Category Archives: Ruling Class

Friday Follies or Outrage of the Month?

Posted on by

Usually, on Fridays, I choose a number of topics to discuss. This Friday is no exception. We have examples of betrayal, constitutional violations, political lies at all levels, a nation stumbling into chaos, a chaos created, abetted and supported by liberal politics and agendas.

Let’s discuss betrayal. John Boehner has ruled that the House will not oppose Obamacare and will kowtow to democrats when the next Continuing Resolution arrives in a couple of months. Why is this democrat operative still Speaker of the House? He should be removed. Immediately.

Boehner cares not about the welfare of the country. His primary interest is supporting the Ruling Class, to remain a Washington insider. The only way to accomplish that goal is to rollover for every democrat initiative that arrives in Congress. How does he remain in Congress? He’s in a safe, democrat, district. It’s the democrats and the RINO local central committees that keep him in office.

Conservatives are planning on a primary opponent against Boehner but they’ll have to fight both the Ohio ‘Pubs as well as cross-over democrats. Whomever is Boehner’s primary opponent, I’ll send him, or her, a few bucks.

GOP Leadership Plan for CR/Obamacare: Meekness or Malice

By: Daniel Horowitz (Diary)  |  August 22nd, 2013 at 08:52 PM  |

At some point, rank-and-file conservative activists will have to confront an inconvenient reality.  The Republicans in Washington are not just dumb or spineless – they are the problem.  They don’t share our values and seek to undermine our beliefs.  The only way that will change is if we return the favor and thwart their political careers.

Earlier this evening, Speaker John Boehner announced his grand plans for fighting Obamacare in the budget.  He will pass a short-term continuing resolution (CR) until some time in December, grouping the new budget deadline with the debt ceiling date, and create another grand end-of-year fiscal cliff.  He will fund Obamacare in the short term CR, but by George, he will fight like hell in the debt ceiling battle!  For now, they will make the short term CR about locking in the sequester cuts.

Here are some points to ponder:

  • I don’t think Charlie Brown would have attempted to kick the football so many times.  Let’s review the past three years.  In January 2011, Republicans pledged to defund Obamacare in the FY 2011 CR and cut of $100 billion in spending.  They lied.  Ultimately, they only cut $352 million and funded Obamacare. They promised to fight on the next debt ceiling battle and cut trillions.  They caved on August 1, 2011 for the McConnell debt increase, and handed Obama a free $2.4 trillion debt ceiling ticket to take him past the election.  The only thing we got in return was the sequester, which prioritized military cuts over everything else.

We were then promised that the real show would begin in September when they fight for the new Ryan budget for FY 2012.  They punted until the end of the year, ultimately passing a massive omnibus bill, which funded Obamacare, vitiated the Ryan budget, and violated every tenet of the GOP Pledge to America.  In 2012, they caved on funding Obamacare in the FY 2013 CR, punting it to March 2013 under the pretense that we would win the election and have even more leverage.  Then they caved on the McConnell tax increases at year’s end, noting that the default position was against us.  But, the contended, wait until the debt ceiling when the default position is no debt limit increase, and we will have more leverage.

That sentiment changed quickly when leadership brought down a number of phony pollsters to the annual retreat at Williamsburg, warning members of Armageddon if they fight on the debt ceiling.  So they cleverly “suspended” the debt ceiling at the end of January, promising to first fight on the CR in March, and locking the sequester and pass a better budget that would balance in ten years.  Then, they would head into the next debt ceiling fight unified behind that path to balance, which defunded Obamacare.

A number of conservatives signed onto the “Williamsburg Accord” with the promise of a better budget than the previous year.  Leadership rearranged the deck and used the fiscal cliff and Obamacare tax increases, along with new unrealistic CBO projections of revenue to repackage the exact same budget from the previous year.  Conservatives had voted for Obamacare all for a false promise and the sequester cuts that were already locked in by default.

Now they are, once again, punting on the CR for the debt ceiling!!!

  • Anyone who believes these people when they say they are scared to fight on the CR but will fight on the debt ceiling is not playing with a full deck.  According to the establishment, the debt ceiling is even more radioactive, as it raises the specter of a default, not just funding for government.

  • We know that deep down they believe Obamacare is here to stay.  So why not man up and publicly proclaim that belief?

  • Punting the Obamacare fight will free up September to pass amnesty.  Why bother with the nuisance of Obamacare three weeks before implementation when they can score points for Obama?

  • Back in January, they suspended the debt ceiling so that the CR and debt ceiling would not be grouped together, and we could fight each one individually.  Or so we were told.  Now they are punting the CR so it will coincide with the debt ceiling.  What gives?  Perhaps, they want to force one big grand deal with a bunch of shiny objects so the base only gets betrayed once, instead of betraying them now and then incurring their wrath in December.

  • Once again, the sequester is the shiny object.  But didn’t we already lock in the sequester in March?  Wasn’t that already used to sugar-coat the bitter pill of funding Obamacare in March?  Why recycle it?  Are we going to put a double lock in it?

  • If Republicans are not willing to even engage in brinkmanship, and clearly telegraph the message to Dems that they are terrified of brinkmanship – to the extent that they are willing to engage in a civil war with the base – why will Democrats ever feel the need to acquiesce even to leadership’s watered-down requests?  They will just sit there and wait them out, knowing that Republicans will always blink first, even over something like Obamacare, which is an albatross for Dems headed into an election year fought largely on red states.

  • And where is Mitch McConnell?  In the witness protection program?

Red State can get a bit raw at times. In this case, however, they are right on target.

***

The “blue” states, those bastions of the democrat party and their liberal, tax, tax, tax, spend, spend, spend agenda is losing money and population. People are voting with their feet and it that can’t be done, they’re sending their money out of state to locales where they won’t be constantly robbed by state governments.

Map: The mass exodus of taxpayers from New York, California

Aug. 22, 2013 11:22am

New York and California may be the worst tax offenders, but Michigan, Illinois and Ohio aren’t far behind:

Tax_Foundation_MapA new report from the national Tax Foundation examines the exodus of taxpayers from these states… as well as the transfer of these tax dollars to states like Texas, Arizona and Florida:

This week, our Monday Map draws data from our interactive State Migration Calculator, and illustrates the interstate movement of income over the past decade (from 2000 to 2010). When a person moves to a new state, their income is added to the total of all other incomes in that state. This positively affects the total taxable income in his or her new state, and negatively affects the income in the state he or she left. […]

Florida benefited the most—interstate migrants brought a net $67.3 billion dollars in annual income into the state between 2000 and 2010. The next two highest gainers were Arizona ($17.7 billion) and Texas ($17.6 billion). New York, on the other hand, lost the most income ($-45.6 billion), and is followed by California ($-29.4 billion) and Illinois ($-20.4 billion).

Note, too, that Missouri, like those Blue States, is in the negative category (light purple) instead of gaining income and population.

***

The libs crow about Separation of Church and State, ignoring that no such provision exists in the Constitution. That said, there is a TON of case law that supports the concept. What IS in the Constitution is the prohibition of the federal government or “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” There is, too, case law that extends that federal prohibition to the states…except New Mexico’s Supreme Court appears to be ignorant of that prohibition.

August 22, 2013 at 6:44 pm

Earlier today, the Supreme Court of New Mexico ruled that the First Amendment does not protect a Christian photographer’s ability to decline to take pictures of a same-sex commitment ceremony—even when doing so would violate the photographer’s deeply held religious beliefs. As Elaine Huguenin, owner of Elane Photography, explained: “The message a same-sex commitment ceremony communicates is not one I believe.”

But New Mexico’s highest court, deciding an appeal of the case, today agreed with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission and ruled against Elane Photography, concluding that neither protections of free speech nor free exercise of religion apply.

Elaine and her husband Jon, both committed Christians, run their small photography business in Albuquerque, N.M. In 2006, she declined the request to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony. In 2008, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission ruled that by declining to use its artistic and expressive skills to communicate what was said and what occurred at the ceremony, the business had engaged in illegal discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The commission ruled this way based on New Mexico’s human rights law, which prohibits discrimination in public accommodations (“any establishment that provides or offers its services … or goods to the public”) based on race, religion and sexual orientation—among other protected classes.

Elane Photography didn’t refuse to take pictures of gays and lesbians, but only of such a same-sex ceremony, based on the owners’ belief that marriage is a union of a man and a woman. New Mexico law agrees, as it has no legal same-sex civil unions or same-sex marriages. Additionally, there were other photographers in the Albuquerque area who could have photographed the ceremony.

Groups supporting Elane Photography filed friend-of-the-court briefs. The Cato Institute argued that, under the First Amendment, photographers have freedom of speech protections against government-compelled artistic expressions. The Becket Fund argued that New Mexico’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects the “free exercise” of Elane Photography. The Alliance Defending Freedom—the lawyers defending Elane Photography—also argued that the First Amendment’s free exercise clause protects their client.

Today’s decision highlights the increasing concern many have that anti-discrimination laws and same-sex marriage run roughshod over the rights of conscience and religious liberty. Thomas Messner, a visiting fellow at The Heritage Foundation, has documented multiple instances in which laws forbidding discrimination based on sexual orientation, as well as laws redefining marriage, already have eroded religious liberty and the rights of conscience. Indeed, earlier this year, the United States Commission on Civil Rights held an entire hearing on conflicts between nondiscrimination policies and civil liberties such as religious freedom.

In a growing number of incidents, government hasn’t respected the beliefs of Americans. Citizens must insist that government not discriminate against those who hold to the historic definition of marriage. Policy should prohibit the government—or anyone who receives taxpayers’ dollars—from discriminating in employment, licensing, accreditation or contracting against those who believe marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

So much for religious freedom in the United States. You only have the freedom that government says you have.

Facebook

Trends and Portents

Posted on by

Mark Levin’s book, The Liberty Amendments, has triggered a lot of discussion on the state of the nation, the Constitution and the constant violation of the Constitution by the federal government. Just scanning national opinion pieces this morning led to these headlines. One is a piece on the state of the government, another is on national trends and polls, still another proposes the country is in a pre-revolutionary state.

What Has Mark Levin Wrought?

By James V Capua, August 18, 2013

In The Liberty Amendments Mark Levin has delivered more than advertised. He promises a credible agenda for reinvigorating constitutional government based on an approach to the amendment process which avoids the liabilities of better known options.

Continued here…

Obama Flouts the Law

By Clarice Feldman, August 18, 2013

From his first presidential campaign to the present, the president, his party and his administration have openly flouted existing laws, and it doesn’t seem there is any legal means of stopping him short of impeachment.

Continued here…

America’s Tyranny Threshold

By Eileen F. Toplansky, August 19, 2013

As he finishes up his Martha’s Vineyard vacation, Barack Obama would be well-served to recall the fiery words of Jonathan Mayhew, who is famous for his sermons “espousing American rights — the cause of liberty, and the right and duty to resist tyranny.”

Continued here…

And finally, this one. Its subject is one few want to discuss all the while its one that is being discussed more every day.  Is a second American Revolution on the horizon?

Time for a New American Revolution?

By Richard Winchester, August 19, 2013

The United States of America was born in revolution. The Declaration of Independence asserted that people have a right of revolution. According to The Declaration, “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [such as “life,” “liberty,” “the pursuit of happiness,” and “the consent of the governed”], it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

The Declaration acknowledged that people should not, and will not, seek to overturn “long-established” governments “for light and transient reasons.” After “a long train of abuses and usurpations,” however, which are clearly aimed at establishing “absolute Despotism,” people have not only the “right,” but the “duty,” to “throw off such Government, and provide new guards for their future security.”

The U.S. has not experienced a successful revolution since the one between 1775 and 1783, despite Thomas Jefferson’s hope that “[t]he tree of liberty should be refreshed from time to time by the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

Some think it’s time for a new American revolution. Moreover, many of the preconditions for a revolt exist.

Continued here…

One of Levin’s common quotes is that we are living in a post-Constitutional era. In other words, government, at least at the federal level, Congressmen and the Supreme Court no longer follow the constraints of the Constitution. The Obamacare decision forced by Chief Justice Roberts is a prime example of that latter segment of government. There was NO Constitutional basis for his decision. But, with his vote, he joined the liberal Justices and overrode the strenuous objections of the remaining Justices. Roberts followed the liberal diktat that the Constitution is whatever the Court says it is.

That is a lie. Few, however, were reluctant to stand up and say so.

Perhaps one of the best statements of the condition of our government and the accelerating discussion of revolution, is this article by In her article she cites the acts of Obama and the democrats in government that supports Levin’s premise that we no longer have a governing Constitution.

Today’s post as turned into a long one. I’ll close with this from Betsy McCaughey.

King Obama vs. Rule of Law

By on 8.14.13 @ 6:08AM

Have we ever seen such presidential contempt for constitutional principles and our nation’s history?

At an August 9 press conference, President Barack Obama said that when Congress won’t agree to what he wants, he will act alone. That statement, which he has made before, should send shivers through freedom-loving Americans.

The President was asked where he gets the authority to delay the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate, even though the law states that the mandate “shall” go into effect January 1, 2014. The Obama administration had announced the delay on July 3, without seeking Congress’s help in changing the law.

In response, Obama said that “in a normal political environment, it would have been easier for me to simply call up the Speaker and say, you know what, this is a tweak that doesn’t go to the essence of the law… so let’s make a technical change to the law. That would be the normal thing that I would prefer to do.” 

But Obama explained that he took a different route because Republicans control the House of Representatives and ardently oppose Obamacare.

Obama’s statement reveals how disconnected this president is from this nation’s history and constitutional principles. Divided government is the norm in the United States. Most modern presidents have had to govern with an uncooperative Congress or at least one house of Congress controlled by the other major party. With the exception of Richard Nixon, these presidents — from Eisenhower, to Reagan, to Clinton, and both Bushes — have not tried to exempt themselves from the Constitution.

Article II, Sec. 3 of the Constitution commands the president to faithfully execute the law.

Courts have consistently ruled that presidents have little discretion about it. President Obama can’t pick and choose what parts of the Affordable Care Act he enforces and when. 
 

The framers duplicated the safeguards their English ancestors had fought hard to win against tyrannical monarchs. Most important, the English Bill of Rights of 1689 barred an executive from suspending the law. 

The tug and pull between the president and an uncooperative Congress is what the framers intended. It’s checks and balances in action. Obama has no patience for this constitutional system. In June 2012, the President announced that he would stop enforcing parts of the nation’s immigration laws, because “We can’t wait” for Congress to offer relief to young illegal immigrants brought into the country by their parents.

Now the President is rewriting the Affordable Care Act. Delaying the employer mandate is not a mere “tweak.” Because individuals will be required to have insurance as of January 1, 2014 or pay a penalty, some ten million currently uninsured or underinsured workers who would have gotten coverage at work under the employer mandate will now have to pay the penalty or go to the exchanges. That means more people enrolling on the exchanges, more dependence on government and a bigger bill for taxpayers. It’s not the law that Congress enacted.

Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) has urged Congress to vote against any continuing resolution to fund the federal government after September 30, as long as it funds this distorted version of Obamacare.

“Laws are supposed to be made by Congress, not… (by) the president,” Lee explained. If the administration is not prepared to fully enforce Obamacare as enacted, including the employer mandate, it should agree to delay the entire law and remove its funding from the budget.

Sadly most members of Congress are too busy looking out for themselves to stop the president from chipping away at the Constitution. Last week Republicans and Democrats conspired with the president to weasel out of Sect. 1312 of Obamacare, which requires members of Congress to get health coverage on the newly created exchanges. Congress was happy to let the President unconstitutionally give them a special taxpayer funded subsidy that no one else in America earning $174,000 would get.

Such self-dealing brings to mind what Benjamin Franklin warned about, as he and his fellow framers finished writing the Constitution. It’s a republic, said Franklin, “if you can keep it.”

If Congress refuses to use its power to restrain the Executive branch, we then reside in a dictatorship. No one with the ability to enforce constraints is willing to do so and thus participate in the dictatorship.

 

Facebook

Conservatives fight back…in the Primaries.

Posted on by

The next election cycle is coming in 2014. It’s an off-year election, one-third of the Senate and every House seat will be on the line—the ballot. The ‘Pub establishment from Renice Priebus and Karl Rove, to the national campaign committees are targetting conservatives. The conservatives and the Tea Party are fighting back.

Regional conservative groups are organizing opposition. These groups and the Tea Party have been used by the establishment for the last time. This election, the ‘Pub establishment pols will have opposition. As the establishment as sown, so shall they now reap.

Mitch McConnell’s primary opponent comes out swinging

Alex Pappas, Political Reporter, 11:39 AM 07/24/2013

The Kentucky businessman who launched a Republican primary challenge against Mitch McConnell on Wednesday told The Daily Caller he’s running because conservatives have a “tremendous level of dissatisfaction” with the Senate minority leader.

“There’s a tremendous level of dissatisfaction with the fact that for 30 years, he’s been just a big government guy,” Matt Bevin said of McConnell. “He votes for every bailout, he votes for every piece of pork, he is a huge fan of earmarking — it has been temporarily banned, as you know — but folks like Mitch McConnell have made a career of greasing the wheels for themselves and for others.”

During a phone interview an hour before he formally announced his campaign at the Kentucky State Capitol in Frankfurt, Bevin also laid the groundwork for the argument that McConnell is more concerned with his leadership role in Washington than in representing Kentucky.

“I live in the same town as the man, and I’ve literally never seen him one time,” Bevin said of McConnell. “Ever. And it’s not like we move in entirely different worlds. I’ve never seen him one time, except when he was speaking at a political event. Fifteen years. In the same town in Kentucky. That’s odd. And I’m not alone in that.”

Bevin slammed McConnell as a “big proponent of increased taxes,” a “proponent of pork barrel spending” and as “someone who doesn’t have a tremendous amount of respect for the constitution.”

…

“McConnell has voted for higher taxes, bailouts, debt ceiling increases, congressional pay raises, and liberal judges,” the announcer in Bevin’s ad states.

As for McConnell, his new ad slams “Bailout Bevin” for taking $200,000 in state government money last year after his Connecticut factory, which wasn’t insured, burned down.

…

Asked to respond to that ad, which claims Bevin is “not a Kentucky Conservative,” the businessman said that he’s “far more conservative and have spent far more time in Kentucky in the last 15 years than Sen. McConnell has.”

“With respect to a bailout, it’s interesting that a guy who has voted for literally a trillion dollars worth of bailouts for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Wall Street banks, etc., is taking issue with the fact that the people of a town and a state wanted to do something for a business that had burned down, that is historic, that is the oldest family run business in their state, and wanted to gather around, rally around, and do what they could to ensure that those jobs were saved,” Bevin said. “That these employees were not dumped onto the public system.”

Bevins may not be the best candidate, but he certainly can’t be any worse than Mitch McConnell.

John Boehner should take note as well. Every seat in the House is up for election—that is election, not re-election.

Our own Vicky Hartzler should be another establishment rubber-stamp looking over her shoulder. She hasn’t found a pork project yet that she’s hasn’t liked. She rubber-stamped the first Farm Bill with its massive overspending for Food Stamps, crop subsidies and price supports that benefit large and corporate farms. Subsidies and price supports that she and her farmer husband take accept.

When the 2nd version of the Farm Bill, minus the Food Stamps but containing all the pork, was presented to the House, she voted for it again! More pork, more spending, more waste and what is her response? “The catfish duplication was removed.” Big freaking deal! A few paltry millions removed while voting for BILLIONS more in spending.

If the Republican party doesn’t get it’s collective head out, they may, like their Whig predecessors, find their party being split and the ‘Pubs ending up on the historical trash heap. When a vote for either of two parties produces little difference, what other option is left?

‘Pubs, it’s time to consider the welfare of the nation, not for the welfare of your political ambitions and your financial pockets.

Facebook

Does the Rule of Law still exist?

Posted on by

I was listening to the news this morning and heard that a group of illegal “immigrants” were protesting outside the office of the Kansas Secretary of State, Kris Kobach.  Their complaint? Kobach insists on upholding the law and helps other states, like Arizona, formulate legislation to curb illegal entry into this country.

This particular group, some from within Kansas and others imported from out of state, want Kobach to resign because he enforces existing law. While they were protesting, ICE did not appear.

“We the People…”

This post, however, is not about illegal immigration, per se. It is about the failure of government to uphold and enforce existing law. The example above and the refusal to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, are just two of many failures by the federal government. If such actions, the refusal to enforce selected law and legislation, becomes institutionalized by the FedGov and the states, what are the consequences?

Let’s take an example from the international stage. Last February, Obama was in a lather accusing Communist China of not following international trade law. Obama called, “the soon to be president of the a country that is the world’s second most powerful and that highly values “face” (pride,dignity) a cheater.” In light of Obama’s actions these last four years, that statement was the height of hypocrisy.

Clyde Prestositz, the author of the sentence quoted above defines the failure to enforce the rule of law as playing with the rules.

The phrase “all must play by the same rules” implies that all are playing the same game, but in actuality they are not. In many instances there are no rules or the rules are vague, untested, and unclear. Even where there are rules, many countries have been ignoring them for a long time and there is thus strong precedent for not playing by the rules or even for interpreting the rules such that they are actually said to bless the apparent violations.

The rule of law operates under the assumption that all parties have the same understanding of the law. If that is not so, how can any commonality of thought exist?

A long time ago, there was a science fiction short story about a murder case…the willful killing of a peaceful extraterrestrial alien. The killer proudly admitted killing the alien because it wasn’t human and was therefore a “varmint”. Killing a “varmint” was not illegal (in that story.)  The story ends with the Sheriff approaching the killer, pistol in hand, and tells the killer, “We’ve just redefined the description of ‘varmint’.”

Several of the protesters outside Kris Kobach’s state offices admitted to being in the United States illegally. They protested publicly confident the FedGov, in the form of ICE, would not intervene. They were correct. The federal government is actively redefining immigration law. When there is no commonality of thought—definition of law in this case, there is no law and the rule of law cannot exist.

When the federal government creates new law, whether through the normal passage through both Houses of Congress, or by edict in the form of federal regulations, how can the government reasonably expect the public to adhere to those laws when the federal government itself does not? It cannot.

Anarchy is the result.

I, personally, do not wish to live in a state of anarchy. If this trend of government, the failure to adhere to the rule of law, continues, we will have anarchy and that leads to civil war.

As an engineer, it was part of my job to perform risk assessments. To look, not at the best case, but at all cases including the worse case. Truly, civil war, is the worse case but I see it approaching if we continue on our current path. Along with risk assessments, I also looked at means for mitigation of those risks.

One mitigation is to establish, or perhaps re-establish the rule of law. If we cannot coerce the federal government to do so, then we must do so within ourselves, within our communities and states. Next, would be to extend the commonality of thought, the same rule of law to other communities and states and establish alliances to enforce commonality of law within our communities and states. Call it the Red States Alliance.

Numbers count. When we have sufficient numbers, individuals, communities, states, with the same commonality of thought, the same rules of law, we can then pressure the federal government to conform to our definitions, our rules, our commonality of thought, our rule of law.

Failure to ally ourselves with others of common thought and purpose means we must conform to the rules, the redefinition of the FedGov’s rules of law. That path leads to an authoritarian United States and the Constitution ceases to exist as our standard. It has already been grievously damaged but it is not yet irreparable.

To answer the question in my post title, does the rule of law still exist? Unfortunately, as much as I wish it weren’t so, it does not. When the federal government fails to enforce law, redefines law to make that law conform to an agenda contrary to its intent, the rule of law no longer exists. It’s not too late to reinstate the rule of law but the time is approaching when that option, too, ceases to be possible. Then our choice can only be to create new rules and impose them on the federal government.

Facebook

Tuesday’s Notes

Posted on by

There have been a number of items appearing of interest today. Some are significant like the RNC attempting to establish a dictatorship within the party. Some, like the passing of Neil Armstrong, are life events of the changing times.

The RNC, as usual, stumbles along. They continue to associate Ron Paul with the Tea Party when he is not. Ron Paul and the Tea Party agree on a number of items but Ron Paul marches to his own radical drummer while the Tea Party follows another. Paul’s statement about Bin Ladin is a prime example of those differences. Paul fails to understand that the border for national security lies on their shores, not ours.

***

I received an e-mail today from city hall. It announced that the flags around town would be at half-mast in memory of Neil Armstrong. I watched Neil Armstron step on the moon in 1969 when I was assigned to Keesler AFB. I had just arrived a few days before to begin training. I and some friends were watching the landing in the BOQ dayroom.  It was all in black and white and somewhat grainy. The audio was clear fortunately. The transmission from the moon didn’t have the band-width for color.  All the color shots and videos were on film and brought back to be developed later.

I remember some commentary concerning the fate of the two in the lander if it could not take off. Whether they had “suicide pills.” The supporting technology, while extensively tested, was not really stable. So much of today’s advances were developed during that period as by-products of NASA and the space program.

Neil Armstrong refused to benefit from his feat. For a time he would give away his autograph. Then he discovered people were selling them for outrageous sums. He stopped autographing after that. He didn’t mind giving his signature but he didn’t want others to profit from that gift.

Goodbye, Neil. You’ll be remembered. You’ve left your legacy on Mare Tranquillitatis, beyond the reach of petty politicians here on Earth.

***

For those of you who’ve read my earlier posts about Ron Paul know I’m no fan.  However, he and the Tea party won a common victory yesterday against the ‘Pub establishment.

The establishment ‘Pubs were pressing a rule change that would disenfranchise any delegate who did not swear fealty to the establishment. The rule would force the state organizations to be puppets of the RNC.  When the proposed rule was published, a Hue ‘n Cry arose and the rule was amended to remove that tyrannical provision.

Republicans reach rules change deal to avert floor fight with Texans, Ron Paul backers

Republican leaders moved Monday to quell an uprising by Texans and Ron Paul supporters that threatened to steal the spotlight from GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney and expose rifts in the party right as its nominating convention got under way.

Under a compromise reached late Monday, Romney supporters and GOP leaders agreed to back down from a proposed rule change that effectively would have allowed presidential nominees to choose what delegates represent them at national conventions.

The proposed change was aimed at muting the power of insurgent candidates such as Tea Party favorite Ron Paul but prompted an uproar from Texas Republicans, who select their delegates through successive votes in conventions at precincts, then districts and finally statewide.

…

“We believe in Texas as a principle that no presidential candidate nor the RNC should be able to tell Texas who can or cannot be a delegate to the national convention,” Davis said.

“This isn’t Reagan versus Ford, Goldwater versus Rockefeller,” Davis added. “This is George Washington versus King George.”

And Texas Republican Vice Chairwoman Melinda Fredricks had flatly told RNC rules committee members Sunday night that the Lone Star State would stand its ground.

“The Texas delegation considers the new rule . . . an unacceptable infringement on our right to freely choose our delegates to the national convention,” she said in an e-mail to the committee members. “We realize not every state selects its delegates in the same manner we do, and perhaps you find it hard to understand what has us so worked up. Frankly, we find it hard to understand how your delegations would be willing to give away their rights.”

While this rule change was aimed at Ron Paul and his delegates, it also affected those delegates for Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and others. The delegates who supported the Tea Party would be as affected as those for Ron Paul.

I’ll give Paul credit for this. His organization lead the fight.

***

I found the following article during my daily scan of internet news.  The Washington Times is a good conservative source of information. However…this article doesn’t ring true.  The Tea Party, of all organizations, studies the Constitution more than the rank and file of the ‘Pubs.

Be that as it may, here is that article. It does bring forth questions. Just how knowledgeable are we?

Embracers of the Constitution are baffled by what’s really in it

Voters see rights they don’t have

By Stephen Dinan – The Washington Times, Monday, August 27, 2012

TAMPA, Fla. — They say they stand for a return to constitutional principles, but it turns out tea party supporters are just as confused as to what rights and powers are in the federal government’s founding document, according to the latest The Washington Times/JZ Analytics poll.

Most Americans say they’ve read all or most of the Constitution, but they tend to see more rights than the document actually guarantees, and struggle over what the Constitution says about the powers and structure of government itself.

For example, 92 percent of those surveyed said the Constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial, but only 40 percent knew that it grants Congress the power to coin money, and just 53 percent said it establishes Congress‘ power to levy an income tax.

And voters thought they had protections that they don’t have — at least not in the Constitution: 71 percent said the it protected the right to a secret ballot and 58 percent said it guarantees a right to education, though neither appears in the document.

“What most studies find is that many people think they know a great deal about the Constitution, but when asked specific questions about our founding document as a country they really miss the mark,” said Doug Smith, executive director at the Center for the Constitution, based at James Madison’s Montpelier home.

…

But The Times/JZ Analytics poll found self-identified Republicans and self-identified tea party sympathizers often shared the same views as other voters. For example, 66 percent of Republicans and 65 percent of tea party supporters said the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy, which was almost identical to the 68 percent of all voters who said the same thing.

The same held true on Congress‘ power to coin money and the right to a secret ballot.

Republicans, though, were far less likely to say the Constitution guarantees the right to education — which it does not — than the general public. While 71 percent of Democrats and 55 percent of independents said education was in the Constitution, only 47 percent of Republicans did.

…

He also said civics education has deteriorated, adding that he learned about the Constitution in ninth grade, but his daughter, who just completed that grade, did not.

The Washington Times article continues to a second page. I urge you to read the entire article. It contains some interesting information and implies that the lack of civics education has been driven by the federal government. I can’t speak to that but like the writer above, I was taught the federal and my state constitution as a requirement for graduation from high school.  My daughter, who graduated from a private Christian school, did not. Perhaps we should make this a goal of our new ‘Pub administration?

Facebook

A Gathering Storm?

Posted on by

I came across the column below accidentally.  I was looking for a different article but fat-fingered the link and end up with this one.  It bears disseminating because I’ve many friends in the ‘Pub establishment and I know they’ve never considered what may happened if the ‘Pubs in DC screw up…again.

July 9, 2012

The Gathering Storm within the GOP

By Daren Jonescu

Though all conservative hands must be on deck for Mitt Romney between now and November 6, there is little doubt that from that day forward, America will witness the final foundation-shaking battle in a long war — namely, a fight for the heart of the Republican Party.  Either the current, longstanding GOP establishment will finally cede control of the official banner of political conservatism, or the traditional two-party system, and with it the American republic, will dissolve.

That there is a GOP establishment ought to go without saying, although this self-evident fact has been vehemently denied by a few of the establishment’s most prominent representatives.  These denials ought to be a heartening source of amusement to anti-establishment conservatives, as they confirm the extreme degree to which the old guard fails to recognize its exposure, and the severity of the light that has been cast upon it of late.

The track record of the Washington ‘Pub establishment, like McConnell and Boehner, is abysmal.  Last year, Boehner said they would not approve a debt limit increase.  Then McConnell broached an idea, which Boehner agreed, that gave Obama and the dems exactly what they wanted. A free ride that increased the debt limit, no budget submitted, a Bi-partisan committee to set spending cuts and a default if the dems, as they did, refused to cooperate. The result was an increase in debt, few spending cuts—except for the military which received the largest portion—so large that it endangers our national security, of the cuts.

The people were outraged by the ‘Pub establishment’s betrayal of our conservative ideals.  The establishment members, however, didn’t care. As long as they toed the establishment line, they were secure in their positions.  McConnell and Boehner may as well have said, “Conservatism be damned! We have ours!”

The definitive quality of an establishmentarian is, of course, the quality of being “established.”  Being established, in general usage, means having a secure place, and being firmly entrenched in one’s respected status within a social structure.  Being a member of a political establishment entails being aligned with, and firmly entrenched within, the presiding power structure. 

The primary argument used to deny the existence of a Republican establishment is to point out that there are differing opinions among its alleged members.  In fact, internal disagreement does nothing to countervail the reality of an establishment, as it is a given that any broad group of people in the business of creating, advocating, and defending policy positions will be beset with factionalism among its members. 

The situation is as bad at the state and local levels as it is in Washington.  Time after time we see mediocre candidates being pushed for office—candidates often unqualified by training, profession or experience for the office.  Those candidates, however, “paid their dues” following the traditional process and thus expect, and receive, support from the state and local establishment.

These people, collectively, define the parameters of the Republican Party, which party, in turn, serves as the official representative of conservative principle for electoral purposes — i.e., for the purposes of voicing conservative aspirations within the realm of law-making and leadership.  In short, the Republican establishment has a monopoly on defining conservatism at the all-important levels of public policy and mainstream discourse.  Thus, the hopes and concerns of non-establishment conservatives and libertarians are given, at best, a muted hearing in Washington, whether within government proper or among the professional conservative pundit class.  Under present circumstances, this means that the truest voice of constitutional republicanism — which ought to be the dominant concern on all sides of a proper American political establishment — is being choked out in favor of the “go along to get along” model of political survivalism that has typified the Washington GOP for several decades.

Let’s be perfectly clear about this.  The problem is not the existence of an establishment, per se.  There will always be an establishment; it is the nature of human social endeavor gradually to elevate certain people or schools of thought into pre-eminence.  Societal development requires this. 

The problem is the nature of the current establishment, and its recalcitrance to fundamental change.  More bluntly, the problem is the current establishment’s refusal to accept responsibility for its failure, and to step aside for the good of the country.

Playing by the present GOP establishmentarians’ rules, almost without exception, for forty years (I am referring to the actual men who constitute today’s establishment, not the broader GOP trends which of course go back much farther), has brought America to the brink of complete national collapse.  America is no longer financially tenable; it is teetering on the edge of moral dissolution; it is today only nominally a constitutional republic; and through milquetoastism in the face of a determined leftist assault on America, the GOP has relinquished the societal reins to a man whose mentors, advisers, and cohorts include numerous Marxist and post-Marxist revolutionaries.

Such a prolonged, abject failure as is embodied by the GOP establishment is possible only in the sphere of electoral politics, in which entire viewpoints are represented monopolistically by one party.  Imagine, by analogy, hiring a contractor to build your house.  Now imagine that it is forty years later, and you return to the property to find that the builders have thus far erected only parts of two walls, which they are in the process of tearing down for the eleventh time, as they have yet again forgotten to lay the foundation.  This predicament is impossible in ordinary reality, of course, at least until the left completes its fundamental transformation of the U.S. economy.  And yet it pretty closely approximates the nature of the GOP establishment’s performance in defense of individualism, liberty, and the Constitution over that same forty-year span.

As many have pointed out, it is absurd that the fate of liberty in the United States of America should hang in the balance of a 5-4 decision in the Supreme Court.  Consider, however, that even if Romney is able to defeat Obama in November, and thus prevent the full implementation of the radical “social justice” agenda that Obama has promised for his second term, his margin of victory will be even slimmer than that 5-4 ratio that everyone was hoping for from SCOTUS.  In addition to, and almost regardless of, winning elections, the increasingly emboldened leftists who now constitute the Democrat Party establishment are winning the broader culture war, through a combination of corrupt education, media, and entitlement-inducing policy.

This is not some fantasy created by Daren Jonescu, the writer of his article. it is the unfortunate reality of our current ‘Pub organization in Washington. The establishment is fighting the emergence of grassroots conservatism as much, or perhaps more, that it fights the libs and socialism.  At times, it appears that the ‘Pub establishment would rather embrace socialism than it would embrace the conservative ethos of the Tea Party and other home-grown organizations.

The reason for this strange twist — the GOP trying to quell the enthusiasm of its, and the nation’s, potential saviors — is as old as man, and as clear as the meaning of the word “established.”  Those who see themselves as privileged, who have long enjoyed (or just recently come to realize) the benefits of being men of consequence and the vanity-stroking perks of pre-eminence, are loath to give them up.  And then there is the extraordinary public shame of having one’s near-cataclysmic failure thrown so unceremoniously at one’s feet.  The long-privileged class can hardly be expected to take this well.

And as the two-party system grants them the strategic advantage of a monopolistic hold on public conservatism, they can attempt to withstand the Tea Party threat to their privilege by challenging grassroots conservatives to a game of “king of the hill.”  As they are the ones at the top of the hill, the long war of attrition greatly favors them.  In practical terms, they have the elected offices, the bureaucratic offices, the national airwaves and op-ed pages, and all the perceived legitimacy that such things bring, while their opponents are, by definition, outsiders who lack these trappings of respectability. 

Constitutional conservatives will not win through a third-party challenge — or at least not in the foreseeable future.  This is not to defend the entrenched two-party system as such.  The first president sounded the proper warning in his farewell address against precisely the form of party politics that has evolved. 

In the 236 years since our Declaration of Independence, our political structure has become exactly that which Washington warned us to avoid.  The organization in Washington named by some as “The Ruling Class,” is apolitical. Political philosophy is irrelevant to them as is the two political parties except when a philosophy can be used to maintain their personal power and advantage.

I urge to you follow the links and read Jonescu’s entire article. It provides food for thought and consideration.

Ssschluup!

Posted on by
That’s the sound of someone sneaking up behind you and slipping a knife betwixt your ribs.  It means that the nation has been sold out, once again, for political expediency. 
Headlines say, “…the Tea Party won.”  Not so, there are two core principles in the Tea Party.  Those are No More Taxes and Cut Real Spending.  We “may” have achieved the first—maybe, but we didn’t win the second.  At best, all this deal does is slow the rate of spending. No, the Tea Party was betrayed.

Plus! Obama gets his automatic debt limit increase and able to override congressional disapproval until after the next election.  That probably removes the debt limit increase off the issue table in the coming elections.

As far as spending goes, supposedly there will be $917B immediate spending cuts to be determined by some bipartisan committee.  Those cuts have to pass both houses and Obama has to sign off too.  Just how confident are you that those cuts will pass the Senate?  I’m not.

In addition, Obama will have to sign off too.  Just how confident are you the Liar-in-Chief will keep his word?  I’m not.

The deal says cuts will be made equally from the Defense department and discretionary spending.  Why?  The DoD has been cut drastically already.  We’d be much better off eliminating Obamacare and Dodd-Frank.  Those two cuts would get business back in the running.  What more impediments to recovery removed? Eliminate the DoE and the EPA.  Neither follow their original mandate having been captured by the Eco-Wackos.

Rueters published a Factsheet on the agreement as it’s known at the moment. Here’s a partial bullet-list.

* The deal would allow President Barack Obama to raise the debt ceiling in three steps. Congress would get a chance to register its disapproval on two of these, but would not be able to block them unless it musters a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate — an unlikely prospect.

* It envisions spending cuts of roughly $2.4 trillion over 10 years, which Congress would approve in two steps — an initial $917 billion when the deal passes Congress and another $1.5 trillion by the end of the year.

* The first group of spending cuts would apply to the discretionary programs that Congress approves annually, covering everything from the military to food inspection.


…

* Some $350 billion of the $917 billion total would come from defense and other security programs which now account for more than half of all discretionary spending. Republicans are resisting this idea and it is one of the few areas of dispute left.


…

* A 12-member congressional committee, made up equally of Republicans and Democrats from each chamber, would be tasked with finding a further $1.5 trillion in budget savings.

* That committee could find savings from an overhaul of the tax code and restructuring benefit programs like Medicare — the politically risky decisions that lawmakers have not been able to agree on so far.

* The committee would have to complete its work by November 23. Congress would have an up-or-down vote, with no modifications, on the committee’s recommendations by December 23.

 …


* Those cuts would fall equally on domestic and military programs. Medicare would face automatic cuts as well, but Social Security, Medicaid, federal employee pay, and benefits for veterans and the poor would be exempt.

* The plan also calls for both the House and the Senate to vote on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution by the end of the year. It is not likely to receive the two-thirds vote in each chamber needed for passage, but its inclusion will make it easier for conservatives to back the overall deal.

 So, the cuts are nebulous. Real cuts are left to a committee and I doubt any will see the light of day. And, if any do get formalized, they’d still have to pass the Senate.  Which won’t happen with Reid still in charge of the dems.

No, the deal is nothing more than a modification of the McConnell plan that gave everything away for political expediency.

Ssschluup!  There’s that sound again and it came from the establishment republicans.