The Ruby Chronicles

Independence Day and my attempt to help you understand.

2010-07-03T10:22:00.004-04:00

I'm sitting here this morning with my kids watching America Rock, of the School House Rock variety, and thought that since I've slacked for MONTHS on blogging, I could do a really small thing and help get out the word on what we're all celebrating this weekend. It might take you 15 minutes, but please watch these in the order they are listed. And have a great Independence Day (aka, 4th of July) weekend. God bless America, or whatever is left of it.

No More Kings, School House Rock

Fireworks, School House Rock

Shot Hear Round the World, School House Rock

Preamble, School House Rock

And because I'm proud of our multi-cultural heritage, a bonus to remind us that the blessings of this country were intended to be extended to all who come and make this their home.

Great American Melting Pot, School House Rock

Why I'm not posting as much lately:

2010-03-28T22:12:00.003-04:00

I truly apologize to the folks who want to read my rambling that I don't post more often. But I want to share the story behind this post.

Tonight on the phone, a close friend and associate, Kurt Feigel, and I were talking about patriots who talk a big game, but have nothing to back it up. All of a sudden, he says "Keyboard Patriots!" (He coined the term, I'm saying it here first, don't be a copycat.) Yes, that's what they are, keyboard patriots. Those folks who are willing to do their part without really doing anything at all. A few minutes later, I found this posted on his facebook page. It's hilarious and it's a video of his that I hadn't seen yet. As much as I really do love to blog, and as much as I have to say, I don't get the chance because I'm very busy. Very busy. In honor of that busy-ness, and in honor of all of those keyboard patriots (in the 5th they do exist), I give you "Keyboard Patriots" by Kurt Feigel.

The Virgil Goode Effect and VA-05

2010-03-04T19:00:00.003-05:00

Here we are, almost 3 months to the day before the Republican primary on June 8, and we are stagnant. We have a shload of candidates, a couple who have some great potential, and then there are the others who don't seem to be getting it that they are in over their heads and should drop out. Daily, there are rumors of other candidates who may be getting into the race. One of those rumored candidates is Virgil Goode, our previous Republican Congressman.

I'm at an impasse here with the whole Goode-reentering-the-race thing. To be very honest, when the prospect first really presented itself to me back in late January during a meeting with Goode, I was very excited. I liked Virgil when he was our Congressman, and I agree with him about 85% of the time. Those are pretty good odds for me, by the way. I relished the idea of him coming back in a blaze of glory, large groups of constituents fired up by tea parties, Obama administration policies, and a lib-lib-liberal Perriello smugly infesting the office that was so dutifully held by Goode. I tell you what, I have been ready for him to reenter the race! There has been back and forth debate and discussion on whether he should enter as a Republican or an Independent, and honestly, I'm of the mind that as an Independent he would hold more credibility. I'd have like to seen him reenter the halls of Congress, not beholden to any party, especially the one that blackballed him for not always going along with their policies that increased government size and spending. Screw the Republicans, that's how I felt.

Over and over again, Goode has reiterated that he would not seek the Republican nomination, and that he hoped and expected the GOP will, "...nominate somebody who has conservative values and beliefs." So are we to assume that he's leaving the door open to an Independent candidacy? What does this mean for the 5th district? Well, currently it means that we have 7 GOP candidates in the field, with only a couple of them even having real potential. It means that right now, we have people district wide that are holding out for a silent Goode, not putting needed money and man power behind the candidates who HAVE declared candidacy. I hear his a lot, "I like X candidate, but I'm really hoping Virgil gets back into the race." Read: I'm not supporting anybody, because I want to vote for Virgil. How frustrating. We have a district full of people holding out for the veritable "chosen one", who just won't confirm whether or not he's definitively in or out. Talk about frustrating.

I do have the luxury of having some kind of an inside track as to what is going on by nature of my involvement with the Lynchburg Tea Party, but what I don't know is if there is some sort of strategy involved with Virgil's non-action. I will give him big kudos to keeping up with what we are doing, who the candidates are, and staying tuned in. But I am disappointed because we have a district full of people hanging on to a dream (at this point.) I also hear that a lot of people think that there are no really excellent candidates from the pool, but I disagree. I honestly think people are just non-committal because they are waiting for Goode to reenter.

So, I implore to you Rep. Goode, please do something. Please give us a definite yes or no. If yes, come on in and join the fun. You are certain to have incredible base of support. People will love and rally behind you! If no, please just say so. Pick a candidate to endorse, or if not, please encourage some of the weaker candidates to get out, so that the cream can rise to the top. If we can't rearrange what is going on and create some order out of this chaos, we are SURE to see a Robert Hurt vs. Tom Perriello match up during the general election. Because we all know Hurt is the GOP establishment pick who will have the money and support to clear the field. And honestly, Perriello will send Hurt home with his tail between his legs. Not saying that Perriello will win, but intellectually, Hurt is by far the weaker of the two. And I don't want a weak minded, tax raising, vaccine forcing man representing me in DC.

So thus, I give you the Virgil Goode effect:

We have 7 GOP candidates, 1 Independent candidate, Tom Perriello the Democrat incumbent, and a non-committal Virgil Goode in the candidate field. At least 4 GOP candidates need to go, but they aren't. The Independent will only continue to run if Robert Hurt wins.
Virgil Goode is the beacon of hope for a lot of people in the district who are patiently awaiting his entry into the field, and who claims he will NOT seek the Republican nomination.
Too many people in the 5th won't support one of the other candidates because they are waiting on Goode. Most of the GOP candidate campaigns are stagnant because of this, and they aren't getting the money or support they need from the folks who could be picking a candidate, but are instead waiting on Virgil.
Every day that passes, we get closer to primary time, and Hurt's chances for winning are getting higher. He has support from the GOP higher ups and more "name recognition" than any of the other candidates.
Virgil, we need to hear from you. We NEED to hear from you.

#VA-05: The candidates, social issues, and being a "Constitutional conservative"

2010-03-03T15:30:00.005-05:00

I'm a bit of a Twitter addict lately, and I chose to title this entry with the Twitter hashtag that identifies the Virginia 5th District (#VA05, or #VA-05, whichever you prefer). I get most of my news and updates from the interwebs, and I like to do a lot of my communicating this way. I've been noodling around several things in my head lately. These are things that confuse, frustrate, and fascinate me. We've got a political hurricane starting to rage here in the 5th, and if we don't start gathering provisions, or just simply help people evacuate the area, we are going to see major losses for the "conservative movement". I put that in parentheses, because like many other words, this phrase has become a catch phrase and lost some of it's meaning. What in particular I'm looking for from our next representative, and from future elected officials, is someone who understands Constitutional restraint from the federal level, and limited government on a local and state level. Thus, I digress, and commence the true reason for this post.

I covered in my last post my thoughts on the most recent GOP Tea Party debate forum, and how I feel about the candidates. I also discussed who I feel are the best candidates, and who I feel needs to step down. What I want to address here is something that is a-buzz, but not on the forefront of where the candidates stand on the issues. Social issues. Ugh, social issues. What I'd really love is to not have to discuss social issues at all. It would be most delightful if we lived in a society where everyone made virtue a priority and vice non-existent, but that's not the case. We live in a world where people make choices we don't like or agree with, for whatever reason. I get that, I really do. However, we still have to live in this world with them, and it's up to us to find a way to work that angle. (I know that I make decisions that people don't like, so I'm not attempting to exempt myself here as some beacon of purity.)

I'm of the opinion that God gives us all free will to make our own decisions. That means me AND you. As far as I believe, we are accountable to one person only, and that is God. I fully understand that not everyone believes that God even exists. I do believe in the golden rule, which can reach far into any person's integrity (be they religious or not), and that is we should treat other people the way we'd want them to treat us. If that means tolerance, then so be it. If that means love, understanding, and respect, then so be it. I may not agree with your lifestyle choices, but as long as you're not interfering or imposing on my well being and liberty, then you can go about your merry way and continue to do whatever it is your heart desires. What goes on in my house is my business and what goes on in yours is your business. I may believe that you will be held accountable to God one day for it, but you may not, and that is up to each of us to reckon out in our own heart and mind. And for what it's worth as you continue reading, I believe life begins at conception and should be valued and protected, I believe that marriage is ordained of God between a man and a woman, and I believe that drugs can be detrimental to an individual and to those whom they associate with. And in the words of Forrest Gump, that's all I have to say about that.

Okay, so I know like it seems like I'm all over the place, but I do have a point. When it comes to the candidates and their cries of being "Constitutional conservatives", let's discuss for a minute what that means. I take that to mean that a person believes that the federal government is constrained by the limitation of powers given by the Constitution. It's the desire to see a rule of law, rather than rule by the arbitrary judgment of public officials. How this applies to social issues is what I want to touch. I hear a lot that sounds the same out of these candidates as to where they stand on fiscal issues, and most claim they want a balanced budget, to cut federal spending, and to reduce the size and scope of the federal government. Okay, great, I agree. But there is another element to being a Constitutional conservative who wants to reduce the size and scope of the federal government, and that is where you stand on social issues.

It would appear that our founders wanted the states to maintain autonomy, thereby giving the citizens of each state the right to decide what was communally acceptable within the borders of their state. Somehow, we've gotten to a place where the federal government has manged to homogenize all 50. Really, what is there that really distinguishes Maryland from New Mexico except the landscape and weather patterns? Can you tell me why it's more desirable to live in Virginia, rather than Washington state? Or is it? Maybe I haven't done my research, but for the average person, there aren't a lot of differences. Don't get me wrong, I know that right to work issues, taxation, and speed limits are some of the issues that differ, but for the most part, we are all kind of the same. I'd like to think that states would like to reclaim their sovereignty on all kinds of things, and right now two hot topics are the legalization of medicinal marijuana, and gay marriage. I'm okay with the states deciding, I really don't think it's a federal issue on either. Application of the golden rule? I believe the residents of another state can decide what is okay there, just as I believe at as a Virginian, I have the right to decide where I stand on what is okay here.

Okay, so as far as our 5th district candidates go, they ARE running for federal office and will have to face decisions on federally legislating social issues. I'm a states rights kind of girl, so I'd rather see our federal officials take a step back and say, "I trust Virginians to make decisions for Virginians, not people from *gasp* California or Massachusetts." Can we agree there? I think when it comes to calling yourself a Constitutional conservative, you MUST realize that limiting the scope of federal government doesn't stop at fiscal issues, it limits you on legislating social issues as well, or as I like to call it, legislating morality. The very first amendment of the constitution protects "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Your pursuit of happiness may be different than mine, and I may think your pursuits are inherently wrong, but who am I to suggest legislation that limits you. (No confusion, this all hinges on that your pursuit of happiness doesn't interfere with the personal liberties of others, so I'm not suggesting that if you want to kill people that you should be able to, because obviously that's just a dumb rhetorical argument.) And to take it a step farther, the tenth amendment which specifically states that powers not granted to the federal gov't by the Constitution are reserved to the states and the people.

Okay, there I am. The long and short of it is this: Limiting the scope of the federal government does not stop with fiscal issues. It also includes social issues. I wish the #VA05 candidates realized this. Actually, one candidate closely aligns with my line thinking here, but I'll leave that to him to discuss openly when the time and opportunity presents itself.

The 5th District GOP Tea Party Debate Forum: A synopsis

2010-03-02T09:51:00.008-05:00

Disclaimer: With this post, I am speaking on behalf of myself as an individual, as a constituent. I am not speaking for or on behalf of the Lynchburg Tea Party, Lynchburg Libertarians, or the Virginia 5th District affiliate of the Libertarian Party. This is my personal blog in which I share my personal opinion.

On Saturday, February 27 the Lynchburg Tea Party hosted a GOP candidate debate forum at Brookville High School auditorium. All seven candidates attended this debate, so thanks Robert Hurt for showing up this time. The forum was executed with excellence by the Tea Party members, and I'm proud to be affiliated with this group. However, the candidates are another story. I'd like to review the performance of each, and I'll do so in alphabetical order. For interesting coverage shrouded in snark, you can always browse my twitter feed from that night (2/27/10, starting around 7:30pm). You can also get videos of the debate on YouTube. I'll go ahead and say on the record that I'm not looking for a career politician, but it's not the biggest thing some of these people have going against them.

Ken Boyd: My impression is that he is an "Albemarle Republican", in which he would constitute as a conservative for the community in which he is in, but not so much what the rest of us in central/southside VA would consider conservative. Says he reduced the size of government in Albemarle, but taxes didn't budge in the downward direction while he has been serving on the board of supervisors up there. He also says he's a "green" type of guy: he composts and has solar panels on his house. My tweet response to that was, "Um, yay?" He blamed illegals for our high unemployment rate b/c (see his exact quote HERE.) He comes off as a typical local politician, nice enough, but I don't really feel like he connects. I can't tell you how many times I've walked by him, and made eye contact, and smiled at events, and he has made no effort to speak. Doesn't he want my vote too? I'm not sure if he really cares about constituents, or just needs a promotion. I think he would be an excellent choice for the moderate Republican voter.

Ron Ferrin: This fellow needs to pack it up and head home. He treated the forum as an opportunity to practice his stand up routine. That didn't connect with or impress me. I didn't think he was funny at all. Rather, he came off as a yuck, similar to Mike Huckabee. He said a couple of things I could agree with including education needing capitalist solutions, and that climategate was about promoting a socialist agenda. But this is where he lost me, "The thing the US military does best is kill people and break things." If you don't see what is wrong with this statement, just email me directly and we'll chat. It's degrading and offensive. As the wife of a marine vet, I can tell you that my husband took an oath to defend and protect the Constitution and our citizens, and THAT was what he did best. Please don't denigrate him and his military brothers as a bunch of mindless savages. Ferrin also made some comment in reference to OPEC, something about them "getting off the camel". A last final statement of import he made was, "The FairTax will make our taxes go fair." Wow, that is incredible insight. Ron Ferrin proved in his routine what he was, and that is a joke.

Robert Hurt: I went into the debate expecting to come out hating this guy, but I didn't. Actually, after his poor showing, canned responses, odd body language, and flawed delivery I felt more embarrassed for him that anything else. I SO wish I had gotten a photo of him holding onto the little pocket flaps of his sports coat as he talked. And then with the Bill Clinton-I-didn't-have-sex-with-that-woman hand gestures, it was just all bad. I was expecting more gusto, more passion. I didn't get it. In fact, he looked bored, uninterested, and nervous. He's another one looking for a promotion. Many, many of his responses started out, "As a member of the legislature..." I shut down after hearing that since the legislature hasn't done too awful much to help Virginia since his tenure in office. He also referred to the Tea Party movement as "ours". That's news to me since he hasn't been involved in any way, and in fact has avoided us at many turns. FYI, Hurt voted for the largest tax increase in VA history, and also for legislation that mandated young girls get the HPV vaccine. Yeah, he's a real "small government" kind of guy. *end sarcasm* In all honesty, he's the establishment pick, and really a moderate of sorts, and I urge caution to anyone looking to him solely based on name recognition or perceived legislative experience. Remember, Obama had legislative experience too.

Jim McKelvey: I started to like Jim after I saw him at a meeting in Appomattox a few weeks ago. I still like him. I think he is sincere and passionate. However, I think he needs some serious coaching on the issues and on policy. That stuff can be learned, so that's okay. I really liked that he pointed out the error of the Scott Brown election. I was saying it before he got elected, so I'm glad to hear someone else recognize the problem now (even though it's too late.) Another BIG thing I like about him is that he demonstrates a clear knowledge of how a dollar works; how it's earned, spent, or saved. One thing I'm getting a little irritated at is that he always asks the group if they know of one person in Congress who is upholding the Constitution. There are a few, Ron Paul and Jason Chaffetz to name just two. I wish instead he would acknowledge them and say he looks forward to joining up with them to expound the work they have already started. It's just a pet peeve of mine. He also comes off as angry about everything going on, which I understand, because I am too, but there comes a time to put aside the anger and focus on how to channel that anger into action. Let's hear about that. He supports the FairTax, thinks the biggest threat to national security is the current administration, and he feels at some point we need to throw the UN aside. I FULLY agree on all points.

Mike McPadden: He never fails to impress and mop the candidate floor with his extensive understanding of the issues. Mike McPadden has been my top pick for a while. I've met with him and seen him several times, and the guy just has a lot of sense. He understands the Constitution in a way that goes beyond the paper, but delves into the philosophies that inspired it. He's a military vet, and I like that too. One thing he said a couple of times during the debate that resonates deeply with me is, "Never, ever, ever, ever go against your principles." AMEN! There is not a bone of pragmatism in my body, and I'm glad to hear a candidate echo that sentiment. I was upset that he didn't happen to get the questions focused on foreign policy, but that's the way things went. He briefly touched on the Enumerated Powers Act, which would require Congress to cite the provisions of the Constitution that gives them the power to pass legislation. Another boisterous AMEN! I appreciate his reluctance to focus on social issues, and his desire to return the power of such to the states, making them a federal non-issue. For the libertarian-minded voter, or the Libertarian Party member, this is the guy who best represents your values or ideologies. This man would absolutely SCHOOL Perriello in a general election debate, and I hope I get to see that happen.

Feda Morton: I'm not sure where to even start on this one. I've been saying for a while that in order to thin the herd, Feda should seek the 5th District GOP chair instead of the Congressional seat. After Saturday, I'm embarrassed that I even suggested that. Feda's delivery is paramount to that of a middle school principle who can't get control of the kids. She looks nervous, militant, and unprepared. Her responses at the last debate made me laugh because some were just so out there. At this debate, I started to feel down right disgusted. When asked the greatest thing about America she said, "I love America because it's the greatest place in the world." Okay, um, what specifically does mean? Sounded so elementary. She thinks we need to keep working with the UN, and apparently at some point in the past has suggested mandatory military service for our youth--actually she called them "incentives". Yeah, there have been a few other people in leadership who have suggested that conscription is appropriate and those people include Che Guevara, Napoleon Bonaparte, and Hitler. Not a great idea, Feda. The one thing she said that I very much agree with is that the Department of Education being one of the worst things to have happened to America. In conclusion, Mrs. Morton really should excuse herself from the race to allow stronger and more competent candidates to take the lead, and put her endorsement behind one of them.

Laurence Verga: Oh Laurence, Laurence, Laurence. I really wanted to like him, I really did! He sure did come out into the race head strong and fast. But that flame has fizzled out miserably. I've not had the chance to talk to him one-on-one, and in that setting he may really shine. But in a group setting, he blends in, and at best, comes off as mediocre. He's got a pretty good message that sounds essentially like the rest of candidates, and I know he's got money, but he is aloof and just a little too laid back to have much presence. I wonder if he would take that lack of passion and drive to the halls of Congress? There was one thing that right off the bat gave me pause. When asked what the greatest threat to national security was, he answered that it was the people who voted for the present administration. Now, that is no way to win supporters, and really, as much as I think many people made a big mistake in voting for Obama, I in no way see them as a security threat. Maybe Obama is a threat, but not the constituency who got duped into voting for that scam artist. It's kind of like blaming the people who invested with Bernie Madoff for their losses. I have a few other concerns about Verga, and I like him, but I think he would be most effective taking a step back and endorsing one of the stronger candidates.

All in all, in my view of things, I see this as a race between McKelvey and McPadden. And a GOOD race at that. I wish we could wrap them up together and send them to Congress as a tag team. That's where I am, and I hope that you take the time to get to know the candidates and form you own opinion. Several of them are all over the district, so if they come to a town near you, RUN to them as fast as you can and see for yourself. In liberty, I am Dana.

The past month, condensed, and broken into three.

2010-03-02T09:41:00.004-05:00

I feel like I start off every post apologizing for my absence. So here it is: sorry for my absence. I'm at a point right now where busy, snowed in, frustrated, excited, and confused converge into one. Busy and snowed in both involve family, so no need for explanation there. We're also sadly anticipating a death in the family. Frustrated, excited, and confused all involve my dealings in politics.

So, the first matter of business is an excited announcement on my part. In the past few weeks I have been elected as Logistics Vice Chair of the Lynchburg Tea Party. I've also been elected as the Vice Chair of the Libertarian Party affiliate of Virginia's fifth district. I am honored and excited to serve in both capacities, in addition to my continued as the Chair of the Lynchburg Libertarians. On a Libertarian Party note, it was decided at our district convention that we would not be running a candidate for this election cycle.

I will break up the rest of my thoughts into two additional posts so that I don't make this one run on and on and on as I have a tendency to do. The first will be an evaluation of the Virginia 5th District GOP debate forum that was sponsored by the Lynchburg Tea Party this past Saturday. The second post will be my thoughts on the current state of politics regarding the 5th district Congressional election, and the who's, what's, how's, and I-don't-think-so's of the race. Stay tuned...I will be linking from this post.

My warning to the VA-05 Tea Parties

2010-01-28T10:18:00.009-05:00

Over the past several weeks, I have been lacking in the updating-my-blog department. On the other hand, I've been so thoroughly entrenched with Tea Party politics, that it's been difficult for me to pin down exactly what I felt should receive blog time from me. An incredible amount of work has been done by the Tea Parties in the 5th Congressional district of Virginia, it's hard to know where to start. If you've been following the local stories, then you know. If not, well then, I suggest you start googling.

Most recently, as of last Friday, January 22, 2010, the first of the 5th district Tea Party debates was held in Charlottesville. There were highs and lows to the debate, but mostly it was informative. The hard part of a debate between candidates of the same party is that their answers all kind of sound the same. A straw poll that has become highly contested was distributed at the event, and it showed that Mike McPadden was the clear favorite of the audience. I have to agree, I think he did a stunning job. He won me over when he made the statement that he'd "like to get rid of the department of Education." Amen and amen. I had high hopes for Laurence Verga as well, but his laid-back California boy persona didn't translate well in a forum such as this one was. Honestly, he didn't say much that stood out to me. I was pleasantly surprised by the strength of Ron Ferrin's "debate" skills, but he lost me when he said, "Tea Party people are mostly Republican". Um, no they are conservative, we are sick of the Republicans and the Democrats. Jim McKelvy was okay, and seems like a really down-to-earth guy, but he stunned me when he failed to answer the first question that asked if he could name one policy, past or present, that expanded the size of the federal government. I will say that I think he was completely and thoroughly nervous, and thus that response was born.

Needless to say, Virginia Senator Robert Hurt didn't have the nerve to show up. In early January he retracted his commitment to come to the debates. Instead, he chose to attend a BAR meeting with a bunch of lawyers in Williamsburg that night. I wonder if he was trying to do any fundraising...? And sorry, but if you want to look into this guy, you do it on your own, he gets no hyperlink from this site.

Feda Morton and Ken Boyd completely turned me off with some strange and just plain weird comments. Feda owns all of these: "If it's good enough for Davy Crockett, it's good enough for me" and "Give me liberty, give me death" (she forgot an important word here) and "I won't do it unless it's biblical or constitutional." Why does this last statement bother me? Well, as a person of faith, it is worrisome that we give someone a pass to make such a bold claim on their own religion in regards to legislating. Would I be afforded the same luxury if I were in her position and said, "I won't do it unless it's in the Book of Mormon or the Constitution", or if a Muslim in her position said, "I won't do it unless it's in the Koran or the Constitution." I'm guessing no. Faith is a personal matter to be practiced privately, and we may be influenced by our beliefs, but really her statement should have simply said, "I won't do it unless it's constitutional." And truly, the Christian faith is sickeningly subjective. How the heck do I know what her definition of "biblical" may be?? Boyd on the other hand completely set me off when he said that the Republican party needs to embrace the tea party's and bring them in. And this is my jumping off point for this post...

Tea Parties: BEWARE THE GOP. Yep, I said it. I'm no dummy, as I do realize that most tea party folks are GOPers. But let's not forget that the tea parties started in revolt of BOTH parties and their excessive tax and spend policies, specifically TARP, which was put into action during a Republican administration. It was followed up by the first stimulus package, which was under a Democratic administration. The GOP are no friends of tea party patriots. Now that we have Democrats as a super majority, people are fawning over what they think the GOP can do for them. All I'm saying is BEWARE. In Virginia, we elected a Republican governor who has already questioned the term limit restriction on our governors. (If you aren't aware of this, I strongly urge you to click the link to the story.) In Massachusetts, Scott Brown, a blatant RINO was elected with glowing applaud from Republicans country wide. Did anyone even check out this guy's record first? Obviously not. (I did.)

It has also come to my attention lately that the Franklin County Tea Party in the 5th has recently broken into two factions. One being a strongly Republican faction, and the other being a faction that is demanding principles over party. I'm also of the suspicion that if it's not already happened, we will begin to see an influx of local Republican parties/committees/etc going in gangbusters style to infiltrate the tea party movement. The proverbial fox in the hen house is all I'm saying to look out for. Anyone who comes to your tea party, and starts to push a political agenda is dangerous. The 5th district is getting ready to see the local GOP units change. The tea party folks are going in to change the make up. I think that is healthy. But to see the GOP turn it around, and do the exact same thing to the tea parties is not.

Let me guess, you're already calling me a hypocrite? I don't think so. The GOP has an agenda, and it is to get their PARTY into power. The tea party has an agenda, and it is to get conservative, principled candidates into leadership/representative roles. See the difference?

Please people, just keep your eyes open. We have a HOT congressional race going on right now in the 5th, and we must remain vigilant. It's not good enough just to get Perriello out of office, the real goal is to get a good candidate into office. Anyone who argues differently has completely lost touch with the tea party principles, and is back to where we started, back to the McCain v. Obama show down when so many folks were choosing the lesser of two evils. I didn't vote for either. I voted for the candidate with the principles I wanted, and I urge more VA-05 residents to search their souls, and do the same.

Exciting News! VA-CD6 has a Libertarian Candidate on the Ballot for Congress in 2010!

2010-01-01T01:02:00.006-05:00

As the chair of the Lynchburg Libertarians, I am so very pleased and proud to introduce Stuart M. Bain, of Salem, Virginia who will be seeking the Libertarian nomination for the Virginia 6th District Congressional race in 2010. Beginning today, January 1st, 2010, he will be collecting signatures to secure his position on the ballot. While he is not a part of my district, I am still proud to say that I've met Stuart many times, and that aside from being a great guy, he is a true champion for liberty. He not only graciously attended the Lynchburg, VA Constitution Day Tea Party I sponsored in September, but he has also been a speaker at the Roanoke, VA Tax Day Tea Party in 2009. His ideals match up with those labeled as "libertarian", and as a member of the LP, he is a solid representative, who is also a supporter of the FairTax. If you would like to follow his campaign, please visit his website HERE. You can also make a donation to his campaign HERE. You can also find him on Facebook and Twitter.

If you live in the Virginia 6th District, you will know that Bob Goodlatte, R-VA6, has been in office since 1992--which is just about 18 years. He is a moderate Republican who supports the non-liberty friendly legislative votes including:

Federal prohibition of online gambling,
the Patriot Act,
legislation allowing the federal government to negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical companies, which lays groundwork for the Obama-care HCR we are seeing now,
a bill increasing the minimum wage, which goes against free market principles.
and a 2006 bill that gave the federal courts jurisdiction in the Terri Schiavo dispute.

18 years is long enough, and it's time for a change. With an out of control federal government, and an incumbent who has a long standing record of granting more and more power to the federal government, the VA-CD6 is ready for a candidate who stands simply for more freedom and less government. Please take a minute to review Stuart's website, and may your new year bring prosperity, liberty, and happiness.

What is Left? What is Right?

2009-12-22T23:15:00.006-05:00

No, I don't mean what is left of our country, and what is the right thing to do. Well, maybe I do mean that--usually--but not in this post.

I often refer to this passage when I debate and theorize on the state of politics and political parties today. What would our founder's think about our dead locked two party system, that has American's strong armed and bullied into voting "D" or "R"? The political spectrum that our founder's preferred did not include parties, but rather the influence of power that any particular party might assume while serving. It may have looked more like a yardstick with 100% power (tyranny) on one end, and 0% power (anarchy) on the other end. The founder's objective was to find "balanced center" with "enough government to maintain security, justice, and good order, but not enough government to abuse the people." (Skousen, 5,000 Year Leap) So, in reference to left/right, Democrat/Republican spectrum that most American's adopt when approaching our current system, let me offer a bit of insight as to how how we actually got there.

Today's food for thought, taken from Cleon Skousen's The 5,000 Year Leap:

It is extremely unfortunate that the writers on political philosophy today have undertaken to measure various issues in terms of political parties instead of political power. No doubt the American Founding Fathers would have considered this modern measuring stick most objectionable, even meaningless.

Today, as we mentioned, it is popular in the classroom as well as the press to refer to "Communism on the Left," and "Fascism on the Right." People and parties are often called "Leftist," or "Rightest." The public do not really understand what they are talking about.

These terms actually refer to the manner in which the various parties are seated in the parliaments of Europe. The radical revolutionaries (usually Communists) occupy the far left and the military dictatorships (such as Fascists) are on the far right. Other parties are located in between.

Measuring people and parties in terms of political parties has turned out to be philosophically fallacious if not totally misleading. This is because the platforms or positions of political parties are often superficial and structured on shifting sand. The platform of a political party of one generation can hardly be recognized by the next [emphasis mine]. Furthermore, Communism and Fascism turned out to be different names for approximately the same thing--the police state. They are not opposite extremes but, for all practical purposes, are virtually identical.

I especially appreciate the last paragraph. How many times have you heard about FDR Democrats? Things have changed since then. Just for instance, a quick Wikipedia search for "Republican Party" turns up 5 results for the United States alone! Our modern Republican Party, or GOP (Grand Old Party--still figuring out the "grand" part), who surpassed the Whig Party to become the second largest party in modern America, has certainly changed since it's establishment in 1854, and with the election of its first president, Abraham Lincoln, in 1860. I would even argue that many Democrats would claim Lincoln represented them--hrm, Barack Obama much? To use a cliche that I've heard and even said since McCain got the GOP nomination in 2008, "I didn't leave the party, the party left me." That is what political parties do. They change, they evolve, they answer when opportunity knocks. I'm just kind of wanting to be left alone, politically, governmentally, socially, etc.

This brings me around to where I am now, politically. For these reasons, I have chosen a new political course/route/party to follow. I do not believe the GOP is the party today that it was 155 years ago. I do not believe in a party system that is static, but rather one that changes necessarily. Quite simply, the LP agrees with me most, and for that reason I continue the fight for liberty, freedom, and resistance from tyranny.

Thought of the day

2009-12-16T21:53:00.003-05:00

"America was born of revolt, flourished on dissent, became great through experimentation." -Henry Steele Commager

If nothing else, this is profound. Do not let anyone tell you that we cannot try evolve (or revolve), and that we are stuck, floundering in a broken system of which we cannot throw off the yoke. Do not let anyone lie to you and convince you that you must do things the way the system in place has you enslaved to do. Our founders didn't. They would be ashamed of the system we have let develop in America. Look to them for wisdom. Look to the documents they produced for instruction.

STOP TRYING TO CONVINCE ME TO BE A REPUBLICAN

2009-12-15T21:50:00.002-05:00

Okay, so the all caps in the title is probably inappropriate, but other than my front porch, I have nowhere else to scream it. I am sooooooooooo sick of people I know trying to convince me that becoming a Republican is the only way to have influence in politics. I cry, plead, and beg to differ. I'm going to say it one more time, because I don't want there to be any confusion, but I HAVE NO INTEREST IN BEING A REPUBLICAN. I have no interest in influencing the Republicans. I am interested in what the GOP is doing, but I AIN'T GONNA GET INVOLVED (evidenced by my decision not to attend this past weekend's Republican committee meeting, in particular.)

In the past 24 hours alone, I have been on two phone calls, and gotten one email, one from one of the VA CD-05 candidates, and the others from friends, trying to convince me that the GOP is the only way to go. Because after all, "A third party just can't win." Okay, you know what, I get that. As of right now, the LP can't win. But that doesn't mean I'm ready to revoke my membership to run to a party that can "win", no matter how corrupt, tainted, depraved, or ethically perverse they have become.

Here is how I see it. I fully believe in the existence of Satan, the devil. He's the father of all lies. He seeks to corrupt the children of men, that they might follow him and be wrapped in the chains of lies, unrighteousness, and pain. We've all heard of making deals with the devil. We succumb to his influence, and he plants in our minds the justification to sin and transgress from all things we know are right and true, and in return, he promises us that our transgressions don't really matter or that we are not accountable for those things. From the Book of Mormon, in 2 Nephi we read the admonition:

"And there shall also be many which shall say...[God] will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God. Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, false and vain and foolish doctrines, and shall be puffed up in their hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark." 2 Nephi 28:8-9

And THAT is how I view invitations to side with the GOP. When people tell me I'm in a losing battle in my third party support, what I hear from them is, "step away from your principles a little, side with those who are vain and foolish a little, integrity only goes so far." I'm not interested one iota in siding with ANYONE who is corrupt, greedy, vain, and "[seeking] deep to hide their counsels..." be it from the Lord, or from me. I don't work in the shadows. I don't hide my motivations. I refuse to be associated with any political party who does.

I feel like when you ask me to come to the proverbial "dark side", you are asking me to let go of any integrity that I have built up in myself. I feel like you are asking me to forego my principles in favor of being associated with the popular, or in crowd. No thanks. I've never been that type of person. Even when I've been part of an "in crowd" I've never really been a part. Like my "about me" section states, I'm usually outside of the box in whatever I do. I'm not afraid of being a little uncomfortable in my skin for being different. I'm not afraid of someone questioning my intentions, or opinions. I believe in what I do and say, so you will not likely convince me to join up with a group with secret, ulterior, and less than savory motives. As far as I see it, the GOP gives GREAT lip service, but produces results that are in opposition to their words. And why do you want me to be a part of that group?

It's an extremely weak argument that I should get on board with the GOP because a third party will "split the vote." Good. LET IT HAPPEN. There is no reason for any person to lose integrity, holding their nose voting for someone they do not agree with or believe in. Would you also tell me to lose my religion because it's not the most popular thing around central Virginia? Would you tell me that compared to everybody else, my religion is obscure, and surely not able to convince other people. You might, but I'd give you the exact same spiel I'm giving you here.

Until you can show me proof that the GOP is an ethically and ideologically correct group to be involved with; until you give me a legitimate reason as to why the GOP agrees with me; until you can show me that they are a party of applied principle and not power, then please stop petitioning my support. I solidified my support of the LP when I (literally) paid my dues and agreed to be a chair person for my area. It's patronizing, and a little offensive, and a lot condescending. I know you may think you know better than I do, but I reserve the right of agency and free will as of now, and I fully intend on using it.

/End rant/

GOP showing it's true colors?

2009-12-13T09:47:00.011-05:00

As per my profile, I am not a Republican. I am a Libertarian. Big "L". Card carrying. Neeeever going back. However, I am a former GOP leaning voter. I have voted D, R, and L. But mostly R. As a small child, I went canvassing door to door for Watkins Abbitt (when he was an Independent), with my father. As a teenager, I was allowed to take off from school to help man the polls, holding signs for whichever Republican candidate was on the ballot. As a college student in 1999, I volunteered my time to work on my college campus for the McCain campaign.

Then things took a turn, and I voted for Al Gore *choke, gasp* by absentee ballot as a first time voter (I turned 18 in December of 1997). In 2004, I was back to the GOP, voting for George Bush. I've attended fundraisers for Virgil Goode, the last being in summer of 2008. As far as I'm concerned, I've done footwork for the GOP. I've been active and engaged. But along the way, I've been thinking and watching and paying attention. The circumstances of my life changed. And my government-educated-fed view of the federal government changed. I stopped listening to what everyone told me I should do, and I started forming opinions on my own, based on my perception of the world around me.

In March of 2008, I officially divorced myself from the Republican party at the announcement that McCain had picked up the GOP nomination. The candidate who I formerly, and very passionately, had hoped would win the 2000 general election was now the figure who transformed my view of the leftest GOP. The most liberal and moderate of all the GOP candidates had been chosen to represent the Republican party as a candidate for POTUS. I left and never looked back. Since March of 2008, I have regularly been attending meetings at my local Libertarian Party chapter, and have since become the chair. It feels good. In 2008, I was obliged to select the LP candidates in the general election, and have written in LP candidates for the most recent governor's race in Virginia. Damn, it's liberating.

Which brings me where I am today. My latest blog post was about the Lynchburg Tea Party's bid for influence in the VA CD-5, which proved unsuccessful. On Saturday, the RCC voted, by spineless, cowardly, void-of-accountability secret ballot, for a primary vote in the 5th district. This was regardless of the outcry for convention. According to a source who arrived early at the committee meeting, the Republican committee chair's were laughing and mocking Tea Party members as they arrived. Suspiciously enough, video of the event was not allowed, and the local sheriff's department was called to come and provide...what? They didn't show up, and no one was hurt by the (insert sarcasm here) angry, blasted mob of tea party radicals!!!

Also seen was hobnobbing between the RCC's and Robert Hurt's campaign representatives. Hurt, in all smuggery, was there too. From what I hear, he had a very icy reception and dialogue with his potential, and most likely future, constituency. It is rumored that in the days/weeks leading up to this meeting, Eric Cantor, VA CD-7 and Republican whip, met with Robert Hurt's campaign to solidify the deal, ensuring a primary would be decided on, and ultimately laid claim on him as the man-boy-love-child of the GOP for the 2010 Congressional race.

I'm getting to a point, it's just taking a lot of talk to get there. Seen on the LTP's website is a short series of comments on the latest press release about the primary decision. Now, if I was a betting woman, I'd say that one of the committee chairs decided to pick this fight. Also, this may be a troll, and if so, then what I'm about to say is null and void. Whoever it is chose to stay anonymous and hide behind the safety of their computer screen, the same way the RCC hid behind their secret ballot. The anonymous option has now been changed so that ID is required--gotta keep people honest, you know. The first comment reads,

"If you haven't done a thing to support the 5th District Republicans while they put up signs and manned the polls. What makes you think you could just go in there and try to ride rough shot over the TRUE workers for Conservative Ideals? Attending a TEA PARTY does not give you the right to tell them what to do. If your truly american patriots. THINK about the TROOPS who can now VOTE!!!"

Further commentary, from whom I'm guessing is the same person says,

"Oh I guess that you need to be a self absorbed Tea Bag in order to have an opinion. You got what you deserved. Verga Supporter"

Please excuse the poor grammar and punctuation; these are copied and pasted directly. Now, it's interesting to me that the commenter would make that claim, seeing as how other comments, nor anything on the blog, has mentioned Verga. However, the blog posts have been signed in my name because I own the blog, which I'm working on moving to another location so it's not personally mine. In the week leading up to the Saturday meeting, I contacted all of the local chairmen, and as per my previous post, you can see the chilly reception and responses some of them provided. I was asked by Tim Boyle of Mecklenburg in an email response to provide the candidate I was supporting. My reponse was,

"At this point, [I] do not endorse any candidate fully, but [am] very interested in Verga."

I see no other way for anyone posting comments to have any idea about any support of any candidate of any LTP member, other than through this email. Or maybe from another LTP member's email. I don't know. I'm just speculating here, but my guess is that it is Tim Boyle of Mecklenburg (see my previous blog post again.)

The comment that we should most be worried about is this one, "Oh I guess that you need to be a self absorbed Tea Bag in order to have an opinion. You got what you deserved. Verga Supporter". The GOP needs to understand, deeply and fully, what power the Tea Party harnesses. A recent Rasmussen poll showed that in a random poll of voters, asked who they would likely vote for, gave "Democrat" 36%, "Tea Party" 23%, and "GOP" 18% (another 22% are undecided). These guys ought to be shaking in their boots and trying to find a way to harness the support of the Tea Party. Instead, they...wait for it...it's gonna shock you...act like DEMOCRATS, trying to ridicule the Tea Party folks and undermine their efforts. Guys, you just don't get it, and that's why you get these type of results in polls like this.

I'm glad I left my support of the GOP behind when I did. I'd be embarrassed to be associated with a group of jokers like this at this point. The GOP is eating itself from within, with pride and greed. For the most part, the GOP has been hijacked by the Moral Majority/religious right. Many GOP members claim to be Christians, and use social issues (i.e. abortion, gay marriage) as part of their platform. Aside from these social issues, and getting back to the "eaten with greed and pride" part, let me remind you what the Bible says about these things. Then will you take a minute to see if you are practicing what you preach? Or are you getting sucked in to dirty, sleazy politics.

My call? The GOP has become a bunch of modern day Pharisees. Politics has become a religion. Leaders have become idols. And we are warned to watch out for these things, and associate ourselves not with them. Maybe it's time for a little perspective.

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 2 Timothy 3:1-5

Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. 1 Corinthians 5:10-11

For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. 1 John 2:16.

Primary wins

2009-12-12T21:02:00.002-05:00

So, regardless of the upset that is going on in the VA05, and regardless of 75% of the folks at the meeting wanting convention, the good ol' boys network we have going in the 5th district handed us a secret ballot primary vote, on a crap covered platter. I've not supported the GOP for a while, and this is just another reason why. From Bill Hay's, Jefferson Area Tea Party leader who has issued a campaign endorsement for Laurence Verga, blog:

GOP Good Ole Boys Draw Line In Sand

This afternoon the business as usual Republican unit chairs of the 5th district chose to ignore the outcry from the grassroots and majority of congressional candidates and voted for a primary to decide the 5th district GOP congressional candidate. The vote was not even close with 19 voting for a primary and 13 against.

With over a hundred guests attending the 5th district meeting this afternoon, a significant majority of whom showed their desire for a convention, and with all but one candidate in attendance the chairs chose to ignore the people. The only reason I can come up with why they would vote this way is because this group of 19 believe that they are the party and resent any interference from outside groups. They must believe because they have been involved for so long in party politics they do not have to listen to anyone else. The problem with this is that it is these very people that have gotten the Republican Party in the condition it now finds itself. A minority party with no convictions or direction.

With this vote the counties of the 5th district which are currently in a financial crisis will be required to spend tens of thousands of dollars they do not have to hold a primary. This coming from a political party that promotes itself as fiscally conservative. The Democrats as well as Perriello are going to have a field day with this, they must be celebrating this evening.

This committee has just turned it’s collective backs on the grassroots and this will cost them dearly come next November. This vote was a blatant move to promote a method of nomination that favored the southside and the NRCC’s favorite son Robert Hurt. Just because there are many Republicans out there that don’t mind voting for the lesser of two evils they are mistaken if they think that this movement that has grown over the last eleven months are willing to do the same thing. I am a conservative before I am a Republican and there are thousands out there just like me. The GOP has again handed over the district to the Democrats.

GOP Stinks on Ice, And It's Spreading to the Local Tea Party

2009-12-11T14:54:00.007-05:00

It's been October since I've posted, and even then there wasn't much content. I've been busy. Like some of my older posts, I continue to offer the excuse that I've been busy with the Lynchburg Tea Party and the Lynchburg Libertarians. Not to mention I have a house to run, that includes 2 children who run over me. I'm a busy girl, so I've decided to hand over the LTP leadership to a close friend and patriot.

As the LTP moves into it's next phase of activism, I'm finding issues of principle within myself that I can't compromise. The latest campaign by the LTP involves getting into and taking control of the local GOP. While that is all fine and good, and I agree changes on a local level need to happen, I'm left without a dog in this fight because I am a big "L" Libertarian--meaning I'm a paid party member.

During the last LTP event in September that I organized, I had a few run-ins that left me more than a little agitated. In the days leading up to the event, I was contacted by Feda Morton, who insisted that she come and be able to speak at the event. If I can dig up the emails, I plan to post them. She insisted that she come and tell the tea partiers how they should vote and participate in order be effective in getting good leadership to DC. Right.

In the hours leading up to the event, between my greeting speakers, giving interviews, and event setup, it came to my attention that the local GOP was there. Not only were they there, but they had also setup campaign tables for McDonnel/Bolling/Cuccinelli literature and campaign propaganda. I was floored that they were there. Not only had they NOT been invited, but they hadn't asked permission. So I thought. I asked what they were doing there, and then asked them to leave. I got a flat "No." I was then told they had permission to be there. Hmmmm, by who? George Caylor, a speaker at the event, and also someone who was instrumental in getting the location secured, had apparently invited them to come, obviously without informing me. When I asked him about their presence, the response I got was, "How long have you been in this business." My response was that I was trying to change "this business."

Now here we are, almost three months later, and we are still talking about the GOP in the LTP. I'm just over it. The way I see it, what is happening here is exactly what the media has predicted. The GOP has/will take over the Tea Party movement. Well, that may be the case, but I'm jumping ship before that happens. I'm a Libertarian, and I'm sticking by my principles. I have a lot to say on this, and it will probably be another blog post tomorrow. I need to get it off of my mind.

What the LTP is currently doing is a campaign to take over the local GOP. Tomorrow the RCC is having a meeting to determine whether or not there will be a convention or a primary. I decided to be active in it, so I sent out an email saying, "We are 5th district residents, and we're hope you all are seriously considering a convention over a primary for the 2010 GOP Congressional candidates. It's our understanding that holding a primary could cost somewhere around $20,000 per county for the taxpayers--that's us! Please consider the cost in these economically hard times when individuals and localities don't have much to go around. Thanks so much!"

What I got back was a bunch of emails pretty much telling me to go to hell since I'm not a GOP member. I have SOOOOO much to say on all of this, but to avoid making this a 10 day worth of reading post, I'm going to share with you the blog post I've made for the Tea Party site that I has gotten the veto from sharing there. So I'm doing it here, where it is not official LTP material.

BELOW is the blog post I want to share on how the GOP is handling outsider involvement in their electoral process:

If you've been following our latest email campaign to get involved with the VA 5th District Republican Committee decision to hold a convention instead of a primary, I think you'll be interested to know how these committee chairs are responding. These are just a few emails that folks have received in response to the requests they've sent for the RCC to consider a convention over a primary. Particularly disturbing is the anger and lack of concern for taxpayer cost exemplified in the responses from Eric Winslow of Farmville, VA.

"Who are you backing for the position?" --Tim Boyle, Mecklenberg

"If you are not a part of either party, and adamantly claim not to be, then why on earth would you be attempting to influence the nominating process of either party? And why would you hold debates of just the republican party candidates? With utmost respect, Adam (Erby)." --Adam Erby, Lunenburg

"Are you a republican? Do you belong to a committee? Where have you been in the past? Why the care now? How many school board, county board and city council meetings do you attend? How much time and money do you donate to the GOP? AND MOST OF ALL who is your candidate in this race?" --Eric Winslow, Farmville

"I know everyone is concerned about the cost. Is the state and locality going to send back my money, and your money if we vote for a convention? With the money we save from a primary will the state pay for everyone to attend the convention?" --Eric Winslow, Farmville

Email replies also include very poignant references to only paying Republican party members being able to give input at the meeting this Saturday. Also, most replies ask outright if you are a Republican or not. Last time I checked, a primary--which many RCC's "supposedly" support--would favor voters of all parties, so I'm not sure as to why it would matter. Also, the committee chairs are very interested in who YOU are supporting for the nomination. Do they think we are being put up to this by a campaign? Or are they seeing that many folks in the 5th district are not necessarily plugging for Rob Hurt? They must not understand the role of the Tea Party movement.

I'm not sure what the problem is, or why the apparent defensiveness. As far as I know, most of our patriots who have been in communication have been open and honest about their intentions. These kind of responses really seem to indicate some sort of agitation the committee chair's are experiencing because of the sudden bit of interest in the process. Could it possibly because under NRCC pressure, a primary is already the favored route? NotAndySere, political blogger and commentator, seems to think so, see his explanation HERE.

Sunday Funny

2009-10-11T11:30:00.002-04:00

Something funny for your Sunday. SNL sides with the terrorists--Mock's PresBO's Nobel Prize. I might just start watching SNL again.

10th Amendment vs. The Fed

2009-09-28T19:38:00.003-04:00

Inspired by this article that I received in a Twitter update from @ClydePRM2, writer for the Philadelphia Conservative Examiner and the Patriot Room (excellent reading and commentary all the way around), I decided to write a letter to my state delegate, Watkins Abbitt about sponsoring or supporting a push from Virginia state delegates to do the same. Since I know you probably don't want to have to click and read an entirely different article just to know what I'm talking about, I'll give you a short rundown. Many state legislatures are proposing an amendment to their state constitution that would ban any requirement that people must purchase health insurance or pay a penalty. Essentially, this is the 10th Amendment versus the Fed.

And a little FYI, the 10th Amendment is the one that protects state sovereignty from the federal government. It 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. " Pretty simple and straightforward, huh?

Here is the letter that I sent to Delegate Abbitt. I encourage you to send the same or similar letter to your own delegate. Since our federal representatives of the liberal persuasion aren't listening to us, I guess we have to do some heavy foot work on the state level. Enjoy!

Hello Del. Abbitt,
I'm very much against the federal takeover of the health care system, as you know many in our district are. I'm also very much interested in how the state legislature can be involved in invoking 10th Amendment rights which protect state sovereignty from federal legislation. I've been following the nationwide "revolt" against Obama's Health Care Reform (socialized medicine), and I'm aware that many states are now prepared to challenge the Constitutionality of this reform from the federal level. It appears that several states are looking to amend their own state constitution by adding an amendment that would outlaw the requirement that everyone buy insurance or pay a penalty.

For example, Arizona has plans to add this amendment to ballot measures in 2010 (Arizona's HCR 2014). This would certainly set off a battle over the rights of states versus the reach of the fed. I'm not sure that would be a successful battle, but it would certainly be one worthy of looking into for the potential to send a powerful and symbolic political message to the power hungry mongrels in Washington, DC. It would also rally the support of conservative constituents who are loudly begging for help from their representatives in protecting their rights!

I'm asking you to please take the time to look into this and consider taking similar measures for Virginians and specifically for those in your district. I am certain that other state delegates would also be on board for this. Politically, I think this would be an excellent move and one that would help you gain more constituent support in future elections. Ethically, I think this is the right thing to do. People are desperate for strong and bold representation. Thanks for all you do!

What Republicans could learn from Democrats

2009-09-25T09:16:00.002-04:00

I'm going to keep this short and sweet, because if you don't understand this, then you need to get your head out of the "political" ground.

Republicans could take a lesson from Democrats. I'm talking about Republicans on all levels: local and county, state, and national. What you do to have success is harness in outside groups with their own private agendas, then make your agenda theirs. Not the other way around. DUH.

I'm baaaaack. Kind of.

2009-09-01T15:31:00.005-04:00

Where am I? What am I doing? Why no ranting and blog posting?

I've been busy organizing a Lynchburg Constitution Day Tea Party.

I've also been busy talking to folks about the Tea Party.

I've also been busy attending Town Hall meetings, in Bedford and Appomattox.

I've also been busy writing "letters to the editor" (titled, The Problem with Politics).

So that's where I've been. Once the insanity is over, I'm back, because I have a few choice words to share about my Congressman, Tom Perriello.

Emotion, please excuse yourself.

2009-08-02T21:42:00.005-04:00

Everyone feels before they think; the non-rational emotional reaction comes before the more rational secondary one. Obviously this principle is in overdrive effect for hard line party loving liberal Democrats, (and many Republicans if we want to be completely honest). In this, we can understand the need for PresBO to rush through most of these "emergency" measures we've seen during this first year of his presidency. I can hear it now inside the oval office..."Act quick before they have time to think about it!" And just think, that goes against PresBO's statement that, "Any bill that comes before me I want the public to have 5 days to review it online." HA! How long did it take for him to renege on that one? And why? Read this. It would appear that our Congress and President are packaging and then trying to sell a product as fast as they can according to some important rules of marketing based on emotion.

I'd like to share a FB showdown I had recently with a lib who I don't know. I was asked by the OP to jump in and share my $.02. So, I'd like to share what emotion does to an argument. It takes out the logic, replaces it with delusion, and puts a pretty pink bow on top with a tag that reads, "I'm covering my ears and singing lalalalalalalalalalala!" It was based on a link the OP shared about the 5 freedoms we'll lose with health care reform, with her comment that, "President Obama's health-care platform is a revolution, all right, but in the wrong direction." I'm going to skip a few of the comments that were made before I started jumping in. I will call the kool-aid-drinking, man-love-for-Obama-having lib "S".

S: Hmmm. . . I would look at it this way--I would force younger healthy people to help pay for the healthcare for old poor people just as I would force older wealthy people to help pay for prenatal care for women who don't have access to it now. force force force. your sales taxes and income taxes go to all kinds of things that you might not like. I'd be at peace with paying more for some type of taxation if I knew that in our nation we'd have a more fair & open system of healthcare.

Me: Wow. Force? Really? Since when did compulsory/forced collection of taxes for health care become constitutional? I think Stephen makes some great points, taxes DO go to all kinds of things we might not like, which are generally entitlement programs, which are also not built into the framework and structure of our constitution. But hey, who uses... Read More that old rag anymore anyway? The problem that I get into is that there is no one-size-fits-all definition of fair. Our gov't/constitution is not set up to legislate moral issues. The constitution was designed to protect rights, not to grant them. In that, how do we identify what is "fair". Health care is now seen as a "right", when it reality, it's a luxury. It is. Tell me how taking money from any group of people to pay for the "needs" of another promotes or protects liberties and freedoms. I really don't even understand how this is a discussion we are having as a country.

S: If healthcare is a luxury, and not a right, what should Americans who are destitute do if they protract illnesses or are in accidents?

Me: Private charities are a GREAT and FAR more efficient way to provide for people in need. Maybe they could handle it? Or maybe the gov't could step out of the "fairness" industry, let go of some of the crippling regulation, and let the private sector do what it does best. Just a thought.

I think this article is all about freedom anyway. I'm just not seeing how compulsory/forced abdication of taxpayer money, and the work and effort of people in the healthcare industry, by the federal government, is seen as freedom or as fair.

The founders felt it would be corrupt to the country as well as to the poor for the federal government ... Read Moreto become involved in public welfare. And in fact, no Constitutional authority exists for the federal government to participate in charity or welfare. In Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution, it does say that we are subject to taxes. But it is also stated in Ammendment V that no private property can be seized for public use. Does this make taxation (seizure of private funds) for the purpose of providing government (public) assistance to the poor unconstitutional? Are these in direct opposition to what our president elect feels is "good for everybody"? I think so.

S: well, I wish you the best of health, especially if your vision comes true and you were not to have health insurance for whatever reason, but I myself do not want to rely upon the possibility that there might be a private charity to help me out if I or a loved one of mine is sick. Do you realize what happens today if a person is destitute and they need to get preventative care? largely they don't receive that care. That person will have an utter health catastrophe later on for something like diabetes, high blood pressure, et cetera. That person will arrive in the ER at the nearest hospital, where no one will pay the hospital for the care that person receives. then the hospital has to raise the prices of goods & services it provides. . . to you and me, who have health insurance today.

Me: But you are willing to rely on the federal gov't who can't make a program run efficiently to save it's/our's/our future's life (medicaid, medicare, social security, the public education system, just for a few examples)? If a person is destitute, there is already a program called Medicaid--which is already poorly run. Just today I talked to a friend on medicaid who had to wait a month on a waiting list just to get a routine OB ultrasound. And THAT is preventative! Explain to me why the Walter Reed facility for troops can't pass inspection, but the St Judes children's hospitals put out some of the best care possible. I'm sorry, but you're argument just isn't convincing.

S: Hmmm. . . well, I have worked in a private insurance company and I can tell you that I have no doubt that Medicare & medicaid can provide health insurance benefits more efficiently. I have worked at a private school, and gone to a public school, and have much more faith in public schools in this nation than many private ones. Study after study have concluded that Medicare may have waste in it but that that waste is quite small compared to what for-profit insurance companies have built into their processes. I am sorry that your friend had to wait a month for an OB US, but honestly, didn't your friend get an OB US that she was not able to pay for otherwise? An OB US done a month late is far better than nothing done. I'm happy to pay for that OB US. (Ultrasonography is actually an art form more than a science--have you ever watched an ultrasonographer?) Walter Reed may not pass inspection, but the VA in general is far better care than many civilians get, which is none.

I stepped away here because it was obvious I was talking to someone who has existed in an alternate reality, or maybe even a different dimension altogether. I'm just convinced that you can't convince some people. Pride and emotion seem to be far greater enemies than our federal government. Doesn't the Bible say something about that?

As far as I'm concerned, the God that I know and trust gives us agency and liberty, the freedom to choose. Even our founder's knew that some rights were inalienable, that were endowed by our Creator, however you choose to describe or subscribe. History has shown us time and time again that tyranny, which is the opposite of liberty, will usually become the way of the land, as a way of the world. The first Epistle of John warns us very clearly about going with the way "of the world". In fact, there are several admonitions in this very chapter that make me ponder on our current situation with our current leaders. Just something to ponder on if you are into that type of thing.

Over and out.

Tea is my drink of choice

2009-07-06T22:49:00.009-04:00

Okay, so I really don't drink tea. I'm Mormon. BUT, I'm definitely not drinking America's most popular drink of choice, koolaid. I was fortunate to be able to attend the Washington, DC Tea Party on Independence Day and I captured several images on my phone--so the results are less than stellar in the photo quality department. Alas, I am committed to serving the hungry reader, so I come. More Commentary coming later, but for now, photos. I've translated for photos where the writing is hard to decipher...

Arrival at Union Station

At the Tea Party outside of the Capital Building...

"Evil thrives when good people do nothing"

(Two of my personal favorites.)

Check is written out to: "The burden to the citizens of the USA and their posterity"
Drawn from: "Federal Reserve Banking System"
Note: "Payment towards socialism and the end of the Constitution."

Why women should support gun rights

2009-07-02T10:27:00.004-04:00

Got this photo in an email forward, and I think it says it all...

In case you can't read it, it says...Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

Call in totals for VA Senators Webb and Warner RE Cap and Trade/Socialized Medicine, Jul 1, 1009

2009-07-02T09:46:00.004-04:00

So yesterday I got an email alerting me to call Senators Webb and Warner's office to speak out against cap and trade. So I did. I called back today to find out the totals and I'd like to share.

For calls made on 7/1/09 to Senator Webb's office in Richmond, ph 804.771.2221:

Cap and Trade received 150 calls AGAINST, and 0 (zero) calls FOR.
Socialized Medicine received 126 calls AGAINST, and 10 calls FOR.

For calls made on 6/29-30/09, and 7/1/09 to Senator Warner's office in Richmond, ph 804.739.0247:

Cap and Trade received 100 calls AGAINST, and 13 calls FOR.
Socialized Medicine received 44 calls AGAINST, and 13 calls FOR.

When I called Warner's Richmond office and asked for the totals, I was told that there would be no way to know what the totals were since all the offices state wide were receiving calls. I then explained that I was told yesterday that the totals were being sent to DC last night, and that if they indeed were sent to DC, then surely they would be able to gain access to what those totals were. She then gave me the DC number (202.224.2023) and told me to call and find out from them. I called the DC office, and of course it rang and rang and no one answered. *eyeroll* So I called BACK to the Richmond office and received these totals. Whatevs...

I'm such a skeptic.

Teach your children well.

2009-06-24T13:56:00.007-04:00

One of the goals and accomplishments of our founders was to ensure that each community had a school house in which all children of the community could receive education. These schools were not free. Teachers had to be paid, and/or provided room and board from folks in the community in exchange for their teaching services. If the school needed something, the families attending made it happen. This was before we were all taxed in order to force compliance.

Similarly, but on the contrary, (a paradox, yes), in the Communist Manifesto (I own this and it's scary how similar we are) the tenth condition necessary to have a valid socialist society reads, "Free education for all children in public schools." According to the Future of Freedom Foundation, "Other famous supporters of public education include Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Mao Zedong, Mussolini, and every other 20th-century dictator, as well as virtually every politician throughout the entire world. It is thus truly amazing that private education has not been almost completely eliminated by now." (Click here to read the amazing article in full: Socialism Lives in Public Schools.) I'm not amazed at all, because most "private" educational facilities receive, in some form or another, government grants or assistance. What this means is that the institutions receive this money in agreement that they will comply with gov't regulations relating to their education programs. I'm hoping you already knew that.

Today's schools, be it public or private, already require children to participate in fundraisers to bring in funding for school programs. I remember as a kid, lugging around a box of candy bars begging people in my neighborhood to buy them. Whoever sold the most won a prize of some sort, and your hard work as a candy bar sales person paid off--kind of, I guess. *shaking head in confusion* Either way, you either sold candy bars or you didn't. And you either got rewarded for your effort, or you didn't.

I guess my beef in this post is all about FLO (first lady O), and her trip this week to Bret Harte Elementary to kick off a new "volunteer" program. Hold on to your hats, comrade, because here comes brainwashing at it's finest. Apparently, the school is doing some refurb work, including a new playground with a garden and farmer's market built in. So what does this have to do with the kids? Well, it is a public school, already receiving public funding (including money coming from folks who don't access or utilize the school's "services"--another post altogether), and now the children have to put in manual labor, work as sales people, and then turn the money back over to the school? HUH? Alas, comrade, we have arrived, and are presenting the youth for training. The lesson learned through this new "volunteer" program?

1. Attend public school, which is reviewed, regulated, controlled, and accredited by the federal government.

2. Work in said school's small "labor field" (read: garden) according to school's instructions.

3. Harvest the fruits of your work.

4. Turn harvest back over to school's "farmer's market".

5. Be employed by school's "farmer's market" in order to sell goods that you grew, then harvested.

6. Collect any money in sales and return the money to the school.

7. What the hell is going on.

Dangit, I'm so tired of logic being enshrouded by emotion. Do I think voluteering is good? Heck yes! When it's done of your own free will! Do I think refurbishing a playground is good? Yes! When it's done with the budget already set that is taken from us involuntarily anyway (which is again another post), and doesn't force our kids to work for a gov't to earn it--wow, that almost sounds like communism, hrm. Do I think a garden is good? Yes! When we teach kids that they can sew, grow, reap, and benefit on their own volition, and not at the will of some larger entity--like a gov't run school. Do I think the principles of "the sale" is good? Yes! And when true capitalism and free market principles are taught, rather than a do-good-at-your-expense-and-for-the-benefit-of-your-brother mentality are gone, I'll stand up and sing "GARDENS AT EVERY SCHOOL" from the rooftops. This whole project just goes right along with the O-regime's goal of turning us all into robot-citizens who function and perform for the good of the ~~government~~ community. Forget individualism and self, we are to become collectivists. I can see us now like characters from Ayn Rand's, Anthem <--please click this link, you HAVE to understand this novella. If we're headed that way, I'm claiming my name now! I'm going to be Liberty-3326 (hey, I love liberty, and that's the last 4 digits of my cell number!)

I'd like to share some song lyrics from a most liberal point in time--think Nancy Pelosi hippy/free love days. I'm seeing a message so sweetly sung that would certainly be the proverbial stranger offering candy to a child to lure them into captivity.

Teach Your Children
by Graham Nash

You, who are on the road must have a code that you can live by.
And so, become yourself because the past is just a goodbye.

Teach, your children well their father's hell did slowly go by and feed them on your dreams the one they pick's the one you'll know by.

Don't you ever ask them why if they told you, you would die so just look at them and sigh and know they love you.

And you (Can you hear and)
Of tender years (Do you care and)
Can't know the fears (Can you see we)
That your elders grew by (Must be free to)
And so please help (Teach your children)
Them with your youth (You believe and)
They seek the truth (Make a world that)
Before they can die (We can live in)

Teach your parents well their children’s hell will slowly go by and feed them on your dreams the one they pick's the one you’ll know by.

Don’t you ever ask them why if they told you, you would cry so just look at them and sigh and know they love you.

Following up on Conspiratheory.

2009-06-14T14:35:00.004-04:00

Every couple of weeks I receive a really interesting read in the form of an email from a libertarian friend in Virginia named Chuck Angier. He is an author for NolanChart.com and always has really interesting tidbits and pieces of various things. Just today I got an email from him that immediately took me back to yesterday's blog post. This is an article published last week by Newt Gingrich. Now, I'm not the hugest Newt fan, but I can't let a good point go past without pointing it out. I'm just going to quote for you a portion of Newt's post, and if you'd like to read more, you can follow this link to his original article. The following is an excerpt from his article:

June 10, 2009 | Vol. 4, No. 23
Once, We Would Have Called It a Scandal
by Newt Gingrich

There was a time when we would have called it a scandal.

In 1921, oil tycoon Harry Sinclair gave several prize head of cattle and around $269,000 to President Harding's Secretary of the Interior, Albert Fall.

In return, Sinclair got the exclusive rights to drill in an oil field in Wyoming. Sinclair's no-bid contract became the Teapot Dome scandal, the most notorious example of political corruption in America prior to Watergate.

Between 2000 and 2008, the United Auto Workers (UAW) union gave $23,675,562 to the Democratic Party and its candidates.

In 2008 alone, the UAW gave $4,161,567 to the Democratic Party, including Barack Obama.

In return, the UAW received 55 percent of Chrysler and 17.5 percent of GM, plus billions of dollars.

But nobody's calling this a scandal. It's time we start.
2000-2008 UAW Giving: $23.7 million to Democrats. $193,540 to Republicans

To read the rest, please click HERE.

There is more going on than we acknowledge. My dad used to say, "If it looks like poop, smells like poop, and tastes like poop, then it's probably poop." I have to say that nothing about this administration looks, smells, or tastes good to me.

You can sign up for Chuck's emails by contacting him at cangier@pmtnet.net.

Conspiratheory.

2009-06-13T14:00:00.008-04:00

Gas prices go up every summer, every time someone visits the middle east, at every prediction of a hurricane, and whenever OPEC claims a "cut back" in production. Mmm, yeah. You know, these are only a few reasons why gas prices go up. I'm not really convinced that there is a good reason for gas prices to shoot up 80% in a matter of weeks. No, I take that back. I give credit to the logic of supply-and-demand. I do. I think prices of anything should/will go up when demand goes up and supply goes down. Buuuuuut, I'm not really convinced that is the case here. In fact, I'm wondering if the recent events in the fuel market maybe doesn't have something to do with the whole ~~Government~~ General Motors rigmarole going on. At this point, nothing can/will/does surprise me that this administration will do to accomplish their goals of "remaking America".

So, I had this thought that I'm calling a conspiratheory. I'm not saying it's conspiracy, but it's more like a theory for tying together the PresBO administrations plans for helping unions, controlling the automotive industry, "helping" the environment, and ultimately controlling the energy sector too. Here's my perspective...

It's been only a short few months, and already PresBO has paid back the unions for all their help and support in getting him elected. Since the unions pretty much already controlled the automotive industry, PresBO has made that calling and election sure by giving them a large and controlling share of GM (stats are: 17.5 percent of its common stock, $6.5 billion of preferred shares and a $2.5 billion note to fund a trust that will take over retiree health care costs starting next year.) And just for good measure, the UAW received 55% of Chrysler. Along those same lines, the government, I mean, taxpayers, also "own" a large controlling share as well. Check, and check.

I've already seen the commercials that the "new GM" will start producing fewer lines of vehicles that are more fuel (read: energy, green) efficient. I have a rant in and of itself here. Consumers want big honking SUV's. Some people want smaller cars, of which are vastly available, but now the gov't wants to limit consumer choice (again)? Way to be intuitive. No, I'm wrong, it's not intuition. It's nanny-state-ism. [In my best demeaning voice...] "Now you silly little people, you don't really want those big, yucky SUVs, do you? They are so big and mean, and you must hate polar bears because everytime you drive your SUV it's like you're killing 47 tiny, little, cute, helpless polar bears." (I just threw up a little in my mouth.) Okay, back to my point...This satisfies the administrations need to fill his promises to the whole "green movement" and the lobbyists that also helped him get elected. Not to mention is satiates the many sheeple in this country who are arrogant enough to actually believe they are powerful enough to effect the biosphere and natural eco-rhythms of this earth. (ETA: This is a link to a great article by Ron Paul on this very issue; Statement on Global Warming Petition Signed by 31,478 Scientists.) Check.

Banks were the first industry to go down, then the automotive industry, and energy will come next, (then health care, then the food industry--mark my words). It's a natural progression of things. Get hold of the money, get hold of a major American industry (which also supplies a major investment and means of transportation in most US families), and next get hold of what actually makes us go. And do it all for our own "good". I very likely think that health care and food will come after energy, since, of course, it food is the means of energy for each and every one of our bodies and affects our health. We're already seeing NY state put a crazy tax on soft drinks b/c they are baaaaaaaaaaaaad for us. *eyeroll* Wow, I'm so way off point. Okay, so consumer energy is next.

Wouldn't it make sense that since the PresBO admin is going to start telling us which cars are available that they would also be able to start telling us what, how much, and at what cost the gas that goes into those cars is available? Maybe this current rise in gas prices is just an effect of summertime. I just don't think so; I think the timing is a part of this all--gas prices went down as soon as PresBO got into office, then as soon as he buys the auto industry, they go up again?? I think we are seeing small parts and pieces of a much larger picture, but just like socialism, it's going to creep into our lives, homes and psyches a little piece at a time. All the while, we gov't educate our kids by that same gov't who is taking away our liberty and freedom. And educate them according to gov't standards that pump out good little comrades who will seek to serve and work for the benefit of the whole, forgetting who they are and how to think in the process, and neglecting to be fed the ideals and education of the forefathers who shed their blood to bring about the goodness of this country.

Any thoughts? Am I crazy? Do I have a good point? Do you even care?

John Galt is the Antithesis of PresBO

2009-06-09T14:27:00.004-04:00

Okay, so I have been away for a while. No, I haven't been away, just kind of checked out. I've got too much going on in my house (kids), around my house (garden), and otherwise (don't even want to start that list). I've been kind of emotionally distant from what is going on politically. I'm mentally checked in...I think. Alas, I lay in bed most nights thinking of great quips and editorial speech to add to this rambling I call a blog, but they are mostly fruitless. I can't tell you how many blog posts I have started, and saved only a sentence or two to come back and complete later. Maybe instead of writing new stuff I need to finish those...hrm.

Okay, so in this post I am going to do two things out of the ordinary for my blog, and something that bothers the poop out of me when others do it. First off, I'm going to actually spell out the name of our president--don't blink, you might miss it! Then I'm going to copy and paste an entire article from another author. Atlas Shrugged has a newly revived pulse that is beating hard and fast. It's on Amazon's best seller list, for the first time I think. If you have read Atlas Shrugged, and can't see the parallels with our society now, something is wrong with you. I wish I could have illustrated these parallels better than this fellow, but he does a bang-up job. May I present for your reading pleasure and though provocation an article by Chris Knudsen titled, "John Galt is the Antithesis of Barack Obama". Please note that the date of release is before the general election.

John Galt is the antithesis of Barack Obama

Posted by Chris Knudsen on October 27th, 2008

As I view our current situation and look at the world we now live in (and are about to give ourselves), I cannot help but think of how prophetic Ayn Rand’s epic tome, Atlas Shrugged, really is.

We were hit today with an audio clip of Barack Obama lamenting the fact that the courts hadn’t done more to “redistribute wealth”. Is anyone really surprised by this? What’s even more ridiculous than this further admission is the media’s continual debate that these comments may or may not constitute “Socialism”. Redistribution of wealth is one of Socialism’s main pillars. Under Socialism, all are equal in social status. No need to try. No need to be different. No need to excel. Cradle to grave government sponsored programs and on and on…

Regarding Socialism, an article in Wikipedia provides this definition:

“Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution which represents the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.”

Capitalism - and more specifically entrepreneurship - is part of what makes us special. No, its not a perfect system but its superior to Socialism and its big brother, Communism. Capitalism is about the individual being free to succeed or fail. Capitalism is one of the pillars of a free society. Capitalism Is about being free of oppression and limited government interference. Its about risk, innovation, and free thought.

Put another way, Rand simply classifies Socialist as “looters”. Is there any better description of Obama’s scheme to “redistribute wealth”? Socialism and Capitalism cannot exist together. One will eventually over power the other. You simply cannot expect to mix water and oil to get gold.

I also found this quote from former LDS President, Ezra Taft Benson, that seems appropriate here:

“The Lord raised up the Founding Fathers. He it was who established the Constitution of this land—the greatest document of freedom ever written. This God-inspired Constitution is not outmoded. It is not an outdated “agrarian document” as some of our would-be statesmen, socialists, and fellow travelers of the godless conspiracy would have us believe. It was the Lord God who established the foundation of this nation; and woe be unto those—members of the Supreme Court and others—who would weaken this foundation.” (”America—A Man and an Event” 1150)

Indeed. If we are to be a great society once again we need to drop ideas like wealth redistribution and re-adopt the principles of the Constitution - a document that politicians and bureaucrats have basically put through the paper shredder.

So, what would John Galt, the fabled hero of Atlas Shrugged, think of the idea that mankind achieve an egalitarian utopia through unconstitutional actions such as “redistribution of wealth”? This is John Galt’s famous mantra from the book:

“I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”

Amen.

Who is John Galt? Elect Barack Obama and you might find out.

And I still have several "Who is John Galt?" stickers left. For any comments left on this post that I deem insightful, knowledgeable, or worthy, I'll send the commenter a free sticker. More editorial on this article coming later.

My Title of Liberty

2009-04-16T21:44:00.005-04:00

For those who aren't familiar, the Book of Mormon is an account of the prophecies of the birth of Christ, Jesus's visit and ministry to the people who inhabited Central and South America after his death and resurrection, and their experience living the Gospel. The Book of Mormon covers more than a thousand years in time, from before the coming of Christ, to after his death. In as much, there are various tribes of people (like in the Bible) that are a part of the work, these include the Nephites (usually the "good guys" in the Book of Mormon), Lamanites, Zoramites, etc.

So, if you will be a teensy bit willing to learn some Book of Mormon trivia, you might learn something that can actually apply to right now, this day and age, YOUR LIFE! I'd like to share with you the story of a great hero named Captain Moroni. Captain Moroni (c. 100 BC-56 BC) was an important Nephite military commander and patriot who lived during the 1st century BC. He is perhaps best known for raising the "Title of Liberty" as a call to arms for his people to defend their country, family and religion. Captain Moroni is presented as a righteous and skilled military commander. Among his accomplishments were his extensive preparations for battle and his fierce defense of the right of the Nephites to govern themselves and worship as they saw fit.

According to the Book of Mormon, Moroni was "only twenty and five years old when he was appointed chief captain" of the Nephites. The appointment came in response to a looming war with Lamanites and Zoramites, a force which was led by Zerahemnah and included many Nephite dissenters. The Lamanite army attacked the Nephites in the land of Jershon and the battle ended on the banks of the river Sidon. In this war, Moroni set to work readying the Nephite people with body armor for the first time. He sent spies to investigate the Lamanites' weaknesses, following which he led his troops with the plan to surround those of the Lamanites. The entire time, his objective was to defend his people and their right to worship their God as they pleased. Ultimately, Moroni met this objective, which resulted in keeping many of the Lamanites from ever coming to combat against the Nephites again.

Moroni is usually associated with the "Title of Liberty", a standard which he raised to rally the Nephites to defend their liberties from a group of dissenters who wanted to establish their leader as a king. Moroni was so angry with Amalickiah's dissention and wicked influence that he rent his coat and wrote upon it, "In memory of our God, our religion, our freedom, and our peace, our wives and our children". With these words, he rallied his people to defend their families and their freedom, chasing the armies of Amalickiah away in the process. Any dissenters that remained, Moroni put to death, and raised up the title of liberty upon every Nephite tower, having been granted power from the chief judges and people to do such things.

This can be found in The Book of Mormon, Alma 46.

Okay, so now that we have that all understood--right?--I'd like to recommit to my own personal title of liberty. This blog, this life that I live, these words that I record are all a commitment and in memory of my God, my religion, my freedom, my peace, and my family. What more can we ask from and by liberty? What more can we commit to? What more can we do to preserve freedom and preserve this country as our divinely inspired founders intended it to be. God bless America, and God bless you for reading this!

Disclaimer: Much of this is directly copied and pasted from a Wikipedia article about Captain Moroni. I'm thankful for those who have put the work into writing out the summary of this Book of Mormon story.

My advice for those who die, declare the pennies on your eyes

2009-04-07T14:29:00.003-04:00

I had an epiphany today as I drove my child to preschool. Not really an epiphany I guess, but some song lyrics came to mind. Now, these lyrics were written by a band out of Liverpool, England. These four guys knew what it was like to live in a stuffy political, social, and financial atmosphere. So much so that they penned a short song, with catchy riffs, and simply stated lyrics. May I present, Taxman, by the Beatles.

1,2,3,4,1,2

Let me tell you how it will be,
There’s one for you, nineteen for me,
‘Cos I’m the Taxman,
Yeah, I’m the Taxman.

Should five per cent appear too small,
Be thankful I don’t take it all.
‘Cos I’m the Taxman,
Yeah yeah, I’m the Taxman.

(If you drive a car car), I’ll tax the street,
(If you try to sit sit), I’ll tax your seat,
(If you get too cold cold), I’ll tax the heat,
(If you take a walk walk), I’ll tax your feet.

Taxman.‘Cos I’m the Taxman,
Yeah, I’m the Taxman.
Don’t ask me what I want it for(Ah Ah! Mister Wilson!)
If you don’t want to pay some more(Ah Ah! Mister Heath!),
‘Cos I’m the Taxman,Yeeeah, I’m the Taxman.

Now my advice for those who die, (Taxman!)
Declare the pennies on your eyes, (Taxman!)
‘Cos I’m the Taxman,Yeah, I’m the Taxman.
And you’re working for no-one but me,(Taxman).

Man, does this feel familiar or what?!

A Time for Choosing

2009-04-06T16:07:00.009-04:00

I have no idea why I'd never heard this before until just recently, because it is true genius and inspires the pure love of liberty. Please take the several minutes required to read through this.

What is this? This was the nationally televised speech given by Ronald Reagan and sponsored by and given in behalf of Barry Goldwater's 1964 presidential campaign. To a significant degree, Ronald Reagan's election to the presidency stems from this speech. The speech remains amazingly fresh as a statement of modern American conservative philosophy four decades after it was delivered. Barry Goldwater is a champion and hero of conservatives, Libertarians and modern day Sons of Liberty USA-wide--and can you believe he came out of California?? I hope this will ring true with you and inspire you to seek out those men and women and put them into office, those who will represent you, and seek to preserve the liberty and freedom we love and so often take for granted in this country. Let's send a message. Let's listen to this one.

Thank you and good evening. The sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn't been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks.

I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used "We've never had it so good."

But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn't something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector's share, and yet our government continues to spend $17 million a day more than the government takes in. We haven't balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We have raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations in the world. We have $15 billion in gold in our treasury--we don't own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are $27.3 billion, and we have just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value.

As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We are at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it has been said if we lose that war, and in doing so lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well, I think it's time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.

Not too long ago two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, "We don't know how lucky we are." And the Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are! I had someplace to escape to." In that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth. And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except to sovereign people, is still the newest and most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election. Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.
You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down--up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order--or down to the ant heap totalitarianism, and regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the "Great Society," or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a "greater government activity in the affairs of the people." But they have been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves--and all of the things that I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say "the cold war will end through acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism." Another voice says that the profit motive has become outmoded, it must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state; or our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century. Senator Fullbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the president as our moral teacher and our leader, and he said he is hobbled in his task by the restrictions in power imposed on him by this antiquated document. He must be freed so that he can do for us what he knows is best. And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as "meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government." Well, I for one resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me--the free man and woman of this country--as "the masses." This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, "the full power of centralized government"--this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.

Now, we have no better example of this than the government's involvement in the farm economy over the last 30 years. Since 1955, the cost of this program has nearly doubled. One-fourth of farming in America is responsible for 85% of the farm surplus. Three-fourths of farming is out on the free market and has known a 21% increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce. You see, that one-fourth of farming is regulated and controlled by the federal government. In the last three years we have spent $43 in feed grain program for every bushel of corn we don't grow.

Senator Humphrey last week charged that Barry Goldwater as President would seek to eliminate farmers. He should do his homework a little better, because he will find out that we have had a decline of 5 million in the farm population under these government programs. He will also find that the Democratic administration has sought to get from Congress an extension of the farm program to include that three-fourths that is now free. He will find that they have also asked for the right to imprison farmers who wouldn't keep books as prescribed by the federal government. The Secretary of Agriculture asked for the right to seize farms through condemnation and resell them to other individuals. And contained in that same program was a provision that would have allowed the federal government to remove 2 million farmers from the soil.
At the same time, there has been an increase in the Department of Agriculture employees. There is now one for every 30 farms in the United States, and still they can't tell us how 66 shiploads of grain headed for Austria disappeared without a trace and Billie Sol Estes never left shore.

Every responsible farmer and farm organization has repeatedly asked the government to free the farm economy, but who are farmers to know what is best for them? The wheat farmers voted against a wheat program. The government passed it anyway. Now the price of bread goes up; the price of wheat to the farmer goes down.

Meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal the assault on freedom carries on. Private property rights are so diluted that public interest is almost anything that a few government planners decide it should be. In a program that takes for the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such spectacles as in Cleveland, Ohio, a million-and-a-half-dollar building completed only three years ago must be destroyed to make way for what government officials call a "more compatible use of the land." The President tells us he is now going to start building public housing units in the thousands where heretofore we have only built them in the hundreds. But FHA and the Veterans Administration tell us that they have 120,000 housing units they've taken back through mortgage foreclosures. For three decades, we have sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan. The latest is the Area Redevelopment Agency. They have just declared Rice County, Kansas, a depressed area. Rice County, Kansas, has two hundred oil wells, and the 14,000 people there have over $30 million on deposit in personal savings in their banks. When the government tells you you're depressed, lie down and be depressed.

We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion that the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they are going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer and they've had almost 30 years of it, shouldn't we expect government to almost read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?
But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater, the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well, that was probably true. They were all on a diet. But now we are told that
9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than $3,000 a year. Welfare spending is 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We are spending $45 billion on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you will find that if we divided the $45 billion up equally among those 9 million poor families, we would be able to give each family $4,600 a year, and this added to their present income should eliminate poverty! Direct aid to the poor, however, is running only about $600 per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.

So now we declare "war on poverty," or "you, too, can be a Bobby Baker!" Now, do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add $1 billion to the $45 million we are spending...one more program to the 30-odd we have--and remember, this new program doesn't replace any, it just duplicates existing programs--do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic? Well, in all fairness I should explain that there is one part of the new program that isn't duplicated. This is the youth feature. We are now going to solve the dropout problem, juvenile delinquency, by reinstituting something like the old CCC camps, and we are going to put our young people in camps, but again we do some arithmetic, and we find that we are going to spend each year just on room and board for each young person that we help $4,700 a year! We can send them to Harvard for $2,700! Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency.

But seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help? Not too long ago, a judge called me here in Los Angeles. He told me of a young woman who had come before him for a divorce. She had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning $250 a month. She wanted a divorce so that she could get an $80 raise. She is eligible for $330 a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who had already done that very thing.

Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we are denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we are always "against" things, never "for" anything. Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so. We are for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we have accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.

But we are against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those who depend on them for livelihood. They have called it insurance to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified that it was a welfare program. They only use the term "insurance" to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is $298 billion in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble! And they are doing just that.

A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary...his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee $220 a month at age 65. The government promises $127. He could live it up until he is 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now, are we so lacking in business sense that we can't put this program on a sound basis so that people who do require those payments will find that they can get them when they are due...that the cupboard isn't bare? Barry Goldwater thinks we can.

At the same time, can't we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provisions for the non-earning years? Should we allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn't you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under these programs, which we cannot do? I think we are for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think we are against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as announced last week, when France admitted that their Medicare program was now bankrupt. They've come to the end of the road.

In addition, was Barry Goldwater so irresponsible when he suggested that our government give up its program of deliberate planned inflation so that when you do get your Social Security pension, a dollar will buy a dollar's worth, and not 45 cents' worth?

I think we are for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we are against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among the nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world's population. I think we are against the hypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony, while we engage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of people enslaved in Soviet colonies in the satellite nation.

I think we are for aiding our allies by sharing of our material blessings with those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs, but we are against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. We are helping 107. We spent $146 billion. With that money, we bought a $2 million yacht for Haile Selassie. We bought dress suits for Greek undertakers, extra wives for Kenyan government officials. We bought a thousand TV sets for a place where they have no electricity. In the last six years, 52 nations have bought $7 billion worth of our gold, and all 52 are receiving foreign aid from this country.

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this Earth. Federal employees number 2.5 million, and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation's work force is employed by the government. These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man's property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury, and they can seize and sell his property in auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chico County, Arkansas, James Wier overplanted his rice allotment. The government obtained a $17,000 judgment, and a U.S. marshal sold his 950-acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as a warning to others to make the system work. Last February 19 at the University of Minnesota, Norman Thomas, six-time candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said, "If Barry Goldwater became President, he would stop the advance of socialism in the United States." I think that's exactly what he will do.

As a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn't the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration. Back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his party was taking the part of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his party, and he never returned to the day he died, because to this day, the leadership of that party has been taking that party, that honorable party, down the road in the image of the labor socialist party of England. Now it doesn't require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? Such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, inalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment. Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and I believe that this is a contest between two men...that we are to choose just between two personalities. Well, what of this man that they would destroy? And in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear. Is he the brash and shallow and trigger-happy man they say he is? Well, I have been privileged to know him "when." I knew him long before he ever dreamed of trying for high office, and I can tell you personally I have never known a man in my life I believe so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing.
This is a man who in his own business, before he entered politics, instituted a profit-sharing plan, before unions had ever thought of it. He put in health and medical insurance for all his employees. He took 50 percent of the profits before taxes and set up a retirement program, a pension plan for all his employees. He sent checks for life to an employee who was ill and couldn't work. He provided nursing care for the children of mothers who work in the stores. When Mexico was ravaged by floods from the Rio Grande, he climbed in his airplane and flew medicine and supplies down there.

An ex-GI told me how he met him. It was the week before Christmas during the Korean War, and he was at the Los Angeles airport trying to get a ride home to Arizona for Christmas, and he said that there were a lot of servicemen there and no seats available on the planes. Then a voice came over the loudspeaker and said, "Any men in uniform wanting a ride to Arizona, go to runway such-and-such," and they went down there, and there was this fellow named Barry Goldwater sitting in his plane. Every day in the weeks before Christmas, all day long, he would load up the plane, fly to Arizona, fly them to their homes, then fly back over to get another load.

During the hectic split-second timing of a campaign, this is a man who took time out to sit beside an old friend who was dying of cancer. His campaign managers were understandably impatient, but he said, "There aren't many left who care what happens to her. I'd like her to know I care." This is a man who said to his 19-year-old son, "There is no foundation like the rock of honesty and fairness, and when you begin to build your life upon that rock, with the cement of the faith in God that you have, then you have a real start." This is not a man who could carelessly send other people's sons to war. And that is the issue of this campaign that makes all of the other problems I have discussed academic, unless we realize that we are in a war that must be won.

Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us that they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accommodation." And they say if we only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he will forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer--not an easy answer--but simple.

If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based upon what we know in our hearts is morally right. We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion now in slavery behind the Iron Curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skin, we are willing to make a deal with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Let's set the record straight. There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace--and you can have it in the next second--surrender.
Admittedly there is a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson in history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face--that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight and surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand--the ultimatum. And what then? When Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we are retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary because by that time we will have weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he has heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he would rather "live on his knees than die on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us. You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin--just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well, it's a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." There is a point beyond which they must not advance. This is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater's "peace through strength." Winston Churchill said that "the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits--not animals." And he said, "There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.

Thank you very much.

It's all doom and gloom...usually.

2009-03-30T13:43:00.003-04:00

For the past week or so, well, periodically and frequently it seems lately, I get kind of down in the dumps. For lack of more descriptive words, things just seems kind of hopeless for the future. The future seems an enigma, something not to be reckoned with, and somewhat of a black hole. I try not to let my despair get me down to the point where my need and yearning and desire for activism also tanks. Between getting the word out for our local tax day Tea Party, making a firm commitment to attend my local Libertarians meeting coming up, and my sick love affair and devotion to watching Glenn Beck every night, I try to make sure that I take time and appreciate the things in my life that are still within my control, and take stock of those things. So this brings me back to the black cloud that has been over my head lately.

I absolutely don't want this post to be more of the usual doom and gloom, but rather a reminder of what the substance of my life means, and why it is important that we all reevaluate this at times. Yesterday at church was an off-scheduled fast and testimony meeting--off-scheduled because we usually have it on the first Sunday of the month, but next Sunday is General Conference, so it was moved back a Sunday. When LDS fast, we generally turn our hearts toward God with something in particular that may be weighing on our minds and hearts. Usually fasting is accompanied by fervent and more direct prayer for special situations or concerns. I've gotten in a habit of not really having a specific reason to fast, but yesterday was different. As I fasted, I really asked God to take away this black cloud from me, to help me see the good, and return to the usual good cheer and energy I try to have about me. Simply said, He heard my prayer. By the end of the day I was feeling better. But even more so, as what I feel was a direct answer to my prayer, I received a rather thoughtful and heartfelt email from my husband this morning. (Sorry, Gid...hope you don't mind me sharing!!) Talk about being blessed to have a good husband...I really could not ask for someone with a more intent or pure heart.

I'd like to share this with you in hopes that if you are feeling down, irritated, angry, disenfranchised, or even hopeless, that there are things around you and about you that mean more than all of this nonsense going on in our country. This is copied and pasted exactly as I received it...

What I'm thankful for:

-My marriage to you
-Our beautiful, sweet children
-Our membership in the church
-The time I'm able to spend with you and the kids
-Tithing...it always seems to help us make ends meet
-Discovery of my love of reading
-The scriptures
-Garden
-Viable transportation
-My calling (it's kind of neat sometimes to think that God trusts me enough to keep me for so long)
-The desire to never settle. To try and better myself through my faith and career.
-To have your support with the decisions that I make.
-For our home
-The relative comfort of our lives
-To still be employed

These are only a few

Lately, I have really been feeling more and more like Kira's boyfriend (not the communist one) from We the Living. I know that sounds weird but I can't help but feel like my desire for progression is being shut down. I remember trying to put myself in his shoes as I read and how dreadful of a feeling it can be. And now I'm seeing the same thing go on now. What was always taught to us growing up about working hard and achieving and seeing the fruit of your labors seems to be a thing of past. It's being replaced. It's all about fairness now and the ironic thing about it is that there's absolutely nothing fair about it. Hoping not to sound too dismal, but it is pretty depressing. It sucks to have done everything the right way, just to have it not pay off. I think if I had not tried as hard, I would be content with my lot in life. I hope I don't sound too ungrateful, but I truly believe in the pursuit of happiness. And right now in this society, it is being decided for me. BUT, I realized something today. Actually I've always known it but it makes more sense to me today. In the areas of life that I can't progress, I can ALWAYS progress in my life when it comes to my devotion to you and to our faith. I can always see the fruit of my labor
with those things.

But here's the thing, although I may feel like there is a dark cloud overhead that I just can't shake, there are things that bring me undeniable happiness. Some more than others. That's why I made this list. I know I seem to get down at times but it's not you or the kids. It's the things that are happening that I cannot directly control. I guess the problem is not so much that I'm dwelling on the negative as much as it is that I truly believe in what this country was founded on and what it means to be free. I love you and I want you to know that there are so many things that I'm grateful for. But most of all, I'm grateful for you and the kids. In the grand scheme of things, what it boils down to is you, the kids, and our faith. Nothing else matters. I love you.

He's the greatest. I love having a mate that is as passionate about liberty, free agency, and God as I am. And it also helps that a few weeks ago he went and bought something I've been asking for for a while: a 9mm Luger. Ahh, such is love.

Economically and Morally Bankrupt.

2009-03-18T14:00:00.005-04:00

I have this constant internal struggle of being able to discern good from evil. In the world we live in we have made it hard to know the difference sometimes. I live a pretty decent life. And in decent, I mean that I walk a very straight and narrow path. I live the laws of the 10 Commandments. I strive to be an example of Christ. I subscribe to the scriptural law given in the New Testament, Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and those according to covenants I've made in the Temple. Not to exclude no drinking, no smoking, no drugs, no cursing, no R-rated movies, no coffee, no tea, no clothing that comes above the knee or shows the shoulder or the breast--no excess really in much that I do. This is by choice that I do these things, for I fear the temporal consequence, and relish the eternal reward. I believe that faith without works is dead. Translation? You can have all the faith and profess all the love and knowledge of Christ that you want, but until you live His law and show obedience, your words mean nothing.

So what in the world does all this have to do with politics, the Constitution, or anything else I write on? Well, a lot. The Constitution is only workable insomuch that we strive to be people of integrity. As a subheading in The 5000 Year Leap says, "A Free People Cannot Survive Under a Republican Constitution Unless They Remain Virtuous and Morally Strong." The founders knew that a nation could only be as strong as the the moral strength of the people who goverened it. So how do we excuse ourselves and our leaders from such things?

During the American Revolutionary era, Thomas Paine, author of Common Sense, claimed that most people were "industruous, frugal, and honest," and also gave heed that very few people of his time had been corrupted with riches and debilitated by "luxury, indolence, amusement, and pleasure." Now, I'll have to admit, I'm far more a fan of the technology and conveniences we have luxury of in our day and age, but the principle remains the same. When we become spoiled, we become brats. Self-righteous, whiny, covetous, complaining brats. We no more appreciate a cell phone than we do the invention of the wheel. I feign to argue that covetousness is a virtue. Rather it is quite the synonym of greed, which is also neither a great moral quality to posess.

The 9/12 Project

2009-03-17T11:32:00.003-04:00

There are some basic and essential principles that I live by. Most of them I've adopted because of my religious faith and the values upheld by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Others of these principles I live because it just makes sense to me. I very often feel like I'm the only one who believes like I do. Or really I feel like I'm the only one who really wants to talk about it. It seems that it's somehow taboo, or something...to talk about my values, like "I'm too good" or something in line with that mentality. Too often in our society, it's more acceptable, it makes people feel better, if you come DOWN to their level, rather than try to bring them UP to yours. Misery loves company maybe? I don't know.

But I do know this. Something is happening. Something in our country is stirring up. It's being talked about in church hallways, when friends come over to visit, on the internet in chat rooms and on blogs, on Facebook. It's a low, constant hum, a buzz that is permeating into our consciences'. I can't speak for anyone else, but for me this started sometime during the last presidential race. It started back during the primaries. Of all the major two party candidates, I really had no dog in the fight. It wasn't until McCain was chosen as the Republican nominee that it hit me. None of these main stream jokers represented ME. They didn't represent what I stood for or what I wanted out of a president. The closest I got was Bob Barr, whom I proudly voted for, but obviously we see how his campaign ended up.

I'm convinced that many people felt the same way I did, and do. Someone in particular who has the voice, the face time, and the coverage to actually talk about it OUT LOUD where we can all hear it is Glenn Beck. We started watching him a few years ago after we happened to catch a snippet of one of his radio shows on the way home from church on Sundays. Then we found him on CNN. I think his transformation has followed the same course as mine, as millions of us. And in this spirit of confusion, disinfranchisement, and frustration he has done us all a great service by creating the 9/12 project. It's also the We Surround Them project.

This is a movement worth being a part of. There are no party lines here. We are not D or R or L or anything else; in fact, it's completely non-political. We are Americans who yearn for the real deal--we want an America that is supported and functions by the Constitution. This is a group of millions of Americans who are finding each other, banded together by their love of the US, and a real desire to see the country be as strong as it was the day after 9/11--thus, the 9/12 project. There are 9 principles and 12 values that define the core of the movement. These are principles and values that, if we want a better USA, we must commit to living and believing. Only then, after a fundamental and personal commitment, will we begin to see the paradigm shift the people of this country so desperately want and need.

I urge you to visit the 9/12 project site, check if often, commit to sharing the message with others, and find out how you can be an agent of change. God bless you, and God bless the USA.

It's been 2 weeks...

2009-03-10T14:40:00.004-04:00

It's been two weeks, and only one response for the John Galt sticker giveaway--and that was my loyal hubby. Now pardon my vent, but I'm thinking that there were NO other replies because 1) no one read the blog and saw the giveaway, 2) it was hard for readers to sit down and actually take a minute to do it, or 3) apathy.

Now, #1 I can understand. If no one read, no one knew. But I know that's not the case. I had feedback on this, but still only one reply. #2 I don't really get, because seriously, it only takes a minute to write down how you feel. #3 I don't get at all. Actually, if apathy is the case, then you should probably find a new blog. I'm not interested in "tickling the ears", or in this case eyeballs, of readers. I want to encourage difficult thinking, thoughtful discussion, and strength in resolve in others.

Apathy is understandable though. That's really how we've gotten to where we are in this country. We are indifferent. We don't really care. We want someone else to take care of our problems. We elect a socialist/Marxist and put all of our "hope" into the "change" he promises. Well, hold onto your hats folks, because it's coming. You want change? You're going to get it. Wanna give up and sell out your liberties and freedoms? You've got the man in office to do it. So, congratulations folks, you are getting exactly what you want! There are so many folks manning the proverbial watch towers out there in our society, calling it as it comes, but many are going unheard. Many are being accused of being too sensational. Many are being accused of "complaining". And some are STILL being accused of being racist. *MAJORLY ROLLING EYES ON THIS LAST ONE* Hello out there, when did objecting to political action become a race issue? I'm still waiting for an answer on that one.

But back to apathy. It's not advisable or affordable to be apathetic at this point in the game. We are on the cusp of a major shift in the fundamentals of this country. I, for one, am not a supporter of this shift. It's time for a neo (meaning "new")-revolution. One that will take us back a hundred years or so (politically, not technologically). No, probably something closer in history to the political climate our ancestors enjoyed before the Civil War. A time of responsibility, accountability, self-sufficiency, and a time of small government and free market. What a dream! What a wish! It feels to me that we are in WAAAAAY to deep to get any of that back without a major collapse of what we know as politics and government now. And just to think, we *might* be able to get there if we could allow our banks and major industries to fail, as they should--it's capitalism! Survival of the fittest usually ensures that the one who is the best will reign supreme and endure to the end. I'm way off on a tangent now.

So, all that being said. Congrats to my husband! You have not only won a sticker, but you have also saved me the cost of sending the darn thing!

Contest is still open. And remember you DON'T have to have read Atlas Shrugged, even though it might help you gain a better appreciation of what the message of the sticker means.

Coming soon. I'm giving away my copy of Atlas Shrugged. Stay tuned...

Atlas Shrugged Inspired Blog Giveaway

2009-02-24T10:36:00.008-05:00

I've been busy lately stimulating the economy the old fashioned way: buying things. I've been creating a new and improved bedroom for my daughter, so my thoughts have been on the light and refreshing things of interior design. Please excuse my absence of deep and introspective political and social insight.

That being said, I'd like to pump some new ideas and inspiration into this blog. I've been inspired over the last several months by Ayn Rand's brilliant novel, Atlas Shrugged. Too much is going on around me to NOT acknowledge that fiction is becoming truth, and truth is becoming fiction. So, starting today, for the next 10 weeks, I am going to be doing a weekly giveaway inspired by Atlas Shrugged.

I'll be asking you to post, comment, or even contribute to this blog. You can email me content that I can repost on my blog or just post a comment to this blog entry. I want to hear your stories. Tell me about your experience reading Atlas Shrugged; what you learned, what you loved, what you hated, if you were astonished, if you were frightened, if you were fortified. You can also tell me what you are doing to preserve liberty and prosperity. Tell me what your plans for the future are. Tell me how you intend to protect yourself and your family from the social state that is closing in all around us. You can even tell me how very wrong I am for all the things I say and write on my blog. I want to hear it all! I will be choosing those entries that I find most compelling. What I really want to know is, who is the proverbial John Galt?

So what am I giving away? It's not much, but it's my way of creating awareness and provoking questions. Winners will receive a roughly 3x5 inch vinyl sticker asking the elusive question: Who is John Galt? These can be put anywhere (home, office, car; easy to apply and not permanent.) I will be giving away 1 sticker a week for the next 10 weeks. You are eligible to win every week. The text will be white and there will be no border. It will appear as floating text, and not as a square sticker. I've already got one sporting proudly on my vehicle.

So now start thinking and let's hear what is inside of you.

So when did Congressmen become strippers?

2009-02-08T15:00:00.009-05:00

So when did Congressmen become strippers? Well, now that I've effectively caught your attention, I'll get on point. I'm not talking about exotic dancers, who also share an affinity for one of life's lower professions that brings in nothing but dirty money and are predisposed to a life lacking morality. Well, now that I put it that way, maybe they are more like exotic dancers than I thought. What I'm talking about is the Congress' ability to strip us of our rights. In this post, I'm talking 2nd Amendment rights. (Note: for this link, there is a neutrality dispute on Wikipedia about this article, but to me it seems pretty fair and historically accurate.)

The original 2nd Amendment distributed to and ratified by the States read, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (The copy passed by the House and Senate contained different punctuation and capitalization.) Infringement...hmmm, now what exactly does that mean? Infringe: 1. violate 2. act in defiance of 3. encroach; trespass. This link also provides some history on gun ownership rights. Okay so now that that's over with, let's discuss the latest attempt to "infringe" on this 2nd Amendment right: HR 45 Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, presented on January 6th by Bobby Rush of Illinois. (Is it just me, or do a lot of the ~~dictators~~ leaders coming out of Illinois somehow come off as liberal fascists?) Click here for the full text of the bill. I'll provide you with a short summary, also found here:

HR 45 Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009

Congressional Research Service Summary

The following summary was written by the Congressional Research Service, a well-respected nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress. GovTrack did not write and has no control over these summaries.

1/6/2009--Introduced.
Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 - Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to prohibit a person from possessing a firearm unless that person has been issued a firearm license under this Act or a state system certified under this Act and such license has not been invalidated or revoked. Prescribes license application, issuance, and renewal requirements.
Prohibits transferring or receiving a qualifying firearm unless the recipient presents a valid firearms license, the license is verified, and the dealer records a tracking authorization number. Prescribes firearms transfer reporting and record keeping requirements. Directs the Attorney General to establish and maintain a federal record of sale system.

Prohibits: (1) transferring a firearm to any person other than a licensee, unless the transfer is processed through a licensed dealer in accordance with national instant criminal background check system requirements, with exceptions; (2) a licensed manufacturer or dealer from failing to comply with reporting and record keeping requirements of this Act; (3) failing to report the loss or theft of the firearm to the Attorney General within 72 hours; (4) failing to report to the Attorney General an address change within 60 days; or (5) keeping a loaded firearm, or an unloaded firearm and ammunition for the firearm, knowingly or recklessly disregarding the risk that a child is capable of gaining access, if a child uses the firearm and causes death or serious bodily injury.
Prescribes criminal penalties for violations of firearms provisions covered by this Act.

Directs the Attorney General to: (1) establish and maintain a firearm injury information clearinghouse; (2) conduct continuing studies and investigations of firearm-related deaths and injuries; and (3) collect and maintain current production and sales figures of each licensed
manufacturer. Authorizes the Attorney General to certify state firearm licensing or record of sale systems.

Okay, so why should you even care? You don't even own a gun, right? Well, maybe you do and maybe you don't, but what this law will do is make it harder and more tedious for you to obtain one and to upkeep all the paperwork needed to maintain the lawful ownership. Not to mention forcing you to relinquish even more private information to Lord only knows who for Lord only knows what purpose. In my "old age" (I'm not really old, but somedays after stuff like this I sure do feel that way.) I've become a lot more suspect of folks--remember identity theft and all that crazy criminal activity in our new information driven age of existence?

Rambling now... Anyway, my point is that this is just another way to infringe/encroach/control another Constitutional right. And what's more, these laws don't even begin to touch on the people who they are supposed to affect. You know who I mean; the criminals who don't care what the current laws are and who won't obey the new ones. These people are few and far between compared to the legal and law-abiding gun owners who make up the vast majority of people who own and use guns. That is why I feel like this law does more to prevent the majority in this country from easily and rightfully obtaining guns. Good Old Uncle Sam, protecting us from ourselves once again. You know, it gets tiring keeping up with how we're constantly getting proverbially "screwed".

Like anyone else will tell you, if you want to make your voice heard, it's important to contact your Congressman and let him know what you think. I know you've got a voice in there--shout it out! This bill has been assigned to the House Judiciary Committee, and click here for the committee members. If you can get past their "we don't talk to anyone who is not a constituent" email systems, contact the committee members too. And as a special bonus, I've already written a letter for you to copy and paste, or even recite over the phone if you have to. Good luck and please let me know if you hear anything back from your representatives!

I am contacting you to ask you to please stand in opposition of HR 45 Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009. I fear that this legislation will only seek to further limit and restrict our 2nd Amendment rights. Sadly, the people who will continue to follow the law and obey the rules will be the ones who are punished by this bill. Outlaws and others who are oblivious to existing gun laws will not cease to carry, own, and discharge weapons at their own will. I fear that many of our basic and fundamental rights are quickly being put in jeopardy by the far reaching hands of our ever expansive federal government. Thank you for your consideration.

PresBO's stimulus. Too protectionist?

2009-02-03T13:34:00.005-05:00

Today I was involved in an online discussion about PresBO's stimulus plan and whether or not it is too protectionist. Here are my thoughts on the matter...

My take is not on whether it is protectionist, but whether or not it limits freedom. I'm for a free-market system that allows for competition and for the trade of goods between countries. If there is a really high demand in the US for Canadian, Chinese, or XYZ country goods, then I don't think there should be a limit on the amount we consume. Those limits are unhealthy, and don't encourage American manufacturers to be more competitive.

What is going on here is that Obama is beholden to the unions in this country, part of his liberal/socialist mentality. What he seeks to do is force Americans to buy only American made products which does protect jobs, but it also sets the markets up to unfair market practices and monopolies on goods. I strive to buy US made products whenever I can, but if what I want is more affordable and of equal quality from an importer, then I will buy that instead.

A free-market, capitalist based economy allows for correction in the consumer/manufacturer market, and does not FORCE people to buy what the gov't says is okay for them to buy. How many examples in history do we need to see to understand this doesn't work? If people don't want to buy American for whatever reason, then American companies need to figure out a way to be more competitive.

How the unions factor into this is that they essentially FORCE companies to provide certain wages/benefits/protections, which results in products that cost more to make, and the higher priced products end up on our shelves, and that doesn't help stimulate anything b/c people will simply just stop buying if they can't afford it. So if we don't allow foreign trade products to come in, we are FORCED to only buy the expensive American products. Not healthy, and not in line with the economic principles that we supposedly follow in the US.

So, yes, I think it is FAR too protectionist.

I've seen first hand how this can work when I worked for my dad in the manufacturing sector. The Chinese have found many ways to compete in the US market (which is an entirely new topic altogether). In the furniture industry it has been no different. They have put out of business MANY US manufacturers by fixing their currency rates so that their goods are less expensive to bring in and sell, essentially "dumping" their goods into our market. What happened was not that US consumers were forced to buy only American made, by not allowing Chinese imports, but the Chinese imports were subject to new tarriff standards, which I think is only fair. That gave the US furniture market more of a fighting chance and helped to make competition fair again--think of it as the Chinese using performance enhancing drugs, and now they are no longer allowed to use them--makes it "fair" again, right?

The Inaugural Address: A short quiz

2009-01-20T14:40:00.001-05:00

Our new president has referred in his inaugural address to our founding fathers by saying, "We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents. So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans." Let's test how consistent this statement is with the rest of his speech! :)

"The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified." (BHO)

1. Can anyone tell me when it became the responsibility of the government to provide jobs, affordable care, and dignified retirement?
2. Which sections or ammendments in the Constitution do these fall under?

Compassion which breeds debilitating dependency and weakness is counter-productive.

3. Who's philosophy is this?
4. And as a extra credit question, how does this same philosophy apply today?

"Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint. " (BHO)

5. Who were BO's mentors, and what social and political philosophies did they study?

"The very fame of our strength and readiness would be a means of discouraging our enemies; for 'tis a wise and true saying, that "One sword often keeps another in the scabbard." The way to secure peace is to be prepared for war. They that are on their guard, and appear ready to receive their adversaries, are in much less danger of being attacked than the supine, secure and negligent."

6. Who said this?
7. More extra credit: Is this a philosophy that is still applicable in our day and time?

Food for thought..."Make yourselves sheep, and the wolves will eat you." (Ben Franklin)

Back off, please.

2009-01-20T09:47:00.009-05:00

This isn't going to be a post where I link to info or quote someone much wiser than me. This is just a vent. I have to get this off my chest. I'm going to list some quotes, but they are not from sources who I consider "much wiser" than anybody.
yeah I'm excited [about the inauguration]. lol, no matter how much we pout, piss and moan, he is our new president, so why not enjoy the moment

Everyone keeps saying that but I think this inauguration is unlike any that we've ever been able to witness. History is being made and I think that is a good enough reason to watch this time.

I hate the haters! Why can't people just give it chance before they start with the hatred? I never voted for Bush but it was what it was and I had to deal. If you don't want to deal - why not leave the country? Regardless of who leads your country, do you love your country? Then support it for f***'s sake and do what you can to help! (I especially love the eloquence of this one.)
[we] should stand behind him be cause he will be the leader of the country that we love

Okay, so I get the love fest, I guess. No, actually I don't. What I get is that people are enamored over our new president because this whole process has been sensationalized to the point of some mind degenerating reality show on VH1. This has been the American Idol of elections! The collective "we" have been judging who can sing the loudest, put on the best show, and have the best back up dancers. I for one, do not care how flamboyant you are, or how splashy and flashy your presentations are. I want to know what the heck you are going to do as president. TELL ME SOMETHING!

As our president, I certainly don't wish harm on him. I really do hope he suprises me and does something to preserve the foundation of this country as I see it. But I DON'T have to support him in his policies. I don't have to "enjoy the moment", or view this inauguration as "something unlike anything we have ever been able to witness", and I certainly don't have to "stand behind him be cause he will be the leader of the country that we love." First of all, there is no enjoyment to be had for me. I didn't vote for the guy because I don't agree with anything thus far that he has proposed. And other than being of mixed race and the ungodly amount of money spent on this production, how is this different from any other inauguration? And as far as standing behind him, do I really have a choice--I do love my country, but his ideas of what to do with it are nothing I can stand behind. Should I be expected to stand behind a friend if they hurt someone just because I love them as a friend? That's preposterous. That is asking me to go against my conscience. That is asking me to give up my integrity. From my Constitutional perspective, I absolutely do not believe he has the best interest of the US in mind. I do not believe he represents a modern day Abe Lincoln. I do not think that his training in Marxist theory is healthy, safe, or virtuous.

Do not tell me what I need to or have to do. I don't have to do anything! I can sit back twiddling my thumbs for the next 4-8 years. I can watch all the stupid reality TV shows I want and check out from actual reality if I very well please. Instead, in the meantime, I have chosen to educate myself. To read philosophy. To read the actual Constitution--novel idea for an American, huh? To know where we (as a country) have come from. To learn from history. To learn from the mistakes of others in other countries. To heed the warnings and admonishments that scholars and philosophers have given to us for the future if we are to be/remain successfull and prosperous as a country. I challenge that this is patriotism in it's truest form. Supposing that we all know that patriotism is the devotion to support or defend your country. Well, I'm a defender at this point. So back off, please.

Welfare, Capitalism, and the Constitution

2009-01-19T14:43:00.012-05:00

I had to take my son to the doctor this morning, and while waiting to see her, I pulled out my pocket sized copy of the Constitution and started skimming the pages. (Click the link to get a free one!) Just like with my scriptures, I find something new every time, or see something in a new light. I was specifically looking for information on how the government can collect taxes. Sure enough in Article 1, section 8, all the information is there giving the feds the power to collect taxes. I read through farther trying to grasp exactly what those taxes are to be used for and sure enough I found the governments power to collect to pay debts, provide for the common defense (read, military) and the general welfare of the United States. Wait a minute...what!? Welfare?! I couldn't believe my eyes. It did not satisfy me to think that our founding fathers wrote in something from the very beginning to provide for welfare. It just seemed counterintuitive.

See, that was just me using my modern 21st century line of thinking, where I've been brainwashed by the media and other sources to believe that welfare is actually a system set up to give assistance to the poor. It's important though to understand welfare from a Constitutional dictionary perspective. To the authors of the Constitution, welfare was in fact health, happiness, or prosperity. In other words, well-being.

So what did they mean exactly? In the Declaration of Independence, we read, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by certain unalienable rights that among these are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." So they believed we are created equally, but we don't all come out the same, so how are we actually equal? One of the Constitutional writers, Clarence Carson, gave a nice explanation of what this means. First, all men are equal before the law, meaning every man's case should be tried through the same organization of the judicial system as any other man--no different laws for different classes of people. (Okay, strike one for modern day leaders). Secondly, all men are entitled to their own life as a God-given liberty--they are entitled to be alive by virtue of being born. Nowhere do we see that we are all entitled to equal THINGS.

EQUAL RIGHTS DO NOT MEAN EQUAL "THINGS".

So, this brings us to now. We have an inauguration tomorrow, where we are going to put into office the inarguably most "communal" minded president we've seen in a generation or two or ever. This is the same president elect who clearly said, "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." Oh really? Hmmm, let's see how this could work then. Okay, let's do a little hypothetical situation for sake of argument.

My neighbor has two TV's for which he worked and bought with his own money. My other neighbor has no TV's because he has chosen not to buy one for whatever reason. One day, out of benevolence, I go to my neighbor with two TV's and take one to give in the spirit of generosity to my neighbor who has none. Wow, out of the goodness of my heart, I have become a modern day Robin Hood, taking from the "have" and giving to the "have not". Fast forward an hour...there is a knock on my door and the police have come to arrest me for theft. WAIT! I only took the TV out of the spirit of helping the needy. I don't understand why I'm being arrested. It's quickly explained to me that the police are there to protect two-TV-having-neighbor's property rights. Oh...in my bleeding heart fit of passion, I forgot that we have a right to personal belongings and to the protection of those things.

Would I have been justified in going to the local judge and requesting that he seize one of the TV's to give to no-TV-neighbor? Would that make it legitimate or right? Obviously this makes it worse, because now not only has the man lost his TV, but he has lost the rights to his property, which are protected by Article V of the Constitution from seizure for public use. When our government seizes property from the rich the principle of "guaranteed equal rights" is cancelled and it opens a Pandora's box for the government to tamper with everybody's rights, specifically property rights. (The 5000 Year Leap, Skousen) So if our government is able to take from the "haves" and give to the "have nots", how long before the rights of the "have nots" are taken away and government rises to seize what they have as well. Have we not learned any lessons from history? Need a little history about the Communists in Hungary for example? Maybe Communist Russia? Maybe Communisty China? Maybe Communist Cuba? Really, people.

So what about the "have nots"? How are they supposed to survive? Does no one care what happens to them? The American philosophy of the "freedom to prosper" is seeded in the belief that in a climate of true liberty the poor could lift themselves up through education and individual effort to become independent and self-sufficient. My problem is that in this country it too often seems that we enable people to do nothing, and expect something in return. Let me give you a summation of Ben Franklin's view on counter-productive compassion: 1) Compassion which gives a drunk the means to increase his drunkeness is counter-productive. 2) Compassion which breeds debilitating dependency and weakness is counter-productive. 3) Compassion which blunts the desire or necessity to work for a living is counter-productive. 4) Compassion which smothers the instinct to strive and excel is counter-productive. (Skousen) Do we see any of this happening today? I do not even want to get started on the entitlement mentality that is infecting this country like a plague. How many times have you heard someone complain about what they "deserve."

You know, I realize we all go through hard times, but we also know that we have to save, sacrifice some now so we can survive later. This is the most giving country in the world in terms of individual charitable efforts. We can't help others if we don't help ourselves first. Ever gotten a job from a poor man? This is why Capitalism works. Showing compassion is not cheap, and somebody has to foot the bill! Calculated compassion is a conviction rooted deep and our founding fathers understood this well. It's not only helping the poor, but helping them to help themselves. It's giving the poor (heck, anyone) the satisfaction of earned acheivement. It's providing emergency assistance when needed, but not prolonging it so that it becomes habitual (hello...entitlement mentality). It's enforcing a scale of "fixed responsibility". (Skousen) However, by providing encouragement for laziness, we fight against the natural order of God (see my post from Jan 18, 2009). It is inevitable that some people will prosper more than others, and that is a good thing, because I want to be one of those people one day! But the amazing part of it is that we are only limited by our capacity and desire to learn, work, do, and do it well.

The founders felt it would be corrupt to the country as well as to the poor for the federal government to become involved in public welfare. And in fact, no Constitutional authority exists for the federal government to participate in charity or welfare. (Skousen) In Article 1, section 8, it does say that we are subject to taxes. But it is also stated in Ammendment V that no private property can be seized for public use. Does this make taxation (seizure of private funds) for the purpose of providing government (public) assistance to the poor unconstitutional? Are these in direct opposition to what our president elect feels is "good for everybody"? I think so.

What is all this anyway?

2009-01-18T19:24:00.006-05:00

Glenn Beck puts it perfectly, "I may not be a *insert noun here*, but I am a thinker." That's me. My ideas don't come from any great institution of higher learning, they are from the real world. I see what goes on around me, I form an opinion, then I act. Sometimes when I'm seeking a little too much instant gratification, I act first, but there is usually a lesson to be learned the hard way like that. I believe in philosophy as a means of establishing reason. And good reason at that.

To begin. Lately, through a series of current events, introspection, the reading of good, thought provoking books, and by surrounding myself with people who think beyond the evening news, I have come to realize who I am and what role I play in society. I am an objectivist. Thank you Ayn Rand for coining the term and for giving selfish minded, greedy capitalists a purpose and a label. If you go no further in reading this, please click the link above for a short, reader friendly explanation of objectivism.

**Let me make a disclaimer here. I make lots of statements said in sickening sarcasm. If something I say doesn't sound like it agrees with what I stand for, it's probably sarcasm. Now that that's out of the way...

During our last election cycle I found my political calling with the Libertarian party. I am a Libertarian. Probably a small L Libertarian, but this is where I best belong. I am not a liberal. I am not a conservative. I am not a Republican. I am not a Democrat. Let me stress, I am a Libertarian. Again, if you have gotten this far, let me encourage you to click the link above to see the LP platform. Just to be clear, I love, respect, and cherish the Constitution in it's undiluted, most literal form.

I know with a sure knowledge that what our founding fathers meant for this country is not the mess we are in now with all these crazy political parties which ultimately do nothing but conquer and divide. Instead, they intended to measure government not by party, but by power. On the yardstick of measurement they used, Ruler's Law (or tyranny) stood on one extreme, and No Law (or anarchy) stood on the other. Their objective was to reach somewhere in the middle, which they called the People's Law (or balanced center). This was a system "where government is kept under control of the people and political power is maintained at the balanced center with enough government to maintain security, justice, and good order, but not enough government to abuse the people." (The 5000 Year Leap, Skousen). Sounds like a bunch of Libertarians to me.

In all of this, I find myself wondering how the economy plays into all of this. Where does the money come from and go to and what's the journey from kitchen cupboards to grocery stores? In our country we call it capitalism. Let me reiterate, that's what we call it. It ain't so. Well, not inclusively anyway. What is capitalism exactly? Capitalism is an economic system in which the production and distribution of goods depend on invested private capital and profit making; it is the system of laissez-faire; it is a social system based upon the principle of individual rights. Let me share quickly a quote from a message board I'm on that I read today that was addressed to me, "I know you are a big fan of capitalism, but I think capitalism has been responsible for alot of the problems in the world." I love it.

Let me dumb it down. How to be a capitalist: 1. Have a skill that is marketable and will earn you money 2. Go out and get a job using that skill 3. Make as much money as you can 4. Spend your money on whatever it is that you want or need. Seems pretty fair to me. You have a skill that others want or need to utilize, so you do it, make a profit for it, and then collect whatever in revenue you can for the monetary value placed upon that skill. And what about this is evil and greedy again? Oh yeah, refer back to my link to objectivism. It becomes "unfair" when others don't possess your skill, but expect to profit from that which you DO possess. Now THAT seems unfair to me. Socialism, communism, fascism...whatever you want to call it, do you see that we may be headed there here in the USA? Actually, this takes me to one of my favorite quotes from Atlas Shrugged, "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

What a nice segue into my final explanation of what all this is about. I'm a Latter-day Saint, often called Mormon. I joined the Church in 2002 at the ripe old age of 22. It's of common understanding that most tenets of Christianity believe that we are our brother's keeper; that we are to give liberally to the poor; that we are to live as an example of Christ. All of that falls perfectly in line with my beliefs. Not once in any set of scriptures which I use have I found charity to be anything but compulsory. We are children of a kind and loving Father in heaven that gives us free agency to choose how we want to live, and at the judgement seat we are accountable to Him.

Charity is best done by private organizations, hands down according to every study you can get your hands on. Our government has a terribly wasteful and destructive way of dishing out handouts, with nothing in return from the recipients. Even in our church we have a "welfare" system set up that requests that one serve in some sort of capacity in return for what they receive in the way of charitable help. I think this is a great system. It's set up very similarly to how blessings are given by God, "There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated-And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated." (Doctrine and Covenants, section 130.) And to enhance this scripture, and for our non-LDS readers, here is a great example of the Lord promising blessings based on the law of paying tithes, "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it."

I know that the Lord expects me to be loving and charitable, and the wonderful part of this plan is that he lets me choose to be or not to be. I chose to be through service, tithing, and other activities. I do NOT think though that I should be forced by any means of man (i.e. read government here) to sacrifice for any cause which may be in conflict with what I believe is virtuous, moral, or of good report. And we will get to those in the future for sure.