Category: Economy

Posted on

Secrecy Breeds Corruption and Tyranny – Part II

As I mentioned in Part I,  the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP, Trade Deal) is a secretly engineered scheme that unashamedly supports centrally planned economies.

In this article, I have pulled an excerpt from the TPP which I will use to illustrate this globalist agenda. This portion highlights healthcare where pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers and public health entities will be jockeying for positions at the public trough.

Given the poor performance and rising costs of Obamacare, what will happen when Congress allows the President (via the TPP) to wedge his insatiable bureaucrats deeper into your wallets and future health decisions.

The following excerpt from the TPP showcases the socialistic tenor of the entire agreement. I chose this example to emphasize 1) a subtle call for universal amnesty, and 2) global pharmaceutical insiders don’t like the notion of transparency. (Neither does President Obama .  Below is an excerpt from Chapter 10, regarding pharmaceutical products and medical devices. (All annotations, mine)

The first bullet (#1 in red) is the nail in the coffin for opposition to universal amnesty. It paints a false picture of your individual health as a public good that is government’s a-priori commitment. The phrase, “for their nationals including citizens and the public” translates into “everyone, regardless.”  You and I, as citizens, are included but also included are illegal aliens, undocumented workers, and everybody else. In other words, everyone by “treaty” will gain access to entitlements at the public trough.

The second bullet (#2 in red) highlights the recommended striking of the word “transparent.” This is because some numbers (xx) of participants oppose that concept in favor of the idea of impartiality.  Meaning, in effect, they won’t be judgmental, but they want to remain secret!

The third bullet (#3 in red) is a strategically placed “or by” clause which digs a hole large enough to swallow the American Dream. The two ideas presented on either side of this “or by” clause are entirely incongruent. These ideas don’t even belong in the same class.

The first concept represents the American ideal – the notion of competitive markets. The second is a statist, collectivist, or socialist ideal – the desire for centralized control and management.  The language which says, “or by adopting or maintaining procedures that appropriately value” simply means that, “price controls are fine, as long as government maintains them.”

This ought to tell you what the Republicans in the House and Senate think of free-markets.

Apparently, neither House is worried about defending your rights to Life, Liberty and Property as Constitutional intentions mandate. They are more interested in catering to large-scale moneyed interests while placating the public with empty noise about helping Americans get “jobs.”

The two major political parties have fallen victim to a devastating worldview – Statism – the belief that only through government force and coercion can society function properly. They have come to believe that if they can get control of the steering wheel, gas pedal and radio buttons on the federal machinery the US will prosper.

Our founders had a different idea. They believed in limited government. Their focus was on lowering the burdensome nature of taxes while allowing citizens the liberty of engaging in free, open and prosperous markets. They believed in private enterprise from families like yours and mine. They were fully invested in defending their grand experiment with their lives, fortunes and sacred honor.

Good decision making is based upon an accurate assessment of available knowledge. This is a simple concept and it is easy to demand from Congress.

The more we know and understand, the better our odds of making good choices. This happens when we purchase our cars, homes and daily bread.  In fact, “full disclosure” laws exist to help people become informed citizens so that they can participate in the marketplace. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was designed to allow citizens to participate in self-governance and to keep government in check. Yet, the Obama administration has set the record for censoring government files by denying access to nearly 50,000 requested documents.

Take pride in self-governance. Demand openness and full disclosure from the men and women who are serving on our behalf.

We must not allow this federally sponsored takeover of America’s open markets and prosperous industry under the cheap excuse that nations must compromise their traditions, principles and heritage in order to work together.

Posted on

Federal Over-reach Damages Us

The Federal Payment-In-Lieu-of-Taxes (PILT) and Secure Rural Schools (SRS) payment schemes are not in the best long-term interests of Oregon’s citizens. I have attended countless budget meetings where hard-working folks strive to manage their limited resources. However, the hard-truth is that relying on these monies will only place us on the same street corner next year, with the same cardboard sign, asking once again, “Please, Sir, More…”

All of these federal disbursement models are outdated, whimsically amended, and hobbled by bureaucratic ineptitude. They are built on a mishmash of legislative actions from self-interested parties that are forged deep within the marbled halls of our nation’s distant capital. Worse yet, most federal actions are rank with either executive or legislative over-reach or pregnant with deplorable raids on the US Treasury.

Federal usurpations directly damage Oregon’s health and economy while indirectly damaging all of us. Yes, my contention is that every citizen pays heavily as the national interests intrude on responsibilities that are, “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Here is a brief review of small handful of sordid federal intrusions in Oregon:

    • Executive Over-reach #1 – Between 1904 and 1906, President Roosevelt went tearing through Oregon maps creating ten new forest reserves: 1904 – Baker City; 1905 – Chesnimnus, Maury Mountain, Wallowa and Wenaha; 1906 – Blue Mountains, Fremont, Goose Lake, Heppner and Siskiyou.

 

    • State’s Defensive Response – In 1907, Oregon’s U.S. senator Charles W. Fulton introduced an amendment to eliminate the president’s authority to establish national forests in Oregon. This amendment appropriately gave responsibility back to Congress and changed the name from forest reserves to national forests in order to make it clear that the forests were to be used, not preserved.

 

    • Executive Over-reach #2 – In 1907, the night before signing Sen. Fulton’s bill, Roosevelt grabbed another 16 million acres, deridingly known as the “Midnight Reserves.” Opponents were furious, but five new national forests were proclaimed in Oregon: Blue Mountains National Forest (added to the older Maury Mountain Forest Reserve), Coquille National Forest, Imnaha National Forest (created from the older Wallowa and Chesnimnus Forest Reserves), Tillamook National Forest, and Umpqua National Forest (Coast Range).

 

    • Congressional Pandering – The next year, 1908, Congress invented the 25 percent annualized receipts sharing plan to placate states and counties whose land assets were completely nationalized through Roosevelt’s takings.

 

  • Whimsically Bureaucratic Fixes– Since Congress first impaled counties in this economic death trap, Congress has never repealed federal misdoings but have only amended or modified the original acts with cheery acronyms like, “Payment in Lieu of Taxes”, “Safety Net Payments”, “Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act”,  “Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act”, “Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act”, “The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act” and the  “American Taxpayer Relief Act”.

This ought to remind everyone of the Obamacare debacle. It’s cleverly named the “Affordable Care Act” but there’s little that’s affordable or caring about it. What was sold as a well-intentioned new idea has turned into a wasteful, ineffective nightmare. We should know better than to believe the cleverly named bad policies from Washington, D.C.

Look at the 1976 Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA). This is where PILT was birthed. This is also where Congress declared a fundamental transformation of its Public Land goals. Up until this single event the federal government had a legislative mandate for disposing of public lands. After FLPMA the focus became one of land retention.

Land retention is the skunk in the woodpile. This is exactly why PILT and SRS exist. These monies are aimed at buying our complacency through the bankrupt budget and monetary policies of our federal government. Don’t mistake their offer for a mere 25 percent of the revenue as the answer to our county’s difficulties.

Instead of talking about PILT, SRS and O&C monies, it is time to start talking about the Transfer of Public Lands to states, counties and private enterprises. Dismantling federal land jurisdiction would give local communities control and management over their own natural resources.

It’s time for us, as loggers, ranchers, entrepreneurs and elected officials to believe in our own future. We should not allow the Politburo in Washington D.C. to plan our lives for us.  Focusing on government handouts is never the right answer.

I know local families, businesses and communities are hurting. I know county services will face constraints but Congress needs to admit that it has promised more than it can deliver. The feds have over-spent our hard-earned money by throwing $18.2 trillion down the proverbial rat-hole while our Commissioners are scrounging the pavement looking for Road Fund nickels and dimes.

Instead of being placated by the empty words of career politicians we should place our faith in local control and open markets as the best means of restoring and preserving our water, fish, game, timber, and mineral resources.  This is the road we must be willing to travel to secure the blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

 

For more information visit : http://americanlandscouncil.org

Posted on

Consensus is Not Truth

The Consensus Agenda

Today’s regulatory enterprise is following the same pattern as Maj. Gen. William T. Sherman during the American Civil War.  Sherman’s strategy was to gather livestock and crop production data from the Federal Census of 1860 to effectively lead his troops through areas where his army could do the most damage. Today, the EPA, USFS, USGS, NOAA, BOR, FWS, BLM and IRS are following the same pattern.

They are amassing enormous volumes of data which enables them to push their agenda driven preferences onto the American scene. The problem isn’t the data collection per se. The problem is the agenda driven data interpretation which happens in the secret recesses of their bureaucracies.

The data being stockpiled and the interpretations being propagated are uniquely prejudiced. Isolated results are paired with faulty scientific modeling and rigged with invalid assumptions which has led to the advancement of consensus as truth.

There only problem is consensus is not truth – Truth is truth.

Truth is Truth

Truth matches the real world. It is the way things are apart from man’s temporal interpretations.

Apples fall and sincere or empathetic wishing cannot make them stay aloft. Gravity is gravity, even while we sleep. Additionally, anyone can tinker, experiment or investigate this universal truth because 1) the mathematics and modeling provides a good representation of the world as we know it, 2) it has great explanatory power and 3) it has great predictive power.

If this sounds reasonable to you then, you are not part of the consensus movement. However, the EPA is vigorously using your own tax dollars to attract adherents to their world-view.  They are trying to recruit you and your kids.

Industry and special interest lobbying groups are regularly appointed to positions on the EPA’s Science Advisory Board. This policy of encouraging, or ignoring, biased judgments and conflicts-of-interest presents a hazard to the public-good and threatens the integrity of the entire federal bureaucracy.

Whether these tendencies lead only to ideological advances or monetary gains for the participants is irrelevant; it is the process which is corrupt.  Data does not arrive into the scientific endeavor with a toe-tag which provides the explanation. The interpretive activity must originate within the confines of the laboratory and it requires as much data scrubbing as possible to limit exposure to corruption.

The EPA’s agenda-driven regulations place an undue burden on vast swaths of American industry. In turn,  industry-wide compliance issues become even more ominous as the science behind the enacted policy remains secretive. During both terms of the Obama Administration there have been routine denials under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for underlying documentation.

The EPA has purposefully avoided publishing scientific studies, policy discussions and regulatory options. This ultimately harms every state, industry or business entity which is striving to achieve palatable economic and environmental results.  This week,

Q_openThe House of Representatives passed a bill intended to require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to disclose the scientific research it uses to justify changes in its regulatory policies.

The bill passed Wednesday on a mostly partisan 241-175 vote, with its Republican supporters claiming the measure as the first step toward a win for transparency between the EPA and the American people. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said the legislation will prevent the EPA from using “secret science” to underpin controversial rules changes.

“Right now, the EPA is trying to impose harmful regulations based on scientific studies that Q_closeno one can check — not the public, not independent scientists, not even the United States Congress,” McCarthy said. “It’s called ‘secret science’ and it’s wrong.”

President Obama has vowed to veto this legislation.

President Obama and the elites guiding these policy initiatives in Washington have cut loose from the underlying ideas embedded in our nation’s founding.  The most notable cast-off is the belief in an underlying moral order. As this foundational truth is abandoned any policy can be re-formulated to achieve any specific agenda driven preference. The result is a pragmatic approach to problem solving  which promotes irrational consensus simply to avoid “letting any crises go to waste.”

Solution – Limits on Federal Over-reach

Any and all necessary environmental controls should be developed and owned by the 50 free and independent sates. For illustration, the health and future of Klamath Basin Watershed, where I live, should not be determined by legislators from rural Kansas, Gulf-coast Florida, or any of the other 50 states. At most this should be a compact between two states – California and Oregon.  The policy controls belong in the hands of local citizens not the denizens of power in Washington, DC, or Omaha, NB.

Our US Congress’ lack of adherence to the US Constitution and its limits on Federal power has enabled the EPA to continue in its bureaucratic overreach. Unfortunately, state governments obediently follow along in the hopes of receiving federal subsidies, grants, exemptions, or other regulatory niceties.

The EPA’s power-grab is gaining momentum under the current administration while Congress appears powerless in its demands for accountability. The statists in Washington are more than happy to shield the EPA’s agenda behind a mask of impunity among the elites in Washington.

It is time for us, as individuals to demand accountability from our representatives in Congress.  Americans must be willing to fight for the preservation of our constitutionally federated republican form of government where free-markets and environmental stewardship flourish under the twin-pillars of individual liberty and personal responsibility.

Posted on

Today’s MUST DO

Today, I have a MUST DO for you (and your posterity…)

I want to recommend a book that is a literal gold mine of history, ideas and strategies for Conservatives.

The book is TAKEOVER by Richard A. Viguerie.

Viguerie’s style and story-telling is entertaining and informative. He provides great insight into the political machinery that is enamored with using the utopian ideals from a failed progressive platform to harm today’s Constitutional Conservatives. And, all within the Republican party.

Reading the book will be the easy part.  Restoring America to its founding principles, those of self-governance, free-markets and individual liberty, will not be as easy.

For right now, let’s not get bogged down in the seemingly impossible but concentrate on the do-able and get the book!

While you read, enjoy the knowledge, wit, wisdom and history that Viguerie presents. In the end you will see the value of simply remaining true to your common-sense desire for freedom. The ideas we carry concerning liberty are not complex. They are simple, self-evident and part of our American heritage. Clarence B. Carson, a historical economist, writes in his book, The American Tradition:

“That the central American tradition was erected around the goal of liberty is manifest in the great documents of our history. It was explicitly stated in the Declaration of Independence and implied in the structure of government provided for in the Constitution of 1787. Liberty was declared to be the object of the Massachusetts Body of Liberties of 1641, and was undoubtedly the purpose of the first ten amendments to the Constitution.”

Therefore, it will be worth your while to get a copy of TAKEOVER and contemplate the ideas and associated actions that will be necessary to restore our American tradition of individual liberty.

Jenny Beth Martin, the co-founder and President of Tea Party Patriots, wrote the Forward which I will share here:

Q_openThere is a bitter political civil war taking place that will determine whether America remains a constitutional republic. It is a timeless struggle between those who have power and those who desire to be free. The modern version of this struggle is not between Democrats and Republicans, but within the Republican Party itself.

This civil war began over one hundred years ago and not with the rise of the Tea Party movement in 2009.

It is a civil war between limited-government, constitutional conservatives and the progressive, establishment wing of the GOP. And make no mistake: the establishment wing of the Republican Party is progressive, and has been ever since conservatives stymied Teddy Roosevelt’s attempt to reclaim the Republican presidential nomination in 1912 and make progressivism the governing philosophy of the Republican Party.

In the years since 1912, this civil war has been playing out, and for the majority of that time, from the Taft-Eisenhower campaign of 1952 to the Tea Party’s battles to nominate and elect limited government constitutional conservatives in 2010 and 2012, Richard Viguerie has been in the thick of the battle.

Richard’s objective in writing this book is to provide a plan for conservatives to win this civil war based on the lessons he has learned—from both success and failure—in over fifty years of being active in the conservative movement at the national level.

It is a plan for constitutional conservatives to take over the GOP so that we may restore the liberty and opportunity that the Founders intended and protect that great document, the United States Constitution.

The millions of Americans who are drawn to the Tea Party movement understand that progressives in both the Democratic and Republican Parties have usurped power and overrun the Constitution. The Obama administration is the most extreme example of progressive rule, but the road to where we are today was built with the willing participation of establishment Republicans.

James Madison foresaw the likelihood of this civil war, although not within a political party, in Federalist No. 44, where he wrote, “In the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers.”

Madison’s “remedy” must play out within the Republican Party since the Democratic Party has been completely taken over by progressives whose policies cannot succeed without ignoring and violating the Constitution.

In TAKEOVER Richard shows us that the ballot box of the Republican primaries is where we must begin to fulfill Madison’s remedy of electing “more faithful representatives.”

Time is running out, and if we fail in this task, our children, grandchildren—our posterity—will never know the America for which millions have sacrificed their labor, capital, lives, and limbs. Unless the Republican Party fulfills its promise and becomes the constitutional alternative to the progressives, I fear the “American experiment” is over.

The rise of the Tea Party citizenry and the election of young, principled constitutionalists to the Congress and in state legislatures is a sign that this war is about to turn, and in TAKEOVER Richard Viguerie gives us a road map to make it turn in our favor.

Where we are now is the culmination of decades of struggle, which is why the younger people in our movement especially must know what has worked and what has failed up until now.

It is to the younger generation, who has the most “skin in the game,” that TAKEOVER is addressed. Those who join us in this civil war are fulfilling an obligation to our children, grandchildren, and generations yet to be born that I dare say is no less consequential than that of the Founders.

Q_closeThe goal of Richard Viguerie’s TAKEOVER is for limited-government constitutional conservatives to take over the Republican Party and govern America in 2017. I urge you to read the book, follow the plan, and get in the fight today.

 

Screenshot_2167

 

Forward was originally published at ConservativeHQ and can be read here: Permalink

Posted on

Last Night’s Pizza-box and your 2nd Amendment Rights

Over-Stepping the Boundary Line

The anti-Federalists recognized the dangers of arbitrary,  capricious or whimsical actions by a nation’s ruling class. The anti-Federalists also understood that it didn’t matter if the ruling class was comprised of an individual like our US President, or a monarch like King George III. They knew danger could also arise from oligarchies, or democracies when  government oversteps it’s boundaries.

Over-stepping occurs constantly because of Republican traitors and Democratic idealists. The Democrats love big government and they are simply following their natural ideological bent.

Republican platforms at the national, state and county levels all oppose big government (cf., Ending Groundhog Republicanism). Although Republican statists claim they are against big government they rarely vote against big government. It turns out to be a convenient campaign ploy to retain votes from their conservative base.

The Republican elites in Washington, DC know all too well how to use their positions to threaten industries, extort corporate contributions, or legislate market disruptions that bring rewards to certain beneficiaries.

My words here are well chosen. You may think of treason as “acting to overthrow one’s government.” There is another definition which I intend. It is, “the betrayal of a trust or confidence, or a breach of faith.”

You and I have been betrayed

The Republican ruling class has placed their bets on a house of cards. They have wagered our children’s futures for their rewards today. They have immunity from ObamaCare. Do you? They hinder your job prospects while opening the field for themselves and their friends. They create factions among us and set contradictory and unattainable priorities.  This not only confuses citizens, it confuses markets.

Businesses need accurate information for making sound and efficient use of their resources. Are production capacities at optimal levels? Should the product mix be modified to take advantage of changing circumstances, supplies, or increases in market demand? No business can make an informed decision when the market is distorted by government intervention. There are false incentives, unwarranted subsidies, cheap money and limited access to natural resources. Each of which negatively and artificially impacts business decisions.

These contradictory and unattainable priorities confuse and hobble working people in our communities. Their unattainable priorities  are really false promises. Pennsylvania’s anti-federalist delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1776 recognized this. They identified the political maneuvering behind these false claims which were, “exciting [the Federalists] hopes of greater advantages from the expected plan than even the best government on earth could produce….”

anti-Federalist Proposals

The anti-federalists also documented their dissent for the proposed Constitution because it did not include a provision for the right to bear arms.  Their desire was to include wording which would guarantee no future jurisdictions could subvert this natural right for personal and family defense.

“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers.”

In particular, notice the phrase “and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them”.

You and I have been told the 2nd Amendment covers this and protects our right to bear arms.  You may even believe that it’s language is complete. You may be of the opinion that the phrase in our 2nd amendment which reads “shall not be infringed” is as good as gold.

Yet, our 2nd Amendment right is the right most often infringed. Our Democratic led Oregon state legislature is intent on infringing this right daily during the current legislative session.

Additionally, Constitutional Amendments can be repealed. The 18th Amendment (Prohibition) was repealed by the 21st Amendment.

What defense is there for stopping devious, disingenuous  or corrupt men after they gain office?

First, arm yourselves with facts.

Did your Republican representative vote for the $1.1 trillion CR/Omnibus budget? This improvident legislation fully funded Pres. Obama’s scheme to “fundamentally transform America.” Obama received his needed wink and nod from two weak-kneed RINO’s,  Speaker Boehner and Rep. Walden. Those two RINO votes made the difference as it passed 214 to 212 on its initial journey through the House.

The only legislative restraint on Obama’s takeover of one-sixth of the US economy (healthcare), his executive amnesty plans and the EPA’s unprecedented assault against America’s natural resource sector was funding. Not any longer – the House fully funded all of Obama’s initiatives.

Our Turn Now

Use your knowledge and power in your local elections. Your proximity gives you more power in the local arena. Use it or lose it – vote for Liberty.  Elect conservative men and women to your County Commissioner positions. Encourage your County Commissioners to support the 2nd Amendment by passing legislation prohibiting the funding of activities which violate your inherent rights.

Elect true conservatives at every level of local government (even the County Dog Catcher if that position is an elected office.)

Elect true conservatives in all State and National races, whether House or Senate.

If your representative violated your trust, just throw ‘em out,  along with last night’s pizza-box.

Recommended Books…

Screenshot_2163Screenshot_2167Screenshot_2166Screenshot_2165Screenshot_2164

Posted on

Iron Handed Despotism

“Miserable is the lot of that people whose every concern
depends on the WILL and PLEASURE of their rulers.”

– Dissent of Pennsylvania Minority

In the article, Under the Guidance of an Arbitrary Government, I mentioned the anti-Federalists and I have received several questions about their ideas. Aside from, “Who are those guys?”, I received many questions about the motivations of the anti-Federalists, and their recommendations during the Constitutional convention of 1787.

Today I’ll start a series answering those questions and I’ll show you the similarities between their positions and the mindset of today’s Tea Party patriots. The Federalist and the anti-Federalists were both vibrant contributors to the creation of our Nation, our Constitution  and our Bill of Rights.

Wikipedia explains…

Anti-Federalism refers to a movement that opposed the creation of a stronger U.S. federal government and which later opposed the ratification of the Constitution of 1788. The previous constitution, called the Articles of Confederation, gave state governments more authority. Led by Patrick Henry of Virginia, Anti-Federalists worried, among other things, that the position of president, then a novelty, might evolve into a monarchy.

The anti-Federalists were the Tea party heroes of the day because they recognized the sublime, self-evident and universal truth of Lord Acton’s statement, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

A Pulitzer Prize historian, Leonard W. Levy, notes, “The Framers and their supporters are known to us as the Federalists, and those who opposed ratification are the Anti-Federalists. The name Anti-Federalist was an opprobrious (shameful) epithet artfully fastened on those who opposed ratification by those who shrewdly called themselves the Federalists. (History is written by the victors.)”

The “victors” knew the power of propaganda in swaying the public mind. We see the same distorted and inaccurate clamor in today’s issues like “environmental justice”, “income equality”, or “a women’s right to choose.”  The terminology or language of the debate is framed purposefully so that the opposite view automatically gets a negative sounding connotation. For example, the “pro-choice” position was chosen rather than the more accurate title “pro-abortion”. This makes those holding the opposing view sound tyrannical because they are against choice and freedom. When the stated position is positive, what is left but negativity?

Using the pamphlet, entitled “Dissent of the Minority of the Pennsylvania Convention” from December, 1787, as a sample we can see the clear articulation of sound anti-Federalist ideas.

The anti-Federalist believed in local governance and representation, just like today’s Tea Party. They  accurately predicted these potential problems with consolidated power under the Constitution:

  1. “[M]ust necessarily annihilate and absorb the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of the several states”
  2. would produce, “one consolidated government, which from the nature of things will be an iron handed despotism”
  3. “The powers of Congress… are complete and unlimited over the purse and the sword, and are perfectly independent of, and supreme over, the state governments; whose intervention in these great points is entirely destroyed.”

 

Couple these well-warranted fears about state sovereignty with Jefferson’s dream of many thousands of small government jurisdictions composed of local communities and you can see the beauty of dispersed governmental power. With these historical insights we can understand why liberty-loving Americans are so disappointed with Speaker Boehner and the establishment Republicans in their efforts to consolidate more federal power under President Obama’s recent “CROmnibus” legislation.

As citizens, you and I are supposed to carry the ultimate authority.  Our ability to have meaningful engagement becomes evermore diluted as federal consolidation diminishes our voices. Jefferson agreed. In his correspondence with Abigail Adams he admitted, “If ever this vast country is brought under a single government, it will be one [a nation] of the most extensive corruption; [it will be] indifferent and incapable of a wholesome care over so wide a spread of surface.”

The fears and questions raised by these Founders are the same ones I have today:

  • Is the “majority” always right?
  • How does the minority get represented when the majority is unwise and abusive?
  • How will we ensure local authority vs. control from those in far distant cities?
  • How do we hold those who have violated our trust accountable?
  • Is there a “higher law” to which men are accountable?

Thoughtfully consider these questions and send me your comments.

Check in next time as we tackle more of the fundamental ideas voiced by the anti-Federalists and read their recommendations for our future.

Posted on

Conservatives vs. Boehner and the Republican Facade

Conservative Challenger to the Establishment’s Gang

Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-Texas) said Sunday that he will challenge John Boehner (R-Ohio) as Speaker in the new Congress.

“I’m putting my name out there today to be another candidate for Speaker,” Gohmert said on “Fox and Friends.”  Gohmert said that after “years of broken promises, it’s time for a change.”

This is Good News

This is important for all Americans and especially for Republicans.

Establishment Republicans in the House have become too enamored with the Big Red “R” and the big money their offices control. They have lost sight of their founding principles. They have forgotten what limited government and free-enterprise look like.

Margaret Thatcher, in her first speech to the Conservative Party Conference (circa, 1975) described the conservative vision,   “A man’s right to work as he will. To spend what he earns. To own property. To have the state as a servant and not as a master. These are the British inheritance.”

These are uniquely American traits and we successfully spread these ideas to the rest of the world. In fact, Thatcher’s Great Britain inherited them from America.

These were the originating ideals of America but, today, we are at a tipping point.

Our World is Changing

Just six years ago Obama claimed that conservatives, “get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

In the same way, although America’s founders exhibited a profound respect for Christian principles and the moral relevance discovered through Biblical doctrine, then Senator Obama voiced, “we are no longer a Christian nation.”

Our Republican ideals are not composed of wacko, fruit-cake, right-wing blather. Our ideals are the true ideals firmly rooted in the the American Tradition.

They are the ideals of hard-working farmers, ranchers, business men and women who, like myself, have a natural love for freedom and liberty. These ideals represent what we, as conservatives want to preserve – our constitution and therefore, our nation.

Our conservatism is, simply, the best and most accurate assessment of the real world – the world where you and I live. We must fight to stop progressives, compromisers, or moderates, from weaving false ideas into our kid’s textbooks and the vocabulary of the nightly news.

Our Founders Knew Better

The truth is, we don’t cling to our Bibles or guns because we’re bitter. Rather, we cling to things that are true. This is our deepest conviction and stems out of a deep affection strengthened by evidence and rational assessment.

The objectivist Ayn Rand observed, “There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.”

Do you see her point? The middle of the road is thought of as morally superior, yet, because the middle of the road is not based any principle at hand, it must be based on caprice, or whim.  If it were based on some higher principle, what would that higher principle look like?

  • Is pragmatism the highest good?
  • Would maintaining a rich facade of “care and concern” be better than facing fiscal reality?
  • Is it only a game? Does it matter who wins and who loses?
  • Is it a higher good to sacrifice this item in hopes of accomplishing that one?
  • Is compromise the highest good?

What’s wrong with these principles, and what we lose if we forget what really matters?  Each of these examples might seem legitimate but what are they based upon? What will be our foundation for determining the future direction of our nation’s policies?

America exists because of a calling, “to secure the blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our posterity,” not because of feel-good platitudes.

Ronald Reagan, as one of the world’s most profound conservative communicators (and a close friend of Margaret Thatcher) described our American Ideals in his speech entitled, Our Noble Vision: An Opportunity for All, given March 2, 1984:

An opportunity society awaits us. We need only believe in ourselves and give men and women of faith, courage, and vision the freedom to build it. Let others run down America and seek to punish success. Let them call you greedy for not wanting government to take more and more of your earnings. Let them defend their tombstone society of wage and price guidelines, mandatory quotas, tax increases, planned shortages, and shared sacrifices.

We want no part of that mess, thank you very much. We will encourage all Americans — men and women, young and old, individuals of every race, creed, and color — to succeed and be healthy, happy, and whole. This is our goal. We see America not falling behind, but moving ahead; our citizens not fearful and divided, but confident and united by shared values of faith, family, work, neighborhood, peace and freedom.

It’s high-time that voters brought these uniquely conservative, thoughtful and prudent American ideals to the forefront of our own local communities.

Do not let these traditions of Liberty become dusty, old and irrelevant. Tell your House member to vote for the principled conservative, Rep. Gohmert, or pack up and get ready to come home early – for good this time!

Tell Your Representative to Replace John Boehner HERE!

Link to more ringside headlines:

Posted on

The FDA Hurts Businesses

My opponent recently released a letter to the FDA, declaring that their new rules on brewers and ranchers will hurt Oregonian businesses.

He’s absolutely right – but my question is, why has he been funding the FDA with printed money from Washington, and then writing flimsy letters against it?

Wouldn’t the logical solution be to cut off the funding for unConstitutional entities like the FDA and EPA? Why is our Congressman of 16 years so scared to take these Federal behemoths on?

My stance is much different than Congressman Walden’s. I think that the states should be in charge of their own departments, not throttled by Federal bureaucracy. Ranching and brewing are both critical industries to Oregon and we know how to support them, govern them and help them succeed in our neighborhoods and communities.

I’m running for Congress because I think that we have spent too long contenting ourselves with thrashing at the branches of bureaucracy. Establishment Republicans hide behind wimpy letters and empty statements, all the while voting for deficit spending and bigger government, rather than true, Constitutional change.

We all know, in our heart of hearts, that the current state of Federal bureaucracy is wrong. We are taxed on every activity, regulated at every turn and business is discouraged at almost every level (unless, of course, you know someone high-up in politics!). Let’s stop being satisfied with futile rhetoric and empty votes – it’s time to stand up for our freedoms in real, meaningful ways and begin to take our liberties back by dismantling the Federal machine.

Posted on

The Deceptive Budget Deal

Last week, your current US House member sent out a puff piece attempting to justify his recent votes. These kinds of word games are exactly what’s wrong with Washington — in an age when more and more people are demanding honesty from their elected officials, why are we accepting these kinds of false claims? Rep. Walden asserts that this deal is a series of “common-sense cuts and reforms in the plan” that will “reduce wasteful government spending by $23 billion more and when passed will avert another government shutdown.”

An analysis by Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee (SBC) details where, the proposal identifies two specific years “(2022 and 2023) to reduce deficits by $28 billion.” Do you think that’s going to happen? Do you believe that politicians will keep these promises, when right now they are misleading us about the nature of the bill itself?

Only in Washington can a legislator put the phrase “reduce wasteful government spending” and omit the gutting of the sequester law. Also, Rep. Walden purposefully hides the $63 billion in spending hikes over two years. Where did those “common-sense cuts” go again? This budget increases spending by $64B over 2 years and proposes to reduce spending $23B over 10 years. Only from an out-of-touch political class can this be labeled as a common-sense “step in the right direction.”

After these spending hikes, the deal proposes $85B in savings, but only on paper. $34B of this isn’t even “savings” because they are “fee increases”, yet another clever way to make conservatives feel represented. They are fees, not taxes… right?

It’s time for honesty and true common-sense in Washington. It’s time to tell these elites that we’re not fooled by their word-games. Taxes are going up and so is spending, under this budget – are you happy with that outcome?