More reasoning with Mr. Brown

In an interview with Chris Matthews, on the subject of economic growth, (I'm being generous), Senator Sherrod Brown said, and I quote, "Extending unemployment benefits creates economic activity that creates jobs, not giving a millionaire an extra 10-20-30 thousand dollars in tax cuts, that they likely won't spend, because they're already buying what they're going to buy anyway".

Mr. Brown.., Come... Let us reason together.

As you may recall from my last correspondence, I am neither rich, nor Republican.  I guess that will improve the standing of my argument, in so much as the instrument most commonly employed by you and your party to derail it is that of class envy and partisanship.  Another mark in my favor is that, though I am self-employed now, and have been most of my adult life, I have at times been unemployed, and collected unemployment benefits.  I admit it was a very long time ago, when I was still in my Democrat phase... ... I guess that's another point I can claim.

The way I remember it, when I was unemployed and collecting benefits, there were a couple of things that I did NOT  do.  I did NOT put a whole lot of effort into finding another job, and I did NOT spend money on anything other than the necessities.  Why, you ask?  Because unemployment, rightly, doesn't provide enough to allow one to do more than that.  Which brings me to my point.

It seems to me that buying the things we NEED, to get by, doesn't really create economic activity at all.  At least, it doesn't create economic GROWTH.  That would be accomplished by buying the things we WANT.  The things we all buy from our extra cash, THOSE are the things that create jobs.  If I remember correctly, when I was drawing unemployment, I couldn't qualify for a loan to buy a new car, or a stereo.  I couldn't take my girlfriend out for dinner and a movie.  In short, I couldn't contribute to economic growth.  I could only keep the heat and lights on, the rent paid, and food in my belly.  I'm NOT complaining.  For the effort I had to put forth to get it, I was quite content.

But that was then.  Today I am, as I've said many times before, self-employed.  I don't have a large bank account... or any bank account at all, to speak of.  But I understand that it's the people WITH the money that make the economy grow.  You say, "GIVING a millionaire an extra 10-20-30 thousand dollars in tax cuts that they likely won't spend".  A more accurate statement would be, ALLOWING a millionaire to KEEP an extra 10-20-30 thousand dollars of their own money, but that's a topic for another discussion.

While you may be correct in your assertion that they won't SPEND it, millionaires don't get to be millionaires by leaving large sums of cash in their mattress.  They INVEST their money where others can use it to grow their business and create jobs, that is, when they have confidence in the stability of the economy.  I'm okay with the rich getting richer,  because everyone else who's putting out some effort gets richer as well.  At least, so long as the government doesn't take it away in the form of income tax.  Remember what I said on October 4th?  How the income tax prevents those of us in the middle class from becoming wealthy?

Well, Senator Brown, I've taken up enough of your time.  I look forward to a time when we can have a real discussion.  I'm sure the opportunity will present itself, sometime between now and November, 2012.  If you have a few more minutes, here is a link to an older post.  Perhaps it will give you some insight as to whose "side" I'm REALLY on.

I'll get back to ya...

A House Divided

President George Washington cautioned congress, in his farewell address, to avoid party politics.  I must confess to not having known this fact when I began my journey into the abyss of American politics.  In fact, I confess to knowing FAR less than any American should know about our history, back when I began.  I have since remedied that, and recommend to as many as will listen, that they do the same.

Learning of Mr. Washington's warning was quite an encouragement to me, in so much as my primary objective has been, from the beginning, to put an end to "party think", as it applies to the voter.  I see it as the instrument by which our (for lack of a better word) leaders have convinced us to submit to their rule.

I hope you will permit me to coin the phrase, "party think".  It has a certain ring to it, don't you think?

What I mean by "party think" is this.  We each have in our minds, a vision of how we think things ought to be.  In each of us the vision varies by some degree.  We feel strongly about some things.  Less so about others.  The problem arises when we have to choose someone to represent us in government.  Because we, for the most part, only have two choices, identified by a party affiliation, we must decide which to accept.  We make this decision knowing full well there is plenty about each that we dislike.  Once we make our choice, we begin to identify ourselves with that choice.  Because our nature is to want to believe we are right, we begin to defend even the things about our choice that we disliked when we made it.  We begin to vilify in our minds the candidate, and by extension the party, we didn't choose.  Thereby trapping ourselves in "party think".

I submit for your consideration that "party think" is the reason our choices are so limited at the ballot box, and truth be told, none of us are happy about it.  None of us are happy, yet, out of fear we submit to it just the same.  I might be willing to wager that voters on both sides of "party think" are only slightly more in favor of the candidate they choose, than of the one they don't, only on different issues.  And that their final decision is based more on fear of the one than confidence in the other.

But how do we solve this problem of party think?

Consider that this problem is an internal one.  Like an addiction.  I'm confident that, if you think about it, you can make that connection.  The first step to addressing an internal problem is to admit that it IS a problem.  The next step is to recognize that, however difficult the process, it must be done.  We also must recognize that, as with any addiction, there are those who don't want to see us "kick the habit".  Those who have a vested interest in keeping us hooked on their product.  I'll not go so far as to say it's intentional.  At least, not by ALL party politicians.  But each of the major parties are working to convince us that we really need THEM to protect us from the OTHER.  We must recognize that we don't need THEM to protect us.  We already have a defense against BOTH. The United States Constitution.

The true and lasting beauty of our Constitution is that it does indeed protect us all from each other.  It protects us from the ideology of our leaders, WHATEVER side of "party think" they happen to be on.  Those who want us to believe we need them to protect us, have little respect for the power of the Constitution.  This IS true of BOTH parties, though not necessarily true of all their voting members.  Many of them, I am convinced, are as trapped in "party think" as we are.  They merely need an open and unobstructed door to escape through.

Which brings me to the next step in addressing the problem...  CHOICES.

No matter how badly we may want to, we can't make the change without better choices.  There was a time in our earliest history even before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, when communities chose their leaders, not merely because they raised their hands and said "please pick me".  They sought them out for the wisdom they possessed, not because they would give them what they wanted, or even because they agreed on everything.  They recognized their WISDOM not their IDEOLOGY.

What made President Washington warn congress to avoid "the spirit of party"?

Perhaps, being the only president ever to be chosen with no regard whatsoever for party, he was able to see what no other could.  That "party think" however well intentioned, can have no other effect than to weaken the Union. And, over time, weaken the Constitution. HE WAS CORRECT.

I'll get back to ya... 

A response to Sen. Sharrod Brown

Hello Sherrod,

I would like to begin by offering you my thanks.  You have provided me the perfect opportunity to introduce myself to YOU, and to Ohio.  My name is Scott A. Rupert, and I intend to be on the ballot in 2012, to challenge you for Ohio's 2nd seat in the U.S. Senate.

You will notice I refer to it as Ohio's seat.  Not YOUR seat.  Not "THE PEOPLE'S" seat.  OHIO's seat.  Somewhere along the way, (I suppose with the passage of the 17th Amendment), the idea has been lost that the role of a Senator is to represent his or her STATE.  To legislate and vote the interest of the state.  In essence, to protect Ohio's sovereignty.  We have another branch of Congress who's job it is to represent the people.  That would be the House of Representatives.  One can expect that a member of the House might suggest legislation that threatens the state's sovereign authority, if indeed it is the will of his/her constituents.  One might even expect that legislation to pass through that body, given the right circumstances.  However, as a Senator, it is your job to see to it that it goes no farther.

Why do I begin with this?

Well, because the first statement of your October 3rd, 2010, USA Today, editorial states that you are fighting for people.  That's not the job you applied for.  You are there to fight for your state.  To protect her.  You're not there to plunder from the hard working taxpayers in other states, among whom I count myself, to bring money back to Ohio.  You're there to see to it that it never leaves.  If "fighting for people" is what you believe you have been called to, I encourage you to run for a seat in the Ohio House of Representatives.  You see, ALL the things that you believe to be good, do have merit.  But they are things best done at the state level.  Our United States Constitution doesn't prevent the states from doing... well... pretty much ANYTHING to benefit the citizens of their domain.  But it doesn't allow Ohio to steal from Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Pennsylvania, or West Virginia to accomplish it.  If Ohioans truly WANT a health care plan, FUNDED BY THE STATE, then by all means, CREATE one.  If they want it, they won't mind paying for it.  If they don't... there are 49 other states to choose from.  

Your all for "CHOICE", right?

Among the things you list as "fighting for" are jobs to keep people in the middle class.  Well sir, please understand that most of us in the middle class would, indeed, like to move UP. And the cost of your successes is making it evermore difficult to do that.  I will use myself as an example, for a couple of reasons.

1) To demonstrate that I am absolutely committed to honesty and transparency.

2) Because I am the only American of whom I can be sure I have all the facts, and that they are truly FACTS.

I am a, self-employed, truck driver.  I haul cars for a living.  I own ONE truck.  A 1994 Peterbilt, with 1,753,845 miles on the odometer.  Hardly sounds like "privileged", does it Senator?  Due to a series of unfortunate events in the fall of 2007, I was forced to use the money that had been set aside for taxes to fix my truck.  A continuation of those events compounded the problem in 2008.  I filed as I should have, but wasn't able to pay.  My wife's efforts to work out a payment arrangement were met with disdain.  On top of all of it, was the pressure from creditors to pay up or else.  I don't blame the creditors for this.  After all, I signed a contract agreeing to pay THEM.  2008 was a very difficult year.  Just in case you're thinking to yourself, "that was when Bush was President", you need to understand that this is a GOVERNMENT problem, not a PARTY IN POWER problem.  We made it through on our own, with no help from anyone, with hard work, and lots of it.  Just as we began to emerge from the difficulty, the IRS drained our bank accounts and caused numerous checks to bounce wreaking havoc on an already unstable situation.  I don't tell you all this because I want sympathy, or HELP, though I am still working things through with the IRS.  I tell you to make a case against the current tax code.  The device that funds so many of the programs so important to you.  If it is, as you say, your mission to "fight for people", how about fighting for those of us who are footing the bill?

Well, back to my example.

2009 was a much better year.  While so many Americans were losing their jobs, I was able to continue working, (and paying my quarterly income taxes), with hardly a problem at all with my ONE old truck.  Because my truck is old, (and this is why I have an old truck),  I have no payment to make.  Because I have no payment to make, and because I had few repairs, I was able to earn an extra 20 thousand dollars in 2009.  You would think this would have helped to pay some of the taxes from the previous years.  Instead, it added another 7000 to my tax debt.  You see, while that extra money allowed me to get back into good standing with my creditors, it put me farther in debt with my government.  Whom, I might add, is giving me very little for my money.

You see, the income tax doesn't, as you undoubtedly believe, punish the rich, or make them pay their "fair share".  The rich already have their money.  The income tax prevents the middle class from ever becoming rich.  We can't save our way to wealth while our government confiscates progressively more of our income.  I'm not opposed to paying taxes.  But let me pay them on the money I spend, instead of the money I earn.  That way I can CHOOSE, (there's that word again), to save if I'd like to move up to the next level.  I can CHOOSE not to buy, when something unexpected comes up.  Thereby, overcoming the hardship quicker.  As it is, when an unanticipated expense comes up, I not only have to work harder and longer to earn the money to cover the expense, but also to cover the tax on the extra money.  It seems to me, that the U.S. Treasury would end up with more of the cash from the wealthy, if they taxed it as they spent it.  As I said, the wealthy already have their money.  It's not income.

It just NOW occurred to me, that the reason labor unions came to be, in the U.S., was a free market response to workers working too much, for too little.  Workers decided that the abuse they were enduring at the hand of their employers was more than they could stand, so they organized.  Perhaps that Tea Party thing you're so worked up about is the free market response to essentially the same thing.  The government abuse that working class Americans are experiencing has become more than they can stand.  I know that's why I am going to challenge YOU.

I have told those who would listen, that the Tea Party movement is akin to the response of Americans to a natural disaster, or a terrorist attack.  Average Americans, recognizing a desperate situation and coming together to address it.

I am an American who sees a problem, and I think I have an idea that will solve it, so I'm getting involved.  I'm not a Republican, or a Democrat. I am an American.  An independent (with a little i) American.  I am not wealthy, or Ivy League educated.  For that matter, I'm not even a high school graduate.  I am one of the "PEOPLE" you claim to be fighting for.  And the problem I see is party politics.  ALL PARTY POLITICS!  Divide and conquer is the strategy BOTH parties have employed for too long.  You BOTH have used fear to motivate voters to side with you.  It has to stop. The idea that I believe addresses this problem is for ordinary Americans to lay aside the fear of the process and get in the game.  That's what I'm doing.

I look forward to the contest.  May the best ideas win.

Scott A. Rupert

Love Thy Neighbor

Last week I made the pilgrimage, along with half a million others... or "tens of thousands", depending on who you listen to.  Because I was there, and could see the ocean of people stretching from the highest steps of the Lincoln Memorial to the base of the Washington Monument, I tend to lean toward the high end of that estimate.

I did what I could to make sure that everyone I passed on the sidewalk knew I was there.  I said hello to everyone.  And I passed a LOT of people.  My hotel was a mile and a half from the Mall and I walked it no less than 6 times over 2 days.  My goal was to see to it that everyone knew there was at least one friendly visitor in town for the weekend.  I have no doubt there were... somewhere between "tens of thousands" and half a million others doing the very same thing.  I also have no doubt that we left our Capitol a better place than it was when we arrived.

While it's probably true that we left it cleaner.  My reference is to the hearts and minds of the people who live and work there.  It seemed that the longer I was there, the friendlier the locals became.  I'm curious to know if others made the same observation.  I don't flatter myself by thinking this had anything to do with me specifically.  I believe it was the combined effect of... somewhere between "tens of thousands" and half a million people giving them little to be unfriendly about.

Which brings me to the real reason I felt a pressing need to add the rare post to this blog.

After the Restoring Honor Rally had concluded, many lingered.  I enjoyed conversations with people from other states, as well as a few from my own state of Ohio.  After a few hours I began making my way back toward my hotel.  It occurred to me, as I walked, that if everyone at the rally lived in the same city, the cost of maintaining that city would be much cheaper than that of any other city with a comparable population.

If a city were populated by people who cared as much about their neighbors as themselves, the cost of law enforcement would be low, because we would all be watching each others stuff instead of stealing it.  If a city were populated by people who cared as much about their neighbors as themselves, the cost of maintaining a Fire Department would be low, because if a house were on fire, the neighbors would come together to put it out.  As soon as the embers had cooled, they would aid in the rebuilding as well.  If a city were populated by people who cared as much about their neighbors as themselves,  social programs would be virtually non-existent, because, while the family of the house that burned was rebuilding, their neighbors would be meeting whatever needs they couldn't meet themselves.  They would be glad to do it, because, as I said, they would only be meeting the needs that the family themselves couldn't meet, and because they would know this to be true.  The character of the members of that family wouldn't allow it to be any other way.

In short, the more WE THE PEOPLE do for ourselves, and each other, the less opportunity we present for our government to step in and do for us.  To paraphrase Ben Franlin... The more virtuous WE THE PEOPLE become, the fewer government agencies we need to "HELP US" do the right thing.

But then... Which begot the other?  The old "chicken or egg" question... Did WE THE PEOPLE get lazy, so our government got involved?  Or did the burden of intrusive and oppressive government, taking from one to give to another, cause us to loose interest in our neighbor? ... I tend to believe it was the latter.

I'll get back to ya...

It's the same fight. Are WE the same PEOPLE?

I don't know how many readers I actually have... if ANY.  The problem with not monetizing my blog is I don't have any way to gauge how many people are reading the drivel I'm pouring out.  I'd like to think there are a few out there.  Fact is, it doesn't really matter. Even if nobody reads it, at least I'm doing something.  You know that famous question?  If a tree falls in the forest, and none are there to hear it, blah, blah, blah?  Well, the way I see it, even if none are there to hear it, and even if it made no sound, the fact that it fell would eventually have an effect on the forest.  If in no other way, at least it would provide nutrients for the soil where it fell.  That's what I'm doing.  Providing nutrients.

Since falling short of the signatures necessary to secure a place on the ballot, for Ohio's U.S. Senate seat, (notice I call it OHIO's seat), I've taken up the cause of the Ohio Project.  That being to first, get the Ohio Health Care Amendment and the Ohio Sovereignty Amendment on the ballot in November, and second, to get them passed.  I'm in this fight because it is precisely the fight I was engaging in as a potential candidate to the senate, that of STATE SOVEREIGNTY.

Many heard me say that, if elected, I would stand before the Senate and proclaim, "I represent the State of Ohio, and we would like our sovereignty back!"  Well, that's the statement these amendments make.  The real power in THIS statement comes from the fact that it's the PEOPLE of Ohio making the proclamation.

Our federal government derives its power from the "consent of the governed".  But passive disapproval is nothing short of consent in the eyes of a tyrant.  Our legislators have forgotten that WE THE PEOPLE are the government.  That WE THE PEOPLE tell them what to do, not the other way around.  It is not for the federal government to decide what is best for Ohio, or any other state.  It is the responsibility of the federal government to protect the states, and allow the states to do commerce.  Does anyone think that our Founders (as delegates from their respective states), knowing they were creating a tool for their own destruction, would have put quill to parchment to sign the Constitution?  Make no mistake, there were those among them who would have liked to have had what we are SO DANGEROUSLY close to having today, (an ALL POWERFUL national government).  Here's a news bulletin... They were OUT NUMBERED.  We do have cause to thank those men though.  Men like James Madison,  and Alexander Hamilton, who tried VERY HARD to see to it that the states had no authority over their own affairs.  It is thanks to the efforts of men such as these, (or in spite of them), that the BILL of RIGHTS was amended to the Constitution.

The legislators of the states, saw the danger posed by giving too much authority to even a well intentioned federal government.  They insisted on protecting the rights of their states, FOR POSTERITY!

Until the the 17th Amendment was ratified, the Senate saw its role in Congress for what it was, protection for the interests of their respective states, (their rights).  It was easy enough to do that, because they didn't have to worry about getting voted out of office as a result of an unpopular position.  Since then, even though the JOB is the same, the BOSS is different.  And the new boss, until recently, has only been interested in one thing... HIMSELF.  The members of the Senate have forgotten who they represent.  They have been making the popular choices, instead of the right choices with regard to the best interest of the state.  How many of the programs Americans depend on today, that have brought us to the brink of insolvency, would not exist at ALL had the members of  the Senate had the courage to say, "In the long run, my state can't afford that".  "I vote no". ... ... How many?


So, until the next election cycle begins, I'll be doing what I can to SOUND like a Senator, if I can't actually BE one.  I'll be taking every opportunity to spout off about the rights and interests of my state.  I'll be doing all I can to protect and preserve the Constitution of the United States.  I would like to suggest that YOU do the same... WHATEVER state you're in.  Educate those around you on the role of government in their lives, and their own responsibility to themselves and others.

As a measure of comfort, I'd like to tell you that there isn't a lot of difference between the condition of things today, and the earliest days of our Republic.  The characters have changed.  The weapons have changed.  The speed at which information moves has changed.  But the fight is the same as it has always been.  LIBERTY vs. TYRANNY in an all out, no holds barred, brawl.  Same as it's always been.  Even the press was the same. What remains to be seen is this... Do WE THE PEOPLE of today, have the STONES our ancestors had?  Those first days of liberty were DOWN RIGHT TOUGH.  The road back to liberty will be tough too.  WE THE PEOPLE are a lot softer today.


Oh I know I'm up for it.  I'm pretty sure you are too.  It's your neighbor I'm worried about.  He'll be voting too.  What are you doing to toughen HIM up?


I'll get back to ya...

A rose, by any other name... is still but a cover for thorns

Last night, as I hauled a load of cars and SUV's to Cincinnati, after intruding on a candidate forum in Findlay, I'm listening to Fox News on my Sirius satalite radio.  I hear Senator Orrin Hatch... At least it SOUNDED like Orrin Hatch, (I didn't catch the beginning), say that the way the Health Care Bill should have been done, was for Congress to include the things Republicans and Democrats agree on, then compromise on the rest.  Yet another illustration of the fact that THEY STILL DON'T GET IT, and possibly more importantly, the members of the Senate don't understand the Constitutional role they play in our government.

The true problem with the SENATE version of the Health Care Bill, was not what was contained in it, but that it existed AT ALL.  I know,WE THE PEOPLE, elect our Senators the same way we elect our Representatives, thanks to the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, but their Constitutional role still remains the same... TO REPRESENT THE INTEREST OF THE STATE!  Our Representatives serve the interest of the people.  Our Senators serve the interest of the state.

IN SO MUCH AS, there is nothing about the health care bill that serves the best interest of ANY state,  (this fact is demonstrated by the many states acting to keep it on the other side of their lines), the bill should never have passed out of the Senate.  Never mind that the imposition on individual liberty and state sovereignty should have kept it from ever being so much as a topic of discussion, on Capitol Hill.

The fact that the interviewer seemed to agree with Mr. Hatch, demonstrates that many, if not MOST, of us don't get it either.  We HAVE GOT to start really listening to what our leade...? ...? ... politicians are telling us.  We MUST start weighing those words on a Constitutional SCALE.  The mindset in Washington is that government IS the solution, but that one side has better ideas than the other.  Government is NOT the solution... WE THE PEOPLE are the solution.

ELECT PATRIOTS, not POLITICIANS!

I'll get back to ya...

CONSTITUTION or BUST

Sunday night, I turned on the news after a long day of working on trucks, (the car hauler and my pick-up).  The vote on the health care bill had just ended, and America had been fundamentally altered, at her core.

Monday morning I was awakened by a phone call from a friend who's response to my "Good morning" was, "No it's not."  He then went on to vent his own frustration over the outcome of that vote.  He ended his tirade with, "So can we stop this, if we just elect all Republicans this fall?"  A cold chill ran up my spine, at the thought of it.

What I am about to say will seem somewhat self-serving.  I suppose it is.  But, after all, it is the very REASON I am running for the Senate.

For the last several election cycles, "WE THE PEOPLE" have allowed ourselves to be carried along by emotion.  Making decisions out of anger and frustration, rather than from intellect and logic.  I have in the past, tried to create the image of a pendulum, swinging violently from right to left, and back again.  I think a better analogy, in light of the health care vote, would be a WRECKING BALL.  A wrecking ball that has been landing weakening blows to the edifice that is the United States Constitution for some 100 years now.  Sunday night, the ball broke through.

In November, "WE THE PEOPLE" will once again have a decision to make.  THIS may be the most important decision of our lifetime... and the lifetime of those who come after us. Will we allow the ball to take another swing from the other side?  OR... Will we cause all the momentum to have been spent on that one breakthrough, and set to work on repairing the breach?

Ever heard the saying, "Don't make decisions out of anger"?  I think that holds true of FEAR as well.  A choice to simply vote Republican, out of fear that a vote for a true independent will lead to more legislation like the health care bill, will only put us on the other path to over-sized and intrusive government.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying there are NO good Republican candidates.  For that matter, you'll never hear me say that there are NO good Democrat candidates, (though they are fewer and farther between).  The problem with both parties is the leadership, and  the money involved in the campaign process. It's a problem that, by its very nature, can't be fixed, because by the time an election is over, they all owe some debt to their leadership.  The only real solution is to make the party system obsolete.

The kind of reactionary voting "WE THE PEOPLE" have been engaging in for decades, is what has brought us to the place we are at today.  WE THE PEOPLE have allowed this to happen.  WE THE PEOPLE can stop it.  But if we are going to stop it, we are going to have to start making decisions based on intellect born of a knowledge of our Constitution, instead of emotion.  Even if we like what we hear from a candidate, "WE THE PEOPLE" have to ask ourselves, "Does the Constitution allow for that?"  If the answer is NO... it's time to stop listening.  Or at the very LEAST, asking a few difficult questions.

Our Constitution was written to protect us all from the ideology of our neighbor.  To keep this kind of thing from happening.  But "WE THE PEOPLE" are participating in our own destruction, by electing men and women who have no clear picture of it's true purpose.  "To limit government" is a fairly abstract concept.  Limit it WHY?  From WHAT?

"WE THE PEOPLE" tend to only be concerned that government be limited, when they are doing something we don't personally agree with.  So we are happy to see it exceed it's authority, when it works in our favor.  I am speaking to voters on both sides.  WE THE PEOPLE must begin to consider the notion that even those we disagree with, either ideologically, or morally are entitled to the same liberty, under the Constitution, as we are.  We must protect our Constitution, not our ideologies.  Otherwise... we all will suffer the same fate.

I have been as guilty of this as anyone, until the last few years.  But now the light is on, and I can see the nature of this beast that is destroying our freedoms, one by one.  I am motivated by love for my Country and the Liberty She grants me, and everyone else, by way of the Constitution.  I am not willing to stand by and watch the wrecking ball take another swing.  I hope YOU'RE not either.  If we continue to do what we've done in the past, the only determining factor left, to decide WHAT KIND of socialist government we end up with, will be... WHO IS SWINGING THE WRECKING BALL, WHEN THE LAST LIBERTY FALLS.

I'll get back to ya...

Anybody remember the contract with America?

For the past few weeks, I've been hearing a lot of conservatives talk about the threat that Tea Party candidates pose to Republicans in races across the fruited plain. They make the argument that, "what we need to do as TRUE CONSERVATIVES, is take control of the Republican Party and reform it".  If I remember correctly, we DID that once.   Look what it got us.

 

After the 1994 mid-term election, conservatives cheered the hostile takeover of the House and Senate, thanks, in my opinion, to 2 factors, the Contract with America, and, (ironically enough) a president who had tried to take over health care.

Sound familiar?

Did we net a smaller government for our effort?  I know, we did see some promising activity for a while, but politicians being what they are,  before long, we had the same kind of overspending, just on different things.  More government, not less, and when the Dems took over in 2008, we were no closer to a Constitutional government, than we were in 1993, and even farther in debt.

For the record, I'm not a Tea Party member, and have never been to a Tea Party rally. This is not to say I disagree with them.  I most definitely DO agree with them, for the most part.  Just letting you know I'm not an apologist.  I have no desire to see the formation of a third major party.  My goal is to see the two major parties we have, become obsolete.  Party politics is how we got in the mess we're in.

 

When Republicans recognized the threat the Tea Party represents, the leadership began to suggest that the Tea Party movement become a part of the GOP.  After all, if GOP candidates are splitting votes with Tea Party, or Constitution Party, or Libertarian Party, or (like myself) TRULY INDEPENDENT candidates, that will deliver seats into the hands of the Dems, and that would be "bad for the country".

Anyone notice that the GOP never suggests that THEY give way to the best interest of the country?  Anybody heard, Michael Steele say anything like, "Wow that independent, (or any minor party), candidate has really nailed it.  His ideas will move us back toward a constitutional government, without crashing us along the way.  I think the Republican Party needs to endorse him, and get out of the way"?

What the GOP is doing, seems to be the same thing the Dems are doing.  After Scott Brown, the Dems have moved to the center a bit,  attempting to give the impression that they've "learned their lesson".  After 2008 the GOP moved to the right a bit, giving the impression they've learned THEIR lesson.  Well, everyone will have to come to there own conclusion.  I agree the GOP seems to have moved to the right a bit.  But the issue isn't RIGHT or LEFT.  It's CONSTITUTIONAL government, or BIG government.

As for me... the saying comes to mind, "fool me once, shame on YOU.  Fool me TWICE, shame on ME".

I'll get back to ya...

Thank you, Scott Brown

Well HALLELUJAH!!! There is hope for this land of ours!!! I KNEW the people would come through!  That a conservative can win an election in Massachusetts, gives me great hope for independent candidates everywhere.

Scott Brown ran on ideas, and the ideas won.  He ran as an independent thinker, if not a true independent.  He ran as an average American, "who drives a truck".  I know he meant a pick-up truck, but STILL... Now if we can just do that, without spending millions and millions of dollars, we will have regained control of the electoral process, at least.

While Scott Brown is definitely a step in the right direction, he doesn't quite make that leap, all the way back to the Constitution.  On the issue of marriage, he gets it exactly right.  He declares that he believes it's the right of the states, to determine what their laws will be in that regard, and that he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman.  He and I are in agreement on both counts.  In fact, we agree on many issues, if not on the level of government at which they should be addressed.

I hope that as an independent thinker, he can be convinced that MANY of the issues, currently being addressed by our Federal Government, are actually issues to be addressed by the states.  In fact, MOST are.


If our Federal government stuck to the issues that the Constitution gives it jurisdiction over, and only taxed us enough to cover those things, (preferably through a consumption tax, rather than an income tax), then perhaps WE the PEOPLE, of OHIO. could afford to address the things that affect us in Ohio.  And YOU the PEOPLE, of MASSACHUSETTS, could afford to address the problems there.


Instead the Fed creates blanket solutions, often to problems of there own making, and forces the states to buy in to them. And as we have witnessed recently, many members of our governing bodies are all too happy to vote in favor of bad legislation, as long as they can keep it from impacting THEIR STATE.  I would only be guessing...  but this MAY WELL BE why our Founders restricted the Federal Government to the extent they did.


Thank you, Scott Brown, for the HOPE!


Thank you, Founding Fathers, for the WAY.

 I'll get back to ya...