On February 6th, 2010, former Governor, Sarah Palin, gives the keynote speech, at The National Tea Party Convention, in Nashville, Tennessee. In general, it was a conservative, well-delivered, and great speech! By in large, Sarah Palin, currently, appeals mostly to conservative citizens, in The United States; however, I do believe, as more people become disillusioned by the current disarray in Washington, D.C., and the ill-fated direction that the current President, and majority in Congress, are leading us toward, the more people will begin to tune into Sarah Palin, and other such political conservatives… hopefully, realizing, they are trying to restore us to The United States that was once great and prosperous, through free-market/entrepreneurial solutions, and a firm reliance on the (Constitution) wisdom of the great men who founded our country, and set this great country in motion.

Incidentally, today would have been former President, Ronald Reagan’s 99th birthday; it is great to see his wisdom, and legacy, is being carried on, by people such as Sarah Palin… 

Great speech Governor! …
–

–

A New Beginning

“A Republic … if you can keep it.” Those words, attributed to Benjamin Franklin during the evening hours of September 17, 1787, spoke into being a rich history of our nation, its founding and the establishment of our Constitution as the rule of law. The Constitution was written, debated, edited and debated further until a consensus of the Constitutional Convention was reached. In his closing speech, Benjamin Franklin acknowledged, “I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain may be able to make a better Constitution.” This republic afforded the people of the various sovereign states representation on an equal basis based on the population, these are our representatives in Congress. The states were given an equal say in states matters in the Senate. Together the Representatives and Senators would comprise the legislative branch of our government that would direct the laws and policy of these United States.

Order Out of Chaos

Much confusion abounded during the time of the convention, bickering among the participants was considerable. However, one item echoed throughout the process that today most folks would deride as folly. During the final debates, Mr. Elbridge Gerry expressed the concern that the Constitution as it was written would lead to a civil war because it didn’t adequately protect republicanism. It was argued that in his home state of Massachusetts, there were two political parties, one devoted to Democracy, “the worst thought of all political evils” and the extreme opposite. Without a guarantee that the Constitution would protect the nation against such extremes, he refused to sign and subsequently argued against ratification because of the lack of a bill of rights that limited the power of the government.

The republic that was formed allowed each state to have 2 senators that were selected by the various states to ensure the government would never impinge upon the sovereignty of the individual states. This bi-level system assured that the states acting in concert could not impose legislation on the country as a whole without the consent that comes from the people through their representatives. The representatives and senators thus each are required to produce legislation and have it approved through both houses assuring the needs of the people are met and the sovereignty of the states is ensured.

States’ Rights Dealt Death Blow

The 17th Amendment, if doing nothing else, brought about the demise of states rights and effectively neutered the republic. When the Senate passed the amendment on June 12, 1911, they were voting for themselves the ability to be elected by popular vote and whether knowingly or not, they changed the face of the country. A senator elected by the people, will ultimately do the will of the people, or at very least the will of the people who ensure their continued re-election. This holds true for appointed senators as well. Those appointed senators would be loyal to the state legislature. The move from the states’ legislature selecting senators to the people removed the loyalty to the state and put it squarely in the lap of the people. The republic that Ben Franklin announced that historic day in 1787 had been lobotomized.

The Arguments

There are several arguments for the repeal of the 17th Amendment:

• It removed states’ representation from the federal government and essentially abolished state sovereignty and the states no longer have a representative voice in the legislature.
• It removed the balance from the legislative branch of government. A congress made up of elected officials from the enumerated people, plus two from each state essentially gives the people additional representation greater than the enumerated representation allowed by the constitution.
• Power has become centralized in Washington. A senate without loyalty to the individual states takes away the rights of individual states to pass any meaningful legislation, and causes the legislative power to reside in the federal government.
• It has increased partisanship in government. Political parties exist to give a stronger voice to like-minded individuals. Since individuals belong to political parties, their will is pressed in the senate as well as the house. The states on the other hand, do not belong to political parties and usually consist of a varied mix of several political views.
• The Senate is now directly responsible to the people. This means that if they don’t do the will of the people, they can be replaced. While this sounds good, the senate was never designed to do the will of the people. It was designed to do the will of the states. This effectively removed whatever protections the 10th amendment provided.

The Repeal

In the political climate today, the likelihood of a repeal of the 17th Amendment is remote. There have been attempts to do so in the past, but they failed due to obvious reasons. As recently as August 2009, there were bipartisan attempts to amend the 17th to prevent the appointment of senators by state governors.

Constitutionally we must live within the law, and when those laws seem unjust or no longer are appropriate, it is the duty of the people to change those laws. The expansion of the federal government has put us on the edge of a crevasse that will soon give way to a calamitous action. We must act with purpose to restore the proper balance to a union of nation/states. Each state being sovereign, each person being secure in their liberty and the strength of the nation improved through a cooperative federal government instead of the bastardized monstrosity we are currently relegated to deal with.

Rights:

In The United States, many of us are very concerned with the current administration’s policy of reading rights to known, and captured terrorists …

While, I am not a constitutional scholar, it does not take much expertise to look up the origin of Miranda Rights… In this 1966, landmark decision, The Supreme Court decided (Chief Justice Earl Warren’s Opinion), “no confession could be admissible under The Fifth Amendment self-incrimination clause, and The Sixth Amendment right to an attorney, unless a suspect had been made aware of his or her rights.”

We continually hear, why isn’t The President creating military tribunals, so we can try these captured terrorists, before our military, and without the complications of the typical court system? After reading over The Constitution, and to my surprise, The President was NEVER granted this authority… In Article 1, Section 8  of  The Constitution, these words… ”To constitute tribunals inferior to The Supreme Court,” are listed under the powers of Congress. In The Constitution, our founders only created The Supreme Court; all other, inferior courts, were left to Congress to create.

Again, I am not a constitutional expert, nor am I a constitutional lawyer… I am, however, a citizen that is deeply concerned about the direction that our country is headed in. Therefore, if you feel, any of these arguments are valid; by all means, please ask these questions to the people who are truly, and professionally, equipped to further investigate the truth. In my humble opinion, and interpretation, I will say, it looks like Congress needs to take a bigger role, in our national security; and not leave these national security decisions, solely to The (Executive Branch) President.

Mark

Freedom, its a word that is flung around rather often these days, but how many of us realize what it really means? During my lifetime, at 42 years, which is relatively short, I have seen the gradual loss of many of my freedoms. As a child, I can remember eating ice cream while riding in the back of my dad’s pickup truck; something that today would get any parent a hefty fine at best. Other laws have slowly infiltrated our society; all of them implemented with the best of intentions… We’ve seen seatbelt laws, smoking laws, leash laws, litter laws, boating regulations, animal ordinances, etc. Face it, there’s no argument over the fact that we need laws… Let’s use smoking as an example of what happens when you pass a law that seems good. Everyone knows that smoking is bad; it is a proven fact that it causes cancer. Government has placed a heavy tax on cigarettes to discourage smoking; how is that money used? Laws have been implemented to prohibit smoking in restaurants; sounds good unless you are the restaurant owner whose main clientel are smokers. Wouldn’t it be better to just require that a sign be posted, saying, “this is a smoking establishment”? If you didn’t want to smoke then you wouldn’t eat there. I don’t smoke, but I have to sympathize with those who do. As long as they aren’t hurting others, what right does anyone have to dictate how they live their lives? Life comes with risk from day one… From that point forward, we have no guarantees as to what will happen to us. Shouldn’t we get to live our life the way we want to live it? With every law that is passed, even those that would benefit the majority of citizens, someone is losing a measure of freedom. When one looks at this in a broad scope and considers not just laws but bureaucracy, they have to realize that we have lost much of the freedom that we once had. Most of that time, bureaucracy comes with licenses and registration fees to pay for it. How much could be saved if there wasn’t so much bureaucracy to begin with? Anyone reading this, has probably thought of  The Department of Motor Vehicles, as they are reading… What a nightmare it is to deal with that bureaucracy.

Anyhow, the purpose of this post was just to provoke some thought, on laws, and their impact on our lives. So many laws are passed with such little thought on the cumulative effect on such laws on our lives. Much more attention should be given to laws that would seek to protect the majority rather than laws that would serve only to punish the few; the end result simply is, the erosion of our individual liberties.

Over the last century, our country, and countries across the globe, have made fantastic strides in providing infrastructure. Roads are built by governments; safe potable water is distributed in just about every town across America; refuse is collected and deposited in consolidated landfills; communication is transmitted instantly, worldwide, and electricity is delivered to every household in a modern civilization. This has provided a great deal of comfort in our daily lives.

Without so much as a thought, we can flip a switch, and turn on a light in a dark room, operate this fancy computer I get to use on a daily basis, and charge up the ipod, and all manner of portable appliances we have become dependent upon in our daily lives. When we are thirsty, or need to wash our clothes, the turn of a faucet handle will provide a seemingly unending supply of fresh water, and almost if by magic, the things we find no longer useful in our lives, can be put in the trash bin to go off to who knows where … but it isn’t here, and that is the important part … or is it?

When I began considering the massive integration and collective cooperation we have as a society, the geek in me began to see subtle flaws in its implementation; then the more I dwelt on the issue, the more important these flaws became, until I can no longer take anything for granted; danger, grave danger, lies everywhere, and we as a society are blind to its inherent flaws. Sure, I like a nice hot shower, probably more than most folks; to get that shower though, I have to rely upon lots of other people; people I don’t know, to do things that quite frankly, I don’t understand. The public works people maintain the public water supply, and actually keep the city’s waterline in proper working order; send off water samples for tests, treat waste water, and scope out new well sites among the vast number of other things they are required to do, to actually get water out of the ground, or reservoir, and out to the populous. The electrical workers have to maintain not only the power generation plant, but they also have to install and maintain tens of thousands of miles of high power electrical lines to get the power out to the customer. Power generation facilities across the continent are connected in very complex and highly volatile network, and require tens of thousands of people, on a daily basis, just to keep it working. Our trash is collected and consolidated into huge holes in the ground, designed to hide the excess of our ways. In essence, we just live our daily lives and use these things without a thought about any problem or potential problem that might exist in the system … and that is a very dangerous situation to be in.

Last week when the news broke, about the earthquake in Haiti, we were complacent … oh, another earthquake in a place most of us had never given a second thought to … but when the gravity of the disaster began to become real for us (thanks Anderson Cooper), we realized that this was much more than your run of the mill earthquake; if there even is such a thing. No, this was much worse, this was the complete collapse of an entire society of people; an entire country is in turmoil, and despair is the nicest thing they have going for them. This was devastation like we have never seen before. Outside of collapsed schools, homes, businesses, and government buildings, were throngs of people, hundreds of thousands of people, displaced. There are perhaps, 2 million people or more, whose daily lives are affected to a degree that we can barely fathom, yet here we sit oblivious to the dangers our own highly integrated society has built for itself; oblivious to the havoc we would face if we were to have our own infrastructure-quake.

Consider that you are reading this, likely on a computer, powered by electricity, generated by a power plant, that runs on uranium, coal, oil or gas. What happens when there is a failure at a power plant? Can’t happen? Think again … across this country, there have been numerous catastrophic plant failures, explosions at solar power facilities, core leaks at nuclear plants, massive turbine failures, collapse of steam pipes, and wind and ice damage to transmission lines … and that was only in the last couple of years. It doesn’t seem that bad though, particularly if you were not one of those affected, without power for weeks on end. As any computer expert would tell you, in order to have a secure and reliable system, you must have redundancy … lots of redundancy. Look at how NASA works … there are redundancy protocols, for redundant systems, for redundant protocols, for backup systems, for backup systems… and yet they still have a track record of having catastrophic, irrecoverable, problems.

That hot shower we take for granted, would be of little concern for those who rely upon a public water source, were that source to become contaminated or unavailable. Consider that, in a town my size, as many as 50,000 people could be left without so much as drinking water, much less bathing water, if a single system goes down. The idea that bigger is better, and consolidation for the common good, is of little concern if you are thirsty.

What we can learn here, is that, smaller, more localized handling of the needs of people will provide a much better solution than massive projects to provide for the masses. Multiple, neighborhood water supplies, will ensure that, in the event of a single failure, the least number of people are affected. If one or more wells stop functioning, there may be a lower capacity of the remaining supplies, but the lower supply is a better alternative than no supply. Electricity generation is another very similar situation… If we have more plants, much smaller than the gazillion megawatt plants of today, spread out in more communities, with shorter transmission distances, the failure of one in a huge network, will be much less problematic than the failure of a single plant providing power to an entire quadrant of the country.

The whole point is, when you put all of your proverbial eggs into a single basket, no matter how big and strong that basket might be, there is a flaw in that basket, a flaw you don’t see … and grandma knew that… thats why she always carried two baskets to the hen house, and why she went twice a day. If one of the baskets failed, she didn’t lose all of the eggs. As a populace, it would do us well to remember that … we need to have many baskets in order to have the least collateral damage in the event one fails. If you learn nothing from the plight of the Haitians, learn this one thing … almost always, a little something is better than no something … and right now, the basket that contained the Haitian infrastructure, has been dropped to the ground by an earthquake nobody predicted.

Well, here we are, one year to the day, of President Barack Obama’s inauguration. And as many of us predicted, because of The President’s liberal policies, and failure to adjust to a country that, by in large, is a center to right country, the president appears to be losing a lot of political capital, and is increasingly losing the support of the people.

Please listen to Bill O’Reilly’s analysis… I believe he is spot on!
–

–

Recently I had an unusual experience. It intrigued me so much that I had to write about it and lately, as evidenced by my lack of blogging activity, I just haven’t been inspired to write about much. Perhaps that is the writers block that causes some consternation among many fellow writers. But I’ll give it a try and see if I can still muster enough fortitude to put together a thoughtful post.

I am a member of or have been a member of many different organizations in the last 25 years or so. Most of the time they are specific cause charities, for example boys clubs or scouts. For the purpose of this entry, I’ll not identify the organization I am writing about because I really do believe in their cause, and wouldn’t want the people involved to become pawns in yet another political debate.

I wasn’t the first nor the last to enter the board room as the meeting was getting underway. As is customary, the opening ceremony was completed and the course of business had gotten underway. When it came to new business, it was posited that considering the substantial devastation in Haiti and the fact that aide organizations across the world are clamoring for funds to get supplies and people on the ground there to help, it would be nice if we too would contribute to the cause. On the face it seemed like a great idea, although our annual budget is pretty low, we could put together a care package of $250, it might not be much, but it would certainly help. If more people did it, then the dollars add up pretty quickly.

Now spending money is something that I enjoy. I also really like helping people, regardless of their situation, I call it my compassionate guilt complex. When I am able and sometimes when I am not, I give of my time and money to help others. This is a weakness that I have, but I am willing to bear because of the joy that I get from knowing I was able to help someone in need. But this was different. This was money from an organization that had come together for a specific purpose, whose charter laid out the rules of conduct and whose members agreed to abide by that charter.

In many ways it is very similar to our federal government and our own system of laws. To draw a complete comparison, we can liken the Constitution to the club charter, the President would be the board chair, and the Congress would be the board members, finally the citizens of this country would be akin to our club members.

The ‘President’ called the question … after the requisite motion and second as required, ‘Congress’ entered into debate over this bill. The sentiment was unanimous. The people in Haiti are having a really tough time of it and we have the desire to help them. Considering there wasn’t alot of real discussion going on, I asked a simple question. “Mr President, does our constitution allow for us to spend money on the people in Haiti?”. The ‘President’ was honestly shocked by the question, and after a couple of minutes simply stated that it did not. So I followed up with “If our constitution doesn’t allow for us to do this, why are we even entertaining this bill?” The resounding, almost unison response from the ‘Congress’ was “Its the right thing to do to help these people. We can and we must!” … now if that sounds like a mandate, it surely did to me … its the right thing to do, we can do it, so we must do it … At this point there was much bickering and arguing back and forth between those who saw that the truth is, regardless of whether we want to do it, it is neither right nor can we just do it. As an organization bound by laws and rules, we must abide by those or risk losing the confidence in the citizens that elected us to our position. When the final vote was cast, the bill failed by a 1 vote margin.

Clearly this wasn’t our government in action, but it was a really close approximation in the private world, however the reaction was right on par with what one might see from the citizens who desperately wanted to see this bill pass. Immediately I began receiving comments about how I must hate the people in Haiti or how can I ignore their plight. These sentiments, while on the surface seemed to be correct, they were far from the truth. Regardless of how many times I said I had nothing against them and really wanted to help them but my hands were tied, as it would have been against our charter to authorize such an expenditure, they would have no part of it.

Finally, I made a comment that would cease the discussions and quieted the naysayers. I reached into my pocket and pulled out a $50 bill and laid it on the table. Of course it was already earmarked for gas, but I needed to make a point. I told the entire committee that I was donating $50 toward the recovery efforts in Haiti right then and there, and I would gladly accept any personal donations from the members of the board, up to a total of $250. After a few seconds of shock, the murmuring quieted down and I instructed the members to see me after the meeting so we could coordinate our $250 donation. Amazingly, but not unexpectedly, there was not one person who took up my offer to fund a private initiative.

Sure it was OK as long as it was someone else’s money they were giving away, but the end result was that I made my point. People feign compassion when it makes them look good, they feign conservatism when it makes them look good … in fact people generally do whatever they can to make themselves look good, except, and this is a big one, except when it requires that they actually do the deed.

So what does this teach us? If you are really concerned about people, don’t be a fake conservative, don’t let your compassion go awry and by all means, don’t fall for the rhetoric about certain things being the right thing to do. The right thing to do is to live within the constraints of our laws and rules, and if you don’t like them, work to change them.

Regardless if I agree, or disagree with Ted, I do believe, The Constitution should be followed to the letter! I don’t believe, anyone should be able to buy a gun at anytime, without “some sort of background check,” but I totally believe, people have the right to bear arms, and defend their loved ones.

I totally share Ted’s frustrations with these dam Progressives! Today, in this country, our government, in the name of regulation, is trying to control too many aspects of the people’s lives; while reading terrorists their rights, and court-marshaling our Navy Seals. It is truly insane!

I love Ted’s straightforwardness, articulation, and passion, on The Second Amendment…

–

–

President Obama, on the campaign trail, and in his own words, promising “potential voters” that the national health care debate would be in the open, and broadcasted for the whole country to see…
–

I can not say this with any real certainty, but I truly believe, since many conservatives have voted Republican for so many years, it may seem inconceivable to vote anything but Republican.

Throughout the course of our short history, political parties have come and gone. I, for one, don’t believe in political parties, and neither did George Washington. In 1791, Thomas Jefferson formed The Democratic-Republican Party, in response to Hamilton’s formation of The Federalist Party, a year earlier; and hence, the beginning of “true” political division in our nation.

That being said, The Republican Party, over the years, did represent our founding principals, as the party of Thomas Jefferson; however, over the years, both parties have increasingly become more and more nationalized, while the sovereignty of the individual states seem to be getting less and less. Fiscal responsibility is another thing that seemed to have become a thing of the past, in Washington D.C, over the last decade or so. And now, most recently, our free-market system seems to be really under assault by a heavy-handed, far-left Democrat majority in Congress.

The establishment will also have you believe, and with good reason, that a third-party can not succeed in our system of politics. OK, well, what if someone had told that to Abraham Lincoln, and he believed it? He would not have become our first Republican President.

I truly believe, the only establishment that true conservative Americans should be interested in, is the establishment of a prudent, limited, and fiscally responsible government, as directed by our founders, and through our Constitution. For conservatives across the country, it is exciting to see Doug Hoffman so close to a victory in NY, under The Conservative Party. He appears to be advocating “true” conservative values; and from what I understand, The Republican Party is allowing him to caucus with them as well. Speaking of third parties, I recall Joe Lieberman winning his Senate seat back, running as an Independent, which is further evidence that we do not necessarily have to concede to the two “established” parties.

In this turbulent time, in our nation, and with so much on the line, we must remain open-minded to candidates who truly are interested in restoring our government back to a much more constitutionally respecting place in our nation; and from there, I do believe, as with Hoffman, the right people will get behind them, and help them get to where they are going.

We should not hold animosity to anyone who believes in the established system of the two parties; it is human nature to feel secure with a system that has lasted so many years; however, if things are meant to be, they will be, if not, they will be replaced. We need to embrace all true conservatives, because many people have so many great ideas that can help our nation get it’s footing back to where it needs to be.

If Doug Hoffman wins a seat to Congress, I do believe other conservative candidates will follow suit; and hopefully, The Republican Party will embrace them as well. Perhaps this movement will be a clear message to future Republican candidates, while many of us believe in building consensus, we are not always happy with their compromises.—There is clearly a difference…

Mark

I believe, a very fundamental truth in respects to conservatism, in The United States, is a firm belief in the wisdom of our founders, and our founding documents… The Constitution was written to be the law of the land, and all subsequent laws were to likely have it’s foundation based on The Constitution. Also, through our founder’s great wisdom, they set forth a fair process for which amendments to The Constitution can be made, through the consensus of several states. As a conservative who believes in our Constitution, and founding principals, I do believe that each and every law that is being considered by Congress, “must” have a constitutional mandate to even proceed forward in the legislative process.

I don’t consider myself a hyper-partisan, in regards to party politics, but increasingly, I am having less and less tolerance for these so-called progressives who seem to completely disregard, even have a disdain for our Constitution, and founding principals. I have heard Barack Obama himself talk about the incompleteness of our constitution… Really? So is the inference that our founders were not competent enough to consider the necessary factors? Or, subconsciously, would you like to toss the Constitution to the wind, and create laws as you and other progressives see fit? If that is the progressive thought process, then in my mind, that is a true subversion of our Constitution, and of the very system of governance that our founders set in motion.

I have said this many times, but it is worth repeating… If all of Congress were forced to create laws that are in line with The Constitution, as opposed to a bunch of renegade laws, I think we could get back to some uniformity and well-needed continuity in this nation. It is not hard to imagine, if all of Congress, in both parties, were forced to follow the same rule book, increasingly, the gap between both major parties would begin to narrow.

Mark

These are truly extraordinary times, politically, in our nation…

Certainly, for many years, The Republican Party was thought to be the more conservative of the two major parties, however, over the last ten years, the conservatism in The Republican Party seems to be slipping away more, with each passing year.

Not many events prior to the failing of our financial markets, the subsequent bailouts, the recession, the election of Barack Obama, and the continued far-left agendas being considered in Washington D.C., have I seen such a collective effort for true conservatives to lay their foot down and say, enough! I must admit, I am now one of those conservatives who feel we are in a sink or swim moment in our nation, and no longer have much time to watch our great nation be compromised further into the abyss.

That being said, over the last few years, I have listened to former Speaker of The House, Newt Gingrich, articulate some great political, and economic arguments; as well as the great books, and videos he and his wife continue to churn out. In my opinion, Newt Gingrich, politically and socially, appears to be truly conservative…

Which leads to this interesting congressional race in New York State between Doug Hoffman (Independent) and Dede Scozzafava (Republican)… Admittedly, I have not really followed either candidate, nor do I know much about the policies either candidate espouses; however, the big news seems to be that such names as Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum and Steve Forbes are backing Doug Hoffman, as they feel he is the more conservative candidate out of the two. As a Conservative Independent myself, I am all for their support of Doug Hoffman, and completely understand their rationale for backing him as well. That being said, I have now heard two interviews where Newt Gingrich articulated the Tenth Amendment argument,…

With the free market, we consumers have the power to financially boycott a particular company if we are not satisfied with their prices and/or services; therefore, wouldn’t it stand to reason, if the federal government is so insistent on taking over our free market system of commerce, then shouldn’t we, the consumers, have the power to financially boycott the federal government as well, if we are not satisfied with their prices and/or services?

We, as citizens of The United States, now have two very large powers that we often take for granted: One is the ability to vote for the candidates that we feel best represents our interests, and the other is the power to purchase, or not purchase from a particular merchant if we are not happy with their prices or services. If we, collectively, bond together, we can actually force prices to go down, if we decided not to purchase from a particular merchant.

Now, if the government (hypothetically) were to takeover the business of health care in this country, and is taking our money, via income tax, what recourse do we have if we are not satisfied with the services that are being provided?

In the free market, you have discretionary spending, and through income tax, sadly, you would be considered breaking the law, if you decided that you don’t want to participate in a federally mandated program, and refuse to pay taxes.

Of course, everyone can draw their own conclusions, but as for me, I’d rather retain my rights to continue or end a service, at any given time.

In a nation such as ours, we are very blessed, and should be careful “not” to take our freedoms for granted; they can be here today and gone tomorrow.

Mark