A Humbling Experience

I pride myself on being able to spot deceptive advertising and misleading sales gimmicks.  So you can imagine my surprise when I realized that I had been had by a clever left wing book peddler.

I was in a Border’s Book store doing some Christmas shopping on Saturday.  I picked up another copy of Mark Levin’s “Liberty and Tyranny” and a copy of Michelle Malkin’s latest book “Culture of Corruption“.  As I was on my way to check-out another book caught my eye.  The title of the book was “Going Rogue”, or so I thought.  Going Rogue happened to be a book I wanted for myself.

Picking it up—it was a paperback—I turned it over and checked the price. Only $15.95. Such a deal, I could not refuse.  On Sunday, while taking a break from my computer, I decided to begin reading the book.  Without reading the Table of Contents, I turned to the Introduction by Richard Kim and Betsy Reed.  Nothing unusual here; authors often have someone else write the Introduction.  The intro started with

“On the evening of November 4, 2008, progressives were in an ebullient mood.  After eight long years of Republican rule, Barack Obama has been elected president.  Accompanying our shouts of joy were audible sighs of relief.  The prospect of a John McCain presidency had filled us with dread.  But to imagine Sarah Palin–a conservative Christian with a penchant for folksy warmongering who flaunted her ignorance as a virtue—separated from the Oval Office only by a 72-year-old cancer survivor…that was beyond terrifying”.

My first reaction was, “How about that, Sarah picked a former left winger to write her Introduction. Good for her”.  I fully expected the tone to change and I would discover that the writer had experienced an epiphany and was now suffering from buyer’s remorse.  After reading about ten pages with no changes, I took a closer look at what I had bought.  The Table of Contents revealed that the book was actually written by an assortment of left wing wannabes including such luminaries as Robert Reich, Rick Pearlstein and Jim Hightower.

Turning back to the cover, I noticed for the first time that the title was “Going Rouge” not “Going Rogue”.  The sub-title was “An American Nightmare” not “An American Life”.  Not having seen a copy of Sarah’s book before, I suppose I could be excused for not noticing the difference—See examples above.  But then again, I guess I just have to admit, as my wife laughingly reminds me, I simply got took.  After a life time of fielding phone calls from solicitors offering to reduce my credit card interest, informing me that I had just won a free trip to some exotic locale, and the thousands of “free trial” offers I have turned down over the years, I still got snookered.  I am sure there is a lesson in there somewhere.  When I figure it out I will be sure to share it with you.

Alaska Fights Back on State Sovereignty

Following is the text of a resolution passed by both Houses of the Alaska Legislature and signed by Governor Sarah Palin on July 10, 2009.  Similar resolutions have been passed by the legislatures of six other states so far.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA:

WHEREAS the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”; and

WHEREAS the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and

WHEREAS some federal actions weaken states’ rights protected by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS the Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United States of America and each sovereign state in the Union of States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp; and

WHEREAS art. IV, sec. 4, Constitution of the United States, reads, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,” and the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”; and

WHEREAS the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S.Ct. 2408 (1992), that the United States Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and

WHEREAS all states, including Alaska, find themselves regularly facing proposals from the United States Congress that weaken states’ rights protected by the Tenth Amendment;

BE IT RESOLVED that the Alaska State Legislature hereby claims sovereignty for the state under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States; and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution serves as Notice and Demand to the federal government to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.

COPIES of this resolution shall be sent to the Honorable Barack Obama, President of the United States; the Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Vice-President of the United States and President of the U.S. Senate; the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives; the Honorable Lisa Murkowski and the Honorable Mark Begich, U.S. Senators, and the Honorable Don Young, U.S. Representative, members of the Alaska delegation in Congress; all other members of the 111th United States Congress; the presiding officers of the legislatures of each of the other 49 states; and the governors of each of the other 49 states.

ooOoo

For a synopsis of the powers delegated by the Constitution to Congress and the Federal government see “The Limited Powers of Congress”.

Three Cheers for Sarah Palin

Watching the talking heads and reading the scribbling of the Washington wizards concerning the announcement by Sarah Palin of her resignation as Governor of Alaska, I am reminded of an incident that happened a number of years ago.

A friend and I were driving through the countryside of northern Michigan when my friend decided he would like to stop for a beer.  We pulled into the parking lot of a roadside tavern on the outskirts of a small town and went inside.  We walked up to an empty spot at the bar and stood waiting for the bartender to finish with other customers and take our order.

My friend is a rather imposing figure, standing six-feet-four in his size twelve brogans, with hands only slightly smaller than an outfielder’s glove and a physique reminiscent of a Chicago Bears linebacker.

As we were standing there, I noticed two locals engaged in a friendly game of darts, except that my friend and I were standing between them and the dartboard.  I reached up, tapped my friend on the shoulder, and quietly informed him that we were interfering with the men’s game.  Looking around he noticed the dart players for the first time and quickly stepped aside with an apology; “Sorry, I didn’t notice”.

One of the dart-playing duo looked up at my friend with a slight smile on his face and replied, “That’s OK big guy; you can stand anywhere you like”.

That’s about the way I feel about Sarah Palin.  She has served the state of Alaska well in every public office she has held, from the PTA in Wasilla, to the Governor’s office in Juneau, and she gave the Republican candidate, John McCain the only hope he had of winning the Presidency. For the most part she has gotten only grief for her troubles, plus a staggering legal bill from defending herself against a continuing stream of unfounded and unwarranted accusations by her political enemies.

She owes nothing to the Republican Party and any obligations she may have had to John McCain for picking her as his running mate has been canceled out by the behavior of his campaign staffers after the election.  She certainly owes nothing to the political establishment or the uncaring and thoughtless masses that have delighted in the public attacks on her and her family.  If she does retire from politics, it will be a serious but well-deserved loss for America.

Those of us who admire her and appreciate the “All-American spirit” she brought to the political arena will wish her well if she chooses to re-prioritize her life not to include politics.  If she chooses to spend her time as first mate on the family fishing boat, or just helping her family heal from the wounds inflicted on it by a cruel and unfeeling media, so be it.

On the other hand, if she decides to run for Congress in 2010 or for the White House in 2012 or 16, millions of Americans will be in her corner cheering her on and supporting her efforts.

The most frequent advice she has gotten from the wizards of smarts, is to spend the next few years getting to know and understand the issues in possible preparation for a later return to the political stage.

That would be good advice if there was any evidence that experience or knowledge of the issues was of any benefit to the welfare of the nation.  No one in their right mind can look at America today and say that the experienced, ivy-league educated, professional politicians so valued by the political class has done a good job in steering the ship of state.

It seems to me that what America needs is a non-partisan citizen-politician uninfluenced by the decadence of the “Beltway” establishment; that understands the founding principles that make this county great and unique among the nations of the world at the helm.  By coincidence, Sarah seems to have just these qualifications.

I don’t know if she is the right one to carry the Republican banner in 2012; it’s much too early to tell.  However, she stands head and shoulders above any of those most frequently mentioned by the would-be “king makers”.

I for one, am looking forward to the possibility that having removed her family somewhat from the firing-line by resigning the governorship, she will continue in the forefront of political discourse as an example of the true citizen-patriot-politician so desperately needed at this point in our history.

Curbing Government Corruption

Illinois’ Ex-Governor Rod Blagojevich gave the American People the best example of how our government really works that I have seen in my lifetime.  In return, he was fired by the Illinois Legislature for airing the family laundry in public.  The corruption we saw in Illinois may be extreme, but in substance it is little different from that practiced in state houses across the nation as well as in Washington D.C.  In fact, Washington has literally become the D.C. Stock Exchange of Power.  Leading politicians are not called “power brokers” for nothing.

As Thomas Jefferson warned in 1822, “…If ever this vast country is brought under a single government it will be one of the most extensive corruption….”  Corruption is the inevitable consequences of power, so it is axiomatic that the larger a government becomes, the more corrupt it gets.  It is not a coincidence that the Executive Orders signed by Barack Obama thus far, primarily benefit those who supported his election or that the “pork” bill masquerading as a “stimulus package” primarily benefits supporters of the Democratic Party.

The answer to limiting corruption in government is to limit its power.  This fundamental truth was recognized by the Founders in framing the Constitution.  That is why they established the doctrines of “enumerated powers“, and the “system of checks and balance”.  A certain equilibrium is maintained in the balance of power within the government because of competition between the three branches.  The same cannot be said for the doctrine of enumerated powers.  Here the contest is not between the three branches of government, but between those branches and the people.

We are in a period of exponential growth in government.  That growth will continue until the people realize the dangers involved and take the necessary steps to correct it.  Unless a correction is made, we cannot survive as a free people.  With the latest expansion of government, we are headed even faster in the direction of socialism.  Socialism is antithetical to liberty and freedom since it can only be administered through dictatorial control over the daily lives of its people.

If we are to avoid the destruction of free market capitalism and its replacement with a monolithic socialist state dictating every segment of our personal and private lives, we must take immediate steps to halt the growth of government.  Conservatives have been heartened in recent weeks by the seeming reawakening of the Republican Party.  The unanimous vote of the House Republicans against the destructive and irresponsible spending bill passed by the Democrats last week is an encouraging sign, but the reasons given publicly for Republican opposition do not indicate they yet understand the underlying problem.

According to the Associated Press, Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio complained about the excessive spending for Democratic programs and that the bill will not sufficiently stimulate the economy or produce enough jobs.  In addition, according to reports by AP, Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader, says the bill must be stripped of its unnecessary spending and focused more on housing issues and tax cuts if it is to gain Republican support.  Other Republican lawmakers voiced similar views.

Meanwhile, Republican Governors are stepping up pressure on their Senators and Representatives to get the bill passed as soon as possible.  The National Governors Association has called on Congress to quickly pass the plan.  Even Governor Sarah Palin has trekked to Washington to press McConnell for Alaska’s share of the package.  Governors Charlie Crist, of Florida, Jim Douglas of Vermont and other Republican governors plan to make their support of the plan known in Washington this week.

This plan is shaping up to be a repeat of last year’s stimulus plan, which gave some $160 billion in “tax rebates” to citizens, many of which paid no income tax in the first place.  That bill was first defeated in the House but later passed both Houses with bipartisan support after some tinkering and compromises in conference that tossed some “goodies” to the Republicans.

The elephant in the room that is being conveniently avoided by both parties is the fact that Congress is not authorized by the Constitution to pass any part of the plan for the purposes stated.  Lawmakers on Capital Hill have always been reluctant to defend their positions based on the enumerated powers doctrine embodied in the Constitution.  Unless they recover from their shyness and take a principled position in defense of the Constitution this plan will become law.

There has been a bill brought before every Congress since 1997 by Congressman John Shadegg of Arizona.  The bill known as “The Enumerated Powers Act”, has gotten little support from Shadegg’s colleagues and no notice at all in the national media.  It would require that “all bills introduced in the U.S. Congress include a statement setting forth the specific constitutional authority under which the law is being enacted.”  As Congressman Shadegg points out on his website, “This measure will force a continual re-examination of the role of the national government, and will fundamentally alter the ever-expanding reach of the federal government.”

Some type of effort along this line is our best hope for reducing the size of government and putting it back under the control of the people. When it becomes common practice that a routine part of the floor debate on any bill includes a debate on its constitutionality we cannot help but see a vast improvement in the legislation brought before Congress.  However, Congressman Shadegg’s effort will not succeed without the focused support of citizens nationwide.

In addition to supporting the Enumerated Powers Act, we need to hold our individual Congressmen and Senators accountable for any legislation they sponsor, co-sponsor or support.  We can do this by making it a habit to call, write or e-mail our representatives and asking a very simple question; “Which article in the Constitution authorizes the enactment of this legislation?”  If enough citizens take this minimal step, it will force our representatives to consider the Constitutionality of every vote they cast.  If a campaign of this type were continued for a long enough time, we would see the discussion of constitutionality a routine part of Congressional debate, and media coverage as well.

In the end, as the old adage says, we get the kind of government we deserve, either because of neglect, a desire for personal benefits at the expense of our fellow citizens, or a genuine desire to put the welfare of the country and the welfare of future generations before all else.  Our future is up to us.

Renewing The Conservative Movement

During the 2008 Presidential campaigns, John McCain traveled the country declaring himself to be a “proud conservative”.  In fact, all the candidates presented themselves to the voters as conservatives.  Yet they all differed from each other in certain major issues, operating from different underlying principles. None consistently and convincingly advocated adherence to the founding principles of our nation, namely those found in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Conventional wisdom counsels conservatives and Republicans to modify their positions to appeal more to various sub-groups and special interest.  This advice comes not only from the media and non-conservative and non-Republican sources, but often from self-labeled conservatives and Republicans as well.  The result is that many conservatives have become discouraged and confused concerning the conservative message.

The outpouring of support for Sarah Palin when she entered the race as McCain’s running mate gives credence to the argument that many Americans are hungering for true conservative leadership.  Single issue conservatives such as social-conservatives, fiscal-conservatives, and so-on, no longer provide the leadership sought by the true conservative patriot. Neither are leaders who mouth “bumper sticker slogans” and conservative sounding platitudes, while at the same time supporting big government programs like education, healthcare, open borders, and government interference with the free-market economy.

The conservative movement has gotten off track, and there is a growing group of patriots who are looking for ways to get it moving again in the right direction.  The problem is that the average person does not know where to start or what to do.  They are looking for someone to take the lead and tell them what to do before they do anything.  A political movement is more than a few people following a charismatic leader.  A political movement is millions of people cooperating in a common cause arising from shared principles and mutual goals.

In recent history the conservative movement has been likened to a three-legged stool, with one leg representing small government, the second representing national defense and the third low taxes.  That’s good, so far as it goes.  However, it provides little real guidance for the average person and does not give them a base for formulating their political opinions.  It fails to inform as to what the principles are that underlie the desirability of small government or low taxes, for example.

To me there are two basic principles underlying true conservatism, the unalienable “natural” rights of man given by God to all, and that the sole purpose of government is to protect those rights.  These two principles led our forefathers to fight the Revolutionary War and establish the Constitutional Republic known as the United States of America.  They are clearly defined in the Declaration of Independence and are the underlying principles of every article of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Thomas Jefferson included these rights under the headings of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.

Life

This right includes not only the right to be born, but the right to live, by the grace of God, until we die from natural causes.  It is the basic right underlying the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms for self-defense. It is to protect this right that Congress was given the constitutional power to make war and provide for the national defense.

Liberty

The right to liberty is the second unalienable right common to all mankind.  This is the right to use the facilities of our mind, body and spirit freely without interference, to decide for one‘s self what is in our own best interest, to believe whatever we wish to believe, and to express our thoughts freely.  This right is embodied in the First Amendment as the right to express our religious views freely without the interference or direction of government—freedom of religion; the right to express our thoughts without sanction or fear—freedom of the press; the right to join with others to secure our rights—freedom of assembly and association.

Amendments Five, Six, Seven and Eight are all designed to protect our right to liberty, guaranteeing us that our liberty cannot be taken from us without a fair and thorough review by the judicial system.

Pursuit of Happiness

Happiness is an individual thing.  No person or government can give us happiness.  It is a condition of being that each of us must pursue and find for ourselves.  That’s why it is described in Jefferson’s list as a “pursuit” not as an end in itself.  Most scholars refer to “pursuit of happiness” as property rights.  Thomas Jefferson referred to it as “enjoyment of the fruits of our labor” which would include wealth, property, wages, other income, or the general pursuit of prosperity.

Each of us has the unalienable right to pursue our prosperity or “happiness” in our own way making our own decisions as to the routes to follow. Amendments Three, Four, Five, Thirteen, Fourteen 1:3, Article One 7:1, 8:1, 5, 9, and 9:4 are all intended to protect the right to “enjoy the fruits of one’s labor”. Unalienable means they cannot be transferred to another or taken away by law.  Government has no legitimate power to infringe on or otherwise interfere with the legitimate exercise of the unalienable rights of their citizens.

You will notice that all of these “rights groups” are self-sufficient within themselves.  They are dependent on outside agencies only in a passive way.  In other words, they can be interfered with by outside forces such as government or fellow citizens, but they cannot be granted by them.

It is important to distinguish between “rights” which are natural and independent, and “privileges” which are dependent on the actions of others or the granting by government.  Most if not all social programs commonly claimed as “rights” are in reality privileges and not rights at all.  For example, healthcare, financial or economic security, civil marriage, etc., are all privileges because they must be actively supplied by someone else, individually or collectively through government or other groups.

Government attempts at wealth or income redistribution or “leveling” are unconstitutional infringements on our property rights or the right to enjoy the fruits of our labor.  Taxes confiscated from a few in order to provide social programs for select individuals or groups are likewise unconstitutional infringements on our right to the “pursuit of happiness” insofar as it diminishes our own prosperity.

Any effort to renew the conservative movement and get it “back on track” must be anchored in these principles and directed toward the defense and promotion of our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  These documents are the sum total of the true Conservative Manifesto.

Thomas Jefferson Advice to Sarah Palin

One fact on which everyone can agree is that our nation is in crisis. In fact, this election cycle has been a series of crises: The illegal immigration crisis, the healthcare crisis, the energy crisis, and most recently the housing and financial crises. The one crisis we do not read about in the mainstream media is the real one: the crisis in government.

At the bottom of all the crises we face as a nation there is a crisis of government that has given rise to all the rest. The American people have lost control of their government or, perhaps it would be more accurate to say we have surrendered our control at the ballot box in exchange for the empty promises of our favorite politicians. In the process we have given up a major portion of our liberties. Moreover, we seem poised to vote away those we have left in the coming election.

We have faced threats to our liberties many times in the past. Almost without exception these threats always come when we allow our elected representatives in Washington to set aside or ignore the restraints placed on government by the Constitution. Just this year alone Washington has obligated taxpayers to an additional $2 trillion in debt on top of the $10 trillion already owed. If we add the cost of unfunded mandates that total climbs to over $50 trillion.

Without some type of government reform, these debts will never be repaid. The numbers just do not add up. Our GDP has been running about $14 trillion annually. That will probably go down over the next year or two as we recover from our current financial difficulties. Our rate of spending is somewhere close to $500 billion more than we take in in revenue each year. Exact figures are impossible to obtain before they have been politically adjusted.

Any reform of government must start with a reform of Congress. That reform must involve a return to the Constitution. Congress has always been at odds with the Constitution because it limits it powers. Over the past few decades, thanks to the liberal takeover of our education system, too many Americans do not understand the concept of “limited government”. Therefore they allow Congress to expand the tentacles of government into every nook and cranny of our lives with impunity.

If we are to believe the consensus of mainstream media, the next Congress is going to be the most liberal one in memory. It is easy to despair of any possibility of meaningful reform of Congress in the next few years. Fortunately, the prospects are not as bleak as they seem. This is not the first time in history we have been faced with similar attempts to undermine our constitutional form of government.

The first and perhaps, the most serious effort was attempted by the Federalists, the first political party established by John Adams and Alexander Hamilton in the early years of our republic. In order to combat this effort Thomas Jefferson and James Madison formed an opposition party, the Democratic-Republican Party, referred to at the time simply as republicans.

In his memoirs Jefferson relates a conversation he had with President George Washington on October 1, 1792. During the conversation he shared with Washington his misgivings about Hamilton’s view of the Constitution.

“He [Washington] then expressed his concern at the difference which he found to subsist between the Secretary of the Treasury and myself, of which he said he had not been aware. He knew, indeed, that there was a marked difference in our political sentiments, but he had never suspected it had gone so far in producing a personal difference, and he wished he could be the mediator to put an end to it.”

“That he thought it important to preserve the check of my opinions in the administration, in order to keep things in their proper channel, and prevent them from going too far. That as to the idea of transforming this government into a monarchy, he did not believe there were ten men in the United States whose opinions were worth attention, who entertained such a thought.”

“I told him there were many more than he imagined. I recalled to his memory a dispute at his own table, a little before we left Philadelphia, between General Schuyler on one side and Pinckney and myself on the other, wherein the former maintained the position, that hereditary descent was as likely to produce good magistrates as election.”

“I told him, that though the people were sound, there were a numerous sect who had monarchy in contemplation; that the Secretary of the Treasury was one of these. That I had heard him say that this constitution was a shilly-shally thing, of mere milk and water, which could not last, and was only good as a step to something better. That when we reflected, that he had endeavored in the convention, to make an English constitution of it, and when failing in that, we saw all his measures tending to bring it to the same thing, it was natural for us to be jealous; and particularly, when we saw that these measures had established corruption in the legislature,…”

In a letter to Doctor Benjamin Rush dated January 16, 1811 Jefferson relates a dinner conversation at Monticello between John Adams and Alexander Hamilton concerning the English constitution.

“While he [Adams] was Vice-President, and I Secretary of State, I received a letter from President Washington, then at Mount Vernon, desiring me to call together the Heads of departments, and to invite Mr. Adams to join us (which, by the bye, was the only instance of that being done) in order to determine on some measure which required dispatch; and he desired me to act on it, as decided, without again recurring to him.”

“I invited them to dine with me, and after dinner, sitting at our wine, having settled our question, other conversation came on, in which a collision of opinion arose between Mr. Adams and Colonel Hamilton, on the merits of the British Constitution, Mr. Adams giving it as his opinion, that, if some of its defects and abuses were corrected, it would be the most perfect constitution of government ever devised by man. Hamilton, on the contrary, asserted, that with its existing vices, it was the most perfect model of government that could be formed; and that the correction of its vices would render it an impracticable government. And this you may be assured was the real line of difference between the political principles of these two gentlemen.”

In many ways the efforts of the early Federalists to transform our government into a Monarchy resembles the modern efforts by Democrats to transform it into a Democratic Socialist one. Since we are not a monarchy today, it is evident that something happened to thwart the designs of Hamilton, Adams, and the Federalist Party. In researching the constitutional duties of the Vice President, I ran across an interesting passage in a petition to the Virginia Legislature by Jefferson seeking permission to sell off some of his property by lottery in order to pay off debts.

It seems that they were suffering from a decline in real estate values at the time (sound familiar?) and the only way Jefferson felt he could get a fair price for the property was through a lottery which required legislative approval. In the petition, Jefferson offered a recap of his sixty plus years of public service to the young republic. In it we find this revealing and inspiring passage.

“If it were thought worth while to specify any particular services rendered, I would refer to the specification of them made by the legislature itself in their Farewell Address, on my retiring from the Presidency, February, 1809.”

“There is one, however, not therein specified, the most important in its consequences, of any transaction in any portion of my life; to wit, the head I personally made against the federal principles and proceedings, during the administration of Mr. Adams.”

“Their usurpations and violations of the constitution at that period, and their majority in both Houses of Congress, were so great, so decided, and so daring, that after combating their aggressions, inch by inch, without being able in the least to check their career, the republican leaders thought it would be best for them to give up their useless efforts there, go home, get into their respective legislatures, embody whatever of resistance they could be formed into, and if ineffectual, to perish there as in the last ditch.”

“All, therefore, retired, leaving Mr. Gallatin alone in the House of Representatives, and myself in the Senate, where I then presided as Vice-President. Remaining at our posts, and bidding defiance to the brow-beatings and insults by which they endeavored to drive us off also, we kept the mass of republicans in phalanx together, until the legislatures could be brought up to the charge; and nothing on earth is more certain, than that if myself particularly, placed by my office of Vice-President at the head of the republicans, had given way and withdrawn from my post, the republicans throughout the Union would have given up in despair, and the cause would have been lost for ever.”

“By holding on, we obtained time for the legislatures to come up with their weight; and those of Virginia and Kentucky particularly, but more especially the former, by their celebrated resolutions, saved the constitution, at its last gasp. No person who was not a witness of the scenes of that gloomy period, can form any idea of the afflicting persecutions and personal indignities we had to brook. They saved our country however.” (Emphasis Added)

This piece of history contradicts popular beliefs concerning Jefferson and the constitutional office, President of the Senate. Popular history has it that Jefferson neglected his duty of presiding over the Senate and spent his term in office in abstention at home at Monticello. I referred to this in my last blog post, “Sarah Palin as President of the Senate”. It seems I was incorrect and owe an apology to Mr. Jefferson.

It should also put to rest the statement by Joe Biden in last week’s Vice Presidential debate that the Vice President has no constitutional connection to the Legislative Branch of government. Which brings me to the purpose of this post. Our best chance of reforming Congress and thus reforming government is to elect the McCain-Palin ticket next month.

Governor Palin has expressed her willingness to fulfill her constitutional duties as President of the Senate, although she seemed somewhat tentative in her answer to this question during the debate; as though she was not sure of the constitutional grounds she was standing on. Her past record of reform in previous offices she has held gives credence to this hope, however.

If McCain wakes up and decides to run against Congress instead of against George Bush there is a chance he could win in a landslide since the approval rating for Congress is below ten percent. He also needs to put more emphasis on putting some tarnish on Obama’s media created image. “Nice guys finish last.”

Copy and e-mail this link to a friend: Thomas Jefferson Advice to Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin as President of the Senate

In Thursday night’s debate Sarah Palin exhibited why many conservatives believe she is the future of the Conservative movement and why she is likely to be the first woman President of the United States after the 2012 elections.  There were many noteworthy exchanges during the debate but to me, the most important one, since it relates to Palin’s function if she is elected Vice President, was the one concerning the duties of that office.

The moderator, Gwen Ifill asked,

“Governor, you mentioned a moment ago the constitution might give the vice president more power than it has in the past. Do you believe as Vice President Cheney does, that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it is also a member of the Legislative Branch?”

The question itself shows both a partisan bias and a deficiency in knowledge of the Constitution.  It implies that Vice President Cheney engaged in extra-constitutional activities in his relationship with the Senate and questions whether Palin intends to do likewise.

Governor Palin: “Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president’s agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we’ll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation….”

Senator Biden’s response: “Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we’ve had probably in American history. The idea he doesn’t realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that’s the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.”

“And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there’s a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.”

“The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress….”

The fact is; the office of Vice President was more closely associated with the Legislative Branch than the Executive Branch from 1788 until after the Second World War.  Harry Truman was forced to take on the duties of President in a time of war, due to the death of Franklin Roosevelt, with no experience and little knowledge of important decisions made during the war, including the existence of the Atom Bomb. Following that experience the office of Vice President became more involved in the workings of the Executive Branch.

The first Vice President to have an office in the White House was Walter Mondale, Vice President to Jimmy Carter.

Even though Joe Biden has, on at least six occasions, taken an oath to “defend and protect” the Constitution of the United States, it is apparent from his response that he has little knowledge of what it contains.  He should know that Article I deals with the duties of the Legislative Branch, not the Executive Branch.  Those are found in Article II.

Biden continues, “The idea he’s part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous.”

It is this statement by Biden that is really bizarre.  The idea that the office of Vice President is a part of the Legislative Branch was invented by the framers of the Constitution, not Vice President Cheney. Article I assigns to the Vice President the legislative duty of presiding over the Senate.

“The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.”

“The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.”  ~Article I, Section 3, U.S. Constitution

The question then becomes; what is meant by the term “President of the Senate?”  The meaning was so obvious to the Framers they did not bother to define it further.  However, the office of President of the Senate has been so neglected by its occupants and its meaning so changed by custom over the past two hundred years that its constitutional intent has been lost.  Today the office of Vice President is looked upon by its occupants mostly as a possible stepping-stone to the Presidency.  That was not the intent of the Framers.

The universal understanding of the term “President of the Senate” is further demonstrated in the fact that no elaboration on its meaning is found in the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers or in other popular writings of the founding era.  To understand the proper role of the Senate President we are forced to go to the Constitution itself and to how the role was understood by those who filled it in the early days of the Republic.

That the office was considered important by the Framers is shown in the fact that it is the only duty assigned to the Vice President by the Constitution.  Serving as President of the Senate is not just a ceremonial honor bestowed on the Vice President; it is his or her primary duty.  To understand what those duties entail, a good place to start is by looking at the duties of its counterpart in the House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House. It is unreasonable to believe the Framers would stipulate an executive officer for the House and not designate a similar position for the Senate. “Majority Leader” is not a constitutional office.

The House has only one officer required by the Constitution.  That officer is the Speaker and is to be chosen by whatever manner the House deems fitting.  The House is given the authority to add other officers and to choose them, as they consider desirable.  The Senate has two officers mandated by the Constitution, the President and the President pro Tempore.  It is permitted to elect its President pro Tempore and any other officers it thinks necessary or desirable according to its own judgment.

The President of the Senate, however, is elected by the majority vote of all the electors of the fifty states and is the only nationally elected officer in the Legislative Branch, a further indication of its importance.  This is fitting since the Senate has “advice and consent” powers over treaties, Judges, Supreme Court Justices, Ambassadors and other officers appointed by the President.  Since all these Presidential actions are national in scope it is proper that the executive officer of the Senate be elected nationally.

Webster’s dictionary defines the word “president” as the “chief executive officer of the United States or the chief executive officer of an organization or corporation.”  The word, whether used in a political sense or a non-political sense, always carries with it the connotation of executive authority.  To attempt to separate executive authority from the term President of the Senate is an unwarranted manipulation of the English language.

This being the case, how then did the office of Vice President become relegated to such an unimportant role in our government as it has today?  To understand this we have to look at the early history of our nation.

John Adams was a prominent revolutionary in the years leading up to the revolution.  He was a strong advocate of the Declaration of Independence and a member of the committee assigned by the Continental Congress to draft it, although the language was primarily written by Thomas Jefferson.  After the revolution he was assigned to a number of diplomatic positions under the Federation and worked closely with Jefferson as envoys to a number of European Countries.

When the new government was formed under the Constitution he ran against George Washington for the office of President and was soundly defeated.  Under the original Constitution, having received the second highest number of votes, he became Vice President.

Adams was a super patriot and a competent Ambassador.  However, as Vice President and later as President, flaws in his temperament prevented him from becoming great in those positions.  He took seriously his duties as President of the Senate and became known for his lectures to the Senate on policy and procedural matters.  While he did not have a vote except as a “tie breaker” he did attempt to influence legislation.

His overbearing and tyrannical manner as President of the Senate brought on a threatened revolt by the Senators near the end of his first term.  Hoping to become President after George Washington left office he moderated his interactions with the Senate during his second term in order not to further alienate his political supporters.

In spite of his leadership role in the revolution, he was an admirer of the English style of government and its customs of nobility.  During his first term as Vice President he became embroiled in a month long controversy over what the proper address should be for the President when he visited the Senate.  He preferred the titles of “His Majesty the President” or “His High Mightiness”.  The more simple title of “President of the United States” eventually won out.

Further evidence of his elitist nature, tyrannical personality and intolerance of opposing opinions came up during his term as President when he signed into law the Sedition Act, which made it a crime to publish “false, scandalous, and malicious writings” against the government or its officials. The Act expired at the end of his term in 1801 and Thomas Jefferson, his successor, granted a full pardon to those convicted under this unconstitutional law.

The idea of “factions” or political parties was anathema to the founding fathers.  Their failure to foresee the inevitable rise of political parties as the most practical way of selecting candidates for President and making constitutional provisions for their functions became one of the few weaknesses of the Constitution.  The twelfth Amendment corrected the problem of having the President and Vice President from opposing parties, as was the case with Adams and his Vice President, Thomas Jefferson.  Otherwise, the proper role of political parties was left undefined.

The animosity between Adams, a Federalist, and Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican was so great that Jefferson spent the four years of his term as Adam’s V.P. at home in Monticello writing a handbook on Senate procedures rather than performing his duties as President of the Senate.  Since then the role of President of the Senate has been more or less left up to the individual Vice President with the willing acquiescence of the Senate.  John C. Calhoun, elected Vice President to John Quincy Adams in 1824 and re-elected as Vice President to Andrew Jackson in 1828, was the only other V.P. to take his duties as Senate President seriously.

If Sarah Palin is elected to the office of Vice President and wishes to take on the task of Senate President she should have the support of every patriotic American.  The current role of “Majority Leader” is clearly unconstitutional and is a usurpation of the constitutional powers of the President of the Senate as intended by the Founding Fathers.

The Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader have acquired powers over time that equal or exceeds the powers of the Executive Branch.  Both have assumed dictatorial authority over legislation to be considered by either house of Congress.  Neither position is accountable to the voters other than those in their respective districts or states although their actions affect the lives and well-being of every American.  Any reforms a Vice President Palin can bring to this unhealthy situation would be welcome.

Copy and e-mail this link to a friend:  Sarah Palin as President of the Senate

addthis_pub = ‘jerrymcdaniel’;

The End of Capitalism as We Know It?

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Harry Reid and other Congressional and Administration officials are meeting in Washington this weekend to administer what American socialists hope will be the final coup de grace to the American Capitalist system.  Participants in the Socialist movement have been working tirelessly generation after generation over the past hundred years to bring about this day.

Beginning with the “Trust Busting” of Theodore Roosevelt, the first “progressive” President, and the stock market collapse of 1929, a couple of decades later, socialist have made steady progress toward their Karl Marx inspired goal of destroying our capitalist system and building a socialist utopia on the rubble.

Socialist policies have all but destroyed our industrial base, our educational system, our healthcare system, our social structure, and are on the verge of destroying our economic system.  Each time government encroachment on the private sector creates a disaster, the solution offered is always more government involvement.  The current financial disaster is no exception.

The hallmark of the socialist movement is to create chaos and then point to their opposition and declare, “They did it!”  It seems to work more often than not.  The meltdown of our financial markets demonstrates this tactic with a clarity that cannot be denied.  An analysis of the development of the crisis shows without question that the root cause is socialist policies, not the capitalist system nor the policies of the Bush Administration.

There is widespread agreement among economists and politicians that sub-prime lending practices, prevalent among mortgage companies, is the primary culprit.  A number of circumstances converged during an election year that virtually guaranteed the collapse of major segments of the financial markets.  That they occurred during an election year made any sane thought-out remedies unattainable.  Facts, mixed with and distorted by political rhetoric, rendered an objective evaluation of the problems all but impossible.

The rapid rise in energy prices, soaring home values with the corresponding rise in real estate taxes, the vagaries of adjustable-rate mortgages, and the stagnation of lower and middle class incomes stretched family budgets to the point they could no longer be sustained.  Mortgage payments, the largest item in the average budget, simply had to be postponed or cut back in favor of survival.  All of these, when objectively judged by the facts, are revealed to be the result of socialist policies.

The populist view of history as promulgated by the Democratic Party, the mainstream media and even, somewhat, by the McCain camp, is that the crisis caused by sub-prime lending was brought about by corporate greed and “eight years of failed policies by the Bush Administration”. The truth is somewhat different.  An article in World Net Daily on September 20 is quite revealing in that it links to two articles written before Bush took office in 2001.  One is in the Los Angeles Times, the other The New York Times, neither of which are conservative publications.

Both articles were written to praise Bill Clinton during the final years of his Administration.  The first was an article in the Los Angeles Times dated May 31, 1999 titled “Minorities’ Home Ownership Booms Under Clinton But Still Lags Whites’”.  The opening paragraph begins with,

“It’s one of the hidden success stories of the Clinton era.  In the great housing boom of the 1990s, black and latino homeownership has surged to the highest level ever recorded.”

By itself, that would indeed be good news, but the article then goes on to explain the factors that gave rise to this phenomenon.  By indulging in an obligatory swipe at the Reagan-Bush administrations, the writer undermined what could have been the best alternative explanation, the booming economy.

“But the economy isn’t the whole story. As HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo says: ‘There have been points in the past when the economy has done well but minority homeownership has not increased proportionally.’ Case in point: Despite generally good times in the 1980s, homeownership among blacks and Latinos actually declined slightly, while rising slightly among whites.” He writes.

He then returns to his theme of praising the leadership of Bill Clinton.

“All of this suggests that Clinton’s efforts to increase minority access to loans and capital also have spurred this decade’s gains. Under Clinton, bank regulators have breathed the first real life into enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act, a 20-year-old statute meant to combat “redlining” by requiring banks to serve their low-income communities.”

“The administration also has sent a clear message by stiffening enforcement of the fair housing and fair lending laws. The bottom line: Between 1993 and 1997, home loans grew by 72% to blacks and by 45% to Latinos, far faster than the total growth rate.

“Lenders also have opened the door wider to minorities because of new initiatives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–the giant federally chartered corporations that play critical, if obscure, roles in the home finance system…”

“…In 1992, Congress mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers. …It [Fannie Mae] has aimed extensive advertising campaigns at minorities that explain how to buy a home and opened three dozen local offices to encourage lenders to serve these markets. Most importantly, Fannie Mae has agreed to buy more loans with very low down payments–or with mortgage payments that represent an unusually high percentage of a buyer’s income….”

“…But with discrimination in the banking system not yet eradicated, maintaining the momentum of the 1990s will also require a continuing nudge from Washington. One key is to defend the Community Reinvestment Act…The top priority may be to ask more of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The two companies are now required to devote 42% of their portfolios to loans for low- and moderate-income borrowers; HUD, which has the authority to set the targets, is poised to propose an increase this summer“….

The facts presented by Ronald Brownstein in this article are indisputable and clearly point to Congress and the Clinton Administration as the primary causes of the eventual mortgage market meltdown.  A later article in the New York Times dated September 30, 1999 was less slanted toward praise of Clinton and gives us a few additional insights.

“… [A new Fannie Mae program] will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets — including the New York metropolitan region — [it] will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

“…Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people

“…In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called sub-prime borrowers.

“…In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980′s.

“…said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ”If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.”

Keep in mind both of these articles were written well before George Bush moved into the White House.  No one can honestly deny that the problem was inherited by Bush from the Clinton administration.  It is also true that both Bush and McCain attempted to rein in the excessiveness of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but were prevented from doing so by socialist Democrats and their socialist leaning Republican allies in Congress.

It is imperative that McCain and Palin focus on these facts over the next few weeks instead of going along with the MSM version in courting independents and “moderates”.  This will not help in changing the results of decisions made in Washington this weekend or the follow-up actions by Congress next week.  It may, however, wake up some of the American voters encouraging them to vote some of the socialists in Congress out of office and give us a chance to begin returning the government back into the constitutional republic it was intended to be.
Copy and e-mail this link to a friend: The End of Capitalism as We Know It?

McCain-Palin Falters on Reform

When John McCain and Sarah Palin take office next January they are going to be expected to follow through on their promises to reform Washington.  The possibility of McCain’s election is based on two factors, his choice of Sarah as his running mate and his campaign pitch as a reformer.  The new McCain campaign is less than a month old and already there are signs emerging that he may not be able to maintain his new image until Election Day.

His first big test is his response to the meltdown of Fannie, Freddie and AIG.  In my opinion, both McCain and Palin have fumbled the ball.  I am prone to give Sarah the benefit of the doubt because I understand that she has a duty to express views consistent with those of McCain, at least, during the campaign.

Many conservatives including myself see her as the future of the conservative movement and hopefully, the Republican Party.  Consequently, I may be more critical of her statements and actions than I otherwise might be.  I watched the two-part interview on Fox with Sean Hannity and a couple of times I was disappointed in her performance.

I also was disappointed with Sean’s conducting of the interview.  At times it seemed as though he was auditioning for Larry King’s replacement on CNN.  Sean asked all the right questions, but in such a softball manner that it appeared he was more intent on not damaging the image Sarah has built up among conservatives and independents than in getting an accurate picture of her position on the issues.

On one occasion he broached the accusation made by Democrats that she was “for the bridge to nowhere, before she was against it”.  She replied with a good exposition of her position following cancellation of the bridge project and a good explanation of the reasons.  However, she did not answer the question asked, which was more about her initial support or non-support for the bridge before the project became politically unpopular nationally.

I already knew that she supported building the bridge when she was running for Governor, and that she had changed her mind after being elected.  Since the price tag for the project had gone from $200 million to $400 million and Congress, because of the unfavorable publicity, had withdrawn its support, I understood her change of position and thought it was the right thing to do.  What bothered me was her reluctance to answer the question in a straightforward manner.  Sean did not follow-up on the question.

Another answer that bothered me was in response to a question on her position concerning the collapse of Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and AIG.  For a minute, it appeared as though she had forgotten which ticket she was running on.  Her answer could easily have been from the Obama camp except that she did not blame Bush.  Instead she blamed Wall Street, Lobbyists, corporate greed and stockholders.  She did not mention Congresses’ involvement at all.  Again, Sean did not follow up.

On Thursday, McCain repeated the same list of culprits and for good measure threw SEC Chairman Chris Cox into the mix, stating that if he was President he would fire him.  McCain should know that the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission does not serve at the pleasure of the President.  He is appointed for a specific term and cannot be fired without proof of misconduct or malfeasance.  He should also know that the failures of Fannie and Freddie were not regulatory failures, but rather management failures, and the SEC does not manage the companies it oversees.

There were many causes for the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac including mismanagement, corruption, poor judgment and a host of others.  The “first cause” however was its efforts to carry out the mandate of Congress to maximize mortgages to low income applicants in order that more minorities and the working poor could participate in the “American dream”.  Mortgage brokers under pressure to issue more loans to high-risk buyers flooded the market with sub-prime, adjustable rate mortgages, with no money down and no income verification.  The results were foreseeable, except for the socialists in Congress who thought they were witnessing nirvana.

There is more than enough blame to go around, from the local corrupt Real Estate Agent to the corner offices and penthouses of Wall Street.  To target all the fish in the food chain while ignoring the sharks in Congress is not reform.  It is only “business as usual” with slightly different scapegoats.  McCain is focusing on the money Obama collected from Fannie and Freddie while studiously avoiding any mention of Dodd, Franks, and others on Capitol Hill feeding at the trough.

This is his big chance to demonstrate he will bring true change to Washington.  If he shows a willingness to take on his cronies in Congress his trip to the White House will be a “cake walk”.  Otherwise he is likely to loose his momentum to Obama while, at the same time, lending credence to Democratic desires to strengthen their grip on the economy.

Copy and e-mail this link to a friend: McCain-Palin Falters on Reform

Sarah Palin on the Bush Doctrine

One significant side effect of the McCain-Palin ticket is that the response to it spotlights the media bias in a way that can only be denied by the most adamant cool aid drinkers and party hacks.  Examples are too numerous to cover adequately in this space.  However, a good example is the media response to Charlie Gibson’s ABC interview with Governor Palin on Thursday Night.

The part of the interview that seemed to get the most attention on Friday was the part dealing with the Bush Doctrine.

GIBSON: “Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?”

GOVERNOR PALIN:  “In what respect, Charlie?”

GIBSON:  “Well, what do you interpret it to be?”

PALIN:  “His world view?”

GIBSON:  “No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated in September 2002, before the Iraq war“.

PALIN: “I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell-bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made, and with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.”

GIBSON:  “The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?”

PALIN: “Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country.”

This exchange was used by commentators, pundits, bloggers, and even many news accounts to be proof that Palin did not have the foreign policy experience to qualify her for the position of Vice President.  James Fallows writing in the Atlantic Online began his article this way.

“It is embarrassing to have to spell this out, but for the record let me explain why Gov. Palin’s answer to the “Bush Doctrine” question — the only part of the recent interview I have yet seen over here in China — implies a disqualifying lack of preparation for the job.”

The Associated Press had this to say;

“….[Governor Palin]  Appeared unsure of the Bush doctrine — essentially that the United States must help spread democracy to stop terrorism and that the nation will act pre-emptively to stop potential foes.”

You will notice there are substantial differences between Gibson’s understanding of the Bush Doctrine and the AP’s.  On Friday’s Hannity and Colmes TV show, Alan Colmes also used this exchange between Gibson and Palin as proof of Palin’s lack of experience in foreign policy.

I have e-mailed both Gibson and Colmes and requested they send me a copy of the Bush Doctrine so I could properly understand just what the flap is about.

When I type, for example, the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, or The Declaration of Independence into a search engine I get a number of links to specific documents with those titles.  However, when I type “Bush Doctrine” into a search engine, I get pages of links to news articles, opinion pieces, and blogs related to the Bush Doctrine, but no links to a copy of it.

The reason no search engine can link to a copy of the Bush Doctrine is because none exists.  The term is a media expression used to refer to any one of a number of Bush policies regarding the war on terror.  Had I been asked about the Bush Doctrine, I would have immediately thought of the policy stated by Bush that State sponsors of terrorism would be held accountable in the same manner as the terrorists themselves.

My version, Gibson’s version and the AP version all refer to different Bush policies that have at various times been labeled the “Bush Doctrine”.  All total, there are about five such policies that are given that label.  Governor Palin’s question quoted above, “his world view?” is a pretty good summary of just what the Bush Doctrine is.

The fact that so many news outlets and commentators jumped on this exchange to undermine Sarah Palin”s qualifications to assume the role of Commander In Chief, if need be, is just one more example of the panic in the Democratic Party and their left wing media propaganda arm caused by McCain’s choice of her as his Vice Presidential running mate.

Copy and e-mail this link to a friend:  http://illinoisconservative.wordpress.com/2008/09/13/sarah-palin-on-the-bush-doctrine/