It's "Time" to Live by the Compass

It's "Time" to Live by the Compass

Ever since I started doing my own personal vetting of candidates for any political office, I look to see if they live by the clock or the compass.  Those who live by the clock are always interested in just how much time they have before the next election and how much money they have accrued in their "war chests" to defeat their opponent.  Those who live by the compass, don't worry about when the next election is or whether they will win, they are more concerned with the direction the country is headed.

Even though they don't agree on some things, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul agree on one major point, the Constitution is the law of the land and must be followed.  It seems to me that those who are aspiring to be either Representatives of the people or Senators, would do very well to look at the character of these individuals to see why they are so stalwart in maintaining principles that reflect a deep understanding of the intent of the Constitution.

Living by the compass, they have seen through the smoke screen of false ideology that seems to have permeated the philosophy espoused by both major political parties.  I have heard so many times that the Constitution was a "living" document, that it has to change to keep up with the times.  This is the same kind of philosophy that doomed ancient Rome and Greece.  

These individuals espouse the fact that the Constitution was written to address human nature.  The Founders were well aware, and often expressed their feelings about what they were seeing in the person of King George III.  They knew that, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."  If you are a student of history, you will recognize this concept in both the secular leadership throughout history as well as ecclesiastical leadership during the times of the Inquisition and many other religious leaders, Christian and non-Christian alike.

As students of the Constitution; Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul recognize that the Founders were not all of the same religion nor were they all of the same political ideology.  Many were anti-federalists in opposition to the federalists.  However, all recognized that government was to be the servant and not the master.  The Constitution was written in such a way as to bridle government and rein it in when it became overbearing.  The Constitution loans the Federal Government enumerated powers so it could perform tasks that would be difficult for each state to perform independently.  Having said that, it is important to point out some of the powers that were not delegated to the Federal Government.  These three Senators have expressed concerns about these two areas of concern.

There is no provision in the Constitution to grant the Federal Government the power to regulate education.  The states and local governments were to be in charge of the education.  They would be in competition with each other to provide the best education for their citizens in order to attract people to their states.  Once the Federal Government took over the responsibility of educating all "citizens of the United States", this competition disappeared.  The Federal Government then bribed the states (with money that came from the states) to put in place programs like "No Child Left Behind" and "Common Core" which serve to indoctrinate and "entitle" students more than educate them.  (An aside, it is impossible to not leave those who don't want to learn behind without slowing those who want to learn down and bore them to death.)

General Welfare as used in the Preamble didn't mean that the Federal Government was responsible to respond to every natural disaster or calamity that happens throughout the country.  As a history teacher, I pointed out to the students that the Federal Government didn't step in to assist Chicago after the Great Fire in 1871. Neither did it step in to rebuild San Francisco after the 1906 earthquake and fire that left that town devastated.  In both cases the residents of the cities, citizens of the state, and volunteers from around the country came together to rebuild each without federal assistance.  

These three statesmen continually point out two things from the Progressive Era of President Wilson that  came together to extract more power from the states and place it on the shoulders of the Federal Government.  First, income tax was instituted by the 16th amendment to give the Federal Government power over each individual's purse strings, and second, the in-statement of Senators was changed from the legislative bodies of the various states to popular election by the people by the 17th amendment.  

You might ask how these two "progressive" ideas have served to undo the vertical checks and balances placed in the Constitution by the Founders.  In the first place, the Federal Government was to provide for its needs with impost and excise taxes.  For more than a century, this method of taxing kept the Federal Government from growing out of proportion to what was necessary to accomplish its purposes.  With the imposition of individual income tax by amendment, government could collect more than it needed.  That gave rise to the manufacturing of "needs" to which the excess money was to be applied.  

Secondly, no longer were the Senators responsible to the states they represented, but to the people of the states.  On the surface this seems fine, but the Founders knew that a popular vote for both houses would hamstring states because they would not be represented in Congress, that is why there was such a debate over the composition of the Senate and how they would be selected in the Constitutional Convention.  They were to represent the states, not the people, therefore they were selected by the state legislatures.

Now more than ever the political scene is one of competition to see who can promise more money from the non-existent coffers of the Federal Government than their competitor.  Both Senators and Representatives use the wholesale quid pro quo use of earmarks and pork barrel projects to buy votes and remain in office.  This is human nature at its worst.  Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul are the exceptions to this kind of politics and live by their moral compasses instead of the political clock of iron triangle.

Article V The Scary Alternative

Article V The Scary Alternative

1/19/14

We all have had our share of consternation about what the Federal Government has and is doing to our country.  I have heard many different options ranging from an attitude of “oh well” to civil war.  Neither of the extremes have much appeal to me.  I don’t want to succumb to the slavery that comes from a central government owning everything and telling me what I can and can’t do, nor do I want to see our land soaked in the blood of patriots and federalists either. 

One thing that has been tried unsuccessfully in the past, due to the lack of sufficient numbers of states supporting it, that can be pursued again is the only remedy that the Founders placed in the Constitution.  It is an Article V convention of states.  The reason people are scared of it is that opponents of this method of amending the Constitution have falsely insinuated that it would lead to another “Constitutional Convention” in which the Constitution would be totally discarded and a new form of government instituted.  Many say that the Progressives would turn it into a free-for-all to eliminate the freedoms that the original Constitution guarantees to the citizens of this country. 

It is time to look at the option realistically.  First, Congress shall call a convention of states only when 2/3 of the States apply for the convention using the same, or virtually the same, wording in the application.  Many think that Congress will find ways to discredit the applications if the exact same verbiage is not supplied in each.  The first hurdle that has to be crossed is getting 34 of the 50 States to apply using the identical wording in their applications.

Second, even though the convention of states is called I’m sure that Congress, who sets the date and place for the convention, will set it at the most inconvenient place and time they can.

You see, it isn’t to their advantage for amendments to be written that would limit their power and return it back to the States and the people.  The convention might do things like call for a balanced budget, term limits for both Representatives and Senators, revamp the tax system to make it equitable and fair for all citizens without Congressional interference, return the original intent of the Commerce Clause back to regulating interstate and international commerce only, and the list goes on.

Third, after the convention decides on the exact verbiage and proposal for each amendment, then the proposed amendments have to go to either the state legislatures or state conventions of all 50 States to be ratified by ¾ of the them before they become part of the Constitution.  It is very unlikely that 38 States would ratify amendments that would injure either their ability to function as states or to their citizens.  Therefore, if the worst fears of opponents to an Article V Convention of States were realized and that the convention became a runaway convention, they can still stop it by making their voice heard during the ratification process.

After having said all that, it becomes pretty clear to me that it would be nigh to impossible for an Article V Convention of States to produce anything that the people would not support and that would not be to their benefit.  I’m also thinking that, because of the progressive tendencies of the Media that they would be all over the proposed amendments like ugly on an ape (sorry PETA) and they would possibly be brought to the attention of more people than even a terrorist attack would be.  To those who have, as I have, come to the conclusion that this might be our only avenue for correcting a renegade government, without tearing this country apart in civil war, what I have presented probably sounds like an idea whose time has come.

An Article V Convention of States Project is already out there and working hard to produce the results I have described.  If you want to check it out and become a part of the solution instead of the problem, contact http://convention.movements.us/# .  It will take as much help as can be mustered to get 3,000 or the 4,000 legislative districts on the states to propose the application as discussed.  People need to become involved to ensure that the state legislators know that we have their backs and support them in their call for a convention.

A Nation Unwittingly Enslaved

In the 1950s, it was fun to participate on Independence Day.  Fireworks were of different sizes and children of all ages could fire off firecrackers, swing sparklers, and shoot roman candles up into the air.  Parents were responsible for their children and they and their children paid the consequences of misusing any of the fireworks that they played with. 

By the time the 70s rolled around, if a child got sunburned and had to have treatment for blisters on their back (second degree sunburn) and either of their parents was in the military, the parent was given an Article 15 (non-judicial punishment).  This could be as severe as a loss in pay or demotion in rank, for not having taken proper care of their children.

You see, in the military, you signed a contract that made you responsible to the government 24/7/365, so your life wasn’t your own.  You became property of the government and because your family was covered for medical care under that contract, they also became property of the government.  So if anything happened to any member of your family that was considered to be because of carelessness or neglect on your part, you were held accountable.  For instance, if your child was playing with fireworks and burnt his/her fingers and was taken to the emergency room, then the parent could be held accountable through the non-judicial punishment of the armed services.  In a civilian setting, the parent would have to pay for the visit to the emergency room and that would be the end of it.

With the advent of the “War on Poverty” started by President Johnson, this type of intrusion into private lives was spread throughout our society.  It happens this way.  When the government begins to pay for peoples housing and food, without any work/service being required of the individual to receive it, no matter how old they are, they become wards of the state.  As such, any offspring, they have also become property of the state.

In order to make sure that the “state’s property” is protected Child Protective Services was invented.  From that time on, man’s home, which was his “castle”, became a looking glass for the government to take care of its assets.  Parents were no longer able to govern in their homes as they saw fit, they had to make sure that they were governing in accordance with the way the state wanted them to or their offspring (the state’s property) would be taken from them to be raised by a state approved surrogate parent (foster care).  In stating this, this writer does not express any sympathy for any abusive parent that never learned that those given to him/her through procreation are the future of the nation and will treat others the way they have been treated.

This avenue of progress has opened the door for an abusive government to set forth a welfare system of medical care by law.  The Affordable Care Act is the government’s response to provide “free health care” to the growing numbers of people in this country who are willing to allow the government to maintain their very existence.  By default, those who are working for a living become the “bank” that pays for this “freeloader” health care system through the taxes exacted from them to support it.

How unwittingly have we become slaves to the government.  Those who are willingly receiving welfare benefits from the government unwittingly become slaves.  Those of us who, allow the government to extract from the just compensation we receive for our labors the payment for such, are enslaved because we are forced to comply with mandates of both what health care we can receive as well as how much we must pay.  Neither group is happy with the system because of the loss of freedom to choose.  The government decides who is a viable asset to the government.  Those who are not born with some sort of government defined “defect” or who are not past the age of viability will receive prime care because they are the ones who produce the most for the government.  Those who cannot produce enough to qualify as viable members of society are denied care based on the debilitating extent of their condition.  Therefore, the government gets to decide who lives or dies, something that up to now, in our country, was left up to the Creator to decide.

It is up to us, the members of this great land to decide whether we will remain slaves to an overreaching government or will return to the freedom of choice we once had as free men in a free country.  It has become very apparent that special interests have taken control of those who govern so that the voice of the people is being stifled and is not being heard at the seat of government.  The constitutional remedy for this, that is electing statesmen and not politicians to public office at all levels, is quickly being altered by those who wish to stay in power making it more difficult to seek a remedy by following the Constitution.  Nevertheless, we must endeavor to prevail through that means rather than the alternative.