The Tenth Amendment

The Gay Marriage/Civil Union Ban passed in North Carolina Tuesday night, 61% for the ban vs 39% against the ban. Regardless how I feel about the issue (and those of you who know me well, know EXACTLY how I feel about the issue), I honestly didn't care too much about the outcome in NC. 

Seriously.

An issue that is MUCH nearer and dearer to my heart is the 10th Amendment, and this sets the stage for one of the most fundamental arguments since the birth of our nation: the balance of power between the States and the Federal Government.

Are "powers not delegated to the [Federal Government] by the Constitution nor prohibited by [the Constitution] to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people?" The Founding Fathers  seemed to think so. They thought so highly of it, it's the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Let's see if Eric Holder at the DoJ does.


And here is the big question: when is enough enough? With all respect to Governor Perry, but why are you letting the Lone Star State be upstaged by Arizona?

It's interesting to see the States start to struggle, little by little, against what they see as unfairness:

"Who are you to determine if we should or shouldn't require our voters to prove who they are?"

"Who are you to tell us how to enforce our laws, when you can't even secure the borders?"

"Who are you to determine under what circumstances for which a State may issue a marriage license?"


And my favorite: "Who are you to deny the return of our taxpayers' money, because you don't agree with the laws we have implemented concerning a Citizen's right to protect themselves? When you have refused to do so?"

The States have rights, but more importantly, they have the responsibility to secure the Blessings of Liberty for their citizens, when the Federal Government can't, or doesn't want to. It's sad, the ignorance of the People. Do you realize how many citizens have no idea what the Tenth Amendment does for them? Or even what it says? If a power isn't explicitly granted to the Federal Government in the US Constitution, it is reserved for the States. Period. 

True Believers, Not Mushy Moderates

Do you know the difference between the presumptive nominee, Mittens Romney, and the incumbent?

The argument that the Republican Establishment, those sycophantic Washington DC insiders who move all the chess pieces in the party, make is that Mittens is a moderate, and moderates can reach out to "independent voters". The problem with Mittens, however, is that he's a husk. You can't be everything to everybody. It doesn't work that way. And you can't count on getting the fabled "independent voter" without alienating your base.

Who donates to your campaign? It's not independents. It's those true believers, those small businessmen and women in small-town America who donate to you because they believe in your message. While Mittens is raising a lot of money, most of it is from corporations and insiders, not because they believe in his message (let's face it, Mittens doesn't have a message), but because they want to hedge their bets. They spend money, to curry favor with whoever they hope is the nominee (in case he gets elected, they can call in those favors).

Sadly, in American politics, money talks, and bullsh*t walks. It's a sad state of affairs, but it's the reality.

If you want a look at what Obama's strategy for the general election, all you need to do is look at Mittens' performance in the primary election maps by county. Let's take Ohio as an example: Santorum took a huge geographical chunk of the map. Huge. Romney's support was based almost exclusively in the urban centers of the state: Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland. Guess what Obama's goal is going to be during the general election for Ohio?

Here's the core issue: who do Obama's policies hurt the most? People in Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland, with their citizen's exposure and dependency to the government bureaucracy? Or those struggling small-town citizens and farmers who now have to swallow the high cost of gasoline and tax increases? If you can't solidify the base (Republicans, Rural America is your base.) and their small town sensibilities, you'll lose the election. The problem is, you need to take as many counties, as many precincts, as possible. You can't take them for granted. Besides taking the counties, you need to push your way, nibble away at the suburbs and the fringes of those urban centers. The closer you get to minimizing your opponent's support in the urban centers, the higher the chance you'll minimize their impact.

Now for the bad news: we have a moderate as our presumptive nominee. We've had eleven presidential elections since the birth of modern conservatism. Six of the candidates were Republican conservatives. Five were moderate Republicans. Of the six conservatives (framed by the media and the party as conservative), all six won their elections. Of the five moderates, four lost. Of the six Conservative candidates, the more Right-leaning, the larger the number of electoral votes he won, the more overwhelming the victory. Consider that in 1980 and 1984, Ronald Reagan was the Antichrist Incarnate as far as the media was concerned. Not only did he decimate Jimma Cahta in the '80 election, but he absolutely destroyed and embarrassed (and took his lunch money, to boot) Walter Mondale in '84.

To contrast, John McCain, while an admirable war hero, tried to offset his ideological mushiness with his war record and his reputation for bucking his party when he needed to. The result? The 2008 election was a wipeout.

Here's the bottom line: an ideologue isn't necessarily a bad thing. People need to be presented a contrast in order to get emotional in their support. If Obama says "Yes", our guy needs to have the moral courage to say "No". That's why support for Bachmann and Perry was so rabid at the beginning. Only when they started getting mushy in their platforms, did support start to wane. (In the case of Perry, that "you don't have a heart" bullsh*t during the debates did him in.)

The people who back Santorum, back him because of his stance on social issues. They respect him because of his strong moral convictions and willingness to put it all out on the line. Mittens, on the other hand, has support a mile wide and an inch deep.

Think of the most popular Conservatives since 1980: Reagan, Dubya, Cheney, and Palin. Why do we love them so much? Because they drive the left (and the leftist media) batsh*t crazy. They drive them crazy because of their earthiness, their values, and their rural sensibilities. Can you imagine Obama flying in a fighter jet? Jogging and cycling with wounded warriors? Hunting? (And shooting somebody in the face?) Riding horses on their ranch? Of course not. These are things rural, regular people do (well, besides shooting people in the face.) We don't go to musicals, order Wagyu beef, drive wind-up electric cars,and we DAMN sure don't eat arugula. (I had to look up what an arugula is.) We go out to eat at Texas Roadhouse, order Angus steaks, pop a few rounds off at the range, and drive trucks and Jeeps.

This is the most important election of my lifetime. Four more years of the current administration will 1) change the face of the Supreme Court, 2) rack up more debt than all other administrations combined, 3) implement the most invasive and comprehensive government entitlement program in history, and 4) continue to shred piss on the Constitution.

Shouldn't we field the candidate who offers the starkest contrast, instead of the most ideologically moderate?

What do you think?

Remember The Alamo!

A few years ago, I wrote a paper comparing the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 B.C. to the Battle of the Alamo in 1836. There are several similarities that are too glaring to ignore:

1. In both instances, the defenders faced insurmountable odds. Outclassed, outgunned, and outnumbered, in both battles, the defenders held their ground and fought to the last man, while inflicting serious losses to the attacker. Leonidas, king and general of Sparta's three hundred hoplites who defended the pass at Thermopylae, faced hundreds of thousands of Persians. The defenders of the Alamo were outnumbered 12-1 at the start of the battle.

2. Both were tactical military defeats, but were instrumental in raising support for their respective larger war efforts. In the case of Leonidas, the entire Persian army was decimated at the Battle of Platea, effectively ending Xerxes campaign to conquer Greece. In the case of the Alamo, Sam Houston was able to rally the Texian Army and tire the pursuing Mexican Army during the Runaway Scrape. At the most opportune moment, Houston quickly turned his army 180 degrees and executed a lightning-fast strike on the Mexicans, effectively ending the Texas Revolution in a battle that lasted only eighteen minutes.

3. Despite their losses, the defenders in both instances (and their efforts) became legendary. Leonidas for his famous "MOLON LABE!" taunt to the Persians, and Travis for his famous letter "To The People Of Texas And All Americans In The World" vowing "Victory or Death!"

So, on the 176 year anniversary of this monumental event in Texas history, lets remember the brave Texian Rebels. They, like the 300 Spartans, sacrificed their lives against insurmountable odds to serve the cause of Liberty, at the Battle of the Alamo.

REMEMBER THE ALAMO!

Mentioned in this post:

Gates of Fire: An Epic Novel of the Battle of Thermopylae

The Alamo (Widescreen Edition)

Eighteen Minutes: The Battle of San Jacinto and the Texas Independence Campaign

Sleight Of Hand...

On the most recent coverage of the Great Contraception Debacle of 2012:

You must think we're idiots. It's masterful what the Left and the media have done... it really is. We're not stupid, though. (Well, some of us undoubtedly are.)

It's not ABOUT whether or not a woman wants to use contraception, or whether or not a woman wants to, um, engage in coitus three times a day. It's about whether or not the taxpayer should have to PAY for her to use contraception.

I see it like this: I don't have ovaries. I don't have a uterus. So why do I have to pay for people that want to suppress their reproductive process? Personally, I'm of the opinion that this insidious attempt of government to seize a citizen's personal prerogative on contraception is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Think about it: why does this benefit apply to women, and not men? Are rubbers condoms going to be provided, as well? $1,000 worth of rubbers, per year?

What if you want to double-bag it, for extra safety?

See what I'm getting to? Once you go down the rabbit hole, it never ends. It just gets more and more ridiculous, and more and more expensive. Isn't $16 trillion enough of a debt to incur and subjugate our sons, daughters, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren? Assuming we'll have any? (We are talking about the biggest expansion of government in the realm of reproduction in US history, here.)

Let me leave you with this: if the government keeps preventing future citizens, then who will pay the taxes? Mark Steyn wrote a book called America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It that was a case study in exactly what happens when a society falls off of the Socialism Cliff.

Mentioned in this post:

America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It