The Primary Season Lie

(ed. Note : the political parties at the heart of this discussion have purposely been given lower case denotations; they have abdicated their right to proper punctuational  designation)

There can be few acts more nefarious to American democracy than those perpetrated by a select few upon the American electorate under the guise of protecting the freedom of the press and the sacred right to vote.

Honest political debate and people of good will having opposing views upon how to lead America into the future are nothing more than the signs of a vibrant and healthy democracy flourishing  under the ideals set forth by the founders and the framers of the United States Constitution. The current assault on our freedom is being executed on the American people by the full spectrum of the body politic and their ignorant media flacks who blather on about issues for which they are ill equipped to discuss with any modicum of intelligence.

This is not a tirade on the mass media outlets, but rather a warning for vigilance on the part of the American people to protect and preserve their birthright of freedom.

The current mythology being presented by many of our elected officials and media pundits is that this is the ‘primary’ season, where the major political entities meander and wander through an arcane and intellectually dishonest practice of determining their respective nominees for the presidency of the United States.

The entire process is a charade and an insult to democratic principles for which untold millions have sacrificed their lives to protect.

To wit:

It may come as a surprise too both democrats and republicans alike, but they are NOT government. They are private enterprises who have lied their way into the halls of power by an electorate who have been too busy earning their daily wage ( to be first confiscated arbitrarily by the taxman) , raising their families and pursuing the American dream to notice the theft of their democracy.

The republican and democratic parties have created the entire primary series of shenanigans out of whole cloth. They are free to select their slate of nominees in any method they choose, but they must avoid the subterfuge of presenting the process as being open and honest. Many states, under the guidance of the respective parties, have registration restrictions to vote in a primary; republicans cannot vote in democratic primaries and vice versa. In a ridiculous attempt to present a more ‘open’ and free process, some states allow for open primaries, allowing any registered voter to vote in either or both primary. The ability for political mischief in the name of political sport is a disgrace to those who fell at Gettysburg, the beaches of Normandy, and anywhere Americans gave their lives in defense of liberty.

The mass media who present these side shows as integral to democracy are either intellectual light weights or outright stupid; in either case, they are harming American self-rule in more ways than one.

The American people should, en masse, ignore all the caucuses, primaries and any variation to demonstrate their solidarity against the assault on their freedom.

Our ancestors, ourselves and our posterity deserve no less.

American self-rule is not sport. It is the realization of the history of man to live in freedom.

The nonsense of primaries, caucuses and straw polls must be kept in the pantheon of the ridiculous and not allowed to further infect the body politic.

The only election that should be allowed media coverage in the context of national significance is the quadrennial one delineated in the Constitution.

Merry Christmas

As the more ‘enlightened’ and ‘progressive’ members of the United States Congress who defend those who worship at the altar of separation of church and state recess for their annual month long Christmas break, opting not to classify it as a ‘seasonal’, or ‘holiday’ break, the Madison Conservative would like to remind them of the true meaning of Christmas, as written in scripture and so eloquently presented by Charles Schulz via Linus van Pelt.

To wit:

“And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flocks by night, and lo the angel of the Lord came upon them and the glory of the Lord shone round about them, and they were sore afraid, and the angel said unto them, "Fear not, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David, a savior, tis Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you. You shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes lying in a manger."

And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly hosts, praising God and saying, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men."

That's what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown.

So Merry Christmas and the Madison Conservative will return the first Monday of 2012.

A Minor Delay

The Madison Conservative has encountered a minor scheduling conflict that will delay this weeks post until Wednesday, December 21st, 2011.

Citizen Surveillance and Law Enforcement

“…secure the blessings of liberty…”

The founders and framers knew that if a government designed on the principles of democratic self-rule were to succeed, for themselves and their posterity, the adherences to the laws of their fledgling nation would need to be followed and respected by all her citizens; failure to do so would result in nothing but a dissolution of the republic and a return into the despotic rule of an anointed sovereign.

Their wisdom has guided this nation for more than two and a quarter centuries, and we as a people have accepted that America is a nation of laws, laws that must apply to all, lest they apply to none.

To secure our freedom, we entrust our law enforcement officials with wide ranging powers and a scope of enforcement that has no rival in the world.

It is therefore troubling to discover that some law enforcement agencies have opted to pressure state legislatures to impose restrictive sanctions upon its citizens if they, in the act of proper citizenship, hold police accountable for those officers’ actions.

To wit:

With the advent of cell phone videotechnology, more and more public conduct is captured digitally and posted on numerous Internet outlets designed the presentation for such public videos.

A recent case in point has received little notice, but should be troubling to the American electorate and thus must be addressed as a critical matter of public policy.

(as is the policy of the Madison Conservative, when appropriate, the specific names of the individuals involved have been omitted, to protect their privacy and to remain focused of the larger issue at hand)

The news reported this specific story as follows:

The video in question shows the 2009 Preakness. A woman lies bleeding on the ground inside Pimlico Race Course in Maryland after an altercation with police.

“How many times are you going to punch her,” someone yells at the five or so cops, who are holding the woman on the ground.

“Was that necessary?” another person screams.

An officer at the scene can be heard telling bystanders to stop videotaping the incident with their cellphones.

“Turn that off,” he says, claiming it’s “illegal” to tape the police in a public place. –(emphasis ours- in Maryland, the law can be construed to make this claim truthful))

 Questioned about the incident, a former detective and pro police organization spokesman offered this response:

“Police officers do not need citizens out there with cameras videotaping each and every move that they make.”

He says cameras get in the way of good law enforcement.

“They interfere with the arrests and, actually, that's exactly what happened with that arrest in Baltimore.”

He’s examined the videotape from Pimlico and he says spectators with cameras made the whole incident worse.

“These individuals were standing back hollering, taunting the police,” he said. “They were interfering and obstructing the arrest.”

The video itself is still available online, and citizens can make their own opinions relative to the conduct of the officers in question, and the video does not show what instigated the arrest or the conduct of the woman prior to the video being started.

For this issue, those particulars are not important, nor relevant.

The issue and the question that necessitates judicial clarification is the one that provides constitutional guidance to the citizenry.

Are the citizens of a free and democratic republic, allowed to record their law enforcement officials, in action? These police personnel are entrusted with a broad range of discretionary powers and they provide the security for the people of this nation, but are they immune to being recorded?

The questions of interference are clear; restricting the police from performing their duties is wholly unacceptable, as are attempts to video undercover or stealth based investigations. The issue is, if in no way a hindrance to the lawful fulfillment of their responsibilities, can an American citizen videotape the police?

For those who choose to ponder this question without resolution, it is suggested to consider in what other country is this even a debate?

That is not a lightly posed query: it goes to the heart of the answer.

If America is to remain free, a nation of laws, then no one, especially those entrusted with the safety of municipalities across this great nation, should be allowed to remain immune from those laws.

As our founders wisely instructed us, if we do not enforce the laws for all, we cannot enforce them for one, and that is a first step to the dissolution of the greatest democratic republic the world has ever known.

A Moment in Time

(ed. Note:all identifying information  has been purposely removed as to protect the individuals identities and privacy: their names are not germane to the bigger issues being discussed)

The United States has endured societal changes, political upheavals, governmental scandals and times of national grief, yet as a nation has never lost her fundamental identity.

Americans are no better than citizens of any other nation; there is no unique human chromosome that delineates Americans from anyone else.

What sets the American people apart is the simple fact that they are free to express themselves in a myriad of serious and comical ways under the auspices of the United States Constitution.

If time capsules were created for every generation of this nations’ history, there would be dramatic changes and yet a sense of comforting continuity.

To that end, there have been several little noticed events of the past few weeks that would merit inclusion into any manner of time capsule to demonstrate to our posterity where America as a people were at the first decade or so of the worlds third millennium.

To wit:

A federal lawsuit brought by three players who were disqualified from the 2008 Gay Softball World Series because of their perceived heterosexuality has been settled out of court. The sum was undisclosed, but part of the settlement includes getting their second-place team trophy back.

In 2008 a team was kicked out of the 2008 North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance softball world series for using non-gay ringers. The men filed the federal lawsuit against the NAGAAA last year, claiming they had been discriminated against because they were bisexual, not gay. They also said that they were subjected to embarrassing questions by a tournament committee trying to determine if they were, in fact, gay.

Two were determined to be gay, but the organization said the men were evasive or refused to answer questions about their sexuality.

The men said they weren’t given the option of stating outright that they were bisexual, even though the organization considered bisexual players to be gay for roster purposes. They and their team were disqualified. One official involved in the decision commented, “This is not a bisexual world series. This is a gay world series.”

The team was from San Francisco, and the event was in Seattle. Despite the settlement, the NAGAAA says it will continue its limit on heterosexual players.

A second news story went as follows:

A Colorado man who is serving a nearly 11-year sentence for kidnapping a newlywed Kansas couple, stealing a vehicle and fleeing from authorities in 2009, is now trying to sue that couple for breach of contract.

In his lawsuit, the 25-year-old criminal contends that after breaking into the couples Topeka-area home while fleeing police, he and the couple reached a legally binding, oral contract that they would hide him for an unspecified amount of money. The kidnapper, who is representing himself, is seeking $235,000.

"As a result of the plaintiffs breech (sic) of contract, I, the defendant suffered a gunshot to my back, which almost killed me. The hospital bills alone are in excess of $160,000, which I have no way to pay," he wrote in his civil suit filed last month in Shawnee County District Court.

In Sept. 2009, he led authorities in a chase that ended with his crashing a stolen vehicle into the couple’s yard.

He was wanted for questioning about the murder of Colorado man who had been found beaten to death in a motel earlier that month.

The couple said that they were held at knifepoint, and a neighbor told The Topeka Capital-Journal that the young couple was able to gain their kidnapper's trust "by eating Cheetos and drinking Dr. Pepper with him while watching the movie 'Patch Adams.'"

The couple was able to escape unharmed after their tormentor fell asleep only to be awakened by police. While being ordered to lie face down, a Topeka officer's rifle accidentally discharged and shot the criminal in the back.

According to a report by The Topeka Capital-Journal, the breach of contract suit was filed in response to a suit filed by the couple seeking $75,000 for home intrusion and causing emotional duress.

The couple is asking the judge to dismiss the suit.

A third news story reported as follows:

A west Georgia business owner is stirring up controversy with signs he posted on his company's trucks, for all to see as the trucks roll up and down roads, highways and interstates:

"New Company Policy: We are not hiring until Obama is gone."

"Can't afford it," explained the employer Tuesday evening. "I've got people that I want to hire now, but I just can't afford it. And I don't foresee that I'll be able to afford it unless some things change in D.C."

He said he put up the signs, and first posted pictures of the signs on his personal Facebook page, six months ago, and he said he received mostly positive reaction from people, "about 20-to-one positive."

But for some reason, one of the photos went viral on the Internet.

And the reaction has been so intense, pro and con, he's had to have his phones disconnected because of the non-stop calls, and he's had to temporarily shut down his company's website because of all the traffic crashing the system.

"The way the economy's running, and the way my business has been hampered by the economy, and the policies of the people in power, I felt that it was necessary to voice my opinion, and predict that I wouldn't be able to do any hiring," he said.

He did receive some unexpected attention not long after he put up his signs and Facebook photos. He said someone, and he thinks he knows who it was, reported him to the FBI as a threat to national security. He said the accusation filtered its way through the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and finally the Secret Service.

Agents interviewed him.

"The Secret Service left here, they were in a good mood and laughing," the company owner said. "I got the feeling they thought it was kind of ridiculous, and a waste of their time."

In a time when Americans are bombarded by the popular media outlets with news heralding political gridlock, potential financial ruin for the nation, and how polarized the American electorate seems to be as shown by ‘recent polls’, the Madison Conservative offers these three above noted news stories to bring a sense of calm and reassurance about Americas’ future.

To wit:

What other nation, ever, has allowed its courts to be used to settle questions on the appropriate level of sexual orientation one has relative to a sporting event, allowed a criminal to sue his victims for wounds incurred during an act of violence, or freely allowed one of its citizens to use his business to so publicly express his disagreement with the most powerful man on the planet?

These stories may sound absurd, comical, or overall insignificant, but they do speak directly to a people flourishing under the model of democratic self rule. They exemplify how Americans choose to use their liberties, freedoms and exert their right to a certain type of American individualism.

That fact is worthy enough to put into a time capsule for our posterity, and one we should be proud to represent to ourselves and our contemporaries around the world.

No matter your position on these news stories, they should serve as a reminder that Americas’ future, as always, is bright

We the people!

The "System" & the 536

In the aftermath of the public folly that was the ‘super-committee’ it was perhaps milliseconds after that committee publicly announced their failure that the politicians entrusted with the fiscal health of the nation and their accompanying media flacks began their partisan assaults on the reasons for the collapse of the process.

There was little if any talk relative to the fact that the entire concept of the ‘super-committee’ was unconstitutional and thus had it indeed processed any viable options, the next game would be to assault it within the judicial arm of the government.

There was little discussion that the men and women elected to the highest offices in the land, a sum total of 536 elected representatives of the people – (435 members of the house, 100 members of the senate and the president) – could not apply themselves to solving the problem, but rather engage in partisan sniping whose sole effect seemed to reassure their position within their elective base.

Dismissing all this nonsensical ranting amidst political cowardice and ineptitude bordering on the truly stupid, what should alarm the American people is what was represented as the underlying problem at hand by the aforementioned politicians and media:

Their claim was that ‘the system’ – or in other words American democratic self-rule- was ‘broken’, and ‘no longer was working’.

Forgoing the absolute ignorance and insult of that claim, the American people should be fearful when the 536 most powerful people in our government begin making this type of obtuse case in order to hide their massive level of incompetence.

The aforementioned ‘system’ is governed by a single document; the United States Constitution. The question thus begs to be asked and answered:

Is it their stance that the Constitution has failed to provide the structure of successful government, and are they then proposing to amend, alter or outright discard that august document in order to make the act of governing less about making the hard choices within a strict set of guidelines and more about their personal beatification amongst a narrow swath of the electorate?

Democratic self rule is all about making the hard choices; there is more than sufficient blame to pass around as to make blame an irrelevant point at this juncture.

It is inconceivable that 536 people believe the American populace unable to withstand the results of fair and honest choices made for the well being of the nation as a whole.

The American people havewithstood the stresses of a Civil War, a war that pitted brother against brother. This nation made the monumental personal sacrifices needed in order to defeat the evil that was at the heart of World War II.

These battles were fought and won within the rigid structure and guidance of the United States Constitution. During those tough times there was never a populist movement decrying that the Constitution, the ‘system’ was broken, flawed or otherwise unequal to the tasks at hand.

The fault and the flaws are with this crop of elected officials.

The American electorate can and must fix this.

They only need to research the issues and vote accordingly.

Such acts will show the 536 that the system is working just fine; they, however, are not and have just been replaced, according to the workings of the system

Let freedom ring.

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.