Constitutionalist, not Constitutional Conservative

In response to:

http://www.tnr.com/article/the-permanent-campaign/91205/michele-bachmann-president-constitution

There is no hidden meaning in the redundant term “Constitutional Conservative”. 

The proper term is actually simply “Constitutionalist”.  Every key Constitutional officer is required by it to ‘preserve, protect, and defend’ it: that is, to conserve it.  Clearly any adherent must needs be Conservative.  A Constitutionalist is someone who believes that the federal government is limited to those authorities and responsibilities specifically enumerated in the Constitution.  It is, after all, the contract written by the Citizens to establish and define the federal government.  Pretty simple, eh?

It is difficult to argue that the Constitution isn’t a radical document because of course it is.  By implication therefore it’s fair to say that anyone who believes in the Constitution is necessarily a radical.

The irony of course is that by Kilgore’s account, one who adheres to our Constitution is better described as ‘a rabid social conservative’; ‘property rights absolutist’; or ‘anti-tax zealot’.  Rationally, it would seem more appropriate to categorize those who reject the founding contract for our form of government as being aberrant rather than those who embrace it.

It’s no surprise that Kilgore likewise mischaracterizes the Tea Party Movement, comprised of 58% of the US population who self-identify with it’s principles; (41% of whom self-identify themselves as Democrat or Independent) as “immoderate right-wingers”.  Is it possible that Kilgore knows their motivations better than they themselves?  Doubtful!  Rationally one must conclude that Kilgore is wrong.

How is it that Kilgore keeps ignoring the requirement of each branch of government that it ‘preserve, protect, and defend the COTUS’?  Does he not comprehend that the COTUS is designed to nullify the tendencies of human nature:  specifically that ‘delegated authority will be abused’.  Human nature is no different today than it was 235 years ago despite what pettifoggers such as he would have us believe.

Mr. Kilgore’s runaway ignorance apparently extends beyond our Constitution.  The Founders most intentionally avoided creating a democracy, which Ben Franklin defined as “…two wolves and a sheep voting for what is for dinner; Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote”.

The preamble to the Declaration of Independence defines the American philosophy of government: why it is created (essentially to protect property and other unalienable rights-without restriction to race or gender by the way); and from whence comes it’s just powers (it’s called American Exceptionalism, BTW).  The Constitution, according to it’s preamble defines the federal government created to fulfill the American philosophy of government.  Any law that contradicts the COTUS deserves no place in America.

The 5^th Amendment denies the federal government any authority to deny any person their life, liberty or property without due process of law.  The 14^th Amendment extends those prohibitions to State and local governments.  Where exactly is the due process of law in Roe v Wade?  Without due process who has the right to take a person’s life?

The 1^st Amendment denies Congress any authority to pass any laws restricting the free exercise of religion; or to include a religious test as a precondition for government office.  The 14^th Amendment extends that restriction to State and local governments.  There is no Constitutional legal or moral restriction preventing citizens exercising their religious beliefs in public.

A fundamental guarantee of our legal system is “equal justice under law”.  How is it possible to have equal justice under law while having separate laws and penalties based solely on race, gender, religion, or lifestyle?

Neither Racism nor bigotry is embedded in our Constitution.  Where it exists under law it has been accomplished only by corruption of our Constitutional principles.  Rightfully any such occurrences need to be purged and Constitutional governance restored.

No society in the history of man has accomplished equivalent inclusion, productivity, inventiveness, justice, charity or equality compared to that created under our COTUS for more than 165 years.  Over the past 70 years great crimes have been perpetrated on the COTUS in the fallacious claim of ‘social justice’ in pursuit of a heinous spoof of equality of outcome that is nowhere to be found in the COTUS, or in life.

To restore America, restore Constitutional governance.

For those opposed to Constitutional governance in America, take heart: there are 200 countries in the world where you can live unencumbered by the COTUS.  The US isn’t one of them.

Capitalism or Corruption?

http://www.thenation.com/article/161267/reimagining-capitalism-bold-ideas-new-economy#comment-877499  

Our economy is faltering.  Is the problem Capitalism or Corruption?

Every government decision is subject to prior sale. 

Half of the problem is that elections cost millions of dollars.  To raise that money, politicians solicit contributions from those who have it; and those who have it expect something in return for giving it away.  In the private sector this is called “kickbacks” and is illegal; in politics it is considered ‘campaign finance’ and is de rigueur.

The other half of the problem is that politicians have discovered that they can buy votes with policies and programs that favor segments of the population at the expense of the taxpayer, without ever being held accountable for the outcome.  Public sector pensions are one example (among millions): politicians provide unsustainable benefits without providing the funding to pay for them, leaving future generations to deal with the consequences long after the offending politicians have prospered and left public office.

The free market is the most efficient economic process existent.  Without manipulation, perceived consumer value determines what products and services succeed and which fail.  Providers are forced to innovate in design, manufacture, and distribution in a never-ending process of value improvement (higher quality, lower cost).  Consumers choose the winners and losers.

Henry Ford created the middle class and the 40 hour work week (not Unions, not government) by focusing on the processes, eliminating wasted time and materials and sharing those savings with employees (wages and benefits); and consumers (higher quality and lower prices).  In the process he directly and indirectly improved the lives of everyone on earth.

Continuous competition however turns out to be never-ending hard work; especially compared to paying a legislator to craft a bill to favor one supplier’s product over others.  The byzantine tax code is the result of generations of purchased favors to suppliers to reduce their need to compete fairly on the merits of their product or services.  With such practices, it becomes government who determines winners and losers independently of consumer preferences.

An objective look at our government reveals performance that could never be tolerated in the private sector.  Has the Dept. of Agriculture created higher quality, lower cost food; or simply patented seed stock, genetically altered foods, higher costs and fewer choices?  Has the Dept of Education created better graduates or have our students been falling further and further behind those of the rest of the world?  Has the Dept of Energy reduced our dependence on foreign energy; or has the Dept of Urban Development created more successful cities?  Has the Dept of Transportation given us better, lower cost transport?  Each of these has become a bloated, non-responsive, counter-productive entity that does not accomplish it’s stated mission:  in other words they waste our resources without providing any comparable value.  911 taught us that we have more than 60 federal agencies responsible for preventing such a catastrophe; none of which are capable of communicating with each other; or capable of sharing information.  10 years later those conditions are little improved.  These departments exist to fund non-competitive, non-value-adding employment.  Every penny consumed in this form of employment makes it 8 times more difficult for real producers to compete in the global market.

Our Founders were prescient beyond modern understanding.  As life-long students of human nature, they crafted a government designed to countermand the tendencies of those to whom powers are delegated.  The House represented the interests of Citizens; the Senate represented the interests of the States (a safeguard undone by the 17^th Amendment).  Congress was denied the power to directly tax Citizens (a safeguard undone by the 16^th Amendment) and funded their activities with the duties on exports.  The Bill of Rights dramatically restricted federal authorities.

Over generations Citizens have ignored events as special interests bought not only our Legislators but also our Judges and our Executives.  We never ask how our Legislators are the most successful private investors on the face of the earth.  We never ask when our politicians produce worthless tomes yet are paid millions of dollars in advance of publishing.  We never question how our ex-Presidents become instant multi-millionaires; frequently due to the generosity of special interest organizations or foreign powers.

The remarkable ‘three-legged stool’ federal government of our Founders was designed as an inherent safeguard against any single branch usurping powers not delegated.  Citizens stood idly-by as activist Judges legislated from the bench; and as Executives claimed authorities never delegated; and as Legislators sold-out Citizens for personal gain.

The Constitution is the contract that creates and defines the rightful duties and responsibilities of the federal government.  It gives us the legal and moral tools necessary to restore our Constitutional Republic.  It doesn’t give Federal Judges lifetime tenure but specifies that they serve only during Good Behavior (which does not include violating their limited authorities).  The Executive is impeachable if he usurps authorities not delegated; or if he fails to “take care that the laws of the US are faithfully executed”.  Legislators are accountable to honor their oath of office.

The COTUS makes no provisions for political parties (that the Founders despised); nor does it provide any authority for elected officials to interpret the COTUS according to their personal philosophies: the authorities and responsibilities defined by the COTUS are constant.  Constitutionally, elections do NOT have consequences beyond the nameplate on the desk.

Capitalism is not the problem: it is the perversion of capitalism by government that is the problem.  Our government rightly exists solely to protect the individual rights endowed each of us by our Creator:  it has no charter to pre-determine outcomes; to re-distribute wealth; or to create multiple judicial systems based on social criteria.  It has no authority to fundamentally transform the US; but it does have the responsibility to fundamentally restore Constitutional governance.

It is noteworthy that the recommended changes involve an uninvested third party dictating to an entrepreneur or business executive how the proceeds from the enterprise are to be redistributed.  It is interesting that such reformers never seem willing to put their proposals to the test by developing competitive ventures using their own efforts and resources.

The fact that resource-consuming, risk-averse academicians make these proposals rather than become resource-creating, risk-taking entrepreneurs should be the first issue to be considered.  We need look no further than the Obama administration to see the disastrous impact of the lack of real world experience among those crafting economic policy.

In reality the starting point for any discussion of change must be the COTUS because it defines our federal government; what it must do and what it can do: as well as what it was denied any authority to do.  If such evaluation leads one in the direction of substantial change in the structure of the COTUS, the most logical option is to investigate which of the existent 200 countries most closely fits the preferred model and relocate to it.  That would leave in America only those who embrace the COTUS and most likely would result in the reversal of America’s fortunes, because everything that is wrong in America can be traced directly to the perversion of Constitutional authorities.

Misrepresenting the COTUS and Beck

Response to: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2011/01/hitchens-201101 

America is a Constitutional Republic.  The Constitution specifically defines the
limits of authority delegated by the Sovereign Citizen to the federal
government.  Mr. Hitchens obviously neither understands nor respects the COTUS; nor does he fairly describe what Beck does: attempt to get people to learn about what has always made America exceptional, by learning our founding documents.  He always emphasizes that no one should adopt his beliefs but should develop their own based on our founding principles.

Unlike Obama, Beck has no ability to force his opinions or beliefs on anyone; an important distinction that his detractors refuse to acknowledge.

Is it more racist/sexist/elitist to hold everyone to a common standard (equal justice under law); or to declare that some people are inherently inferior due solely to their race, gender, lifestyle, etc. and therefore must be treated prejudicially under law?

Because America is a Constitutional Republic, there are only two categories of people in the US: Constitutionalists and Anti-Constitutionalists.  Every other distinction is meaningless and diversionary.  Political parties exist solely to pervert the electoral process.

The Founders did everything in their power to limit the power of the federal government so that Citizens could enjoy the unalienable rights endowed us by our Creator without tyrannical interference by government.  On that the COTUS is indisputable.  Beyond the Bill of Rights, most Amendments have been politically motivated to limit personal freedom or enhance corruptive capabilities of our elected representatives.

What is a Constitutional Conservative?

In response to: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/opinion/02thu4.html?ref=opinion

To understand Constitutional Conservatives the first requirement is to read and understand the Constitution (COTUS). With the Bill of Rights (BOR) thrown in for good measure, it’s about 7700 words; or the length of a decent sophomore term paper. I have yet to discover a Liberal /Progressive who understands the COTUS.

Candidate Obama decried that “…the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: … Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government …must do on your behalf…”. VP Biden doesn’t even know which Articles define the authorities and responsibilities of each branch of the federal government after he has spent a life-time in government employment! Such ignorance of the document that creates and defines the federal government is inexcusable! Mr. Caplan are you too ignorant of the COTUS?

According to the 9th and 10th Amendments, the COTUS specifically delineates precisely what the federal government has been delegated to do; and any responsibility or authority not specifically delineated is specifically and intentionally denied. Got that Mr. President?

Mr. Caplan, you will not find a single mention of “equality” in the COTUS. You may have us confused with France: they do believe in equality. In America we believe only in “equal justice under law”: or at least we did until we started gerrymandering our laws to placate and politically manipulate myriad special interest ‘minorities’ (clearly un-Constitutional by the way).

Americans who support tyranny are those who expect someone else to provide for them under penalty of law: who think that the government has a right to confiscate private property without just compensation; who believe that it is okay to murder one human being for the convenience of another (5th Amendment be damned eh?); who believe they are above the law; who believe that gender or race or lifestyle entitle them to advantages over others not like them.

Read the COTUS Mr. Caplan and you will learn that we elect a federal government to accomplish the delineated responsibilities, within their clearly defined and limited authorities: and to ‘preserve, protect, and defend the COTUS’: only this and nothing more.

You won’t find anything in the COTUS about political parties, liberals, progressives, socialists; nothing about ‘popular mandates’ or ‘political mandates’; or PACs; or lobbyists; or political contributions. You’ll find nothing about gerrymandering voting districts to favor one group over another. You’ll find nothing about entitling representatives to be excluded from the laws they pass to control, or tax, or obligate the Citizens they allegedly serve.

You won’t find in the COTUS any authority for Congressmen to bury us in regulations, mandates and restrictive practices solely to empower themselves to sell exceptions to the highest bidder; accruing for their personal enrichment and empowerment alone.

You won’t find anything about adapting the Constitution because technology changes: the “papers” of a Citizen are protected the same if written with quill on parchment or written in electrons on magnetic media; the government has no more right to search and seizure without a properly defined and justified warrant if a Citizen is in their home or in an airport. You won’t find any support in the COTUS for the concept that a wise Latina is smarter and more qualified to judge than 200 years of Caucasian males.

The COTUS doesn’t need to address technology or popular social fads: it is structured solely to deal with immutable human nature: the understanding that delegated power will always be abused. You should note that the Founders were prescient enough to realize that politicians and public servants are not to be trusted with power or money; and history has proven them wise beyond modern comprehension!

You won’t find anywhere in the Constitution authority for any federal officer to ‘fundamentally transform the USA’: in fact that is a violation of the sacred oath of office required of every federal officer BEFORE they are endowed with any federal authority. Nor will you find any authority for any federal officer to pick and choose the laws that they will ignore or enforce. As the Chief Executive, the president is required to ‘take care that the laws are faithfully executed”.

The offending arrogance is not from those who love, honor, and respect the COTUS; it is from those who trample it: who bend and twist it to fit their warped personal concepts of social justice or elitist privilege. These are the very evils for which our Founders sacrificed everything to eliminate from earthly governance.

The good news for those who don’t like the COTUS or it’s strict constructionist interpretation is that there are more than 200 countries in the world where they can live unobstructed by the COTUS: but the US isn’t one of them! Even better, most of those alternatives offer cradle-to-grave government coddling and universal wealth redistribution! Delta is ready when you are.

So, Mr. Caplan, I suggest that you make a list of everything you think the federal government should do for you and along side each entry, list the Article, Section and paragraph where, in the COTUS the federal government is specifically delegated the authority and responsibility to provide it. Anything you can’t do that for is not a legal authority of the federal government.

I suspect you’ll be happier living somewhere else rather than in an America where Constitutional governance is rightfully restored: but know that you will go with my best wishes and with my prayers for your happiness.

The power of Lobbyists

$17 Million was contributed to the 100 Senators who voted yesterday to implement the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010.  Was it passed because it is the best thing for Americans, or was it passed because it was the best thing for raising campaign funds? 

This is one vote, by 20% of our Congress: $17 Million! 

In 2009 Lobbyists spent $3.5 BILLION to influence government regulations.  Keep in mind that Congress meets for less than 160 days a year: this means that lobbyists are spending more than $40,000 PER DAY, PER MEMBER of the US Congress.  Is it any wonder that candidates
are willing to spend millions to get elected?  Is it any wonder that our elected representatives-even those who have never held a private sector job, are virtually all millionaires?  What are citizens getting in return? 

The Gulf oil spill was caused by the failure of the federal government to enforce regulations in place for more than 8 years: even though the president noted two years earlier problems with the MMS that is responsible for compliance with those regulations. 

The spill was permitted to spread 48 miles to shore because the federal government did not have the containment and recovery equipment on site as required by federal regulations in place for more than 8 years before the spill. 

The Shoe Bomber and the Panty Bomber were able to board aircraft in spite of draconian and grotesquely ineffective Homeland Security regulations and procedures.

Voter registration and voter intimidation abuses impact every election despite volumes of regulations designed to prevent them;

the Healthcare bill adds more than 160 new bureaucracies and buries small businesses in absurd, debilitating, and worthless paperwork, without providing a single additional doctor or
nurse.

We have immigration laws and regulations designed to protect us from illegal immigration that are being ignored in violation of the COTUS. 

We have volumes of regulations to prevent the illegal distribution of classified materials, but obviously they are powerless to do that.

Clearly having more regulations does nothing to protect Citizens: they only serve to enrich
our elected representatives. 

The real problem that must be corrected is the high cost of getting elected to public office.  Our elected representatives spend ALL of their time raising funds: not governing.  This is also why lobbyists write ALL legislation: because our elected reps don’t have any time for anything but fund
raising:  whomever contributes the most money gets to author the legislation that affords their interests the greatest return, regardless of what is best for Citizens.

What is Mainstream?

Most studies indicate that Americans self-identify themselves as:

45% Conservative
35% Moderate
20% Liberal

Of course there are small variations (a couple of % at most) between categories, but this is reasonable and it has remained fairly constant over the past couple of decades.

The Main Stream Media is overwhelmingly Liberal to Progressive: print, radio and TV, except of course FNC, WSJ and a handful of others.

I realize just saying “Fox” is like waving a red flag at a bull, but please bear with me. According to media watchers, Fox viewership in many prime segments exceeds that of all of the Liberal to Progressive (CNN, MSNBC, etc.) cable channels combined. Of course, viewership is purely voluntary since none of the media outlets can compel viewers to watch. What that means is that the media can’t dictate anything to anyone. As is proven with the Progressive media, if people don’t believe what you are pushing, they simply don’t watch.

Given that there are 4 times as many self-avowed Conservatives and Moderates (those most likely to watch FNC) as there are Liberals, these viewership numbers are reasonable.

If in fact Conservatives and Moderates compose 80% of America how is it that they are continually referred to as “the fringe” by the MSM? 70% reportedly object to ObamaCare and want it repealed and replaced: how is it that these can be the “lunatic fringe” or those who just don’t understand how good ObamaCare is? Isn’t 20% more of a ‘fringe’ than 80%?

Media in this country is allegedly free enterprise, and if the market for Moderate/Conservative viewpoints is 80%, why are media promoting a Liberal/Progressive agenda that 80% don’t want implemented? Could this explain why Fox is growing explosively while the MSM are collapsing on themselves? Newsweek magazine, a staple, recently sold for $1 (and it’s sizeable debts).

If 70% of the population objects to ObamaCare, why does the president continue to promote it rather than find a different solution that accomplishes basically the same objective but in a manner acceptable to the 70% (rather than try to drive his solution down our throats)? Does he not understand that the president exists to serve the Citizen, not the other way around? Is he so presumptuous that he thinks that he knows what is best for us better than we do?

Why the Obama administration is in trouble

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303339504575565811875371180.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLETopStories

Had the elitists in DC been paying attention on any level, the incumbents would not be in the position they now find themselves in.  There has never been sufficient Citizen demand for HCR to justify the political effort, but Congress chose to ignore that and instead told us to shut up and sit down because they knew what was
best for us.

They lied to us about costs; they lied to us about coverage; they lied to us about choices; they lied to us about rationing; they lied to us about the impact on deficits; they lied to us about availability; they lied to us about who makes treatment decisions; they lied to us about posting the act on the Internet for our review before it was passed and before it would be
signed by the president; they lied to us about special interests crafting it; they lied to us about transparency; they used faulty logic to cost justify it as though we were too dumb to notice; they lied to us about federal funding for abortions; they broke major pieces of the legislation into separate acts to make it look more affordable: as if we were too blind or too dumb to
notice:  and for this we should be thankful?  For this we should return them to office?

They took a Trillion dollars we don’t have, allocated 91% of it to sustain or expand governmentand government; scheduled it’s disbursement for maximum impact at the mid-term elections; and lied that it was going to stimulate the restoration of our economy.  They made up asinine numbers of ‘jobs saved or created’ and when that didn’t flush changed
it to ‘jobs impacted’ whatever that is supposed to mean.  They lied that spending this borrowed money ould prevent unemployment from going over 8%. We told them they were lying and they called us racists for our efforts.

To advance their progressive agenda they manipulated our financial system removing long-proven qualification safeguards for borrowers; they foolishly made capital abundant and nearly free to create a predictable and devastating real estate bubble that nearly destroyed the global financial system and then blamed everyone but themselves (Barney Frank and Chris Dodd we know who you are): they broke the chain of accountability and responsibility by permitting bundled derivatives; they eliminated risk from the irresponsible
profit takers and transferred it to the American taxpayer via Freddie, Fannie
and AIG.  They restructured the American financial structure to punish their enemies and reward their friends; they stole Chrysler and GM from the lawful shareholders without just compensation; they extorted the bondholders; they suborned the bankruptcy laws of the US;
they gifted the auto manufactures to their Union supporters and foreign competitors; and then accepted millions of dollars in political contributions from these companies that are still surviving solely on taxpayer bailouts.

The Fed has been running the currency printing presses since January 2009 around the clock; they threatened the bankers and financiers that if they made risky investments (like cash flow bridge loans to small business) that they would be punished to the full extent of the law, essential shutting down the small business job incubators; they lent money from the Fed to banks at near zero interest so the banks could buy Treasuries  and thereby monetize the debt (immediately after promising not to do so); they publically castigated private sector
financial institutions but ignored identical behavior at Freddie and Fannie.  They took absolute control of government education loans and in the process gave themselves the power to direct those funds to students of their choosing without oversight or appeal.  They crafted unknowable legislation to ‘reform’ our financial system and in the process granted themselves absolute power over any privately-owned business: to modify it, destroy it, disembowel it again without oversight or appeal.  The same deviants Barnie Frank and Chris Dodd, who destroyed the financial system, were entrusted to reform it.

They gave us a disaster in the Gulf when they sold a lease that netted the federal government $2.3 BILLION but failed to provide any oversight to assure and verify compliance with Federal laws in place since March 2009 even though candidate Obama in 2007 acknowledged terminal deficiencies in MMS.  Those regulations require the federal government to have spill containment and correction resources on site when drilling is under way; but there was none.  To add insult to injury, the president denied permission for assistance offered by the world’s most qualified and experienced crews and equipment from 35 different countries rather than temporarily suspend the Jones Act and theoretically threaten a handful of Union jobs of his 2008 political contributors; giving the oil pollution time to reach the ecologically fragile rookeries and shell fish habitats. Then, over the advice of his ‘panel of experts’ the president slapped a moratorium on deep water drilling in the Gulf pending an investigation, knowing that it would send 12,000 high paying oil platform workers from the Gulf that needed that income to recover from the disaster- off to Brazil to sites funded by the IMF at Obama’s request and partially owned by one of Obama’s wealthiest
and most powerful political contributors: George Soros.

In 2008 a sufficient number of voters decided to vote for ‘change’ thinking that it couldn’t get any worse, only to learn that it could (and did) get infinitely worse.  Not only did we elect a president with no leadership experience, but he lacked respect for and any comprehension of the Constitution, free enterprise, free markets, job creation, finance, American history and the fact that free people anywhere in  the world enjoy freedom solely at the expense of American blood, sweat, and treasure.  And for that he thinks he should apologize.  What an insult to all Americans past, present, and future!

Let us all pray that we don’t make the same mistake again.  Let us pray that we weed-out all those federal officers who neither know nor respect the Constitution; and let us pray that we
replace them with humble, honest, public servants who do.  Otherwise we will be no better off than before.