The Smoke Break

You want some brie with that whine?

The Fairness Doctrine Lives On In Senate D.C. Voting Bill

By

Just when you thought the world was safe from the “fairness” of special interest groups, please read this carefully.  I see this as as another clear shot across the bow that our freedom of speech is under attack. 

And I am absolutely furious. 

 

S.Amdt. 591: To encourage and promote diversity in communication media…

To encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership, and to ensure that the public airwaves are used in the public interest.

An amendment to S. 160: District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009.

Offered: Feb 26, 2009
Sponsor:  Sen. Richard Durbin [D-IL]
Actions: Feb 26, 2009: Amendment SA 591 proposed by Senator Durbin.
Feb 26, 2009: Amendment SA 591 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 57 – 41. Record Vote Number: 70.

For more information, see the the official record on THOMAS for S.Amdt. 591.

Text of amendment
SA 591. Mr. DURBIN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 160, to provide the District of Columbia a voting seat and the State of Utah an additional seat in the House of Representatives; as follows:

At the end of the bill add the following:

SEC. 9. FCC AUTHORITIES.

(a) Clarification of General Powers.–Title III of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended by inserting after section 303 (47 U.S.C. 303) the following new section:

“SEC. 303B. CLARIFICATION OF GENERAL POWERS.

“(a) Certain Affirmative Actions Required.–The Commission shall take actions to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest.

“(b) Construction.–Nothing in section 303A shall be construed to limit the authority of the Commission regarding matters unrelated to a requirement that broadcasters present or ascertain opposing viewpoints on issues of public importance.”.

(b) Severability.–Notwithstanding section 7(a), if any provision of section 2(a)(1), 2(b)(1), or 3 or any amendment made by those sections is declared or held invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the amendment made by subsection (a) and the application of such amendment to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected by such holding.

(As printed in the Congressional Record for the Senate on Feb 26, 2009.)

 

Guess what?  This is just a sneaky way to invoke the Fairness Doctrine one more time.  Section (B), for all its double negatives, spells it out quite clearly. 

Not that any stifling of free speech should even warrant discussion, but I want to know exactly WHO who is going to define “public interest”?  U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for D.C. Circuit (where else?) claims it should be The Federal Communications Commiczars.  But for the most part, right now and quite rightly, that definition comes from advertisers spending their money during broadcasts that have viewers in numbers and type that match their target markets.

Which is just as it should be in a FREE MARKET system.

But those who are fearful of and still wish to silence people like, say, Rush Limbaugh because they lack the intelligence to change the dial on their radio station are now running to Big Daddy O to make the change for them.  They can’t stand a different opinion, nor can they bear to be criticized.  And, of course, in order to continue to roll the country down the hill into the hellhole of Socialism, it’s critical to have real control of the media.

One Washington insider to this stifling of free speech is Acting FCC Chairman Michael Copps, conveniently hand-picked by President Obama for this role until a permanent replacement is named.  Mr. Copps  says he doesn’t support the return of the Fairness Doctrine, but he does think government has a role in enforcing media “diversity.”  That role includes re-examining licensing and other regulations for radio stations — including AM stations dominated by talk radio — to make them “more reflective” of public interests.
 
The fight over the Fairness Doctrine is “yesterday’s fight,” Copps told CNSNews.com earlier this month. But he also stressed the need to make radio broadcasts more “reflective” of the public interest.  Copps also said that when markets fail to produce a media which reflects the country’s diversity, government must step in.
 
“If markets cannot produce what society really cares about, like a media that reflects the true diversity and spirit of our country, then government has a legitimate role to play,” he said.

This is all so wrong on so many levels.  And burying it in the D.C. vote bill is dispicable.  Maybe President Obama can’t be bothered to read the bills he signs, but I can assure him that I do.   

And I will make sure that I tell everyone just what wickedness this way comes.

Here’s how the Senate vote went.  Do you see your elected rep here?

Grouped by Home State

Alabama: Sessions (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Alaska: Begich (D-AK), Yea Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Nay McCain (R-AZ), Nay
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Yea Pryor (D-AR), Yea
California: Boxer (D-CA), Yea Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Colorado: Bennet (D-CO), Yea Udall (D-CO), Yea
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Yea Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware: Carper (D-DE), Yea Kaufman (D-DE), Yea
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Nay Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Nay Isakson (R-GA), Nay
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Yea Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Idaho: Crapo (R-ID), Nay Risch (R-ID), Nay
Illinois: Burris (D-IL), Yea Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Nay
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Nay Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Nay Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Nay McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Nay Snowe (R-ME), Nay
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Yea Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Yea Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Minnesota: Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Nay Wicker (R-MS), Nay
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Nay McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Tester (D-MT), Yea
Nebraska: Johanns (R-NE), Nay Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Nay Reid (D-NV), Yea
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Nay Shaheen (D-NH), Yea
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Yea Udall (D-NM), Yea
New York: Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Nay Hagan (D-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Yea Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Yea Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Nay Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Oregon: Merkley (D-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Yea Specter (R-PA), Nay
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Yea Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Nay Graham (R-SC), Nay
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Yea Thune (R-SD), Nay
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Nay Corker (R-TN), Nay
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Nay Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Nay Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Yea Sanders (I-VT), Yea
Virginia: Warner (D-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Yea
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Yea Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Yea Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Nay Enzi (R-WY), Nay

 

The House version of the D.C. Voting Rights bill has no such amendments, by the way so reconciliation isn’t going to be easy.  While I personally believe the D.C. Voting Rights bill is unconstitutional, it is time to let all those elected representatives know that pork under shadowy cover of infringing upon our basic freedoms is still pork and to make sure this illicit “Fairness Doctrine” nonsense goes by the same wayside as the properly-named attempt.

Is It Better Or Is It Worse?

By

Someone, please, make up my mind.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Consumer spending rebounded in January, snapping six months of declines, and incomes rose unexpectedly, “boosted by salary increases for government employees“, a government report showed on Monday.

“The [Commerce] department attributed the rise in incomes to pay raises for federal civilian and military employees, as well as cost-of-living adjustments to several government transfer payments programs.”

“The income numbers were certainly higher than expected, but a lot of that was the Social Security payment adjustment,” said Scott Brown, chief economist, Raymond James & Associates in St. Petersburg, Florida.

“There was a big increase in the savings rate to 5 percent.  It is good that people save but it is not good that everybody saves at the same time.  That makes the current downturn more severe and long lasting.”

This Year’s Business Is Really Last Year’s Business

By

This is how you define progress, folks.  This is that long-anticipated, hoped-for change.  No longer do we get just an “Oops!”;  instead the mantra echoing high and low has become:  “This is last year’s business.”

Taxpayers for Common Sense has identified 8,570 earmarks in the latest $410 billion spending bill – totaling some $7.7 billion; Democrats say the number is $3.8 billion. 

What’s a few billion between bipartisan friends, eh?

Apparently not much.  The White House reported today that Mr. No-Earmarks Transparency (my middle name is “Fiscal Responsibility”) himself, that fairweather barometer of hope and change, President Obama, intends to sign the bill into law.

Once again the President has reneged one of his pet, never-ending campaign promises, using the flimsy excuse that this is “last year’s business” (Peter Orszag) and this is “last year’s business” (Rahm Emanuel) to absolve himself of living up to the standards he himself set.

There’s a four-letter word for this, folks.

L – I – A – R

The Audacity of Hope

By

Yesiree.  Hope is an amazing thing.  It is what allowed people to survive something as horrible as the Holocaust (all denials of it by some, in particular some of Charles Freeman, Jr.’s Middle Eastern buddies, aside). 

Hope is, in fact, what created this country.

And it was the deliberate, well-considered, experiential-based actions of those hopeful few 222 years ago that allowed that international man of mystery, Barack Hussein Obama, to become President, too.

Yet it is a truth that hope can be misplaced.  And that the drivers of even the most audacious hope can be, at best, misguided.  One definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over but continue to expect different results. 

This, then, explains the current Democratic mindset.  Can’t pay the bills?  Spend more.  If that doesn’t work, spend even more.  And when questioned about the continuing failure, blow smoke & rhetoric in an attempt to align yourself with a Republican (Reagan) who took the opposite tack that succeeded.

What it doesn’t explain, however, is when the spending sprees are accompanied by more and more laws that snare the public in a net of more and more indebtedness (dependence) on bigger and bigger government.  All created in direct contrast to the deliberate, well-considered, experiental-based hope foundation upon which this country was based.

That’s where the opposite definition of insanity comes in.  If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

This, then, explains in part the so-called “liberal” mindset.  Needing to feel important but unable to see through some strange and self-created sense of inadequacy, the only way to accomplish this is not through individual efforts but by that most childish game of tearing down others to their level.  Claiming superiority through some nebulous advantage of “higher” education (sic) that in the end provides little more than weasel words designed to confuse the average person who has been trained to believe what they see and read in a so-called “free press”, without any real-world experience these self-perceived superiors must turn the real world into a nothing more than a science lab where “models” are tested over and over, despite their continuing failure.  At best, their purpose is wheel-spinning “creation” for the sake of “creation”, at worst, it is an attempt to “fix” something that doesn’t need their insulated bubble-grown help in the first place.

Such Democratic, liberal “hope” really can be called audacity.  In fact, it is the height of audacity.  I don’t believe that Americans are, in general, so stupid as to believe that we can actually spend our way out of this toxic, phantom money mess but I don’t believe that enough Americans have yet reached the set-point of understanding that it is their failure to participate fully in the foundational elements of our government that has allowed things to stray so far from the original intent of our Founding Fathers.

There is no such thing as being too “busy” to take the time to actually read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and to read the Federalist papers that made perfectly clear the intentions of the Founding Fathers.  From such reading would come a realization that “conservative” is not a party, but instead a mindset.  One of independence, one of individualism, one where those who can are allowed to do, thereby helping everyone.  You don’t need to be a “Constitutional law professor” to understand that this Republic was not founded on any principle of big government.  Those who would tell you otherwise are in it hoping solely for their own gain.

All at your expense, of course.

And that is, indeed, the audacity of hope.

“Limbaugh Lashes Out Live!”

By

Nice “teaser”, Foxnews.com.  Looking to drive some ratings?  Sure hope it worked.  Though “worked”, perhaps, in ways you didn’t quite imagine.

Personally, I’ve never listened to Rush Limbaugh.  Never ever.  But what with the newly-Democrat-directed world spinning heedlessly out of control, and what with President Obama’s insistence on “change”, I decided to tune in and hear what Rush might have to say.  And much to my surprise, there was no “lashing out”.  Indeed, his address to CPAC was rather tame, and he could have found some of his material in the blogs right here at Smoke Break.  (Not that we’re unique, mind you; but to hear your words spoken on national television is rather amusing.)

I’ve never considered myself a literal conservative, and have resisted others putting such a label on me.  But if agreeing with Rush’s assessment of what it means to be a conservative, well, I guess I’ll go ahead and wear the t-shirt proudly.  It was hard to find argument with what he had to say, particularly his referencing the disembowling of the Constitution.  One particularly poignant observation is that the President and Congress take an oath to “defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States”.

For those unfamiliar with these oaths, I present them here for your reading pleasure:

At the start of a term in Congress:  “I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter:  So help me God.”

The Constitution (Article 2, Section 1) states that before assuming office the President must take the following oath or affirmation:  “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Is it pointing out that the Emperor is naked to ask how, pray tell, how President Obama and those riding his silver-tongued coattails could have possibly pledged to such an endeavor when they do not believe in it?  To quote President Obama from The Audacity of Hope, “What the framework of our Constitution can do is organize the way by which we argue about our future. All of its elaborate machinery – its separation of powers and checks and balances and federalist principles and Bill of Rights – are designed to force us into a conversation….”  He also has said that the Constitution, “says what the states can’t do to you, says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf.”

This is from a man who taught Constitutional law?  I don’t have a law degree but it’s pretty obvious.  Such missing “doing” was precisely what was intended by the Founding Fathers.  They wisely disallowed “conversation”, putting in those checks and balances to keep Big Government at bay and thereby encouraging individual initiative and individual expression, which in turn creates far greater and farther-reaching good than any government could possibly hope to create.

There are so many ways Rush could have ripped this so-called former Constitutional law professor to shreds, to be honest about it.  But he didn’t.

Pity.

The Bill Of No Rights

By

Long before I was even the slightest bit politically savvy, I came across this piece and found its humorous truths to be so self-evident that I contacted the (real) author to request permission to share it.  Such permission was readily forthcoming, and though the link back no longer works, I will forever thank you, Lewis Napper, for the fit of pique that caused you to set down what most people think but so few are willing to voice.

I honestly believe that, along with the Constitution and Bill of Rights, this should be required reading for every American.  Especially those we elect to serve in Congress.

 

The Bill of No Rights*
Lewis Napper

We, the sensible of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt-ridden delusional, and other liberal, commie, pinko bedwetters.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that a whole lot of people were confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require a Bill of No Rights.

ARTICLE I
You do not have the right to a new car, big-screen color TV or any other form of wealth.  More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II
You do not have the right to never be offended.  This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone – not just you!  You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III
You do not have the right to be free from harm.  If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all of your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV
You do not have the right to free food and housing.  Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V
You do not have the right to free health care.  That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we’re just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE VI
You do not have the right to physically harm other people.  If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim or kill someone, don’t be surprised if the rest of us get together and kill you.

ARTICLE VII
You do not have the right to the possessions of others.  If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don’t be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won’t have the right to a big-screen color TV or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII
You do not have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience.  We hate oppressive governments and won’t lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if you’d like.  However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.

ARTICLE IX
You do not have the right to a job.  All of us sure want you to have one, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities in education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE X
You do not have the right to happiness.  Being an American means that you have the right to pursue happiness – which, by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by those around you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

 

  

* – This is the original version penned by Mr. Napper in 1993 in response to (ironically) hearing Hillary Clinton’s proposed national health-care plan on the radio.  This is not to be confused with the email version that often includes additional articles whining about illegal immigrants, God, and other such special interests added by those for whom this was written.

What Democracy Means to Me

By

I can’t recall exactly how very long ago it was that I received this little ditty in an email.  Probably way back when Windows 95 was the latest and greatest thing since sliced bread.  But like cliches, humor often has a way of transcending time, and since this has never shown up in my Inbox again, I figured its timeless truths were once again fair game for sharing.

To me, democracy means placing trust in the little guy, giving the fruits of nationhood to those who built the nation.  Democracy means anyone can grow up to be president, and anyone who doesn’t grow up can be vice-president.

Democracy is people of all races, colors, and creeds united by a single dream:  to get rich and move to the suburbs, away from people of all races, colors, and creeds.  Democracy is having time set aside to worship — 18 years if you’re Jim Bakker.

Democracy is buying a big house you can’t afford with money you don’t have to impress people you wish were dead.  And, unlike communism, democracy does not mean having just one ineffective political party; it means having two or more ineffective political parties.  Democracy means freedom of sexual choice between any two consenting adults; Utopia means freedom of choice between three or more consenting adults.  But I digress.  Democracy is welcoming people from other lands, and giving them something to hold onto – usually a mop or a leaf blower.  It means that with proper timing and scrupulous bookkeeping, anyone can die owing the government a huge amount of money.  Democracy means a thriving heartland with rolling fields of Alfalfa, Buckwheat, Spanky, and Wheezer.  Democracy means our elected officials bow to the will of the people, but more often they bow to the big butts of campaign contributors.

Yes, democracy means fighting every day for what you deserve, and fighting even harder to keep other weaker people from getting what they deserve.  Democracy means never having the Secret Police show up at your door.  Of course, it also means never having the cable guy show up at your door.  It’s a tradeoff.  Democracy means free television; not good television, but free.

Democracy is being able to pick up the phone and, within a minute, be talking to anyone in the country, and, within two minutes, be interrupted by call waiting.

Democracy means no taxation without representation, and God knows we’ve just about had the hell represented out of us.  It means the freedom to bear arms so you can blow the “o” out of any rural stop sign you want.

And finally, democracy is the eagle on the back of a dollar bill, with 13 arrows in one claw, 13 leaves on a branch, 13 tail feathers, and 13 stars over its head – this signifies that when the white man came to this country, it was bad luck for the Indians, bad luck for the trees, bad luck for the wildlife, and lights out for the American eagle.

“We Have Met the Enemy and He Is Us”

By

My grandfather used to say, “If you want to live like a Republican, vote Democrat.”  God bless his dear, departed soul but I don’t think he foresaw American society becoming so entrenched in a Democratic party “step down” into entitlement.  Back when my grandfather voted regularly, Democrats were seen to provide opportunity so it makes sense that if you voted for them, you’d get more opportunity to advance your situation.

For my grandfather and the rest of his generation, those opportunities meant advancement by dint of hard work.  Work, entrepreneurship; through your sweat came rewards.

But with the boom of technology and the mantra of “better living through chemistry” society has somehow changed and the rugged individualist is no longer the norm.  Instead we’ve become a society of Little Orphan Annies, blind and unable to function without a continuing stream of pablum from Daddy Warbucks.  (The irony of that analogy should not escape you.)  And now we’ve put Robin Hood and His Merry Band in charge and they are taking from the “rich” as fast as they can to give to the alleged “poor”.  But while Robin Hood’s mission was actually rather noble, in that it was cheats he put in his sights, this Democratic administration IS the cheats, and there is nothing noble whatsoever in their cause.

Our government was founded “of the people, by the people, for the people”.  Our elected representatives serve – a privilege, mind you – at the people’s pleasure.  The current state of government – trillion dollar deficits spinning further and further out of control, special interests, millions spent on lobbying, etc. – speaks volumes about the dangerously slacking mindset of our society.  There is so much blatant hypocrisy in government today I am at a loss to understand the lack of equally blatant outcry, both through our free press and through our votes.  This complacence is not the America envisioned 222 years ago, nor is this complacence part and parcel of the America in which I grew up.

Again and again I find myself returning to the Founding Fathers.  Returning to the documents that birthed a country once seen as the light of the entire world.  I do not claim to be as wise as those who risked everything to give life to such a dream, but I am wise enough to understand that to sustain that dream means we must cleave to it with all our might.  We do not toss it in the trash simply because it wasn’t created to provide instant gratification for some overblown ego.

Indeed, one of the most remarkable things one finds in the origins of America is the inherent ideology of checks and balances.  The Founding Fathers knew only too well the consequences of concentrating power in the hands of a few and at every turn they moved to keep the power of this country in the hands of its people.  Their dream was for an independent people where the government oversaw only the minimums needed to benefit the collective.  It was never their intention that government be the sole provider of…everything.  I believe Thomas Jefferson when he said, “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”

Yet that has, for all intents and purposes, become the role of the America’s government.  Part Daddy making sure the children have toys, part Mommy refereeing every little squabble in the sandbox; handing out allowances and timeouts because we – we, the people – seem to no longer be able to think for ourselves.

Yes, I’m painting with a broad brush.  But nitpick all you want, the net result remains the same.  Instead of demanding that government perform only its intended, limited role and no more, by our individual vote we have, collectively, chosen to hand over our power to a few and it is most apparent they do not have the best interests of this country at heart.  We have elected a President who does not believe in the basic tenets of this country and we – we, the people – have given him and others like him our collective nod to make a mockery of those tenets.  Indeed, we have collectively given them the nod to take this country straight into the arms of fascism.

The problems that we, as a people, face today are really no different than those that faced the Founding Fathers 222 years ago.  But there is a deep and painful irony in the realization that the enemy is no longer without; today the enemy is within and as deeply entrenched as the tyrannical monarchy that spurred the birth of this nation.

I, for one, did not sign up for this little trip to hell in a “hope and change” handbasket.  I know there are many others who feel the same way but the question becomes:  are there enough of us left to make a difference?  I choose to make my voice heard, by writing here and by writing my elected representatives and questioning them at every turn.  I vote regularly, both at the polls and with my dollars.  I take responsibility for the choices I make and accept the consequences of my actions.  Do you?  Or do you find it all too much a bother and just assume someone else will take care of it for you, thereby fulfilling that ironic definition:  “ass – u – me”?

Silence is no longer an option.  We, the people, must insist – loud and long – for a return to basic principles.  It is no longer as simple as making a choice between Democrat and Republican, the choice is now for the existence of America herself.

The Original Case Against D.C. Voting Rights

By

I’ve been doing some reading tonight.  Very interesting reading.  In my search for truth, I have been reading the Federalist papers, particularly the writings of James Madison in #43, in which he addresses the Constitution’s designation and purpose of our nation’s capital.

It causes a great sigh tinged with a little amazement to realize that his words show us just how far we’ve moved away from the original intentions for this country in a mere 220 years.  How the original, inherent independence of authority (government) has eroded into an entitlement mentality; how we have regressed from being freedom fighters to mere slaves in chains and dependent upon the good will of a drunken master.

For shame, America.  For shame.

I do not believe that our Constitution is a “flawed” document.  Indeed, it contains far more wisdom than those running around Washington sporting smurks of Ivy League superiority could ever hope to grasp during three of their greedy lifetimes.  The current resurrection of debate over allowing the people who live in the District of Columbia voting representation in Congress is a good example of the distortions – for personal gain – that now run amock with giddiness through the corridors of Congress.

On this matter, however, I believe our Founding Fathers were quite clear.  And, unlike Big Daddy O’Hopey-Changey, their answer was “no”.  Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution states:

[The Congress shall have Power] To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States.

This is how a real father, a Founding Father of the United States, and the Father of the Constitution, James Madison, describes it:

“The indispensable necessity of complete authority at the seat of government, carries its own evidence with it.  It is a power exercised by every legislature of the Union, I might say of the world, by virtue of its general supremacy.

“…as it is to be appropriated to this use with the consent of the State ceding it; as the State will no doubt provide in the compact for the rights and the consent of the citizens inhabiting it; as the inhabitants will find sufficient inducements of interest to become willing parties to the cession; as they will have had their voice in the election of the government which is to exercise authority over them; as a municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed them; and as the authority of the legislature of the State, and of the inhabitants of the ceded part of it, to concur in the cession, will be derived from the whole people of the State in their adoption of the Constitution, every imaginable objection seems to be obviated.

“The necessity of a like authority over forts, magazines, etc. , established by the general government, is not less evident.  The public money expended on such places, and the public property deposited in them, requires that they should be exempt from the authority of the particular State.  Nor would it be proper for the places on which the security of the entire Union may depend, to be in any degree dependent on a particular member of it.”

This is an early admonishment against what we, today, call a conflict of interest.  One made for all the same, right – very right – reasons.

Dare I point out that the District of Columbia has NEVER voted for a Republican presidential candidate?  Dare I point out that to then allow this obvious bias a voting seat in Congress will only add to a current majority that is already gleefully doing everything in their power to wrest away our individual rights and freedoms under the soothing lullaby guise of “hope and change”?

I have nothing against Democrats, per se, mind you.  What I do dislike and will fight against as long as I live is the deliberate creation of inequality.  If that means defending the Constitution, then so be it.  If that means being called “conservative”, then so be it.  I’m not afraid to type it out loud:

To give the District of Columbia voting rights is a clear – and dangerous – conflict of interest.