Not the response they wanted

Dear Republican National Committee

Before I get to my response to the fundraising letter you sent me today, please go see the comments of the new House Majority Whip's new Communications Director
.
Oh, you might also want to go take a look at the emails you are sending.

Now on to the response.

I am not some low-information, uninvolved voter.  I assume you listed me as a registered Republican (more on this in a minute) because of a "citizens' congress" event I attended with Representative Joe Barton several years ago (he called me a better Lloyd Doggett than Lloyd Doggett- I'm still not sure if that was a compliment).  I maintain a political blog.  I have a fair idea of what is going on in my State, the country, and the world.

Further, I consider myself a "Tea Party" Conservative- note the word I did not use, that will be important later.  I believe in limited, fiscally sound government.  I believe that the Federal Government is supposed to be constrained by the Constitution- that it enumerated specific powers for the Federal Government and any which were not specifically enumerated were reserved to the People or the States.  I believe "that Government governs best which governs least."

Since 2008, I have seen nothing that would make me support the Republican National Party, and much that disgusts me about you.  People actively opposed to limiting government have leadership positions; those actively attempting to limit government are removed from leadership positions.  When you had several chances to stop Obamacare cold, you have continually refused to take them.  And don't give me "1/2 of 1/3 of government."  The simple expedient of withholding unanimous consent during the "debate" over Obamacare would have ended it- no one was going to sit while 1800 pages were read so that a bunch of old men and women could hear them.

I could expound at length about how you seem intent on remaining disconnected from the American People (the vast majority support legal immigration while opposing illegal immigration or any form of amnesty, for instance, yet you continually seek "comprehensive immigration reform").  I could point out the awkward and pathetic attempts you have made to seem "hip" and "cool."  I could point out time after time after time that senior Republicans have called those like me "the fringe."

But I will not.

Had I known that I had been registered as a Republican, I would have asked that registration be removed long ago.  Any party of John McCain, Lindsey Graham, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and John Cornyn is not a party with which I identify.  Perhaps you can hit me up again when you have listened to the likes of Mike Lee, Pete Sessions, and Ted Cruz.  Maybe I'll be more willing to listen when you grow a spine, or testicles, or both.  Until then, no, not one red cent.
More Sincerely than you can possibly Imagine,

The Dedicated Tenther

An Open Letter to Rick Perry

Honorable Governor,

I have written to you before on diverse subjects, though all linked by one theme: Liberty.  Thus it is not particularly surprising that I find myself writing again on the same subject.  Thomas Jefferson once said that "the Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."  I hope that he was mistaken.  I hope that the Tree of Liberty, once firmly rooted in good soil, will thrive without such a watering.

But even if I am correct, and Mr. Jefferson wrong, it requires good soil.

Governor, the soil around the Tree of Liberty is dying.  I, and those like me, have no power to correct this.  You, and those like you, do.  When people like me decide to revive Liberty's tree, we have only one option.  My mind shudders from that idea so violently that I dare not even name it.  Politicians however, especially Governors, have much more power.  With greater power comes greater finesse with which it can be wielded.

You may be wondering at this preamble.  Why would I take such a serious, even desperate tone?  It is to impart upon you the weight of my feeling.  And not just mine.  Uncounted, and perhaps uncountable, numbers of Texans see what is going on in the United States, and we want it stopped. 

You and the other governors have the ability to stand against this rogue regime which calls itself the Barack Obama administration and protect the American people.  Perhaps you even have the power to refresh the Tree of Liberty without blood. 

The offenses of this administration against Liberty are almost innumerable.  They began almost from the day Mr. Obama was sworn in in 2009, starting with the GM Bailout which subverted established law and stole rightful remuneration from secured bond holders, while giving power over a private US company to the union which destroyed it, and to the federal government.

The so-called "stimulus" bill was simply a way to steal money from taxpayers and funnel it to the President's allies and pet causes.  The Orwellian named "Affordable Care Act" threatens our very lives, placing them in the hands of unnamed, unaccountable bureaucrats.  The IRS and EPA leak sensitive data on disfavored parties.  The government suppresses speech it does not like- holding up applications for 501(c)3 and 501(c)4 status- making it harder for groups to raise funds.  If that is not enough, they then also target the President's enemies for audits and other harassment.  Anecdotal evidence suggests all federal agencies are in on this as well, from the FBI to HHS to OSHA.

Now, we learn that the federal government has retrieved, by warrant, the phone records of every domestic phone call on the big carriers.  It is true that the Patriot Act allows for some domestic spying under very strict circumstances and very specific cases.  That is fine for true national security needs.  However, the NSA spying via PRISM and the Telecom warrants would be massive violations of all Americans' rights, even if the warrants did not make all the data so gleaned admissible in criminal trials.

I am sure I do not need to tell you, but as this is an open letter, I feel the need to inform others who may read this.  A warrant is a legal document which, in essence, proclaims that the government believes a particular person to be guilty of a particular crime.  That is why, as the 4th Amendment to our US Constitution declares, "and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

This should make it clear that the warrants for all calls made on the Verizon, or AT&T, or Sprint networks are nothing less than the most massive fishing expedition in US jurisprudence history.  Whatever judge signed such warrant should be immediately impeached- though that is an issue for our US Representatives and Senators.

Combined with the above abuses, how can anyone call the current administration legitimate?  It is a tyrannical regime which seeks to silence opposition while raining favors on its cronies.  It is no longer a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

Governor, I beseech you- you, and your fellow governors who love liberty, protect us from this tyrant, this despot.

It is within the power of the State of Texas to provide legal safety for her People.  It is within her power to reject those laws and decrees from the federal government which are not in line with the constitution.  It is within her power shelter our Liberty.

There are 30 States with Republican Governors.  There are 33 States which are refusing to implement the Exchanges required by The Affordable Care Act.  I beg you meet with the governors of those states, along with our own Senators and Representatives to the US Congress- Re-assert the powers of the States.  Re-assert the powers of the People.  Destroy this tyrant state which has been built since the days of Franklin Roosevelt.  Burn it down.  Scatter its stones.  Salt the earth where it stood.

May God bless you, Governor.  May He bless you, the People of this State and this nation, and may God bless Texas.

 

In humble sincerity,

Allen Goodner

Arlington, TX

The Tenther "War On Drugs."

Kurt Schlichter has a piece over at townhall.com about building a "bite me" coalition.  I recommend you go read it.

But it got me thinking: what he's really talking about is a Tenther coalition.  Shrink the Federal Government.  Let the States decide for themselves.  Let the People decide for themselves.  It's a highly Libertarian Tenther coalition, to be sure, since it's focusing on even shrinking State and Local governments, but I could get behind that.

However, whenever we start talking Libertarian policies, we inevitably talk about "the war on drugs."  And, inevitably, someone suggests "just letting the States decide."

As a Dedicated Tenther, I think I need to address some points here- and they're applicable across the Tenther movement.

1) There is a role for the Federal Government.
Advocating for small and limited Federal Government is not the same as advocating for no Federal Government.  The Articles of Confederation were scrapped for a reason.  The EU, which is built on an even shakier confederation, is reeling from one crisis to the next.  A strong Federal Government is necessary for many things.

2) The States' powers and privileges are not sacrosanct.
This is a corollary to number 1.  Wherever the State's powers and privileges conflict with the Federal Government's, the States must take second place.  If they don't, we're back to that whole "Articles of Confederation" thing.  That didn't work out so well.

3) The Default must be Personal Rights
It's easy to get caught up in the Tenth Amendment as being empowering to the States, but the 9th and 10th amendments were designed to be empowering to The People.  The People were supposed to have more control over their specific states, so granting greater rights to the State was supposed to be safer.  I point to Colorado and New York for how that's going.  We must remember that the Power rests with the People; it is delegated to the States and then to the Federal Government.

With those in mind, along with the common knowledge of the 10th Amendment, I propose a Tenther's view of drug policy.

1) Federal drug policy should be as permissive as possible.  Allow it to be imported, place an import duty on it, require it to meet certain standards, etc.  It's getting in anyway, and this would lessen the strength of the black market (though not the strength of the drug growers).

2) State drug policy can be as restrictive as that State wants.  Full legalization for California?  Go for it.  Completely illegal to posses, transport, or sell in Oklahoma?  Sure. 

3) Personal responsibility must be paramount.  If you can't get a job because you're a drug addict, that's not my problem.  Not one dime from the public treasury should be spent on you.  Got high and killed someone in a car wreck?  I'm sorry, "being high" is no longer a mitigating circumstance, it will now (by law, if I had my way) be an exacerbating one.  Sharing needles so you caught some horrible disease?  Sucks to be you, my friend. (For the record, this is how I feel about alcohol and tobacco as well)

On Rebranding

Over at the HQ for the last little while, we've been talking about Rebranding the Republican Party (or the Conservative movement- sometimes the two get conflated when they shouldn't).  I've commented a lot over there, but I wanted to use this space to get a bunch of ideas all in one place.

First off, as I see it, the Republican Party and the Conservative Movement are not the same thing.  I am a Conservative.  Until and unless the Republican Party can prove to me that they are also Conservative, I am not a Republican (even though I'll probably vote "R" much more often than "L" for the moment).  Now, Many Republicans are Conservative, and I would venture that most Conservatives are Republican, but not all Republicans are Conservatives, and a goodly number of Conservatives vote Libertarian (I cannot believe anyone who is conservative could vote Democrat in good conscience).

To that end, it is the Conservative Movement that I will be discussing. 

So, if you're ready to come along for the ride, take a look under the fold.

Federalism FTW!

Ace links this Meade piece about the Republicans new "Red State Model" strategy.  The idea seems to be that Red States should (hold on to your seats, you won't believe the radicalness of this idea)- act like Red States.

If Conservatives in Red States really believe that lower taxes, lower regulations, and less government interference are good for the economy, they should try it and see.  I believe we call that "Federalism," and I believe it was the idea behind having a Federation of States, rather than a single National Government. 

Commenter Toby928 over at the HQ has this to say:

I want something even more radical, let Texas or some other red state go full 10th Amendment and refuse both Federal largess and Federal mandates. Secede in place, as it were.

I agree there, too.  Push actual Federalism.  Refuse Federal funds along with the strings they have attached.

Yes, it would suck.  It would suck because that money is going to DC anyway, and it's going to be spent anyway.  It would suck because we'd see more DC Politicians getting rich off our money.  It would suck because more of our money would be diverted to other states (someone explain, again, why a man in Texas is responsible for the health care of someone in New York?).  It would suck because people here would scream when some of their free stuff got taken away.

Nevertheless it would be right.  And if Texas led the way, other states may well follow.  And if enough States followed, we might see some actual change at the Federal Level, and a shift back to the Federalist System the Founders prescribed.

Sometimes I'm Just Not Cynical Enough

Just two days ago, I said this:

     4.  Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

You know, someone more cynical than me might point out that the AG would now have the power, at least arguably, to put any member of one of the groups designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security as being a "dangerous person."  So, congratulations, military vets, religious conservatives, and members of gun clubs.  You may no longer be able to purchase firearms.

Yesterday (I just found it today), the Washington Times had this:

The West Point center typically focuses reports on al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists attempting to gain power in Asia, the Middle East and Africa through violence.

But its latest study turns inward and paints a broad brush of people it considers “far right.”

It says anti-federalists “espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government. Extremists in the anti-federalist movement direct most their violence against the federal government and its proxies in law enforcement.”

So there you have it.  Now, simply believing in the Federalist (I love how they have Newspeak-ized the term "anti-Federalist" to mean "anti-Nationalist") system, and that the Federal Government might maybe be overstepping its bounds a little bit makes you a dangerous and violent criminal.

Yay us.

Now, I could go on and on about how there have been no- repeat that: no- violence from "far right groups" in America that I can recall in my life time.  In fact, all of the politically motivated violence I can recall has been from the Left side of the aisle.  Jared Laughner, anyone?  How about that Marx quoting maniac who flew his plane into a building in Austin?

I could, but I won't, because it doesn't matter.  What does matter is that a branch of the US Department of Defense just called everyone who believes in the Federalist system, individual liberty, and self-governance a potential terrorist.  In light of the SCOAMT's Imperial Proclamation above, that seems pretty scary to this "anti-Federalist."

(And, no, the irony of Tenthers being called "anti-Federalist" is not lost on me).

Let it Burn.

Could This Really Happen?

So, the Texas Secession Petition more than reached its goal of 25,000 signatures yesterday.  I haven't even checked to see what it's up to, now, since the White House rules (assuming they follow them) require the President to address the petition if it meets that goal- any additional signatures are just gravy.  So, in theory, the President must "respond to" this petition.  Other States' petitions are also picking up steam.

So, could Secession really happen?  Is it possible that we could, once again, be the Republic of Texas?

As I see it, there are three major, practical, aspects to this question.  Is there the will?  Is the Texas Economy strong enough to support a separate sovereign nation?  Can Texas defend itself?  On top of these, there are two political aspects to this question.  Is it politically viable within the United States?  Is it politically viable with foreign powers?

I'll take these in reverse order.

Is it politically viable for Foreign Powers to acknowledge Texas as a sovereign nation?  You would think this would be a simple question.  In theory, no one else has a dog in this particular hunt, so why should they care?  If they don't care, then they should have no problem acknowledging Texas as a sovereign nation, presuming Texas were to secede successfully in the first place.  What makes it more difficult, however, is the Gulf of Mexico.  How would control of that body of water break down?  Then there are our oil resources, and the fact that countries would have to renegotiate a number of contracts, and so on and so forth.  Ultimately I believe it is feasible, but it's not as clear cut as one might think.

Is it politically viable for the US Federal Government to acknowledge Texas as a separate sovereign nation?  This really depends on how many States want to secede.  If it's just Texas, I think the answer is a qualified "yes."  With Texas's energy resources, including oil and natural gas, as well as our access to the Gulf, there would be a variety of agreements so that US Companies could continue operating in Texas and so forth.  The US Military Bases in Texas would have to be dealt with- would the US Forces withdraw completely?  How would that work?

On the other hand, if more than one State moves to secede, then there is no way that the Federal Government can allow the secession unopposed.  Taking the most likely choices, the first three to secede would be Texas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma.  Among those three are the vast majority of the oil refining capabilities in the United States.  If those three leave, the US is in a world of hurt, energy wise.  That doesn't include the control that would be exerted over the Gulf, especially the mouth of the Mississippi river.  If more than one State asks to secede, then all will be denied.  That would mean either secession fails, or a shooting war.

That takes us to the next question: Can Texas defend itself?  This is even more tricky a question than the first.  Certainly Texas has many military bases, but they're all US Military bases.  Texas has the Texas Guard, it's own militia used mostly to supplement the border patrol and the National Guard (normally during disaster relief).  Certainly Texas has the means to produce what it needs to defend itself.  So the answer to this question comes down to the resolution of previous question.  If the US allows Texas to secede peacefully, then I see no reason Texas could not quickly arm itself to defend its own borders.  If Texas is not allowed to secede peacefully, something would have to be done about the US Military resources already in the State.

Is the Texas Economy strong enough to support a separate, sovereign nation?  I think the answer to this question is an unqualified "yes."  The Texas Economy is stronger than the average in the United States, and is larger than many other countries.  With our energy and technical resources, as well as access to the Gulf Coast, the Texas Economy could certainly support itself- perhaps better, once unfettered from the US Economy as a whole.

Finally, is there the will?  This I believe, at least currently, is a qualified "no."  Certainly people in some quarters really want to secede.  Some of them have even done a more in-depth analysis of what it would take than I have here.  They have counted the cost, and determined it is worth paying.  I think, however, the majority of the population has not seriously considered secession.  I believe most of them have not counted the cost.  I believe that, once they do, many of them would not support secession under any circumstances, and most of the rest would only support a peaceable secession.

In the end, this is the deciding factor.  I simply do not believe that Texas is currently fed up enough to secede.  I do think, however, that we are approaching that level.  Give it a few more years of Texas propping up California, Illinois, and New York, and you might see minds begin to change.  Give ObamaCare a couple of years of full operation, and you might see minds begin to change.

Union No More: 20 States Petition for Secession

Currently private citizens in 20 States have filed with the US Government to allow their States to Secede.  You can go here to see them.

Now, I don't think any of these petitions will be granted.  Among other things, I would think such requests would have to come from the Governments in those States.  On the other hand, I think it is very important to sign the petition for your State if there is one, and create one if there is not.

Here's why.

Our Nation has ceased operating within the bounds of its own Constitution.  This began with the Civil War when States were denied the right to secede (a right they had been assumed to have from the beginning of the Nation).  Now, I'm not going to re-fight the Civil War, here, and I think it was (generally) a good thing that it went as it did, but we cannot deny that the Civil War was the first body-blow against the Republic.  It continued from there with great leaps forward during the Great Depression and FDR's New Deal, and again under Jimmy Carter and the "Great Society."  Today, the Union little resembles that Republic of Sovereign States designed in Philadelphia in the late 1700s.  When ObamaCare goes fully into effect, it won't matter what our nation claims it is, it will actually be a tyrannical oligarchy wherein the Political Class rules over the rest of us.  In many ways it is already there, but once the Government is allowed to make direct decisions regarding your health and life, you are no longer a citizen, but a subject.

As such, it is of vital importance to let both Washington, DC, and our own States know how we feel about this.  The politicians must be made to see how deeply we believe in our Liberty, and the lengths we are willing to go to preserve it.  If we are to repair our Republic, we must start by shaking the politicians' belief that we'll just go along with whatever they decide.  We must also make it real in our own minds what we are asking, and what price we are willing to pay for it.

Why Federalism?

Yesterday, I posted a fairly academic piece about Federalism and Taxation.  I think it's important to understand exactly why I did that, and why I think that what Conservatives need to be fighting for is a return to Federalism.

Federalism is the single most important defense the framers of the Constitution put in to protect individual citizens from the tyranny of a monolithic national government.  Because of Federalism, they believed that giving the Federal government an unlimited power to tax would be checked.  One of the primary reasons they never specifically wrote the idea of Judicial Review (as it is currently practiced, at any rate) into the Constitution is that they believed that Federalism would prevent Congress from passing unconstitutional laws.

To understand why the believed this, we have to examine what Federalism really is.  The simple answer, taught to school children, is that Federalism is a hierarchical government.  That there's the Federal Government on top, and the States below that, and local communities below that.  That is not, however, what Federalism is.  If that were Federalism, then the USSR would have been a Federalist system.  If that were Federalism, then the League of Nations would have worked.

No, Federalism is the concept of shared government.  Yes, the Federal Government is the "supreme" government.  When it speaks, you must listen.  However, part of Federalism is the very fact that lower levels of government have a "seat at the table."  It is important to realize that the only nationally elected office has no seat at the legislative table.  The President can recommend laws.  He can provide his assent to, or veto laws.  But when it comes to actually writing them, he has no say beyond his "bully pulpit" and communicating with the American People.  The only true "Federal" offices- that of the President and the Supreme Court- did not have any say in how laws were written.  This is because a Federal Government, as opposed to a National Government, is built very firmly on the "consent of the governed."

We use that phrase a lot: "Consent of the governed."  People assume it means that we merely consent to *be* governed.  That is, as long as the people don't revolt, that consent is assumed.  That is also not quite right.  Consent of the governed means that those who are governed have some say in their government.

With that in mind, realize that the arm of government which is supposed to write the laws is not a Federal arm of government.  Even in today's broken system, I do not vote for the Senators from New Hampshire.  I vote for my own Senators.  In the original system, the People had a voice in what laws were made through their Representatives- who were elected every 2 years.  The States *also* had a voice in what laws were made through the Senate- who were appointed by their State Legislatures.

Now, it was that balance of power- that the Federal Government itself had no say in laws, that the States' interests were looked after by the Senate, and that the People's interests were looked after by the House- that was supposed to protect the people from all kinds of Tyranny.  Now that balance of power is broken.  The States have no say.  Worse, while Senators run on the same populist sentiment that Representatives run on, they maintain the elevated powers of being a Senator.  How many Senators voted for ObamaCare who would not have if they'd had to face re-election in 2010?  The very fact that some retired rather than facing re-election then, or this year, should be enough proof that many only voted for it because they felt their 4 or 6 years left before re-election would be enough to distract "the mob."

Federalism is the battle of the future.  I'm not sure how we win that battle, frankly.  I'm not sure that we can win that battle.  But if that battle is not won, it doesn't matter how many we do win; we'll lose the war.

Mitt Romney: Tenther?

In last night's presidential debate, Mitt Romney seemed like a full-on Tenther.  Who'd have thought I'd ever type that?  But, nevertheless, it's there:

On helping the Middle Class:

"But the president mentioned a couple of other ideas I'll just note. First, education. I agree: Education is key, particularly the future of our economy. But our training programs right now, we've got 47 of them, housed in the federal government, reporting to eight different agencies. Overhead is overwhelming. We've got to get those dollars back to the states and go to the workers so they can create their own pathways to get in the training they need for jobs that will really help them."

On ObamaCare:

"The federal government taking over health care for the entire nation and whisking aside the 10th Amendment, which gives states the rights for these kinds of things, is not the course for America to have a stronger, more vibrant economy."

On the Role of Government:

"But we also believe in maintaining for individuals the right to pursue their dreams and not to have the government substitute itself for the rights of free individuals. And what we're seeing right now is, in my view, a -- a trickle-down government approach, which has government thinking it can do a better job than free people pursuing their dreams. And it's not working."

On Education:

"Well, the primary responsibility for education is -- is, of course, at the state and local level."

And back on Health Care:

"We'll put in place the kind of principles that I put in place in my own state and allow each state to craft their own programs to get people insured and we'll focus on getting the cost of health care down."

This is not the Mitt Romney I expected.

Don't get me wrong.  He was saying the same things to Republicans during the Primaries, and I acknowledge that (however grudgingly).  But two things there: one, when talking about the role of the Federal Government versus the States during the primaries, it was where he seemed least comfortable.  I don't know if it's because of practice, or just in comparison, but last night he seemed very comfortable and sure of what he was saying.  Second, in the Primaries, he was running for Republicans- it's just the thing you say to Republicans if you want to win the Primary. 

Last night, he could have let off the gas on the Federalism talk.  He didn't have to talk about "the primary responsibility for education" being "at the state and local level."  He could have simply acknowledged that the Federal Government can't do it alone, or some-such.  That would have been "good enough" for many republicans, and would have been nice and safe for the moderates.  He didn't have to mention the 10th Amendment explicitly, but he did.  Many Americans don't even know what the 10th Amendment is. 

Perhaps the most telling thing, because this is forgotten even by some Tenthers, is that he mentioned the People's rights.  Let's look at the 10th again:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Now let's look at what Romney said about the roll of government: "...what we're seeing right now is ... a trickle-down government approach, which has the government thinking it can do a better job than free people pursuing their dreams."

Mitt Romney obviously gets it much better than I thought.  Again, anyone could say these things, but to say them as smoothly and surely as he did?  When he had, in essence, two debate opponents?  To do that, he has to believe it- at least at some level.

Whether he knows it or not, Mitt Romney is a Tenther.