In light of the recent buzz surrounding Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke’s radio PSA on gun safety and crime-prevention, other local sheriffs have been brought into the mainstream with their own opinions. While a few law enforcement officers are vociferously opposed to the PSA and have thrown partisan attack jabs at the Milwaukee Sheriff, most have been supportive. One such local Sheriff is three-time elected Daniel Trawicki, from neigborhing County, Waukesha.

On January 29th, he wrote an op-ed that was featured in the print edition of the Waukesha Freeman, a daily County newspaper. They feature the columns of many prominent, local leaders in the Conservative community. Below is one of the most reasonable and difficult-to-rebut cases for protecting the right to bear arms in a way that is normal, and wise. Not partisan, radical or dangerous. He joins Sheriff Clarke in trusting the people to be partners in crime prevention, tyranny deterring and safety-promotion. Here is the radio PSA Clarke put on the air last week.

Wisconsin is blessed to have a strong Conservative government that has observed open-carry for a long time, and recently passed sweeping concealed carry legislation. In a little over a year, 155,000 citizens have gone through certified safety courses, applied and received their concealed carry permits in the State of Wisconsin. From Governor Walker to Attorney General JB Van Hollen (who is registrant #1 on the list), the state has a strong hunting and personal protection legacy that shows how a government of the people can trust the people to govern themselves. The way the Founders intended.

_______________________________________________

By Daniel J. Trawicki Sheriff, Waukesha County, WI
From the print edition of the Waukesha Freeman

With the recent tragedies across America, our leaders in Washington are once again calling for stricter controls on firearms.

The obvious answer to senseless violence seems to be the restriction of firearms and access to specific types of guns, magazines and bullets. To many it’s a quick, easy and appropriate solution that will help protect our children, neighbors and friends.

There is, however a serious flaw in that logic. The idea that this simple solution will resolve society’s larger problems is ridiculous. everyone wants a clean, neat and tidy answer as to why we are killing each other, and there is none. No one wants to factor in the status of our health care system in general and the breakdown of mental healthcare in particular across the country. where do family values and the breakdown of family relationships and responsibility come into play? How about our children and young adults have access to over-the-top movies and video games that depict murder and mayhem as just another Saturday morning?

As our children experience difficulty in the classroom or social settings, the answer is to medicate away the problem. Depression, poor grades, anxiety and everything in between have a quick and clean remedy. Don’t focus on the root of the problem, rather take a pill and make the SYMPTOMS go away. No one could deny the outrage we all feel when another senseless killing occurs. And helpless victims are cut down in their prime. But are guns really to blame? National crime statistics show time and again that there are many other causes other than so-called assault rifles, and high capacity magazines that are responsible for the majority of deaths in the United States. A quick look at deaths in automobiles and specifically alcohol-related crashes makes us aware of how fragile life truly is. Yet I don’t see a national movement to outlaw motor vehicles or alcohol.

Many feel that outlawing certain guns and components is a quick and easy solution to a long and complicated problem. I do not follow, nor agree with that line of thinking. Some may think that proposals recently outlined by the President are logical initiatives to combat a national crisis. Others, including myself, feel that they are direct attacks on the constitutional rights and freedoms our Founding Fathers strived so hard to maintain. Our opponents ridicule the second amendment to the Constitution, as never intending to protect what we currently have. They argue that language about a well-armed militia and protection from the government is too broad and misunderstood. I argue just the opposite. That is exactly the type of behavior we are to be protected from, and at least for now, the Supreme Court of the United States of America agrees with me.

One thing we know for sure: with all his faults, President Obama has done more to spur growth and stimulate the economy than any other President in recent times. Since releasing his firearms initiative, sales of firearms and ammunition are at all-time highs. Dealers cannot keep inventory in stock, and business is brisk.

I recently attended the Waukesha gun show with my daughter. What a novel idea – involve your children in healthy family-oriented events like the shooting sports, and hunting. While we were there along with thousands of other enthusiasts I was struck by the passion and dedication of our sporting community. As a law enforcement officer of 34 years, and elected Sheriff three times of Waukesha County, I can tell you that I have no fear of law-abiding citizens carrying weapons, concealed or any other way. It’s those individuals that possess weapons illegally that pose the greatest threat to our community.

While I was at the gun show I was reminded of the role the National Rifle Association has played in defending our freedoms to keep and bear arms. Just like Safari Club is the number one organization to protect your right to hunt, the NRA has been the torch-bearer for our gun rights. I have to admit that personally, I have been and on-and-off-again member of the NRA. No excuses… I believe in the organization and what they stand for. It just seems I have been forgetful in renewing my membership.

I recently heard that since our good President has rolled out his master plan to protect us from ourselves, membership in the NRA has gone up by 100,000. The number of new memberships is now at least 100,001. While at the show I made it a point to not only renew my membership, but become a life-member. No more forgetting or timely excuses for me. I believe in the right to keep and bear arms. I believe in the Constitution of the United States, and I believe in the people of this great Country.

If you believe the same, I suggest you become new member 100,002.

You may reach the Sheriff @ sheriff@waukeshacounty.gov | Phone: 262-548-7126

“I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory, and might I add, nor the bullet for its swift precision. I love only that which they defend.”
– J.R.R. Tolkien

The gun-control debate is once again on the front burner, as always, following a tragic media-gasm. Diane Feinstein is back to calling for bans of guns that aren’t even linked to the tragedies, Harry Reid is discussing debate on the Senate floor and NYC Mayor Michael “Big Gulp” Bloomberg is demanding the President take action without waiting for Congress. Meanwhile, at least one Congresswoman just flat out said “turn in your guns…” At least she had the spine to say such a witless thing. We want to protect the kids, no matter what. Left, Right, Democrat or Libertarian, everyone is appalled by the violence and wants to see an end to it. We all value the lives in front of us, the faces of our children and the freedom to live peacefully. We just take it for granted far too often.

Aside from the Constitutional realities of limiting the second amendment, it’s puzzling that mayors and governors demand federal action for things that are reasonably their responsibility to begin with. Public safety, education, public works are local issues, yet every time something bad happens, leaders seek help from D.C. It’s an addiction. The alleged “gun problem” we have is only the latest vehicle of surrender.

But, in defending the right to bear arms, Conservatives often make the mistake of arguing the lazy points, and not the most substantive principles regarding the second amendment. We often hear only one of these lines of defense:

• I want to defend my family
• I live in a bad neighborhood and need protection when I go out
• I love to hunt, and should have the right to

The left, predictably tells us “fine, but you don’t need a high-capacity mag and an AR-15 rifle to shoot deer or nab an intruder.” End of discussion, and the gun supporter looks like an fool.

From the left, you’ll hear the aforementioned response, or perhaps a couple of these:

• Why do you need a machine gun to defend your family?
• Guns provoke more violence
• If more people carried a gun, and someone had a bad day, we’d have more mass killings!
• The Founders never intended everyone to carry guns, just militia

While the local police forces have spent the last 15-20 years becoming more militarized, more and more citizens find themselves reaching their middle-age years having never fired a gun. It scares them. And they see no purpose in retaining these rights protected by the founders 230 years ago. As a result, the preceding rationalizations make sense: “maybe the founders didn’t intend for just anyone to walk around with a gun!” Our local forces are virtual mini-militaries, and we are instead left more dependent and intimidated.

What is most disturbing is how effective the Progressive Left has gotten at moving masses of millions into believing the way they do. We have all but given up on engaging the public education sector (despite never having engaged it to begin with), and we don’t teach our children as diligently as we should, not just the rights we have, but WHY THE FOUNDERS PROTECTED THEM. Now, 80-100 years later, several generations have been steadily moved toward the centralized, nanny-state, protective, unrealistic lemming-daze we’re in.

So, as a refresher, let’s remind ourselves about why the second amendment is so important. People will live up to expectations, so if you lower them, they will behave accordingly. Don’t be afraid to be blunt and just come out and defend the “radical” idea of full liberty, because that was the original intent.

Progressives:

“The Second Amendment only applies to the military and state ‘militias,’ not just anyone!’

Founders:

“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
- James Madison, Federalist 46

“To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government.
- John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475

“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
- Trenche Cox, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb 20, 1788

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one.”
- Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria’s Essay on Crimes and Punishments

The Founders did not have selective-brilliance, nor did they “fail to see a future with automatic rifles, bombs and planes.” They had studied thousands of years of human history, and understood technology and firearms improve over time with both their effectiveness and their ability to take more life with each shot. The second amendment was not written to protect state militias (national guard), the military (federal armies) or hunters. It was written to protect the right of citizens to own all kinds of firearms, for all reasons. Plain and simple. As technology improves, the access by criminals and tyrannical leaders does not change. Why wouldn’t the Founders have wanted innocent, law-abiding citizens to have access to these tools? It doesn’t make logical sense.

One of the problems we face as defenders of the right to bear arms, is failing to understand the opposition. Like us, they see the same problem and want to rectify it. Where we differ is how to accomplish that. So, we must be armed with the philosophy behind the policy, not just better arguments for the policy.

Natural Law is the fundamental, Enlightenment-era belief that embedded in all human beings and nature itself is a desire for preservation of Life, Liberty and Property. The Founders created the first nation in history to be founded upon those pillars from the beginning. Our government itself was created to protect those three things, and all laws that are written should flow from observing the maximization of each.

And yet, the Founders knew the greatest threat to those three was the government created to protect them. So they wanted to preserve the ability to protect everyone from every threat.

There is only one human tool that exists that is capable of protecting mankind from violators of all three, AND even a rogue government: FIREARMS.

For this reason, we are the only nation on earth that recongizes gun-ownership as a basic right. Not so we can protect against intruders; not so we can shoot game; not so we can prepare for battle in the military; not only so we can be ready against the big, bad, evil government. (Insert liberal perjorative about conservative mountain-dwellers here)

The reason for the right is all of the above. If not a threat today, who’s to say it won’t be tomorrow? Or next year? Our first priorities as a society should be protection of the right to life and individuality, the liberty to apply our faculties to production, and the right to gain and retain the fruits of our labor. Whether it’s protecting your family from an intruder, yourself from an assailant, feeding your family in times of need, preparing for battle in the armed forces, protecting your community from an enemy (foreign or domestic), stopping a madman in a school, or an angry boyfriend in a shopping mall… all forms of firearms are necessary to the ultimate protection of a free people. This argument is not hard to make with a Progressive Liberal, if made consistently and patiently. Yes, evil may occur, and bad men may use liberty to harm others. It is the abuse of liberty that should be legislated against, not the liberty itself. The alternative is often ambiguous, but real.

The “consequences” of liberty are far less threatening than the consequences of living without it. Either by the hand of a repressive government, or at the end of a criminal’s own gun. (Which, by the way, they will ALWAYS find a way to acquire)

Michael Hintz said, “there is never a time to remain silent when others are speaking to urge that our fundamental rights be compromised. Others may choose to remain silent in the face of such perfidy, that is their right. However, we must not be silent. Our natural law right to life confers the equal right to self-defense. That right to self-defense includes the right to bear arms for that purpose. That is a right no free person should willingly surrender, for the moment one does so, one is no longer free.”

We should defend these rights, not as a policy, because those can be subjectified; not as a scenario, because those are relative to where you live or how you were raised. We can win the gun-control debate by teaching our children and our neighbors about the truths that are self-evident. We can control the conversation in the mainstream more effectively by knowing history, and the reasons WHY we are what we are.

This week, one of my child’s after-school teachers asked me what I think about Gov. Rick Perry suggesting teachers should be able to carry firearms if they have a permit. She told me I shouldn’t trust her with a gun, because she hates them and wouldn’t know what to do if she needed one. I responded that while I think each school district needs to decide for itself, I only had one question for her, while I pointed to the 5-7 year olds at the next table:

“If that psycho was here shooting two or three bullets into each of these beautiful kids, would you hope that someone in this school had a gun to stop him?”

She didn’t answer. Her raised eyebrows and fateful glare said it all.

We trust others to do what we ourselves should be responsible to do. When every “protection” around us fails, and we have no government, no policy, no “rule” to help us when facing death, what are we left with?

As for me and my house, it won’t be 911 and a stopwatch. It will be whatever means necessary and the training to go along with it.

________________________________________________________________

The national media failed to report that the Clackamas Town Center shooter on December 11th was stopped in the middle of his rampage by a shopper who violated the mall’s no-gun policy, but had a state-issued CCW permit. Nick Meli exercised his impulse to protect others in the face of existing gun laws failing, and saved potentially dozens more:

Since the Supreme Court’s infamous 4-1-4 ruling on the Affordable Care Act in June, nearly two dozen states have grappled with whether or not to comply with the first of many forthcoming deadlines found in the rules written (and still being written) by the functionally unconstitutional entity known as the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).

November 16th is the deadline, and a flurry of letters are finding their way to Kathleen Sebelius’ desk this afternoon telling her they will not comply with the requirement to set up an exchange. The great debate has been over the enticement written into the law:

• Either states create the exchanges, and the Feds will not only pay for the administrative costs but also the cost increases of expanding Medicare and Medicaid, or…
• The Federal government will set one up for them and not give states the authority to direct their exchanges.

The false choice was tantalizing for many governors and state legislators, but tens of thousands of organized Constitutionalists stared their governments in the eye and told them to act like the soveriegn states they are. The Federal government never intended to NOT direct states and their exchanges, they merely wanted to entice states into giving up their Constitutional functions and legal rights to implement a federally-mandated atrocity. It was a destruction of the dual-federalist roles of state and federal functions while disgused as a “states’ rights” issue, pitting Conservative against Conservative for several months. Thankfully, nearly half of all states have opted out of the first step in Obamacare’s tentacle-growing implementation.

So, from Jan Brewer (R-AZ) to Rick Scott (R-FL) and Scott Walker (R-WI) to Rick Perry (R-TX), governors nationwide are taking the political gamble of forcing the Feds to not only implement the illegal healthcare exchanges, but also bear the cost of them. Thanks to a small, but significant silver-lining in the June SCOTUS ruling, the Feds are not allowed to alter Medicare/aid funding as any kind of penalty or compensatory difference for not complying. So the Federal government is on the hook for the entire bill, which will force voters to truly grapple with the consequences of unconstitutional, progressive policies. It also protects the thinning veil between state and federal roles. It’s very simple: managing the health care industry is not found among the enumerated powers of Article One, and is therefore not a legitimate constitutional function of the Federal government.

SO, NOW WHAT?

Health care is expensive.

Insurance policies, by default keep growing. Costs are out of control, administration is mind-numbingly complex and abuse of a once-charitable industry is making it more difficult for everyone to access good health care. That is the status quo. But it was not always that way.

Beginning in the late 60′s and early 70′s with HMO’s, Medicare and then Medicaid, the Federal government and multiple states began creating an incestuous web of regulations to make it more accessible to the poor and indigent. Their plan sounded reasonable: provide for the poorest and oldest among us for a small tax, and have states provide the administration of it. The states would pay for half, and the feds would match it. Nevermind that any kind of program is an end-run around the Constitution, which forbids the federal government from being involved in the industry at all.

Because of increased costs, more people began needing insurance, even for preventive care. Add to this the cost of outragous malpractice claims, general lawsuit abuse, employer regulations and 50 ever-changing state standards for health care. Every special interest in the nation has lobbied for various mandates and protections in a market that used to be free and open. As the market changed, so did the choices. Now, our options are between health insurance plans, not services or quality. Creating a third-payer system in an market that is most secretive in how it charges for services is illegal in most other industries, but not in health care. In fact, we end up blaming the insurance companies or providers for lack of expected care, because we no longer HAVE to hold ourselves responsible for the lineup of services invading our bodies with every visit. We simply show up to a provider the insurance company chooses, hand them a card and walk out. (two or more hours later)

THE CURRENT SYSTEM IS NOT A FREE MARKET

The current system is not a case of the free market failing the little guy and favoring the wealthy. Right now:

You cannot choose one medication over another, even beforehand, on the basis of cost; You cannot choose one hospital over another based on the quality of management and nursing support; You cannot choose your doctor based on hourly rate or volume of patients; You cannot choose what procedures you want or need based on how much they cost from one hospital or doctor to the next.

This is insane.

Health care costs have become so convoluted, they have disappeared into the thousands of pages of paperwork related to one person’s health. And the regulations for the industry have become so onerous that more than 50 cents of every dollar goes to the administrative or base hospital charges, rather than into the skilled care itself. Only 1/4 even goes to the doctors, who themselves spend between 20-40% of their fees on legal protection, and only 2-5% ends up in the hands of the insurance companies underwriting your care.

Read that again: only 2-5% of your health care costs are profit in the hands of the insurance companies. They are not the boogeymen.

Doctors are finding the cost of their education rising to $250,000 or more, just to find they can only take home $100-200,000 a year for 12 years of education and 100 hr work-weeks. They are not the bad guys.

There is no single scapegoat, and there is no simple solution. But one at a time, each must be addressed, and with some sacrifice all-around. The concept of law has been so widely perverted by competing interests that doctors’ associations are pitted against advocacy groups, and insurance companies battle with regulatory commissions. This doesn’t help any of them, and any temporary band-aid is soon negated by a compensation for it elsewhere. We have real problems in health care, but it must be resolved with free-market-centered reforms.

THE SOLUTIONS ARE OUT THERE, BUT SPECIAL INTERESTS WANT A QUICK FIX

John Mackey is the co-founder and CEO of Whole Foods, a national grocery chain that specializes in organic, unprocessed foods and natural remedies. It is an immensely successful venture, with 340 stores worldwide and 73,000 full-time employees, all of which qualify for a custom health care plan the company has devised. In 2009, amidst the health care reform battle, Mackey wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that compiled the most important and understandable reform principles needed in health care, and presented them as an alternative. The current law take almost none of them into account, and simply changes who pays for it rather that moving the industry toward a real free market.

These solutions are not the be all-end all of reform, but they are the most fundamental change we could advocate that would take our current system and move it closer to one that is cheaper, more accessible, freer and more flexible to changing patient needs and scientific discoveries.

• Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs).

The combination of high-deductible health insurance and HSAs is one solution that could solve many of our health-care problems. For example, Whole Foods Market pays 100% of the premiums for all our team members who work 30 hours or more per week (about 89% of all team members) for our high-deductible health-insurance plan. We also provide up to $1,800 per year in additional health-care dollars through deposits into employees’ Personal Wellness Accounts to spend as they choose on their own health and wellness.

Money not spent in one year rolls over to the next and grows over time. Our team members therefore spend their own health-care dollars until the annual deductible is covered (about $2,500) and the insurance plan kicks in. This creates incentives to spend the first $2,500 more carefully. Our plan’s costs are much lower than typical health insurance, while providing a very high degree of worker satisfaction.

• Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits.

Now employer health insurance benefits are fully tax deductible, but individual health insurance is not. This is unfair.

• Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines.

We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable. This can still be accomplished at the federal level, with respect to the Constitution, because it is enforcing TRUE interstate commerce. Laws within the states would still apply to native providers and insurers, but the public would be allowed to carry their plans purchased elsewhere.

• Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover.

These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying.

• Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.

These costs are passed back to us through much higher prices for health care.

• Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost.

How many people know the total cost of their last doctor’s visit and how that total breaks down? What other goods or services do we buy without knowing how much they will cost us?

• Enact Medicare reform.

We need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare is heading towards bankruptcy and enact reforms that create greater patient empowerment, choice and responsibility.

• Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren’t covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

John Mackey further explains his perspective here, on the John Stossel show:

FULL-COURT PRESS, WIN THE MESSAGE-WAR

The Conservative movement needs to rescue the Right from itself. We have for too long not been willing to fight the war, and hone our message to attract the masses to real reforms. The left has thrived with emotional rhetoric, but these reforms are real changes that give real choices to real people. The public wants these freedoms, and they want cheaper health care.

Some physicians are already trying new models for their own reform-minded practices, but they frequently run into obstacles, legally and commercially. If government has any role in the free market at all, it is to “make regular” the exchange of goods in a market, rather than “regulate” it through “management.” Direct Primary Care is one of many options doctors are trying, which allows them to have a practice they can enjoy, and really makes a difference.

Then there are administrative relationships that need to be reformed. Point of service, emergency, home health care and end of life services will continue to drive health care costs like nothing else, and something must be done that allows private enterprise to spread those costs across their business platforms. Currently, the opaque nature of the health care industry appears to be the largest factor in driving costs, but there are many elements that need reform. Compliance is more important than competitiveness and with Obamacare, quantity will become more important than quality.

We need to make sure real changes are pursued that honor both individual lives and their liberties, without stealing from the rich to pay for a system that will still be too expensive unless we’re willing to do what it takes to make it cheaper, like anything else we buy.

And that’s a message we can sell to the folks next door.

Constitutionalists were far from confident that either result of the recent Presidential election would help restore the Founders’ intentions, but many were hoping that an Obama loss would at least slow the extinction. Especially in regard to Obamacare, Conservatives have put a lot of weight on winning federal elections to save what is left of our waning Republic. After a frustrating, suspect and humiliating loss, few noticed the victories for Federalism made across the country – by Progressives.

While Obamacare looks to be intact, and in light of the Supreme Court ruling in June, the battles of Tuesday seemed to be the primary battlefield for Conservative reform. But consider something else, for a moment. The states of Colorado and Washington each approved the recreational use of marijuana, as a product to be regulated and taxed. This is in direct opposition to Federal statute (the Controlled Substances Act) – and a 2005 Supreme Court decision – stating that marijuana has a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the U.S., and lacks accepted safety for use under medical supervision. But, many states have said otherwise. And this is the balance the Founders presumed the Constitution would protect. But under countless laws, conservatives and progressives alike have mistakenly sought the Federal government to solve local concerns, even if they are unconstitutional actions. And, the Supreme Court has repeatedly supported this presumption, as recently as the Raich decision in 2005, under the bastardization of the Commerce Clause. Coincidentally, this ruling was in regard to marijuana regulation by the Federal government. Nonetheless, today, nine states have approved either conditional or recreational use of marijuana, with many others considering it. All but one are traditionally “blue states.” Whether you approve of the legalization or not, it is an interesting observation in contradiction.

Constitutional conservatives have long held themselves in high regard for defending our founding principles, but have likely overlooked the opportunity gay marriage and marijuana advocates have provided them. The very core of the Constitution and the principles behind it is Natural Law – the protection and propagation of life, liberty and property. It is not an accident that we call it “natural,” because it is common sense, written into our very human nature. The system of government they created was one of dual-federalism, entirely to preserve Natural Law from being violated at any level.

While Conservatives have long found it difficult to stomach the liberal agenda in their own backyard (and in the opinion of this author, they are also offensive and unacceptable), Progressives too find the presumptions of local determination convenient when it achieves their ends. This is how Federalism is intended to work. When a consistent majority of a local district’s citizens decide for themselves a code of conduct and civil affairs that suits their distinctions, the Constitution protects their power to do so. Beginning in Article one, section eight of the Constitution, there are 18 primary enumerated powers the Federal government was granted by the states which formed it. The rest were retained by the states and the people individually. Fearing a dilution, or legal usurpation by the central government, the states insisted upon the ninth and tenth Amendments to further codify this clear wall of separation:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People.
The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.”

Even the French Republic is founded upon this premise, that despite the “supremacy” of the national Government, the various régions, départements and communes are independent and not to be interfered with in their respective and defined jurisdictions. The Founders went even further to not consider ourselves having a “national government” but rather a “federated one,” and secondly, not placing any limits at all upon the states or the people, other than the protections of liberty assured under the Bill of Rights. Every word in the Constitution was carefully determined and not intended to contradict one another. So any rationalization by the Left to centralize their own agenda is a clear contradiction when they oppose laws by the Right, protecting marriage or outlawing recreational marijuana. The Left’s premise in this case is individual liberty, so is that of the Constitution, in every case.

Between a watering down of the term “General Welfare” or abuse of the Necessary and Proper or Commerce Clauses, Progressives have done all they can to change the bedrock of American Government. Constitutionalists understand the Constitution was intended to institute good government, with a distinction between government and actual law. Laws should be enacted as locally as possible, and good government insists that be the case, providing only the framework and implementation for law, not the substance of it. In desperation, Progressives have long used the Equal Protection measures of the 14^th, and the presumption of courts to apply their agenda to other states. Nonetheless, any “presumption” carries little weight unless it is submitted to. When it comes to universal marriage or the legalization of marijuana, the proclivities of Natural Law kicks in, despite the substance of the Progressive mindset. Their methods are self-defeating, and Constitutionalists can seize this opportunity to put a stake through the heart of measures like Obamacare, the Patriot Act, potential abuses of NDAA provisions, Education edicts, gun control, media regulation and countless others. If the French can insist on keeping their President out of certain things, we certainly can.

Never before has there been a greater danger to the liberties defended by conservatives and taken for granted by Progressives. Both have created a New Sectionalism in America without realizing they’re closer together than they’d admit. The essence of Collectivism/Socialism/Marxism is centralized control; of Federalism, it is “federated” or dispersed power and control. The latter best protects both the interests of the more liberal

communities, as well as the more conservative ones. It best assures that a majority cannot discriminate against the minority, and likewise the minority cannot hold the majority hostage. The Founders brilliantly foresaw a changing culture and created a document that need not change to preserve a perfecting Union. The perfection comes as it’s people grow within the boundaries of mutual respect for Life, Liberty and Property. Beyond that, each man, or family to himself. And ultimately, Conservatives and Progressives agree on this.

Constitutional defenders staked a lot on this past Presidential election, but in doing so they forsook the Tenth Amendment movement for most of the months leading up to it. Thankfully, many of us never relented, and were prepared for the rest of America to return to the real battle, and they have: preserving Federalism – with Progressives in tow.

As the French would say, “touché.”

Join the restoration at FoundersIntent.org

Last week, many pundits commented on the New York Times op-ed that vindicated Sarah Palin’s infamous “death panels” that drew scrutiny from Democrats and moderate Republicans during the ObamaCare debates of 2009.

See, Republicans boasted, she was right all along! Even the New York Times admits that there will be rationing. Yes, Steven Rattner did write in his op-ed that “unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently—rationing, by its proper name—the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget.” Yes, Rattner did write that “elderly Americans are not entitled to every conceivable medical procedure or pharmaceutical.” And yes, he also stated that families that try every available treatment option to extend or improve the life of their elderly relatives are “an enormous societal cost that few other nations have been willing to bear.”

But what lies beneath his fatalistic tone, rivaling the grim appearance of the ghost of Christmas future with his grey index finger extended towards the grave, is Rattner’s abdication of American ingenuity. He admits in his column that Americans can hope for no better solution than any other country in the world has attempted within its health care system. We are not the first society to stumble down the rugged path of nationalized health care; instead, we are blindly following the lead of other ragged nations:

No one wants to lose an aging parent. And with price out of the equation, it’s natural for patients and their families to try every treatment, regardless of expense or efficacy. But that imposes an enormous societal cost that few other nations have been willing to bear. Many countries whose health care systems are regularly extolled — including Canada, Australia and New Zealand — have systems for rationing care.

Take Britain, which provides universal coverage with spending at proportionately almost half of American levels. Its National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence uses a complex quality-adjusted life year system to put an explicit value (up to about $48,000 per year) on a treatment’s ability to extend life.

At the least, the Independent Payment Advisory Board should be allowed to offer changes in services and costs. We may shrink from such stomach-wrenching choices, but they are inescapable.

BRITAIN, REALLY?

Since when should we “take Britain,” for example, when tackling such Herculean challenges? Surely we did not “take Britain” when George Washington crossed the Delaware River. Surely we did not “take Britain” when Neil Armstrong, who once said, “I believe the good Lord gave us finite number of heartbeats and I’ll be damned if I’m going to use up mine running up and down a street,” became the first man to set foot on the moon. And we did not “take Britain” when Steve Jobs envisioned a phone that would weigh less than a roll of quarters, pinpoint your exact geographic location, list the top-rated restaurants within a three mile radius of your vehicle, all while carrying on a conversation.

But if you are a deconstructionist, you certainly would “take Britain.” If you believe American history is a story of woeful, harmful people with no significance, value or purpose, then finding a cure for an insolvent healthcare system which treats all patients equally while providing exceptional care is too large of a mountain to climb.

Only a deconstructionist believes the Independent Payment Advisory Board necessarily plays the part of savior and grim reaper, and, in Rattner’s view, should be allowed to offer changes to services and costs.

The best we can hope for is a board of 15 “advisors”— who can only be repealed with a three-fifths majority in both chambers during a seven-month window in the year 2017— prescribing end of life decisions to our trained, educated neurosurgeons? They should be allowed to limit or restrict health services to American citizens because searching for an alternative solution is hopeless?

HEADING FOR THE CLIFF

This, I believe, is the argument we will hear from the left moving forward—hope and change dwindled down to hopeless changes. Even though the government is too big to fail, you are not. You are expendable.

Let’s not forget that with the elderly population growing rapidly, even if cost increases for each beneficiary can be contained, Medicare would still claim a rising share of the American economy.

Medicare needs to take a cue from Willie Sutton, who reportedly said he robbed banks because that’s where the money was. The big money in Medicare is not to be found in Mr. Ryan’s competition or Mr. Obama’s innovation, but in reducing the cost of treating people in the last year of life, which consumes more than a quarter of the program’s budget.

Our President famously stated that he believes in American Exceptionalism, just as the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism (insert images of chaos and anarchy roaming the cobblestone streets of Athens).

I’m glad George Washington never subscribed to this monolithic image of America’s future— or we would know Britain’s universal healthcare system sixty-seven years intimately. But then again, we once had a President who believed that “someday, following the example of the United States of America, there will be a United States of Europe.”

TAKE IT FROM SOME WHO LEFT EUROPE TO COME HERE, BECAUSE WE USED TO DO IT RIGHT:

SUCCESS STORIES OF GOVERNMENT “INVESTMENT”:

Solyndra – Founded in 2005; received $528 million in government subsidies in 2009.
Result: Bankrupt in 2011. The Chinese and others made solar panels better and cheaper.

Samuel Langley – Tried to build first airplane in history. In 1900, U.S. government funded two flight attempts.
Result: Both times, Langley crashed his plane into the Potomac River. Shortly thereafter, the Wright brothers flew a plane with their own money.

Union Pacific Railroad – Founded in early 1860s with government money to build part of a transcontinental railroad.
Result: Bankrupt, and some officers of the railroad convicted of bribing Congressmen. JJ Hill and The Great Northern Railroad then built a transcontinental railroad with no corruption and no federal subsidies.

Edward Collins Steamship Company – Founded in 1840s to go from New York to England, and also received government subsidies in 1840s and 1850s.
Result: Bankrupt in 1858. Cornelius Vanderbilt successfully built ships to go from New York to England with no subsidies.

Government operated fur company – Founded in 1795 with federal money to compete with the British.
Result: Near bankruptcy, and shut down in 1822. John Jacob Astor built the American Fur Company in 1808 and flourished with no federal subsidies.

___________________________________________________

“If you’ve got a business–you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

President Obama had some words for small business owners last week, reminding them that without Government subsidization, infrastructure, education dollars and loans, they would have never existed. Paternal dependence is the new economic bubble. Don’t you forget it.

The president suggested all business owners striking out on their own and fulfilling the American Dream are beholden to teachers, road-builders, bridge-builders, and other government workers. His reasoning of course, is to lead us to believing the wealthiest 1%, which now pays 38% of all income taxes, should pay even more.

By contrast, Mitt Romney stopped in Bowling Green, Ohio and spoke about the President’s words, and discussed the virtues of economic liberty and the dangers of government meddling in free markets. He then asked small business owners to stand. The crowd, without any cue, broke into spontaneous applause as Romney shouted “Thank you! Thank you!”

Which vision of America, and perspective of America’s most productive people do YOU want in a President? While Mitt Romney does not exactly embody traditional Conservative or Libertarian principles, and is more of a Rockefeller Republican than a Coolidge Constitutionalist, he certainly knows the meme a nation needs to pull itself out of the deepest and longest recession in its history. Praising the producers as well as the laborors as ONE CLASS of Americans is not just shrewd politics, but also distinctly American. The Founders would have been clapping with everyone else.

While we have much gratitude to share with our parents, LOCAL teachers, friends and business partners, we have very little obligation to position our ever-benevolent Government at the top of the credit list for our personal accomplishments. The audacity of the mindset is breathtaking.

Everything the Government touches languishes. Great ideas go to government programs to catatonically survive until a better idea comes along to make it an enterprise or industry. Brilliant minds are capable of big dreams when they enter a government institution, but soon fall into an undead state of think-tank do-nothingness and check-writing.

The Pentagon created a technology: the communication of computers, for its own security and efficiency. It took 20 years before businesses like Microsoft, Apple, IBM and AOL made the internet a commercial reality.

NASA landed on the moon and made space travel a reality, but we are now seeing the costs of this industry radically drop as entrepreneurs are finding ways to build rockets and capsules without $20,000 O-rings and $500 bolts. Tickets to space are predicted by the end of the decade.

Even the Federal Government’s foray into modical care for seamen of the late 18th century fell into terrible quality and cost issues that plague it the industry to this day. The best and most creative, affordable care is penalized with regulations that make it difficult for the free market to make health care truly competitive and transparent.

THE FOUNDERS’ INTENT AND WISDOM: LEARNING FROM OTHERS’ MISTAKES

The federal government was designed by the Founders to protect the general welfare, not to facilitate its economic health. The concept of paternal government care, democracy, republicanism or managed economic markets were nothing new last century, or in theirs. In fact, the Founders, namely John Adams and Alexander Hamilton knew better than most the history of governments of old and what worked and what didn’t. They knew every great idea had failed eventually, and they determined to build a system that would balance itself when one part became imbalanced. The result would be vibrant, long term growth, economic wealth and what they perceived as the greatest of all, individual liberty.

They certainly accomplished just that. What’s amazing is that despite wars, mass immigration, rapid industrialization and a cultural melting pot, Americans succeeded because of the principles set in place by our Founders. These principles were very simple, and will never be out-dated:

Property – What you earn or buy is yours and cannot be confiscated without your consent

Protection - You have the right to protect your family and possessions by any means necessary

Rule of Law - A nation without laws is a breeding ground for anarchy. Equitable and fair justice by your peers

Personal Responsibility - Human nature is flawed, and altering the realities of failure or success kills responsibility

Limited Government - Because human nature is flawed, government is inherently at war with indivdual liberty. Limiting government, and keeping it as local as possible, minimizes the allure of power on the front end and limits the damage of corruption on the back end.

Republicanism - Pure Democracy has always led to anarchy and tyranny. Every time. Republican representation provides a protection between minorities and majorities, and a buffer between timely wisdom and emotional mobacracy.

When the Federal Government involves itself with subsidization, it alters these principles by perverting reality.

Property is no longer yours, it was given to you by the collective. Protection is no longer a right, because others have a stake in your estate. Rule of Law is questionable, because laws are altered to maintain the perverted relationship, or altogether ignored. Personal Responsibility is lost because success is never truly earned and appreciated, and failure is never truly feared, or learned from. Limited Government is impossible when it receives the power of the purse like a carrot and horse. It will naturally grow, manipulate and perpetuate its existence until it is much larger than intended even by those who enjoy utilizing it. Finally, Republics die when they focus on manipulating the masses they care for, rather than allowing the people to determine their own local fate.

The President was right, no one is an island. But the Government is certainly not an oasis. It infects, it corrupts and it controls. Even in the hands of good men, government is a dangerous tool and a tempting weapon. So the President was wrong, Government is not the answer. A free community is.

SUBSIDIES OF ANY KIND ARE TROJAN BENEFITS

Texan farmers wanted government assistance in 1887, but President Cleveland vetoed the bill and warned they stand to lose their liberty if they’re willing to sacrifice for security. 50 years later, farmers wanted help, so President Roosevelt attacked an Ohio farmer for growing wheat on his land during the Great Depression, for his own consumption. They ordered his wheat destroyed and charged him a debilitating fine claiming he was manipulating market prices by not buying wheat on the open market.

Conservative, self-reliant men and women still rely on family, friends, neighbors and local government for their success, but not without the Founding Principles being in place. Government exists to protect and execute the rule of law, not to manage the nature its intended to limit.

Henry Ford once said, “Money doesn’t change men, it merely unmasks them.” When you centralize that dangerous reality, you include everyone in the misery of human nature in the name of saving us from it.

Americans everywhere, in construction industries, local schools, entertainment, news, technology, research, manufacturing and services must learn from history that while rejecting government support makes their dreams riskier, the liberty they’ll retain with their coming riches are a far greater reward than the harsh reset failure occasionally forces us to tolerate.

Economic Development groups, School Boards, Research Facilities… seek your success among the private sector and loosen yourself from the chains of Government money; build yourself with those around you, not the government, or you’ll end up the footnote in history, rather than the headline.

Just ask Edward Collins. Who? Exactly.

No doubt, the last several years in America have been challenging to everyone, on all sides.

It has both challenged those on the left as they see so many millions question their policies and principles, and has infuriated said millions on the right because they cannot believe how quickly America has turned away from its founding principles. Both sides agree there’s problems in education, costs of health care and national security – they differ widely in how to address them. Interestingly, their differences are not usually as wide as they think. In policy, yes; in principle, no.

Experiments in government benevolence are nothing new, and neither are the poor and needy. Jesus of Nazareth said, “you will always have the poor among you,” and Apostle Paul said “your plenty will supply what they need.” So we as Americans, an overwhelmingly religious people have invented many ways to see the needs of people met – both physically and spiritually – since long before our Constitution was formed. Caring for the poor isn’t a new idea, just the concept of forced compassion.

What was new in 1787 was the unique opportunity for free, moral men to establish their own government in a fair and enduring manner for all men. What was new turned out to be the specific system of checks and balances between governments; the acknowledgement of fallen human nature; government’s suspicion of their own power and the preservation of innate liberties that would create the most successful society in human history

Our system was not perfect, but as the Founders wrote, they sought a “more perfect union,” and fortunately, because of the character of her people the nation has found its way around the pragmatic decisions at the time to extend liberty to everyone as equally as possible before or since. We inspired a world in slavery; we liberated a continent under siege; we invented entire industries among our creative people; we ushered in the greatest economic improvement in the global community ever in history, and have managed to maintain it for longer than any other time in history.

And yet, never before has this legacy been more threatened by the very mindset that results from such long-lasting prosperity. Complacency, removal from struggle, disassociation from organic, neighborly concern is birthed in societies where we assume someone else can take care of this or that; we have allowed collectivism to creep into a society where collectivism had no part. Yet, we use the benefits of its absence (true liberty and free markets) to make an argument for it.

We have been doing this for over 120 years. The chickens have come home to roost; as they’d say in the northwest, the salmon have come back to spawn. And spawn they have – last year, 40,000 new laws were passed and enacted into law. Tacitus, the Roman orator and considered the world’s greatest historian warned us: “The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates.”

How did this happen? It didn’t happen overnight, but it didn’t happen by accident either, nor by mere neglect. Good people were sold on false ideas proven faulty by the Founders, and the liberty baby was proverbially thrown out with the bathwater of a young and imperfect republic. The notion of the fallibility of man was replaced with the belief we could improve the human condition collectively. Every man has a voice; good government must surely follow, yes? No. It has never worked in human history, and unless we intervene now, history will replay itself once again and we will have failed to learn from it.

The Progressives’ war has been engaged for well over 150 years, but it received its greatest and most imperative successes about 100 years ago. After a series of failures in the Supreme Court, and multiple attempts to expand government taxation and service programs throughout the country in the late 19^th century, Progressives, who had been working on reforming public education for years, finally got what they wanted in the early 1900’s with the democracy movement fueled by unions, women’s suffrage and increased civil liberties in the South. They saw the opportunity to seize on legitimate cultural reforms to change the very structure of American government, and our relationship to it. Real abuses in the corporate world and the harsh adjustment of cities to transition during the industrialization era led people to believe investing more power in government could be the best solution. They abrogated local power to state and federal power, and the consolidation of this authority was cemented when the idea of direct elections became the emphasis, rather than representative republicanism. From 1901-1913, nearly every republican structure in the nation had changed. In 1913, democratic energy finally came to a zenith with the passage of the 16^th and 17^th amendments – the power to tax, and the direct election of U.S. Senators, respectively.

The “federation” of government, by definition was intended to be a dispersed concentration of power, where the States individually retained the appropriate powers, “innumerable” as they were, and collectively delegated, few and “enumerated” as they are, in the central “national” government. This was by design.

In Federalist No. 46, James Madison asserted that the states and national government “are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers.”

Alexander Hamilton, writing in Federalist No. 28, suggested that both levels of government would exercise authority to the citizens’ benefit: “If their [the peoples'] rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress.”

The birth of the Progressive reforms at the turn of the 20^th century was the destruction of the only preventive-check on manipulated democracy. The 17^th amendment fundamentally changed the balance of federal and state power by eliminating the accountability the Senators had with their states and transforming them into 6 year versions of the 2 year House. The result was 5 years of unaccountable, easily-corrupted de-governance determined more by lobbyists than that alleged “direct voice” everyone was looking out for. The clarification in the 16^th amendment gave this new imbalanced government the power to confiscate as much money as it deemed necessary to its ambitions.

In the Founders’ vision of the Senate, the distance for positive action is as close as the state capitol and its legislature. Senators used to represent their state and the people’s need within that state.

The Founders understood that the failures of the Roman Republic and the Greek Democracy could both be gleaned from; their respective falls into extinction showed that no perfect government existed and could be manipulated by a flawed human nature, individual OR collective, for which the Founders had a profound fear of. They intended to create a dispersed power structure that both maintained the wisdom of republican representation, while protecting the right of a self-governing people to direct the behavior of their own government. The 17^th destroyed the balance, and the results are the last 100 years of Progressive havoc. Prior to ratifying the amendment, citizens saw much more of their Senators. They also usually retained the ability to vote for their most popular choice, and the State legislatures would then most often appoint the most popular choice, subject to their discretion and the needs of their state. As a result, the Senate was essentially an advisory board to the House and Executive branch, not a mere politicking body as it is now.

THE SYMPTOM OF IMBALANCE IS IN THE MONEY

In 1913, Federal Government spending accounted for just under 3% of Gross Domestic Product (total economic activity). Today, that figure is roughly 24%, siphoning off wealth from the most efficient places and funneling it through the inefficient channels of government bureaucracy – all in the name of “compassion for the poor” that are better served, not by a centralized government, but local communities and families.

While convincing arguments are made of caring for the poor, the mathematical realities are ignored. The concept of forced charity doesn’t register in the minds of the masses, because the masses are increasingly the beneficiaries of that forced compassion, rather than the ones with the gun in the face. Resisting the illogical programs – never mind their constitutionality for a moment – is futile because so many around you have come to depend on those benefits to survive. Very few are principled enough to vote themselves into struggle.

The problems are many-fold, but the most acute symptom of our degrading society is the federalization of these benefits. Local determination has been lost, local control is irrelevant and the consolidation of power in Washington, D.C. has become so great, that many have failed to see the sickening marriage between corporate powers and government powers are equally as frightening. Because the problem appears so daunting, we just vote our heart and hope for the best. But that’s what got us here in the first place.

The direct election of Senators removed the most important safe-guard against the mobocracy and manipulated masses. Where the states once had a direct representation in the Federal government, so they may protect the interests of their local determination, we now have a more corrupt body than the one we had sought to reform in 1913.

And make no mistake, the “reform” to be sought was merely the veneer selling point – the goal of far too many Progressives was the consolidation of power, not merely the improvement of human conditions, and they understood very well what they were doing. It was the manipulated masses that did not. Touché

THE REPUBLIC MUST FIND A HOME IN OUR HEARTS

The way to restore the balance the Founders intended is complicated, and you will never find complete agreement as to how, but we all should agree as to why. Without the repeal of the 17^th amendment the 9^th and 10^th amendments have no value. Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution promises the States a republican form of government, for a reason.

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.”

Every structure needs tensions on either side to secure the structure and assure stability. The 17^th Amendment, in essence, violates the spirit of Article 4, Section 4, and eliminated that guarantee of stability, making the assurance a matter of one’s word only, not enforceable by any legal or practical means.

What I fear may eventually occur is that the imbalance Conservatives find echoing socialist ideals will become far worse, and lead us down a road much more repressive than the economies of Europe. One would think observing their experiments in enlightenment-communalism mixed with convenient shreds of facio-capitalism would have shown us the Founders were right, but it appears that this paradigm realization has not yet happened.

To restore the value of the 9^th and 10^th amendments, we must repeal the 17^th amendment; Senators would once again be directly accountable to State capitals, and could be recalled in the case of malfeasance or counterproductive policy. And in order to accomplish this, I propose that a consistent dedication to education be orchestrated to teach our local communities how important a republican government is, and why our Founders constructed the careful balance they did. The Progressives have de-educated three generations of Americans into believing pure democracy is a human right, and that a representative system is more easily corrupted. Once the people have an understanding and cautious trust in the system, we may have States willing to forcibly restoring that balance. It will take more than a brave politician or two; rather, millions of educated citizens need to understand the need to tell their Federal government that it is too powerful; too presumptuous; too untrustworthy to retain the power once held by their local State governments. If power is forever corrupting, let the corruption be that which I can see and not be hidden; power distanced from the hand which can rightly correct it is forever lost to the ambition of rulers.

When the sovereign States reassert their right to representation and remind the Federal government that federal power comes only from the consent of the governed (states included), you will see Washington, D.C. become what it was intended to be – a watchman abroad, a protector of the States, a mediator between disputing parties, and an ambassador for us in the case of abuse.

Our relationship with government will always be a fluid interpretation; as well it should be. We change as people, and as such, while our principles must remain, our methods of governing should also change. Instead of looking ahead into the unknown and experimenting with proven tenets of good governance, we should trust more the lessons of history than the dreams of planners and manipulators. The modern relationship we currently have in the 21^st century with government will assure that we as a people only change in one direction – more dependency, less self-sufficiency, less education, more consolidation of wealth in the hands of few. Harry Browne aptly described the self-perpetuating nature of a benevolent government:

“Government is good at one thing: it knows how to break your legs, hand you a crutch and say, ‘see if it weren’t for the government, you wouldn’t be able to walk.’”

It is not coincidence that the transfer of power from State to Federal government in 1913 directly correlates with the rapid increase in spending, government welfare experiments and the radical assumption of public debt. For the same reason credit cards are so easy to fall prey to in personal finance, removing oneself from the direct cost of local subsidies removes all inhibition to passively approving unsustainable debt and dependency.

Local government is so important to a free and successful society, and most people will agree with this. So the relationship with the federal government must change. Our relationship is determined by our status and morality as a community. So it would be reason to say experiments in social services, environmental policies, education structures and the means to pay for them should be retained as locally as possible. We can win hearts, and votes with this logical argument. You may be surprised how many progressive neighbors will agree with this line of thinking.

Our goal should be to know and engage our community as much as possible, not depend on the benevolence of a distant government to perfect the condition of a world it is too far removed from to understand. Education, health care, security, economic freedom, work conditions, civil rights are very personal, intimate areas of our lives, and should be held tightly and locally, even if they affect us as a whole nation. Teach your neighbors the virtues of a local community knowing and controlling its own fate, and you just might see the republic which protects this, find a home in the hearts of the democratic masses once again.

We cannot afford any other option.

______________________________________________________________

Video on the importance of the 17th amendment, and what it’s repeal has led to:

The history of the present King of the District of Columbia is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these sovereign States.

To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his [consent] to Laws, [which are] most wholesome and necessary for the public good [voter ID, border protection, union-abuse laws, protection of faith]

He has forbidden his Governors [like Arizona, South Carolina, Alabama and Florida] to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance [like border security and voter protections], unless suspended in their operation till his [consent] should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them [completely ignoring his own Constitutional duties]. When they have not complied, he has taken them to Court.

He has imposed dozens of new taxes in the midst of a depression, and participated in unconstitutional supression of gun crimes and murders implicating his staff in the various States.

He has violated our Constitutions of the many States and the Federated Government itself by imposing a Federal mandate on all persons, subject to a penalty tax for non-compliance;

He has attempted to impose penalties upon States for not bowing to the coercion of medicaid expansion at His discretion;

the creation of an unelected Independent Payment Advisory Board, in charge of determining which and how medical procedures are allowed under His many programs;

by using our dollars to bailout a corporation fraught with bad management [Chrysler], then mediating the sale of this company and others to Foreigners [Canada and Italy];

by imposing a terrible regulatory system known as Dodd-Frank which attempts to control industries that We the States did not delegate to the Federal Government;

by violating the right to privacy of Federal Contractors by requiring them to disclose their political investments before getting approval;

by attempting to impose taxes upon non-profit organizations approved legally by His own laws, for not engaging in His own support;

by granting thousands of waivers without the consent of Congress to districts in his own political favor or the favor of his Party’s House Speaker. [The sole power of disbursement was never granted the executive branch, and is solely characteristic of 17th century Monarchs, not modern, civilized societies of free people]

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records [and behind closed doors even in our own Capitol], for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people [by rendering moot the laws they pass and declaring them ineffective if they supercede, or even mirror his own decrees].

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause other [laws to be enacted as passed by The People], whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers [and appointment of judges with the Senate’s consent].

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries [through backroom deals and abrogation of their duties of constitutional interpretation].

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance [through the czars, the EPA, multiple offices of execution of rules, increases in the size of existing departments and lawsuits against homeowners and non-profits for not complying with illegal usurpations].

He has kept among us, in times of peace, [military-built drones] without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power [and declared the federal takeover of State militias within His jurisdiction].

He has combined with others [WTO, UN, NATO] to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of [our border] States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: [unless approved by his own administration]

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: [Obamacare, tanning salon tax, etc]

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these States.

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: [disposing of the Republic form of government, and instituting a Democratic form, and not one of full consent, at that].

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. [through the imposition of federal supremacy and disregard for State sovereignty]

He has plundered our seas [with moratorium on economic production], ravaged our coasts [with EPA regulations not approved by the people], burnt our [crops, through the cutting off of much needed irrigation in desert valleys], and destroyed the lives of our people [through dependence, food stamps, unending unemployment insurance and assurances of more government aid].

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries [in places like Libya, Yemen and Afghanistan] to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us [black panthers, Madison protests, anarchist occupations in public squares], and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, [to permanently defect all manners of our customs and national identity].

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms [through multiple displays of hundreds of thousands appearing at the Capitol Mall]: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Vote Him out in November, 2012.

Copyright 2012, FoundersIntent.org

PROTECTING THE ROOTS OF REVOLUTION

Without the principles of the First Amendment, revolution would be impossible.
With the First Amendment, revolution is unnecessary.

In our part-one article on this amendment, the case was made that the first amendment was intended not as four independent liberties, but four interdependent liberties that assured the People could be protected from the Government through their own choice in faith, association, speech and protest, and the freedom to file grievances. This was a distinct protection not enjoyed under England’s rule. They assured peaceful revolution would always be possible, and tyranny almost impossible. Any without all would prove toothless in the path of true tyranny.

The Founders understood how the revolution dramatically changed the political landscape from King George’s England; if Americans could break off from the Church of England, why not England itself?[i] Politically, the states needed assurances the national government they created could not reverse the new spiritual freedoms now practiced on farms and plantations. The Virginians, Madison and Mason helped shepherd the creation of some amendments to the young Constitution. They wrote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

ROOTED IN MORAL AWAKENING

Madison and Mason lived through the end of the Great Awakening and the entire Revolution. They must have learned a critical lesson: government is downstream from culture. Taxation without representation is correctly viewed as the impetus for the American Revolution. At the same time, they knew the Revolution likely would not have occurred without the Great Awakening.[ii]

The political aspects of the Revolution cannot be separated from the religious. The Great Awakening in the colonies in the first half of the 18^th century fractured the King’s control over a centralized, national religion. By the Revolution, approximately two-thirds of the white population[iii] were dissenters from the Church of England. Although not political, the Great Awakening held deep political ramifications.

The Virginians were the first to articulate the principles of the First Amendment, but the elder statesman from Pennsylvania had already practiced them for years. Without realizing, Benjamin Franklin and his Philadelphia press demonstrated the practical use and logical outcome of putting government downstream of culture;[iv] a government of the people.

Pennsylvania’s pluralism already promoted the first goal of the First Amendment: disestablishment. The colony had no official State religion. At the same time, the public donated money to build a hall specifically reserved for preachers of all faiths.

George Whitefield noted,

“The House and Ground were vested in Trustees, expressly for the Use of any Preacher of any religious Persuasion who might desire to say something to the People of Philadelphia…”

WHITFIELD, AMERICA’S FIRST PASTOR

If transported to modern culture, Whitefield would be a household name. He would be the most widely known preacher in America. He would be a pioneer on social networking sites, possibly a commentator on a Fox News morning show, have a blog, and have an hour blocked off on Sunday morning television. Think Billy Graham meets Mark Zuckerberg.[v] Everyone knew him. And Whitefield was impressed that Philadelphia would pay for a pulpit for preachers of all religions.

Publicly funding a hall for preaching would certainly be viewed as a violation of First Amendment principles today. No doubt, secularists would assert the principle of “separation of church and state.”[vi] This phrase as understood today would have been completely foreign to Franklin, Madison, and Mason. While they sought to keep a national government from mandating a national religion, they did not seek to prevent religion from influencing government.

Whitefield and Franklin met in Philadelphia in 1739. Around the same time Whitefield came to Philadelphia, he began printing journals and a monthly periodical.[vii] Although unproven, it is believed Franklin and Whitefield grew wealthy in large part to Franklin publishing Whitefield’s stories.

Famously, Franklin and some friends from his Junto club attended a Whitefield sermon in Philadelphia. He had resolved not to donate any money to an orphanage Whitefield planned, but by the end of the sermon, emptied his pockets. Another fellow had anticipated the overwhelming urge to donate, and had removed his money before coming to the sermon. He turned to a friend for a loan, but was rebuffed. “At any other time, Friend Hopkinson, I would lend to thee freely; but not now; for thee seems to be out of thy right Senses,” he said.

HOW THE AWAKENING AFFECTED FRANKLIN – DISESTABLISHMENT

Franklin is not viewed by history as a revolutionary. He was loyal to the Crown. He arranged for his illegitimate son to become Governor of New Jersey. Sent to London by his fellow Pennsylvanians, his initial task was to convince Parliament to make the Penn’s pay their fair share of taxes. He remained in Europe, and after the French and Indian War, Britain attempted to pay for the war via the Stamp Act. The House of Commons summoned Franklin and demanded an explanation of why the colonists would not pay the taxes. Franklin stood in the House of Commons during questioning. Now age 60, Franklin’s gout would have put him in excruciating pain. This may have been the final insult. Franklin was the most well-respected colonist America had to offer, yet the House would not permit him to sit in their presence. From then, Franklin was one of the most effective forces for freedom.

Franklin’s premise in the House of Commons was that the colonists were willing to lay taxes on themselves. Instead, they were being taxed without having a true say in the matter. It was taxation without representation. Franklin said in part,

“The assemblies have only peaceably resolved what they take to be their rights; they have taken no measures for opposition by force, they have not built a fort, raised a man, or provided a grain of ammunition, in order to such opposition. The ringleaders of riots, they think, ought to be punished; they would punish them themselves if they could….The Colonies raised, paid, and clothed near twenty-five thousand men during the last war — a number equal to those sent from Britain, and far beyond their proportion; they went deeply into debt in doing this, and all their taxes and estates are mortgaged for many years to come for discharging that debt.”

Franklin lived each point and principle of the First Amendment before it existed; the choice in faith, assembly, speech and protest and grievances.

Disestablishment, as a principle, guaranteed religion (faith) would impact the broader culture without government control, which was the forward protection of individual liberty.

Without free speech and free press, the words spoken by the evangelists could not have been heard or disseminated across the nation. Without the right to peaceably assemble, those longing for spiritual freedom could only find their hope at the feet of a preacher told by the State what to say. And without the right to petition for a redress of grievances, no citizen could attempt to fix wrongs by peaceful, non-revolutionary means.

What is the Founders Intent for the First Amendment? In short, the First Amendment guarantees revolution would only be a last resort against a tyrannical regime, and if preserved by the people and exercised, assures it would never be needed.

I was talking with a friend last night about education and he said that many people want to know how they can get involved in education to help affect positive change. Strangely, I was at a loss for words; as a teacher I had never been asked how the community can get involved with schools to help them perform better, nor has anyone ever asked me how they can help me better teach my students to prepare them for the future. Needless to say, I was intrigued and decided to conduct a bit of an unofficial survey of those in education to see what they think. Here are the 5 most popular suggestions they came up with:

ENGAGE YOUR SCHOOL BOARDS

It seems to those in education that the school board is the “front line” in education as far as deciding the direction of a district. School boards decide on programming, curriculum, staffing and contracts with the teachers’ unions. Often, the unions will spend a lot of money to back a candidate that supports the union’s agenda; the union even goes as far as to recruit candidates and groom them for the position. Furthermore, school boards are often made up of one or two retired teachers that cannot even vote on a contract, but will use their voice to sway other members to vote in favor of the union. Average citizens do not know how to run for school boards and will shy away at the thought, thinking that it is a political position. The truth is school board candidates do not claim political parties and should ONLY run because they are interested in having a voice in education. So, we need to empower everyday citizens to run for our school boards.

BE THERE!

Even if you cannot run for school board, show up at the meetings. There are a lot of major decisions that are being made at school board meetings, and if you are not there to question the integrity of the decisions, who will? Meetings are often announced in the local papers and even on the district’s website. You pay the taxes to keep the school district running and your opinion is not only appropriate, it is invaluable.

DO THE RESEARCH IF YOU CARE

What is going on in education? What are the best practices taking place in other districts? How is money being spent in your district? What happens to ineffective teachers where you live? These are all great questions and ones that you will need to do some research on. Far too often we are not given this information and it is our job to search out the answers. When you attend a school board meeting, it is important to arm yourself with facts. It is one thing to complain about something that is happening in our schools, it is another to show up with solutions. Take the time to read about education reform and what is happening in successful schools around this state. How are they effectively educating kids? How can your district implement similar practices to make your schools successful, too? Trust me, we educators will take all the help we can get.

ASK QUESTIONS. WHY WOULDN’T YOU?

Parents need to ask questions. They need to ask their student what they are learning in class; find out if the curriculum is appropriate, rigorous and if the teacher is factual in their lessons. Parents can no longer assume that what is going on in the classroom is on the “up and up.” Talk with your children everyday about what they are learning and, if you feel that something is not right, ask the teacher! As a teacher, I have no issue with a parent asking me what is happening in my classroom and I welcome the conversation. I think it is too often that parents become intimidated by school staff and feel like they are not allowed to find out what is going on. This is FALSE! You have every right to know what is happening in your child’s school…heck, it is your responsibility! If you do not get the answers you are looking for, follow the chain of command: teacher, principal, superintendent, and finally, the school board. Demand excellence in your schools!

DON’T BE COMPLACENT

There are many citizens who do not have children in schools and think that what is happening does not really pertain to them. This is crazy thinking and could not be further from the truth! The children who fill our schools today will fill our state and federal buildings one day. They will become renters, homeowners and parents in the very towns that we live in. If we do not take a serious interest in what they are learning today, how can we ensure that they will become the law abiding, moral driven, responsible citizens of tomorrow? Even if you do not have children yourself, you must take an active role in education and our schools. You pay the taxes for teachers like me to educate the youth in your state; don’t you want to make sure I am doing my job? You should expect excellence from our schools and integrity from educators like me!

A REAL ORGANIZATION FOR TEACHERS

Since last week, I have been bombarded with questions concerning The Association of American Educators. Now that so many teachers in Wisconsin have left WEAC, they are curious about this non-union option. Here is the skinny straight from their website:

The Association of American Educators (AAE) is the largest national, non-union, professional educators’ organization, advancing the profession by offering a modern approach to teacher representation and educational advocacy, as well as promoting professionalism, collaboration and excellence without a partisan agenda.

Even though I am still forced to belong to WEAC and the NEA, I joined the AAE this week because I believe so strongly in their mission. I am excited to be a part of a professional association that values teachers and does not use them as a funneling system for political donations. I am excited to learn how to be better at my craft and to know that I am a part of a group of professionals that truly are ABOUT THE CHILDREN!