center of Los Angeles who represented two of the children in this case. (I'm guessing the children had representation because they were minors and so it was assigned to them to guard their "best" interests, but am unsure of the particulars of California law.)
"Heimov said her organization's chief concern was not the quality of the children's education, but their "being in a place daily where they would be observed by people who had a duty to ensure their ongoing safety."

It doesn't sound like the quality of a child's education in California is the state's main concern either. It sounds very much like the state's main concern is having the right to treat the children of their citizens as the property of the state.
In my mind, the people who have the greatest interest in ensuring the ongoing safety of their children are their parents.

Tying Up Loose Ends

2008-02-28T21:43:00.003-06:00

That which is begun deserves to be finished, I suppose, and so I give you this post. I blogged about The Right to Ignore the State before, and had every intention of making a multiple part series out of it. Enough other things compete for my time such that I'm condensing that all into this rather abbreviated post. Of course, I referenced the link in the post below (here 'tis, again) so you can read the whole thing in its entirety for your own benefit.

Spencer discusses the subordination of government authority; that governmental power comes from the people who grant it such power, and that the power of government is beholden to the power of the people. This is true of large things, and it is also true of small things. While rational persons would balk at the majority imposing slavery, tyranny or murder against the minority (because of the law of equal freedom), the same law applies to small matters (even "mundane" things such as taxation). The will of the majority cannot supersede morality; and no trespass against the rights of the minority is permissible. Spencer notes that there is no meaningful difference between the dictator who says “You shall do as I will, not as you will” and the rule of the few who say “You shall do as we will, not as you will.”

On taxation, Spencer quotes Blackstone: “no subject of England can be constrained to pay any aids or taxes even for the defense of the realm or the support of the government, but such as are imposed by his own consent, or that of his representative in Parliament.” If this is true, and we assert it is, then says Spencer:

In affirming that a man may not be taxed unless he has directly or indirectly given his consent, it affirms that he may refuse to be so taxed; and to refuse to be taxed, is to cut all connection with the state. Perhaps it will be said that this consent is not a specific, but a general one, and that the citizen is understood to have assented to every thing his representative may do [MT: I would agree with Spencer that this is a questionable argument], when he voted for him. But suppose he did not vote for him; and on the contrary did all in his power to get elected some one holding opposite views — what then? The reply will probably be that, by taking part in such an election, he tacitly agreed to abide by the decision of the majority. And how if he did not vote at all? Why then he cannot justly complain of any tax, seeing that he made no protest against its imposition. So, curiously enough, it seems that he gave his consent in whatever way he acted — whether he said yes, whether he said no, or whether he remained neuter! A rather awkward doctrine this. Here stands an unfortunate citizen who is asked if he will pay money for a certain proffered advantage; and whether he employs the only means of expressing his refusal or does not employ it, we are told that he practically agrees; if only the number of others who agree is greater than the number of those who dissent. And thus we are introduced to the novel principle that A's consent to a thing is not determined by what A says, but by what B may happen to say!

He then points out a curious inconsistency. Namely, we are quite accustomed to ignoring the state, but only in some respects:

For what is the meaning of Dissent? The time was when a man's faith and his mode of worship were as much determinable by law as his secular acts; and, according to provisions extant in our statute-book, are so still. Thanks to the growth of a Protestant spirit, however, we have ignored the state in this matter — wholly in theory, and partly in practice. But how have we done so? By assuming an attitude which, if consistently maintained, implies a right to ignore the state entirely. Observe the positions of the two parties. "This is your creed," says the legislator; "you must believe and openly profess what is here set down for you." "I shall not do any thing of the kind," answers the non-conformist, "I will go to prison rather." "Your religious ordinances," pursues the legislator, "shall be such as we have prescribed. You shall attend the churches we have endowed, and adopt the ceremonies used in them." "Nothing shall induce me to do so," is the reply; "I altogether deny your power to dictate to me in such matters, and mean to resist to the uttermost." "Lastly," adds the legislator, "we shall require you to pay such sums of money toward the support of these religious institutions, as we may see fit to ask." "Not a farthing will you have from me," exclaims our sturdy Independent: "even did I believe in the doctrines of your church (which I do not), I should still rebel against your interference; and if you take my property, it shall be by force and under protest."

Ah, the institutions we are forced to support! Were I to list them, this would be a much longer post!

Indeed, for some reason, we stand firm for our liberty on the basis of our right to worship God; yet, we cave into secular demands on our liberty when we know full well that the appropriation of our property will serve immoral ends. Says he:

No legislative injunction will make him adopt what he considers an erroneous belief; and, bearing in mind his duty toward his fellow-men, he refuses to help through the medium of his purse in disseminating this erroneous belief. The position is perfectly intelligible. But it is one which either commits its adherents to civil nonconformity also, or leaves them in a dilemma. For why do they refuse to be instrumental in spreading error? Because error is adverse to human happiness. And on what ground is any piece of secular legislation disapproved? For the same reason — because thought adverse to human happiness. How then can it be shown that the state ought to be resisted in the one case and not in the other? Will any one deliberately assert that if a government demands money from us to aid in teaching what we think will produce evil, we ought to refuse it; but that if the money is for the purpose of doing what we think will produce evil, we ought not to refuse it? Yet such is the hopeful proposition which those have to maintain who recognize the right to ignore the state in religious matters, but deny it in civil matters.

Spencer closes with a somewhat hopeful vision of a changing society: one where self-governing persons reject the need for external government. I share this vision, that one day, by applying the principles of balanced government, we will have a citizenry that is well-versed in the art of self-government, and properly hold external government to the areas it is intended to be assigned to. Balanced government begets self-government and, indeed, morality – defined by the virtues of self-sufficiency and self-restraint that are necessary components of self-goverrnment.

My Appeal to Social Conservatives

2008-02-23T10:47:00.004-06:00

I've been holding off on posting on this for a couple of days as I've wanted the idea to solidify itself in my mind. I'm sufficiently pleased that it has, and it's time, I think, to get after it.

This post is a critique and an appeal to people who consider themselves social conservatives. My critique will center on the role of government in the eyes of social conservatives, and my appeal will be to reject this view and embrace a balanced government perspective.

Disclaimer: while I would describe myself as "socially conservative" I would not call myself a "social conservative" because the former describes one's views on morality and the latter is a description of one's political philosophy. The socially conservative person holds traditional ideas about family, religion, marriage, life and society. These are all admirable and desirable values, necessary to a healthy and strong society. The self-described social conservative holds those ideas; yet also views the role of "government" as one of advancing those ideas.

The problem with this idea is that morality's basis - and really its ability to continue as a strong and invulnerable cornerstone of society - comes from the smallest spheres of government. A moral and socially conservative society is a reflection of a moral and socially conservative people. To create such a society (and I think we'd all acknowledge that we're less so today than we were 20, 40, or 60 years ago) requires self-government. Creating distant, external forces intended to encourage social conservatism is a lot like creating distant, external forces intended to encourage any form of positive social change (think reducing poverty, encouraging education). It's ineffective and inconsistent with the design of our republic.

In short, while distant external government shouldn't be supportive of immorality or policies that are destructive to society, beyond the extent that it serves to protect the inalienable rights of citizens (such as life), it should be silent on most issues; they are the domain of the smallest spheres of government. The debate has been framed entirely incorrectly. Social conservatives, tired of external government imposing liberal ideas upon them, have elected to act using the same liberal tactic, to impose their views.

So here's my pitch to social conservatives: reject social (and "compassionate") conservatism and consider balanced government. Social conservatism should be a goal, not a tactic. There's no other political philosophy I am aware of that can potentially foster the re-birth of self-government like balanced government, gradually and inevitably. And really, that's the best guarantor of a socially conservative society: self-governing people, self-governing families, and self-governing communities.

The Right to Ignore the State

2008-02-21T20:30:00.003-06:00

My colleague Matt pointed this essay out to me. This brilliant piece of the same name as this post, written by Herbert Spencer in 1884, is a thought-provoking essay on self-government. While I recommend it be read in its entirety, I’m going to break up a discussion on this work into several small parts, and you'll see my comments inserted throughout the essay.

Section 1 – The Right to Voluntary Outlawry

As a corollary to the proposition that all institutions must be subordinated to the law of equal freedom, we cannot choose but admit the right of the citizen to adopt a condition of voluntary outlawry. If every man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man, then he is free to drop connection with the state — to relinquish its protection, and to refuse paying toward its support. It is self-evident that in so behaving he in no way trenches upon the liberty of others; for his position is a passive one; and whilst passive he cannot become an aggressor.”

MT: Here Spencer lays out his basis for the essay: that people have the right to “drop out” of society. If we accept the laws of Nature and Nature’s God, we must acknowledge that government, as an institution created by man to protect his natural rights, is subordinated to man’s individual rights: if a conflict existed between a person’s natural rights and government power, the individual’s natural rights must be superior. Therefore, supposing a conflict exists, each individual has the right to self-govern and adopt “voluntary outlawry” – meaning living outside the law, according to the dictates of conscience.

It is equally self-evident that he cannot be compelled to continue one of a political corporation, without a breach of the moral law, seeing that citizenship involves payment of taxes; and the taking away of a man's property against his will, is an infringement of his rights. Government being simply an agent employed in common by a number of individuals to secure to them certain advantages, the very nature of the connection implies that it is for each to say whether he will employ such an agent or not. If any one of them determines to ignore this mutual-safety confederation, nothing can be said except that he loses all claim to its good offices, and exposes himself to the danger of maltreatment — a thing he is quite at liberty to do if he likes. He cannot be coerced into political combination without a breach of the law of equal freedom; he can withdraw from it without committing any such breach; and he has therefore a right so to withdraw.

MT: Spencer continues and highlights a critical point. If we have a right to our life, which cannot be taken from us justly but only may be forfeited by our actions, then we also have a right to our work, which is the product of our life (our efforts, talents, and time). While nearly every sensible person will admit that slavery is immoral and unjust, fewer understand the rationale behind such a truth: we own our work because we own our lives. Furthermore, if we own our work and cannot be forced to labor for another against our will (although we may again forfeit such rights through our own negative actions; here I am speaking of incarceration), we also own and have a right to the fruits of our labor. Our labor and what we produce is ours because we own our lives; our property is ours by extension. It is therefore immoral to take from another person the fruits of their labor, whether by robbery or by compulsion through taxation. One cannot argue the power to tax without acknowledging the right to withdraw, in other words. If such a right did not exist, free men are not free at all, but merely subjects under a different monarch.

Section 2 The Immorality of the State

No human laws are of any validity if contrary to the law of nature; and such of them as are valid derive all their force and all their authority mediately or immediately from this original." Thus writes Blackstone, to whom let all honour be given for having so far outseen the ideas of his time; and, indeed, we may say of our time. A good antidote, this, for those political superstitions which so widely prevail. A good check upon that sentiment of power-worship which still misleads us by magnifying the prerogatives of constitutional governments as it once did those of monarchs. Let men learn that a legislature is not "our God upon earth," though, by the authority they ascribe to it, and the things they expect from it, they would seem to think it is. Let them learn rather that it is an institution serving a purely temporary purpose, whose power, when not stolen, is at the best borrowed.

MT: Spencer calls out that mode of thinking that even existed in his time. Namely, that external government has unlimited powers, though he uses the term “constitutional governments.” Such a mentality – if it is fair to suggest that there is any mental activity related to such a sentiment – is evident today when little consideration is given to the balance between the spheres of government. Little is, I suggest, because upon reflection one would determine that the deficient sphere is the self, and while there are few that can recognize this, there are fewer who are mature enough to admit and accept this and there are even fewer who can change that in themselves. Thus, the thing ignored and not acknowledged continues to provide a dissonance-free existence. He also astutely describes that state of depravation where a person thinks that the state is like God – full of authority and able to do anything they happen to need. A sadder existence is difficult to comprehend.

Nay, indeed, have we not seen that government is essentially immoral? Is it not the offspring of evil, bearing about it all the marks of its parentage? Does it not exist because crime exists? Is it not strong, or as we say, despotic, when crime is great? Is there not more liberty, that is, less government, as crime diminishes? And must not government cease when crime ceases, for very lack of objects on which to perform its function? Not only does magisterial power exist because of evil; but it exists by evil. Violence is employed to maintain it; and all violence involves criminality. Soldiers, policemen, and gaolers; swords, batons, and fetters, are instruments for inflicting pain; and all infliction of pain is in the abstract wrong. The state employs evil weapons to subjugate evil, and is alike contaminated by the objects with which it deals, and the means by which it works. Morality cannot recognize it; for morality, being simply a statement of the perfect law can give no countenance to any thing growing out of, and living by, breaches of that law. Wherefore, legislative authority can never be ethical - must always be conventional merely.

MT: While Spencer is right in theory, the prospect of a self-governing utopia, wherein one is free to police their own life, unmolested by the infringement of any other person, seems so far from reality as to be ridiculous. Governments are instituted among men to protect their rights, and while there are gravely immoral aspects to external government, I hope that it could be, eventually and on the whole, less immoral. Indeed, though external government will always be a necessity given the fallen state of man, I don’t assume that government must always operate in the condition that it is currently in. A government that operates on the consent of the governed to protect their rights (civil, religious and so forth) against encroachment seems at worst a morally-neutral agent.

Hence, there is a certain inconsistency in the attempt to determine the right position, structure, and conduct of a government by appeal to the first principles of rectitude. For, as just pointed out, the acts of an institution which is in both nature and origin imperfect, cannot be made to square with the perfect law. All that we can do is to ascertain, firstly, in what attitude a legislature must stand to the community to avoid being by its mere existence an embodied wrong; — secondly, in what manner it must be constituted so as to exhibit the least incongruity with the moral law; — and thirdly, to what sphere its actions must be limited to prevent it from multiplying those breaches of equity it is set up to prevent.

The first condition to be conformed to before a legislature can be established without violating the law of equal freedom, is the acknowledgment of the right now under discussion — the right to ignore the state.

MT: Where balanced government as a political philosophy has the potential to exhibit superiority over other ideologies lies in the ability to foster and revive the instinct of self-government. Spencer rightly notes that a legislature (I might add at any level) must be confined or limited to spheres of influence so as not to violate the liberties of the people it is constituted to protect. Whereas we’ve become so fantastically imbalanced, any progress to return balance to the spheres of government closest to the self would be a vast improvement; yet, eternal vigilance must be exercised in constantly pushing authority and responsibility to the most personal spheres of government.

More to follow. I hope the readership enjoys this as much as I did (and do).

Bush: Keep Abstinence in AIDS Program

2008-02-17T21:59:00.003-06:00

That was the headline of this AP article today. Which made me think of my own headline: "Federalists: Keep Feds Out of Domestic Matters."

Of course, that's not entirely the whole story. See, President Bush is on a trip to Africa and he was speaking about his global AIDS program. The global AIDS program that has spent $18 billion so far and that the President is pushing for renewal to the tune of $30 billion over five years.

The quote that says it all?

"We don't want people guessing on the continent of Africa whether the generosity of the American people will continue," Bush said in Tanzania, the second stop of his African trip.

If only it were the generosity of "the American people" we were talking about, Mr. President. The generosity of the American people is unequalled in the world, and it never fails that when the people of America get the call that someone needs help, the American people step up, no strings attached.

Unfortunately, it's the generosity of the American Congress, such as it is, that we're discussing now. Remarkable that this point is utterly lost on the American Left (including their public relations firm, the mainstream media). No, the point of focus in this news item was that...

Some Democrats want to eliminate a provision in the bill that requires one-third of all prevention spending go to abstinence-until-marriage programs. Critics say that while they don't oppose abstinence programs, the inflexible requirement hampers the effort.

The real problem, you see, in the minds of Leftists, is not that we're nearly bankrupt from entitlement spending and that on top of that we're somehow giving away $6 billion a year in medical aid. It's that we have some pesky moral condition attached to it.

I should be so fortunate as to have the fruits of my labor taken from me and used for programs that are morally consistent with my worldview. No mention if first it can be afforded (after all, it feels good, don't question it) or second, if it is consistent with the role of the general government.

When... it hits the fan, and hit the fan it will, the result is going to be ugly. We're a debtor in denial right now; we'll have to face the music sometime and the longer we wait the worse it is going to be.

Head of GAO Resigns

2008-02-16T08:43:00.002-06:00

Not probably the most newsworthy item out there, but I remember this guy, David Walker, our Comptroller General. I blogged on him a while back on my personal page about his "60 Minutes" interview. Now comes the news that he's leaving his position early, to pursue what sounds like his passion: informing Americans in a way he couldn't as a government employee about the looming fiscal disaster.

Here's a video with more on the topic, a Glenn Beck interview with David Walker.

The most amazing figures? Each and every household in America would owe the government $400,000 to pay for our looming entitlement disaster. Socialist Security and Medicare obligations are left out of our stated deficit figures; if these were included (following normal corporate accounting standards) our deficit would be a whopping 69% higher than reported.

It's Like Deja Vu All Over Again

2008-02-15T20:32:00.003-06:00

It appears, faithful reader, that indeed there must, simply must, be something in the water that the European youths drink. Wouldn't you know it, the youths are rioting again.

Where is this happening, you ask? It is happening...

"...in a predominantly immigrant area of the Danish capital, police said Friday."

C'mon, you know your media speech decoding. No, they're not Polish immigrants. No, those aren't Irish immigrant youth. What, you're asking, could have the youths rioting? Here's a gem from the Chief Inspector Henrik Olesen in Copenhagen:

"We don't know why they're rioting. I think it's because they're bored. Some people say it's because of the cartoons but that's not my opinion," Olesen said.

Well, boredom does spawn riots, it is a common affair in most western cultures. However, it appears that several Danish papers reprinted those wonderful Mahomet cartoons. It's almost tiring at this point, constantly pointing out the absurd behavior of a bunch of people indistinguishable in most every respect from 7th century dirt farmers.

Almost.

Attention College Bloggers

2008-02-12T20:22:00.000-06:00

My friend Eric Odom passed this along to me, and here's the link for you to check it out.

I'm simultaneously pleased and a little jealous that college-age kids have the opportunity to get a scholarship for doing something as fun and rewarding as blogging about politics.

Hopefully things like this will help to encourage the next generation of political leaders.

The Conservative Manifesto

2008-02-09T09:41:00.000-06:00

A man is talking to a friend about politics. Both men are fairly conservative. The first man is bemoaning the awful state of the government: runaway entitlements, ethical lapses, wrong-headed policies, and a sense that the governors have contempt for the governed. His friend, the second man, nods in agreement at the indictments the first man rattles off. The discussion turns to an upcoming election. The second man asks his friend "Who did you vote for in the previous election?"

"No one" says the first man, "I don't vote."

We've probably all had some variation of this story happen to us. And anyone who has will readily admit that such an admission elicits a fairly consistent response: we admonish others that voting is critical and both a right and responsibility, and without exercising that right and executing that responsibility, one forfeits his right to complain about our governors and our government. Fulfilling the duties of responsible citizenship is the burden one must bear to have the right to criticize the outcome. This concept goes back to the story of the little red hen which we remember from childhood. Everyone wants to share in the fruits of the labor, yet no one wants to share in the labor.

Across the blogosphere, I hear the same ideas repeated, if only slightly differently. These themes are: the GOP is broken; the Republican party has lost its way; we need a third party; where are our leaders; and what can we do now? While the blogosphere provides a critical service - that is, to say, news and commentary that would otherwise be unavailable via traditional media channels, and a means for like-minded people to connect with each other - it is far too easy to sit, comfortably, at our desks and "write fiery prose" as Mr. Hargis once said, when real change requires real action.

I've tried to share in this space some of the things I've actually done - other than sit at a desk and type. Perhaps other bloggers prefer to maintain some degree of anonymity, and therefore they don't catalogue for their readers the extensive volunteer activities they engage in politically. Perhaps. But I think it is more likely that bloggers like their comfort zone; getting out and working for a candidate involves trudging through eight inches of snow in January (and even falling down a set of icy stairs, as I did two weeks ago), and those things, are, well, just downright work; and in my case, actually very painful.

So I write this today for all of the inactive impassioned out there. You've got great ideas, and I think that's half of the recipe. The other half is you need a kick in the a.. um, pants. No one likes to hear it, but here's my advice, and I guess you could call this my Conservative Manifesto:

Push away from your desk and get up from the computer. Call your county or township GOP organization. Attend every monthly meeting; they're generally once a month and if I can do it given my commitments, anyone can. Volunteer to do things that need to get done: yes, these will likely be quite crappy and may include making phone calls to sell ad space, or volunteering to cover a precinct (and maybe in some cases, two) that aren't being worked. Get to know local candidates, and when you meet a good one, volunteer to stuff envelopes, bags of literature, and walk around (even in eight inches of snow, even if it's 20 degrees) distributing information on their behalf. In short, do what you've been doing online - building relationships and influencing others - with actual, live, person-to-person interactions.

When elections come, figuratively speaking, put your money where your mouth is. Organize like-minded people to walk precincts and make phone calls on behalf of conservative candidates in non-local contests. Hold meet-up groups where people can come together in support of those candidates. In short, take a look at what Ron Paul's people have done, get up off of your backside, and work.

And when elections roll around? You don't have to vote for John McCain; I've already said that I won't. But this won't keep me home. I'll be there voting for the conservatives in other races because they need my - and your - support. I'll be telling this to every single conservative I know who is disillusioned by a McCain candidacy: you still need to get out and vote for Senate, House, and State-wide races. Not liking the guy at the top of the ticket is no excuse for not supporting good people in their races.

In short: if you don't like the status quo, you have to change it. Not third person "you." I actually mean you. Assume that no one else will have the nerve, energy, or right ideas. Then, go do it.

When we've done everything we can do and the party doesn't conform to our vision, values and ideals, then we can declare it broken. Then we can assess what our options are. Then we can talk about creating a third party - Lord knows that's been a topic near and dear to my heart for a long, long time. Any of my co-contributors will vouch for that.

And if we get to that point, and conservatives need to find a new home, we'll have an army of conservative leaders who will have been working for change - not just writing about it - and will be ready to take that bold step into unchartered territory.

I'll close with a story that was shared with me recently. My friend Trevor Morgan shared this, that he had read in the WSJ. It seems that there was some new battery technology that was developed. Not by some scientists working for 3M, but by a guy in his garage. Said fellow was trying to build a better hot-rod, ostensibly to win races and impress girls. On more than one occasion, said fellow burned off the hair on his face working with an arc welder in his garage, but he eventually did it. The point of this story is that real change requires entrepreneurs. Not a scientist sitting in a lab who is concerned about a performance review or his 401(k), but someone who is willing to risk (repeated) visits to the emergency room for burn injuries in pursuit of a goal.

You may get sick walking a precinct in January. You may fall down a set of icy stairs on your back; if you're lucky and careful, probably not. Our Founders were willing to risk it all - everything - in pursuit of their values. If we're not willing to risk anything other than a couple of hours of free time, and only then sit at our computers and write that fiery prose, we're going to get more of the same. Be that entrepreneur who burns off his facial hair, though, and let's see if we can't get control of our party back.

Ron Paul at CPAC

2008-02-08T22:16:00.000-06:00

I'm still not with Paul on Iraq, but for most of this video, he sounds like any one of the conservatives who post and visit this page. At about 5:30 in to the video he lays into McCain. The clip is 8:34 all in and worth watching.

He's also strongly pro-life, and smart to boot: he closes with a comment that few people realize, namely, Congress can, by legislative act, restrict the scope of cases that the federal courts may hear.

While this post isn't an endorsement of Paul's campaign, it is an attempt to get people to consider him as a conservative alternative.

Romney Suspends Campaign; Buchanan Column; Some Thoughts on Ron Paul

2008-02-07T21:17:00.000-06:00

So Romney's speech at CPAC was a doozy, we were listening live at the office this afternoon as he announced. It was actually a pretty good speech, the suspension of the campaign notwithstanding. If you haven't heard the audio, it's worth a listen, as the audience had no idea it was coming and there was a chorus of surprised "no"'s coming from the crowd.

Caught Laura Ingraham (on tape delay) after the speech and she and Mark Steyn knew what was coming. Steyn made some remark about going out for drinks after the speech in a knowing manner, which you'd never catch on to if you hadn't just heard Mitt suspend his campaign. Interesting. Look, I liked him better than the other "top-tier" guys in the race, and it's over. It was fun to support him while it lasted and he's 60. Maybe in four years he'll refine his conservatism and not face the challenges he's faced in this primary. Maybe he'll drop the constant chorus of "I love legal immigration." Who knows?

This column by Pat Buchanan is outstanding. Too bad Pat's not running, although he might be a good write-in candidate. This might be worth a discussion among our fellow bloggers: should there be a coordinated write-in effort?

Lastly, I've got to come clean on some things re: Ron Paul. I've been hard on him in prior posts, and he's not the worst option out there; in fact, he merits some consideration if he went third party against McCain and Clinton. While I'm not with him on an immediate and total withdrawal from Iraq, he's an outstanding option when one considers a McCain (or Huckabee) candidacy. He's disavowed questionable statements made by supporters, another concern I had about him. I think a Paul Presidency would be extraordinary for a couple of reasons: first, the awe-inspiring number of vetos he'd issue, and second, he'd dismantle some federal departments, no question about it. I'm not ready to support him (plus, we've already voted in Illinois) but he looks much better than either of the two so-called GOP front-runners.

Super Tuesday Wrap-Up

2008-02-06T06:48:00.000-06:00

Strictly big picture - you can go get the individual results anywhere...

McCain is certainly in the driver's seat, which is unfortunate. Still, he's a bit of a way off from having it locked up, and Mitt's going to fight on to the Convention.

I'm amused by the argument that goes like this: "if you don't vote for the nominee in November, you're giving the election to Hillary" (or the Democrats). Never mind the fact that choosing a liberal like McCain in the primaries accomplishes the same thing when it means that conservatives won't vote for him. Where's the moral responsibility, then, for McCain supporters who have "given the election to the Democrats?"

And while I'm not surprised that Illinois went for McCain, there were a few states (OK being the most surprising) that I thought were more conservative than to vote for an open-borders, anti-free speech, global warming alarmist and purveyor of class warfare like John "Clean Government" McCain.

The only question that remains come November is: will conservatives have a third party choice or will most of us just write-in a candidate?

Rally for Romney

2008-02-03T20:04:00.000-06:00

The Mrs. and I attended a rally for Mitt Romney today at College of DuPage in Glen Ellyn. There were a lot of people there, and I'm a terrible judge of crowds, so I won't even guess. Here's the inside of the Arts Center at COD:

Mitt gave a great speech, hammering his opposition and invoking the principles of conservatism. We were able to attend the media session immediately after the speech, and here's the pictures from that event (thanks to my wonderful wife for taking so many pictures - and pointing me out in this one!).

Here's a picture of me with Dan Rutherford (R-Pontiac), Romney's Campaign Chairman for Illinois:

And lastly, a good picture of Romney himself. He handled the media very well in this private session; I was quite impressed.

I got to see some old friends, and some new ones, including Anne from Backyard Conservative. A couple days to go until Super Tuesday - I encourage everyone to get out and vote, and vote conservative!

Patriot Post Ratings

2008-02-02T11:21:00.000-06:00

Friday's edition of the Patriot Post profiled Mitt Romney, and the profile is worth a look. Mark Alexander rates Romney ahead of McCain in the Patriot's conservative rankings - which is really all that matters. Not some poll showing that McCain could beat a Democrat. Not McCain's hollow victories in early primary states by riding the wave of liberal Republicans and independent voters. Not the series of RINO endorsements that have rolled up for John "Clean Government" McCain.

Here's the Senator on "clean government":

No, the question is simple in the primary election: who's more conservative?

Excellent Blog Award

2008-02-02T06:54:00.000-06:00

This blog was rated "excellent" by our conservative friends at the Maritime Sentry. We sincerely appreciate their recognizing us. I'm going to follow the same format they used in this, my post.

"The rules: By accepting this Excellent Blog Award, you have to award it to 10 more people whose blogs you find Excellent Award worthy. You can give it to as many people as you want but please award at least 10. Thank you out there for having such great blogs and being such great friends! You deserve this! Feel free to award people who have already been awarded."

While part of me sheepishly admits that this sounds mildly like an e-mail forward, which I delete with extreme prejudice, I think it's a wonderful idea for blogs, which thrive through increased readership and recognition.

This is a great opportunity for each of us in this space to recognize some of our favorite blogs; I encourage my co-conspirators - excuse me! contributors - to do the same. Here is a list of the blogs I present this Excellent Blog Award to (in no particular order):

1. View From The Right
2. The Maritime Sentry
3. Reflecting Light
4. Webster's Blogspot (which in many respects has eclipsed this blog)
5. Vanishing American
6. Illinois Review
7. Conservablogs
8. Backyard Conservative
9. Katie's Dad
10. The Light Bulb

Ack! Just ten?? I could go on, and would, except I trust that my co-contributors will share their own lists and cover those excellent blogs that I ran out of room to mention. Please visit these folks and if you're on the list, consider making your own.

GOP Debate Analysis

2008-01-31T22:52:00.000-06:00

I read the transcript of the debate yesterday and my impression was that McCain came across as dishonest, particularly in his mincing of the English language with respect to Romney's position on the surge. I can see why Bill Clinton says that McCain has much in common with Hillary, for who can forget the insane word games of the Clintons?

The best analysis I have seen of the debate was this by Hugh Hewitt. McCain comes across - I watched some clips on YouTube (and by far the best clips show McCain's obvious contempt for Romney and Paul) - as angry and un-Presidential. Far from being a viable candidate against either Obama or Clinton, he'll be vulnerable to attacks and that the MSM hasn't dished these up yet in his fight against Romney should be a large, flashing, neon "tell."

The Right Answer?

2008-01-31T11:50:00.000-06:00

I Saw Mr. McCain a few weeks back, campaigning somewhere (Florida, I believe) on CNN. The thing that made me sit up a bit was this:

A woman in the audience raised her hand and said she was a teacher. Her children were starting college/in college and she wasn't able to afford to pay for her children's college, or do any of the other things she wanted with her life, unless she was paid more. She threatened that she could get a better paying job in the blink of an eye, but, ever the martyr, she just took some classes to make her a better and more valuable teacher and feels it would be a shame if she couldn't use them. She wants to keep sacrificing her time to teach but feels she simply can't afford to do so. Her question was along the lines of: "what are you going to do about getting a living wage for teachers?"

I was suddenly struck by how many times we have heard this argument and how annoying it is. I wondered what McCain's answer would be. Once again I was disappointed by the teachers are so valuable, we don't pay them enough and I hope you'll decide to keep teaching, MSM, PC babble. How many times have we heard what martyrs teachers are for our children? It's nonsense. How would that question sound coming from a store clerk, or a factory worker, or a nanny? They are making sacrifices too and in many cases they don't have the degree or training to just move to a better paying job. Aren't those jobs affecting the greater good too? Why are teachers deserving of special sainthood treatment? Are our children really such monsters that it requires a saint to teach them? I don't think so.

What was the answer I was looking for from a "conservative" candidate for president? How about this:
Ma'am, I thank you for spending part of your life as a teacher. If you need to leave the teaching profession to make a wage that will provide you with the things you feel you need in this life, go with my blessings. I thank you for your time and sacrifices, but that's a decision you need to make on your own. While I'm sure that your school will miss you, I am equally sure that there are many fine young people graduating from college this year who would be perfectly happy with the level of compensation you are receiving and who will also be fine teachers. I wouldn't want to deprive you of the choice to move on with your life and career goals by promising something that I, as president, would have very little control over.

Desensitized

2008-01-30T20:29:00.001-06:00

Perhaps it is only human nature, but hammer away at us enough times with the same data and our eyes sort of gloss over.

This is particularly unfortunate given the infection which ails this country - I speak of Liberalism. Through its control of the media, we are bombarded by images and stories of the worst kind until we barely register outrage any more.

Which is why I'm glad I read this post by Mr. Darby at Reflecting Light.

Let's not be the soon-to-be victim who feels secure having obtained a restraining order. Let's not drop our guard or begin to think that perhaps the enemy has ceased his aggressive ambitions.

Florida Primary Analysis

2008-01-30T06:50:00.001-06:00

I'm not one for long titles, so I had to cut it down to what you see above. But the appropriate title of this post should be "Inadvertently Insightful Florida Primary Analysis." See this link to the AP story.

Here's the best part:

In Florida, McCain won across a broad swath of voters: older people, veterans, Hispanics, moderates, liberal Republicans and, of course, independents, according to exit polls. And while Romney and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee shared the lead among born-again Christian voters, McCain only trailed slightly.

Aren't "moderates, liberal Republicans and, of course, independents" the same things? Notice any group that McCain didn't carry the day with? Oh yeah, those folks: conservatives.

Go Right!

2008-01-29T09:19:00.000-06:00

Courtesy of Reuters:

A road sign points the way to nearby towns Clinton and Prosperity in Newberry, South Carolina, January 25, 2008. US Democratic presidential candidates Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), former Senator John Edwards (D-NC) and Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) have been criss-crossing South Carolina ahead of the state's Democratic primary election. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst (UNITED STATES) US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN 2008 (USA)

The Incomparable Mark Steyn

2008-01-29T08:40:00.000-06:00

In the most recent issue of Imprimis (brought to you by the folks at Hillsdale College), Mark Steyn unravels the idea that somehow Canada should be the model for the United States, particularly from an economic point of view. Admittedly, this appears to be an idea that has traction only among a small slice of Americans, but given that this group tends to include academics, politicians and those organizations that control what news you see on television and read in the newspaper, it's probably a good idea to debunk such nonsense wherever one finds it.

Steyn on entitlements:

And if you have government health care, you not only annex a huge chunk of the economy, you also destroy a huge chunk of individual liberty. You fundamentally change the relationship between the citizen and the state into something closer to that of the junkie and the pusher, and you make it very difficult ever to change back.

And fantastically:

Quebec has a civil service that employs the same number of people as California's, even though California has a population nearly five times the size.

Steyn then explores one of my major concerns, corporate welfare:

Among the farmers piling up the dollar bills under the mattress are Ted Turner, Sam Donaldson, the oil company Chevron, and that dirt-poor, hardscrabble sharecropper David Rockefeller. But what you may not know is that also among the number is Edgar Bronfman, Sr., who isn't just any old billionaire, he's the patriarch of Montreal's wealthiest family, owner of Seagram's Whiskey, which subsequently bought Universal Pictures. So the U.S. taxpayer, in his boundless generosity, is subsidizing the small family farms of Canadian billionaires.

Steyn closes, not surprisingly, with some demographic statistics that make the future in Canada look bleaker than Edmonton in January. It's not long and Steyn is terrific, so enjoy the whole thing.

Short Animation on Liberty

2008-01-29T08:16:00.000-06:00

I'm out of the office sick today so I might get a chance to catch up on a number of things I've been putting off.

A colleague sent me this link to a short animation on Liberty. It's interesting. While I agree with nearly the entire content of the video, I'm left with the same thoughts I usually have when encountering advocates for Liberty. That is, there's a fine line between Liberty and License, and generally people who advocate for Liberty do so without any conditions; which is really to say that they are advocating for license, or anarchy.

The moment you place conditions on how much Liberty people may have, you're really discussing the necessity of external government. Most discussions of Liberty are based in the abstract or theoretical, and once you deign to engage in such a conversation with respect to the practical, actual, and operative nature of man, you must naturally appear a tyrant. While this may tire us, we owe it to our Liberty-loving "faithful opposition", as Mr. Morris once coined the term, to keep reminding them of the truths of human nature.

McCain vs. Madison

2008-01-26T21:56:00.000-06:00

I take exception with some libertarian ideas; since that's not the point of this post I won't bother rehashing them now. If you know how to search through labels, you'll likely find them in the archives.

But there is the occasional gem from organizations like Cato. You can read one such gem by the same title as this blog post here.

In the article, John Samples hits a couple of them out of the park.

Matt Welch's new book McCain: The Myth of a Maverick lays out the senator's philosophy. McCain once said "each and every one of us has a duty to serve a cause greater than our own self-interest." That cause will be the good of the collective, often defined as the nation or the national community.

That sounds fine and rather patriotic until your realize McCain's statement puts the nation before the individual, duties before rights (which are not mentioned), and denigrates the concerns of individuals to mere self-interest. None of these ideas have much to do with James Madison or conservatism.

Samples then calls McCain out for what he really is: a Progressive.

In contrast, Progressives see speech as a means to a collective good -- improved public debate -- attained by government restrictions on individual liberty. In this view, free speech and free spending are mere self-interest or selfishness, vices to be overcome by benevolent censors.

For McCain, such self-interest should be sacrificed to the higher cause of "clean government." Hence, McCain's infamous statement on Don Imus's radio show: "I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government."

Ah, yes, almost forgot about his disdain for the First Amendment. President John "Clean Government" McCain; it has a rather awful sound to it, doesn't it?

I've recently come to the point where I realized I might vote third party, or write in a candidate if I'm unhappy with who gets the GOP nomination. I've expressed it numerous times in conversations, yet never quite as well as this:

The election of a Progressive like Clinton or Obama would deprive conservatives of power. The election of a Progressive like McCain would deprive conservatives of both the government and the means to resist Progressivism. Which is the lesser evil?

I would add this: there is a means to oppose Progressivism/Liberalism/Leftism which we have discussed numerous times here. With the blessings of Providence, we may yet enact a renewal under such a banner and return strict constitutional government to prominence.

Fred Thompson and Balanced Government

2008-01-24T04:24:00.000-06:00

In case you missed it, an interesting exchange on Fred Thompson's removal of himself from the presidential race occured over at VFR under Mr. Auster's entry Thompson. Our friend Mike Hargis (who used to comment here frequently but has been noticably absent for some time now -- where are you Mike?) rarely missed an opportunity to remind us when discussing presidential candidates, that it seemed to him that someone who wanted the job of President, the most powerful job in the world, wasn't likely to be seeking the job for purely noble reasons. It was an argument that I don't think any of us ever really raised any serious disagreement with, but that didn't keep ol' Hargis from stating it fairly often.

Well, under the aforementioned post LA replies to two separate commenters, James P. and Kilroy M., both of which state their preference for a President who is not acting out of passion or desire to lead the country, but a President who would act from genuine conservative views, as James P. expresses it. LA discusses why this is not possible under our current electoral process and what changes to that process would be necessary to elect a President of the United States who was not actively seeking the Presidency, or, passionately competing to lead the country. The relevant exchanges are entered below:

James P. writes:

Powerline wrote:

"My own first-hand encounter with Thompson generated no sense that he had any intangible quality that would add value to his generic conservative views."

Maybe, but I would be very happy with a President who acted from genuine conservative views, even if they were "generic" and he was "checking the boxes" rather than acting from particular passion. That would be a hell of a lot better than what we're going to get, which is a Democrat or a Republican with genuine passion to lead the country in a more liberal direction, and who will act with "inner intention" to achieve that goal. Indeed, that's even better than what we have now, which is a President who talks conservative (thus giving conservatism a bad name and contributing to the unpopularity of Fred and other genuine conservatives) and governs liberal.

LA replies:

I agree. And maybe if we didn't have candidates actively run for the presidency, maybe if the Electors met in each state and chose the man they thought was best, instead of their choice being determined by the popular vote, Thompson could be president. But we do have campaigns, and the Electors' choice is determined by the popular vote, and a candidate does have to present himself to the American public as someone who wants and is ready to lead the country.

Kilroy M. writes:

You write that Thomson did not appear to "want to lead the country" and that "checking off the correct conservative positions is not leadership." However, it was Thomson's principled position minus the public displays of desire for power that attracted me to him in the first place.

LA replies:

But that was my own point. We could imagine an America in which the electors are not elected already pledged to vote for a certain candidate, which is the system we have (remember that when you vote for president in the general election, you are not voting for John Smith, you are voting for a slate of electors who are pledged to vote for John Smith), but, as was the case when George Washington was elected (before the evolution of the political party system, under which each party runs a slate of electors who are pledged to vote for the nominee of that party), the people or the legislature of each state choose electors according to the laws of that state, and the electors vote for whom they please. Under such a system, there would not be presidential candidates "running" for election, trying to get the masses to vote for them, because, instead of 100 million people casting a vote, there would be (say) 535 electors casting votes. The electors, who would be the leaders and politically knowledgeable people of each state, would be familiar with the leading political figures of the country, and would choose the person they considered best qualified to be president. Under such a system, public displays of desire for the presidential office would not be needed or appropriate.

Or, if it's impracticable to dispense with political parties, we could dispense with party primaries, and go back to the smoke filled room. Each state would choose delegates to the nominating convention who would be free to vote as they choose. Again, under such a system, candidates would not "run" for the nomination, but the delegates, politically knowledgeable people, would choose as nominee the person they thought was best.

While I think it's absolutely impracticable under our current "one man one vote" democratic climate in America (can you imagine trying to convince Americans that they are better served to play only an indirect role in the choice of electors for President?), it is nonetheless interesting, and I would say the far better method to selecting a President than what we have now. However, whenever the idea of Balanced Constitutional Government is discussed here and elsewhere, at least part of that discussion must consider the ways in which we may return to a government more resembling that of a Federal Representative Republic, and less resembling that of a democracy. It may be putting the cart before the horse, so to speak, to discuss ways in which to improve upon our current electoral system, but here again it's an important consideration for anyone who believes a return to balanced government is needed. And you can certainly count me among that group.

Toyota of Naperville

2008-01-20T20:15:00.000-06:00

I wouldn't normally do this as it doesn't seem to be a fit with this blog. But Mom started it with these comments to my prior post, so I figured I'd just let 'er fly, as the man says. Here were the comments worth expanding upon:

The idea of building things to last isn't just a comment on warranties though. I am wondering what kind of affect it would have on our economy if we were no longer willing to accept poor quality goods.

Would that create a demand for skilled workers? Would it shift our point of view back to thinking in the longer term personally as well as politically? What kind of an impact would that have on our trading partners?

I'm a big believer in quality, always have been. So given this, and that an opening was provided - and importantly, that the story is worth telling - here goes a little history and my story.

In 2002 my wife and I bought a Toyota 4 Runner from a nearby dealer in DuPage County (not Naperville). Subsequently in 2006 (because my then-employer provided wheels), I bought a Toyota Camry from the Naperville dealership. The experience was so good that when my mother-in-law needed a car, we went with her to Toyota of Naperville to help her buy her Corolla.

All of this is necessary background to what happened yesterday. We've been in the midst of a terrible cold snap - I think it made it up to 8 degrees today, and it was 1 degree yesterday when my wife and I went out for a date to see a movie. After that, we stopped at Target before we were heading home. Only we got a flat tire. I mean completely flat.

I got the car jacked up, the lugnuts off the wheel and then... nothing. I think the wheel was frozen on, although I can't be sure. What I can be sure of is that it wasn't coming off. It's not bragging, they say, if you can do it, so let me say this and leave it at that: I'm quite strong, and I wailed on that tire for probably the better part of a half hour. It wasn't budging.

The problem, then, was time. It was 6:30 when I gave up and we had to call for assistance. The first couple of calls were unsuccessful. We got lucky - and here we were thinking about how unlucky we were - when Pat answered at Toyota.

Without identifying himself, he mentioned that while the dealership was closed, he'd get someone to pick us up and get the car towed to the dealership, where once in side, hopefully it'd be easy to get the wheel off. When our ride came, it was Pat himself, who mentioned that he was just walking past a phone in the empty service department when we called.

What Pat didn't mention but we later discovered when he gave us his card, was that he was the General Sales Manager of the dealership.

So:
1) After the dealership was closed for a half hour on a Saturday night, the General Sales Manager picked up a ringing phone in the service department.
2) He personally picks up a couple of people who had trouble with a car not purchased through their dealership.
3) He arranges for a loaner car - at no cost - until we can get our car towed to the dealership and fixed on Monday.

All of which bought him a late night at the office; we probably said good night to Pat at 7:30.

So here's the deal. I'd love to hear stories like this if anyone else has them. In today's world, we moan and crab about how bad service is and believe me, it can be bad. But there's still professionals like Pat O'Brien at Toyota of Naperville who go above and beyond and create fans for life.

If you're in the market for a car in the Chicago area, the dealership is worth the trip. Actually, the dealership is like any other; it's the people that are pretty special.

When a Tax Cut Isn't a Tax Cut

2008-01-18T20:43:00.000-06:00

Answer: when it's a one-time rebate.

President Bush wants a quick $150 billion in "tax relief" to Americans to get the economy jump started. We could adopt a strict economic mantra which would probably yield the right decisions when faced with challenging economic questions. Perhaps: WWFBD (What Would Fredric Bastiat Do)?

Yet, I think like in most things governmental (and let's all pause for a moment and thank the Left for putting the mental in governmental to begin with, shall we?), we'd be causing the patient such a shock that it might be too much too fast, because Bastiat would probably disband the IRS and privatize the Defense Department.

For starters, though, if the President and Congress are serious about doing something, let's make it a genuine, bona fide tax cut, and not a one-time affair. Bush has done this before, of course, and as a rebate, early in his first term. The hope - and isn't it simply audacious of us to hope? - is that people would go out and spend those rebates of a few hundred dollars.

Forgive me if I'm not doing cartwheels for it was my money to begin with. And yours.

My colleague Matt made an excellent point today: we've for too long been an economy that rides the strength of consumer spending. We'd be wise to adopt policies that focus on strengthening the business base of the economy (think durable goods and manufacturing) to complement and diversify what makes our economic engine hum.

And while I'm dispensing advice, let's get the federal government out of the domestic/entitlement business. The states would be far superior in delivering services of that type to their citizens based on familiarity (a local understanding of what their people need) and proximity (being able to deliver services closer to the users).

Illinois Continues to Fall Down

2008-01-17T21:52:00.000-06:00

Just when you think it can't get any worse.

The GOP in Illinois is in bad shape, a point that a handful of people (yours truly included) got to discuss last night at an event called The State of the Republican Brand, hosted by America's Future Foundation in Chicago. A very lively and engaging discussion included such names as Grover Norquist of Americans For Tax Reform and local guy Dan Proft, who sort of stole the show.

Funny that we were just discussing the fall-down of the GOP, when this news comes across the wire. Hey, Seniors? Enjoy your free rides. Cost to taxpayers? $530 million in tax increases. The worst part?

If the bill had not passed, Chicago Transit Authority, Metra and Pace riders would have faced an unprecedented level of fare hikes and service cuts, including the elimination of more than 160 city and suburban bus routes. All evening suburban bus service and many weekend Pace routes would have been eliminated. CTA fares would have jumped as high as $3.25. Pace bus fares would have increased to $2, and all paratransit, dial-a-ride, taxi-access and vanpool rides would have cost more.

So, if the General Assembly hadn't stuck it to the entire state to bail out the insanity that is Chicago's virtually free transit system, the users might have had to bear the cost of the service they are using??? Dear Lord, say it isn't so! An outrageous $2.00 to ride the bus? The inhumanity of it all! We wouldn't want people to have to take care of themselves and bear the costs of the services they use. That would be... well, it would be unfair!

Speaking of people taking care of themselves... It gets worse:

Calling it a "happy day" for riders, Daley said he now will work with members of the City Council to pass an increase in Chicago's real estate transfer tax by $3 per $1,000 of sales price, action that is called for in the legislation to help fund CTA pension and health care costs.

Ah yes, the pensions. Well, we wouldn't want people who have pensions to have to plan for their own future, would we?

OK. Enough bad news for one night. Since I want to leave you with something - anything - positive, check out this post by Eric Odom at Conservablogs. If you get a chance, watch the video, and tell me that there's not one of us who wouldn't love to read the riot act to a bureaucrat like that who's ready to inform you what you can say, write or think.

Outstanding Reform Idea

2008-01-09T20:52:00.000-06:00

I have to hand it to Lawrence Auster at VFR (and thank you, Terry, for pointing this post out).

I've griped and groused for a long time about our primary system. It's always bothered me how, for example, Judy Baar Topinka got the nomination for governor in Illinois when there were two conservatives running against her in the primary who were far superior and either one might have beat Blagojevich.

As serious I am about government reform, I cannot stress strongly enough: go read this post.

The $1.5 Billion Giveaway

2008-01-05T10:17:00.000-06:00

Got your attention, did I?

It disappoints - but doesn't surprise - me that the feds are giving out $1.5 Billion in coupons to help people convert from analog to digital TV. I wish I was making this up.

WASHINGTON - Millions of $40 government coupons become available Tuesday to help low-tech television owners buy special converter boxes for older TVs that might not work after the switch to digital broadcasting.

Beginning Feb. 18, 2009, anyone who does not own a digital set and still gets their programming via over-the-air antennas will no longer receive a picture.

That's the day the television industry completes its transition from old-style analog broadcasting to digital.

The converter boxes are expected to cost between $50 and $70 and will be available at most major electronics retail stores. Starting Tuesday, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration will begin accepting requests for two $40 coupons per household to be used toward the purchase of the boxes.

Viewers who have satellite or cable service will not need a box.

[...]

Congress, in ordering the transition to digital broadcasting, set aside $1.5 billion for the coupon program, which will fund 33.5 million coupons and other costs.

Emphasis definitely mine.

Look, this is the world we live in, dislike it as much as we may. Self-government is in retreat around the globe, if I can be so bold as to borrow that imagery from Mr. Paine. Only until we begin to get people talking about balanced government - what it is, how we lost it, how we get it back - we're going to continue along that high road to communism.

Survey Results: People Don't Think

2008-01-05T09:54:00.000-06:00

I laughed when I saw this article yesterday, both for it's patent absurdity and the "news worthiness" of it. Here's the link.

And here's my point: 44% of the people "surveyed" said they don't "need" marriage to validate their relationships. I say "surveyed" because this was an online AOL Personals/Zogby poll - voluntary, and probably appealing to people who come from that point of view.

Shockingly, half of the respondents between 20-29 said that marriage wasn't necessary. Is it possible that half of the people looking for a relationship at AOL Personals between those ages might be young men in our "deferred adulthood" culture?

Other breath-taking revelations include that 20-somethings are more likely to break up over infidelity than someone in their 60s (which is a little like reporting that a survey taken shows that people in their 20s are less likely to worry about life insurance than someone in their 60s). Do you think age - not to mention the actual time in the relationship - has something to do with that?

I have asserted before, and will do so again, that liberalism's attack on traditional values has wide-ranging implications, not the least of which is the creation of large groups of people who are self-centered and fail to contribute to the continuation of society. Marriage makes otherwise average people better: you learn compromise, sacrifice, and what it means to care for others in a way that single people never can. Parenthood takes that a step further: you learn what it means to love as God does. Before your child is ever born, before they've done anything to "deserve" it, you love them unconditionally and would do anything for them. That's how God loves us. These two milestones in life, these two cultural institutions (both of which are regularly under assault by the Left) make average people good and good people great. That's why marriage and traditional values are worth defending.

Iowa Caucus Results

2008-01-03T22:24:00.000-06:00

Huckabee and Obama; sounds like an actual ticket.

Just saw Obama's speech and it wasn't bad. Seemed impromptu and well-delivered. Of course, the substance left a LOT to be desired.

Huckabee... well, here's my problem with the guy. He's of the "compassionate conservative" cloth, which, translated, means he's not a conservative. Fantastically devoid of any logic, he's going to atone for the sins of slavery by pursuing open borders and granting entitlements to illegals. Of course, one has nothing to do with the other. Of course, such a policy might very well destroy the country. OF COURSE, there was the little matter of the War Between the States, which settled that debt.

Well, here's hoping that Huckabee's fawning support in the media finally gets through to voters that this is a bad guy. If liberals like him, he's bad for America. I'm concerned that things may have to get worse before they get better; I honestly hope that's not the case, as I thought things were bad enough as they are.

WSJ Op-Ed: Liberty Theology

2008-01-02T20:20:00.000-06:00

The following op-ed was in the Wall Street Journal on 12/31/07. It's encouraging to see free market principles spreading and liberalism in retreat; the lesson is that we all need to be diligent in stamping it out where ever we find it. Robert Sirico is the President of the Acton Institute.

Liberty Theology
By ROBERT A. SIRICO
December 31, 2007; Page A12

Catholic Church bishops, priests and other Church leaders in Latin America were once a reliable ally of the left, owing to the influence of "liberation theology," which tries to link the Gospel to the socialist cause. Today the Church is coming to recognize the link between socialism and the loss of freedom, and a shift in thinking is taking place.

In a region that is more than 90% Catholic, this change might have enormous implications. A Church that emphasizes liberty could play a role in Latin America similar to that which it played in Eastern Europe in the 1980s, as a counterweight in defense of freedom during a time of rising despotism.

For proof of the change I refer to, consider a recent statement from the Catholic Bishops of Venezuela: It blasted the political agenda of President Hugo Chávez for its assault on liberty under the guise of helping the poor. It is morally unacceptable, the statement said, and will drive the country backward in terms of respect for human rights.

The Bishops' statement from Caracas was not the first challenge the Church issued to Mr. Chávez. The late Cardinal Rosalio Castillo once laid out the Church's view of Bolivarian socialism. The government, he explained, though elected democratically was morphing into dictatorship. He worried about the results of this process. "All powers are in the hands of one person who exercises them in an arbitrary and despotic way, not for the purposes of bringing about the greater common good of the nation, but rather for a twisted and archaic political project: that of implanting in Venezuela a disastrous regime like the one Fidel Castro has imposed on Cuba . . ."

In Mexico , the Church has also found itself at odds with the hard-line left. Last month a group of 150 people associated with the socialist Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) rushed into the cathedral in the capital on a Sunday morning as Mass was beginning. The mob overturned pews, denounced priests and chanted anti-Church slogans. The PRD claimed that it was not directly responsible. But there was no mistaking the message: Anybody not lining up in favor of collectivist militancy is against it.

These are but two examples of the growing tension between the Catholic Church and the extreme left in Latin America . In Argentina and Cuba , the Church is also stepping into the role of opposition.

It is important to note that Church leaders who are challenging the likes of Mr. Chávez are not recommending Church involvement in politics. Their understanding, in line with the teaching of Pope Benedict XVI, is that the relationship between the Church and the state in Latin America is complex and there should be a clean separation. But they also know the importance of preserving freedom and pluralism.

The cases of political entanglement that we have read about most often have involved collaboration with what are called "right-wing dictatorships." But in what sense they differ from the total state control of "left-wing dictatorships" is unclear. Liberation theology may appeal to socially conscious clergy, yet it also politicizes the Church's role by blessing another form of wholesale control.

Liberation theology arose some three decades ago. The Bible teaches concern for the poor, liberation theologists said, and then went a step further: Jesus was a symbol and advocate of class warfare to expropriate from the rich on behalf of the poor.

Today liberation theology remains fashionable, and, because of intellectual confusion in Latin America, many still believe that the socialism of Mr. Chávez, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil , and even Fidel Castro, offers hope to the poor. When Mr. Chávez announces that he will "democratize" property in order to smash the rich, he can count on cheers from many religious admirers.

Sincere Church leaders, who are rightly convinced of their special mission to assist the poor, are sometimes drawn to a false hope that higher taxes, land redistribution, nationalization of industry and ever more big government programs offer a way out. This is tragic because it threatens to entangle the Church in politics, staking its reputation and the message of the Gospel on a political agenda.

At least 100 years of evidence stands contrary to the claim that a more powerful state (and that is all liberation theology really offers) is the proper means to material advance. Nothing is to be gained for anyone but the state by smashing the rich. What society needs is not expropriation but ever widening opportunities for all classes to improve their living standards.

There is only one way toward liberation, and that is a genuine liberalization of economic and political life, one that separates the state, not only from the Church, but also from the culture and the commercial life of the nation.

In my travels in the region, I detect an honest reassessment taking place. Leaders and future leaders seem to be recognizing that if the middle class is to grow, there needs to be more vibrant understanding of how the market, where people make their livelihood, actually functions. There is also a need for a deeper understanding of the moral hazards and opportunities that the political economy presents.

The Church, despite terrible blows to its credibility in recent years, is in as good a position as any institution to provide leadership and assume a teaching role in this. Pope Benedict's own writings provide a solid basis. He warns of the dangers of power and its morally corrupting effects, as well as the materially corrosive effects of socialist policies.

The Church can provide independent leadership in society. Above all else, there should be an independence from politics. Let us expand that model of independence to all sectors of society. Latin America would thereby become less vulnerable to despots, develop a thriving middle class, and secure a future of liberty and prosperity. In the role of the opposition, the Catholic Church can find its true voice as a defender of human rights and freedom.

AFB Housecleaning

2007-12-30T22:25:00.000-06:00

You'll see some changes to the blog if you're paying attention. First, the blogroll is now properly called a "blogroll." So, these are just some good blogs, listed alphabetically, no longer noted as "recommended" lest I somehow open myself up to some sort of liability. More changes will be happening with that, I think I have more to add. I might also do away with the labels section. I can't say that I know if that's useful for searching for anyone other than the contributors to the blog... so speak up if you've got an opinion on that.

Second, hopefully I'll be unveiling some new content through a, let's say, side project.

Lastly, and if you hadn't known by now, my new title is going to be "King (or Monarch of Some Title) of Side Projects." In addition to the project just mentioned above, there's yet another one. BTW, I always hated when I'd hear that musicians would be working on side projects. Why not stick to your main group, I'd wonder. So here I am, diverting my time and energy even more. What can I say? I'm a man of many interests, even if not a whole lot of time. Curious? Well, check out the blogroll!

It's Called a Veto

2007-12-28T12:27:00.001-06:00

Among the many stories of yesterday's big news day, there was this story, that President Bush signed a massive $555 billion spending bill.

Most interesting part of the report?

"I am disappointed in the way the Congress compiled this legislation, including abandoning the goal I set early this year to reduce the number and cost of earmarks by half," the president said in a statement. "Instead, the Congress dropped into the bill nearly 9,800 earmarks that total more than $10 billion. These projects are not funded through a merit-based process and provide a vehicle for wasteful government spending."

"There is still more to be done to rein in government spending," Bush said. "In February I will submit my budget proposal for fiscal year 2009, which will once again restrain spending, keep taxes low, and continue us on a path towards a balanced budget. I look forward to working with the Congress in the coming year to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent wisely."

A Bush spokesman, Scott Stanzel, had told reporters en route to Texas earlier that the president remained concerned about "Congress' addiction to earmarks."

Of course, that's Washington, George. We're mired in an obscene state of imbalance.

By contrast, this is George Washington:

I give my signature to many Bills with which my Judgment is at variance.... From the Nature of the Constitution, I must approve all parts of a Bill, or reject it in total. To do the latter can only be Justified upon the clear and obvious grounds of propriety; and I never had such confidence in my own faculty of judging as to be over tenacious of the opinions I may have imbibed in doubtful cases.
Reference: The Writings of George Washington, Fitzpatrick, ed., vol. 33 (96)

Are the grounds of propriety unclear? Bush knows - or he should - what the appropriate limits of federal involvement are. What would happen if he vetoed, and vetoed, and vetoed... would the Congress eventually override him? Send him more reasonable legislation? I think the latter is more likely than the former, but either option is preferable to out-of-control growth in the most distant levels of government.

The Best "Best of 2007"

2007-12-27T22:14:00.000-06:00

It never fails that we get to this time of year and people everywhere, including, yes, yours truly, start getting pensive. While it is natural to get reflective as the calendar draws to a close, I'm always disappointed by the utterly stupid "best of" lists and "news" pieces that come out at the end of the year. Remember when Britney shaved her head?? Wasn't that weird?? Ugh, it's stuff like that which leaves me thinking longingly about moving to Montana and becoming a recluse.

Except of course, when there's a really good "best of", like you can read here by the incomparable Michelle Malkin.

Funny, isn't it, how Iraq was going to be THE story this election season. The Dhimmicrats pinned their hopes on it. Now... not looking like there's any news to report, is there? All of which stands as a stinging indictment of the American Left and their ideological brethren in the MSM (did we need any more evidence?). The calculus is pretty simple for these traitors. Bad things happen to America = news. Good things happen to America = keep that quiet.

Something's Wrong With This Picture

2007-12-27T07:08:00.000-06:00

Not a lot of time, but I simply had to - had to, I tell you - put up something brief about this top story on Yahoo this morning.

Here's the really insane part:

None of the GOP candidates has reason to feel secure, according to an ongoing national survey conducted for The Associated Press and Yahoo! News.

That includes Mike Huckabee, who has roared to a tie with longtime front-runner Rudy Giuliani. Half of all voters — including four in 10 Republicans — know too little about Huckabee to even say whether they have a favorable impression of him, let alone whether he is conservative, liberal or moderate.(emphasis mine)

So fully 40% of GOP voters no nothing about this guy, and the same poll puts him on top at 22%?? The remaining are Rudy 21%; McCain 14%; Romney 13%; Thompson 11%. Anybody check to make sure they're not polling "Republicans" Lincoln Chafee, "Snarlin'" Arlen Specter and Jim Jeffords?

Christmas 2008

2007-12-24T08:51:00.000-06:00

May God bless you and your loved ones this special season as we celebrate the birth of our savior and Lord Jesus Christ.

From Luke, Chapter 2:

The angel of the Lord appeared to them and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were struck with great fear. The angel said to them, "Do not be afraid; for behold, I proclaim to you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. For today in the city of David a savior has been born for you who is Messiah and Lord. And this will be a sign for you: you will find an infant wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger." And suddenly there was a multitude of the heavenly host with the angel, praising God and saying:

"Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests."

AFB Featured on Illinois Blog Alliance

2007-12-22T20:34:00.000-06:00

My new colleague and all-around good guy Eric Odom has linked up the American Federalist Blog to the Illinois Blog Alliance. When we post here, it posts there; so while you can continue to tune in here for the red meat you've grown accustomed to, check out the Illinois Blog Alliance for some of its other (much better, I might suggest) bloggers.

Many thanks, Eric, and everyone check out the IBA for those featured blogs!

Okie Campaigns

2007-12-22T20:28:00.000-06:00

My growing interest in all things Oklahoma coincides nicely with this blog I "found" called Okie Campaigns. Check it out, and especially this great post on tracking Santa and the fascinating history behind it.

Tancredo Withdraws from Race

2007-12-22T08:12:00.000-06:00

Tom Tancredo dropped out of the race on Thursday - some old news that I'm finally getting around to posting something on. You can read the story here.

Interesting that he's throwing his support behind Romney. I think Romney needs guys like Tancredo. As a matter of fact, I think a Romney-Tancredo ticket would be pretty formidable. I think it'd be safe to say that such an administration would have the border and immigration as one of its top priorities, as it should be for any administration.

We've discussed before here and over at Webster's, immigration is probably the issue facing this country. It has enormous domestic implications; it has national security implications; and it on some level it addresses our long-term survival from a cultural standpoint.

That it has been a major issue thus far is thanks to the efforts of Tancredo, largely. The country owes him a debt of gratitude.

The Stock Market Analogy

2007-12-19T19:52:00.000-06:00

I got to thinking about term limits and recall provisions yesterday. The local city council was discussing an initiative to make provisions for recalling sitting city councilmen.

The analogy I came up with is the stock market; now this is a little stretch, so I'll ask you to bear with me. When you or I buy a stock, we're "voting" with our wallets, essentially. We think that giving our dollars to Exxon, or Altria, or whomever, is a better use of our dollars than what we could do with it. Investors expect an appreciation on their investment, and this can take the form of increased share value, a cash dividend, or both.

When you buy a stock - recall the voting interpretation - you keep it as long as it continues to do what you want it to: return value and justify your decision. If the stock loses value (or you lose faith in the company's management), you're free to dump it at any time, assuming of course that we're talking about widely-traded public companies for which there's almost always a market, even if a stock is declining. Only when the corporation is near-collapse does the market dry up, and if you're stuck, you're stuck.

Well, I got to thinking about recall provisions. This is your ability to "sell" your position. If your elected official isn't returning value - justifying your decision - you should be able to exit that position, so to speak. In this way, market accountability would reward good governors and punish bad ones. Naturally, to provide protection from simple partisan sniping, there would have to be a threshold for beginning a recall and making it valid. Nevertheless, I think the idea is a good one.

And here's where I may ruffle some feathers. I think term limits are a bad idea. We've discussed this at length in the past, but fundamentally, the right of the people to choose their governors is being infringed by instituting limits. Recall the stock market analogy. Suppose I have had my position in Exxon for about 5 years (this is roughly the case). Now imagine that I am compelled by statute to sell my position. The stock is doing great and I love it. Why should I be compelled to sell?

I think term limits are well-intentioned, but in the final analysis, inappropriate for liberty loving people in the long-term.

Subprime Solution

2007-12-18T22:03:00.000-06:00

I should say "less than ideal" to be perfectly clear.

The Federal Reserve announced a "sweeping response" to the mortgage meltdown today; read the whole story here.

So, in summary, the Fed is acting to protect consumers from lenders who want to make them mortgages. Here's the key "reforms":

The proposal would restrict lenders from penalizing risky borrowers who pay loans off early, require lenders to make sure these borrowers set aside money to pay for taxes and insurance and bar lenders from making loans without proof of a borrower's income. It also would prohibit lenders from engaging in a pattern or practice of lending without considering a borrower's ability to repay a home loan from sources other than the home's value.

While we're at it, shouldn’t government, at some level, protect people from credit card offers? How about protection from signing up for the wrong insurance coverage? Or, a true scourge of our times, icy roads? Clearly, walking or driving this time of year is dangerous; are we to bear that risk all by ourselves?

I’ve bemoaned this problem before. But until we start to be self-governing once again, this is only going to get worse.

The State Says No

2007-12-18T20:03:00.000-06:00

Is there any end to the interference in people’s lives? This rather innocent sounding story is another piece of evidence (we’re probably up to Prosecution Exhibit # 741,389 by this point) that the increasing growth of external government in Western Europe is bordering on the insane. And Democrats want us to be more like the Europeans?

Candidly, I think Friday is a stupid name. But I think the court interfering in people's lives to this degree is even stupider.

Oklahoma Video

2007-12-15T09:41:00.000-06:00

Here's a video detailing more on the Paul Jacob indictment in Oklahoma.

What's Going on With Those Sooners?

2007-12-14T20:57:00.000-06:00

I've been hearing a lot of things going on in Oklahoma these days. It sounds more and more like Oklahoma is the front line in some of the more pitched political battles going on across America.

I heard that there was a petition going around to end race-based preferences; you can learn more by clicking here.

Then, Paul Jacob, long-time political activist and defender of citizen's rights, was indicted for supporting a Taxpayer Bill of Rights.

Hopefully our brother Terry will keep us in the loop as he hears about these things going on in his home state.

The Simple Things

2007-12-12T20:22:00.000-06:00

I absolutely love stories like this. While this probably belongs on my personal page, I figured more people would see it here, so I'm asking forgiveness instead of permission, LOL.

Anyone who's spent time around babies will tell you that "they know." I'm fascinated that the researchers crafted the test as they did, and while not surprised, I'm delighted that the results seem to reinforce personal experience.

Book Review: Samuel Adams

2007-12-10T20:52:00.000-06:00

I just finished the delightful Samuel Adams: Father of the American Revolution, by Mark Puls.

The book follows chronologically the life and political career of Samuel Adams. While he saved little, if any, of his letters and writings, we're able to see the man by the piecing together of letters from John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, and his Massachusetts friends and allies such as James Otis and Joseph Warren.

We're left with the image of a man so devoted to his countrymen and their cause that he suffered financial hardships, personal insults, and the wrath of the most powerful empire on earth, all without seeking glory or a simple thank-you. Some favorite parts of the book:

Adams, using the pen-name of Valerius Poplicola ("friend of the people") wrote: "Is it not high time for the people of this country explicitly to declare whether they will be freemen or slaves? It is an important question, which ought to be decided. It concerns us more than anything in this life."

A British Colonel, Fenton, sought out Adams with a discreet message: he would be richly rewarded and receive public advancement if he would cooperate. Fenton gave Adams this frank advice: he should not provoke his majesty any further. Adams replied: "Sir, I trust I have long since made my peace with the king of kings. No personal consideration shall induce me to abandon the righteous cause of my country. Tell Governor Gage it is the advice of Samuel Adams to him no longer to insult the feelings of an exasperated people."

Oh! And this great story:

For several years, James Otis had been under the care of family in Andover, Massachusetts. He would often turn to his sister and say that "I hope when God Almighty in his providence shall take me out of time into eternity, it will be by a flash of lightning!" On May 23, 1783, a fierce thunderstorm characteristic of the early summer season in New England descended to darken the skies. Otis struggled to the door to behold the clashing elements and the exploding thunder, reminiscent of the cannon fire of the revolution. Between loud thunderclaps, a bolt of lightning, which Mercy thought appeared like a darting serpent, struck Otis in the chest. Electricity shot through his body, and he fell to the floor, dying instantly.

Overall, a well-done take on the "Father of the American Revolution." Arguably one of the most important of our founding fathers.

Imprimis - November 2007

2007-12-10T20:42:00.000-06:00

As long as they keep sending me quality materials, I'm going to keep blogging on them.

"A Return to the Constitution" by Hillsdale President Larry Arnn is the title of the November edition of Imprimis. Read the whole thing here.

Mr. Arnn: while there is "no major national force, at least no political force, united to support constitutional government..." we're on our way to trying to bring that back in style. With a little time, a lot of hard work, and the blessings of Providence, we think the future looks pretty bright.

Those Hidden Costs

2007-12-10T20:13:00.000-06:00

I had lunch with a gentleman I consider a friend last Friday. He's a libertarian, and a really sharp guy, and I always enjoy our discussions. Never heated, always challenging, he's fun to talk with about a wide range of topics. He routinely comes back to a topic that is near and dear to his heart: the hidden (and high) costs of regulation. Truly, there are numerous examples that would illustrate just how absurd this can be (witness that the government regulates how much water is in every flush of your toilet - assuming you're not living in an old house as I am).

Yet, I saw this article today, and read it mostly out of a desire to read something that would reinforce my thoughts on the disparity between our culture and that of China. And wouldn't you know it? I found something in common.

"The Qingping market is dirty," said a Guangzhou-born taxi driver, surnamed Mo. "It's dirty because it's old, and the government is unwilling to put up enough money to fix it."

Ah, yes, the ever-loving "government." Of course, as anyone who reads here knows, I am referring to the external variety. Like it or not, until we find a means of reintroducing the self-government gene to people, and since men aren't angels, we're going to require some external government.

And while my libertarian friend might cringe, this got me to thinking about the high costs of no regulations. Remember the SARS epidemic in 2002? The same article notes that 8,000 people worldwide were infected, and 800 died. Maybe SARS wasn't that deadly (sounds like the winner of the "worst slogan in the world" contest). But how about the next virus that springs up because of the filthy conditions in some of these markets?

All of which leads me back to familiar ground. Until someone can show me otherwise, balanced government remains the only means I have been able to discover that has the ability to revive self-government and ensure a rebirth of this Republic.

That Which Is Not Seen

2007-12-07T21:12:00.000-06:00

Bush announced the other day a plan to "fix" (I use that word in the most unflattering of ways, such as: "there was no beating the house in Vegas because the games were fixed") the mortgage crisis in the United States.

A key part of the plan involves freezing interest rates on mortgages that were "teaser" rates to induce people to borrow (also called by their proper name, "adjustable rate mortgages").

(deep breath)

There's a lot being written about this. A rather favorable analysis can be read here, and a rather unfavorable one can be read here.

I can't help but wonder if there's a bigger issue, however. No surprise to anyone who reads this blog, but I immediately focused on the destructive way this plan affects self-government. If people aren't responsible for taking on enormous debt loads, what's to stop them from making other bad choices? If investment banks aren't responsible for trading in securities without accounting for the inherent risks in those securities, what's to stop them from making other bad investment decisions? And more importantly, is there any crisis that the government shouldn't bail people out of?

I have always remarked that one of the great things about the US economy is that we take our punishment. Unlike the Europeans or even the Japanese - who were mired in a decade-long recession - when we over-reach, we get beaten up and knocked down quickly. And hard. But we get back up. And we're stronger for it. But maybe not anymore. Maybe we're going the way of the Japanese or the Europeans. Time will tell, but I think this bail-out is a disaster on many levels, particularly those which are not readily seen.

Webster's On a Roll

2007-12-06T06:56:00.000-06:00

Please go to Webster's blog and check out this post.

In fact, the most recent 2-3 posts are all very good. Looks like our friend Terry has been chomping at the bit to get these up.

I also noticed that one of his featured posts is my interview with Dr. Kevin Gutzman; thanks for the link-up, Terry.

Founding Brilliance

2007-12-05T20:12:00.000-06:00

I love it when I get a hold of a quote like this that speaks to us so clearly as if to answer our problems. Courtesy of the Patriot Post:

"An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others."

-- James Madison (Federalist No. 58, 1788)

(Emphasis mine)

On Virtue

2007-12-01T13:01:00.000-06:00

I've been sitting on this quote for some time, as I tend to do, with the intention of posting something on the topic. Let's hear from Mr. Madison, courtesy of the Patriot Post:

"Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks-no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea, if there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men. So that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them."

-- James Madison (speech at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 20 June 1788)

I find it natural that the Founding Generation was as concerned with virtue as they were; yet, sad that we seem to have departed so starkly from their example. Can you imagine a leading politician of our time exhorting the people on virtue? How soon would he or she be chastised? Or denounced as a "hypocrite" (one of the Left's favorite smears) because of something he or she had done in their life?

Another Founder famous for his opinion on the necessity of virtue is the second cousin of our second President. Says Samuel (from the FQD at the Patriot Post):

A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.

Reference: The Writings of Samuel Adams, Cushing, ed., vol. 4 (124)

Note that he mentions "external or internal" threats. It is no secret to any of the regular readers here that I see the two biggest threats facing us to be the march of Liberalism and Islam; I wonder if we were as virtuous a society as the founding generation how we'd be handling these threats. Cowering in fear? Appeasing? Bowing before the commissars of political correctness?

Here's my take on that indispensable quality, virtue. We've discussed in prior posts what self-government is. I generally distill it to the dual virtues of self-restraint and self-sufficiency. Read the Founders and you'll realize that our form of government is created for a self-governing people. And that it's wholly inappropriate for a dependent people. Any wonder we're facing the problems governmental that we are?

But virtue isn't lost, and in fact, it may be making a comeback. Imagine my delight at this story from the Tribune about purity dances. Where families are strong and God is a part of the family, virtue seems to survive. Notwithstanding the usual sniping of the Left, such as this:

In this new counterculture, trouble-prone pop stars such as Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan are outcasts. In their place, 1 in 6 teens are signing virginity pledges, though 88 percent of them break that vow before they marry, according to a federally funded national longitudinal study of adolescent health.

(emphasis mine)

Well, why bother, goes the logic of the Left, if they're just going to fail? Here's why: maybe aiming for purity doesn't guarantee success, but maybe young girls will enter marriage with fewer partners.

"Girls are going into marriage with 12 sexual relationships. That brings so much baggage and regret that it breaks down the marriage," said Janet Hellige, a volunteer who organizes the biannual Father-Daughter Purity Ball sponsored by The Christian Center in Peoria. "Girls have a wonderful gift to give, and we don't want them to give all of themselves away. What we want them to do is present themselves as a rose to their husband with no blemishes."

Virtue is indeed indispensable for healthy families and a free Republic. But don't count on your children hearing that from anybody other than you, their parent (or Aunt, Uncle, or other relative). It's incumbent upon us to ensure that our children have a moral, as well as an intellectual foundation before they go out into the world. I would submit that a child with no moral foundation is at a greater risk than a child who cannot read, yet you'll never see a "program" designed to correct the former deficiency.

The Organization That Never Quits

2007-11-30T20:30:00.000-06:00

Clearly the best bang for my buck has been my membership in the Federalist Society. They keep hammering me with outstanding information, so I've got to share some of it with you.

First, this book is on my list. Judging by the brief description, it seems a must-have for every Originalist library. This list of mine, by the way, seems to be ever-expanding. Maybe one day I'll start making a dent, but I fear by then I'll have a positively Jeffersonian library, such that my heirs will not know what to do with it all.

Then, there's this, the recap of the National Lawyers Convention just held this month. Yeah, I know what you're thinking, but before you start in with the lawyer jokes, the theme this year was "Shining City Upon a Hill: American Exceptionalism." I tell you, I couldn't have written it better myself. Yes, and there is audio and video available for your enjoyment. I only hope that the Barbara K. Olson Lecture next year is as good - I hope to be there next year in person.

There's podcasts, a State Court watch, and I just got my issue of Engage in the mail. Guaranteed to be the best $50.00 you'll ever spend.

Sounds Like A Tyrant To Me

2007-11-30T20:20:00.000-06:00

Of course, I'm kidding. Well, more accurately, I was being sarcastic. You see, Lincoln remains one of my favorite Presidents. Here's a quote from him I had e-mailed to me by a contact with the Federalist Society.

"If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, ... the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."

-Abraham Lincoln (arguing for limiting the impact of the Dred Scott decision)

As we've discussed before, most recently here, it is the duty of all branches of government to uphold the Constitution. For that matter, it is the duty of each and every one of us citizens to do the same.

Ah, Here We Go Again - the "Youths"

2007-11-30T19:56:00.000-06:00

The trouble with being busy is that you end up sitting on stories. The trouble with sitting on stories is that they get blogged about by writers better than you.

Nevertheless, I remain undaunted, if a little tardy on this post on the easily enraged "youths" in France.

You can read the BBC's take on the events in Villiers-Le Bel a town of 26,000, here.

It appears that there was an accident in which two teenagers died when their motorcycle hit a police cruiser. According to the BBC:

Relatives of the two dead teenagers insisted that police had rammed their motorcycle, and then abandoned them to die.

However, police say the motorcycle was going at top speed and was not registered for street use, while the two boys - who have been named only as Moushin, 15, and Larami, 16 - were not wearing helmets and had been ignoring traffic rules.

Moushin, huh? Sounds to me like some of those Irish youth who are always stirring up trouble all over Europe.

But most interesting is this article, which indicates that on average nearly 100 cars are burned every night in France. Did I read that right?

About 138 cars around France were burned overnight, which Ribeiro called almost "normal." Police say as many as 100 cars are burned every night around the country.

I shudder to think about what's going on when the burning of as many as 100 cars every night is considered normal. Just another jour in the life of the relig... nah, too easy.

The GOP CNN/YouTube Debate

2007-11-29T19:01:00.000-06:00

I missed the debate but read most of the transcript and heard quite a bit of the exchange in the car on talk radio this afternoon. The AP story is here.

There were some interesting things to take away from this debate. Like it or not, the conventional wisdom that the primary is becoming a two-man race might just be right if the degree of sparring is any indication. I like that the crowd booed Rudy - I think he's bad for conservatives.

I liked this exchange:

Mike Huckabee, who has also come under GOP criticism for some of his immigration policies while governor of Arkansas, defended benefits he supported for children of illegal immigrants, including allowing children to be eligible to apply for college scholarships.

"Are we going to say kids who are here illegally are going to get a special deal?" Romney asked.

Huckabee objected, saying the benefit was based on merit. "We are a better country than to punish children for what their parents did," he said.

And especially this, which Romney needed to say (and he may have to say it again):

"I was wrong, I was effectively pro-choice," said Romney, who has said he changed his stance in 2004 during debates on stem cell research. "On abortion, I was wrong."

"If people are looking for somebody in this country who has never made a mistake ... then they ought to find somebody else," he said.

And in a statement rife with implications, Ron Paul indicated that he wouldn't run as an independent. This is great news because he won't get the nomination, and assuming his supporters have some sense of decency, this will be additional votes to defeat whoever the Dhimmicrats nominate.

While I'll tune in for the general election debates, I've not been inclined to catch the primary ones. Anyone out there who caught the debate, I'd be curious how this one stacked up to the prior debates.

Since Men Aren't Angels

2007-11-27T22:35:00.000-06:00

Government - the external variety - is necessary.

There is a not insignificant sentiment that exists that supposes that the law is arbitrary; indeed I've argued with many people I consider friends on the improper absolute that suggests that free men should be free from external government. While the body of laws governing the Republic undoubtedly contains some arbitrary legislation, it is worth repeating that morality is a component inseparable from the law.

I have been sitting on this quote for a couple of days, waiting for a time when I'd have a few precious minutes to share the wisdom contained therein. And from one of my favorite Founding Fathers, no less. Enjoy, courtesy of the Patriot Post:

To grant that there is a supreme intelligence who rules the world and has established laws to regulate the actions of his creatures; and still to assert that man, in a state of nature, may be considered as perfectly free from all restraints of law and government, appears to a common understanding altogether irreconcilable. Good and wise men, in all ages, have embraced a very dissimilar theory. They have supposed that the deity, from the relations we stand in to himself and to each other, has constituted an eternal and immutable law, which is indispensably obligatory upon all mankind, prior to any human institution whatever. This is what is called the law of nature....Upon this law depend the natural rights of mankind."

-- Alexander Hamilton

When You've Got Two Quarterbacks

2007-11-24T09:08:00.000-06:00

My brother Pat reminded me of this conventional football wisdom. When a team says that it has two quarterbacks, it really doesn't have a quarterback: when you've got one, you know what I mean. Chicago has had lots of seasons where we've got two quarterbacks. Teams like Dallas, and (Lord forgive me) Green Bay have one quarterback.

It's a little like that with the GOP this year. We were discussing this article by Jonah Goldberg; it's likely to make Ron Paul people happy and Huckabee people unhappy. That is, if you're willing to discount the body of evidence that's out there that links Ron Paul to Truthers and Deniers. Golberg's point about ideology aside, I don't find Ron Paul to be a better alternative to Mike Huckabee. That Paul hasn't denounced his connections and/or support from some of the fringe groups that endorse him equates to a deafening silence.

But here's the point we came to: there's no stand-out candidate this year. One can - and we did - find fault with each of them. We're faced with the prospect of choosing the least damaging or least likely to offend the principles of conservatism. The point to take away from this is that the primaries are extremely important this year, and the consequences of who we choose are enormous.

Thanksgiving 2007

2007-11-22T09:11:00.001-06:00

God bless you all and your families this Thanksgiving and always. Let us recall the advice of His Excellency, Gen. Washington:

It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favors.

Interview With Dr. Kevin Gutzman

2007-11-19T21:58:00.000-06:00

Dr. Kevin Gutzman, author of the recently reviewed Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, was kind enough to answer some questions I had upon completion of his book.

Dr. Gutzman is associate professor of American history at Western Connecticut State University. He received his Master of Public Affairs from the University of Texas, his J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law, and his M.A. and Ph.D. in American history from the University of Virgina. Dr. Gutzman is the author of Virginia's American Revolution: From Dominion to Republic, 1776-1840 and was a featured expert in the documentary film John Marshall: Citizen, Statesman and Jurist. He as written scores of articles and encyclopedia entries, as well as reviews of books, films, and exhibitions for magazines academic and popular.

The following is the text of our interview via e-mail.

MT: Dr. Gutzman, thanks for agreeing to answer some questions in this format.
KG: You are welcome.

MT: I’d first like to ask you if you think the Judiciary is “broken” in the sense that it isn’t working the way it is supposed to; and if so, what do you see as the leading cause of this?

KG: The problem is not the judiciary, but the tradition of judicial review. Over time, what was originally conceived as the federal judiciary’s role in enforcing the Constitution against Congress – that is, in preventing Congress from legislating in areas intended to have been reserved to the states – has come to be a wide-ranging legislative role. The federal courts rarely act as protector of the states against a Congress rapacious for power, but instead usually join Congress in grabbing power intended to be reserved to the states. The result is that instead of a decentralized government in which the overwhelming majority of policies affecting Americans on a daily basis are made by elected, state legislators, we have come to have a highly centralized government in which many important questions are decided by unelected, unaccountable lawyers: federal judges.

MT: How did this begin? What were the origins of judicial review and the courts siding with Congress against the states?

KG: The power of judicial review, of judges’ deciding whether acts of Congress were consistent with the federal Constitution, was said by Federalists during the ratification debates to be inherent in the Constitution. However, they did not say that it would be exercised against state statutes, as it has been since Fletcher v. Peck (1810). Fletcher involved a completely specious construction of the Contracts Clause of Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution, and ever since then, federal courts have felt increasingly at liberty to strike down state laws on the flimsiest of bases.

The Ur-text of federal courts siding with Congress against the states is John Marshall’s opinion for the Supreme Court in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). In that case, Marshall was at great pains to “correct” the interpretation of the Constitution offered in oral argument by Luther Martin, counsel for Maryland, who happened to be one of the Constitution’s chief authors; according to Marshall, who was not a Philadelphia Convention delegate, Martin was simply mistaken to think that the powers of Congress were limited to those listed in Article I, Section 8, but extended to various implicit grants of power. When James Madison read Marshall’s opinion, he correctly noted that if people had known that this construction would be given to the Constitution, it never would have been ratified. I provide a detailed account of the most important state’s ratification dispute in Virginia’s American Revolution: From Dominion to Republic, 1776-1840 (Lexington, 2007).

MT: I thought on multiple occasions that your book stood as a pretty strong indictment of our educational system, both primary and the university level. What are your thoughts on this, and on the way a person is educated in the legal profession in the 21st century?

KG: Legal education in America is, when it comes to the Constitution, simply inappropriate. Constitutional law is treated as a common law field, one in which what matters are solely the precedent established by federal courts. What should be taught, however, is what the Constitution meant to the people at the time it was being ratified. It is, after all, what the people ratified, and not what the judges made of it, that is “the supreme law of the land.” At least, that is the theory.

People who study the Constitution below the law school level typically study it in the same way as do prospective lawyers: by reading huge volumes of court precedents. One literally would know more about the Constitution by reading it without reading the typical constitutional law casebook than he would be reading the casebook, so this mode of instruction is highly problematic. Once an error is written into the body of judicial opinions “implementing” the Constitution, it is unlikely ever to be corrected, and so future students are taught the error as if it were accurate. In effect, erroneous opinions operate as constitutional amendments.

MT: What are your thoughts on the provisions for removing judges from office? Are they too high a hurdle? What should constitute “good behavior?”

KG: The problem here is not the Constitution itself, but Senate precedent. Unfortunately, the Senate decided in the impeachment trial of Justice Samuel Chase two centuries ago that “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the grounds for which an impeached federal judge can be removed from office, must be indictable crimes. As the great Raoul Berger demonstrated in his Impeachment, however, the Senate erred: a “high crime” or “high … misdemeanor” was a political offense in the English system from which the phrase was borrowed by the Philadelphia Convention — such as, say, amending the Constitution under the guise of interpreting it. By that standard, federal judges such as Earl Warren or William Brennan heartily deserved impeachment.

MT: What are your thoughts on corrective action for addressing some of the missteps of the Judiciary as you mentioned in your book?

KG: The Constitution provides four mechanisms for correcting the courts’ errant ways: 1) constitutional amendment; 2) restriction of courts’ jurisdiction; 3) the appointment process; and 4) impeachment.

Constitutional amendment is, of course, difficult, but should be used more frequently. It was a grave error for James Madison to counsel Thomas Jefferson after the Revolution of 1800 that there should not be an American tradition of amending the Constitution to correct recent errors, and I think that his advice should be abandoned.

Restriction of courts’ jurisdiction is, by and large, entirely in Congress’s discretion. Since the Constitution does not require that there be any federal courts other than the Supreme Court or that they have original jurisdiction beyond the few types enumerated in Article III, Congress could at will deny federal courts jurisdiction over, say, cases involving the burning of flags or the notification of parents that their children have had abortions. This remedy requires only a majority in each house of Congress.

The Senate has essentially abdicated its responsibility throughout most of American history in relation to the appointment of federal judges. It should play a major role in ensuring that the president appoints not merely able, but also constitutionalist candidates. Few senators seem to believe that this is incumbent upon them.

Finally, I have been on record since 1990 in favor of a campaign of impeachments of lawless federal judges. It would do the country quite a lot of good, go a long way toward restoring the federal Constitution, if Congress undertook to remove the foremost judicial legislators from office. It would also serve, as the French say, pour encourager les autres!

MT: It seems that the other branches of government sometimes act as if upholding the Constitution is the responsibility of the Judiciary alone. What do you think it will take before the other branches of government begin to uphold the Constitution?

KG: We certainly should not leave the impression that the judiciary is the only problem. Presidents feel free to propose unconstitutional laws, to act as if the law did not apply to them, to wage war without involving Congress in the decision-making process, and in various other ways to violate the Constitution. Congress feels free to legislate in any way that comes to mind, regardless of the Tenth Amendment’s reservation of powers to the states. Yet, since they have the power of judicial review, for the courts to be directed into the right path would go a long way toward correcting the other branches’ misbehavior.

MT: The contributors and readers of this blog are firm believers in the principles of balanced government. What are your thoughts on the prospects of balanced government as a political movement?

KG: By “balanced government,” I presume that you have in mind a situation in which each branch of the federal government is in the proper relationship to the others? I agree with the great Virginia senator and political theorist John Taylor of Caroline, who said that far more important than checks and balances — some form of separation of powers — within the federal government was the principle of division of powers — the assignment of responsibility in only a few areas to the center, with most reserved to the states — between the states and the federal government. Alas, this most significant of American governmental principles is now largely abandoned. However, one can hope for its resuscitation, and the first step toward that goal is to educate Americans at large about their real constitutional heritage.

Thanks again to Dr. Gutzman. I take full responsibility for any misspellings or other formatting errors as I'm exhausted and posting late; and accidents do happen. Be sure to get your copy of the Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution; it is very well-done and a necessary part of any library.

Justice For Sale

2007-11-16T22:36:00.001-06:00

This link will take you to a great piece in the Opinion Journal by Justice O'Connor. Someone who might otherwise be hard pressed to find common ground with Justice O'Connor found it quite readily in this comment:

Today, only a little more than one-third of Americans can name the three branches of government--much less explain the balance of power among them.

Indeed, the judiciary is a topic near and dear to my heart, as is a robust civics education - obviously one of the principles behind the creation of this blog. I like to think that I give credit where it is due, so kudos to Justice O'Connor. And thanks to my good friend Mark Misiorowski for the heads-up on the piece.

Because No Culture Is Superior

2007-11-16T22:21:00.000-06:00

We must not pass judgment on others. I've simply got to show this to my multiculturalist neighbor and see if he thinks it's perfectly OK for a 33-year old man to marry a dog.

And Lefties also think we should draw on international law for the purpose of forming opinions - another reason to never, ever, and I mean NEVER allow a Democrat near the White House again. Frankly, I think this means you, too, Rudy.

Subject To The Jurisdiction Thereof

2007-11-12T20:45:00.000-06:00

Ah, yes, the ever-so-troubling 14th Amendment.

As I have mentioned in other places, I was given The Heritage Guide to the Constitution as a gift a couple months back, and I have not been the same since. While there is much ground to cover with respect to the 14th Amendment, for this brief post I'm going to focus only on the Citizenship Clause, as it is called.

I could say a bit on the topic, but not any better than this from the Guide itself:

One conspicuous departure from the language of the Civil Rights Act was the elimination of the phrase "Indians not taxed." Senator Jacob Howard of Ohio, the author of the Citizenship Clause, defended the new language against the charge that it would make Indians citizens of the United States. Howard assured skeptics that "Indians born within the limits of the United States, and who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of this Amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, supported Howard, contending that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant "not owing allegiance to anybody else... subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States." Indians, he concluded, were not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States because they owed allegiance - even if only partial allegiance - to their tribes. Thus, two requirements were set for United States citizenship: born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction.

By itself, birth within the territorial limits of the United States, as the case of the Indians indicated, did not make one automatically "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. And "jurisdiction" did not simply mean subject to the laws of the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of its courts. Rather, "jurisdiction" meant exclusive "allegiance" to the United States.

What I find interesting about this is that the historical record is there for the reading, and can easily verify original intent. Perhaps, in time, we may yet see this Republic turned away from the path to national suicide that we're on. While insisting on such antiquated ideas as allegiance will surely qualify me as a "hater" to someone, I can think of no simpler means of correcting some of the problems resulting from the 14th Amendment than insisting on the plain, simple and original intent of the authors of the Amendment.

Book Review: The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution

2007-11-12T19:56:00.000-06:00

I learned about this latest installment to the "PIG" series when I heard the author, Dr. Kevin Gutzman, on the Michael Medved show probably three months ago.

The book is very well done and quite accessible. I spent a lot more time with it than I might another book of similar length as I kept referencing the Constitution, the Federalist, and my Heritage Guide to the Constitution (not to mention a couple of biographies of You-Know-Who) whenever I'd read something that I wanted to confirm or verify.

There are more areas where I find agreement with Dr. Gutzman than disagreement; one inevitable and notable exception is the Lincoln legacy. It has been my understanding that while Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, it was in limited situations (namely to protect a supply line into D.C.) and was followed up shortly thereafter by Congressional endorsement. It was an appropriate time to do so (war and/or insurrection was present).

There's of course a larger question of legitimacy at stake here which might need some exploration. I acknowledge that the Union in the first place was a voluntary one and could be undone. The separation of political bonds such as this isn't an act to be taken lightly nor without a valid basis for making such a break; there wasn't a "long train of abuses and usurpations" compelling the insurrection.

Suppose the state of Illinois decided that given the budget crisis, citizens could buy a license for a cool $100,000 to enslave as many illegal aliens as one could. Or suppose that retirees in the state of Oregon have become too much of a drain on the rest of the state, such that the state decides that every person over the age of 60 is henceforth "D-N-R." In each case, the state is depriving a class of persons of one of their inalienable rights; and the deprivation of the right to life is an oppression no more serious than depriving someone of liberty or the fruits of their person. While the issue of jurisdiction appears clear (domestic matters not constitutionally appropriate at the federal level), the obligation of the general government is not.

Having addressed my one area of disagreement, I could spend days posting on the excellent points of this book. My hope is that Dr. Gutzman will instead humor me and the readers here with answers to some questions. I hope to be able to post more along these lines in the not-too-distant future.

In the meantime, The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution remains an essential for everyone's library, so if you don't yet have it, run out and get it. Yes, I mean right now.