April 2009

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30

I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. (attributed)

-James Madison

March 12, 2009

Chuck Norris And State Secession

Interesting: Chuck Norris is a secessionist

The last time that I agreed with a Democrat was in 1861, when the Republican North invaded sovereign Democratic Virginia and declared war on the fledgling secessionist nation. It’s amazing just how much Lincoln changed our nation. We give a hard time to FDR and Wilson, but no one has impacted this nation more than Abe, honestly. The famous expression goes that before Lincoln we referred to ourselves as “the United States are” as if that were a bad thing. It’s interesting when you think about it, and I’m finally starting to get clarity on this topic after my Civil War phase last year. Here’s the analogy I’ve drawn:

If a person immigrates to this country, that new citizen retains the right to visit other countries (mostly) and to renounce his or her citizenship at any time. One of the greatest aspects of this country is that – if you don’t like it – you have the ability to leave it…at any time. This, to me, pretty much sums up the definition of a free country. Similarly, a union of federated states should operate in very much the same way. The United States of America didn’t conquer Texas, or Alaska, or Hawaii. These states joined voluntarily because the United States represented a mode of federated government to which these states desired to belong. Likewise – a state should be free to leave the Union at any point that that state feels the government is not aligned to how…well, actually, a state shouldn’t even need to give a reason. If a state doesn’t want to be a member of the union anymore, then so be it.

If we hold a free, law-abiding citizen here against his or her will, then we are living in a non-free country. We would be living in an authoritarian government. Yes, fascism. So what does that make us when we hold a state here against its will? So when Texas or Alaska secedes because the U.S. government has been radically bastardized from the nation they voluntarily joined (even 50 years ago), what is our “freedom” loving country going to do? March in there with the 4th Infantry Division? (Whoops…that’s already based in Texas, let’s try the 3rd Infantry Division). And would we be able to look ourselves in the mirror and honestly call our nation “free”?

That’s the problem with Lincoln. This didn’t have to come to bloodshed and war. When you have a number of states arguing about peacefully seceding, it’s a pretty good indicator that somewhere along the line the federal government has gotten seriously out-of-whack. I know that there are some logistical issues that make difficult – say – a Kansas seceding from the nation. They’d be isolated from the rest of the world. But again, instead of marching into Kansas with an army and overthrowing its state government, why not work on revamping the federal government to cater to the state? After all, what purpose is a federal government but to serve its constituent states (Not its people)? This is why Lincoln failed so miserably, in my opinion, and why – as distasteful as this may be to me – I believe the Democrats were right. And now 150 years later, the political party names have swapped but the heart of the issue remains the same.

Well, one thing’s for certain, the Democratic South would have fared much better had Lee had Chuck Norris under his command.

Posted by Rammage | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

March 11, 2009

Gun fear

Reading the news articles on the man who murdered an Illinois pastor during his church ceremonies this past weekend, I find myself quite alarmed:

The arsenal in accused gunman Terry Sedlacek's room included two 12-gauge shotguns, a rifle and a box of 550 .22-caliber bullets,

A pair of shotguns and a .22 rifle is an "arsenal"? This piece is full of sensationalism, which is typical of the media when it comes to guns. I don't know how they can even pretend that their job is to report and inform, when they are so willfully uninformed themselves. It's absolutely ridiculous.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

March 2, 2009

Why legislators don't worry about Constitutionality

Last week, the Senate rejected a proposal that would have given residents of the District of Columbia full representation in Congress (retrocession to Maryland), instead favoring the proposal to give full voting status to the DC delegate in the House [District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act (S. 160)]. Under this arrangement, the District would be the only place in America to have a vote in the House but not in the Senate.

I did write to my senators (Webb and Warner) on the issue, encouraging retrocession. I also wrote my Representative (Eric Cantor), for good measure. I pointed out to them that allowing DC to be the only non-state to have a voting member is not in accordance with the Constitution. I also pointed out to them that it sets a precedent that I do not support. Any territory or district that wants full representation should attempt to attain statehood, as has always been the case.

That's what I told them.

I haven't yet heard from the offices of Cantor or Webb, but today I did receive an email from the office of Senator Mark Warner, and I thought I'd share with you all exactly what it said:

I believe that the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act takes a fair and balanced approach to granting District of Columbia residents the representation enjoyed by other citizens of the United States. In addition, we have received assurances that the bill will not open the door to any commuter tax or otherwise infringe on the rights of Virginians. I understand that some have raised concerns about the constitutionality of this legislation. While I appreciate these concerns, in my view, that matter is better left to the courts to address.

(Emphasis added.)

That's your plan?

I realize that legislators often pass laws that don't make sense and/or require a torturously loose interpretation of the text of the Constitution. But it seems to me that it cheapens the process to say Well, it might be constitutional and it might not... let's pass it and wait for somebody to file a suit and let it work its way through the courts and eventually see what SCOTUS says.

That's not what we Virginians sent you there to do, Mr. Warner.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Hoping for Failure

If you don't know anything about Lee Stranahan, know this: He's a liberal, and he said the following:

I believe that Limbaugh wants the President to fail because he loves the country...

A fantastic piece that encourages us to focus on our actual differences, and not on shallow propaganda like calling our opponents "traitors". I wish more people (of every political stripe) felt this way. Please read it.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

March 1, 2009

Halting the Tea Party

Via blogger Shaun Kenney, a story out of Cedar Rapids that sounds a bit Onionish:

An anti-tax group wanted to pitch in real tea like the Bostonian revolutionaries opposed to England’s tea taxes.

Tea, although natural and quite tasty, is considered a pollutant that can’t go into a body of water without a permit, said Mike Wade, a senior environmental specialist at the DNR’s [Department of Natural Resources] Manchester field office.

A few quick thoughts:

1) Tea is not naturally found in the river, and depending on the amount and the flow it could theoretically have an adverse effect. If you were to dump in tons of it, that is. I suspect they weren't planning to dump that much. DNR is not some kind of environmental hero on this case.

2) It's a fantastic credit to Cedar Rapids Tea Party founder Tim Pugh that he actually took the initiative to contact the DNR and ask about it ahead of time. Honestly. That's a responsible leader who is looking to keep his group's members out of legal troubles. Clearly this guy is an earnest political activist, and not a rabble rouser. I wonder if he realizes that the guys at the original Boston Tea Party were, in fact, rabble rousers?

3) The DesMoines Register article really does say that you can't dump tap water into the river because chlorine is a pollutant. Yes, it says that. Go back and read it again.

4) For some reason, I suspect I know who runs the DNR. This guy.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)