The Government Can

I don't know who put the video together but evidently s/he doesn't know that Lincoln and Grant aren't founding fathers -- make the founders roll over in their graves, what?. It's pretty funny though, and I figured you needed a good three minute laugh about now. Just ignore the founding father video bit.

Read More

"Our new King George"

Tenth Amendment Center commenter DWalla created this poster for displayal at a TEA rally in his area. Of course, Hussein Obama would be more appropriately portrayed as a King of Saudi Arabia than in the garb of an 18th century British Monarch. But the poster makes a pretty good political point nonetheless. And I've asked DWalla whether he can make one to go with that represents our leftist Congress as the New British Parliament. But then again, that wouldn't really be representative of what they actually are either.

Read More

On the powers of government

As any decent coach will tell you, the fundamentals are the most important parts of an athlete's game, for they are the building-blocks on which everything else in the athlete's career rests for success.

I've often said that the principle applies as well in politics (and religion). Whenever our 'game' begins to suffer, at the individual, and/or the team level, it's probably time to put considerable time and effort into revisiting and re-establishing the fundamentals. Successful coaches spend a great deal of time on the fundamentals during the "off season." No; it isn't particularly fun or interesting, but it is necessary.

One of the main problems with politics (and religion) in America, as I see it, is that we have long-since abandoned any pretense of establishing and securing a good foundation in the fundamental principles of legitimate government. Interesting that we should neglect this duty when it has been made so easy for us to cheerfully abide in it. America's Schoolmaster, Noah Webster once said of this government that it "presents the first example in modern times of a government founded on its legitimate principles." Well, that was then and this is now, but how did he mean?

When we boil it all down to the fundamentals, there are but three powers of government: The legislative, or the planning/decision-making power; the executive, or the power to put the plan to execution; and the judicial power, or the power to judge the effectiveness and efficiency of the plan, and to advise alterations when determined necessary.

Now, I'm not talking about the separation of powers, or the so-called branches of government, both of which are integral parts of our constitutional form of government. Remember, I said the fundamentals. Those aspects of government are not the fundamentals, they are merely built upon the foundation of the fundamentals, or, they are logical extensions from the fundamentals, which are the powers of government.

I said above that it seems odd to me that we should neglect to attend to something made so easy for us. What do I mean by that statement? Well, if we'll take the time to actually read the Constitution once in a while, we'll find that in the opening sentences of Articles I, II, and III the powers of government are laid down in their simplest form. Everything following those first sentences in each article respectively, is built upon the foundation, recognition and establishment of that specific power of government, to wit:

Article I, section 1, U.S. Constitution:

"All legislative Powers herein granted..."

Article II, section 1, U.S. Constitution:

"The executive Power shall be vested in..."

Article III, section 1, U.S. Constitution:

"The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in..."

And there's no way of getting around it. Those are the fundamentals of government, those are the powers of government. Each individual is a complete 'government' in himself, for he (generally unknowingly but nonetheless) exercises these powers of government on a daily and a continual basis. He may not be very good or efficient at it due to any number of factors, but he does so nonetheless. Anything he does outside himelf, or outide his immediate family interests, however, requires that others be involved acting in capacities built upon the foundation of one or other of the powers of government depending on the nature of his relationship to the others. I could give innumerable examples of the way this works, but I don't really think I need to. The main point here is to get us thinking in terms of the importance of the fundamentals to good government.

Once again, if government is failing or breaking down, then it's probably high time we spent a good deal of time and effort on re-establishing the fundamentals. And that all starts with the individual, for as they say "the whole is exactly equal to the sum of its parts."

Read More

Get thee hence, Satan

Well now, Governor Henry (unsurprisingly) vetoed Oklahoma's Tenth Amendment Resolution passed in both the House and Senate by large margins. Also unsurprisingly the Oklahoma House of Representatives just re-passed the same resolution. The Oklahoma Senate now takes up the issue.

G-g-g-gov'nor, what were you thinking?

Never mind. Don't think. Just watch closely ... and take copius notes. Jackass!

Read More

What the ___ is the "Architect of the U.S. Capitol???";

And what kind of power does this individual wield?

Well, as I've very recently come to learn, The A-of-the-US C, may prohibit such words as "Lord," and "God," from being entered on flag certificates because...he has determined that such words may "offend" some Americans.

The full AFA story is entered below...

Religious words such as God, Lord banned by Architect of the U.S. Capitol

Contact your congressman and senators today!

According to U.S. Representative Marilyn Musgrave, our nation's legislators are now prohibited from using references to God in certificates of authenticity accompanying flags flown over the Capitol and bought by constituents. Such references include: "under God" in the pledge, "God bless you," or "in the year of our Lord, 2007." Never before has this official prohibition been leveled.
Architect of the Capitol Steven Ayers said he has removed the words because reference to God and the Lord may offend some Americans. He now prohibits them from being placed on official documents such as flag certificates.

Musgrave was astonished when she flew a flag over the U.S. Capitol building as a tribute to a senior citizen, and the accompanying certificate she received was edited with all religious references removed.

The congresswoman was more astounded when, upon further investigation, she discovered the certificate was censored by order of The Architect of the Capitol, an unelected very low-level official who manages the flag office.

Responding to a request for a flag flown over the United States Capitol in honor of a World War II veteran's 81st birthday, the congresswoman ordered the flag and a certificate to state: "This flag was flown for Mr. John Doe on the occasion of his 81st birthday, the eleventh day of July, in the year of our Lord, 2007. Thank you, Grandpa, for showing me what it is to be a true patriot -- to love God, family, and country. We love you!"

When the flag and certificate came back from the flag office, each reference to the Lord and God were removed. A group of lawmakers confronted architect Stephen Ayers seeking to find where he had the authority to restrict their freedom of speech and religious expression. Ayers refused to give the lawmakers a clear justification of his authority to delete the religious references. For more information: Capitol flag policy assailed (Washington Times).

Read More

Good Object Lesson

Y'know, I got to thinking that with the recent loading problems a friend was kind enough to point out, that there's a good object lesson here, and it has to do with the proper way government should function. Bear with me here, as I attempt to illustrate this...

What we had was a situation where the decision making function of government, which, in this case resides in me, had proved wanting to a degree. The executive function, which resides in CTO, had done its job well according to the plan of the decision-maker, myself. The remaining function of government, the judicial, or, the function of judging whether the plan and the execution thereof was working as originally intended (this function in this case is possessed primarily of you, the reader, by the way), raised awareness with the legislative power (me) that there was a problem which might be more extensive in nature.

On that, a quick investigation was done into the matter, CTO was informed of the nature of the problem and the new guidelines for the plan to fix it. Now it's up to the readership, in the absence of my noticing a problem brewing myself, to make me aware of a problem they're/you're experiencing. Whereupon I'll enter upon the same procedures as before, and the whole process continues; all the functions of government, possessed of different individuals, working together as a unified whole.

And what's best of all? No-one is trying to horn in on the proper role of the others. Nor did the basic structure of the blog undergo any alterations. As simplified an example as this seems, it is at bottom exactly the way the departments of government should function, in their individual, and their unified capacities. :)

Read More

Custer's Rout of the Indians at the Battle of Little Bighorn?

Over at John Savage's blog under this title there is a discussion in the comments section about Americans not knowing well their own genealogy. I agree with both John, and VA that this is most probably and widely the case among Americans, including myself which I'm somewhat embarrassed by as well as ashamed of.

Here's a personal story in this vein that you might find interesting, perhaps even one to which some of you can in some way relate...

When I was about six or seven years old is the farthest recollection I have of Dad making me aware of my native American heritage. This is kind of a funny story and I recall it often attaching a lot of humor to it, though I think there are some serious aspects to it as well.

At that time some of you may recall that capitalist American toy manufacturers and retailers had seized upon what I suppose must have been a good deal of interest amongst the American population in the history of Custer's last stand at the Battle of Little Bighorn.

My recollection of this phase of Americans becoming interested in some of their post-civil-war history is best explained I think in the fact that Mom had purchased for me an action figure of Col. Custer himself, along with his horse and other bells and whistles. My best recollection is that it wasn't long thereafter that Dad brought me a counterpart to this action figure – either “Crazy Horse,” or “Sitting Bull,” most probably. Dad of course had an ulterior motive for providing me with the toy, and one in direct opposition, not necessarily to Mom's motive (I highly doubt that Mom had one to begin with other than just providing me with something I wanted most likely), but to her specific gift which I had probably requested.

Despite the true history of the Battle of Little Bighorn, my childhood replays of the battle always had Custer's regiment triumphant over the Indians. That's the way I wanted it to be, and since they were my toys I could play it out however I wanted to, or so I thought...

I remember one day while Col. Custer and company were thoroughly routing their Indian nemeses, Dad stopped me in the midst of my fun and began to explain to me that 'that's not the way it happened at all.' He further went on to ask me why it was that I preferred the Custer doll over that of the Indian he had provided me? This question of Dad's was prompted by the fact that I generally took very good care of the Custer doll and his horse. The Indian companion piece Dad had provided me was not so fortunate as that, however. I didn't have a very good answer, and it was really kind of a confusing question for me, in retrospect.

Looking back on it now, I would assume that my mind had been impressed with these ideas through different forms of media, as well as from the warring factions between my parents on this issue. I can't explain exactly why Dad's preference in this regard did not take well with me. I always thought of my Dad as being something of a 'larger than life' figure, and virtually everything he told me I took to be absolute and unadulterated truth. But in this particular an exception to that rule was very obviously noticeable, and Dad of course picked up on it and began to try to counter it with some extensive educational efforts on his part.

After Dad had that initial talk with me I remember trying to play the battle out to more conduce to the way that he had explained to me that it actually happened. But after having done so a couple of times I reverted back to my own preference for how the battle should have gone in direct contradiction to what Dad had told me. And I was in no way in the habit of contradicting my dad, nor had I any desire to disappoint him; quite the contrary. But in this case my personal preference proved to be just too strong to overcome. Of course, I was careful from there on out to have the Indians winning whenever Dad was around. And Dad and I entered upon a game of pretended preferences for several years thereafter.

I think the point of this story, besides my attempting to provide you with a good chuckle, is that even to this very day I have a strong bias in favor of my European heritage and over that of what little Indian blood I actually have running through my veins. As a matter of putting our history back in what I would consider its proper context, I think there's a largely neglected need for individuals like myself to express their true preferences, not succumbing to the pc pressure of always esteeming the poor, hapless Indians as having been manipulated, raped, pillaged, murdered and robbed at the hands of the true savages - the 'white devil invaders.'

I tend more to view 'ownership' in the way that Locke explained it, which is to say that the earth was given to man in common, but to establish a true ownership of anything thereof, one must invest that which may be reduced to his and his alone – his labor. Personally I have a hard time accepting the idea that occupation in and of itself establishes ownership in any 'American' sense of the word. I mean, I could go set up camp on a given piece of property, but the great likelihood is that the owners thereof – those who have invested their labor in the acquisition of that property – when they find me out, are going to do whatever is necessary to have me removed, as well they should.

I need a better explanation than 'the Indians occupied this land first' to convince me that they had established ownership of it entirely to the exclusion of anyone else. I don't deny that the Indians were wronged in some respects, but nor do I unquestionably accept the apparent conventional wisdom that the white devils wronged them in all respects, and that we're now occupiers of a land ill-gained. That to me is just a bunch of emotionally based hogwash, the logical conclusion of which makes me ill to stomach, to be frank.

In any event, Dad and I still have these conversations from time to time. He's not as apt as he used to be to try to convince me against my preferences and against my better judgment, but he still sticks largely to his guns on this issue. I suppose this issue will always be a point of contention between us, given that neither of us is likely to change his mind anytime soon. But for those of you who tend to take Dad's side on this question, and particularly those of you having also an attachment to the Christian faith, I would respectfully remind you, as I have Dad on occasion, that our Lord and our God must be extremely offended by an abject denial of that heritage of ours which actually resulted in 'securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves.'

These ideas of God, man, and government are traceable back to our European roots, not to the original occupiers of this land of ours. These ideas are most probably responsible for 'securing the blessings of liberty' on an individual and a collective level to the most people and generations history has heretofore ever recorded. Our European heritage is directly responsible for the blessings we enjoy, yet so easily dismiss today as a matter of luck. And as we ride upon the backs of our forefathers and mothers, we tend at the same time to dishonor them in denying that vital part of our unique heritage.

Lord forgive us, for we know not what we do.

-DW

Read More

So You've Considered Moving to Oklahoma, Have You?...

Over at the AFB, my friend, Mike Tams, posted this entry yesterday. I'm going to provide the link to Katie's Dad's entry here, as well that posted on the same topic at VA's.

This story is an all too familiar story for your's truly. And though I can't say that my business, my employees, nor my family have been nearly as negatively impacted financially speaking as this particular contractor and those associated with him has, I can say without hesitation that all of these have indeed suffered at the hands of cheap, illegal, mostly Mexican labor...

Months back my brothers and I discussed this very topic and the negative impact my interests had suffered on several occasions due to the influx of illegal Mexican construction workers in my area over the last couple of years. Interestingly, while I was away over this past weekend, I managed to get a visit in to one of my good friends whose initials, MB, I'll use from here on out. MB also has his own business, and he employs about six people full-time I think.

MB and I were in his office along with his wife and my two employees just shooting the breeze. I don't recall exactly who or what got the conversation started, but somewhere along the way we began discussing the illegal alien situation. I made a statement to the effect of "ah, don't fret it, man, come November 1st it's reckoning time. He asked what I meant so I told him that November 1st is when Oklahoma's tough immigration legislation goes into effect...thanks to the defeat of the amnesty bill. This legislation, as I related to MB, deals not only with illegals, but with their employers as well. And the fines incurred by the latter for employing illegal aliens get substantially stiffer with each offense so that it becomes increasingly more difficult to justify employing illegal aliens.

The reason I tell that story is because MB said something to me in the wake of my little rant that hit home pretty well. He said that there was a time in the not so distant past when he himself had thought pretty highly of these Mexican illegals because he considered them to be hard workers, pretty reliable, and overall to have good work ethic. His next statement, though, put his initial statements into proper context; he said to me that "I think I'm over that now." Of course we got a good laugh out of it, and certainly I agreed with MB that I had held some of his very views concerning Mexican illegals until I got properly educated.

I've complained to my brothers at the AFB before about the fact that finding good (American) help these days is extremely difficult. And believe me, it doesn't matter how much you pay them; that's not the issue. This being the case, I ran into a situation a couple of years ago wherein two of my four employees quit work (that is, they quit working altogether, for anyone), leaving me with a workload that the three of us left could not handle on the schedule predetermined for, and agreed to by us. I was turned on to a young Mexican immigrant who was supposedly legal and of age, and I hired him. It weren't very long before I realized that I'd made a mistake, however.

I was a little suspicious of him to begin with, so as is my general approach to things like that, I simply listened more than I spoke. And eventually he let out more information than he intended, as per the usual. He had a distinctive accent, but he spoke english very well. The fact was that he had been here several years with his parents who came here illegally. As it turned out he was only 16 years of age, he had no driver's license, no insurance, no tag and no registration in his name. As he was commuting about sixty miles a day, one way, I asked him, upon learning some of these facts: "you realize, do you not, that you're going to get stopped one day during your commute to or from?....what are you going to do when you get caught? His answer was simply this, and in these exact and nonchalant words: "go back to Mexico!"

I approach my nationality in the same sort of way that I approach my immediate and extended family members. Which is to say that while I may complain about the way certain of them act from time to time, and while I may curse their actions on occasion, they are my family so I consider myself allowed. Whereas, someone else had better not curse them with me being present unless they care to get an earfull from your's truly. And it works the same way with my countrymen. We're all Americans, and while I may complain about this and that which Americans do, or about this and that which the President does, that doesn't give an illegal alien license to curse them, or to complain about them in any way, shape, or form. And here again, they had better not in front of me. Well, this young Mexican employee of mine made that mistake, saying some very unflattering things about our President and Americans in general, and very boldly so in my very presence. Not only was he 'biting the hand that fed him' in a direct sort of way, but indirectly he was biting all the hands that feed him, and I didn't like it, no; not one bit! You can use your imaginations to conclude what happened next.

I remember well when these illegals began to arrive here in relatively small numbers. At that time there was enough work to go around for everyone, and in many cases customers were forced to wait as long as a month on some of us contractors to get to their jobs. I'd like to discuss more about how that a certain amount of independency on the part of contract laborers works very well to the advantage of not only the contractor in question, but also to that of the customer. But that's yet another subject for another discussion. The point here is that these illegals began arriving here in very small numbers, and under extremely difficult circumstances. So much so that myself and other contractors I know not only welcomed them against our better judgments, but we loaned them essential tools they needed yet did not have, as well as to help them to find places to live and to help them get jobs, and all sorts of things like that. Such I guess is the nature of many Americans.

While I certainly understood the idea that mass immigration to this country of any kind, and from anywhere was bad (just remember, anything done in the extreme is bad), I still felt sorry for these individuals who were 'just trying to make a better way for themselves and their families.' It was only a couple of years, and several very strained relations between myself and some of my former accounts, before their numbers increased exponentially in my area and they began to compete with me for many of the jobs that formerly I would only have had Americans to compete with. The difference being, of course, that Mexican illegals pay no taxes and they're generally not held to the same standards by law that American contractors are held to. Therefore they can charge as little as half our prices and still come out ahead of us in the end. And of course a general contractor, or a homeowner, or whomever is enticed by these potential savings to their own pockets, so they hire the illegals to do their jobs many times when they would otherwise prefer American labor over Mexican labor.

This all came to a head (but it was far from the only incident of its kind I had personally experienced) when I secured a large commerical contract with one individual who later reneged on his obligation about two days before the actual work was to begin. The exact same Mexican illegal, along with his somewhat larger crew now, had come in and undercut my bid by about half. When I learned of this I immediately got on the horn with some of my nativist friends and we began to start to make phone calls to I.N.S., and to some of our state legislators, expressing our severe displeasure with the immigration situation in our State and our area. This was before we kicked out the democrat bums who had held power in our Congress during the entire existence of this State, and replaced them with a Republican controlled legislature that started work on correcting this immigration deal immediately.

Now here's the deal, this same crew is still out and about undercutting contractors like myself, and funneling in new illegals almost on a daily basis. This has effectively caused a great power shift to take place wherein myself and others like me either have to give up some of our independency, or to cowar to the implicit (sometimes explicit) threat that "ok, we'll just get the Mexicans to do it, and they'll do it whenever we say to do it, and at a cheaper rate too." Since I'm not really one to cowar to anyone, and since I enjoy the independency that my profession provides me, not to mention that I understand certain aspects of it, as I said before, that actually works to the advantage of the customers themselves, though it's hard for them to see it unless someone points it out to them, I have since been dedicated to ridding this State first, and the nation second, of these illegals whose compass oughta be pointing south.

But there's a lot more to it than these personal experiences I've had, of course. So very jealous am I of my liberty, my independency, and the ideas of government that have secured them to me in my own State, that I don't even like to see Americans from other States moving into and establishing permanent residency in mine, particularly folks from some of the more liberal States in this nation. And indeed, as I've discussed before with Mike and Edmund, and as my crew will confirm, I don't hesitate to make this known to these migrant Americans whenever I happen upon them. My approach to them on an individual level is usually to give an extreme example of some goofy individual moving in on us from somewhere up in the northeast. Invariably these individuals bring with them inordinate and fallacious ideas of government learned in their former environment and they begin to assert them upon their establishment of citizenship within this State. Their goal is to 'improve upon' what Okies have long since determined to be their own self-governing methods. Our State looked so very inviting to them until they lived amongst us for awhile and finally decided that we're just too d*mn independent here, not to mention that the idea of 'self-government' means just that down here in flyover country - the government of oneself and of one's affairs and concerns without undue influence from on high.

This is generally the line of thought that I engage with these migrants. And of course I also let them know that "we have enough nut-jobs of our own; we don't need anymore moving in on us, so if you have those kinds of ideas that you need to improve upon what Okies have already settled in this State, please leave them at the door because in the end you're destroying the very foundations of the things you found so attractive about our State before you decided to move here."

Now, if I have those kinds of negative feelings about migrant Americans moving into my State generally, how much more must I have the same kinds of feelings with regard to immigrants from other countries? And I ask you, where am I going wrong?

-DW

Read More

Who is this Ron Paul Character? (Part 3)

The first and second editions to this series having posed what we've now come to know as the 'big question' still under our investigation, the second of which having concerned itself with what we might learn of Paul's character, his integrity, and how those match up against what the man is saying publicly about himself. You will recall that in the first and second entries we uncovered that Ron Paul thinks of himself as 'the champion of the Constitution,' and I think our investigation thus far has called more into question whether this can truly be said of the man than it has served to answer it either in the affirmative, or in the negative. Therefore, let us keep the question in mind as we continue to uncover who this Ron Paul character truly is.

In this edition, once more keeping in mind this question of whether Ron Paul may rightfully claim to himself the appellation 'champion of the Constitution,' let us take our investigation to yet another level. Let us lay a foundation to begin to open more to exposure what would appear to be Paul's underlying principles; that which governs the man in the way he conducts himself in his public life, and most probably in his private life as well. And let me say for the record that I'm interested in Ron's private life no more or no less than I am any other serious presidential contender's private life. Which is to say that a person's private conduct will generally teach us something about how he/she will conduct himself publicly. But Ron Paul has an extensive record of public service that we may appeal to, and it is there that we shall continue to concentrate our efforts within this series...

All of you know by now that Ron Paul is the Congressman representing the 14th district of the great State of Texas. And of course we're all well aware by now of the fact that Congressman Paul thinks of himself as the 'champion of the Constitution,' as has been restated numerous times. As far as the latter goes it seems to me that anyone serving in his capacity might (justly to their own minds) claim to themselves that distinction. And on that note I'd bet that many who serve in that capacity or at that level of government tend to think of themselves to some extent or the other in that way.

It seems to me natural, therefore, to question further whether this distinguishing characteristic is itself as worthy or as noble as it sounds? Certainly at first blush the appelation 'champion of the Constitution' seems to be a pretty laudable distinction reserved as it were for those select few having marked themselves worthy of the high thoughts which its mere mention naturally brings to mind. But on a closer inspection is the descriptive truly as noble and as worthy an appellation as it seems on the surface? Does the question here posed not depend on what one considers to be the 'core principles' and 'values' which the Constitution itself is founded on? What if one believes that the Constitution is a 'living, breathing document,' subject itself to the rapid changes of society? Would the person believing that about the Constitution not think of a 'champion' thereof as someone who recognized this quality inherent to the document; someone whose public life is marked more or less by a recognition of this principle as well as a voting record to support and perpetuate it? These are the kinds of questions we must keep at the forefront of our thoughts whenever we entertain the notion that one may rightly be described as 'the champion of the Constitution.'

Now, if it appears to some that I'm being a little obsessive about this idea of championing the Constitution, I can only say that it appears to me that this is a very important question which needs to be answered to the fullest extent possible. Indeed, I think that everything about the man under our investigation more or less centers around this idea about him. The concept itself extends to the furthest reaches of who this man Ron Paul really is. And since our series is itself intended to answer this most fundamental of questions, then it follows that to answer that question of who the man truly is, we must concern ourselves as particularly as possible with this attribution he notably claims to himself. Therefore we may expect that the remainder of this series will in one way or the other revert back to this fundamental question of whether Ron Paul may truly be said to be 'the champion of the Constitution.'

At the site "On the Issues" you may have noted at the bottom of Paul's page that he ranks as a 'moderate libertarian' on the VoteMatch chart. There is also a quiz provided for you to take to see where on that chart your political philosophy falls. Most of you can probably guess pretty accurately as to where you'd wind up on the chart, but I would still encourage you to take the quiz as a way of matching your position up against Paul's as well as some of the other candidates. And yes, in case you were wondering, I did take the quiz, and I wound up (not at all surprisingly to myself) way to the right of Paul being myself denominated a 'hard-core Conservative.' I ended up in the same block on the chart as the 'Constitution party' candidate, so it would appear for me, if this chart is at all accurate, that the description 'champion of the Constitution' would better fit that party's candidate than it would Ron Paul. And this is what I mean about the accuracy of the appellation being more or less 'relative to' one's political philosophy. While I believe strongly in the idea of there being 'absolute truth,' as opposed to there being 'relative truth,' still I understand that one's 'truth,' whatever it may be, is measured against some standard for determining it.

But to get on with our investigation now that we've hopefully managed to establish some guidelines that will be helpful to us in discovering who the man truly is, let us narrow our scope to yet another of Paul's apparently guiding philosophical approaches to government...
While I can't say that one's 'moderation' ranks high with me on certain things, particularly on political matters, I will admit that Paul's brand of moderation does have a certain appeal to it. And while Paul's brand of 'moderation' is in some ways intriguing, we must not fail to acknowledge that the term 'moderate' in his case is a qualifier of his 'libertarianism.' Irregardless of where one searches, Paul's underlying libertarian philosophy is everywhere notable, at least insofar as I've independently conducted my own investigation of the man.

John Savage and I recently had a discussion about the differences between a traditionalist's idea of 'self-government,' and that of a libertarian. And while I may have gone too far in stating somewhat emphatically that libertarians generally concern themselves not with how one's exercise of 'self-determination' affects others, nonetheless I believe that the common libertarian refrain on this subject - no one has the right to harm another in the exercise of self-determination - falls pretty short of an actual commitment to the idea. (Notable here as well is the oft repeated libertarian refrain that they seek 'the maximum amount of liberty with the least amount of government necessary.' We've had that discussion before at the AFB, but I'll repeat here that the refrain itself seems to me to be somewhat overly vague. Not to mention that as stated it would seem to apply to libertarians in no particularly exclusive way, for I too seek the maximum amount of liberty with the least amount of government necessary. And I'd be willing to bet that many of you who would not denominate yourselves 'libertarians' believe nonetheless in the concept.).

But that's only relevant here as pertains to Mr. Paul and how strictly he holds to the libertarian idea of 'self-government,' as I said, to be distinguished from the Conservative idea of same. In this sense is Paul rightly denominated a 'moderate libertarian?' That is, can it be said of Paul that his idea of 'self-government' is less extreme than the more 'radical' elements of the libertarian philosophy? Further to the point, can Paul's idea of self-government be said to be closer to a traditionalist conservative's idea of same than that of a strong libertarian? His position on the chart seems to indicate that his idea of 'self-government' would fall virtually in the center of a triangular shaped chart consisting of points liberal, conservative, and libertarian. But what does this mean within the context of our investigation?I should like to cover that ground more particularly in the next installment of this interesting series. And while I know that I'm raising more questions than I am providing answers for, I trust that you'll agree that these are worthy questions which a proper investigation into the depth of our subject does indeed warrant.

Hopefully to this point in our investigation we've at least managed to raise important questions about who this man really is which will ultimately lead us to a more thorough pursuit and investigation into the matter. One thing that I think cannot be said is that we've wasted any efforts thus far. So, until the posting of the next edition, I bid you all a happy and an affectionate: good hunting!...

-DW

Read More

Old News; New News

Now and again I'm going to attempt to direct your attentions to some ongoing pursuits that for me can be said to be 'old news,' yet in your case might actually represent something you've yet to hear of for whatever reason. And I'd hope that you'd return the favor if there's something significant out there that I'm missing, which is most certainly extremely likely.

In this case something was brought to mind as I read MT's post over at the AFB yesterday, and though I probably should have mentioned it earlier and in the former post, as you're now aware I neglected to do so. But the thing in question probably warrants a post of its own anyhow.

If you'll go to the link provided here and in Mike's post at the AFB you may notice after having signed the petition aimed at releasing the 'Texas three,' that you'll be taken to a page containing at the bottom a link to 'return to the list of petitions.' If you'll click on that link you will indeed be taken to the page in question. For those of you who have already signed the petition to free the Texas three, just go to the yellow section at the top of the page and click on the "Current Petitions" button provided. If you'll then scroll down the page you'll eventually run across the 'patriot petition' calling for amending the Constitution to halt the practice of 'judicial activism' - The Enumerated Powers Amendment, definately not to be referred to as the 'EPA.' lol

I remember the very first announcement of this proposal way back when. At that time my friends (Mike and Edmund) and I had not yet met one-another. And certainly I had yet to discover the blogosphere. I recall that the actual wording of the amendment proposal itself went through several revisions over the span of about two months if memory serves in that respect. And the reason I recall that aspect of the proposal is that it caught my interest immediately and proceeded to gain my undivided attention over the course of time.

Eventually, though, I stopped keeping regular track of the progress of the proposal as far as numbers of signers is concerned. They were slow to come in, and after the initial surge therein I think the numbers of signers of that particular petition sort of paused more or less around the mid twenties of thousands (24,000 to 25,000 as I recall).

Nonetheless, having now re-read the amendment proposal I'm not seeing that any significant changes to it, if any at all have occured over the course of time between now and then. So it appears that the folks over at the Patriot Post finally got the kinks in the wording worked out. And there were some fairly sizeable kinks in the wording to begin, lemme tell ya. I do note, however, that there are now a significant number of additional signatures added to the measure - quite a happy revelation for me I must admit.

Essentially what attracted my attention to the proposal initially, and still does btw, is that I think this amendment proposal addresses, perhaps better than any I've yet to see, the fundamental, or the root cause of the problem, as well as proposing the most effective means for dealing with a wide range of problems which are either directly or indirectly associated with the ever increasing tendency of our judiciary (particularly the federal) to engage itself in the practice of what has been rightly termed in my opinion 'judicial activism.' And this has been accomplished with at very least tacit consent of the federal Congress, which the measure also addresses in a meaningful way.

By limiting the courts in their ability to 'legislate from the bench' (something the founders never intended!), many of the ills which infect our government may be cut out at their common core. This is my firm belief, and this is the reason that I strongly endorse this amendment proposal.

But I'd like to hear your thoughts on this subject after having read the proposal itself, as well as its foundation. So y'all post a comment and let's discuss it.

-DW

Read More

A Couple of Worthy Announcements

First of all let me thank both VA and John Savage for posting links to Webster's on their excellent blogs. And let me say again that if you've not yet visited them, which I trust most of you have, then please do. I assure you it will not be a wasted endeavor. You may find links to their blogs permanently posted in the right sidebar of this one. So there's no excuse for not visiting them.

And I would be remiss if I did not mention the fact that it is due in large part to their posting of the link to Webster's that this blog itself has enjoyed already a significant number of visits from folks who would otherwise not have come here. So once again my sincere thanks go out to both of them.

Second, I'd like to direct your attentions to the AFB, which itself has its own separate link provided in the right sidebar of this blog. You may use that link, or if you prefer you may use this one to go to the specific title to which I'm directing your attentions - Time to discharge your civic duty - posted by my friend, MT. And as he says: "what are you waiting for; go sign that petition!"

Third, and finally, CTO, why is the coding missing in the post section of the blog? Would you be so kind as to put it back in because at this moment I'm having to copy and paste it from other post titles, and I'm starting to get a little aggravated! Not to mention that as you know all too well, this necessity is eventually going to lead most likely to my messing something up real bad. ;) Please help.

-DW

Read More

Who is this Ron Paul Character? (Part 1)

Up until just recently I had never heard the name Ron Paul before, or at least I don't recollect ever having heard it. And I really wonder whether a significant percentage of traditionalists had ever heard of this self-styled "champion of the Constitution" prior to that fateful moment when he and Guiliani famously butted heads back a few months ago.

Is Ron Paul who he says he is? Is he the man that others, advocates and adversaries, portray him to be? Can it truly be said of this Champion of the Constitution designate that he is indeed the foremost in that regard of all the presidential contenders? These I think are very relevant questions. And though I do not wish to detract in any way from the excellent work already done on the subject by others whom I highly respect, I should like to at least open an investigation independently done for my own personal purposes, as well as for those readers interested in learning more about the respective contenders perhaps having yet to discover certain already available means to assist them in that endeavor...

In doing so I eagerly invite and implore the readers of this entry (as well as others that will follow on the subject) to engage the conversation so as to inject some degree of proper balance into what in some instances may well amount to an actual misrepresentation of Paul's position on a given issue, and/or, a miscalculation on my part or the parts of others here engaging the conversation, of Rep. Paul's core principles and how they may be good or bad for the country, particularly if elected President, in our estimations.

To this point I have done some 'extensive' independent research on Ron Paul. And I've used various means provided and available to me from a variety of sources to assist me in doing so. Yet, I do not consider my investigation as yet to be anywhere close to exhaustive. Therefore, my approach to this question of "who is Ron Paul?," as regards this blog's purpose (contained in the left sidebar under the heading "blog description"), and as my mind foresees it, is likely going to consist of a 3, 4, perhaps even 5 part series on the subject, this post being the first in the series.

I don't want to put any firm number to it though because I'm simply not sure how many editions the series will ultimately prove to consist of beyond the absolute certainty I have that it will consist of more than this one; at very least two. Depending on the level of involvement from the readership among other variables not precisely predictable, certain questions might be raised which would require one or more additional posts than would be necessary or proper in the absence of those questions, concerns, refutations, or whatever. I will state, however, that while avoiding fixing a firm number to it, I will not allow the series to extend beyond a number of posts that I would loosely describe as a 'maximum,' it being my persuasion that a pretty thorough investigation of the whole view of the matter may be conducted within the confines of a 'high-end' number of posts. Anything over-and-above of which would most probably amount to little more than redundancy.

I should like to make clear as well that I do not intend to get to the meat of the question(s) in this post, as you discerning readers have probably already realized. I have chosen to open the conversation this way for a specific reason which I don't feel it necessary to share at this point. I imagine most of you can figure it out for yourselves anyhow, so there's really no need in my explaining it to you. However...

Being myself attached to the idea of 'capitalism' insofar as it adheres to a moral code of conduct inhibiting the tendency to excess, I own that I should like to utilize the principle to attract a wider readership via what I'm betting will be an increase in traffic to the blog given the level of interest in Paul's campaign. And incidentally, if you're feeling somewhat betrayed having now read this revelation of mine, I would simply remind you that neither is anyone forcing, nor is anyone even asking you to stick around if in fact you don't like what you see and read here. I would also point out that this is a more honest and a straight-forward approach than some bloggers would be willing to initiate. And I trust that most of you will see in this honest approach a quality that is somewhat endearing as well as perhaps refreshing. If not then I bid you a respectful and an affectionate farewell wishing you the best in your continued searches and pursuits on this as well as other subjects of interest. On the other hand, if you do in fact like what you read here and choose to stay around awhile, I welcome you with open arms to Webster's, as well as welcoming, as I said, your particular and unique input.

To close this installment of the series out let me say that I've been thinking on doing something of this sort for a couple of weeks now. Only over the last few days, however, have I put some serious thought to it, particularly as to how it might ultimately shape up. As I've said, I have some resources that I'm using to familiarize myself with Representative and Presidential candidate, Ron Paul, his history, his family, his philosophical approach to government, and so on and so forth. It will be from these sources primarily that my perspective on Mr. Paul's positions will be derived and offered to you in the series of posts forthcoming. And as I've already said, I encourage all of you to join in the discussion. This post is now entered into the record as part 1 in the series bearing the title "Who is this Ron Paul Character?" It is intended to get us thinking on the subject, as well as to finally initiate the somewhat belated process.

I shall now see it through to the end, and I hope you'll chime in...

-DW
Ron+Paul '08 elections president canidate news+and+politics

Read More

Why Do I Object to the Savage Strategy?

As y'all know, John Savage from Brave New World Watch and I have been engaged in a cross-blog discussion over the merits of John's strategy to mobilize traditionalist voters to cast a vote in favor of Hillary come November, '08, given two established variables: 1. That Hillary is indeed the democrat nominee; and 2. that the eventual republican nominee is someone other than a traditionalist -Rudy, McRomney, Thompson, or the like. John says he'll vote for the traditionalist Republican should a traditionalist get the nomination. But he agrees with me that that's not a likely scenario.

Thus far the discussion has centered more on our clarifying our respective positions on the subject, or, to give one-another some bit of clarity on the other's written perspective. However, we seem to be past that stage of the discussion now, and hopefully we can move on to more of the meat of our arguments for and against the proposal.

Now, I should say that John seems to be committed to the strategy whether Hillary is the demo nominee or not. The reason I threw that variable in the mix though is because Hillary is probably the best example of the worst potential POTUS that most of us traditionalist voters can even imagine. So, though the Hillary factor (or variable) is not a determining factor for John, I assume that it would be for most traditionalist voters - in their case it might be the difference between their engaging the strategy or not.

What John is proposing may be summed up as follows (and if I get it wrong here, I trust he'll correct me): to basically violate all that you've ever thought right, proper, and sacred about your duty as an American citizen and a traditionalist, consciously choosing to cast your vote in favor of the candidate the farthest left of your own political philosophy. And if this strategy works in the way John speculates it will, you will have in actuality and by the very act itself, earned to yourself the laudable chacteristic of a true and a distinguished patriot.

My disagreement with the approach originally was based in part on the predisposition I had with regard to the strategy itself - that it was intended as a more election-wide strategy aimed at securing more defeats to republicans, which of course would be seats gained to the demos. And that is where I focused my attention in raising a contention with the approach. As John has patiently and politely explained to me, this was indeed an unwarranted assumption on my part. And I accept his explanation without further question.

Yet, I still find myself reeling at the thought of my casting a vote in favor of Hillary or any other democrat in the race right now, and against the republican challenger whomever that may be. And as I suggested originally, I still find it more palatable to simply recuse myself from that particular aspect of the upcoming election than to actively engage myself in the former.

But beyond the distastefulness of the thought of the whole thing, I do have actual concerns with the method and its most likely effects. John assumed that immigration was probably my chief concern with electing Hillary or one of her lesser-thans. But as I explained to him, that is not as much a concern to me as are other things connected with the office of the presidency.

For one, John tends to focus his attention on the internal aspects of the executive department, while I would place more emphasis than he does (or so far has) on the external aspects of that office. That is, where John devotes a lot of consideration to the workings of our federal executive with respect to ourselves, I would tend to consider the appointment of ambassadors to foreign nations as representatives of the United States as one example, as well as the executive's treaty responsibilities as yet another. And the reason I would put a lot of emphasis on those aspects of the presidency and the office-holder's duties therein is because foreign relations, even those between the U.S. and nations not particularly friendly to us, is one of those things that could be the difference between war and peace; that could be the difference between security and insecurity, not just between us and other nations, but between other nations friendly and unfriendly to the United States. And if there's anything I know to be an absolute truth, it is that this nation as such has an obligation among the nations to promote (not to establish it; not to entangle itself in foreign relations between differing foreign entities) peace between nations, as well as to guard against creating an instable situation between ourselves and other powers. It's in our interest as well as everyone else's to do so.

To put an analogy to it, and to bring it down to a more personal and individual level, it is my responsibility as a father to my children and a member of my community to establish and maintain order within and without my family as regards my family members' external relationships, not only for my family's sake, but for the greater good of the whole of my community, state, and nation. If I enter into a bit of strategery aimed at correcting a problem with my child's temper, yet putting the larger community at risk in the process, I've more or less made matters worse, not better; effectively endangering the very lives, liberties, and properties of my neighbors, not to mention giving them just cause for pitting themselves against me.

There is yet another concern I have about actively engaging the strategy. Whether I agree with them or not; whether I like them or not, Presidents of the United States now have the privelege of Executive Orders. And this is not a power that is likely to be removed from that branch anytime soon. One of the things with EOs that really bothers me is that many of them are enacted without the knowledge of the general public. It isn't bad enough that the president has this illegitimate power, but he/she generally utilizes it in a rather secretive fashion. I recognize that there are watchdogs out there keeping up with every move the president makes, but this seems to make little difference as to what the general public realizes about what their government and their executive is up to with regard to these particular orders.

Another concern is that of the President's appointment of executive officers to positions in the justice department and etc... I can't even fathom who Hillary's choice for the AG's position might be, or what her list of choices for the position might look like - remember Janet Reno, anyone? I for one remember very well the actions of a government gone completely and utterly berserk on the intoxicating influence of power during the former Clinton administration, and with the advantage of having a majority republican Congress, mind you. And if it's argued that we oughta be willing to sacrifice the few in the short term for the many over the long haul in a fashion remotely resembling that of the Clinton administration's murderous actions, I think I'm going to shoot myself. lol

But generally speaking I think a republican much easier controlled than a nutty democrat like Hillary or Edwards or Kerry or Gore, or whomever. Though they're savvy politicians, they're still nutty, and nutty people are just hard to contain within certain bounds. President Bush wasn't my first choice back in 2000 either. But I took him, and still would take him over Al Gore or John Kerry any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Personally I think more emphasis oughta be put on a strategy that, though it may seem an impossibility at this moment, would secure to us more long-term advantages than that offered by John. It also should take into consideration some of the ways in which a president of the United States is actually encouraged to, not discouraged from, act(ing) in defiance of the public's wishes and against their best interests. And what I'm getting at here is our limiting the president to two terms. Though we can't properly be credited with the creation of that amendment, we continue to sustain it to our own hurt in my opinion.

So, in essence I have a lot of concerns with engaging such an approach as John is suggesting. And there's more where those came from. When I was learning to fly airplanes one of the first things my instructor, as well as the training manuels I was reading, kept reiterating until he'd thoroughly driven it home was that of making coordinated turns particularly on approach to land. Pilots know that one of the most vulnerable times of their flights is during this transition from straight and level powered flight to entering the landing pattern/approach, and a whole heap of a pilot's required training is dedicated to properly piloting this transition. As the pilot begins to slow the airplane in this pattern through the use of flaps, and decreasing power, he is keeping a very watchful eye on his instruments which tell him such vital things as his relative airspeed, his heading, how many degrees of flaps he has engaged; and in his turns whether they are 'coordinated' or not. In other words, as every pilot knows full well, every time you adjust a single element of the airplane, to slow it, to turn, to gain or lose altitude, whatever, there is an effect on all the other aspects of your flight which you must account for if you care to live. And many a pilot has lost his life, and the lives of his passengers due to a neglect of some form to attend to this essential element of his flight.

Essentially I think John's proposal probably does not take into account enough of the necessary and related effects of engaging it. And that pretty well sums up my disagreement with the proposal. It's purpose is to create a manufactured crisis situation which might effectually spark a real crisis situation that we're not properly trained and equipped to handle when it comes down on us. And on that note, I disagree with John in his thought that a huge majority of Americans were against the amnesty bill. I rather think that a mobile and loud minority effected that outcome. I'm not sure it can with certain other things it's not so passionately opposed to, or not so keenly aware of. And though during my flight training we continually engaged in manufacturing crisis situations as an essential part of my training, we were always at a high enough altitude to allow for a safe recovery with plenty of altitude to spare, and I wasn't manufacturing them without a qualified pilot sitting next to me, ready to take the wheel and control of the airplane.

-DW

Read More

2/3 to 3/4 of Americans Communists, depending...

Anyone who knows me well at all knows that I don't care for polls and surveys and such. I think it's a rare occurance indeed when a survey consisting of five hundred or a thousand people polled hits upon a single, much less numerous sentiments consistent with the general sense of a citizenry topping 270 million.

I don't think it's necessarily a purposeful misleading that these poll-takers are engaging in, but I don't necessarily believe it isn't either. It all depends on the reasoning behind the particular poll taken, who's conducting it, what kinds of questions are asked, what kinds of answers are provided, and so on and so forth. All of these factors weigh into the final outcome of the survey in question.

I admit that I'm not well versed in the science of poll taking. And I suppose that there are methods to the madness that I'm probably overlooking. But I think it's hard to make a case for polls basing their findings on such an insignificant proportion of the citizenry as the one the story below cites...

WASHINGTON (AP) --

Income differences in the U.S. are too stark, and the government should provide jobs and training for those having a tough time, according to majorities in a national poll released Thursday.

About seven in 10 said discrepancies between income levels are too large, a sentiment voiced by nearly two-thirds of those from households earning at least $80,000 a year, the survey said. Three-fourths of people earning less than $80,000 agreed.

Eight in 10 said the gap between the rich and the middle class has worsened over the last 25 years, said the survey by the University of Connecticut's Center for Survey Research and Analysis.

The poll comes in the early stages of a 2008 presidential campaign in which several Democratic candidates have discussed a widening distance between the country's rich and poor.
Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards has made ''two Americas'' one of his favorite themes. Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois have also touched on the topic.

In the survey, 58 percent said large pay differences help get people to work harder. Yet 61 percent said such discrepancies are not needed for the country to prosper.

Two-thirds said the government should make sure there is a job for everyone who wants one. Small majorities said it should provide jobs for people who can't find private employment, increase federal training programs and redistribute money with high taxes on the wealthy.

Even so, nearly two-thirds said it is not the government's responsibility to ease income differences.

The survey was conducted from June 18 to July 2 and involved telephone interviews with 500 adults nationally. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

My question is simply this: How do these surveys show such disparate results on different, yet obviously related questions asked of the same individuals; why are there such inconsistencies shown in the answers given? Are people truly that fickle about what they believe?

The results to which I refer in this particular survey are of course those showing very even percentages (58% and 61% respectively) of people who apparently believe on the one hand that 'large pay differences help get people to work harder,' yet on the other that 'such discrepancies (in pay I'm assuming) are not needed for the country to prosper.' Huh!?....prosperity has no relationship to incentive, yet it does; productivity is, or it isn't to be associated with success? I'm getting more confused by the second.

Other results from this survey I'm referring to are the ones indicating that two out of three people surveyed believe the government should 'make sure there is a job for everyone who wants one,' and nearly two out of three people surveyed believe that 'it's not the government's responsibility to ease income differences.' Say what!? On the one hand it IS the government's responsibility to provide jobs for those unemployed 'against their will;' on the other hand, and at the same time, it IS NOT the responsibility of government to do anything about the income gap between the, what, 'over-employed,' and the 'under-employed?'

Okay, obviously I'm utterly confused now. And I admit that the more surveys I read, the more confused I get, as a general rule. That probably accounts for most of why I'm simply not a survey/poll kinda fella. The results have never made much sense to me, and I think, based in part on these and others I've had the misfortune to read, they probably never will.

The only thing I've ever found to be consistent in the published results of most polls I've read is the overall tendency for them to show inconsistencies in the thinking of the individuals polled. In other words, they're consistently inconsistent. That fact in itself is enough for me to shy away from putting any stock whatsoever in poll and survey results of virtually any kind, on questions of virtually any kind.

Having taken a few polls myself, I can tell you that my personal experience is that the questions are always either too vaguely asked (not specific enough), or the answers provided are too few or too vague in themselves; or both. In fact, I've given up right in the midst of taking a poll due to these very factors before. I have no interest whatsoever in answering questions wherein someone has already predetermined for me that my answers must fall within a certain range of responses carefully chosen and framed by...someone.

So what is my point, you may be asking? I guess my main point is that I don't like polls, and I want you to know it. Other than that I'd be remiss if I didn't touch on the upside to the poll - only a 'small majority' of Americans (according to the survey) are true believers in the principles of communism. We can chalk that up to the triumph of capitalism I guess.

-DW

Read More