An Interesting E-mail

A friend of mine recently sent me the following e-mail, which I will share in its entirety. My comments follow.

"How Long Do We Have?

About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier: 'A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.'

'A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.'

'The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:

1. from bondage to spiritual faith;
2. from spiritual faith to great courage;
3. from courage to liberty;
4. from liberty to abundance;
5. from abundance to complacency;
6. from complacency to apathy;
7. from apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage'

Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St.Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:

Number of States won by:
Gore: 19
Bush: 29

Square miles of land won by:
Gore: 580,000
Bush: 2,427,000

Population of counties won by:
Gore: 127 million
Bush: 143 million

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Gore: 13.2
Bush: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: 'In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare.'

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the 'complacency and apathy' phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the 'governmental dependency' phase. If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years. Pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom."

Now, I haven't independently checked the facts outlined above. I recall seeing that Red and Blue map shortly after both Bush victories, and the concentration of color by county was the most striking.

I just found a great link - go take a look for yourself: you can see the map by county for 2000 and 2004. Curious as to why I keep emphasizing the words "by county"?

While I acknowledge that there is a threat to our Republic from electoral apathy and illegal immigration, the bigger threat that goes unrecognized is our imbalanced government. We have densely populated centers of dependency dragging the rest of the nation kicking and screaming towards socialism.

I'll re-iterate one of my strongest governmental convictions: people should have the right to decide how much government they want, but only at the most local of levels; the smallest of spheres. If the people of Chicago, IL decide they want universal health care and education provided by "the government" that's fine with me if the residents of Cook County are the ones who pay for it. So it should be for any domestic matter - be it health care, retirement security, jet skis or gold chains. As long as the burden is shouldered by the residents of the same area where the beneficiaries reside, my philosophy is: have at it.

As I've also said before, I think that a properly balanced government will lead naturally, and eventually inevitably, to a limited government. Although I doubt it, there's a chance I could be wrong about this. Isn't giving it a try worth the risk, especially when what we're currently doing is obviously not working and when "giving it a try" is really just another way of saying "following the Constitution"?

Graphic Image

Courtesy of the Patriot Post: This is what it looked like the last time we ran a conservative. You can link to a larger image here. Let's do it again like we did back then, 1984-style.

House Passes Iraq Surrender Bill

At least that's how the headline should read. Instead, it's "Dems Challenge Bush."

I don't have a (working) crystal ball, so I can't tell you if my hunch - a defined timetable for pullout equals unmitigated disaster - is right. But I can comment on human nature.

Is this a pretty good day, or a pretty bad day, if you're a blood-thirsty terrorist who wants to see the United States humiliated and beaten? And what's your favorite American political party if you're the same terrorist?

It seems hard to imagine it being possible, but this vote will surely add more shame to the Democrat legacy of cowardice and defeatism.

The Savagery of Our Enemy

Our enemies in Iraq have sunk to a new low. I heard this first yesterday on the radio, and here's the link to the story.

I'm horrified, and only hope that people remember how the enemy fights when having any conversation about the war. Simply put, these people want to kill civilians. We underestimate the seriousness of our action in Iraq and the ruthlessness of our enemy at our peril.

Am I alone in wondering if Allah told them to do this?

Anyone else surprised that this story was broken on conservative talk radio and the non-story about the 8 U.S. Attorneys is all over the MSM?

24

I recently got the first season of 24 on dvd. I'm already over it.

No question, it's good, and I'm sure that subsequent seasons only get better. I have this theory that the first season of any show has bugs that get worked out, and that shows really hit their stride in seasons 2, 3, or 4.

Here's the problem with 24: it's basically an 18-hour movie when you watch it on dvd instead of once a week like most people would. I'd never decide to watch an 18-hour movie, and if you've watched the show, you know that there's a cliff-hanger every week.

Another gripe? It seems like there are 6 different writers for the show, and that they're playing that game we used to play when we were kids. You know, you're sitting around with a group of friends and you start to tell a story... we used to write it out on paper and cover up all but the last sentence. You pass it to your friend, who has your last sentence to start with and no idea what else you had in the story. For example:

"Ben shivered against the barn door. He had been running all night from the McGreevey boys, and was only now just catching his breath. The storm which had been threatening all afternoon was now in full effect. He was wet, cold, and exhausted. But most of all, he wanted to see his family again. He remembered those fine days that **(and this would be the last line, and all that would be showing)** he would spend by the lake, catching fish and skipping rocks."

Of course, this could go anywhere from here, and probably wouldn't have anything to do with what came before it. As far as writing goes, it's not very good. As far as comedy goes, it can be pretty funny. 24 feels like that when you watch it in 2 weeks on dvd.

(spoiler warning - first season information follows)

My last beef? The show stresses me out! How many times did his family get kidnapped, nearly escape, nearly get killed, nearly escape, nearly get killed, escape, get in an accident, get kidnapped, nearly get killed and so on? Look, I acknowledge there's an entertainment value to this sort of thing: I do like action movies. The difference is that a movie is usually 90 minutes and everything is wrapped up nicely at the end.

So long, Jack Bauer. Nice knowing ya.

Happy St. Patrick's Day

Irish eyes are smiling today!

I'm off to the parade - what an odd character I will be, not a drop of Irish in me, nor a stitch of green clothing to my name. Well, I have two green ties, but this isn't a dress-up event, LOL.

I'm going to be on the lookout for the DuPage County Democrats. They shouldn't be hard to find. They'll be the ones with the "No Blood for Oil" and "Free Mumia" signs.

Informal Poll

I'm curious about your thoughts on the early candidates and not-yet-announced candidates for 2008 - and let's stick to GOP for now.

Feel free to sound off about any or all of the following: McCain, Guiliani, Romney, Gingrich or Fred Thompson. Am I missing some? Feel free to address those, too.

I'll share some thoughts of my own on what I like and dislike about each. We're still a long way off, but it'll be August before you know it and this is going to start to mean something.

THE MONARCHIST ADDS: I've gotta find more time for this sort of thing and not get started on it at 10:00 every night, LOL. Here's the thing about the names I mentioned... the only one who seems any good is Thompson, and that's probably because what little we know about him is this: he's no BS-er. McCain and Guiliani are both horrible. I heard Romney on the Laura Ingraham show last week, and he was all over the place. First, he was suggesting that abortion should be decided by the states (!! - what the deuce??) and then, two sentences later, he's quoting the DoI. I was at one time thinking he'd be the guy, but after that incoherent drivel, I'm so over Romney.

Talk radio is already playing the audio clips of Rudy talking up federally-funded abortions. And don't get me started on John "clean government" McCain.

THE MONARCHIST ADDS: I'm happy to see that the most recent (3/23) edition of the Patriot Post does a nice job of plugging Fred Thompson. But guys, what took you 8 days to get caught up with the American Federalist Blog?

A Lesson in Illinois

Aha! At last, I think I have pin-pointed the difference of opinion.

Mr. Hargis, you know I love you like a Brother, and that I continue to turn this over (and over, and over, and...) only shows how concerned I am about understanding where we differ.

You said something perfectly succinct in the comments from the last post: "To me, the question of whether the chicom regime is legitimate is almost beside the point. The fact is they are there, and they have a billion people at their disposal. Do we wait for the Chinese to win their own freedom, or do we start now and help them undermine totalitarianism every way possible?You know my answer."

If I can, I'd like to revisit an ongoing issue right here in the State of Illinois, and use it as a parallel to what we were discussing. As I mentioned in a prior post, Illinois is staring down a rather punitive Gross Receipts Tax. Blagojevich promised entitlements and got elected; now, he's attempting to make good on his promises. Given that Republicans are a minority in the General Assembly, there's a good chance that this will pass and become a reality. Consumers will be hurt by this: since this is a 1% tax before any expenses, this can and easily will be passed on to consumers. Businesses will leave the state or will source components of the manufacturing process from out-of-state companies.

All of this is bad news. But I'm not entirely unhappy. Allow me to explain.

This is how it is supposed to work, if you're a believer in balanced government like I am. We have the freedom to make mistakes, and they can be very painful. We already have a fiscal crisis, and may someday soon have a total disaster on our hands. I'm OK with that, as long as we learn from our mistakes and I grant you that's a big qualifier. I'd be much happier if entitlement spending were happening at the county level, because I'd at least have the option of moving, but thank God this is happening at the state and not federal level. Yes, I know entitlement spending is out of control at the federal level, but I'm speaking specific to Illinois right now. The governor is proposing taxes to pay for entitlements, which is at least in the right ballpark.

What does this have to do with the Chinese? Simple: I think sometimes - most times - things have to truly get worse before they can get better. That's just a part of human nature - we're disposed to suffer evils while they are sufferable. Do I want the regular Chinese citizen to suffer unnecessarily? Of course not. But if suffering is necessary to correct problems, isn't any attempt to avoid that hardship merely going to prolong the eventual pain?

Thanks again to all for the lively discussion!

Good Conversation

I'm starting a new post, because I want to take the discussion started under my Barack post in another direction. That, and 40 comments later the discussion has changed enough to merit another posting. ;)

I have a question, or maybe just a clarification...

"It is my position that the government has no business interfering with peaceful voluntary transactions, whether between me and my local Kroger, or between me and a Cuban cigar manufacturer."

Mr. Hargis, I don't disagree with your position, but I have been troubled as of late by the nature of our commercial and political relationship with China. I've started to notice talk radio - the Laura Ingraham Show in particular - beginning to pick up on this topic. I'm hoping you can discuss this with me.

Although Carter tried to turn his back on Taiwan, we're committed to the defense of that country. Recently, Chinese leaders declared that they have no interest in freedom, and that "democracy" is probably 100 years away from reality. I have long thought that our commercial relationship with China is supporting a regime that oppresses its people - witness the allegations of their treatment of followers of the religious movement Falun Gong. Tiananmen Square wasn't so long ago, although it seems that people conveniently forget this.

I think that at some level, government has a responsibility to check the interests of private enterprise. After all, if men were angels, we'd need no government - isn't that true about human nature? If you accept this, you'll acknowledge that some people (certainly not a majority) are of weak character and will take advantage of others for their benefit. And since corporations are merely collections of individuals working as one legal entity, isn't it reasonable to expect that government has a duty to regulate business activities at some level?

I object to the sentiment that manifests itself on the pages of the Wall Street Journal Editorial page - that the United States is essentially America Inc. and that should be the basis for national decisions. There is a strong sentiment in this country that what is good for business is good for America, and I can't say I agree with this.

Our trading partner China is openly hostile and dishonest. That we can get cheap goods from them seems like a shortsighted mortgaging of our sovereignty.

Survey Says: Irritated

I recently received a member survey from Mike Duncan at the RNC. Hurray!

Two questions into it I decided that my efforts to educate the people at the RNC were going to be in vain - as soon as my survey is received sans check, in the trash it would go. Now that I think of it, I'd bet they toss the ones that come back with checks, for that matter.

Question 1: Do I think it is important to make the President's tax cuts permanent? Answer: Are you kidding me? Taxes on personal income should be abolished, not reduced. Taxes should be based on consumption, as a wise man once noted, for they are a natural check against the growth of government.

Question 2: Is it important to provide incentives for businesses to create new jobs? Answer: What the deuce are you talking about? Businesses create jobs because they can deliver a product or service that people want. If they're able to do this, and they're not creating jobs, it's because government needs to get out of the way.

Question 3: Line-item veto important? Answer: Have these people any idea at all about the way government used to work? If a piece of legislation reaches the President's desk that is Constitutionally inconsistent, veto that piece of trash and send it back to Congress! Will some branch of government - any one would do! - please stand up and execute its Constitutional duties?

Several questions later...

Question 6: Important to reform our immigration laws? Answer: What's the minimum criteria for getting a job at the RNC, a pulse? How about we start with enforcing the immigration laws we have? Let's try that first, then we can talk about reforming them, whatever that means. This is like a patient in the ER who has been run over by a car, and the attending surgeon says: "Let's get that broken nose set before we go any further."

Question 7: Important to increase border security? Answer: No, let's just open the borders up and let anyone at all into the country. Wait. Sorry. We're already doing that! Should this be a big surprise, though? I mean, after all, Mel Martinez (General Chairman, whatever that means) probably had some input in the survey.

Didn't we used to be the party of ideas? Principles? Since when does the GOP need to take the temperature of regular people to determine what the right policies are? Answer: Since they lost touch with regular people, probably sometime after 1994.

Gross Taxes

Illinois is in a heap of trouble. Pandering to the least common denominator, buying votes, and a lack of self-government has gotten us here. The question is: what'll get us out?

According to my sources at the Chamber, for fiscal 2007, the State will have $28.8B in receipts. To fund true costs, approximately $5.9B more would be needed. Worse yet, when you total up all of the State's debts and unfunded obligations (apart from general obligation bonds), the price tag is a whopping $106B, or roughly $8,800 per person for the 12 million residents of Illinois.

(deep breath)

OK, this is very bad, and appears to be getting worse. We're the worst in the Union with respect to unfunded pension liabilities: $46B. This number is going to grow - rapidly - while the State continues to operate in the red. And we'll continue to operate in the red as long as the General Assembly sees fit to spend exorbitantly on pensions and health care for State employees and dream up anti-competitive measures like the Gross Receipts Tax (GRT).

The GRT works like this. You own a business and sell your services for $100. Before you factor in any of your costs and expenses, the State taxes a cut right off the top of 1%. This affects every business in the product cycle. So if you sell $100 of steel to a manufacturer, you pay 1%. If the manufacturer makes a product (say, a truck part) and sells it to a distributor for $250, he pays 1% of that amount. If the distributor sells it to another party (who uses the part to modify a truck chassis, for example) for $300, the distributor pays 1%. The last party sells a truck with the part in it for $500, and pays his 1% fee. You can see quickly how Illinois businesses will be directly hurt via the pocketbook, and how indirectly they'll be hurt by companies seeking parts or raw materials from neighboring states like Indiana or (shudders) Wisconsin.

I told you what has gotten us here, but let me elaborate just a bit. Businesses have been accused of not paying their fair share of taxes, while education and entitlement programs have spiraled out of control. I'm no disciple of the Wall Street Journal editorial page. I'm in business, but when you get right down to it, so is most everyone else who has a job. My point is this: I'm no defender of business, just for the sake of defending business. But I am, I like to think, fair.

Folks, we have a self-government problem, and there's a solution. As I've said before, and I'll keep saying it, most government programs should be pushed to the most local levels possible. County for sure. Township preferably, City ideally. Then, when the bills come due, people get to decide: as residents of our town, do we want our taxes to be used to pay for out-of-market retirement benefits for municipal employees? For classroom expenditures that serve to supplement parental involvement? For universal heath care coverage? Then, and I think only then, are we going to see a return to common sense. People will rediscover self-government in their DNA - no, it's not gone, it's just been dulled and underutilized.

Barack Obama is Bad for America

So he made his announcement today. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to scream or cry...?

Once and for all, I'd like to put the fascination with Sen. Obama behind us. The MSM loves this guy. And his shameless, outrageous, and inappropriate "branding" as a modern day Lincoln is an insult of the highest order. I'm sure that our 16th President would just love a pretender like Obama invoking his name for political gain. Obama is to Lincoln as Saddam Hussein is to Ghandi; the comparison makes no sense. Obama isn't even close to "great" Democrats in history like FDR or Truman. He's a groomed and polished Jimmy Carter with better communication skills.

Here's what I'd like to do. Given that people have so little understanding of where the Senator stands on the issues, as a public service, I'll spell his positions out for you. I'll use his website as a source, so you can check for yourself and share this with others. I'm going to use the man's words, folks, so please let people know who and what they're going to be supporting when they support this candidate. If I hear one more person say that he's a fresh new leader I think I'm going to be sick. Anyway, here goes.

On Taxation: The Senator thinks the tax code has become too complex and "unfair" and is need of reform. So far, this follows his modus operandi - speak in platitudes so absurdly generalized that they can't be criticized. You almost expect him to follow a statement like this with something really controversial, like, I don't know, "Women are people too." The Senator thinks that "Reform options should focus on creating a system that is simple, progressive, easy to comply with and devoid of abusive shelters." Translation: the redistribution of wealth as it currently is designed should remain ("progressive") and there are too many means of avoiding taxes as the system stands. On taxation, the Senator's position is in line with the majority of his party, which is out of touch with most Americans. Shall we continue?

On Energy: The Senator supports alternative fuels, raising automobile fuel efficiency standards, investing in new technologies, and taxing oil companies so they don't make as much money (somehow, beyond comprehension, he calls this "Working to Lower High Gas Prices."). If indeed we are too dependent on foreign oil, we could open up increased offshore drilling right by these United States, if the environmental lobbies/interests would allow it (they won't). Last I checked, no new nuclear reactors are being built in the United States, for that matter. I'll give you three guesses why that isn't happening, and the first two don't count.

On Iraq: The Senator actually makes the effort to separate Iraq and National Defense; the sheer stupidity of this isn't worth the time to address. On his inability to discern the critical role of our presence in Iraq alone he should be disqualified from seeking the Presidency (and if I had my way, removed from the Senate). However, for the record, the Senator wants US forces out of Iraq by March 31, 2008 - about 13 and a half months from now. You know who thinks that's a good idea? Registered Democrats, everyone who works at either ABC News, CBS News, CNN or MSNBC, most Europeans, the Chinese and the Russians. Oh yeah, and the Terrorists.

On the Environment, On Immigration, On Education, On Health Care... oh Dear Lord, this could take a week! I suppose that if indeed Obama is the fraud that I think he is, he'll either be exposed in the Primaries or in the General Election. Forgive me for not being confident in the citizenry's ability to recognize a fool when he presents himself. Nor in the GOP's ability to just pound a lightweight like Obama.

I'm sure I'll have just as many objections to the eventual nominees from both parties, and since we've got a long way to go, I'll give it a rest for now. ;)

The Good and the Bad

The good, at least I think so, upon a quick glance. Newt has an organization called American Solutions. Worth checking out. He keeps sending me e-mails about it...

The bad? Governor of Texas, Rick Perry. I won't even do it justice, but check out this link to Mr. Light Bulb's blog.

(shudders)

Rather than leave you with a bad taste in your mouth, check out Coulter's latest column, which is always a treat.

Clock Building

Something Mr. Hargis said in his comments to my post entitled Update has got me thinking. You're not wrong, my friend, but I do feel compelled to clarify something (you only have yourself to blame for this compulsion; you realize this, right?). You said:

Some people go into business hoping to make a quick killing and retire to some tropical island. No doubt some go into politics for the same reason, but for most businessmen and politicians success equals longevity. If there's any difference it's that few go into business hoping to change the world; they just want to make money.

Now, here's where we diverge. The great ones in any field are what Jim Collins called "clock builders" in his groundbreaking book, Good to Great. Anyone can tell you what time it is, but the really great ones build clocks, and these will tell time long after we've passed on.

I really think that any organization needs to take conscious steps to building a franchise, and this involves organizational mechanisms and rigorous development of human capital. This applies in just about any organization, and I'm going to go dust off GtG and share some more pearls of wisdom. More to follow.

Update

Someone once told me that if all we're doing is sitting at our computers typing fiery prose then we're not much better than people who do nothing at all. I may not have that exactly right - in fact I'm absolutely sure it was more eloquent than that - but the sentiment is dead-on, at any rate. My friend was right: that's the same thing as lighting a candle and then covering it with a bushel basket. Put that light on a lamp-stand, Brother!

So, here's what I've been up to, without giving away too much. I've gotten more involved at the Township level in the only party I'd even consider a remote association with. This is good for me; it's easy to complain about how things are run at the national and State levels. It's another thing altogether to accept responsibility for fixing what we might perceive to be problems. There's no victims here, right? Nobody calling out in the darkness "where have our leaders gone." Right? Plus, candidly, there's a little on-the-job training I'm getting for next to nothing.

I'm also helping out a great guy in a mayoral election however I can, and I'm considering creating an advocacy organization in town for the homeowner's associations in our area. It's with great pride that I'm staking out ground in support of residents (aka the little guy) that seems like the worst possible position when considering my profession (commercial lending and finance). Yep, I'm principled, and I'll prove it to you by forsaking a successful career, just you watch me.

"Where the h*ll has that Monarchist been?" you may have thought in passing lately. I'm still as passionate as ever, but if I have periods of quiet, it's because I'm taking that friend's advice I mentioned before, and - Lord, there it is again! - seeking balance in my efforts.

There's a risk here: people start to listen and I need to drop the anonymity and get real about how this fits with what I'm supposed to do with my life and what my ambitions are. I might have to take that most terrifying of all things - a chance. By no means are we there yet, but I'll hope that should that one day arrive, you'll remember Dear Reader, that we started this together, and by God, we'll finish it if given the chance.

Hopefully this month will give us more chances to talk. After all, you're such a great listener!

State of the Union: Imbalanced

I read, but did not watch, the President's speech from Tuesday night. For those of you who watched it, I'd be interested in how he did.

Pouring over his words, the President did a couple of things very well. They are the same things he's done very well since becoming President. His summary and analysis of Iraq was excellent. An analogy I love is this: suppose you're walking down the street and someone walks up to you and punches you in the head. You begin to fight back. Suddenly, two of his friends walk up and start helping him out. Now, you're in a fight you hadn't anticpated, but you'd better do everything you can to win or your situation will get much, much worse. The President even said something very close to this: that this isn't the fight we entered, but it's the fight we're in.

On other National Security matters, he was equally strong. We can debate the merits of the federal government imposing standards to reduce gasoline consumption, for the issue is not cut-and-dry, and as the saying goes, there is more than one way to skin a cat; yet, as this will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, this protects the National Security interests of America.

He blew it, however, on important domestic matters. His comments on entitlement programs like health care and Social Security were borderline endorsements ("commitments of conscience"?). And of course, predictably, he fell down on immigration. Of course, the President is still a politician, even if he's not running for office, and he may have been saying all the right things considering the changes he's faced with (such as "Madam Speaker").

Nevertheless, one can't help but reflect on how a system of government, properly balanced, would address the issues before us. We've experienced the whole spectrum of balance - from the Articles of Confederation, to the ratification of our Constitution, to where we've come to since then. Here's to hoping that we can return to a proper balance in our lifetime.

Big Shocker

So Hillary is going to run in 2008, have you heard?? I laughed at this headline this morning. According to the Laura Ingraham show, Team Billary has already taken a shot at Obama's muslim background, indicating/questioning that he was educated at a madrasa in Indonesia. Of course, had a conservative mentioned this, they'd be forced to resign... from whatever it is that they happen to be doing (Headline: "Dogcatcher Resigns Amid Backlash From 'Outing' Obama's Past").

I'd say that I'm psyched to see the two of them tear each other apart, except that this would be a little like watching the Green Bay Packers play the Minnesota Vikings for the NFC Championship. Isn't there a way where both of them can lose?

Timeless Quotation

I came across this, loved it, and decided to share:

"We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven. We have been preserved these many years in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power as no other nation has ever grown.

But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious Hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own.

Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us!

It behooves us then to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins and pray for clemency and forgiveness."

This is a quote that I pulled from America's God and Country, by William J. Federer. I'm always surprised when I read a distant quote that echoes my feelings about the current state of things in this Republic. I'm also encouraged that while things may seem bleak at times, they have been worse, and we have always persevered. I'll continue it, rather than make you guess or leave you in suspense.

"Now, therefore, in compliance with the request and fully concurring in the view of the Senate, I do, by this my proclamation, designate and set apart Thursday, the 30th day of April, 1863, as a day of national humiliation, fasting and prayer."

Also under the category of the more things change, the more they stay the same: the Democrat Party is pulling for America's defeat, just like in Lincoln's day. What possesses a man to root against his own country?

In Loco Parentis

Update: The legislation never got referred to the committee and as a result must be re-introduced next session. Unfortunately, Rep Kestell is retiring and Sen Leibham is running for Congress, so both of my legislators, who acted as sponsors for this legislation, are likely to be gone(although I will grant that Mr. Leibham will have stiff competition for Rep Petri's seat in Sen Grothman.)  I own to some disappointment. You may see the latest update here.

By now, any regular here knows Mom (Call Me Mom to be exact). Mom's had an open invitation to guest post here, and she dazzles with the following. Sit back, relax and enjoy.

"Where to begin? The topic is one that is near and dear to my heart and the hearts of all parents. It is but a portion of the topic of parental rights. There have been some judicial rulings made in the last 10-20 years which were meant to streamline the disciplinary process in our schools, but, instead they have stripped us of our parental rights during the time when our child is attending school. They have also left our children open to the most tyrannical interrogatory procedures I have ever heard of in these United States . I hope that you, gentle reader, will be motivated by the information presented here, to contact your own legislators and take back your parental rights.

To start, I shall inform you that you and the courts have granted school officials the status of “in loco parentis” for the hours that your children attend school. “In loco parentis” means nothing more or less than that the school is acting “in the place of a parent”. This is necessary for a number of reasons and is generally a reasonable thing. If your child is passing notes or being disruptive, this means that the teacher or principal can administer reasonable consequences within the parameters of school board policy and stated procedures.

We have a problem when the school official, while acting in loco parentis, is also acting as an agent of law enforcement. If little Johnny or Susie is passing notes or making a ruckus, it is reasonable for them to be sent to the office and disciplined by school officials. If, however, little Johnny or Susie are called into the office to be disciplined for or questioned about something that can be used to charge them in a criminal proceeding, what then is the school official’s proper role?

In my state, the association of school boards says only that school officials have the right to question a child about a crime because that is a violation of the school’s rules and as the “acting parent” they have to investigate to determine the level of discipline that is necessary. There is no conflict of interest, they say, because “that’s the current law of the land.” (May I say that the comments which immediately clamored for expression at this point in our conversation are best kept to myself.)

In case you don’t understand the ramifications of this, let me educate you. This means that as long as it is school hours, if your child is implicated in a crime, school officials can accuse your child of the crime, search their belongings, and interrogate your child until the end of the school day, without contacting you. They do not have to inform your child of his/her rights. They do not have to tell your child that they may have you or a lawyer present during this questioning. The school officials may lie to your child in order to coerce a confession.

To me, this is a huge conflict of interest. At this point the school official is clearly acting as an agent of law enforcement. (Unless you think a judge will believe your child‘s testimony over that of the school official.)I believe this is a direct conflict of interest with the parental role they have been temporarily granted.

Just in case you do not see the conflict here, let me revisit the in loco parentis role in a different situation. Say little Johnny or Susie fell down the stairs and broke their arm. You would expect the school to call an ambulance and then call you immediately. You do not expect them to try to set the arm themselves and send your child back to class without notifying you. School officials understand that this situation involves more than their temporary status of “in loco parentis” covers. They do not attempt to insert themselves into the role of medical practitioner without contacting you. Why then, should they think they can act as law enforcement without contacting you first? In an emergency medical situation, it is clearly understood by all that it is in the child’s best interests to have qualified medical help immediately. Why isn’t it understood that in a criminal law situation, a child’s best interests are served by having a parent and/or a lawyer present before questioning that child?

There has, unfortunately, been more than one case where students have been interrogated for hours and even unjustly expelled on the suspicion of committing serious crimes because someone told the office at school that they were talking about bombs, or explosions. (In case you don’t think that is serious let me assure you that it is. Making a false bomb threat is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and $250,000.00 in fines. Juveniles are charged the same as adults and there is a zero tolerance policy. Do you think your child should be questioned on that kind of charge without someone informing you about it first?) Let me be clear, these children didn’t make bomb threats, someone else told school officials that they had been talking about bombs or explosions. These children were interrogated, had their belongings searched and in at least two cases they were expelled when they didn’t confess under questioning.

In the interest of protecting my child’s rights, I have contacted my state’s legislators to request that they draft legislation clearly stating that a parent (or in the case of an orphan- a sympathetic adult) must be present when school officials or police liaison officers to the school are questioning a student about a crime. I believe there will be an appropriate exception for hurry cases. (credible bomb threats, etc.)

I was informed such legislation had been discussed only to be dismissed due to logistical objections from law enforcement. I said I could understand that in a case where they pick some kid up off the street and he/she doesn’t want to divulge their name or perhaps they look old enough to know their rights already, but a school must have parental contact information. That is why the legislation I am requesting is limited to students and not minors in general. The fact that it had already been discussed tells me that this type of abuse of the “in loco parentis” status is more common than it should be.

Don’t wait until this happens to your child. Protect them now. Contact your school and ask what their policy is in these circumstances. If your child is vulnerable, first tell your school officials in writing that you rescind their right to act in loco parentis in this type of situation, and then contact your legislators and demand legislation to fix it. Then do what you can to support that legislation once it is introduced."

THE MONARCHIST ADDS: Thank you for the posting Mom. As a parent of two toddlers, I'm going to - when the time is right - remember to rescind the school's right to act as parent. If ever there was a cause that needed some grassroots activism, this sounds like it.

Searching for the Right Term

Bowl season is almost come and gone. Bowl season, we hadly knew thee!

We're Irish fans in our house and I've been turning the loss over and over in my mind looking for the right words to express my sentiment. I suppose there's something to be said for better late than never? Well, here goes.

Henceforth, I will refer to the football team from South Bend as the "Possibly Mildly Objectin'" Irish.

At least Sooner Nation put up a fight.

A Time For Resolutions

I happen to be a pretty big fan of resolutions.

I suppose this is because I'm sort of a serial self-improver. This can be annoying to others, I know. The key to making resolutions work for you - not just now, but anytime of the year - is to be realistic and make sure they're measurable. I think those two qualifying characteristics are the difference between success and failure in changing something about yourself.

So what do I resolve this year? I resolve that I'm going to not let my professional life influence my personal life. That should be an easy one to measure - ask me how happy my family is anytime in the coming year, and the answer will be a pretty good indication of how well I'm doing. Being a good husband and father are top priorities.

I resolve to watch less TV and read more. I'll keep track and let you know how many books I read in 2007.

I resolve to jump in with both feet to more political activities. If you've been reading here, you know what I'm going to be doing in the coming year. I hope that I can reach out to more people and share my - our - philosophy on government.

I resolve to try and make reading the Bible a habit. I had a good stretch this year when I was reading it every day, but I'll have to work at it again.

Of course, I'll work to exceed the successes I had this year and eliminate the disappointments.

Here's a toast to you, Dear Reader: may the coming year bring blessings innumerable, good health, happiness, and of course, success. Enjoy the coming holiday, and as always, be safe.

Kwanzaa

Ann Coulter did her annual column on this bogus holiday, which you can read here at Human Events.

Even the favorable Kwanzaa entry at Wikipedia acknowledges some of the less-than-shiny aspects of the "holiday."

So when your kid's school is insisting on teaching about Kwanzaa, rather than object, simply demand that in the name of true multiculturalism they also teach about Festivus.

More Changes

Blogger is rolling out a new version and it took me probably three tries to get my name switched over. For a fellow like me, not exactly the most technically-savvy guy, I was confused as can be!

So it may look different for now, but rest assured, nothing is changing that counts - still the same three guys you know and love, bringing you the new American Revolution.

In Case I Don't Get Another Chance...

Merry Christmas to all! God bless you and your families this holiday season and always!

Minor Changes

We're going to be instituting comment verification on this blog. You'll just need to type in whatever letters or characters that you're prompted to enter. That there is such a thing as comment spam just... floors me.

And am I alone in thinking that surely there must be a circle in hell for spammers? Is there a bigger waste of time, talent, or money?

Daniel Webster adds:

Sorry for the minor inconvenience this presents the posters, but we've experienced a problem lately which we figure called for nippin' in the bud. Additionally, and particularly for all you "anonymous" posters, you'll note the following information beneath your posts - "Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author." Simply stated, if you choose to post as "anonymous," you gotta get the content by me first, so it dang sure better be worthwhile as well as clean.

Conquest of America III: The Intruder

It was no dark and stormy night. It could not have been, for Ebenezer would otherwise had been much more alert and on guard. The only things stirring outside were the familiar wind, the autumn leaves, and the malevolent designs of an uninvited guest.

As Sara closed down the house for the night, Ebenezer was making his rounds, tucking in his children one by one. He began with the eldest, Horatio, whose bravery and marksmanship earlier that week had single-handedly saved the herd and won the family three of the most prized pelts the county had seen in their generation. His father’s face still beamed with pride as he moved on to his second, Ephraim, who, was blessed with a vocal acuity that had already earned him renown for his ability to sing as dulcetly as he could carry a message from one hamlet to the other without taking a step—but everyone was also aware of his running prowess, as well. Third and last was little Abigail, who was already being tended to by her mother; the sight of the two loveliest of creatures was simply too wonderful for Ebenezer to put into words.

A second-generation immigrant, Ebenezer had grown weary of the depressing influences of the city and had ventured west with the simple goal of living free. The desire to dwell, as his ancestors, in the hills was strong in him, so he did not stop traveling until he had reached a modestly mountainous region, happily populated with a few like-minded native dwellers who welcomed him to their small community. His self-sufficient independence earned him much respect among the people and won him the heart of the blacksmith’s daughter, Sara. They were wed five years to the day of his arrival, and produced the three children mentioned above in the next seven. The independence by which Ebenezer lived would be put to the test on this night of his twentieth year in the mountains.

Suddenly, and in precise compliance with his training (and not a little instinct), the voice of Ephraim was heard, obviously on the very loud setting, “MOMMY!” He had seen through the slightly ajar doorway to his room, a shape moving away from a window that had been left open, curtains blowing as they never normally would at this time of the year. Ebenezer, in the same instant, scolded himself, pulled the shotgun from beneath Abigail’s crib, and handed it to Sara before jumping into the master bedroom to prepare himself for battle. The shadowy shape immediately knew the jig was up and that he had to act fast, just in case there were more than the loud voice and its mother to deal with. To his great misfortune, there were.

Making his way swiftly toward where he though was an eight-year-old boy’s room, he was brought to a sudden and complete stop by the unmistakable sound of a hand-held firearm being prepared to fire, and the sound did not come from a distance of any more than a span. The image of what modern observers might describe as a pre-pubescent Clint Eastwood—yet with the concentration and scowl of the middle-aged version of the same—materialized before him; and between he and the focused, young subject was the remarkably steady business end of a Colt 45 (or other handgun to be named later), open for business. But where was that accursed light originating? “Hold your fire, boy.” The intruder needn’t have wondered long about that as the soft but urgent whisper of a grown and angry man behind him informed him that he had indeed selected the wrong house to invade. Ebenezer, brandishing a lantern and a hatchet, mercifully turned backwards, loomed behind him and ended the intruder’s short-lived venture with one well-placed stroke.

________________________________

What, if any, is the role of the state on the issue of illegal immigration? It is often bandied about that the state and local police should butt out of it because it’s a federal issue. To that I say, Nuts!

Consider, in the above story, that Ebenezer is a type of the federal government, and his children types of the states. Like the federal government, it is the responsibility of the father to guard and defend the whole of the property from intruders, whether they intend to steal, kill, destroy, or even get a job…the law of the house is clearly posted: “No Trespassing, period.” (or, as I’ve stated earlier somewhere, “…comma, ‘period,’ period”). It’s clearly within reason for the reader to infer that the rules of the house are that no one is allowed—whether a member of the family or otherwise—to steal, kill, or destroy anything either in the house or on the premises except in self-defense. From time to time, there will be crafty scoundrels who thwart the father’s effort to keep them out. When such scoundrels do make it into one of the boys’ rooms, he will then have to deal with at least one of the boys…in addition to the holy hell that is still overdue in coming down upon his head by the hand of the father.

But in a world where the father does nothing to stop the intrusion, the boys are free to handle the intruder as meanly as they see fit, which is not necessarily as humanely as the more attentive father might have been (instead of a mere debilitating shot to the knees, the boy might miss the knees and hit—or deliberately aim for—the crotch or the temple).

And then, go on to consider what abject injustice it would have been for the father to suddenly take the gun out of his own son’s hand just as the intruder is about to do untold evil either to him or his mother, scolding the boy for being racist.

As per usual, kind reader, your comments are more than welcome—they are requested.

Two Things, Dear Reader

First, please say a prayer for the families who lost loved ones in the tragic shooting yesterday evening in Chicago. That Richard Daley and the Chicago City Council have banned handguns in the city somehow didn't deter the guy who destroyed several families last night. One can only guess if the result might have been different if Illinois had concealed carry laws, but if I'm the shooter, I'm thinking twice about it. The Chicago Tribune reports that the perpetrator was actually escorted by a security guard to the offices. I'm sure that we haven't heard the last of the story.

Second, courtesy of the Federalist Society, you might enjoy this link. I haven't checked it out, but I've heard Scalia speak before and he's enjoyable, to say the least.

The Iraq Surrender Group

I first heard a guest on the Hugh Hewitt show call the ISG just this, and I liked it so much I had to adopt it.

So here's what I got to thinking with respect to the ISG. Bush knows Baker really well, and the results of the report are a surprise to no one (if you actually meet someone who is surprised you really ought to have them checked into a hospital). So, why? Why go through all of this? What's the point? I've got my theories, and the one I've been batting back and forth like some sort of really awesome cat playing with a ball of string is this: Bush and Rove are outflanking the surrender monkeys. Sort of like how the House Republicans demanded a withdrawal vote on Iraq a while back that was defeated something like 10,000 to 2 (hyperbole, people).

All Bush hears is how we're losing, victory isn't an option, we need to withdraw, I mean, re-deploy the troops (which Jean-Francois Kerry actually said; so in addition to botching jokes he also botches party talking-points - and they wanted this guy to be President?), and he says: OK, I warned you not to mess with Texas, so tell me what you've got.

We can all see the ISG's recommendations for what they are: more foolish ideas that result in America losing.

Here's a thought, and you can play along at home. Bush gathered all of those big brains to come up with ideas on how to handle Iraq from here on out. I figure the readership here is easily... three times as smart as those dullards. So, I'm commissioning you, dear Reader, to tell me what our strategy should be in Iraq to win (which wasn't the scope of the ISG, by the way).

Dust off your thinking caps and fire away. I'll compile the recommendations and send them to Bush and then we'll see some results.

What is Balanced Government?

It has come to our attentions, thanks to you dear readers, that in our numerous submissions of an alternative and superior approach to government reform we have yet to offer a clearly defined singular explanation of what that alternative approach is and what it means; that although we've reduced our approach under a simple, easily recognizable and singular term, we have yet to reduce the idea under a clear, concise, and easily referenced explanation. We shall seek to rectify this situation in this post, and in others should this one prove inadequate the important task. As always, dear reader, your feedback is vital to the task of our articulating our position in the clearest terms possible: the process of refinement may well be said to hold the key to providing a truly superior product.

While we shall not attempt to define a balanced approach to government reform in every particular - an exercise that would be as impossible as it is unwise - we do recognize that an overall explanation and understanding of the idea of balanced government is indeed necessary and warranted, and completely within the purview of our overall mission. Once more, my friends, we would direct your attentions to the archival posts dedicated to this particular subject as part and parcel of developing a better understanding of the idea of balanced reform. As has been said, these posts in particular have generated a good deal of dialogue and debate on the subject, and that debate in itself is fairly instructional as to what we mean by the term Balance, or as Mr. Tams so aptly puts it: "the Cornerstone of Federalism."

One such post is entitled: "Why Libertarians have it wrong." In this particular piece, Mr. Tams puts together a reasonable argument in favor of Balanced Government as a means to an end generally sought by the idea of libertarianism - a return to limited government. As Tams explains: while limited government is a fine goal, it is indeed a goal; not a strategy. Let us momentarily pause here to reiterate, our strategy or means for reforming this government can be reduced under one overarching and common theme - Balanced Government. But what does this mean?...

By "Balanced Government" we intend a return to the original balance of political powers, and the balanced distribution of those powers among the several branches, levels and spheres of our government. Herein you will note, dear reader, a twofold objective: 1. Proper balance in the distribution of political powers among the several branches of our government, and 2. Proper balance in the distribution of those political powers among the various levels and spheres of government. The idea is simply this - achieve the goals of limited and overall legitimate and effective government through the means of a wide distribution of the powers of government among the various levels and spheres of same. We submit that the closer to the individual American government is, the more involved in the political process is the individual American likely to be....as a general rule, of course: The closer to the individual government is, the closer to government is the individual...

Do pause to reflect on that thought for a moment. It has a nice ring to it no doubt, but think on it awhile. If the individual is close to his government; that is, if he is aware of the general (and certain particular) workings of his government, not to mention what it is doing or is likely to do under a given scenario, and etc., then he is much more likely to be more politically aware, and more politically activated. In other words, he will take particular care to protect and defend his true interests under a balanced scenario. And his general interests are the same as his neighbor's interests, incidentally. And it works the same way in the inverse. The closer to the individual government is, the more aware government is of the individual's needs, his wants, what his priorities are, and so on and so forth. Now, I recognize that this is a rather simple explanation of a rather complex idea. But I like simple; it suits me very well. And I'm in no way attempting to thwart your own imaginative process here. Indeed, quite to the contrary.

...And while government power becomes more widely distributed among the levels and spheres, so too will individual Americans, being closer to the functions of government themselves, begin to experience in a more personal way the impact or effects of bad (and good) governmental policies instituted over the governed. The governed under a balanced scenario would be defined, and confined, more strictly to those individuals finding themselves under this and that particular sphere and level of government. This is what we mean by "Balanced Government." It is fundamentally an approach which seeks to re-establish the Constitutional boundaries originally confining the national government in particular to a clear and definite sphere of operation. In so doing, the lower levels of government take on more constitutionally consistent responsibilities thus bringing "government" ever closer to the people themselves where it may be more finely adjusted to the unique circumstances and needs of those more localized governed to whom it is confined. Therefore, and by these very principles, the balanced method of government reform, in theory or put into actual practice, appears to me to be a top-down, as opposed to a bottom-up approach. It also appears to take on an external to internal kind of a quality. Not too awful long ago those facts might well have sealed the fate of balanced government to my own mind. However, my investigation into the matter has convinced me that not only is this possible, but that it is also quite appropriate given the state of governmental chaos in this nation. And truly the method itself proves quite the contrary on some reflection. But let's proceed with our investigation.

The various levels and spheres are further expounded on in yet another archival post which is somewhat instructional on this point. It is entitled, interestingly enough: Expanding Upon the Concept of Balance. As the title would lead us to believe, the point of this particular post is to expand upon Mr. Tams's formal introduction of the idea of Balanced Government as a means to our common ends. And as becomes strikingly evident in reading this particular post in light of Tams's foundational piece, the concept is indeed expanded upon insofar as the Federalist approach to government reform is an extensive and a sweeping approach. By the term "sweeping" we intend here to say that it becomes fairly evident upon reflection that while other approaches to government reform tend to be rather, and by their very natures "limited" in their applications and extent of application (though quite the contrary in the extent of their effects), even by design, our approach which we've merely borrowed from the founders is rather unlimited in the extent of its application across the governmental spectrum thereby earning its very descriptive because, first and foremost, it possesses the unique quality of limitlessness; which is to say that honest adherents to the concept of reform will recognize that reforms of any kind, limited in application and well intended as they may be, are inherently far-reaching in the extensiveness of their effects. This is generally an undesirable characteristic possessed of "limited" methods of reform because it imposes upon the natural order of things, leaving to chance occurances that which a more discerning eye would most probably resign to the realm of dangerous and insidious doctrine. And herein is an ever-mindful flag to would-be reformers: any method of government reform that proposes, and/or imposes strict limitations to its designs and purposes, well intended and attractively clothed as it may be, is steeped in the deceptive influence of imbalance. That is; whether the strategy is shown to restrict government, or whether it possesses itself the restrictive characteristic, it is an inferior and a hopeless method of governmental reform. It creates more problems than it cures, in other words, continuing the cycle of imbalance. Balance possesses no tendency to limit itself, except in the pace at which it displaces that of imbalance. And that is not properly a limitation on itself as much as it is a strict adherence to natural laws. This unlimited characteristic unique to balanced government, coupled with the double security of its natural tendency to slow, yet purposeful and decisive application, and its recognition of the cause-effect relationship, my friends, is what lends to balanced reform its most outstanding and superior aspects and qualities.

There exists a striking contrast between balanced reform and any limited method of reform. As to the latter, each and all of these have one common and inherent flaw which we've already identified - limited extent and applicability. As I said before, this is undesirable, deceptive, and insidious; it is odious to the very idea of reform itself. This common characteristic of limited approaches to reform in itself leads us to identify yet another flaw in such an approach - the dangers inherent in seeking changes applicable to singular aspects of the whole of government. These dangers are most evident in thier effects - that one aspect of government is subject to an attempt at alteration and improvement, while the remaining aspects are supposedly left unaltered and unaffected. This is simply an impossibility and therefore an imprudent, not to mention imbalanced, method of approach. As to the former, no such flaw, nor any such inherency exists. By the very nature of this method the whole of government undergoes simultaneous reform, slowly, methodically, and perhaps above all, peacefully.

Let us here pause to reflect that our condition is not yet a hopeless one. Many would argue differently, and to be candid, I've come real close to arguing that myself a time or two. I have good reason to believe we haven't degenerated to the depths of hopelessness, however. But one specific reason fits this context very well: This government and this People are not yet completely and utterly out of balance. Were that the case we would indeed be on the precipice. But that's not the case. There still exist under this system many remnants of balanced government, and many Americans who conduct themselves overall to accord with the principles of balance, yet their vital influence is anemic due to the effects of imbalance. And this, my friends, should be a source of great comfort to us as we seek to restore the principle of balance on those very remnants, and by and with the aid of those very souls. And incidentally, if we are to have any sense of urgency to our purposes, it must be to halt the degenerative process while remnants of balance still remain; while our most powerful asset (The People) remains in a state not altogether corrupted. For once we've lost those remnants, those structures and surviving institutions; those very souls, I can imagine nothing short of all out war to follow. We're a more imaginative people than that, are we not?

I will conclude this edition with one final thought on the balanced approach to government reform: Having put quite a lot of thought to it, I have concluded that there's a quality inherent to balance that is somewhat elusive under a mere cursory investigation. For my own purposes I have denominated this "the non-deceptive quality." For the sake of putting a definition to it, I will say this: Balanced Government does not abide deception, or the practice thereof. Deception itself is incidental to imbalance, not balance. It may well be that it's an actual product of imbalance. In some cases I think it truly is. There are few instances that my imagination can contrive of deception finding many havens under a truly balanced scenario. It may hide itself in the far corners, but it cannot survive long at the forefront. Under imbalance, however, not only is deception provided safe haven, it is actually encouraged and aided in its destructive tendencies. And as I said, in many cases it may well be an actual product of imbalance itself. In stark contrast to this, balance has no such tendencies. Where there is imbalance there is always deception in direct proportion to, and vice versa. Balance and imbalance are opposing forces. So too are those elements incidental to them. This very quality inherent to Balance is striking in its implications once balanced reform is underway. My friends, Balance itself is its own best security. Balance exposes deception where it lives and roots it out; it drives it to the far corners where remnants of imbalance (that which provides it succor) still survive. No; I have no utopian vision that the natural world under any circumstances can exist absolutely free from the evil of deception. On the other hand, I do not deny the connection between imbalance and deception.

Finally, as with other postings to this blog, we seek to find some common ground with other reform-minded individuals. We believe there are a great many untapped human resources out there who would agree with the idea and method of balanced reform were they familiar with its concepts. It is not our purpose to put a negative spin on, or to deligitimize any method of reform - most of us seek the same goal. Rather, our purpose, as with balance itself, is to expose inherent weaknesses and dangerous tendencies incidental to limited methods of reform. While it would be disingenuous to claim that we have no bias on the subject, it would be wrong not to expose the general weaknesses and dangers inherent to limited methods of reform as they become evident to us. We believe then that common ground lies in a balanced perspective on reform. The choice then is between balance and imbalance, and we hope to have herein offered some bit of clarity to the question.

Mark Your Calendar

This news comes quicker than I anticipated, and the recommendations will be released on 12/6 (next Wednesday).

That is, of course, assuming that the New York Times doesn't get tipped off before then. At least that wouldn't be damaging to national security, like so many of their other scoops.

That they are suggesting talks with Syria and Iran doesn't bode well for the group's recommendations. Nor my blood pressure, but I'm glad they've given me a week to prepare for it.

Revisiting an Old Topic

Recently this question of limiting United States Congressional members to one term of service was raised once again over at the Federalist Patriot blog. And as per the usual the discussion pretty much centered around the idea that restricting our servants to one term of service on the one hand, would bring fresh blood and fresh ideas into the United States Congress. This in turn, it is assumed, would result in actually getting things done in Congress....and good things at that. On the other hand, the opponents of term limits argued that term limiting Congress would effectively limit the People in their choices, not to mention that we already have virtual term limits in place - we just don't exercise them often enough, or more precisely, we just don't exercise them properly enough. Obviously the opinion of the contributers here falls more in line with the latter of the opposing viewpoints. We find ourselves squarely in that camp because it cannot be argued with any propriety that term limiting Congress is anything less than restricting the voters in their choices, nor can it be said that the People already possess anything less than the ultimate in term-limiting power - the elective franchise. In short, term limits exist in their purest form at the national level of our government, and their existence in that form merely restricts voting citizens to the most reasonable of terms - suitable age and character.

However, we believe the point is not really whether or not term limits are a good idea. Our position is rather that the attentions of would-be reformers should be directed more to the point of what is the most viable of our alternatives for accomplishing the shared goals of both camps. While we do not doubt the good intentions of those who advocate for term limits, we cannot stand idly by and allow the road to h*ll to be paved with those intentions. On the other hand, whenever this question comes up, there is generally a notable perspective often overlooked by the members of both camps - that of common ground. In other words, dear reader, from either perspective (advocating for term limits or advocating against them), the point is that the desired results, or effects, are in a general sense, shared desires of both perspectives. Both perspectives claim a common desire, and state as their goal more positives accomplished at the national level than we are currently getting. It is that common ground that we shall seek to emphasize.

It would be less than useful though, to offer up a common-ground alternative to term limits without first laying out in a rational fashion our reasons for which term-limits have not the potential to effect our common and desired goals. Nor would it be useful or honest in emphasizing this common-ground perspective to lend the slightest pretense to our having an open-mind with regard to the institution of Congressional term limits. No, dear reader, we do not believe term limits have the potential to effect our common goals. Indeed, we believe term-limits have the exact opposite potential, virtually guarantying the worsening of our national condition as opposed to the desired effects of making anything better.

In the conversation at the aforementioned blog, something of a unique perspective was offered on the subject. "Unique" I say, because whenever this subject raises its head on occasion, it is rarely, if ever, discussed from this perspective. In short, dear reader, the perspective amounts to this - our Congress, under term limits, would be perpetually comprised of a bunch of inexperienced sophomores. In fact, at the very moment that the upper house of that body gained its greatest experience, by law under term limits, the very members possessing the most experience in that body - fully one-third of the United States Senate - would all be replaced with persons possessing zero experience in that body. And that, my friends, can never be appropriate to our form of government. Allow me to rephrase that: It can never be appropriate to our form of government to have as its legislative arm a body of people with an overall sophomoric understanding of government, good intentions notwithstanding. The reasons for this are briefly covered under the following headings:

1. The Necessity of an Experienced Congress:

Among the nations of the world, the United States is arguably the most powerful, stable, and self-correcting of all the governments of the earth. One characteristic of our government which gives it such overall favorable qualities, internally and externally, is its tendency to reform, correct, and adjust itself to the ever-changing world around it slowly, methodically, and peacefully. With few exceptions, we may look to the most successful and stable corporations within and without our country and identify the same basic elements marking them, as well as our government, with the same outstanding qualities. Among these is an internal governmental structure which by design creates an air of stability with a singularity of purpose in mind - the best good of the whole. While one wouldn't argue that such a design compromises the basic integrity of a company or corporation, it seems that a large segment of our society would argue along those lines with regard to our national government. In any event, reason itself is assaulted whenever we, by inference and extension, argue that there exists no need, and indeed quite to the contrary, for the stabilizing influence experience and a knowledge of business is uniquely capable of providing in our national legislature.

2. Internal Stability is of Primary Concern:

Anyone who knows anything at all about the founding generation, knows that they were thoroughly persuaded that violent and sudden changes could rarely, if ever, be considered good for the country. By "violent and sudden changes" I mean to say - creating a situation (in this case, by the institution of term limits) wherein there is a rapid and regular turnover in Congress; the bringing in, on a continual and regular basis, of fresh blood, fresh ideas, and folks driven by the "fire in their bellies," yet, in so doing, and indeed as a goal in itself by the very institution itself, retaining no effective check against an overzealous approach by which to control that passion. In doing so, it does not take a large leap of faith to imagine our Senate, after two or three successive election cycles, being largely comprised of a bunch of zealous "reformers" bent on overthrowing certain national traditions the people have become rather accustomed to, only to have their "reforms" overthrown by a new group of zealous reformers bent on the same destructive practice. The internal disorders that would necessarily and regularly accompany such as this are too frightening to contemplate.

3. Too Much democracy; not enough Republicanism and Federalism:

Since we already find ourselves in the precarious position of our Senate being chosen by direct vote of the people, it could never be appropriate to that body specifically, to allow us through term limits, to slip ever closer to that of a pure democracy. We beg your indulgence in allowing us an explanation here: If term limits are ever instituted at the national level of our government, effectively we would be usurping the very foundations of federalism by throwing the whole government completely and utterly out of balance. What remnants of federalism (balanced government) we have left must be carefully guarded at all costs, until that day when we can re-establish balance as a central idea under this union. To grant the People term limits is again to give them more direct control over the national business, when they can be little knowlegable as to the vast array of details in which that national business operates and consists. And let us be clear in stating that while our argument that term limits restricts the voters in their choices seems at first blush to contradict our argument here that such an institution gives them more direct control, the fact is there is no contradiction to be found in the two arguments. By the institution itself voters would be restricted in their choices, there can be no doubt about that. However, by the same institution, Constitutional restrictions on their having a direct say in the national business would be virtually, and finally overthrown. On the one hand, their rights would be materially and really restricted. On the other, and by the same institution, they would assume a more direct and leading role in the conduct of the national business. This latter is a dangerous pursuit, and shall be further expounded upon in the remaining arguments.

4. External Wars would result from Term Limits.

Our Senators and representatives are called to perform specific Constitutional duties. By the Constitution of the United States, our Senate is called to confirm or reject the President's nominations for such vitally important posts as ambassadorships, seats on the Supreme and lower courts, and etc... This duty in itself requires a Senate that is very knowledgable of its business. Consider for instance that our national government is tasked, first and foremost, with the national security and defense of this nation. Part of that duty is comprised in our relationship with other Nations and States around the world. I ask you, my friends, what comfort could a friendly, not to mention a rogue nation derive from a Senate which exhibits no stability; which doesn't even as much as exhibit the appearance of being firm and knowledgable - indeed, much to the contrary? Yes, my friends, the simple institution of term limits would result, I doubt not, in effectively compromising the security of this nation. It would do so because in addition to the natural tendencies of other nations to distrust this one, and vice-versa, term limits would overthrow that one element to which heretofore other nations around the globe have looked upon our government with the most faith and certainty - stability. When we consider that we have international treaties that this nation has long committed itself to, not to mention that we are sure to form new alliances in the future, there can be no doubt about the detrimental impact term-limits would have on our national security. This nation has never seen the kinds and numbers of wars that would likely result from merely instituting term limits. We needn't give ourselves any more occasion for wars, just or unjust. Not only would it not be in our national interest to do so, but it would be a concurrent violation of our national duty to the international community to institute term limits at the national level.

5. An Exercise in Futility; A Surer Method of Reform.

Had term limits the slightest potential to effect the desired results of their advocates, we would be the first to acknowledge it, my friends. By the same token, if term limits are found to be so wantonly devoid of any such potential, upon even a rather cursory inspection, then we count it among our highest duties to do our small part in resigning the idea to the ash-heap. It is our firm belief that there exists a far superior alternative to term limits. This alternative offers all of us real potential to effect the designs generally intended by the institution of term limits. As was said before, we do not doubt the sincerity and the good intentions of advocates of term limits. We merely disagree that term limits are the best means to our common ends. Our common ends, or goals, can be summed up in these words - to reform and strengthen this government; to effect the kinds of changes that have long-term, positive results. We believe there is a way to accomplish this which would not require compromising our national security, our internal stability, nor the overall knowledge and experience of our legislative branch. The violent and sudden changes incident to the institution of term limits would be avoided by this method, and perhaps most appealing of all, this method would not require that anyone violate their core values. And once more, my friends, such an outstanding method is it, that in the very midst of internal reform, our nation would remain in the eyes of the world, and this very people, as strong and stable as ever it was. In a word, my friends, our common goals could be met in the fullest extent via the resurrecting of a simple, yet pure American idea - Balanced government. For more on this, see the other articles posted to this blog. Your comments and questions are as always, welcome.

Thanksgiving 2006 and a Milestone

Happy Thanksgiving to all.

Today, I'm especially thankful for my faith, my family and friends. God bless my Brothers here - my kindred spirits - and all our Readership. You folks are the "early adopters" in the renewal of the Republic, and may His divine protection always surround you for your selfless love of your fellow man.

And the milestone? Not planned this way, for sure, but this is the 100th post to the blog. Everyone have a glorious day, and I'll have more thoughts on this milestone later, most likely tomorrow.

"Grand" Old Party

I attended a GOP Township meeting last night. There were all sorts of elected officials there, and the meeting went about normal business. Our keynote speaker was the chairman of the county GOP. To say that his speech left me puzzled is something of an understatement.

He hammered on how well things went in the county, which is a strong GOP bastion. Of course, patting ourselves on the back for holding our county is a hollow victory when one reflects on the failures of the party statewide. The time for patting ourselves on the back... well it didn't seem like that's appropriate given the overall outcome.

He highlighted some competitive races and how the party learned some valuable lessons:

One of which was that "we" (quotes used to denote that I'm not necessarily thrilled about being part of the we) are losing the middle-class suburban woman to the Demos on the stem-cell issue. I was a little surprised by this comment, which in spirit was a challenge that we need to re-think the issue. His example was that the successful Roskam used a cancer survivor who was treated with adult stem cells in their treatment, to counter Michael J. Fox stumping for Demo Tammy Duckworth.

(deep breath)

I not only strenuously object to the Demos politicizing disease as a means to forward an agenda, but recoil in horror that instead of countering such shamelessness with outrage, reason, facts and objectivity, that we instead trot out our own victim. If indeed we're losing voters to the Demos on the stem-cell issue, the voters are wrong. Absolutely, and without qualification, dead wrong. Our duty, then, is to explain how the Demos are wrong on the issue and how we're right on the issue.

Secondly, and as big a surprise to me, was the chairman's comments that 80% of the Latino vote went Demo in the election which is something we should be "very concerned about" - and the spirit of his comments again was courting these voters, with respect to immigration reform. I was, once again, speechless. Understanding demographic changes, I acknowledge, is what political candidates, operatives and consultants need to do. I cannot find a single reason, upon near-constant reflection since last night, to violate these principles to sway voters. Either we stand for something or we stand for nothing. We should vehemently explain, clarify, and argue for our positions. But compromise them? Deliberately lie, or worse, do the wrong thing, just to stay in power?

I concluded at the night's end, that there remains an enormous amount of work to be done to further the principles of federalism and return the Republic to the proper balance as the framers intended. I take some comfort that elected officials are merely a reflection of their constituents, and when the electorate changes, so shall the elected.

Good Questions

A friend recently posed these questions to Mr. Webster: What do you think is going to happen and what do you hope will happen? The context was an important one - it related to how things have degenerated so much in America as to render our government increasingly ineffective and our Republic in an ever more precarious position.

The members of this space have uniformly asserted - in this and other forums - that the key to renewal as we have defined it lies in education. Now, for each person a word like renewal can conjure very different images. It's important for us to explain then, as specifically as we can, what this means when we say it.

Renewal then, to this writer, means a return to the intended balance between the spheres of government. As I have quoted time and again, Federalist 45 holds the answers. The framers of our Constitution had very clear ideas - as clear as one can be without a functioning crystal ball - about the role of each sphere of government. Although this brief description doesn't do justice to the content of that essay, generally, those areas that can be considered domestic should be the domain of the smallest spheres of government (the largest of such small spheres being the several States), while the federal sphere focuses on national security, defense, regulation of commerce, and, I would add, protection of our inalienable rights. This concept of inalienable rights is a decidedly American concept; thus, when one marries the American ideal to the Federalist system, why we consider ourselves American Federalists.

Such a renewal will take a massive education effort, which can be further divided into separate categories. This blog, for one, has as its purpose the dissemination of these ideas and principles. Hopefully, these ideas have merit (we think they do) and the readers of this blog adopt these ideas as their own. Readers then speak to their friends and family about these ideas, and more people are drawn to the blog - and maybe even some different blogs that espouse the same ideas.

All of this is meaningless without the desired effect of education: action. I can tell you that personally I have become involved - have volunteered - in local politics. My goal will be to faithfully work for the furtherance of the ideals I believe in. And like the bottle of shampoo reads: Repeat steps 1 and 2.

So what do I think will happen? I think things will continue to worsen before they improve. What do I hope will happen; or, what will be the effect of this worsening condition? I think that enough people will adopt these ideas that it will either transform a current political party or result in the creation of a new one.

Either that or the whole experiment will go straight to h*ll, but I'm sublimely confident that we're here for a reason, and that we're not done by a long shot.

As always, I welcome your comments Dear Reader, and I'm also reachable by e-mail as well, if you want to challenge me privately on these ideas (you know who you are).

The Moral Superiority of Federalism

I was thinking about the right to self-determination today, and thought I'd get some of those thoughts out to share with you, Dear Reader, this evening.

I think where most people go wrong - either Democrat and Republican - is that they elect people to legislate their point of view with the idea that this will accomplish something. It often results in short-term change, but no change instituted thus is long-lasting, by any measure.

Take the current Congress for example (please, take it!). We might very well see the Demos roll back some recent (think: last 6 years) legislation. This happens all the time with taxes, as a ready example. Capital gains tax cuts may be repealed, only to be instituted again in a few years.

I can speak most effectively from a conservative point of view, but from either the conservative or liberal perspective, Federalism is the answer. I think that our system of government would function best - as it was intended - with a limited federal government by design, along with the concurrent ability of the citizens to decide how much local government they want. This can be achieved by re-establishing the principles of federalism as outlined by James Madison in Federalist 45. Let's allow states and communities to have as much government as they want, I say! If my town wants to provide universal health care for all residents (or JetSkis, or Cadillacs, or whatever), I can choose to live in that type of community or pick up and move one town over. I can't pick up and leave the United States... correction, I won't, although I could. It is this ability for citizens to determine how much government they want, be it a little or a lot, that evidences the moral superiority of Federalism.

After all, if most people can acknowledge the superiority of free markets, why shouldn't there be a free market for human capital?

How Dare They!

You're going to love - LOVE - this tidbit. I know I did.

According to Reuters (motto: "America: Just another land-mass"), this is the latest "swipe" by a U.S. community at illegal immigrants. Swipe? Really?

I'm glad to hear that the measures passed included denying services to illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants can get government-provided services, you ask? Yep, and it's about time that stopped. I don't like supporting criminals, and that goes for criminals that are behind bars or criminals who the government isn't currently prosecuting. In addition to supporting myself and my family, I'm also paying taxes to support people who can't support themselves (another post altogether), so forgive me if I balk at supporting people who have broken the law and have no business in this country. Also, call me a wild-eyed radical, but that in addition they put their flag above Old Glory or fly their flag alone bothers me.

If Mexico (or the Dominican Republic, or the Third Ring of Saturn or whatever) is so great, how about you take your flag-waving self back there?

They're Involved in Politics

Are you?

Here's a letter - specific information carefully deleted - from the local Chamber of Commerce. I've got some observations, but here's the letter...

"A Message from the President:

I'd like to thank each of you who took time out of your day on Tuesday, or before to cast a ballot in the election. As I write, the exact balance of power is still uncertain.

There are a few things that are certain. Each of the officials who will represent us in Springfield and in Washington will have to tackle issues such as the health care crisis, energy policy, budget deficits, pension plans and taxes, among others.

The Chamber will continue to reach out and offer to work with all of our officials to find solutions to the challenges we face. We can't do it alone, we need your input and your assistance. I hope you stay informed, stay engaged and stay active. You can't win in a democracy by sitting on the sidelines and the Chamber plans to be an active participant on your behalf.

Sincerely, President and CEO Chamber of Commerce"

OK, so you get the title of the post, right? The last sentence of his letter says it all.

I'd like to focus on the second sentence, second paragraph, and pose the question: how would a government respectful of the balance intended between the spheres handle these issues? Clearly, more effectively than an imbalanced government like the one we have.

God bless James Madison! As I have said many times, well, how about we just go to Federalist 45, shall we? The whole thing is inspiring, but let's focus like a laser on this...

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States. If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS. "

Is there a more bulletproof principle of government; is there anything more true that this? Is there a weakness in the design at all, save from the viewpoint of one who places the State above the Person; the same one who values conformity over Liberty? We're in the mess we're in because of a deficiency in self-government and the resulting changes that must have transpired, simply had to, surely as gravity causes the apple to fall from the tree. Only a return to the principles of Federalism can effect the lasting changes necessary to the continued health of the Republic.

I'll re-phrase and second the sentiment: you can't win in a republic sitting on the sidelines.

The Wisdom of AdT

Ever read Democracy in America?

I've had an on-again, off-again thing with De Tocqueville's political analysis of 19th century America. When I'm into a book, I put it aside. When I'm between good books, I pick it up.

He discusses at length the progress of democracy and Liberty, and inexorably relates the advances of such with the designs of a benevolent Creator; that indeed, all things serve His ends, of which the advance of Liberty is one.

(Let's pause now, to reflect on how much this must irritate both secularists and francophiles, and how this must especially be an irritant to secular francophiles. Are you reflecting? Good. Interesting, isn't it?)

So I'm getting philosophical here... the disappointment of yesterday's election is gone. In less than 24 hours, I've gone from disappointed to angry to reflective to optimistic to hopeful and finally resolved. Thank God Almighty, I say, for the peace of mind that comes with Faith and His guidance. As Alexis might say, if he could talk to us now: remember that all things serve the Lord, even those that do so unwittingly.

I've made an appointment with the head of the Township Republican party for Monday. I already told him I'm excited about volunteering and getting active in the party. You can bet your *ss that I'm going to be talking with everyone I can about small-R republican principles and the concept of balanced government - and citing Federalist #45 with regularity. In short, I'm taking myself off of the sideline and into the game. My fervent prayer is: may He use me as His instrument.

I'm getting involved - and am thankful for the wake up call!

My Last Ditch Pitch

I don't beg. I rarely plead. But this is important - please read this link, and share it with anyone you know who might be not voting or not sure of who they are going to vote for tomorrow. Heck, share it with everyone you know.

My buddy Mr. Light Bulb - ever the leading beacon - was where I heard this.

Kick the Chair

Justice is served.

Any thinking person will acknowledge that there is increasing sectarian violence in Iraq and the country may be on the verge of civil war. Yet, good news is there if you look for it.

Especially the part about... one of Saddam's lawyers. Just goes to show that despite our many cultural differences, intelligent Iraqis and Americans can unite in a common refrain: Ramsey Clark, get out.