This information was compiled by a friend of mine, who wishes to remain anonymous. I found it very interesting and well worth a read.
Many of the voters this election season have wistfully been wishing for "citizen legislators", "the way it used to be--like the Founding Fathers". There also seems to be a prevalent anti-lawyer sentiment. It may be worth noting that a great number of the Founding Fathers actually studied law prior to becoming involved in the fight for American independence.
John Adams studied law at Harvard, was admitted to the bar in 1761, and gave up many years of his private practice for service to his country. He was concerned about payment for this service to country due to the fact that he could not pursue his law practice and thereby provide for his family.
Jefferson received a classical education from William and Mary, later read law with George Wythe and was admitted to the Virginia bar in 1767. He was considered a political philosopher and a man of the Enlightenment. James Madison studied political philosophy and law at College of New Jersey (now Princeton). According to accounts, Madison was never admitted to the bar, but some historians relate that he practiced law prior to serving on the Virginia state legislature. The fact that Madison practiced law is disputed by some historians.
Alexander Hamilton, born in the British West Indies, attended King's College (now Columbia University). His studies included military history, and he became a lieutenant colonel in the Continental Army, serving under George Washington. After leaving the army, he was admitted to legal practice in New York.
"Well before his 30th birthday, then, Hamilton had had a distinguished military career, knew intimately most of the leaders of the American Revolution, had achieved high social standing, and was recognized as one of the leading lawyers in the country."(The American Revolution) http://americanrevwar.homestead.com/files/hamilt.htm
John Jay attended King's College (now Columbia University). After reading law and being admitted to the bar of New York in 1769, John Jay established his own law office in 1771.
George Washington had what he considered "insufficient education", and his formal education apparently was finished by age 15. He excelled in mathematics and learned the rudiments of surveying, probably at a school near his home.
Patrick Henry, who failed at business and did not apply himself initially to his studies, later studied for six weeks and took the bar exam, which he passed, and begin work as a lawyer. In 1764 he moved to Louisa county, Virginia, where, as a lawyer, he argued in defense of broad voting rights (suffrage) before the House of Burgesses.The following year he was elected to the House.
Although the backgrounds and education of the Founding Fathers were diverse, many had formal educations, many were lawyers, and a great number had served in some capacity in their local governing bodies, state legislative bodies, or House of Burgesses prior to their service in shaping the new United States of America. In writing the Charters of Freedom, they drew upon the philisophical writings of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and the Baron Charles de Montesquieu.
This disparate group of revolutionary thinkers came together at aunique time in history to forge the necessary bonds that were to become the new United States of America.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Friday, May 28, 2010
Where's the Conservative?
By
David Losey
David Losey
I was doing some research today on moderate politicians when I was swept off on a tangent leading to a serendipitous discovery that raised my blood pressure a few notches. I was comparing Lynn Jenkins' voting record with Dennis Moore's. I was startled to find that she voted with Moore 56% of the time. With a heightened sense of gotcha I looked at how Moran and Tiahrt voted in comparison to Moore. Lo and behold, Moran voted with Moore 52% of the time and Tiahrt 51% of the time. (I am sure that some votes were procedural or routine.) But, now I was hooked! What votes did they agree upon? Make a guess. APPROPRIATIONS BILLS! They voted together ten times to spend more money on routine appropriations! By this time I was furious! Where's the conservative? Which one of Kansas' Congressmen (all who claim to be fiscally conservative) voted against increased spending? Not Tiahrt! Not Moran! Not Jenkins! Not Moore! NOT ONE OF THEM!
Now I am spittin' mad. My blood is boiling. The first bill I looked at in detail was H.R. 915, The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009. This bill authorizes spending by the FAA for 2010, 2011, and 2012. Department funding increases ranged from 2.5% to 5.3% for 2011 over 2010 and 2.4% to 8.3 % in 2012 over 2011. OMG! Our debt is skyrocketing, the economy is in the toilet, and the tax burden is unsustainable and yet they voted to increase spending at the FAA! They all must be drinking the same kool aide!
OK, OK, maybe this was just an exception. So I looked at a second bill, H.R. 1404, the FLAME Act. This bill reauthorizes catastrophic emergency funds to fight forest fires on federal lands. First it should be understood that other government agencies such as the Department of the Interior, The Department of Defense, etc. already have budgets that include funding for fighting forest fires. This funding, however, is in case the normal agency funding runs out. How much is appropriated in this bill? IT DOESN'T SPECIFY! It is to be no more than the average actual expenditures over the last five. That is unless the department manager specifies in writing that he is going to run out of emergency funds and then additional funding will be made available. This bill puts the tax payers are on the hook for an unspecified amount of money! IS THIS ANY WAY TO DO BUSINESS! I can tell you in nearly twenty years of corporate management that I never had a slush fund available in case I over spent my budgeted amounts! It was made perfectly clear to me that I would live within my budget, period. Upon occasion when I failed to do so, I was severely admonished that if it continued I would be replaced.
I could not stand to look at the details of any other bills. I will send them to anyone who would like to look at them. As for me, enough was enough!
The bottom line is that we have representatives in Congress who claim to be fiscal conservatives but are not! They are going along to preserve their elected positions. They do not care about righting the ship of state. They are not acting to put our economy on sound footing. They will, of course, all be replaced in 2010 with the exception of Jenkins. She should go, too!
You may wonder, is there anyone who has voted to reduce spending? Is there anyone in the House who is a real fiscal conservative? Ron Paul, arch-conservative, is one. He voted with Moore only 38% of the time. He voted “No” on nine of the ten bills and abstained on the other. So it is possible to vote against spending and retain your seat. We need to find some men/women in Kansas who will have the courage to vote to reduce out-of-control spending, restore our country to sound fiscal footing, and not be afraid to be voted out in two years. History tells that if the government will reduce spending and cut taxes the economy will quickly recover. (See the recession of the 1920s and the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts as examples.)
In light of our current fiscal irresponsibility it is extremely crucial that we elect men/women that understand that continuing to spend like drunken sailors will surely bring about economic collapse.
I believe that we have two candidates running for Congress in Kansas that grasp this fact and can be trusted to vote accordingly. I would ask that you look closely at Craig McPherson in the 3rd District and Jim Anderson in the 4th. Determine for yourselves if they have the courage to stand up and say, "Enough is enough! Stop the nonsense!" I believe they do!
Now I am spittin' mad. My blood is boiling. The first bill I looked at in detail was H.R. 915, The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009. This bill authorizes spending by the FAA for 2010, 2011, and 2012. Department funding increases ranged from 2.5% to 5.3% for 2011 over 2010 and 2.4% to 8.3 % in 2012 over 2011. OMG! Our debt is skyrocketing, the economy is in the toilet, and the tax burden is unsustainable and yet they voted to increase spending at the FAA! They all must be drinking the same kool aide!
OK, OK, maybe this was just an exception. So I looked at a second bill, H.R. 1404, the FLAME Act. This bill reauthorizes catastrophic emergency funds to fight forest fires on federal lands. First it should be understood that other government agencies such as the Department of the Interior, The Department of Defense, etc. already have budgets that include funding for fighting forest fires. This funding, however, is in case the normal agency funding runs out. How much is appropriated in this bill? IT DOESN'T SPECIFY! It is to be no more than the average actual expenditures over the last five. That is unless the department manager specifies in writing that he is going to run out of emergency funds and then additional funding will be made available. This bill puts the tax payers are on the hook for an unspecified amount of money! IS THIS ANY WAY TO DO BUSINESS! I can tell you in nearly twenty years of corporate management that I never had a slush fund available in case I over spent my budgeted amounts! It was made perfectly clear to me that I would live within my budget, period. Upon occasion when I failed to do so, I was severely admonished that if it continued I would be replaced.
I could not stand to look at the details of any other bills. I will send them to anyone who would like to look at them. As for me, enough was enough!
The bottom line is that we have representatives in Congress who claim to be fiscal conservatives but are not! They are going along to preserve their elected positions. They do not care about righting the ship of state. They are not acting to put our economy on sound footing. They will, of course, all be replaced in 2010 with the exception of Jenkins. She should go, too!
You may wonder, is there anyone who has voted to reduce spending? Is there anyone in the House who is a real fiscal conservative? Ron Paul, arch-conservative, is one. He voted with Moore only 38% of the time. He voted “No” on nine of the ten bills and abstained on the other. So it is possible to vote against spending and retain your seat. We need to find some men/women in Kansas who will have the courage to vote to reduce out-of-control spending, restore our country to sound fiscal footing, and not be afraid to be voted out in two years. History tells that if the government will reduce spending and cut taxes the economy will quickly recover. (See the recession of the 1920s and the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts as examples.)
In light of our current fiscal irresponsibility it is extremely crucial that we elect men/women that understand that continuing to spend like drunken sailors will surely bring about economic collapse.
I believe that we have two candidates running for Congress in Kansas that grasp this fact and can be trusted to vote accordingly. I would ask that you look closely at Craig McPherson in the 3rd District and Jim Anderson in the 4th. Determine for yourselves if they have the courage to stand up and say, "Enough is enough! Stop the nonsense!" I believe they do!
Friday, May 21, 2010
Ride To The Wall
Each year, a week or so before Memorial Day, a group of Viet Nam veterans assemble with their motorcycles on the west coast and begin a ride across the country, to arrive at the Viet Nam Memorial Wall in Washington. D.C. for Memorial Day. They call it The Ride To The Wall.
The Ride passed through Las Cruces, NM this morning. Each year, they stop here for a welcoming ceremony at our Veterans' Memorial Park, then press on, eastward. Here is a portion of the caravan parked on the street by the park. (On the far right side of the photograph, behind the row of motorcycles, can be seen the bronze statue that is a Memorial to veterans of the World War Two Bataan Death March.)
If The Ride passes through your city, get some friends together and go out to welcome them. A warm welcome from a grateful nation is long overdue for these veterans who didn't run to Canada, didn't hide in a deferment, but answered their country's call, obeyed the law and served in one of the most difficult conflicts in our history. We wish them a continued safe journey.
Each year, a week or so before Memorial Day, a group of Viet Nam veterans assemble with their motorcycles on the west coast and begin a ride across the country, to arrive at the Viet Nam Memorial Wall in Washington. D.C. for Memorial Day. They call it The Ride To The Wall.
The Ride passed through Las Cruces, NM this morning. Each year, they stop here for a welcoming ceremony at our Veterans' Memorial Park, then press on, eastward. Here is a portion of the caravan parked on the street by the park. (On the far right side of the photograph, behind the row of motorcycles, can be seen the bronze statue that is a Memorial to veterans of the World War Two Bataan Death March.)
If The Ride passes through your city, get some friends together and go out to welcome them. A warm welcome from a grateful nation is long overdue for these veterans who didn't run to Canada, didn't hide in a deferment, but answered their country's call, obeyed the law and served in one of the most difficult conflicts in our history. We wish them a continued safe journey.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Craig McPherson: A Vanishing Breed
It is no secret that I strongly support Craig McPherson for Congress in the Kansas 3rd District. His performance at the March 20th Candidate Forum, coupled with the obvious understanding of founding principles he evidenced during his interview with the Independence Caucus more than convinced me that he is, by far, the most qualified candidate in the race. There simply is no comparison - he is a professional in a field of amateurs.
At the time I wrote my endorsement of Mr. McPherson, I did not know him as a person - I had met him on one occasion, but had no time to talk to him, to get a fuller measure of the man. In the weeks since, I have had a great deal more contact with Mr. McPherson, and each encounter has served only to strengthen my support. Craig McPherson is truly a vanishing breed - he is an honorable man.
Earlier this month, I attended a Meet and Greet event for Mr. McPherson. I had an opportunity to speak with him at length, and found him open, sincere and passionate in his convictions and desire to restore limited government and fiscal responsibility in Washington. After making a presentation to the gathering, he opened it up for questions. After the serious questions had been answered, I asked about something quite trivial.
Some time ago, I became aware of a Facebook group called 100,000 Pledging to Help Elect Conservative Candidates. The premise of the group was that they would select and endorse five candidates across the nation, and each member who joined the group would pledge a $10.00 donation to each of the five. When I joined, they had already made two endorsements: Tim Burns, who is running for John Murtha's seat in Pennsylvania, and Chuck DeVore, the darling of California Tea Partiers seeking to unseat Barbara Boxer, both fairly well known nationally. Their third endorsement pleased me a great deal - Craig McPherson. The final two were also well known candidates, Pat Toomey, running against Arlen Specter, and Doug Hoffman, the NY-23 veteran. While I certainly approved of their choice of Mr. McPherson and felt it entirely fitting, I was a bit curious how he had ended up in a field of much better known candidates. So I asked.
Mr. McPherson acknowledged that he was aware of the group, but did not know its creator. He said that it was a guy, he believed in California, who had become aware of McPherson while researching Chuck DeVore (like McPherson, DeVore attended Claremont McKenna College), had called and talked with McPherson for some time, and decided to endorse him.
It's a group on Facebook, certainly not anything terribly important, and has fewer than 3,000 members, not the 100,000 billed in the name of the group. I had asked the question out of pure curiousity, nothing more. I joked that, given the greater name recognition of the other four candidates, I had wondered if it was a friend of his who created the group as a way to promote his candidacy. We all laughed, then moved on to other topics, and I completely forgot the encounter.
A couple of days later, I received a message from Craig McPherson on Facebook. Apparently my question had made him wonder, so he had taken the time to investigate the group, and had learned that the creator of the group was, in fact, a friend of a friend. He wrote to tell me that, saying that I was correct that there was some "home cooking there." He did not want me to be misled.
You could have knocked me over with a feather. There was no reason for him to bother to check this group out - it was a trivial question with no bearing on the race whatsoever. But he did check it out, and, when he learned that there was a connection, he felt it important to reveal that connection to me, in the spirit of honor and full disclosure. After years of receiving form letters from my elected representatives, listening to phony politicians paint themselves as near saints and parsing through countless hours of political speak from the other candidates in this race, trying to ascertain what was fact and what was fantasy, I had found a man who went out of his way to reveal the truth, even when it might (albeit only slightly) damage my image of him. That small act of integrity absolutely sealed my support of this candidate.
Kansas, indeed America, needs to send this man to Washington. I urge you to please visit his website, make a donation, tell your friends about this truly unique and amazing candidate. Never has our nation been more in need of an honest man - Craig McPherson is that man.
At the time I wrote my endorsement of Mr. McPherson, I did not know him as a person - I had met him on one occasion, but had no time to talk to him, to get a fuller measure of the man. In the weeks since, I have had a great deal more contact with Mr. McPherson, and each encounter has served only to strengthen my support. Craig McPherson is truly a vanishing breed - he is an honorable man.
Earlier this month, I attended a Meet and Greet event for Mr. McPherson. I had an opportunity to speak with him at length, and found him open, sincere and passionate in his convictions and desire to restore limited government and fiscal responsibility in Washington. After making a presentation to the gathering, he opened it up for questions. After the serious questions had been answered, I asked about something quite trivial.
Some time ago, I became aware of a Facebook group called 100,000 Pledging to Help Elect Conservative Candidates. The premise of the group was that they would select and endorse five candidates across the nation, and each member who joined the group would pledge a $10.00 donation to each of the five. When I joined, they had already made two endorsements: Tim Burns, who is running for John Murtha's seat in Pennsylvania, and Chuck DeVore, the darling of California Tea Partiers seeking to unseat Barbara Boxer, both fairly well known nationally. Their third endorsement pleased me a great deal - Craig McPherson. The final two were also well known candidates, Pat Toomey, running against Arlen Specter, and Doug Hoffman, the NY-23 veteran. While I certainly approved of their choice of Mr. McPherson and felt it entirely fitting, I was a bit curious how he had ended up in a field of much better known candidates. So I asked.
Mr. McPherson acknowledged that he was aware of the group, but did not know its creator. He said that it was a guy, he believed in California, who had become aware of McPherson while researching Chuck DeVore (like McPherson, DeVore attended Claremont McKenna College), had called and talked with McPherson for some time, and decided to endorse him.
It's a group on Facebook, certainly not anything terribly important, and has fewer than 3,000 members, not the 100,000 billed in the name of the group. I had asked the question out of pure curiousity, nothing more. I joked that, given the greater name recognition of the other four candidates, I had wondered if it was a friend of his who created the group as a way to promote his candidacy. We all laughed, then moved on to other topics, and I completely forgot the encounter.
A couple of days later, I received a message from Craig McPherson on Facebook. Apparently my question had made him wonder, so he had taken the time to investigate the group, and had learned that the creator of the group was, in fact, a friend of a friend. He wrote to tell me that, saying that I was correct that there was some "home cooking there." He did not want me to be misled.
You could have knocked me over with a feather. There was no reason for him to bother to check this group out - it was a trivial question with no bearing on the race whatsoever. But he did check it out, and, when he learned that there was a connection, he felt it important to reveal that connection to me, in the spirit of honor and full disclosure. After years of receiving form letters from my elected representatives, listening to phony politicians paint themselves as near saints and parsing through countless hours of political speak from the other candidates in this race, trying to ascertain what was fact and what was fantasy, I had found a man who went out of his way to reveal the truth, even when it might (albeit only slightly) damage my image of him. That small act of integrity absolutely sealed my support of this candidate.
Kansas, indeed America, needs to send this man to Washington. I urge you to please visit his website, make a donation, tell your friends about this truly unique and amazing candidate. Never has our nation been more in need of an honest man - Craig McPherson is that man.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Yoder Is Targeted By Special Interests!
By David Losey
I have uncovered some additional information that is not readily available through the usual media sources. Kevin Yoder has become the favorite of a special interest group that wishes to secure his election. It has more money than you and I and, thereby, places us at a disadvantage. The reason this is important is that when the time comes to consider legislation which effects you and me will Yoder consider our wishes and what is best for Kansans or will he be influenced by big money, choosing to ignore us like our current Congressman, Dennis Moore?
I have previously reported,
“According to recent campaign contribution data posted on opensecrets.org QC Holdings has contributed $7,400 to Yoder's campaign. QC Holdings was the top contributor to Moore's campaign in the 2008 election cycle with over $25,000 contributed.”
New research indicates that neither QC Holdings PAC nor any of its corporate officers (or their spouses) have previously contributed to any of Yoder's campaigns. However, now that he is running for Congress QC Holdings PAC has contributed $5,000 to his campaign. This is the second highest amount given to any candidate to date in the 2010 election cycle. Heath Schuler (D-NC) is #1 with $6,000. (Lynn Jenkins is tied with Yoder at #2 with $5,000 and James Barnett, candidate for Congress in the Kansas 1st District, received $1,000.)) Three officers/board members who contributed to the PAC, in fact, live in Yoder's House District and they never contributed a single penny to any of his campaigns for State office. Why the sudden interest in supporting Yoder now?
Darrin Andersen, President and COO of QC Holdings, has made personal contributions to Dennis Moore and to Kevin Yoder. He contributed $4,600 to Moore in both 2007 and 2008. In addition, in 2008, he contributed $2,000 to Kay (Barnes) for Congress, $4,600 to Senator Tim Johnson from S.D., $2,200 to Luis Gutierrez Congressman from Illinois, and $2,200 to Claire McCaskill Senator from Missouri. He also contributed $2,000 in 2009 to Senator Harry Reid. Note all are Democrats. Then, in 2010, he changed his pattern and gave $2,400 to Yoder, a Republican . His spouse, Jill, also gave $2,400 to Yoder in 2010. Why the sudden interest in supporting Yoder in 2010?
In order to give a possible answer to this question I will need to set the background. QC Holdings is the holding company for QC Cash Loans. It is a leading provider of short-term loans with 556 branches in 24 states. Its typical customer does not have easy access to a bank account or credit card. He is more likely than not a low-income and minority or immigrant consumer. Short-term loans are convenient and, although the average transaction fee is low the annual percentage rate is exorbitant.
As one would expect government laws and regulations have a dramatic impact on this industry. For example, in the last year Virginia and North Carolina have banned short-term loans altogether. The risk to the industry revolves around changing laws/regulations and/or the interpretation of existing laws. For example, the Obama administration is pushing for a Consumer Protection Agency and a cap on interest rates. In addition, the media portrayal of the industry impacts both the public perception and the perception of State and Federal legislators which influences current legislation.
With an income of $21.0 million dollars and an increase in their stock price of 40% in 2009 one can see that QC Holdings has a great deal to protect. And it certainly cannot afford to spend money casually. Therefore, it donates money where it will be most effective. It desperately needs to have “a friend in high places” to help mitigate the current industry risks. Enter Kevin Yoder!
With Moore retiring, it is clear that QC Holdings intends to continue to have access and influence by supporting the election of Kevin Yoder. Management is clearly banking on Yoder winning the election. Why else would they contribute so heavily to his campaign?
It looks like Moore of the same.
We must not elect another Moore. Yoder or Stephene!
I have uncovered some additional information that is not readily available through the usual media sources. Kevin Yoder has become the favorite of a special interest group that wishes to secure his election. It has more money than you and I and, thereby, places us at a disadvantage. The reason this is important is that when the time comes to consider legislation which effects you and me will Yoder consider our wishes and what is best for Kansans or will he be influenced by big money, choosing to ignore us like our current Congressman, Dennis Moore?
I have previously reported,
“According to recent campaign contribution data posted on opensecrets.org QC Holdings has contributed $7,400 to Yoder's campaign. QC Holdings was the top contributor to Moore's campaign in the 2008 election cycle with over $25,000 contributed.”
New research indicates that neither QC Holdings PAC nor any of its corporate officers (or their spouses) have previously contributed to any of Yoder's campaigns. However, now that he is running for Congress QC Holdings PAC has contributed $5,000 to his campaign. This is the second highest amount given to any candidate to date in the 2010 election cycle. Heath Schuler (D-NC) is #1 with $6,000. (Lynn Jenkins is tied with Yoder at #2 with $5,000 and James Barnett, candidate for Congress in the Kansas 1st District, received $1,000.)) Three officers/board members who contributed to the PAC, in fact, live in Yoder's House District and they never contributed a single penny to any of his campaigns for State office. Why the sudden interest in supporting Yoder now?
Darrin Andersen, President and COO of QC Holdings, has made personal contributions to Dennis Moore and to Kevin Yoder. He contributed $4,600 to Moore in both 2007 and 2008. In addition, in 2008, he contributed $2,000 to Kay (Barnes) for Congress, $4,600 to Senator Tim Johnson from S.D., $2,200 to Luis Gutierrez Congressman from Illinois, and $2,200 to Claire McCaskill Senator from Missouri. He also contributed $2,000 in 2009 to Senator Harry Reid. Note all are Democrats. Then, in 2010, he changed his pattern and gave $2,400 to Yoder, a Republican . His spouse, Jill, also gave $2,400 to Yoder in 2010. Why the sudden interest in supporting Yoder in 2010?
In order to give a possible answer to this question I will need to set the background. QC Holdings is the holding company for QC Cash Loans. It is a leading provider of short-term loans with 556 branches in 24 states. Its typical customer does not have easy access to a bank account or credit card. He is more likely than not a low-income and minority or immigrant consumer. Short-term loans are convenient and, although the average transaction fee is low the annual percentage rate is exorbitant.
As one would expect government laws and regulations have a dramatic impact on this industry. For example, in the last year Virginia and North Carolina have banned short-term loans altogether. The risk to the industry revolves around changing laws/regulations and/or the interpretation of existing laws. For example, the Obama administration is pushing for a Consumer Protection Agency and a cap on interest rates. In addition, the media portrayal of the industry impacts both the public perception and the perception of State and Federal legislators which influences current legislation.
With an income of $21.0 million dollars and an increase in their stock price of 40% in 2009 one can see that QC Holdings has a great deal to protect. And it certainly cannot afford to spend money casually. Therefore, it donates money where it will be most effective. It desperately needs to have “a friend in high places” to help mitigate the current industry risks. Enter Kevin Yoder!
With Moore retiring, it is clear that QC Holdings intends to continue to have access and influence by supporting the election of Kevin Yoder. Management is clearly banking on Yoder winning the election. Why else would they contribute so heavily to his campaign?
It looks like Moore of the same.
We must not elect another Moore. Yoder or Stephene!
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Hornet's Nest!
Wow! Former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson makes an appearance on Hannity and the result reminds me of the old cartoons where a guy smacks a hornet's nest with a stick and unleashes a veritable storm of buzzing, stinging fury!
Everyone is talking about that interview! All the young liberals are on fire because Johnson speaks the truth about the war on drugs... namely that it has cost billions and accomplished nothing. Okay, that part is true.
But as a New Mexican I'd like to tell you what I think about Johnson. First, you have to admire his lifestyle. Does he smoke the marijuana he proposes we decriminalize? Not a chance! He doesn't even drink Coke. Or Pepsi! Or anything with alcohol in it. When he first ran for governor, he traveled the state on a bicycle! A bicycle! This guy is the absolute prime example of clean living. You want an athletic role model? He's your guy!
But that is all weekend and evening stuff. On the job, in the governors office, we knew him as Governor Veto. Our state is lop-sided Democrat. But every spending bill that reached his desk met the same scrutiny... is it really necessary for the people of New Mexico? Does it really make sense economically? Often the answer was no, and he struck the thing with his veto pen! All this compassionate conservative baloney fell on deaf ears when it reached Governor Johnson's office.
Did we miss any of those spending programs the Democrats pushed? Not one! Were we worse off or poorer for the loss of any of the Democrats proposed programs? Not a bit! When Gary Johnson left office at the end of the Constitutionally permitted two terms, New Mexico was in great financial condition! Better, I dare say, than any state today!
I love Gary Johnson! Forget the pot thing. Like Johnson, I believe it is a sign of weakness to indulge in any mind-altering activity. But, realize if you will, how many Americans tonight will sleep in a jail cell because of some stupid drug thing! Yes, end that nonsense! Forget the DARE programs and start teaching young people how to drive. Foolish and reckless driving is what is killing our teens, not smoking marijuana!
But, if we really want to save our country, we have to get out of debt. We have to teach our youth what our founding fathers taught: never make poverty comfortable. Let it hurt! Teach people the real way to ease that pain... teach them to be self-sufficient, proud, independent citizens.
Quit looking for "electability". Quit looking for fund raising ability! Start looking for character! Start looking for logic and reason and an intelligent approach to solving national problems! Take a long look at Gary Johnson!
Wow! Former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson makes an appearance on Hannity and the result reminds me of the old cartoons where a guy smacks a hornet's nest with a stick and unleashes a veritable storm of buzzing, stinging fury!
Everyone is talking about that interview! All the young liberals are on fire because Johnson speaks the truth about the war on drugs... namely that it has cost billions and accomplished nothing. Okay, that part is true.
But as a New Mexican I'd like to tell you what I think about Johnson. First, you have to admire his lifestyle. Does he smoke the marijuana he proposes we decriminalize? Not a chance! He doesn't even drink Coke. Or Pepsi! Or anything with alcohol in it. When he first ran for governor, he traveled the state on a bicycle! A bicycle! This guy is the absolute prime example of clean living. You want an athletic role model? He's your guy!
But that is all weekend and evening stuff. On the job, in the governors office, we knew him as Governor Veto. Our state is lop-sided Democrat. But every spending bill that reached his desk met the same scrutiny... is it really necessary for the people of New Mexico? Does it really make sense economically? Often the answer was no, and he struck the thing with his veto pen! All this compassionate conservative baloney fell on deaf ears when it reached Governor Johnson's office.
Did we miss any of those spending programs the Democrats pushed? Not one! Were we worse off or poorer for the loss of any of the Democrats proposed programs? Not a bit! When Gary Johnson left office at the end of the Constitutionally permitted two terms, New Mexico was in great financial condition! Better, I dare say, than any state today!
I love Gary Johnson! Forget the pot thing. Like Johnson, I believe it is a sign of weakness to indulge in any mind-altering activity. But, realize if you will, how many Americans tonight will sleep in a jail cell because of some stupid drug thing! Yes, end that nonsense! Forget the DARE programs and start teaching young people how to drive. Foolish and reckless driving is what is killing our teens, not smoking marijuana!
But, if we really want to save our country, we have to get out of debt. We have to teach our youth what our founding fathers taught: never make poverty comfortable. Let it hurt! Teach people the real way to ease that pain... teach them to be self-sufficient, proud, independent citizens.
Quit looking for "electability". Quit looking for fund raising ability! Start looking for character! Start looking for logic and reason and an intelligent approach to solving national problems! Take a long look at Gary Johnson!
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Taking a look at the ICaucus in Kansas
Note: This was written by a friend of mine. Though he is referring specifically to Kansas issues, and the details may differ, similar problems can be found in nearly every one of the fifty states. Those of us in Kansas consider ourselves very fortunate to have a man of Larry's caliber as our state iCaucus director.
Like the vast majority of you I was not an active participant in the political process prior to the 2008 election. Of course I voted and talked to people about the elections and candidates but more on a casual basis.
I can remember sitting around the dinner table years previous trying to talk to the family about political matters only to see their eyes glaze over rather rapidly. It was not a subject matter that would induce a great deal of discussion and usually lead to calls for an early nap. I suspect this was probably a common experience around a lot of tables. Like most people I assumed, incorrectly, that the conversations could wait and that surely those we elected were very busy watching out for our best interest.
How many of us in the recent past would have looked at the makeup of our Kansas House and Senate and just naturally assumed that we were in good shape with the apparent conservative majority in control of both chambers. The past year has provided quite the eye opener to this false assumption. Despite the conservative platform to restrain government spending, spending at the state level continues to rise. Despite the conservative platform to not raise taxes, taxes at the state level continue to rise. Despite a failing public education system, spending in this area continues to rise, over forty percent in the past five years. Despite declining revenue from business taxes, increasing unemployment with the loss of nearly 70,000 private sector jobs state wide, state government and government employment continues to grow. And, despite a professed belief in individual liberty and limited government intrusion in our lives the marauders of personal liberty masquerading in the state house stepped on private business, failed to secure our tenth amendment rights or even pass a meaningful non binding resolution and denied our citizens the right to choose if they would allow their health care to be dictated by an even more diabolical and all consuming federal government. Yep, this big tent deal is really working out well for Kansas.
And, where is the Republican Party during this masquerade session and why are these not so conservative and really quite progressive Senators and Representatives wearing the party logo to begin with? This big tent is more like a cheap carnival in which our citizens should not expect any greater odds of winning. I suggested a while back to the consternation of more than a few in the local area that the Republican Party is such in Name Only and really represents the old Democrat and Republican Party combined, especially when you consider the Democrat Party of today no longer represents the Party many of our parents and grandparents belonged to and many of us could at least tolerate. Today they are really chomping at the bit to proclaim their socialist beliefs and have recently become less constrained in the public arena even in that regard. I think the answer lies in the party desire to retain power (influence) at any cost and we now see Democrats serving as supposed Republicans. It is a deceitful reality at best, damn near criminal, and should require that they wear a visible disclaimer across their forehead that would alert the average Kansan to the fact that they are not what they appear to be. Ok, maybe just a special blue jacket with a fancy red fringe would do.
We have all watched over the past year as the Republican Party first dismissed us and stood at a double arms length away from us when we began to voice our opinions at the local and national level. As we came to recognize the danger and a threat to our liberty we rushed toward the fire in growing numbers with only superficial participation of most party insiders and elected officials. Actually, the Party seemed to consider us as just a bunch of adolescents that would need to be herded in some fashion or the other to a remote corner of the tent (if room could be found). To be fair, there were a few (very few) politicians that actually stood at once and took a prominent place on the fire line. However, time and the approaching election (come on November) brings about those miraculous conversions one would only associate with a tent revival or a Sunday morning healing at one of the televised super centers. We should take care not to be smitten by yet another illusion.
So where does the Independence Caucus fit into this discussion? For me personally, I see the ICaucus as an opportunity for average citizens to become informed about the candidates vying for their vote. I see it as an opportunity for the average citizen to determine for themselves which candidate will receive that vote without the corrupted and compromised, power driven, win at any cost, party influence. The ICaucus provides Kansans the opportunity to ignore the televised campaign infomercials and still step into the voting booth with confidence that their candidate can be located on the ballot with or without the customary party initial next to their name. In practical terms, the Independence Caucus provides Kansans the opportunity to interview the candidate for the job we are hiring them to do. But perhaps most importantly, the Independence Caucus provides our Kansas citizens the opportunity to participate and meet their personal responsibility, as tasked by our Founders, with regard to their governance. If you have had enough or you are just befuddled and do not know where else to turn then perhaps the Independence Caucus would be a good start.
One or more have asked in pointed terms if the Independence Caucus is a “Miracle or Myth”. I suspect time will tell. However, given the choice of continuing down the same old path, with the same worn out promises (we will fix it this time) and our same old gullible expectations that just bring about more of the same, I will cast my lot with the Independence Caucus. However it did or did not work elsewhere is of less importance as to how it works here in Kansas. I would suggest that the relevance or impact of the Independence Caucus in Kansas politics sits squarely in our laps and depends solely on what we make of the opportunity. We can adapt, improvise and overcome the obstacles placed in our way or succumb to the petty ridicule of others or those fearful of losing their entrenched status and power. This time the choice is ours or more specifically yours.
Certainly we have our work cut out for us. Our membership growth depends on the message each of us carries to our neighbors and they in turn carry to others. We are not driven by corporate sponsorship nor supported by federal grants, our energy is our own to expend. Our Founders left us a simple guide in simple language. We need only follow it. It is not negotiable but it is amendable.
Before I go, I want to apologize for the revivalist and super center comparisons to political conversions. I do not believe the spending habits of a drunken sailor should be compared to the political pros either. I am well aware of God’s work in my life and my own life’s experiences are enough to convince me that I am only here today by his grace with the specific mission of standing for my posterity. Some twenty one and a half years ago, following my last drink and with little expectation that faith in a power greater than myself would restore me to sanity a loving but hard old sponsor suggested that if I didn’t have faith that I should just act like I did, until it did, so I did. I think these are Patrick Henry days and again I do not know if I posses Patrick’s bravery so I think I will just act like I do until I do. Like those days long ago it would be a tad easier if there was someone to stand with. Hope to see you in the Independence Caucus. http://www.icaucus.org/ or http://icaucus.ning.com/.
Larry
Like the vast majority of you I was not an active participant in the political process prior to the 2008 election. Of course I voted and talked to people about the elections and candidates but more on a casual basis.
I can remember sitting around the dinner table years previous trying to talk to the family about political matters only to see their eyes glaze over rather rapidly. It was not a subject matter that would induce a great deal of discussion and usually lead to calls for an early nap. I suspect this was probably a common experience around a lot of tables. Like most people I assumed, incorrectly, that the conversations could wait and that surely those we elected were very busy watching out for our best interest.
How many of us in the recent past would have looked at the makeup of our Kansas House and Senate and just naturally assumed that we were in good shape with the apparent conservative majority in control of both chambers. The past year has provided quite the eye opener to this false assumption. Despite the conservative platform to restrain government spending, spending at the state level continues to rise. Despite the conservative platform to not raise taxes, taxes at the state level continue to rise. Despite a failing public education system, spending in this area continues to rise, over forty percent in the past five years. Despite declining revenue from business taxes, increasing unemployment with the loss of nearly 70,000 private sector jobs state wide, state government and government employment continues to grow. And, despite a professed belief in individual liberty and limited government intrusion in our lives the marauders of personal liberty masquerading in the state house stepped on private business, failed to secure our tenth amendment rights or even pass a meaningful non binding resolution and denied our citizens the right to choose if they would allow their health care to be dictated by an even more diabolical and all consuming federal government. Yep, this big tent deal is really working out well for Kansas.
And, where is the Republican Party during this masquerade session and why are these not so conservative and really quite progressive Senators and Representatives wearing the party logo to begin with? This big tent is more like a cheap carnival in which our citizens should not expect any greater odds of winning. I suggested a while back to the consternation of more than a few in the local area that the Republican Party is such in Name Only and really represents the old Democrat and Republican Party combined, especially when you consider the Democrat Party of today no longer represents the Party many of our parents and grandparents belonged to and many of us could at least tolerate. Today they are really chomping at the bit to proclaim their socialist beliefs and have recently become less constrained in the public arena even in that regard. I think the answer lies in the party desire to retain power (influence) at any cost and we now see Democrats serving as supposed Republicans. It is a deceitful reality at best, damn near criminal, and should require that they wear a visible disclaimer across their forehead that would alert the average Kansan to the fact that they are not what they appear to be. Ok, maybe just a special blue jacket with a fancy red fringe would do.
We have all watched over the past year as the Republican Party first dismissed us and stood at a double arms length away from us when we began to voice our opinions at the local and national level. As we came to recognize the danger and a threat to our liberty we rushed toward the fire in growing numbers with only superficial participation of most party insiders and elected officials. Actually, the Party seemed to consider us as just a bunch of adolescents that would need to be herded in some fashion or the other to a remote corner of the tent (if room could be found). To be fair, there were a few (very few) politicians that actually stood at once and took a prominent place on the fire line. However, time and the approaching election (come on November) brings about those miraculous conversions one would only associate with a tent revival or a Sunday morning healing at one of the televised super centers. We should take care not to be smitten by yet another illusion.
So where does the Independence Caucus fit into this discussion? For me personally, I see the ICaucus as an opportunity for average citizens to become informed about the candidates vying for their vote. I see it as an opportunity for the average citizen to determine for themselves which candidate will receive that vote without the corrupted and compromised, power driven, win at any cost, party influence. The ICaucus provides Kansans the opportunity to ignore the televised campaign infomercials and still step into the voting booth with confidence that their candidate can be located on the ballot with or without the customary party initial next to their name. In practical terms, the Independence Caucus provides Kansans the opportunity to interview the candidate for the job we are hiring them to do. But perhaps most importantly, the Independence Caucus provides our Kansas citizens the opportunity to participate and meet their personal responsibility, as tasked by our Founders, with regard to their governance. If you have had enough or you are just befuddled and do not know where else to turn then perhaps the Independence Caucus would be a good start.
One or more have asked in pointed terms if the Independence Caucus is a “Miracle or Myth”. I suspect time will tell. However, given the choice of continuing down the same old path, with the same worn out promises (we will fix it this time) and our same old gullible expectations that just bring about more of the same, I will cast my lot with the Independence Caucus. However it did or did not work elsewhere is of less importance as to how it works here in Kansas. I would suggest that the relevance or impact of the Independence Caucus in Kansas politics sits squarely in our laps and depends solely on what we make of the opportunity. We can adapt, improvise and overcome the obstacles placed in our way or succumb to the petty ridicule of others or those fearful of losing their entrenched status and power. This time the choice is ours or more specifically yours.
Certainly we have our work cut out for us. Our membership growth depends on the message each of us carries to our neighbors and they in turn carry to others. We are not driven by corporate sponsorship nor supported by federal grants, our energy is our own to expend. Our Founders left us a simple guide in simple language. We need only follow it. It is not negotiable but it is amendable.
Before I go, I want to apologize for the revivalist and super center comparisons to political conversions. I do not believe the spending habits of a drunken sailor should be compared to the political pros either. I am well aware of God’s work in my life and my own life’s experiences are enough to convince me that I am only here today by his grace with the specific mission of standing for my posterity. Some twenty one and a half years ago, following my last drink and with little expectation that faith in a power greater than myself would restore me to sanity a loving but hard old sponsor suggested that if I didn’t have faith that I should just act like I did, until it did, so I did. I think these are Patrick Henry days and again I do not know if I posses Patrick’s bravery so I think I will just act like I do until I do. Like those days long ago it would be a tad easier if there was someone to stand with. Hope to see you in the Independence Caucus. http://www.icaucus.org/ or http://icaucus.ning.com/.
Larry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
