My views are predominantly Conservative.  More accurately, they can be classified as Constitutional.  Those Constitutional views are formulated mostly around government operations.  Where we are at today with President Obama and most of the congressional delegation is discouraging.  Their collective philosophy is to rely on government to force the existence of a better society.

It is discouraging because over the past hundred years (actually, throughout history, if you are really measuring) betterment of society established by force has proven in the end to create a worse society.  Yet, generation after generation, we re-create the wheel to our detriment.  By the gift of God, mankind is endowed with the extraordinary gift of freedom of choice.  Anything which deprives mankind of that freedom, in essence weakens their societies.  The lack of freedom is a lack of choice.

Governments are not bad creatures.  They are not evil.  They are necessary to preserving general freedom from specific acts of violence.  Acts of violence come, quite simply, from people who lack the experience of knowing good results through the exercise of their freedom.

If you have made it through my last statement without your head spinning, there is something I would ask you to consider.  And, that is the alternative to the US Senate candidates of the two prominent political parties in Utah; Republican and Democrat.

Mr. Shaun McCausland, running under the banner of the Constitution Party, is a viable and appealing alternative to any candidate from either of those other two parties.  Here is why:

The bulk of Republican delegates and professed Republican Party members want a Senator that opposes excessive government intrusion in either the state’s business or their personal business.  The Republican incumbent has been an active proponent of government intrusion during most of his career.  He is a good man, and should be highly respected.  That does not indicate he should be re-elected by a state that opposes what he has been actively doing.  I believe that Shaun McCausland would not have been an advocate of most of the government intrusion that the incumbent helped create.  I also believe that Shaun McCausland would oppose the furthering of government intrusion in the future.

But, best of all, Mr. McCausland would be an active proponent of diminishing the size of government.

The Republican incumbent has a primary election opponent.  He is less of an advocate for government being overbearing.  Yet, it appears his preference is for a different type, or watered-down version, of government intrusion.  Again, Shaun McCausland stands firmly and unapologetically opposed to government expansion and intrusion.

Trying not to be too harsh, I must address the Democrat candidate.  In Utah the Democratic Party statewide is nearly irrelevant.  They capture a few local races, and even the heavily Democratic Salt Lake County congressional seat.  But otherwise they are irrelevant statewide.  I refer you to the first gubernatorial race when Mike Leavitt was elected, and the Democrat came in a distant third.  This leads me to my next commentary point.

When the Republican candidates are weak, split and strongly opposed, as they clearly are this cycle, a third-party candidate has a better-than-adequate role to play.  That depends on the willingness of voters to look beyond partisanship into who will be a true public servant and defender of the Constitution.  Shaun McCausland will be that person.

There is a great deal of hype about how ineffective a “third” party candidate would be if elected.  That is the only argument entrenched Republicans and Democrats use.  They use that argument because they know any serious evaluation of elective politics would prove that the premise of essential two-party preservation is nonsensical. I suggest just a few elements of proof:

Former California Congressman Packer (brother to a prominent Utahan) was elected as a write-in candidate, after his party rejected his initial effort.  He proved to be one of the most effective House Members ever to serve.

Vermont elected a third-party candidate, who still is serving after twenty years.  He has been very effective in accomplishing his agenda.  I vehemently disagree with that agenda, but he has been successful.  What he has done is represented the will of the people of Vermont.

Connecticut elected an independent candidate in their last senate race, after the Democratic Party elites rejected him.  Although not fully aligned with the values of the people of Utah, Joe Lieberman has proven to be a strong defender of our ally relationship with Israel, just as the bulk of Utahans desire.  In reality, a rational argument could be made that he is the one strongest man in America today preventing Barack Obama from completely abandoning Israel to our mutual enemies.

The argument that a Constitution Party candidate cannot be effective is false on its face, and provably inaccurate.  Conservatives, Socialists, and moderate Democrats have all proven they can be and have been effective.  Republicans and Democrats that would have you believe that another man of principle, Shaun McCausland, can’t be effective are simply offering up a self-serving argument.  Shaun McCausland deserves your serious and conscientious consideration.

Across the nation, people of every viewpoint are frustrated by the gridlock and politicizing of their future by elitist major party demagogues.  They want change.  We all want change.  There is a serious and relevant alternative to the tradition.

I encourage you to consider Shaun McCausland favorably.  He would make a superb US Senator from Utah.

In the Spring of 1912 Congress decided it was best to change the manner in which the Congress was constituted.  They did it with the passage of the 17th amendment to the Constitution.  Less than a year later it was ratified by the states on April 8, 1913.  Unlucky 13, I say.

Leading up to that infamous date apparently there was significant corruption going on in the select of senators.  Bribery, corruption, etc. dotted the landscape.  There were accusations made by muckrakers of industrialist and financiers using senators as pawns.  It is interesting that one of the chief muckrakers of the day was himself financed by William R. Hearst, one of the wealthy men around.

Because of their media mischief many states turned from their duty to appoint senator to shifting to the citizens, where the state elected officials would have no accountability for poor senators.  Once the people spoke the legislatures just rubber stamped Hearst’s appeal for direct elections.  Once these new senators took office it could be counted on for them to support amending the constitution.  In essence the amendment was championed by progressives of the day.  One in particular was William Borah of Idaho.  What is perplexing about him is that even though the muckrakers at his side  made accusation of corruption and immorality of legislatively appointed senators, Borah himself was a philanderer.

But this piece is not about the good, the bad, and the ugly of the past characters of the senate.

The 17th was touted as a means of correcting the flaws of senate that offered allegiance their states, rather than the progressive print propagandists.  The argument sold by the muckrakers was bought by 37 of the 48 states.  Utah can proudly stand as the one state which emphatically said no to this undercut to the Constitution.

What must be answered is why the Continental Congress put this particular provision in the original Constitution.  It was , as I have articulated in other blog posts, because they knew that the masses could and would be occasionally swayed by emotion.  The Senate was intended to have one-third of its members prevail in office beyond a president and the House.

It was further anticipated by the Continent Congress that state legislatures would choose senators with two characteristics.  First, they would be members who recognized and focus upon the sovereignty of the states, rather than simply the rights of people.  Secondly, it was sensed that the legislatures would choose persons of extraordinary wisdom and experience to be senators.  They would be people who could in fact be trusted to not be swayed by emotion, but understand from a perspective of history when certain acts of the House were unwise.

Now, the early nineteen hundreds was the “Era of progressiveness” and reform.  These were the days of the rise of Woodrow Wilson, the single most effective politician to advance the idea of a burgeoning bureaucracy.  A legitimate senate, representing the sovereignty of the states, was a serious obstacle to the progressive agenda.  It should be no surprise that their strategy was to eliminate state appointed senators, in favor of emotionally driven masses.

A most significant result of popular elections of senators was the steam of campaign control measures of the government.  An argument could be made that the ultimate creation of the Federal Election Commission in 1975 was a result of 17th amendment in 1913.  The muckrakers of the opening of the twentieth century in fact drove the nation closer to corruption in campaign than existed with senators prior to that time.

Yet, THE most significant disastrous impact of the 17th amendment is the secondary status of the states.  Today, the states are not viewed as, nor do they champion for, their sovereignty.  Remember the Constitution was developed in part to protect that sovereignty of the states.  Remember that one of the powers which the people and the states authorized the federal government to hold was to preserve the sovereignty of the states.

In allocating this power to the federal government the Continental Congress and the colonies established the senate, to represent the states.  The 17th destroyed that.

Today virtually every action by the states is challenged by or assumed to be subject to the national government.  In short the sovereignty of states has been effectively subdued.

Years ago one very prominent leader in Washington DC shared with a group of fifteen of us a perspective on the Presidency.

Said he, “The President is a culture builder”.

What he meant by this statement is that the most effective role of the president is to set a certain tone, OR CULTURE, in the nation’s capitol.

Ronald Reagan set a particular culture of homey confidence that America was functioning well.  His tenure caused rational people to believe that we were safe in an uncertain world.  That’s the culture which he created.

Jimmy Carter set the culture of fundamental goodness of the nation.  Whatever the effectiveness of his policies and executive prowess most civilized people felt that Americans were good folks.  That’s the culture which he created.

Bill Clinton left a culture of moral deficit.  That’s the culture which he created.

Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy.  Each and every one set a cultural tone for the nation.  For those who are old enough to remember the JFK days a smile comes to your face thinking that in those days America could achieve anything.

Barack Obama is creating a culture of disrespect for honesty and integrity.  As mentioned in other posts, on this site, there is no disputing that this president is a liar that will say anything.  He is deceitful.  That’s the culture which he is creating.The president is a culture builder.  His overt and covert actions speak far more loudly than any and all of his words.  In fact, the very words which he may speak prove his cultural bent.  His tone of voice set the tone of the prevailing cultural tone.

Since Barack’s earliest days as a candidate for federal office he has been a liar deceptive.  He has lived by the philosophy that a candidate and incumbent can “Say Anything”.  That chicken is now coming home to roost.  This president has created a culture where instinctively people disbelieve him and his intentions.  They question his integrity.  That’s the culture which HE created.  He built his own cultural demise.

If this president really wants to change his culture of deception he will do some very simple things.  These issue are pretty much irrelevant in their substance.  But if Barack Obama opened all his birth and education records to scrutiny he would begin to be believable.

That won’t happen.  Because fundamentally Barack Obama is a dishonest person.  As long as he thinks he can “sneak one by” he will try it.  That’s the culture which he created.

I urge all my readers to watch the videos of Barack Obama.  When he spouts off “saying anything” there is no hesitancy.  Yet, when he say “The truth is….” there is always a hesitation as he tries to formulate the right words.  Why?  Because it is hard work for him to tell the truth.  It does not flow naturally from him.

Unless we want this latest culture to become more ingrained it is necessary to balance the federal representation by removing from office, in 2010, those who support perpetuating the Obama culture of “Say Anything”.  We need to then make sure that this president is retired in 2012.

That is the Way I see It.

Big government, any government, is non-productive! That is not an attack.  It is a presumption of fact.

Production is rather simple to explain.  “Somebody-1″ makes something consumable for “somebody-2″ that wants it.  If there are enough “somebody-2s” consuming the “something” made by “somebody-1″ the production is a successful, useful, and usually of beneficial value.

Government does not create consumables.  It consumes products…presumably for the beneficial value of society.

Let’s analyze “somebody-1″ for a minute.  If their production does not increase, ultimately, beneficial value stagnates, or declines, and prices go up.  It’s a very simple law of supply and demand.  It is no more complicated than that…except for theoreticians (liberal professors and politicians).

When government, at any level, enters the transaction non-consumable costs increase.  Stay with me here.  When non-consumable costs rise as a result of government intrusion beneficial value may not rise at the same rate.  The greater the gap between non-consumable costs and production mean a reduction in beneficial value.

The key then is how to make sure that government intrusion improves beneficial value and not diminish it.  The BEST WAY to ensure that result is to not have any governmental intrusion at all.  Yet, some governmental involvement is in fact beneficial.  That involvement usually comes in the form providing safety for both “somebody-1″ and “somebody-2″.  Safety is provided, for all intents and purposes in three forms; military, law enforcement, and product safety.

This brings us momentarily to the concept of a “speedy trial”.  When society is threatened it is generally governments role to ensure safety through military or police action.  When threatened by national external forces the United States government has an intrinsic duty to quickly end that threat.  When threatened by internal criminal forces states and local governments have an obligation to expeditiously eliminate those threats.  Expeditiously means “get er done” right now; a speedy exercise of corrective judgment.

Delays add costs by widening the gap between production and beneficial value.

We started this discussion by suggesting politicians are to blame.  They are.  It is the nature and disposition of just about every elected official to add non-consumable costs to production.  By way of example elected officials believe there is a law for every problems.  Worse yet, they believe that a law will actually solve the problem without creating another  (adding costs).

Big Government was included in the list of blames for social weakness.  It is.  Bigger government follows new laws as surely as daylight follows the nighttime.  Virtually every new laws requires an added job for someone to do.  These are non-production jobs which increase non-consumable costs.  They widen the gap.  Production jobs are great because they add more value than they detract.  These other jobs are not useful nor valuable.

Lastly, bureaucracy was chastised in this blame game.  Bureaucracy is an extension of big government.  Woodrow Wilson can be classified as the father of American bureaucracy.  It was his idea that a new administrator needed to be appointed as often as a new role of “TP” was installed in the Senate washroom.  The answer to every question could be found in hiring another bureaucrat.  Now, combine this (now common) tendency with with the proclivity of politicians to create a burgeoning government.  It is a disaster for a production oriented society.

What we see is an ever expanding realm of government oversight.  With it comes a widening gap between production and beneficial value.

When it is seen and pointed out politicians defend it as essential.  Everything from a foreign invasion to little johnny’s bloody nose must be solved by a new law.  On a quiet night you can hear politicians whispering to the moon “If I don’t pass a new law, nobody will think I’m relevant”.

Correspondingly, entrenched bureaucrats will first say their work is necessary.  Why?  Because it’s a law (ring around the roses we go).  Then they shift to a different song.  It called “It’s to heavy, it ain’t my job”.  Oops.  There we go again. Back to that good ole non-consumable cost to production.  Then come the ultimate.  Bureaucrats can’t get the work done, because the law is complicated and they might get sued.  They have to take forever to complete their review and analysis. AND, AND, AND,  nobody can dispute them without retribution.

Unnecessary laws get written by self-absorbed politicians.  Then they are enforced by non-productive bureaucrats.  All this is at the expense of society.  Remember the concept of a speedy trial.  It should be applicable to all government actions.  The voluminous laws, non-performing and foot dragging bureaucrats add substantial non-consumable costs to production.

What is the prescription?  Simple.

1. Elect politicians that commit to address a limited number of laws each election cycle.
2. Seriously (not just talk) streamline the size of government, by eliminating any department that is non-essential to everyone under its jurisdiction (Think about that.  It is not as obvious as it seems).
3. Set performance standards for administration of any remaining programs.
4. Shift administration to the lowest level of government possible.

Here are some specifics–if we are not afraid of them.

1. Insist, through federal and state constitutional amendments that we return to a part-time legislature.  Fifty percent of a congressional member’s time must be spent within district.
2. Numerous federal and state agencies are duplicate, with minor differences in authority.  These minor differences create massive costs and time-wasting.  Consolidate them.  Examples:  National Parks and BLM.
3. Federal and state legislation overlap and/or conflict.  Examples:

• Taxes are at some levels (far far less than now) necessary.  With modern technology turn all tax collection functions over to the states; millions of dollars saved in the federal budget.
• Environmental protection laws are duplicated between the feds and the states.  Shut down the federal programs entirely; millions of dollars saved.
• Environmental laws require burdensome costs to be heaped upon businesses for no productive reason.  Agencies may almost take as long as they want to conduct their review.  Require these agencies to complete their review within 120 days or less (less meaning they cannot take more time than the applicant used to produce the studies).

It is time for us to get serious about correcting the real production inhibitors to our society.

That’s the WAY I see it.

“Most men would feel insulted if it were proposed to employ them in throwing stones over a wall, and then in throwing them back, merely that they might earn their wages. But many are no more worthily employed now.”  Henry David Thoreau.

We often hear the phrase “separation of powers” referred to as coming from the Constitution.  But, like the phrase “separation of church and state” it does not exist therein.  Separation of powers is a succinct means of describing that certain powers have been delegated to different branches of government.  Even the phrase “checks and balances” does not appear in the Constitution.

Though also not in the Constitution my personal preference is “reservation of powers”.  The Constitution reserves certain powers and authorities to various branches of government.  In many cases those reservations give rise to the idea that there are checks and balances.  Yet, what is actually occurring is that each branch of governance in America is vested with an obligation and necessity to influence the outcome of government action from a different perspective.  Wow, that was a mouthful.  Let me expand on it to make it clearer, or less so in some sectors.

Particular roles are assigned to

1.  The Courts

2.  The Executive

3.  The House

4.  The Senate

This list shall expand..later.

The courts are to examine the legislative acts with the premise of preserving legislative intent.  Further, should laws enacted be questionable in veracity with respect to the Constitution, the Courts may decide.  There are others which need not be mentioned here.  The Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life, without prejudice.  However, that does not mean they are absolved from impeaching censure by the whole of the legislative branch.

The executive is to administer the laws as enacted by the entirety of the legislature.  The duty of enforcement is unquestionable and mandated.  The executive does not endear the right of selective enforcement or declining to expend the national treasure as dictated by the legislature.  Whereas the legislature enacts laws for the whole union’s good favor, the supreme courts adjudicates those laws, the executive enforces them.

In a word the defense of the good favor of the whole union rest with the executive.  Yet, the interest of the minority is preserved by the court.  This is a distinctive and valuable reservation of power.  Through this distinct impartiality of two branches of government both the whole union and the individuals are protected.  They do not check and balance one another, nor do they share a “balance of power”.  They hold a reservation of particular interest.

Congress is often thought of as one legislative unit, of which they certainly are.  The legislative branch is bicameral.  It has two houses with equal and combined power; to preserve the union first and to legislate second.  Yet, each has reserved to it particular duties.

The House has particular duties to represent the people.  It is reserved to them to exercise the interest of the people.  “The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.”  In that desperation masses men are occasionally persuaded to act in opposition to their best interest (I will refrain from commenting on our present set of circumstances).  Hence, we arrive at one role of the Senate.

Designers of the Constitution recognized that the masses could in fact be easily persuaded by ill-intended interests.  Their response was to establish a second house of the legislative branch with a reserved duty to use wisdom over whimsical impulse.  To accomplish this they comprehended that it was essential to have one legislative house absolutely NOT subject to popular interests.

The court jurists were appointed for life for the sake of perpetuity, to preserve institutional memory (among other reasons).  The designers wanted to ensure that short-run interpretations of the Constitution were not arbitrarily subverted.  The longest tenured role in the executive and legislative branches is in the Senate for similar reason.  Senators were meant to be judges of the fickle will of the people and directly elected representatives.  This needs one more expansion.  The Senate was reserved from quick change by the mass of the population subject to uninformed persuasions.  Hence, that is why they were to be selected by the state legislatures, rather than the people.  That is why they overlapped three-fold the Senate with the House of Representatives.  Their’s was a trust the state legislatures would select good and honorable men for the Senate.

Now, as noted above, there is another branch of government to which were reserved certain powers.  Article 5 of the Constitution preserves the integrity of itself through the reservation of the power of amendment to two-thirds vote of the state legislatures.  The fifth branch of the federal government is the most powerful and most relevant.  It is the independence of the States.

Article 5 articulated that distinctive role of the states.  The tenth amendment further stipulated, early in our history, that the states held a higher power than the national government, unless a power was articulated in the Constitution.  First, the Constitutional amendment process is subject to the states.  Second, one of the first amendment reiterates the rights of states over the national government.

“Every generation laughs at the old fashions, but follows religiously the new.”

The last reserved power which preserves the union is exactly as Thoreau said.  The designers wrote a Constitution designed to become old-fashioned.  Unfortunately, today we have laughing officials who hold religiously to new ideas.  When they succeed in laughing away the delicacy and integrity of the old guard, our Constitution, collapse of the remaining reserved duties and obligations is not far behind.

Foreign Military Policy

Henry David Thoreau is quoted as saying (Civil Disobedience) “That government is best which governs least”.  A good and natural extension of that theory is That Government is Best which Governs Not at all.

It is in this vein that several position papers are offered up for your consideration, as part of  The Thoreau Project.  Today’s examination is of Foreign Military Policy, generally.

I say beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes.

Through the course of American history presidents and statesmen have sought to emulate the emperor in respect to our foreign military policy.  Some have wisely suggested that we avoid foreign entanglements.  (I once heard an anecdote about Benjamin Franklin, that he opposed prayer in the Constitutional Convention because he wanted to avoiding foreign influence.  Just a story, but humorous all the same).

In the Constitutional Convention and the weeks that followed with the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers there is a recurrent theme.

The national government was being established first for the security and safety of the colonies.  The federal government was being established to ensure a military force capable of equitably defending the many states from foreign interference.  First, the ability to build a standing army and navy was requisite.  Second, the ability to fund the defensive role of a standing military was created.  Following much debate, public and private, the Constitution was adopted.

As noted above, ever since the Constitution’s adoption presidents, statesmen, and flamboyant rhetoricians have attempted to etch out a prominence for themselves through use of the government, specifically with respect to foreign policy.

Proposal

Much to the fear of the ambitious everywhere our foreign policy should be simplified.  In the words of Thoreau, “Simplify, simplify”.

First and foremost The USA should be concerned with security and safety.  We need go not much further.

Secondly, we ought to be reliable.  Our proven friends may know that we will not deviate from their side for a “mess of pottage” and a “crust of bread”.  Our proven friends must know that we may be relied upon for our friendship’s experience, and not able to be bought for a price of thirty pieces of silver.  Further, our proven enemies may know that they can rely upon us to face any danger which they may lobe in our direction.

As isolationists, as is sounds, we ought refrain from all foreign entanglements.  We have no need of treaties that go beyond assuring mutual security and safety.

We should not engage our military might, which ought to be mighty, into any foreign nation’s affairs except in the face of a clear and present danger to our security and safety.  Retribution for one nations sympathies to another of our enemies is insufficient cause.

Our long-standing friends should rely upon us to come to their aid as far as it provides for the security and safety of their people.  Until such time as they have demonstrated such friendship is no longer warranted we ought to have no reluctance to support them as they have us, or as we would for ourselves.

Our longstanding, and new, enemies ought to know that we will tolerate no attacks on our people.  They need to recognize that anywhere an American lawfully stands rest the weight and force of the nation.  Minor and major infraction of this principle should be of equal weight.  Enemies who seek to ally themselves to us should be welcomed, with a recognition that the proof of time and experience will be essential.

All should understand that we will not negotiate away our security and safety for any supposed greater cause.  At the negotiation table our posture should Always be that the security and safety of The USA takes precedence over all other matters.  Those seeking to re-establish peace with us should comprehend that it is at the total and absolute surrender of all their aggressions, without exception.

We ought never to seek dominion over any foreign nation.  In war our only cause is to victoriously demonstrate that the security and safety of America is paramount.  Yet, we ought welcome any sincerely proffered peace.  The conditions which we lay before  any enemy is that we shall leave the battlefield last, victorious and with their demonstrated commitment to peace.  At which point we need to acknowledge that the conflict is ended.

The above stance is somewhat hard and inflexible.  But, it is the only rational policy for use of military might.  Both Friend and foe will come to rely upon it.  Our military commanders and privates alike will know with assuredness that protection of country and countryman is our only cause in war.

Just as all come to rely upon us in our own defense and that of our proven friends, they may be assured of another course as well.  It must never be the position of the United States to be first aggressor.  We must attend our affairs with diligence, foresight, and readiness.  But, never should we invade another in war without provocation.

Some men yearn to be free.  Others yearn to have dominion.  Some men sacrifice their lives for freedom.  Some are willing to sacrifice the lives other men for a moment in the spotlight of their own glory..

Now, is the time to set a lasting policy devoid of foolish ambitions.

“Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it”. HDT