H.R. 822

The axiom at hand states that the first requirement for tyranny to infect a nation is an apathetic populace, followed by an electorate that acquiesces to unquestioned policies purported to be enacted for the greater good.

The founders and framers believed deeply that the protections afforded a free press under the first Amendment to the United States Constitution would be the first, strongest and best bulwark in keeping tyranny at bay.

The current mass media conduits should be ashamed.

A little noticed piece of congressional legislation went almost uncommented on by most media outlets, and almost completely unnoticed by the electorate at large, sadly at their own peril.

Once again, the framework of the Constitution is under assault under the guise of protecting the public, when the reality is that freedom and liberty are being subjugated by the ignorance of our elected officials.

To wit:

H.R. 822: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 intends to “amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State”.  In other words, there would be an accepted national law regarding weapons possession superseding individual state legislation.

This bill passed Nov 16, 2011 in the House of Representatives by roll call vote. The totals were 272 Ayes, 154 Nays, 7 Present.

Putting aside the almost comical outrage that seven elected officials could somehow vote ‘present’, in other words take no stand on the issue, and ignoring the second amendment concerns relative to such legislation, the critical issue herein is that it appears few members of Congress are familiar with the tenth amendment.

The tenth amendment to the Constitution reads, in total, as follows:

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.

That is short, to the point, and wholly unambiguous. The framers put this language into their guiding document for a reason. Read it again and understand that it goes to the heart of this matter, and shows how the aforementioned legislation is indicative of the slow but steady assault upon the Constitution.

Consider:

New York State has strict restrictions on firearm possession. It is amongst the most stringent in the country. The right to bear arms is not prohibited in New York; it IS tightly regulated, as are the laws governing firearm possession in California.

The laws in Florida are considered amongst the most lax in the nation. This is not an issue of right or wrong, better or worse. The fact is that it is easier to possess a weapon in Florida than in New York. The citizens of each respective state have made these choices by electing those to office who hold these views.

There are states that require formalized training before permits are issued, other have age requirements. Some states have mere age and felony conviction restrictions.

These are laws unique to each state. Some states do have reciprocal laws with other states, but again, such decisions are made by each individual state, according to the demands of their specific electorate.

The federal government can have national restrictions and regulations for weapons possession for the areas of their specific responsibilities, but this assault upon the American electorate is dangerous.

This is not about the second amendment, or even a states rights issue. This is about the permeating effects of a federal government run amok, being guided by politicians without a cogent and cohesive understanding of why the Constitution was framed and written the way it was.

The federal government has no constitutional jurisdiction on state weapons possession and thus should have no voice in such matters.

It is lazy and complacent to structure this as an issue of public safety; it is not. This legislation merely makes it easier for the federal government to involve itself in matters for which it has not been granted constitutional authority.

If the American electorate wishes to have stricter or more relaxed regulations for their state, it should be handled at the ballot box, not instituted by national fiat.

The tenth amendment exists to safeguard America and should be respected as such. To ignore it ‘for the public good’ is nothing more than the recipe for tyranny.

Unforseen Consequences?

The United States Constitution is flawed. There is little, if any, debate on that point. The framers and the founders knew their new nations guiding document would need to be revised and refined as time went by, and they put in place mechanisms to do just that.

The greatest aspect of that august document however is that it set in place a detailed, well reasoned and well thought out series of processes for the act of self governance that have successfully guided this nation for over two hundred and twenty years.

Those acts of intelligent foresight are under assault and with it the foundations of American democracy.

The rhetoric of shrill shrieking nonsense that now encapsulates the discourse of the body politic shows that the fundamental intellectual principles of the Constitution are being blatantly ignored at the cost of the freedoms we were given by our founding fathers. While imperfect, the reasoning for constructing the Constitution as it is shows that the principle of unforeseen circumstances has always been at the forefront of addressing its imperfections. Save Prohibition, there have been no hasty, capricious changes during the aforementioned two hundred and twenrty years.

Three events this week have shown just how ignorant and sadly outright stupid our elected officials have been in ignoring the rule of unforeseen consequences in forming particular policies that perhaps seemed correct at the time but with a minimal amount of thought would never have been accepted and implemented.

To wit:

Under the guise of cleaning money out of the electoral process, the theory of public financing of the process has become somewhat in vogue, but consider this stark reality:

The Republican and Democratic parties have each received nearly $18 million in taxpayer money for next year's political conventions and could receive another infusion of cash by early next year. 

The sums were reported this week by the Federal Election Commission and show how public financing for presidential elections has grown over the years -- though the political parties also raise copious private money for the conventions.  A basic understanding of the corrupting influence of cash in politics could have, and should now avoid this nonsense.

The Secret Service is entrusted with protecting our leaders, amongst its other duties and responsibilities. There is no realisitc argument to be made for denying these leaders such safeguards and security oprotections, but consider this by product of that thought process:

Vice President Joseph R. Biden, acting now as the landlord, can count on at least 12 more months of rental income from the agency that protects his life.

Federal spending records show the U.S. Secret Service approved a purchase order on Nov. 2 to pay Mr. Biden $26,400 for agents to stay at a cottage on lakefront property he owns in Delaware.

Edwin M. Donovan, special agent in charge at the Secret Service's Office of Public Affairs in Washington, said Mr. Biden isn’t receiving all that money at once. Instead, he said, the purchase order shows plans by the Secret Service to pay Mr. Biden $2,200 per month for another year. Was this considered in the framing of protecting our leadership, and who can condone this practice?

The right of free assembly and the right to protest government policies is in many way a uniquely American concept. No argument can be made to quell that right, and none should ever be offered. The “Occupy Wall Street’ protests taking place across the nation are an example of the citizenry looking for a redress of their grievances, but sadly our elected officials are choosing impotence to enforce the rules and regulations for such protests for fear of political backlash. But consider this example, symbolic of hundreds of similar situations occurring concurrently to the protests, which amongst their issues is the rising unemployment rate:

A New York City cafe cut its staff by nearly 25 percent last week because of lost business due to the ongoing

Occupy Wall Street

protests.

Marc Epstein, owner of the Milk Street Cafe at 40 Wall Street in lower Manhattan, said he had to cut 21 of the 97 members of his staff on Thursday and Friday after seeing sales plummet by 30 percent in the six weeks since the protests began. He's also been forced to slash the restaurant operating hours, moving up his closing time from 9 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. Mondays through Thursdays.

While these are only examples, the underlyinmg fact is inescapable; either we take the time to follow the processes laid out within the text of the Constitution and properly deliberate governmental policies, no matter the scope or scale, and regardless of the level of government, or these examples will become the norm.

That eventuality would signal the Visigoths coming over the hills of Rome, thus ending America as the founders intended.

Two Days in November

It is perhaps by unique coincidence or American design that two essential events happen within ten days of each other in early November, each and every year.

Those two events are Election Day and Veterans Day and given the state of governments on most every level and the national discourse in the body politic, this particular convergent happenstance should be cause for reflection.

A brief history of what was originally called Armistice Day – the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, signaling the end to the ‘war to end all wars’ – perhaps is in order.

In November 1919, President Wilson proclaimed November 11 as the first commemoration of Armistice Day with the following words: "To us in America, the reflections of Armistice Day will be filled with solemn pride in the heroism of those who died in the country’s service and with gratitude for the victory, both because of the thing from which it has freed us and because of the opportunity it has given America to show her sympathy with peace and justice in the councils of the nations…"

Acknowledging the service of all Americans who wore the uniform of their nation subsequently apparently became a minor inconvenience to some elected officials and thus a circuitous route was taken for the holiday subsequently named ‘Veterans Day’.

To wit:

The Uniform Holiday Bill (Public Law 90-363 (82 Stat. 250)) was signed on June 28, 1968, and was intended to ensure three-day weekends for Federal employees by celebrating four national holidays on Mondays: Washington's Birthday, Memorial Day, Veterans Day, and Columbus Day. It was thought that these extended weekends would encourage travel, recreational and cultural activities and stimulate greater industrial and commercial production. Many states did not agree with this decision and continued to celebrate the holidays on their original dates.

The first Veterans Day under the new law was observed with much confusion on October 25, 1971. It was quite apparent that the commemoration of this day was a matter of historic and patriotic significance to a great number of our citizens, and so on September 20th, 1975, President Gerald R. Ford signed Public Law 94-97 (89 Stat. 479), which returned the annual observance of Veterans Day to its original date of November 11, beginning in 1978.

Regulated by the United States Constitution and thus immune from the meddling hands of bureaucrats, Election Day in the United States of America is the Tuesday following the first Monday in November.

The fortuitous nature of these two days falling so close together on the calendar should give us pause to remember when standing in the isolation of the voting booth that the right to vote, to have a say in our future, is ours solely because of the Americans who have, are, and will fight to protect and defend the greatest democracy the world has ever known.

The Madison Conservative does not promote any candidate or political faction; it asks only that come Tuesday you exercise your right and responsibility as a United States Citizen to take an hour out of your day to have your voice heard.

Those who have worn the uniform of your country and taken up arms in her defense deserve no less.

Hate

The fundamental rights guaranteed under the United States Constitution are under assault and the electorate at large is aiding and abetting that fact by a woeful lack of understanding on what their rights truly are. The Constitution was written and enacted to limit the power of the government and to guarantee the citizens the right to free expression, be it by speech or publication.

In the name of ignorance and fear, those precious rights are being surrendered under the guise of tolerance.

The terms ‘hate crime’ and ‘hate speech’ have become part of the accepted lexicon of the self described but self delusional ‘enlightened’ political class. The support of these terms is in fact nothing more than ignorance run amok and the American people must stand firm against this sacrificing of their rights.

Consider exactly what has happened under the guise of ‘hate speech’ and ‘hate crime’.

“Hate speech’ is currently the accepted vernacular to dismiss unpopular points of view. If a citizen of any status takes an unpopular position on a political class and accompanying media flacks sacred cow, they are not debated on the merits; they are labeled as purveyors of hate speech. This is nothing more than intimidation and low level thuggery. It exposes the lack of intellectual heft by those who choose to inject fear and hatred into the discourse of the body politic. Hate by definition goes to an internal mental process; labeling speech as hate goes to the arrogance of declaring that ones knows the working of another’s mind. It also signals to those who would defend the minority opinion from doing so, lest they find themselves tarred and feathered by ignorance. Free speech is a basic tenet of American democracy and in the name of political correctness it is being sacrificed on the altar of ignorance. The question begs to be asked; how soon until there is no longer any dissent in the national discourse, lest it be deemed to be hate speech. The arena of ideas is indeed a fierce competition, but it must be fought amongst equals, not the lions against the Christians.

The even more alarming precedent being set is that of ‘hate crime’. The act itself is apparently not enough to warrant sufficient punishment; the government has now decided that if it can show ones mental intent, there will be additional punishment levied.

In short, thought itself is sufficient grounds for additional punishment. The narrow minded and ignorant amongst the electorate feel that there is some manner of justice is labeling crimes as “hate’ crimes.

Is there such a thing as a loving or friendly crime? We should look instead to increasing the punishments for crime and remove the governmental thought police from being involved in the prosecutorial process. How soon will it be until those in authority will add “hate” to any legal infraction solely in order to breed fear amongst the population?

This is not mere rhetoric; every tyrannical government in history has sowed its seeds of gaining power by first creating fear of prosecution against some manner of societal undesirable.

The American people must thwart this attempt of circumventing the Constitution for short term political correctness. The framers and the founders entrusted us with the responsibility of defending our freedoms; we must not betray that trust, or surely our ancestors and our posterity will never forgive our collective cowardice.

Nazi

A Personal Commentary

As has been previously mentioned, there occurs from time to time an event that does not specifically deal with issues directly tied to the intent of the Madison Conservative, but nonetheless demand to be addressed in the form of a personal commentary. This week is just such an instance.

The actress Susan Sarandon this week referred to the Pope as ‘that Nazi’. While indeed a wholly inappropriate and insipid statement, the widely held principle of “I may hate what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it” must be adhered to. Ms. Sarandon has the right to express herself in any manner that does not put the public at large in danger – the “you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater” limitation on free speech.

This week also saw the death of Libyan dictator Muammar Kaddafi, one of the few remaining despots in power. Kaddafi was in the mold of previous mass murderers who ascended to power for personal glory, wealth and power and saw their people as merely tools to maintain their stranglehold on that power.

Kaddafi was a heinous human being who slaughtered tens of thousand, but he was no Nazi.

In recent years, President Bush has been labeled as Hitler, and President Obama has been displayed in caricature with a Hitler mustache. Opposing members of both political extremes have labeled their opposition as using ‘storm trooper’ tactics, or using “Gestapo” type methods in attempting to push through a specific piece of legislation.

This is beyond absurd and borders on the sickening; if we do not learn the lessons of history, we are sadly bound to repeat them.

General Eisenhower, when entering liberated concentration camps, allowed the press to take as many pictures as needed and forced the inhabitants of the neighboring towns to come through the camps to see what had occurred directly in their midst. He did so with the specific intention of forcing history to acknowledge what had happened, so that no one could ever claim the camps had not happened, or were not as bad as had been claimed.

He was a man wise beyond his time.

The Nazis collectively descended to the lowest form of humanity; they created the methodology of the furnaces to help exterminate an entire race and any person they felt was an undesirable was sent to their death in the hope of ‘cleansing’ the state. Hitler had people executed slowly and films taken of the torture so that he could watch them at his leisure. The Nazis and the Gestapo in general, created a wave of fear and oppression not seen previously for millennia.

They butchered human beings for sport; they desecrated the human body under the guise of ‘medical experiments’.

One may disagree with another’s politics or feel the need to make some manner of political statement, as in Ms. Sarandon’s’ case, but can the case of equity be made that President Bush or President Obama have done anything to warrant the comparisons to the Nazis?

Language is a delicate thing and those in a position of using it to a mass audience must be wary of how they use it.

We as a people must speak out against the flip manner that elected officials disparage each other; we can disagree on policy but how does one walk back a comparison to a Nazi with the full understanding of what that means?

Imagine the current “ Occupy Wall Street” protests under a Nazi regime. The protesters would be carted away and butchered for the ‘good of the state’.

Freedom comes with responsibilities and we must hold people accountable for their actions and their words.

We owe our posterity no less and must accept no less from ourselves.

The Lesson to Learn

“Congress shall make no law …abridging …right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Benjamin Franklin once wryly observed that in describing and defining a populist uprising it was only in the third person, their revolution, that such an event was illegal and should be dealt with harshly by the subject government. It was in the first person, our revolution, that such movements were legal and justified and thus by definition were to be embraced by the population at large.

The founders and the framers of the Constitution had seen the effects firsthand of a government attempting to thwart a revolution by the populace and insured, by the implementation of the Constitution,  that no such action would ever befall the citizens of their fledgling democracy. The hard fought lessons are there within our founding documents; we must, as history tells us, remember to learn its lessons or fall victim to those same lessons.

In was passes as the cockeyed world of political reality, the protests currently under way nationwide beneath the umbrella of “Occupy Wall Street” are endlessly labeled as either crackpot anti-Tea Party movements or heralded as true populist uprisings looking to shine the light on the inequities of the American capitalist society.

While there does indeed  exist  intelligent, supportive arguments on both sides of this nonsensical debate, there has been an almost complete absence by the body politic and the media as a whole shedding light on what should be the corollary argument to both sides. The current state of discourse on public policy has descended into nothing more than shrill shrieking blather on both sides and their co-conspiratorial media flacks; the commonality in this debate should be a point that reaffirms our unique solidarity as a nation and act as a fresh starting point in doing the peoples business.

To wit:

The rallies in support and opposition that are being held both in lower Manhattan and simultaneously nationwide are being held and therein lies the historically wonderful truth of America.

That fact does not seem to resonate with either the participants themselves or the electorate watching the events unfold on the televisions. These are not riots; the military has not been engaged to suppress the marches. Pundits are free to support or condemn the protests without fear of government retribution. The citizenry are free to publicly express their position on the issue without fear of disappearing in the night.

There are protests currently underway in Syria; they are marked by blood in the streets. The images from Libya show not a peaceful populace protest, but rather tanks and mortars in the streets.

The founding fathers gave us a most precious gift within the first amendment; the right to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of their grievances against that government.

“We the people” and “of the people, by the people, and for the people” are not simplistic slogans or mere political catchphrases. They are our birthright, and if we do not honor and protect them, and allow them to live and thrive, we shall surely lose them. We have evidence today around the world that speaking out can come with the ultimate price being paid; America will not join those ranks, but we must be ever vigilant to actively protect and exercise our freedoms.

If we do not, they shall surely perish from the face of the earth, and that must not be our epitaph to our posterity.

The Clinton War On Terror

The recent killings of Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki coupled with the tenth anniversary of the September 11^th terrorist attacks created a flood of political and media focus on the presidency of George W. Bush. There was a common thread attached to the discourse; President Bush had somehow been derelict in assessing the potential impact al-Queda could have upon the American homeland.

The now popular myth is that the war on terror began on George W. Bush’s’ watch and that he was ineffective in its prosecution.

This is not a defense of his administration or its policies, but the now accepted mythology must be addressed.

The first acknowledgement is that his decisions brought us to the point that, a decade later, allows us to be in a position to evaluate our recent history. In the aftermath of 9/11 our future was uncertain; the potential unknown of further attacks and greater devastation was a very real possibility. His leadership in this area must be commended.

This week will mark the eleventh anniversary of the commencement of the war on terror and as such is an appropriate time to clarify the record and correct the accepted perception on how we arrived at this point in history.

The war on terror began on October 12^th, 2000 with a direct assault on our military.

A 35-foot boat laden with the explosives RDX and TNT with two bombers on board rammed the USS Cole port amidships while it was refueling in the Aden, Yemen harbor, ripping a 32-foot by 36-foot hole in the hull and causing extensive internal damage.

It cannot be argued with any degree of seriousness that a direct attack on a nation’s active-duty military is not an act of war. The Clinton administration and President William Jefferson Clinton specifically, however, attempted to make that very argument. Their stance was that the perpetrators of this attack would be brought to justice under the principle that this was a legal issue that needed to be resolved within the court system of the United States.

There was no reciprocal military retribution taken by the Clinton administration, and no legal prosecution evolved.

Declining action after active duty personnel were murdered can best be described as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. The legal construct of that argument is the definition of treason. The political reality of that path is best described as nothing less than cowardice.

The question now is that after a specific, unanswered  attack on an United States naval vessel, what must have been the mind set of al-Queda; that America would not fight back. At that point, the 9/11 attacks were inevitable.

President George Bush did not let the terror attacks go unanswered.

We were not attacked again during his administration.

The historians will make the decision on the Bush administration policies and decisions, but we must not allow the fog of history to cloud the reality of history.

We must never forget.

To that end, herein are the names of the first seventeen heroes lost in the war on terror:

Petty Officer 2nd Class Kenneth Eugene Clodfelter, 21, a hull maintenance technician from Mechanicsville, Va.;

* Chief Petty Officer Richard Costelow, 35, an electronics technician from Morrisville, Pa.;

*Seaman Lakeina Monique Francis, 19, a mess management specialist from Woodleaf, N.C.;

* Seaman Timothy Lee Gauna, 21, an information systems technician from Rice, Texas;

* Seaman Cherone Louis Gunn, 22, a signalman from Rex, Ga.;

* Seaman James Rodrick McDaniels, 19, of Norfolk, Va.;

* Petty Officer 2nd Class Marc Ian Nieto, 24, an engineman from Fond du Lac, Wis.;

* Petty Officer 2nd Class Ronald Scott Owens, 24, an electronics warfare technician from Vero Beach, Fla.;

* Seaman Lakiba Nicole Palmer, 22, of San Diego, Calif.;

* Seaman Joshua Langdon Parlett, 19, an engine room fireman from Churchville, Md.;

* Seaman Patrick Howard Roy, 19, a fireman from Cornwall on Hudson, N.Y.;

* Petty Officer 1st Class Kevin Shawn Rux, 30, an electronic warfare technician from Portland, N.D.;

* Petty Officer 3rd Class Ronchester Manangan Santiago, 22, a mess management specialist from Kingsville, Texas.;

* Petty Officer 2nd Class Timothy Lamont Saunders, 32, an operations specialist from Ringgold, Va.;

* Seaman Gary Graham Swenchonis Jr., 26, a fireman from Rockport, Texas;

* Ensign Andrew Triplett, 31, of Macon, Miss.; and

* Seaman Craig Bryan Wibberley, 19, of Williamsport, Md.

Their deaths must be answered for, lest we lose our sense of national self.