RELEVANCY

I have recently become a fan of Red State—ever since I found their app for my iTouch. Kudos to Vladimir, Moe Lane, Jeff Lukens, Erick Erickson, and all the contributors!

A recent entry, "EPA: Mission Creep on Steroids," got me thinking about relevancy, and for good political reason.

I too remember the trash strewn along every highway, dying fish in the Great Lakes, smog so thick in Los Angeles that I could not see the airport from the tarmac. America fell out of love with the land. There were other startling realities that grabbed people's attention: the bald eagle was going the way of the dinosaur, along with geese, ducks, and the buffalo. A river—you know "water"—had caught fire.

As Red State wisely points out, much of that has changed, "The air and the water are cleaner," and some small credit goes to the EPA (private citizens and businesses were already busy taking responsible action. The EPA was something of an after-thought). But if the air is healthier, the water purer, the forests are bustling, and the wildlife flourishes, what is the EPA to do?

Scramble for relevancy, that's what. They have to find a political reason to exist and if they've done too good a job, their relevancy is at risk.

Most aging entities, be they people or institutions, reach a point at which they have accomplished most of what they set out to do and begin to questions the meaning of life—to question their own relevancy. That's where the EPA and many "services" of Washington are today. Only by intruding into our lives do they get to remain relevant.

As the nanny state grows and grows, as the government assumes control over more and more entitlements, from college loans to health care, from air bags in our cars to HD TVs, they remind "We the people" that they are relevant by-gum, and they desperately need for us to believe it too.

If we had said "no" to governmentally mandated high definition television, Washington's relevancy would have been neutered. Had we said "no" sooner and louder to thousands of unread pages of legislation, those who govern us would have become more and more irrelevant, and they cannot stand for that.

AT LAST, A POLITICIAN WHO SPEAKS THE TRUTH!

Recently, Congressman Phil Hare (D) of Illinois was addressing the new health care legislation. When asked about the law’s constitutionality, the representative spoke what was quite refreshing, he spoke the truth. No masks, no evasions, no beating around the bush to avoid the answer. Congressman Hare simply said, "I don't worry about the Constitution on this."

For me however, this raises a question of political reason: did you not, Representative Hare, swear an oath to uphold the Constitution? Article 6 states that congressmen, “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.” The exact verbiage of your oath of office was: "I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same . . .”

The duty of your office requires you to “worry about the Constitution on this.” In fact, your primary concern when debating any bill should be its constitutionality. So yes, you should “worry,” Mr. Hare. It is your job to “worry,” sir, your sworn obligation. Due process is about upholding the law—and in this case the Constitution—not finding ways around it, bending it, or breaking the rules.

If you do not have enough integrity to uphold your sworn oath, then you have no business being a congressman.

VICTORY’S MASQUERADE – PART II

4.) Voices of opposition are to be ridiculed. To exercise the constitutional right of free speech and question what this administration is doing is to open oneself up to all kinds of name-calling: terrorist, right-wing fanatic, throw-back, unintelligent, mind-numb robot, Nazi, and tea-bagger. All part of the mature response that comes from being associated with the tolerant Left. But their ridicule appears to be having an affect.

A recent survey by Wenzel Strategies shows that Americans are more guarded in what they are willing to say openly. Freedom of speech, it would seem, is perceived to be under serious attack. As soon as the IRS, you know the “guilty until proven innocent” arm of the benevolent government, takes charge of health care enforcement, I should expect that guardedness to become even more prevalent. Let the tax-payer beware.

It is also interesting to note that the news coverage of the recent federal raids on the Hutaree militia are continuously referring to the group as the "Christian" militia. Not the "right wing," not the "illegal," not the "terrorist" militia but the "Christian" militia. Mainstream Christianity, neither Catholic nor Protestant, would identify the Hutaree as exemplifying sound biblical principles, particularly if as alleged, they were plotting sedition and the intentional murder of innocent citizens. But by constantly referring to these alleged terrorists as "Christian," the faith as a whole suffers and believers may become even more guarded in their speech.

From the Tea Bag movement to average conservatives, from "Christian" to Republican, ridicule and suppression from the Left is becoming more and more apparent as we are painted as being dangerous and intolerant.

Consider this video:



It is time for a little political reason in the marketplace of ideas.

VICTORY’S MASQUERADE – PART I

I have taken this week to consider all that I have seen in the passing of the health care bill. I watched what we called “debate” on C-SPAN, I listened to pundits on both sides of  the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148), and paid attention to the speeches eager to find glimpses of political reason.

Now that it is law, I hope Americans discovered what I did:

1.) Victory in this case had nothing to do with party affiliations. The G.O.P. was clearly on the losing side. That does not imply the wrong side, mind you, but they were the obvious minority. The Left’s opposition were not the Republicans. They had been rendered politically impotent. The meaningful party of "no" was comprised of Democrats. The opposing voices were members of their own party and the vast majority of America’s citizens who did not want the all-encompassing scope of this bill to become law. The popping of the champagne corks proclaiming victory came at the cost of—and in the faces of—their own party members and the voting constituency they swore an oath to represent. Let the reader beware.

2.) Opposition is irrelevant. It became quite clear that political reason and political integrity was abandoned for expediency. Circumventing convention and due process to pass a bill at any cost has proven that those in power will do whatever it takes to achieve their agenda. Their oath to uphold the constitution meant—and means—nothing. If there was a way around doing things conventionally, it was (and will) be exploited. Let the reader beware.

3.) The legislative branch is being neutered. Once a person or a government body walks down the path of compromise, driving them down that road becomes easier and easier until it becomes commonplace. The House and Senate have taken the walk on the dark side, stretching the purpose of reconciliation beyond its intent to appease the president. They circumvented the system, the checks and balances, and threw their reputations under the bus. This will not be the last time. Expect the White House to crack the whip more, forcing Pelosi and Reid onto that road again and again, until Neutered Street intersects with Irrelevancy Avenue. Patriots beware.

Political Reason will pick up with PART II, so check back soon.