Tuesday After
Restoring the Lost Republic
Sen. Chuck Schumer - Ron Sachs / CNP
The past couple of days have been buzzing with the revelation that the strategy of the Democratic Party was to focus on forcing a Federal Government shutdown over budget negotiations. The revelation came from none other than the party’s standard bearer Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY). In the beginning moments of a scheduled conference call to discuss the budget impasse he revealed the leadership’s marching orders. “I always use the word extreme, that’s what the caucus instructed me to do the other week, extreme cuts and all these riders, and Boehner’s in a box. But if he supports the TEA Party there’s going to inevitably be a shutdown. What we are trying to do here…” It is at this point the Senator appears to realize not just the party faithful are on the call.
Validating this strategy former DNC Chairman Howard Dean suggested the party quietly root for a shutdown. “I wouldn’t like a shutdown from a statesman-like point of view. But if I was head of the DNC, I would be quietly rooting for i. From a partisan point of view, I think it would be the best thing in the world to have a shutdown.” Chairman Dean was speaking as part of a panel addressing the National Journal Insiders Conference on March 29th, 2011.
If one listens closely to the talking heads inside the Beltway once can conclude last November simply had no impact. It would appear the past election was simply a mandate to cut spending or spend in a different manner to appeal to the “proper” constituencies. After all weren’t the voters angry over spending and jobs? Wasn’t that the message of those TEA Party radicals that successfully ousted over sixty tax and spend Liberals?
In a word; NO! The message missed, deliberately or through utter ignorance, was not simply spending; that is only one symptom of the larger problem, the breadth and scope of the Federal Government. The message sent last November, by a significant portion of the population, represented a wholesale rejection of the enslaving nature of Government entitlement under the false premise of Social Justice. Regretfully the privileged class simply continues to paint the message in the “Two Party” rivalry that only needs compromise to solve the nation’s problems. They fail to understand they are the cause of the nation’s problems.
As the beltway insiders double down to further solidify their power we must double down to wrestle that power from them. We stand at a crossroads as a nation. It is at this point in history that we can reverse a century of misinformation and return the nation to its roots as a Constitutional Republic. The journey back begins with the understanding that “Party” has no meaning; ideology is what drives everything in government. Decide what you believe the role of Government is and square that meaning with the Constitution. Reject the Washington interpretation and do your own research. Finally, decide how much more liberty you are willing to surrender. Every entitlement you deem your due comes at a cost of liberty you surrender. The proper role of Federal Government is defined in the founding documents. Seek your answers there; then take action to reverse the trend.
Today is the day fliers are encouraged to ‘opt out’ of the new x-ray scanners deployed at the nation’s airports. The effort organized by Brian Sodegren through the creation of National Opt-Out Day web site to protest the use of scanners may have merit but will ultimately have little impact. While the cause is laudable the individuals impacted are those already impacted by the intrusion on their constitutional liberties from the TSA. Already delayed due to the higher volume of travelers; opting out only risks missing a flight that they will be charged a premium to reschedule.
The current draconian measures are successful only if we as a population continue to allow an overbearing government to trample our liberties in the false pretense of increasing our security. If we research the reasoning put forth to justify these measures, the shoe and underwear bombers, we can quickly conclude the measures would have no impact as these individuals were screened in foreign airports. TSA has no authority over sovereign nations and consequently cannot protect us from these sources (my interpretation). Indeed, it can be argued ‘opt out’ for screening may be having little impact. So what are we left to do in the fight to retain our constitutionally protected liberties?
The solution is simple, albeit a little painful. In a market driven economy you have to adversely impact a market segment – impacting the segment leaders – to raise the issue and bring about change. Many of the draconian measures we currently accept were in part driven by the aviation industry to get their planes back in the air after the attacks on 9/11. It can be argued that their failure to put in place adequate security measures contributed to the incarnation of what we now surrender ourselves to. To reverse this trend we must opt out of ANY method of transportation that requires us to submit to unlawful search (guilty until proven innocent or “your papers please”) as a condition of travel. When the financial impact starts to manifest in the market segment the leaders in that segment will use their influence in the corridors of power to force change.
The very acceptance of the measures we currently submit to hands victory to those who would see us destroyed. There are many forms of destruction they can force on us. The destruction of the liberties we hold to be true and valid to our society are a fate worse than death. We can sacrifice an extra day or two necessary to use another form of transportation and still complete the trip in question. We can retain our liberty by refusing to submit to PSA (Police State America). Perhaps it is time to rethink the entire Department of Homeland Security. They have failed to live up to the ultimate protection, the freedoms enumerated and presumed in the constitution.
It is helpful to consider the quote often attributed to Benjamin Franklin.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
The pending election on Tuesday presents a stark contrast for the voter. Over the past several months we have been overwhelmed with the tried and true Madison Avenue approach to politics, the 30 second sound bite. The message, always focus group tested to appeal to a specific trigger, speaks to what the other guy has done or won’t do. The underlying message is “can I buy your vote with this entitlement or that”. The “Change We Can Believe In” has proven to be a hollow sound bite indeed.
The nation is ready for change, just not the change the political elites espouse. A growing segment of the electorate is becoming self-educated on the real crisis facing the nation. This of course does not sit well with the self-appointed leaders found in the halls of intelligentsia. These leaders would have us believe their collectivist vision is the change we seek. They are ill informed and wrong in their assumptions.
The video piece featured was produced by the National Inflation Association. Full disclosure, I was unaware of this organization prior to seeing the embedded video posted by a Facebook friend. While somewhat lengthy the message is one that should be heard prior to the election. It illustrates multiple instances of local, State and Federal intrusions, often in direct conflict to Constitutional protections, on the individual liberties of its citizens. The last 30 minutes is more a sales pitch for investing in precious metals.
The message to the voter is a simple one, how much liberty are you willing to surrender to receive an entitlement that may fail when you can afford least to lose it. We as a nation have allowed this Progressive (collectivist) vision to the bill is coming due soon. We can continue on this “Social Justice” redistributionist path or we can return to our founding principles. The choice is simple. Do not look at the person as a “D” or an “R”, look at their record if they have any public service to speak of or to their policy positions to understand where they stand on government as the solution for all that ails us. I submit we need leaders that will return government to the confining limits found in the constitution.
Whatever your ideological beliefs vote on Tuesday; the nation needs to hear your voice and the political elites need to know where they stand.
Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of the day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers (administrators) too plainly proves a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing us to slavery. – Thomas Jefferson
Last night the first, in fact to my knowledge only public debate attended by the district’s incumbent congressional representative, was presented by the League of Women Voters (LWV) and the AP Government students of Grayslake Central High School. I would like to begin by congratulating the students who conducted virtually all aspects of the forum and the League of Women Voters for their sponsorship. I will not declare a winner in this debate as I, unlike the representative from the LWV, do have a horse in this race.
The debate provided an interesting contrast between the incumbent, Joe Walsh (R) and Bill Scheurer (G). In many respects one could see the almost scripted nature of the incumbent. On one point though, she revealed in her position what has become the underlying theme of what is wrong in the political realm today. When asked for her position on term limits her response was to state she did not support term limits. In response to her Republican opponent’s response she rebutted “I have many ‘unnamed colleagues’ who ran on term limits and they’re still there years later”; implying the point to be a red herring. She went on to elaborate in a time of war she has come to rely on the experience of the careerists.
The congresswoman’s response was in my opinion, an inside baseball – or beltway - if you prefer, response. It demonstrated clearly the disconnect with those of the political class inside the beltway and the rest of the nation. Historical precedent can be found supporting a limited tenure by the citizen representative in Washington. This precedent, given my representative’s response, seems to be beneath her.
The vocal outrage across the nation directly conflicts with Ms Bean’s “Inside the Beltway” rhetoric. The problems we face as a nation can be directly tied to entrenched incumbents who are able to maintain their advantage by stealing from the general population to bring home the bacon to buy votes. I submit it is the entrenched nature that is the problem and term limits of six or eight years in the House and twelve in the Senate would go a long way in neutralizing this problem.
Recent Comments