Brian Terry

Brian Terry

Amidst the political theater being played out this week in Washington in what historians will note as the “Fast & Furious” fiasco, there is tragically a noticeable dearth of recognition for the individual most directly at the center of the entire issue.

Brian Terry.

Brian was a United States Border Agent when he was murdered with a weapon that was part of the United States Justice Departments’ program called “Fast & Furious”. The core issue of the failed program is not in dispute: Agent Brian Terry was murdered with a weapon that was sold by the United States government to Mexican drug cartel members. The purpose of the program and its intended goals are not the issue, despite the best efforts by those of both political extremes who present that perspective in any media coverage they are given. Their concurrent arguments follow along the line that serving in a position such as border agent carries with it the scope of danger.

A specious argument at best; outright stupidity, ignorance, or political cowardice at worst.

Brian Terry.

The concern is that the American government sanctioned arming drug cartels knowing that those weapons would, by definition, be used to commit crimes. The parallel issue is that the officials responsible are opting to obfuscate on the pertinent facts about the processes that led directly to Agent Terry’s murder.

The President invoking executive privilege is what has elevated the entire matter to the level it has attained. The congressional investigations have centered on the Justice Departments specific lies to a congressional oversight committee. For reasons unexplained, the Justice department has been allowed to “retract” their assertions that they were never involved in gun running operations.

Brian Terry.

Elected officials - political liars - and their accompanying mass media sycophants attempted two primary deflections to explain the entire affair, opting of course to ignore the central individual. The first attempted lie was to blame the Bush administration for the Fast & Furious operation. The fact of the matter is that the Bush administration did indeed attempt a similar endeavor, but it failed and was terminated before the Obama administration took office. Attorney General Holder initially attempted to explain that the Fast & Furious undertaking was implemented by his predecessor, but was forced to recant that when the facts were presented to him. The second attempted obfuscation relative to the contempt vote on Attorney General Holder in relation to the Fast & Furious fiasco was presented by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Her premise was that the Republicans were attempting to thwart attempts to address voter limitation and intimidation cases handled by the Justice Department by threatening general Holder with the contempt charges.

The silence was deafening by supporters of Pelosi on this ridiculous and disgraceful charge.

Brian Terry.

Both Justice and the White House have from the beginning forcefully asserted that the President had no knowledge, direct or indirect, on the Fast & Furious operation. Absolutely none has been the claim.

The media has failed to ask the obvious follow up question: if the President had no knowledge or connection to this particular operation, what exactly is the basis for invoking executive privilege? The right is reserved for communication between the President and his advisors, cabinet members, etc. that center on direct communications. If the President had no knowledge or involvement, how can there be any communications that need to be protected?

The future of this entire process is still unclear as of the posting of this blog, but it is important to remember that the United States government provided the weapons used in the murder of a United States Border Agent, an agent struck down in the execution of his duty and has subsequently thwarted all manner of attempts to discern the facts in connection to that murder.

The facts must be ascertained, or Agent Terry’s death will have been in vain.

That is not the way America works and the American people, en masse, must join together and demand answers or hold our elected officials accountable at the ballot box.

Brian Terry.

The Madison Conservative Platform - Part 3

The continuation of the Madison Conservative platform now turns it attention to those for whom the platform is being constructed. Previous blog posts have discussed the need for campaign finance reform and the debate on term limits. It is now time to thrash out who will be able to utilize these particular reforms.

There has been much bluster and blather centering on what is cynically referred to by the full political spectrum as ‘voters’ rights’. In the wake of President Obama’s choice to circumvent the Constitution and Congress by unilaterally deciding to legislate by executive fiat, the need to clarify voting eligibility is more critical than ever, given the need to flex democratic self-rule muscle in the voting booth before such freedoms are expunged by a singular political will.

{It is critical to note that is was during the 2010 election cycle that a democratic governor (Beverly Perdue, D-NC) suggested bypassing elections so that the congress could act and vote without fear of electoral consequence.}

The question thus becomes clear – who may vote and how, and what, if any, identification should be considered viable for entering the voting booth.

The important distinction is that this particular plank of the platform will only encompass federal elections; the rights for individual states to regulate their own electoral processes must be respected under the tenth amendment.

First, the constitution stipulates that only those citizens who have attained the age of eighteen may vote.

The intriguing question then becomes what constitutes a ‘citizen’. Felons may not vote; their convictions make them ineligible The Constitution is absent a description on this point, and the Articles of Confederation speak only of ‘free citizens’, excepting ‘vagabonds, paupers and felons’.

It thus then falls to the electorate as a whole by way of our elected officials to make the determination in a country of over 300 million inhabitants who may be classified a citizen eligible to vote, and who does not hold that specific status.

We may look to elective office requirements as a guide, but it must be remembered that the Constitution provides that only natural born citizens may hold the office of President, yet naturalized citizens may still vote.

It is with an eye to that particular ambiguity that the Madison Conservative proposes specific legislation to address this murky issue. It may be attained solely through legislation; a constitutional amendment is not a thoughtful option for this issue.

The law would proceed with language somewhat as follows:

Any individual who has attained the age of eighteen and has not been convicted of a felony is hereby eligible to vote in any and all federal elections. Furthermore, any individual who would be qualified to attain United States citizenship may be considered eligible to vote in any and all federal elections.

That would address the specifics of who is eligible to vote.

The next concern is how to maintain the integrity of Election Day itself. The political parties have in essence conspired to help muddy the basic electoral process by promoting various and sundry electoral schemes. Early elections, mail –in elections, same day registrations and their ilk have done nothing but to distill the inherent responsibility of every citizen to have their voice heard. By diminishing the solemnity of the vote, it has lost much of its significance and allowed mischievous political theater. Many need only to recall the imbecility and outright stupidity of American election officials attempting to discern the intent of any given voter by the interpretations of ‘chads’.

The American example of democratic self-rule should never be subjected to such folly ever again. The Madison Conservative thus believes that there should be an encompassing national methodology for casting federal election votes, even it be nothing more than putting an “X” in a box.

The most sensitive point in this particular debate centers on the legality of requiring photo identification in order to vote.

The voices against such a requirement point out correctly that the right to vote is a constitutional right and the only specifically delineated constitutional right that would require such a manner of photo identification in order to authenticate the identity of the voter; in other words it would be the only right that mandates identification. The claim is made that on that point alone requiring a photo ID is somehow an infringement and an unnecessary burden on the voter.

The specious nature of that argument is clear to those on the opposing side. There is little activity that today does not require a valid photo ID, be it to board an aircraft, cash a check or gain admittance to an arena hosting a speech by the President. The omnipotent nature of ID’s makes the burden argument fallacious on its face. The maxim held that it would be better for one hundred guilty men go free than for one innocent man be wrongly imprisoned.

This is the hard fact of voting in the twenty-first century. The ability for political mischief when a simple photo ID can solve much of the potential problems is a requirement in an era when voting has been made more accessible, albeit more so in a manner that almost mandates a security back up.

In other words, it would be better to inconvenience one hundred voters to produce an ID than for one voter to have his vote negated by any manner or cause.

It is that simple.

The Madison Conservative Platform - part 2

The founders and the framers were wary of providing a default governing class when they designed the Constitution as the governing document of their fledgling new democratic republic.

The specifically delineated the duration of each elected term of office for each member of the trilateral government they were espousing. The president, congressmen, senators and jurists all have clearly defined terms of office.

In a previous post, the Madison Conservative discussed the need to amend the Constitution to address the pervasive, corrupting influence of unregulated financial support for the entire spectrum of the political class. That post was presented as the first plank in the Madison Conservative platform because the need to return the electoral process to the American voter is paramount to the successful growth of democratic self-rule.

The subsequent point that needs to be addressed then is the re-clarification of the terms of office for our elected officials.

Many voices in the public debate on cleaning up the governmental process genuinely believe that the Constitution must be amended to include term limits on our elected leaders. The opposing voices claim with equal earnest that such restrictions should be implemented only at the state level.

Before espousing its position, the Madison Conservative believes a quick recap of the history on the constitutional construct on terms of office is in order.

There were no term limits written into the Constitution. The reasoning was simple; the framers believed that the American people would make the necessary choices with respect to choosing their elected leaders.

President Washington, in his wisdom and foresight decided that two terms was sufficient; in addition to being tired, he genuinely believed that serving any longer would set the precedent of a default monarchy, with a president for life serving in place of an outright king. Subsequent presidents did not see a need to break with that precedent, and those who tried, i.e. Theodore Roosevelt, were soundly defeated by the electorate who felt that George Washington had it right.

In the midst of World War II, the American people opted to return Franklin Roosevelt to office for a third and then a fourth term. His death in office was the argument made that the office of the presidency was too strenuous for a man to endure for longer than two terms. The Congress thus amended the Constitution to restrict the term of office for the president to two terms; Harry S. Truman would have been the last man to serve longer than eight years had he opted to do so.

The Congress did not believe its own responsibilities required extensive vigor and so voted only to restrict the term of office for the executive branch; the cowardice involved in hoping for short term political advantage by so amending the Constitution should be of note to the contemporary body politic.

This explains why senators have served for thirty and forty years, apparently believing that their electorate cannot be properly represented by any other qualified citizen.

After careful consideration, the Madison Conservative has decided to incorporate into its platform the wisdom of the founders and the framers. The twenty second amendment to the United States Constitution should be repealed.

The American electorate is much more sophisticated given its access to information in the internet age. The Madison Conservative believes that the recent trends of the 2010 congressional elections and the failed attempt to recall the Wisconsin governor show that the American electorate is more than capable of fulfilling the belief of the founders and framers of getting it right.

The intelligent control of campaign finance coupled with unfettered choices are the best available tools the body politic can employ to insure that democratic self-rule continues to thrive for ourselves and our posterity.

The Wisconsin Recall – A Commentary

The Madison Conservative had intended these coming weeks, starting last week and continuing today, to present what it believes to be the planks of a substantive platform for this presidential election year.

The coming recall vote this Tuesday in Wisconsin however has necessitated a delay in the continuing presentation of that platform so that the very real and critical issues surrounding this bit of political theater may be adequately addressed, for they deal with issues at the heart of American democratic self-rule.

The actual merits behind the recall election are not particularly salient at this point. The special election recall vote has been placed on the ballot and thus must be dealt with within that given reality.

The imperative for a recall election must be based on serious grounds of governance malfeasance. The United States Constitution calls for the removal of presidents and jurists for acts of treason and for high crimes and misdemeanors. The arguments given for utilizing the recall option in Wisconsin are based solely upon disagreements on policy. The main thrust of the argument against the governor is that he has decided to emasculate the unions in his state by removing the rights to collective bargaining by various public employee unions.

Without discussing in detail the merits of the argument being presented by the opposition, the Madison Conservative does pose the following query relative to the rights of collective bargaining:

Exactly who are the public unions bargaining with? In private business, the unions negotiate with management. Public unions can only negotiate with the people and who is it that is speaking for the best interests of the populace? Politicians, who seem to want to curry electoral support and favor with the unions and so bestow contracts that would normally not pass the laugh test in the private business community.

Consider what would be the result if the recall election is successful and the Wisconsin governor is removed from office for no other reason than the hope for short term political advantage by his opponents. We would no longer have elected officials who would act with political courage to deal with the very real problems our local, state and federal governments are grappling with today.

No sane individual would dare act against the popular will with the intent of serving the public good. True leadership is defined as leading a group towards what you believe to be right in the face of popular opposition.

This nation has constitutionally created recall mechanisms – they are called Election Day. That is the time for the electorate to makeits determination on the policies of their elected officials and not randomly because political opponents would rather squander precious financial resources – the Wisconsin recall special election is estimated to cost the state in the area of several million dollars – in the name of political sport.

The special interests have pumped untold millions into the election both in support and in opposition. These nefarious entities of both political extremes are predominantly out of state and are interested only in advancing their particular ideologies, the public good be damned.

There are rare but necessary times to invoke a recall election.

This is not one of them, and the Wisconsin electorate must rail against it, with the greater American electorate fully supporting that effort.